五年了，泡沫依旧

The Bubble: Five Years Old and Still Deflating?

WELL, HAPPY ANNIVERSARY. In case you're just back from the moon, I will remind you that this past week marked the fifth anniversary of the glorious moment in March 2000 when the stock market set the all-time record for investor lunacy and pushed the Nasdaq Composite north of 5,000. It was a week full of wistful reminiscing about the good old days, when Cisco was worth $600 billion, tech stocks couldn't go down and capital flowed like water. Ah, those were good times, weren't they? You have to sympathize with the sentiments on a bumper sticker I spotted in Silicon Valley not long ago: "Please God, Just One More Bubble."

Well, it turns out, we've fished our wish! In fact, we're blessed to have a plethora of bubbles. For instance, it seems there's a remarkable abundance of billionaires. Forbes last week issued its annual list of the world's richest humans, and it turns out the global roster of the super-rich has increased by 104 billionaires, to 691. (A billion just ain't what it used to be.)

OK, granted, that's not quite the equal of the Nasdaq 5000 -- but I've got some more. Let's start with crude oil. Last week crude came within a hairsbreadth of a 22-year high, flirting with the $55 a barrel mark before giving up and finishing the week around $54. For reasons we'll detail in a bit, there is every reason to believe that crude is a bubble that deserves popping.

And...look! There's another bubble! It's the U.S. trade deficit, which in January topped $58 billion, the second-highest level ever. But fear not: I have it on good authority that it's nothing to worry about. In fact, not one day before Friday's report on the deficit, none other than Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that what really should worry us is not the trade deficit, but the Federal budget deficit. Ever the wordsmith, the Fed chief warned of an "unsustainable fiscal budget paradigm" that could cause "a major disruption," though a disruption of what he did not specifically say. (Though we presume he did not mean the National Hockey League season.) To think of it another way, the Fed chief seemed to be warning against irrationally exuberant spending by Uncle Sam. Kind of bubble-like, no?

Those soaring oil prices, combined with rising long-term interest rates and a sliding dollar, kept a lid on equity prices last week. The market's Friday performance, which featured a 75-point drop by the Dow and an 18-point slide in the Nasdaq Composite, was particularly disappointing, given a bullish financial forecast from Intel after the closing bell on Thursday. The chip giant gave higher-than-expected guidance on both revenue and margins for the March quarter, and spurred the stock to a modest gain in after-hours trading. But Intel's news failed to maintain the interest of investors, once analysts began theorizing that the upbeat stance might have more to do with inventory additions by its customers than any real improvement in end-market demand. Intel's shares fell 65 cents Friday, to 24.20.

Disappointingly, Intel's news failed to distract investors from Friday's disturbing trade-deficit report, rising oil prices and various other macro concerns. The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished the week with a loss of 165 points, or 1.5%, to 10775.69, while the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index slumped 1.8%, to 1200.17. As for the Index of the Hour, the Nasdaq Composite, it declined 29 points, or 1.4%, to 2041.60, a tad more than 3,000 points below its best-ever peak of 5048.62. Woo-hoo! Party on!


Crude Assessment

Rising crude prices do not lift all boats, but they certainly have propelled the energy stocks, which have been generating rocket-fueled returns: the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index has returned more than 43% over the past 12 months, including a gain of more than 18% already this year. That's got some smart folks wondering if both crude prices and oil shares aren't due for a comeuppance -- at least in the short run and possibly for the longer haul.

Peter Perkins, the global investment strategist for BCA Research in Montreal, thinks the odds are high for a near-term reversal. "Oil prices look vulnerable to a correction," he says. Perkins notes that both crude prices and oil stocks have continued to rise in the face of steadily rising crude inventories, something that hasn't happened historically -- in fact, it's something that anyone who ever drew supply and demand curves in Econ 1A will tell you doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As for oil stocks, Perkins notes that they "have just gone vertical" and that gravity likely will reassert itself. "They rarely run that far, that fast. It suggests we should be getting a correction."

Nonetheless, Perkins asserts that "the structural backdrop for oil is still bullish." As Perkins points out, the U.S. Department of Energy last week forecast that the price of crude would average in the high-to-mid $40s throughout 2005 and 2006. And the DOE noted that supply imbalances -- real or imagined -- could continue to result in prices north of $50 a barrel. Not long ago, Perkins notes, the consensus was that the sustainable long-term oil price would be in the mid-$20 range.

"Oil stocks have arguably only moved up in line with oil prices," Perkins says. "P/E ratios are broadly consistent with historical norms. We had a big move, and they are overdone short-term, but the stocks are still fundamentally in line with the underlying oil-price picture. The run-up does not appear to be unjustified."

Frederick Leuffer, the oil analyst at Bear Stearns, certainly agrees with Perkins that both the price of crude and energy stocks are in for a short-term reversal. But he'd take issue with the notion that oil prices will stay anywhere near the current levels over the long haul. He thinks we're seeing a mammoth, well, bubble.

"Bad news is totally ignored, neutral news is viewed as good news and good news is viewed as spectacular," he says. "As you would guess, there's a perfect inverse correlation historically between inventories and prices. But that relationship broke down last year, and that's continued into 2005. I've had customers -- buy side analysts -- tell me to just ignore the inventories. How can a fundamental analyst do that? It's a bubble." He adds, though, that when it comes to bubbles, "sometimes they last longer than you think, and sometimes they get bigger than you think."

Eventually, Leuffer figures, balance will be restored, and crude prices will fall. He thinks they could end up back in the mid-20s. But here's the interesting thing: While Leuffer is not convinced that crude prices can be maintained at their current lofty levels, he does think that the high prices of both crude and oil stocks will trigger a consolidation wave in the oil patch.
五年了，泡沫依旧

哈，又过了一年。如果你是刚从月球回来，我要提醒你一下：5年前的上周，股市正处在辉煌时期。在投资者的疯狂追捧下，股市创下历史高点，那斯达克综合指数更是突破了5,000点大关。上周真是一个令人对过去的美好时光无限眷恋的一周，5年前，思科公司(Cisco)的市值达到6,000亿美元，科技股巍然屹立，资金像水一样哗哗地流进来。不久前我在矽谷发现一个保险杠上写著：“上帝呀，你再制造一次泡沫吧。”这种心情非常可以理解，是不是？

实际上我们的愿望实现了，上帝正在赐给我们大量泡沫。从亿万富翁人数猛增中就可以看出这一点。《福布斯》杂志上周公布了一年一度的全球富翁排名，上榜人数较前一年增加了104人，达到691人。

当然，就影响力而言，这一点还不能和那斯达克综合指数突破5,000点大关相提并论。但我在上周却看出了更多的泡沫。让我们首先从原油谈起。上周油价距离22周高点仅有咫尺之遥，有上探55美元大关之势，不过后来有所回调，收于54美元附近。后面我们将详细地谈一谈油价，有充分理由表明油价的上涨是有道理的。

……看！还有一个泡沫！美国1月份贸易赤字超过580亿美元，为历史上第二高水平。但不用担心：我从权威部门得到的消息是贸易逆差不足为虑。实际上就在上周五政府公布1月份贸易数据之前的一天，美国联邦储备委员会(简称Fed)主席格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)表示，贸易逆差并不足虑，真正令人堪忧的是美国的预算赤字。有“语言大师”之称的格林斯潘警告说财政预算赤字不能继续扩大下去，否则就有可能给美国经济带来严重破坏，但他并未透露将会产生什么样的破坏（想必格林斯潘指的不会是北美职业冰球联盟停赛）。从另一个角度来讲，格林斯潘似乎是针对美国民众的过度消费行为发出了警告那。那是不是也是一种泡沫呢？

上周，油价飙升、长期利率攀升及美元汇率下挫遏制了股市的涨势。尽管上周四盘后英特尔(Intel)发布了乐观的财务预期，但上周五道琼斯工业平均价格指数75个点的跌幅以及那斯达克综合指数18个点的跌幅令人颇为失望。英特尔调高了第一财政季度收入和利润预期，在盘后交易中推高了该股股价。但英特尔的正面消息未能持续提振投资者的人气，因为分析师认为英特尔的乐观预期主要是基于其客户补充库存，而不是终端市场客户的需求出现了实质性的改善。英特尔上周五收盘下跌0.65美元，至24.20美元。

同样令人失望的是，英特尔的消息未能减轻投资者对贸易逆差出人意料扩大、油价上涨及各种宏观问题的担心。道琼斯指数全周下跌165点，至10775.69点，跌幅1.5%。标准普尔500指数上周收于1200.17点，跌幅1.8%。那斯达克综合指数上周下跌29点收于2041.60点，跌幅1.4%，距离最高点位5048.62点相差3,000多点。

油价和能源类股

能源价格的上涨未能使大盘走高，但却提振了能源类股的走势。道琼斯美国石油及天然气分类指数在过去12个月里的涨幅超过了43%，仅今年目前为止的涨幅就超过了18%。有一些头脑还算清醒的人士想弄明白的是，油价和能源类股的价格短期以及中长期内是否会下挫。

BCA Research驻蒙特利尔的全球投资策略师彼得?帕金斯(Peter Perkins)表示，油价及能源类股股价近期内很有可能出现回调。他表示，油价看来容易出现回调。帕金斯表示，在原油库存稳步攀升的情况下，油价及能源类股股价却持续走高，这种局面是前所未有的──实际上，任何一个学过经济学的人都可以用供需曲线指出这绝对是一种不正常的现象。至于能源类股，帕金斯指出它们普遍已经大幅上扬，有可能出现掉头向下。帕金斯说，能源类股很少有这么大、这么快的涨幅。这表明能源类股应该回调了。

然而，帕金斯指出原油的结构性因素仍然表明油价看涨。正如帕金斯指出，美国能源部(Department of Energy)上周预测说，截至2005年年底乃至2006年年底，平均油价将在44-49美元。但能源部指出，供给面的失衡可能导致每桶油价超过50美元。不久前，帕金斯指出，普遍共识是可持续的长期油价应该在24-27美元附近。

帕金斯指出，可以看出能源类股的涨势与油价走势相吻合，其本益比基本上符合以往的正常水平。能源类股已经大幅上涨，短期而言的确处于超买状态，但能源类股的基本面状况和油价的基本面是一致的。能源类股的涨势不是没有道理的。

贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)的原油分析师弗雷德里克?勒弗(Frederick Leuffer)认同帕金斯对油价和能源类股将在短期内回调的观点。但他不认为长期油价会停留在目前价位附近。他认为，我们看到了一个巨大的油价泡沫。

原油市场将利空消息完全置之不理，将中性消息视为利好消息，而利好消息更被看作天大的喜讯。正如人们认为的那样，以往库存和油价的反向波动关系一直保持得很好。但去年这种关系破裂了，并持续到了2005年。勒弗称：我的客户──买方分析师告诉我，不用理会库存的增加。但作为一名基本面分析师怎么能对基本面的变化无动于衷呢？这里有泡沫。但是，当泡沫出现时，有时候它们持续的时间超过人们的想象，泡沫的规模也会超乎人们的想象。

勒弗称，市场最终会恢复平衡，原油价格也将回落。他认为油价最终有可能回落至24-27美元。

投资者依然热衷于高风险投资

As Investors Tolerate More and More Risk, Bears Start to Emerge

In competitive markets, investors take big risks in a hunt for big rewards. These days, however, taking those gambles isn't so lucrative, even when the bets work.

That reality hasn't damped investor interest in riskier trades -- though that may be changing.

Behind the continued appetite for risk has been a "What, me worry?" attitude among investors. After all, they argue, the world seems a safer place today than it was a few years ago: Inflation seems contained in most major economies. Credit-rating upgrades outnumber downgrades. Companies around the globe are flush with cash and are starting to snap each other up.

"People have become complacent," says Ron Papanek , a New York-based strategist with RiskMetrics Group, a risk-analytics firm. "They're very comfortable with the economic environment. They're comfortable with stocks, comfortable with the long end of the fixed-income market, comfortable with credit markets."

Yet despite the smooth surface of the investing landscape, troubling elements lurk. And some investors have started shifting away from riskier assets. A couple of recent bumps in the bond and derivatives markets have some investors wondering whether the smooth ride may be coming to an end -- though others have been calling for such a turn for more than a year.

"For us, the fact that all the risky assets have outperformed is a sign of worry," says Robert Lind, head of economics and strategy at ABN Amro in London.

The cautious cite rising interest rates and high commodity prices, which could spur inflationary pressures. Currency markets recently wobbled on news that the South Korean central bank and Japan's Ministry of Finance might diversify away from holding U.S. dollars. And political risks haven't evaporated: Consider North Korea's recent nuclear taunts and the persistent insurgency in Iraq.


Nevertheless, voices of caution are few. For the most part, investors keep charging into increasingly risky assets as never before, even as the returns on those assets diminish. Since many of the world's central bankers started ratcheting down interest rates in 2001, investors have been on the hunt for yield.

With safer government bonds paying tiny interest rates, that has meant a plunge into riskier places, such as Brazil, Russia and developing markets in Asia. Dissatisfied with puny returns from high-quality bonds, investors have gobbled up "junk" bonds, debt issued by companies with questionable financial strength. The appetite for taking on more risk also has contributed to the proliferation of hedge funds promising higher returns through intricate trading strategies.

In the short run, these moves boosted portfolio returns. At the same time, they have increased the number of active traders exchanging risky assets, spread investment risk more widely across markets and reduced price volatility. The result of that activity: a rather calm market among riskier assets.

But there is a debate about whether today's market conditions are sustainable.

In congressional testimony last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan raised a red flag, saying financial-market participants "seem very confident about the future and...quite willing to bear risk." Mr. Greenspan pointed in particular to so-called implied stock-market volatility, which refers to investors' expectations about the possibility of sudden, sharp market movements as measured by an index that trades on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Over the past two years, the index, called the VIX, has moved in one general direction: down, suggesting investors see smooth sailing ahead.


These historically low levels of implied stock-market volatility are particularly important, and hard to explain, because the VIX tends to move back to its historical average and to follow the direction of interest rates, says Markus Rosgen, Asian regional head of strategy for Citigroup in Hong Kong. Mr. Rosgen calculates that on a 50-month moving average, the VIX trades around 22; as of Friday, the VIX was trading at 12.8 on the CBOE. Big VIX spikes more often are correlated to bear than bull markets.

To be sure, part of the explanation for this state of affairs may be that there are fundamental, structural changes taking place in the markets and broader economy.

The increasing transparency of global markets, rising dividend yields that help to cushion stock-price moves, and the explosion of hedge funds that leap on arbitrage opportunities also may represent basic changes to markets, helping to keep volatility below historical levels for the longer term.

Meanwhile, investment banks have chipped in by selling bucketfuls of complex products that allow investors to insure against sudden stock-price moves -- and, in the process, further slice up and distribute risk across the market.

All of this seeming diminishment of risk worries analysts. But they are hard-pressed to identify what could shake the calm markets.

"It's exactly times like these when things happen and people are least prepared for it," says Alvin Lee, who manages RiskMetric's Asian-Pacific business.


Which is why some investors aren't waiting to find out.

"Markets have gone on for two great years, and does it really pay me to take a lot more risk? I'm of the opinion that it doesn't," says Samir Mehta, the chief investment officer of fund company Lloyd George Management in Hong Kong. Over the course of 2004, Mr. Mehta's funds unloaded steel, petrochemical and shipping companies in favor of more stable high-dividend-yielding stocks. "I'm telling investors to think of 2005 as a year with lower returns and to focus on preservation of capital."

Friday's Market Activity

The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped back into negative territory for the year, as investors focused on inflation and interest-rate worries.

The Dow industrials dropped 77.15 points to 10774.36, ending the week down 166.19 points, or 1.5%, after having closed at a 3?-year high and within 60 points of 11000 the previous week. The Dow is down 8.65, or 0.1%, year to date.

The Nasdaq Composite Index lost 18.12 points, or 0.88%, to 2041.60, and 29.01, or 1.4%, for the week. The Nasdaq is down 133.84, or 6.2%, for the year.

Chip giant Intel raised the lower end of its revenue forecast and boosted its profit margin for the first quarter. After opening higher Friday, the stock joined the broader selloff, becoming one of the Dow industrials' worst performers, down 65 cents, or 2.6%, to $24.20.

Kmart Holding climbed $14.89, or 13%, to $127 on the Nasdaq Stock Market, after UBS raised its rating on the discount retailer's stock to "buy" from "neutral," saying that the company's pending merger with Sears, Roebuck will be able to "generate significant cash flow through asset sales, cross-selling of proprietary brands, and cost savings." Sears was up $4.20, or 7.9%, at $57.56.
投资者依然热衷于高风险投资

在竞争性的市场中，投资者承担高风险以追求高回报。但现在即使投资选择正确，此类交易的回报似乎也不那么诱人了。

不过，这并未降低投资者对高风险交易的兴趣。

支撑风险偏好的是投资者那种“有什么可担心？”的心态。他们认为，毕竟，现在的世界看上去要比几年前安全多了：主要经济体的通货膨胀水平似乎大都在可控制的范围内。信用评级的上调多于下调。全球许多公司现金充足，掀起了并购浪潮。在政局方面，美国、亚洲和伊拉克的大选都已经完成，不确定性也下降了。

风险分析公司RiskMetrics Group驻纽约的策略师帕帕纳克(Ron Papanek)表示，人们对目前的经济环境感到满意，对股市、长期固定收益证券市场以及信用市场均表满意。

但在这貌似风平浪静的下面，不安定因素依然存在。一些投资者已开始回避高风险资产。债市和衍生产品市场近来的几次震荡让一些投资者猜测这种平静行将结束，其实这种猜测一年多以前就已经存在了。

“在我们看来，所有高风险资产的市场表现均强于大盘是令人担忧的迹象，”荷兰银行(ABN AMRO)驻伦敦的经济和策略主管林德(Robert Lind)表示。

持谨慎态度的人列举了利率上升和大宗商品价格居高不下等不利因素，这些因素会导致通货膨胀压力加大。近来，韩国央行和日本财务省有可能降低美元在其外汇储备中所占比重的消息，让外汇市场摇摆不定。政治风险也未消失：如朝鲜近来的核叫嚣以及伊拉克持续不断的叛乱。而且，爆发企业危机、出现公共健康危机或发生恐怖袭击等的可能性也依然存在。

不管怎样，谨慎的声音不多。大多数投资者仍在以前所未有的热情杀入高风险资产市场，虽然这些资产的投资回报率呈现下降。自2001年全球许多央行开始逐步降息以来，投资者们一直在追求高收益率。

由于低风险的国债市场普遍收益率微薄，许多投资者一头扎进了巴西、俄罗斯和亚洲发展中国家的国债市场。由于不满意高质量债券的低回报，投资者大量买入“垃圾债券”，即财务健康有问题的公司发行的债券。风险嗜好也推动了对冲基金的泛滥；对冲基金往往通过复杂的交易策略承诺较高的回报。

短期内，这些交易提高了投资组合的回报率，并吸引更多交易员活跃从事高风险资产的交易，将投资风险分散在更多市场间，降低了价格波动性。其结果是高风险资产市场表现相当平稳。

但慢慢地有了一种争论，即目前平稳的市场状况是否可以持续。一个挥之不去的担忧是：一个单一事件是否会打破目前微妙的平衡，导致垃圾债券、对冲基金等各种投资资产出现恐慌性的抛售。

美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve, 简称Fed)主席格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)上个月在国会作证时亮起了一盏红灯，他说，“金融市场的参与者们似乎对未来非常有信心......非常愿意承担风险。”

格林斯潘特别指出了所谓的股市引伸波幅，即投资者对市场突然发生急剧波动之可能性的预期，衡量指标是在芝加哥期权交易所(Chicago Board Option Exchange)交易的VIX指数。过去两年，VIX指数呈现单向下跌，说明投资者预计未来市场走势平稳。欧洲和亚洲的交易者们称，他们的市场追随美国的走势。

花旗集团(Citigroup)驻香港的亚洲地区战略主管罗斯根(Markus Rosgen)表示，股市引伸波幅的历史低水平非常重要，因为VIX指数具有回到历史平均水平和遵循利率走势的趋势。罗斯根计算，VIX指数的50个月移动平均值为22左右；截至上周五，VIX指数在芝加哥期权交易所报12.8。VIX指数的大幅攀升通常与熊市联系在一起，而不是牛市。

债市的波动性似乎也不大，因为投资者感觉在预测利率走势（基本保持不变）方面似乎越来越得心应手。RiskMetrics的数据显示，过去两年，2年期美国国债的3个月引伸波幅下降了约72%，10年期国债的3个月引伸波幅下降了38%。美国国债市场引申波幅的下降鼓励投资者大批涌入垃圾债券。

当然，这种状态一定程度上或许可以以金融市场和宏观经济发生了根本性和结构性的变化来解释。苏格兰爱丁堡Standard Life Investments的米列根(Andrew Milligan)指出，以经济增长和通货膨胀趋势而言，自20世纪60年代以来商业周期从未如此平静。

“这是一个非常有趣的状态，”米列根表示，“它可能持续多年，也可能几个月后就宣告结束。”

全球市场的透明度日益提高，股息收益率的上升以及对冲基金数量的爆炸式增长，可能也代表著市场的基本面改变，这有助于将引申波幅在中长期内维持于历史低点。

“对冲基金数量的大幅增加有显著的影响，”美林(Merrill Lynch)驻香港的环太平洋股票衍生品研究联合主管瑞斯(Arik Reiss)表示，“他们的交易大大减弱了市场的波动性。”

与此同时，投资银行也参与其中，出售大量针对股价波动向投资者提供保护的复杂产品，在这个过程中市场被进一步分割，风险更加分散。这些所谓的结构性产品也降低了市场波动性。但随著利率上升，银行家们预计这些产品的受欢迎程度将下降，随著这些产品被抛出，市场的波动性将上升。

逢低吸纳者看中时代华纳

Time Warner's Cable Plan Is Attracting Bargain Hunters

Plans to bulk up Time Warner's cable-television holdings aren't popular on Wall Street, where cable is out of favor. But some savvy investors think it is time to bulk up on inexpensive Time Warner shares.

Since December, Time Warner shares have fallen about 10% as investors question the wisdom of the company's joint $17.6 billion bid with Comcast for Adelphia Communications' cable systems.

Many investors are worried that Time Warner, which already owns the second-largest cable company in the U.S., after Comcast, may be paying too much to expand, given the intensifying competition facing cable from satellite-TV and telephone companies. Cable's earning power isn't fetching what it used to along Wall Street, pushing industry valuations to their lowest in nearly 15 years, though they have improved slightly in the past few months, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Others believe that if Time Warner wants to expand in cable, it should wait for a more attractive asset, such as Cablevision Systems, to be put on the block.

To others, however, the recent sell-off of Time Warner stock has created a buying opportunity. They argue that concerns about Adelphia and the cable industry in general are overblown.

"Time Warner is a bargain here at $18. I think it's one of those stocks where you wake up in a week and it's gone up 20%," says Mario Gabelli, chairman and chief executive of Gabelli Asset Management, whose clients owned 17.3 million shares of Time Warner as of Dec. 31, according to FactSet Research.

Mr. Gabelli, a believer in the long-term strength of the cable industry, says once the Adelphia deal is done, "Mr. Market will go back and focus on fundamentals, and the fundamentals are quite good."

In 4 p.m. composite trading Friday on the New York Stock Exchange, Time Warner's shares were down 1.4%, or 25 cents, at $17.50, giving the company a market capitalization of $80.3 billion.

Even some investors who aren't keen on cable think Time Warner shareholders could benefit from its resurrected plan to carve off its cable systems into a new publicly traded cable company it would control. That would make Time Warner more attractive for investors who want to put their money into a pure content company. Excluding the cable assets, Time Warner owns content businesses such as HBO and Warner Bros. film studio. Time Warner put the cable initial public offering on hold in 2003 during a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into its accounting, which has been tentatively settled.

Time Warner plans to pay for Adelphia partly by issuing stock in the new Time Warner cable company. "I'm not the biggest cable bull in the world, but I'm positive on the speculated deal terms," said Henry Ellenbogen, an analyst with T. Rowe Price, which owned a 1.2% stake in Time Warner as of Dec. 31, according to FactSet Research. Mr. Ellenbogen believes the new cable stock likely would trade at a higher multiple than Time Warner shares do currently, indicating that it would be fast-growing. It would "showcase the growth and quality of cable operation and show that Time Warner's high-quality, albeit moderate-growth, media assets trade at a significant discount to their peers," he said.

Compared with its media-conglomerate peers, Time Warner's stock is less expensive, based on comparison of stock prices using one measure: the ratio of enterprise value -- the sum of a company's market capitalization and debt -- to 2005 forecast earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. As of March 7, Time Warner shares were trading at 9.2 times EV/Ebitda, according to calculations published by analyst Doug Shapiro at Banc of America Securities. By comparison, Viacom was trading at 10.3 times, Walt Disney was trading at 12 times and News Corp. was trading at 9.6 times. Mr. Shapiro has a "buy" rating on Time Warner's stock, but doesn't own any shares.

The media titan's stock has been dead money for three years, weighed down by uncertainty over the future of its America Online business and the outcome of the SEC inquiry and a related Justice Department investigation. But worries about AOL have receded as online advertising sales have picked up. And a tentative resolution of the government inquiries in December had been expected to lift the stock out of the doldrums.

Now the stock has been caught up in negative sentiment toward the cable sector. Last year, cable operators such as Time Warner and Comcast lost market share to satellite companies such as DirecTV Group, which has become a more aggressive competitor since being taken over by News Corp. At the same time, telephone companies such as SBC Communications have announced plans to compete with cable by offering video.

Of all the cable companies, investors see Adelphia as one of the least appealing. Forced into a bankruptcy filing after disclosures of accounting fraud, Adelphia's cable systems are mostly in midsize cities and require heavy investment to offer advanced services. Analysts estimate that Time Warner and Comcast are offering a rich price to Adelphia's creditors, equivalent to valuations put on Time Warner Cable itself -- even though Time Warner has upgraded more of its systems to offer lucrative services such as high-speed Internet access.

"I don't see the need to own this asset," says Richard Greenfield , analyst at Fulcrum Global Partners. "There are no absolutely must-have markets, other than Los Angeles," where Adelphia owns a small portion of the market. Mr. Greenfield, who owns no stock in Time Warner and whose employer does no investment banking, rates Time Warner a "buy" largely because of his optimistic view of AOL.

"A lot of people are concerned about cable," Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons acknowledged at Bear Stearns's annual media investment conference in Florida last week. Despite the competitive threat facing the industry, he argued that "in the short run, three to five years ... we believe it's a business that will have top-line and bottom-line double-digit growth." While the longer-term prospects are less certain, he said, cable was starting from the best position compared with satellite and phone companies.

Time Warner needs to expand its cable holdings because "it's a business that gains value as you build scale," Mr. Parsons said. For instance, he said, Time Warner can better negotiate prices with programmers if it controls a larger base of subscribers. Currently, Time Warner Cable has 10.9 million subscribers, about half the subscriber count of the biggest operator, Comcast.

Mr. Parsons said his challenge is to persuade investors that Time Warner won't overpay for Adelphia. "If we as a management team could persuade the marketplace that 'Well, at least they won't do anything stupid,' I think the stock would go up."

History may be on Mr. Parsons's side. In 1995, then-Chief Executive Gerald Levin did two big cable acquisitions at a time when cable was out of favor on Wall Street. His strategy paid off when sentiment toward the industry improved -- and Time Warner stock soared.
逢低吸纳者看中时代华纳

扩大时代华纳(Time Warner)有线电视公司持股的想法在华尔街并不受欢迎，因为有线行业的股票已经风光不再。但是，一些精明的投资者却认为，现在该是增持低廉的时代华纳股票的时机了。

自去年12月以来，时代华纳的股票下跌了10%左右，公司与康卡斯特(Comcast)对Adelphia Communications有线系统176亿美元的联合竞标是否明智，投资者满腹怀疑。

许多投资者担心，时代华纳在扩张上花费的资金可能太多了，因为有线公司面临的来自卫星电视和电话公司的竞争日趋激烈。时代华纳已经拥有仅次于康卡斯特的美国第二大有线公司。Stanford C. Bernstein & Co.的资料显示，有线行业的盈利能力大不如从前，使得行业股票估值跌至近15年来的最低点，尽管最近几个月这种情况略有改善。其他投资者认为，如果时代华纳希望在有线领域扩张，它应该等待一个更具吸引力的待售资产，比如说Cablevision Systems。

然而，对其他人来说，时代华纳股票最近的下挫蕴含著买进的机会。他们认为，对Adelphia和整个有线行业的担心有些过虑了。

Gabelli Asset Management的董事长兼首席执行长加百利(Mario Gabelli)称，时代华纳目前18美元的股价很便宜，它是那些一周之内能够上涨20%的股票之一。FactSet Research的数据显示，截至去年12月31日，Gabelli Asset Management的客户持有时代华纳1,730万股股票。

加百利称，一旦收购Adelphia的交易完成，市场焦点将回归到基本面上来，而时代华纳的基本面状况十分可喜。他对有线行业的长期前景充满信心。

上周五纽约证交所收盘时，时代华纳的股票下跌1.4%，至17.50美元，总市值为803亿美元。

即使一些对有线业务不敢兴趣的投资者也认为时代华纳的股东能够从该公司重新推行的将有线业务剥离为控股新上市公司的计划中获益。这将使时代华纳在瞄准纯内容公司的投资者眼中更具吸引力。除了有线资产外，时代华纳还拥有HBO和制片公司华纳兄弟(Warner Bros.)。时代华纳在2003年暂停了有线业务首次公开募股的计划，当时美国证券交易委员会(Securities and Exchange Commission, 简称SEC)正在对其会计行为展开调查，这次调查最终以和解而结束。

时代华纳计划将发行有线公司股票的所得来支付部分收购Adelphia的资金。T. Rowe Price的分析师亨利?埃伦博根(Henry Ellenbogen)说：“虽然我不是最看好有线公司的，但对传言中的交易条款持积极看法。”根据FactSet Research的数据，截至去年12月31日，T. Rowe Price持有1.2%的时代华纳股份。埃伦博根认为这只新有线股的本益比可能会高于目前时代华纳，表明新公司将快速增长。他说，该公司将展现出有线业务的成长性和质量，并显示时代华纳高质量媒体资产目前的价位大大低于同行，尽管其增速不是很高。

同其他媒体业巨头相比，就企业价值（公司市值及债务的数额）与2005年预期利息、税项、折旧和摊销前收益(Ebitda)的比率进行对比，时代华纳的股价并不高。根据美银证券(Banc of America Securities)分析师道格?夏皮罗(Doug Shapiro)的计算，截至3月7日，时代华纳的企业价值与Ebitda比率为9.2倍。而维亚康姆(Viacom)为10.3倍，沃尔特-迪斯尼(Walt Disney)为12倍，新闻集团(News Corp.)为9.6倍。夏皮罗对时代华纳股票的评级为买进，但不持有该股。

3年来，受美国在线(America Online)未来业务难以预料、SEC的调查结果以及司法部(Justice Department)相关调查的打击，这家媒体巨头的股价一直低迷不振。但美国在线网上广告销售额有所回升，也略微打消了人们对该股的担忧。政府调查已在去年12月份告一段落，预计这也将推动该股走出低谷。

该股可谓生不逢时。去年，时代华纳和康卡斯特等有线运营商的市场占有率受到了DirecTV Group等卫星公司的蚕食。而新闻集团收购DirecTV Group之后，也日益成为咄咄逼人的竞争对手。与此同时，西南贝尔(SBC Communications Inc.)等电话公司也宣布推出视频服务，同有线公司展开竞争。

在所有有线公司中，投资者认为Adelphia是最缺乏吸引力的公司之一。在曝出会计欺诈丑闻后，公司被迫申请破产，而且Adelphia的有线系统主要集中于中等城市，推出先进服务需要投入大量资金。分析师预计，时代华纳和康卡斯特向Adelphia的债权人提出的价格过高，相当于Time Warner Cable本身的价格，而时代华纳已经升级了有线系统，可以推出高速互联网接入等利润更高的服务。

Fulcrum Global Partners的分析师理查德?格林菲尔德(Richard Greenfield)说：“我认为没有必要持有此项资产。除了洛杉矶之外，Adelphia没有什么绝对不能放弃的市场。”Adelphia在洛杉矶市场有少量业务。格林菲尔德对时代华纳的评级为买进，主要原因就是他看好美国在线的前景。他不持有时代华纳的股票，Fulcrum Global Partners不开展投资银行业务。

时代华纳董事长理查德?帕森斯(Richard Parsons)在上周贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)的年度媒体投资会议上承认，许多人对有线业务感到担忧。但他认为，尽管该行业面临竞争威胁，但从短期来看，在3到5年的时间里，该行业的收入和利润将以两位数的速度增长。他表示，中长期的前景虽然难以预料，但有线业务同卫星和电话公司相比仍处于最佳位置。

帕森斯表示，时代华纳需要扩大有线资产，因为“此项业务的价值随著规模扩大而增长。”他举例说，如果能够控制更多的订户资源，时代华纳就能与制片公司谈判获得更好的价格。目前，Time Warner Cable共有1,090万订户，约为最大的运营商康卡斯特的一半。

帕森斯说，他面临的挑战是，说服投资者相信时代华纳不会对Adelphia支付过高的价格。如果管理层能够让市场相信公司不会做蠢事，那么股价就有可能上涨。

历史可能证明帕森斯是对的。1995年，当时的首席执行长杰拉尔德?莱文(Gerald Levin)在有线业务还不被华尔街看好时就进行了两项大规模的收购。该行业人气上升后就获得了丰厚回报，时代华纳的股价大幅走高。-0-