隨著道瓊斯指數(shù)收在20,000點(diǎn)以上，針對(duì)股價(jià)是否過(guò)高的永恒爭(zhēng)論也開始升溫。盡管我們都想向沃倫·巴菲特一樣，面對(duì)市場(chǎng)的趨勢(shì)不動(dòng)如山，但大部分商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖實(shí)際上都做不到這一點(diǎn)。他們需要判斷何時(shí)適合回購(gòu)股票，何時(shí)適合大規(guī)?；蛐∫?guī)模獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)員工認(rèn)股權(quán)，或是在快退休時(shí)調(diào)整個(gè)人投資。所以讓我們直面問題：如今的股價(jià)是高還是低？最近發(fā)布的文章各執(zhí)一詞，《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》的一篇文章表示股價(jià)過(guò)低了，《財(cái)富》自己的編輯肖恩·塔利則在另一篇文章中稱股價(jià)太高。這里我也不賣關(guān)子，我贊同肖恩的觀點(diǎn)，因?yàn)槲乙恢痹谧龉乐迪嚓P(guān)的工作，它讓我多年來(lái)受益匪淺。

股價(jià)太低的觀點(diǎn)，立足于一些可靠的事實(shí)。企業(yè)的利潤(rùn)歷經(jīng)兩年的跳水，開始攀升。唐納德·特朗普出人意料地當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)，在11月9日以后也開始對(duì)市場(chǎng)產(chǎn)生影響。這昭示著華盛頓將出臺(tái)利于商業(yè)和增長(zhǎng)的政策。更寬泛地說(shuō)，經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)讓數(shù)百萬(wàn)投資者在股市前裹足不前。而如今，隨著商業(yè)環(huán)境的回暖，許多投資者將回歸股市，流入的美金總體增加，將讓股價(jià)水漲船高。

根據(jù)這些可以觀察到的趨勢(shì)，這種論點(diǎn)似乎很有道理。但是肖恩對(duì)此并不贊同。相反，他詳細(xì)分析了數(shù)據(jù)，目前他們并沒有得到寬慰。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)（S&P 500）目前的市盈率為25.3，遠(yuǎn)高于歷史平均值。然而，如果企業(yè)利潤(rùn)能出現(xiàn)大幅增長(zhǎng)，這一市盈率也可能是合情合理的，而且華爾街的分析師確實(shí)有這樣的預(yù)測(cè)。那么問題出在哪里呢？

問題在于，分析師往往會(huì)偏好他們的分析目標(biāo)，高估了這些公司未來(lái)的利潤(rùn)。研究公司FactSet表示，如果整體研究他們的利潤(rùn)預(yù)報(bào)，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)預(yù)測(cè)的結(jié)果往往會(huì)高于公司的實(shí)際表現(xiàn)——大約7%。因此，未來(lái)利潤(rùn)未必就會(huì)出現(xiàn)巨大提高。行情看漲可能意味著特定行業(yè)今年會(huì)有更好的表現(xiàn)，例如油價(jià)上漲會(huì)讓能源公司受益。但是油價(jià)上漲也會(huì)給其他公司帶來(lái)更高的成本，擠壓它們的利潤(rùn)。

總之，我認(rèn)為肖恩的觀點(diǎn)更具說(shuō)服力。股價(jià)并不低。不過(guò)我也想起，市場(chǎng)即便是在不理性的情況下，也可能會(huì)向更加不理性的方向發(fā)展。艾倫·格林斯潘在1996年著名的“非理性繁榮”的演講中表示，在股票中賠本的投資者，即便是在牛市中，也會(huì)錯(cuò)失80%股票上漲帶來(lái)的收益。

過(guò)去的情況也告訴我，類似道瓊斯指數(shù)2萬(wàn)點(diǎn)這樣的里程碑沒有什么意義。因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)指數(shù)接近某個(gè)值，并不代表它會(huì)達(dá)到那個(gè)值。畢竟，1965年12月道瓊斯指數(shù)達(dá)到969點(diǎn)時(shí)，投資者都對(duì)于它即將突破1,000點(diǎn)感到無(wú)比振奮。但它真正突破1,000點(diǎn)已經(jīng)是七年以后了。 (財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

作者：Geoff Colvin

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

As the Dow keeps not quite hitting 20,000, the eternal debate over the market’s priciness is heating up. And while we’d all like to maintain a Warren Buffett-like serenity toward the market’s direction, most business leaders, as a practical matter, cannot. They have to decide whether it’s a good or a bad time for a company to buy back stock, to award employee stock options in large quantities or small, or to adjust their personal investments as retirement approaches. So let’s face the question: Are stocks today cheap or expensive? Articles arguing opposite sides have just been published, one in the Wall Street Journal (stocks are cheap), the other by Fortune’s own Shawn Tully (stocks are expensive). So as not to keep you in suspense, I’m going with Shawn, as I always do in matters of valuation, a policy that has served me extremely well over many years.

The stocks-are-cheap argument proceeds from a few reassuring facts. Corporate profits are rising after having plunged over the past two years. The unexpected election of Donald Trump, which hadn’t been priced into the market until November 9, heralds an era of pro-business and pro-growth policy from Washington. More broadly, the financial crisis scared millions of investors away from stocks; now, as the business environment warms up, many of them will return, and the sheer volume of dollar inflow will push prices higher.

It’s a plausible argument based on observable trends. But Shawn has never favored that type of argument. Instead, he dissects the numbers, and right now they are not comforting. The S&P 500 is trading at a PE multiple of 25.3, which is far above historical averages. That multiple could be perfectly rational, however, if profits are about to explode, and Wall Street analysts are indeed predicting a strong rise. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that analysts tend to fall in love with the companies they analyze and overestimate future profits. If you aggregate their profit forecasts for the individual companies they cover, the result is usually way above the actual performance of the companies collectively – about seven percentage points above, says the FactSet research firm. The coming profit surge is by no means certain. The bulls like to note that certain industries should do much better this year, for example as rising oil prices benefit energy firms. But rising oil prices also impose higher costs and thus lower profits on other companies.

Bottom line, I think Shawn makes the more persuasive argument. Stocks are not cheap. But I also try to remember that even when the market is irrational, it’s perfectly capable of getting more irrational. Alan Greenspan notes that an investor who bailed out of stocks when he gave his famous “irrational exuberance” speech in 1996 would have missed 80% of the bull market’s gains.

I also try to remember that market milestones like Dow 20,000 are meaningless, and just because the index gets close to a round number doesn’t mean it’s about to hit that number. After all, investors got excited about Dow 1,000 when the index hit 969 in December 1965 – but it didn’t close above 1,000 for seven more years. Dow 20,000 could happen this afternoon, or years from now.