????而且，從表面上來看，按上市價(jià)計(jì)算，Zynga公司70億美元的估價(jià)未免過高，這也屬實(shí)。70億美元，已經(jīng)相當(dāng)于該公司過去一年?duì)I收額的7倍，凈收入的95倍。一方面，按多數(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)衡量，這不免有些荒唐，因?yàn)椴还茉趺凑f，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾指數(shù)（S&P）500強(qiáng)公司的股票交易價(jià)都是其贏利的14倍。另一方面，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)股票投資者通常能心甘情愿地接受對(duì)有些網(wǎng)絡(luò)股票的過高估價(jià)。亞馬遜公司（Amazon）的市贏率就為95，但有些分析師預(yù)測(cè)說，該公司的每股贏利將降至2007年以來的最低點(diǎn)。而且，與LinkedIn相比，Zynga的市贏率也相對(duì)較低。前者的市贏率高達(dá)400，尚在健康范圍之內(nèi)。而Groupon過去一年內(nèi)則損失慘重。

????今天，許多市場(chǎng)專家對(duì)Zynga公司70億美元的市值提出了質(zhì)疑；相比之下，如果在今年夏天Zynga如日中天時(shí)就提出質(zhì)疑，無疑要困難得多；那時(shí)，只有寥寥幾名分析師預(yù)計(jì)Zynga市值將達(dá)200億美元。早在今年2月，投資者們?cè)d高采烈地認(rèn)為，Zynga的市值將達(dá)100億美元。當(dāng)時(shí)的最新財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，其營收額要遠(yuǎn)低于最近公布的數(shù)字。

????這到底是怎么回事？有幾個(gè)原因。首先，Zynga的指標(biāo)顯示，其發(fā)展速度放緩。最近幾個(gè)季度，該公司的活躍用戶持續(xù)呈下降之勢(shì)。此外，其運(yùn)營利潤也持續(xù)震蕩走低。雖然這些現(xiàn)象投資游戲行業(yè)投資的必然現(xiàn)象，，誰也不知道公司推出的下一款游戲會(huì)是什么情況，而且這一行業(yè)就贏利而言，旱的旱死，澇的澇死。Zynga的財(cái)務(wù)狀況自然也逃脫不了這個(gè)規(guī)律。但是，它的表現(xiàn)仍然勝過其他所有不斷出產(chǎn)熱門游戲的休閑游戲公司。

????And on the face of it, it's also true that Zynga's $7 billion valuation at launch was too high. At $7 billion, Zynga was worth seven times revenue and 95 times its net income over the past 12 months. On the one hand, that's absurd by most measures. After all, the S&P 500 is trading at 14 times earnings. On the other hand, investors in Internet stocks are routinely willing to tolerate higher valuation for some web stocks. Amazon (AMZN) has a price-earnings ratio of 95, even though some analysts are predicting the company will post its lowest earnings per share since 2007. And Zynga's PE is a relative bargain compared to LinkedIn, which is just on the sane side of 400, and Groupon, which has posted a significant loss over its past 12 months.

????For many market pundits, it's somehow easier to be easier to question Zynga's $7 billion value today than it was this summer, when only a few were wagging their fingers at the prospect of a $20 billion Zynga. And back in February, investors were delighted to value Zynga at $10 billion, when the most recent financial data had revenue showed revenue well below the most recently disclosed figure.

????What happened? A couple of things. First, Zynga's metrics hinted at a slowdown. Active users have been declining in recent quarters. And operating margins have fluctuated downward. But these things are part and parcel of investing in the gaming industry, where you're only as good as your last title and profits are a feast-or-famine phenomenon. Zynga hasn't proven invulnerable to such choppy financials, but it's doing a better job than any other casual-gaming company of churning out hit after hit.

????對(duì)于Web 2.0公司而言，營收額和利潤波動(dòng)不定，本是尋常之事。我們來看看對(duì)Zynga和LinkedIn的營收額和運(yùn)營利潤進(jìn)行比較的兩張圖。雖然Zynga的營收額增長穩(wěn)定（如果其增長稍顯緩慢的話，不妨看看最后一個(gè)季度的數(shù)字），但其運(yùn)營利潤卻跟LinkedIn一樣搖擺不定。過去的5個(gè)季度中，Zynga的利潤始終至少是LinkedIn的3倍。

????但是，LinkedIn的股票價(jià)格卻高于Zynga。原因何在？也許那是因?yàn)長inkedIn首席執(zhí)行官雷德?霍夫曼擺出了一付惹人憐愛的姿態(tài)，使得該公司成了公眾眼中的神話。而Zynga首席執(zhí)行官馬克?平克斯則被描述成了笨蛋。而且，平克斯還由于嚴(yán)格限制股東的投票權(quán)而飽受指責(zé)。相形之下，LinkedIn則因?yàn)椴捎昧穗p重股票結(jié)構(gòu)，雖然此結(jié)構(gòu)也會(huì)限制股東的權(quán)利，但引發(fā)的爭議卻小得多。

????上述所有論證并非要說明，Zynga的股票交易價(jià)必須更高。它并不值那么多，但2011年其他多數(shù)實(shí)行同類首次公開募股的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司，同樣也不值那么高的估價(jià)。Zynga與這些公司一樣，它所面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并未完全體現(xiàn)在股票交易價(jià)中。它們的股價(jià)將繼續(xù)搖擺不定。但如果僅僅因此，根據(jù)一支股票兩天內(nèi)的交易情況就下斷論說，這支股票的長期前景慘淡，那也未免太過荒謬。

????Zynga上市后不冷不熱的股票交易價(jià)，恰恰說明它是一支高昂又頗具風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的股票。這一現(xiàn)象說明，市場(chǎng)運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)正?！，F(xiàn)在的問題是，市場(chǎng)是否會(huì)對(duì)其他被高估了的網(wǎng)絡(luò)首次公開募股產(chǎn)生同樣的影響。

????譯者：樸成奎

????Volatile revenues and profit margins aren't unusual for web 2.0 companies. Look at the charts comparing Zynga's revenue and operating margin with LinkedIn. Not only Zynga's revenue growing steadily (if a bit more slowly, looking at the last quarter) but it's operating margin is just as volatile as LinkedIn's. And yet Zynga's profit margin margin is at least three times as big as LinkedIn in any of the past five quarters.

????Yet LinkedIn trades at a higher valuation. Why? Perhaps it's because LinkedIn's CEO Reid Hoffman is drawing profiles so fawning they border on an apotheosis, while Zynga's Mark Pincus is depicted as a lout. Pincus was also called out for controlling Zynga's hoarding the voting rights of shareholders. But LinkedIn employed a dual-class stock structure that also limited shareholder rights, to much less of a controversy.

????None of this is to argue that Zynga deserves to trade higher. It doesn't, but neither do most of the other web IPOs of the class of 2011. Like them, Zynga faces risks that aren't fully reflected in their trading prices. They will all be volatile, and because of that it doesn't make sense to write off a stock's long-term prospects based on two days of trading.

????Zynga's lukewarm reception is the proper response to an expensive, risky stock. It shows the market is working. Now if it would only work on other overpriced web IPOs as well.