埃克森美孚减支方案引发投资者恐慌

    假如说以前还看不清，现在已经很清楚了：大型石油公司眼下碰到大麻烦了。

    在国际油价保持每桶100美元左右、接近历史高点的一年里，埃克森美孚(ExxonMobil)这家一流能源公司上周三在纽约的分析师会议上公布，2013年的已动用资本回报率(ROCE)为17%。我重复一遍，是17%。伙计们，这是一个很糟糕的数字。

    应该承认，17%的ROCE已经是很多公司梦寐以求的水平，即使是其他一些能源公司。但它是埃克森美孚。谈到开采化石燃料，没有其他能源公司能像埃克森美孚那样长袖善舞，用好政治和经济资源。2000-2010年，埃克森美孚ROCE的强劲表现令人称奇，内部基准是35%；ROCE可以衡量已运用资本的盈利能力和使用效率。据一位长期服务于埃克森美孚的工程师表示，ROCE低于30%会被公司保守派视为失败。

    但金融危机终结了埃克森美孚的盈利盛宴。期间，石油和天然气价格暴跌，因此，埃克森美孚的ROCE大跌也是意料之中的事情。但它的ROCE当时仍然保持在25%左右的水平。这个数字尽管不如人意，但也还算不上世界末日。因此，投资者们没有揪住不放。他们相信一旦混乱结束，埃克森美孚就会重振雄风。

    而现在，我们得到的是17%。即使油价高企，这家公司的ROCE却连20%都没有达到？更令人尴尬的是，另一家美国能源大公司雪佛龙(Chevron)的ROCE预计将轻松超越埃克森美孚——2010年以来每年都是如此。

    这一定让埃克森美孚的首席执行官雷克斯·蒂勒森非常心烦。周三，蒂勒森采取了行动，他相信减少支出能提升埃克森美孚传奇性的盈利能力。蒂勒森出人意料地宣布，2014年埃克森美孚庞大得出奇的400亿美元资本支出预算将削减40亿美元，降幅约10%。减少资本支出意味着如果利润保持不变，ROCE将上升。这可能是一个好点子，毕竟一个项目需要几年、甚至几十年的时间才能开始产生回报。

    那么，蒂勒森的做法是对的？市场可不这么认为：消息公布后，埃克森美孚的股价跌了3%，还拉低了整个道琼斯工业指数。蒂勒森一定很困惑。他认为，他做的正是股东和分析师们希望他做的，提高ROCE。

    ROCE虽然重要，但并不是投资者关心的唯一指标。投资埃克森美孚的人们往往是保守的价值投资者，比起是否实现一些财务指标，他们更看重长期持续的现金流。例如，价值投资之王沃伦·巴菲特去年11月份披露，2013年第二季度他增持了近1%的埃克森美孚股票，市值约34.5亿美元。

    巴菲特买入埃克森美孚的同时，相对较大幅度地减持了江河日下的能源巨头康菲(ConocoPhillips)公司的股票，后者目前正在经历重大重组。有些投资者认为他的选择十分奇怪，因为康菲的股价当时年内涨幅为27%，而埃克森美孚的股价只涨了8%。但这关乎价值投资主题。埃克森美孚的利润稳定，具有明确的长期盈利潜力，而康菲的未来仍未可知。不确定性并不是价值投资者的最爱，即便放弃不确定性可能意味着放弃一些上涨空间。

    埃克森美孚表明，就算油价波动，尽可能实现回报率稳定也是有意义的。如果它表示，将投资400亿美元，投资者们相信，未来一些年，这家公司的ROCE将达到世界级水平。

    因此，上周三当蒂勒森宣布将削减资本支出预算时，投资者们夺路而逃。他们原本认为，埃克森美孚会继续向新项目投钱，这些项目的长期回报率将保持在强劲的20%-30%。当然，如果能把多出来的40亿美元分给股东也不错，但这只能管一年。价值投资者着眼于长期，削减资本支出意味着可以预见未来收入的减少。

    当然，没人说埃克森美孚单纯为了不闲着就应该投资不盈利的业务，虽然太多公司都在这么干。听到一家公司自己都认为自己无法实现足够高的回报率，难以让精心规划的资本支出预算自圆其说，投资者们一定非常失望。

    更让人担心的是——埃克森美孚认为17%的ROCE已足够好，足以捍卫去年庞大的资本支出？如果真的是这样，既然埃克森美孚能从这些项目上轻松地削减这么多支出，它究竟认为未来一些项目能带来多大的回报？15%？还是10%？大家自己可以看看这种想法引发了怎样的恐慌。（财富中文网）

    译者：杨智

    If it wasn't clear before, it certainly is now: Big Oil has got some big problems.

    In a year in which oil remained near historic highs at around $100 a barrel, ExxonMobil (XOM), the all-around best-in-class energy company, said on Wednesday at its analyst meeting in New York that its return on capital employed (ROCE) for 2013 was 17%. Let me repeat that -- 17%. This is bad, people.

    Admittedly, achieving a 17% ROCE is something many companies would kill for -- even other energy companies. But this is ExxonMobil. No other energy company is as skilled or as adept at maneuvering the political and economic quagmire that comes with drilling for fossil fuels than Grandpappy Exxon. In the 2000s, ExxonMobil's ROCE, which is a measure of profitability and efficiency of how capital is employed, was legendary for its strength and power, with 35% considered the internal benchmark. Achieving a level below 30% was considered failure among Exxon's conservative lot, according to a long-time engineer at the firm.

    But the financial crisis put an end to ExxonMobil's profit party. Oil and natural gas prices plummeted, and, as one would expect, so did Exxon's ROCE. It still stayed in the mid 20% range, which, while disappointing, wasn't the end of the world. But investors cut the company some slack. They thought that once the tumult was over Exxon would again reign supreme.

    And now we have this -- 17%. Even amid high oil prices, the company couldn't even hit 20%? Even more embarrassing, Chevron (CVX), the other big U.S. energy company, is expected to beat Exxon hands down when it comes to ROCE -- it has done so every year since 2010.

    This must be very disturbing for Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive. On Wednesday, Tillerson took action, which he believes will boost Exxon's legendary profitability -- spend less. In a surprise move, Tillerson said that 2014 will see a $4 billion, or about 10%, decrease in ExxonMobil's ridiculously large $40 billion capital expenditures budget. Spending less capital means that the ratio will go up, provided that profits stay level. That's probably a good bet considering that it takes years, even decades, for a project to start paying off.

    So is Tillerson making the right move? The markets don't think so -- Exxon's stock price sank 3% after the announcement, dragging the entire Dow Jones Industrial Index down with it. Tillerson must be very confused. He is doing exactly what he thought shareholders and analysts wanted -- delivering a higher ROCE.

    But while ROCE is an important metric, it isn't the only thing investors care about. People who invest in ExxonMobil tend to be conservative value players, more interested in consistent cash flow with long time horizons than with hitting some financial target. For example, Warren Buffett, the king of value investing, disclosed last November that he had accumulated a nearly 1% stake in ExxonMobil during the second quarter of 2013, equating to some $3.45 billion.

    At the same time he bought Exxon, Buffett slashed his relatively large stake in dimming energy giant ConocoPhillips (COP), which, at the time, was going through a major reorganization. Some investors found his choice strange as ConocoPhillips' stock was up 27% for the year at that point, while Exxon's stock was up only 8%. But it plays to the theme of value investing. Exxon's earnings are stable, with defined long term earnings potential, while COP's future had been up in the air. Uncertainty isn't ideal for value investors, even if it means giving up some of the upside.

    Exxon has made a point to be as consistent as possible with its returns, despite, of course, the volatility in oil prices. When it says it is going to invest $40 billion, investors trust that the company will deliver world-class returns on that money over the next few years.

    That's why when Tillerson said on Wednesday that he was cutting the CapEx budget, investors ran for the exits. They had projected that Exxon would continue to plough money into new projects and that those projects would yield strong and consistent 20% to 30% returns over time. Sure, it is nice to have that extra $4 billion returned to shareholders, but that's just this year. Value investors are in it for the long haul and cutting CapEx means that they should expect decreased revenue down the road.

    To be sure, no one is saying that Exxon should invest in unprofitable ventures just to keep busy -- too many companies already do that. It was just disappointing for investors to hear that the company doesn't believe it can deliver a strong enough return to justify their carefully planned CapEx budget.

    Then there is the big fear -- did Exxon think a 17% ROCE was a strong enough return to justify last year's massive capital expenditure outlay? If so, what exactly does Exxon think its future projects will yield if they can so easily slash so much off of it -- 15%? Maybe 10%? You can see how this might have caused a bit of a panic.