纳斯达克指数还会再次飙升吗

    1月23、24日，美国股市连续两天告跌，道琼斯工业平均指数下挫494点（跌幅3%），标普500指数下滑55点（跌幅3%）。市场预言家们为此找出了各种各样的理由——有些将它咎于中国制造业增长速度放慢；其他人则说这是因为市场担心经济刺激力度减弱，汇率不稳定，或者突然出现普遍规避风险的情况。

    就连长期以来一直体现乐观情绪的纳斯达克综合指数也受到了人们争相抛售的影响。截至1月24日下午4点（纽约时间），该指数和两天前的收盘点位相比下跌了110点，跌幅2.7%。这个走势对许多科技股投资者来说无异于发生了一场地震。不过，许多真正信念坚定的投资者不会理睬这样的波折，依然会继续坚持己见。在牛气冲天的美国股市，表现最无以伦比的当然是纳指令人惊讶的反弹。几年前，步入中年的华尔街人士经常会说，“此生再也无缘见到纳指重回5000点”。而现在，就算上周连跌两天，纳指仍在4128点左右，只比2000年3月10日——也就是网络股热潮汹涌之际2039点的最高收盘点位低18%。2013年，这个指数飙升38.3%，跑赢标普500指数约10个百分点。此外，尽管进入2014年后市场全面下挫，但截至1月24日，纳指仍然实现了小幅上涨。

    如果你相信苹果公司（Apple）、谷歌（Google）和Facebook的支持者，那么无论是什么样的利空因素导致了市场滑坡，纳指都会很快摆脱一月底的阴霾。然后，它将突破5000点大关，不断上扬。

    （对于一些新上市科技股估值不断上升的动力来自何方，可参考风投公司安德森霍洛维茨（Andreessen Horowitz）管理合伙人斯科特?库伯最近在财富网站（Fortune.com）上发表的评论，题目是《别相信科技股泡沫论：科技板块估值不像有些人想的那么离谱，原因有三》（Don't believe the tech bubble hype: 3 reasons why tech valuations aren't as outrageous as some think）。）

    然而，我的分析得出了截然不同的结论：纳指严重高估。当然，这样的计算结果会不会最终导致该指数回落取决于投资者是否愿意把股价和利润等传统指标联系在一起（对此我不会做出判断……）

    话虽如此，我还是要对纳斯达克市场中市值最大的30只股票略作分析，其中市值最高的是苹果公司（市值4960亿美元），最低的是卡夫食品（320亿美元）。目前，这30家公司的市值总和为3.37万亿美元，约占纳斯达克100指数总市值的三分之二。根据美国通用会计准则（GAAP）和各公司公布的数据，它们过去四个季度的利润总额为1560亿美元。

    目前，这30只股票的整体市盈率为21.6倍。虽然这个数字挺高，但远不及2000年令人咋舌的42倍，那时互联网泡沫的高峰期还没有过去。这30家公司的全年分红略高于500亿美元，苹果、微软（Microsoft）和英特尔（Intel）都是分红大户；相应的股息收益率为1.5%，远低于标普500指数约1.9%的平均水平，但和以往情况相比，后者也不值一提。

    鉴于这样的低收益，这30家公司可能得大幅提升资本利得才能让投资者感到满意。但现在投资者对资本利得有什么样的要求呢？基于退休基金经理、华尔街股市策略分析师和其他分析师的殷切期望，合理的估计是8%左右（注：如果考虑到通胀估值，比如说2%，投资者期望的“实际回报率”只有6%）。

    要知道，在这6个百分点中，有四分之一（约1.5个百分点）来自分红。因此，其他部分都要源自利润的增长——而问题就出在这里。也许大家会问，要让实际资本利得每年增长4.5%（算上通胀的话是6.5%），总利润得增长多快呢？答案是要比6.5%高得多。

    这是因为，首先，整体市盈率可能随着时间推移而下降，原因是较年轻的公司成熟之后增长速度就会放慢。合理的估计是每年下降0.5%，那么10年后整体市盈率就会降到17倍左右。

    其次，在这个问题上，总利润的增长并不重要。相反，重要的是市盈率的提升速度。平均而言，跻身标普500指数的公司每年增发的新股会让股权稀释2%。它们需要增发所筹资金来实现增长。

    在这30家公司中，微软和英特尔显然是回购股份的现金牛。但大多数公司都比较年轻而且对资金如饥似渴。Research Affiliates投资管理部门负责人克里斯?布莱特曼指出：“总的来说，纳斯达克市场侧重于比较年轻、增长比较迅速的公司。这些公司对股权的稀释往往远高于平均水平。”Research Affiliates是一家投资咨询机构，为1560亿美元投资资产提供策略建议。

    不过，就让我们假设这30家公司每年平均增发的股份比它们回购的多2%。这已经是很高的衡量标准。要让股价上涨6.5%——如上所述，只有这样才能给投资者带来足够的回报，从而让他们持有这些股票，同时继续买进——这30家公司的市盈率必须以9%的速度上升，其中包括6.5个百分点的增长目标，加上用于抵消市盈率年均降幅的0.5个百分点以及用于抵消通胀的2个百分点。

    总利润每年增长9%确实能实现总回报率达到8%的目标（6.5%的资本利得加上1.5%的股息收益率）。要做到这一点，这30家公司需要将目前约1560亿美元的总利润提升54%，达到2400亿美元。

    但这是不可能的，原因是利润已经处于历史最高点，更不要说利润率了。说句公道话，大多数行业的利润率都会被逐步拉低；而到目前为止，这些热门的科技公司都顶住了这种压力。然而，想当然地认为这样的利润增长速度能更长久地维持下去却无异于撞大运。布莱特曼说：“目前的盈利水平无法维继，这是个大问题。实际每股收益出现5-10年的下行阶段在市场中很常见。人们已经习惯于认为最近的行情很正常。他们很难意识到这并不是什么新的常态，而且局势将发生改变。”

    他还指出，纳指的盈利波动幅度要远远超过标普500指数。一旦利润全面滑坡，此前大涨的个股将会以远高于他人的速度下跌，而上述30只个股都有很高的涨幅。

    实际上，提高利润的两个要素——利润率的上升和销售额的增长都不太可能出现。在这30家公司中，市值排名前六位——苹果、微软、谷歌、高通（Qualcomm）、英特尔和思科（Cisco）——目前的平均营业利润率高达29%，是标普500指数所有成分股公司平均值的三倍。布莱特曼说：“受竞争影响，它们的利润率一定会从当前水平下滑，而不是继续上涨。”就算这些公司设法保持住这样的利润率，要让投资者满意，它们的收入也得以极快的速度上升。

    那么，这些公司的销售额增速得有多高呢？答案是9%，和利润一样；如果利润率下降，销售额就要增长的更快一些。剔除通胀的影响，这个数字约为7%——是美国GDP增长率的2-3倍。人们预计，短期内美国GDP增幅将介于2.5%-3.5%之间。

    如果利润率下降，而实际上利润率一定会下降，收入增长率就得远高于10%。暂不考虑信心问题，问问你自己，这个数字是否实际。

    无可否认，谷歌、苹果等许多公司过去几年的增长速度一直让人感到钦佩。但最近一段时间的情况表明，它们的增长神话不太可能延续下去。过去4个季度中，谷歌的收入上升了3.3%，苹果的销售额则急剧下降。

    的确，纳斯达克指数的增长近乎神奇，而且几乎没有人预见到了这一点。但最合理的观点应该是，神奇的年代已经成为过去，对纳指或者其他指数来说都是如此。

    译者：Charlie

    Market prognosticators have conjured up many a reason for the two-day rout of stocks on Thursday and Friday, which sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) plunging 494 points (3%) and the S&P 500 (SPX) down 55 points (3%). Some blamed the slowdown in China's perpetual manufacturing machine; others, the fears of stimulus-tapering or skittish currencies or a sudden distaste for "risk" in general.

    Even the Nasdaq Composite Index (COMP) -- long a nattering nabob of optimism -- got caught up in the selling frenzy, sliding 110 points, or 2.7%, by 4 p.m. on Jan. 24 from its close two days earlier. For many tech investors, this had to feel like a seismic jolt. Still, many true believers will brush off the rattle and keep on believing. Of all the glories of the bull market, nothing has matched the astounding comeback in the Nasdaq. A few years ago, a common riff among middle-aged Wall Streeters was that "we won't see the Nasdaq back at 5000 in our lifetimes." Now, even with the two-day selloff last week, the tech-laden index hovers at 4128, just 18% below its record close of 5039 on March 10, 2000, at the peak of the dotcom craze. In 2013, the Nasdaq Composite surged 38.3%, waxing the S&P 500 by around 10 points, and it had, until Friday, even managed a small gain this year in a generally falling market.

    If you believe the champions of the Apples (AAPL), Googles (GOOG), and Facebooks (FB), the Nasdaq will soon get past whatever nastiness caused last week's temblors, then bust through the 5000 barrier, and keep on going from there.

    (For one perspective on what's driving the rising valuations of some newer tech issues, for instance, see the recent commentary in Fortune.com by Andreessen Horowitz managing partner Scott Kupor: "Don't believe the tech bubble hype: 3 reasons why tech valuations aren't as outrageous as some think.")

    But my math leads to me to a very different conclusion: The Nasdaq's prices are severely stretched. Whether such calculations will ultimately lead to a correction in the tech index, of course, depends on whether investors care about linking share prices to such antiquated notions like profits. (I won't wager on that one ...)

    That said, here's a quick analysis of the 30 stocks with the largest market caps trading on the Nasdaq, a group that runs from Apple ($496 billion) to Kraft Foods (KRFT) ($32 billion). Today, the combined value of these 30 companies is $3.37 trillion, or around two-thirds of the Nasdaq 100 total. All together, they posted $156 billion in GAAP earnings over the past four quarters in which each company reported.

    The current price/earnings ratio of the Top 30 is 21.6. While that's pretty high, it doesn't approach the staggering 42 P/E in the year 2000, around the apex of the dotcom bubble. The 30 stocks pay just over $50 billion a year in dividends; Apple, Microsoft (MSFT), and Intel (INTC) are all big payers. That's a dividend yield of 1.5%, well below the S&P average of around 1.9%, which is itself paltry by historical standards.

    Given this low yield, the 30 companies would presumably need to generate big capital gains to satisfy investors. But what gains are investors currently demanding? Judging from the great expectations of pension fund managers, Wall Street equity strategists, and analysts, a reasonable estimate is around 8%. (Note -- when one includes in that reckoning an inflation rate of, say, 2%, the investors' expected "real return" is just 6%.)

    Keep in mind that one quarter of that 6% real return (about 1.5 percentage points) will flow from dividends. So the remainder needs to come from growth in earnings -- and therein lies the rub. How fast do total profits need to expand, you might ask, to generate a real capital gain of 4.5% a year -- or a 6.5% capital gain including inflation? The answer is a lot faster than 6.5%.

    Here's why. First, it's likely that the combined P/E will fall over time as the younger companies mature and their growth rates wane. A reasonable estimate is a fall of 0.5% a year, so that the overall price-to-earnings multiple declines to around 17 in a decade's time.

    Second, what matters here isn't the company's growth in profits overall. Rather, it's the company's earnings-per-share growth. On average, S&P companies dilute shareholders by 2% a year by issuing new shares. They need the proceeds from those offerings to fund growth.

    In our group, Microsoft and Intel are clearly cash cows that repurchase shares. But most of the companies are relatively young and thirsty for capital. "In general, the Nasdaq is skewed to younger, more rapidly growing companies," says Chris Brightman, head of investment management at Research Affiliates, a firm that oversees strategies for $156 billion in investment assets. "Those companies tend to dilute far more than the average."

    Still, let's assume that our group issues 2% more shares than it repurchases each year, on average. Now the performance bar is getting high. To generate a 6.5% increase in share prices -- which, as I said above, is necessary to reward investors enough so that they keep their money in the stocks and continue buying shares -- the 30 stocks must generate earnings-per-share growth of 9%?? -- that 6.5% goal, plus 0.5% to compensate for the annual decline in the multiple, plus another two points to offset dilution.

    Growing total earnings by 9% a year would indeed achieve the goal of an 8% total return (6.5% capital gain plus the 1.5% dividend yield). And to get there, the 30 stocks would need to lift overall profits by 54%, to $240 billion from their current $156 billion or so.

    It won't happen. The reason is that earnings -- to say nothing of profit margins -- are already at all-time highs. So far -- and give these cool tech companies their due -- they've repressed the gravitational force that yanks down on margins in most industries over time. But it's nothing less than a leap of faith to assume this sort of earnings growth can continue much longer. "The big issue is that today's earnings are not sustainable," says Brightman. "Periods of five to 10 years of declining real EPS are a normal part of markets. People get accustomed to thinking recent history is normal. They have a hard time understanding that this isn't a new normal, that things will be different."

    Brightman adds that Nasdaq earnings are far more volatile than S&P profits. When earnings fall everywhere, they tend to drop far more swiftly for the high-flyers, and our group is loaded with them.

    Indeed, neither of the two components of earnings growth -- expanding margins and expanding sales -- is likely to materialize. Right now, the average operating margin for the six largest market cap players in our group of 30?? -- Apple, Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm (QCOM), Intel, and Cisco (CSCO) -- is a lofty 29%. That's three times the average for all S&P 500 companies. "You'd expect margins to get competed down from these levels, not get even better," says Brightman. Even if margins somehow remain constant at these elevated levels, revenues would need to grow extremely rapidly to satisfy investors.

    How fast would sales need to grow? The answer is at the same 9% rate as profits, or far faster than that if margins drop. After inflation, that's a growth rate of roughly 7% -- or two to three times GDP growth, which is estimated to be in the 2.5% to 3.5% range in the near future.

    If margins shrink -- and count on the fact that they will -- that growth rate would need to stretch well into the double-digits. Suspend what you want to believe, and ask yourself if that's possible.

    To be sure, Google, Apple, and many others have been formidable growers over the past few years. But recent history shows that it's unlikely their spectacular expansion will persist. Over the last four quarters for which they reported, Google grew revenues by 3.3%, and Apple suffered a severe decline in sales.

    True, the Nasdaq's ascension is a near miracle that almost no one foresaw. The best bet is that the age of miracles, Nasdaq and otherwise, is over.