Without New Stimuli, Stocks Slump
AS WITH CHILDREN, ONE MEASURE of a good stock market is its ability to amuse itself, without the benefit of minders' contrivances or colorful stimuli. By this standard, today's market is a bit of a disappointment, unable to muster its own fun in the absence of ever newer and better playthings.
Last week, without much highly anticipated economic data on offer and only a haphazard smattering of corporate earnings reports, the market was left in the sway of traders' parochial preoccupations -- technically noteworthy index levels, marginal news nuggets and the year-end tactical posturing of professional fund managers.
The result was a low-volume retreat from some of the highest index levels of the year, a syrupy selloff that evidenced some anxiety among investors who are torn between locking in the year's gains and taking part in any year-end rush to the upside.
The Dow Jones Industrials shed 140 points, or 1.4%, to finish at 9628. The Standard & Poor's 500 index slipped a similar percentage, losing 15 points to settle at 1035. The Nasdaq Composite took a slightly harder blow, falling 36 points to 1893, as the longtime leaders in the semiconductor sector gave back some of the year's gains.
What corporate news there was during the week failed to excite stocks. Among Dow components alone, Hewlett-Packard exceeded earnings forecasts slightly, but the stock lost 89 cents to reach 21.28, a reaction attributed to H-P's slipping margins. Home Depot also beat earnings projections, yet the stock was fractionally lower after its ferocious run of the last year.
And Merck, just a week after a rather forced rotation by traders into big drug stocks, was punished after it ended tests on a diabetes treatment once deemed promising. Merck shares sank 4.36 to 42.21.
There was also the unwelcome background noise of new terrorist attacks, another tumble in the dollar and a report on foreigners' diminished buying of U.S. securities, which brought big-picture risks momentarily to the foreground.
Of course, a little nervousness could be constructive for a market that has, justifiably, been accused of blithe indifference to the downside hazards. A lack of worry today can mean a sorry tomorrow.
There are a couple of different scripts in development right now as to the way the remainder of the year plays out. The "cold feet, warm heart" version has stocks continuing to sell off as investors anxiously cash in their winnings this month, only to have them scooped up in a bid by performance-chasing managers, for a rush higher through December. A separate plot line holds that the market has missed its last best chance for a new high in recent weeks and is destined to fizzle from here.
Another posits that the market can simply consolidate and mark time until yet another upturn, the way it's done repeatedly this year. A report by Ned Davis Research indicates that the indexes this year are in their longest stretch without at least a 5% pullback since 1996. That suggests both a firm underlying bid to the market and the attenuated state of its advance.
Of course, handicapping the market's short-term direction is as futile as it is hard to resist. But what every investor can do is try and understand what expectations are embedded in stock prices.
On that score, UBS quantitative strategist Joseph Mezrich figures that stocks are now building in gross domestic product growth of less than 3%, below most economists' expectations. On the earnings front, though, he calculates that the S&P 500 now implies a long-term earnings growth rate of 11.6%. He notes that this compares to an average 10.2% trailing five-year profit growth rate since 1989.
Of course, that also compares with a long-term earnings growth in the mid-single digits, a record that was aided mightily over the years by the beneficial top-line impact of much higher inflation than now prevails. The first step toward winning the gamble is to know the nature of your bets.
TYPICALLY, AS THANKSGIVING APPROACHES investors turn their attention toward selling their turkeys.
That is, they traditionally look for losing stocks to sell to take losses for tax purposes. If Wall Street's barroom lore and sober historical inference are to be believed, the dumping of losers -- which hits smaller, less liquid stocks harder than others -- is what primes the market for the January effect. That is the tendency of small stocks to outperform the large-cap indexes in the first few weeks of a New Year, presumably as the selling abates and the stocks are bought back in accordance with IRS dictates.
Of course, as this seasonal tendency has been identified, observed, tagged and catalogued, traders have attempted to front-run it by buying smaller stocks in December to capture it.
Whether the effect occurs with much force this year is a considerable question, though.
Brian Belski, strategist at US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, has been developing a theme for some time that describes this entire market year as one big January effect. That is, small, lower-quality, washed-out stocks have trounced the rest of the market this year. Considering this and the fact that there just aren't very many stocks that are down on the year, Belski doubts there will be a playable January effect next year.
The numbers are stark. Through last week, the worst 25% performers in the S&P 500 in 2002 were up 66% as a group year to date. In the Russell 2000, last year's bottom quartile was up a stunning 121%.
Meanwhile, this year's worst performing 25% of stocks in each index is only down about 5% for the year, meaning there aren't many juicy tax-loss targets out there.
This case jibes with Belski's belief that larger-cap stocks should begin to take the lead from smaller ones as next year gets underway.
There's lots of logic on this side of the size argument. Market pundits commonly tick off the reasons: A weaker dollar helps large multinationals. Small-caps have outperformed for 3? years and tend to do so for about four years. Smith Barney recently produced a report showing that small-cap outperformance begins to fade just as payrolls start to increase (that would seem to be happening now). This is probably because smaller companies do a disproportionately high share of the hiring in the economy, which can crimp margins.
There's risk, though, that the small-to-large trade, like the widely anticipated "quality trade" toward more stable sectors, has become a bit too much the consensus, too soon. Morgan Stanley strategist Byron Wien reports that at the firm's recent conference of big-time money managers in Lyford Cay, the assembled sages expected large stocks to lead next year by a ratio of two to one.
The logic for this trade is firm, but it hinges on the market shifting to logical motivations rather than the perpetuation of what's working now. That's a riskier bet than it probably ought to be.
IRONY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. For some, it seems the height of irony that, while the Nasdaq has surged 40% this year and individual investors have tuned back into stocks, shares of Charles Schwab are below their Jan. 1 level.
But, beheld through different eyes, it's even more ironic that after lagging behind the market and fellow brokerage-firm stocks for so long, Schwab shares still appear puzzlingly expensive given the company's slow earnings rebound and strategic challenges.
Schwab, which all but invented discount brokerage, grew stupendously in the 'Nineties. It moved clients online, and it created a vast mutual-fund supermarket and an extensive network of affiliated investment advisers. Since the bubble market was punctured, though, the company has been continually downsizing its head count while growing fitfully, in a way that arguably betrays a certain lack of strategic focus.
The company serves the aggressively overactive traders via its CyberTrader division, while catering to the unhurried affluent through its U.S. Trust business. In between, it has been attempting to deliver investment advice to the masses, or at least the "mass affluent," in the industry's preferred term. This involves selecting preferred mutual funds, rating stocks with a quantitative screen and referring customers to advisers, as desired.
Schwab management, at its investor day last week, described what it called its "structural advantage," which translates into something like being in the right place at a not-so-bad time. It sells independent advice and a wide choice of investment products to an attractive and expanding demographic cohort, no denying that.
But critics describe Schwab as occupying an awkward middle ground between full-service brokers and the low-frills offering of pure discount brokers.
For those of harder heads, the real point is not brand positioning, but a bottom line that has stubbornly lagged behind the rebound in the markets. Earnings this year, even after excluding habitual restructuring charges, are expected to rise to 36 cents a share, up from 29 cents a year earlier. Next year, the number is expected to rise to 47 cents. Meanwhile, Schwab last week warned analysts of heavier compensation and marketing expense next year, as a catch-up after a few lean years.
Even granting the forecast 25% jump in profits in 2004, the stock, at a recent 11.42, is valued at almost 25 times year-ahead earnings. That's well in excess of other brokers and asset managers.
Last week's announced acquisition of Soundview Technology Group, an institutional research and brokerage shop, did little to quiet the talk of strategic drift at Schwab. The $324 million cash deal for a niche broker that's never turned a consistent profit is being billed as a way to gain scale in the institutional market-making arena. Schwab's capital-markets division is essentially a break-even business that the company has been building mostly by hiring traders.
Some investors last week questioned what Schwab was really buying in Soundview, and why something similar couldn't be accomplished simply through aggressive recruitment of talent. Schwab will close or sell Soundview's investment banking business to keep with its "unconflicted" party line. But the company will have to pay up to retain the analysts and traders, and their compensation is no small cost.
In its latest quarter, Soundview's revenues rose 16.6% sequentially, while compensation expense climbed 29%. The firm last quarter paid 75 cents of every revenue dollar to its employees, versus an industry standard closer to 50%. Some of that bonus bloat no doubt went to investment bankers who won't be joining Schwab's payroll, but nonetheless it appears that the expense base is stubbornly high. Brokerage revenue at Soundview, meanwhile, has stayed about flat this year and is at about a $100 million annual run rate.
Schwab has said the deal could begin adding to earnings in 2005. Richard Repetto of Sandler O'Neill, who began coverage of Schwab last week with a Sell rating, estimates that to achieve hoped-for margins, the company will likely have to cut 150 of Soundview's approximately 250 employees.
By that standard -- though Repetto doesn't put it quite this way -- Schwab can be seen to have hired 100 analysts and traders at more than $3 million apiece. Subtract the $140 million in tangible book equity Soundview most recently reported, and the cost comes down to around $2 million a head. And now Schwab gets to pay them. Maybe the value of "independent" research has appreciated dramatically, but that's a pretty high break-even point that the company has set for itself.
It's by no means a make-or-break acquisition for Schwab, which has a $16 billion market capitalization and has managed consistently to draw in more client assets in its core business. But as an emblem of the company's self-image problems, the deal's worth examining.
Note, too, that Schwab hasn't had the finest timing in its acquisitions. It agreed to buy CyberTrader for $488 million in stock as the day-trading fever peaked in February 2000, a month after paying $2.7 billion in stock for U.S. Trust when the premium on wealth managers was most generous. Now that the Nasdaq has soared by 70% in the past year, Schwab is buying a technology-stock research and trading house.
Of course, having used highly valued shares as currency makes those previous deals look far less pricey in retrospect. Soundview, however, comes in exchange for hard cash. One thing that might give Schwab bears reason to question their skepticism is the way the sell side is lined up squarely against the stock. Of the 15 analysts covering the company, six advise selling the stock, six say "hold" and only three recommend buying it. (Schwab's opportunistic mockery of Wall Street analysts in ads can't have endeared those analysts to the company, but that surely can't fully account for the negative consensus.)
Nonetheless, the Schwab name seemingly carries enough cachet among fund managers as the "quality play" in the discount-brokerage business that the super-premium multiple persists. Even disregarding possible regulatory friction related to mutual-fund trading, Schwab has a long way to go to justify the high hopes implied in its stock price.
PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS HAVE VERY little use for utilities right now. Merrill Lynch's latest monthly fund manager survey revealed that 49% of respondents claimed to be underweighted in utility stocks. It's understandable, given the vogue-ish interest in cyclicality and upside earnings volatility. But this bias may be somewhat short-sighted.
Stephen Goldfield, managing director of Imperium Capital Management, focuses on utilities and other energy-related issues, playing both the long and the short side. And he believes right now that the market is not fully appreciating some trends favorable to utility stocks.
The dividend tax break was big news for a while before being cast in a shadow by the wild tech-led market rally. But that doesn't diminish its help in making high-yielding utility stocks more attractive.
Goldfield also thinks the summer blackout (and the official report on it last week) has helped focus regulatory attention on bolstering electrical infrastructure and away from crimping utilities' returns with negative rate-increase rulings. Finally, the energy bill in Congress should effectively revoke the Public Utility Holding Company Act and eliminate PUHCA's perceived discouragement of industry consolidation.
On his list of potential takeover candidates in the smaller-cap arena are CH Energy, Dayton Power & Light, Scana, Vectren and PNM Resources. Among larger companies, Goldfield points to PPL, First Energy and XCEL. The last, he points out, could be a logical add-on acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway, which bought Mid-American Energy not long ago. Berkshire's Warren Buffett has been outspoken about his interest in more utility investments, and about his reluctance to make any until the PUHCA is repealed.
Among stand-alone investment plays, Goldfield names OGE Energy, Ameren Energy, Pinnacle West and Scottish Power. Pinnacle West is favored for its 4.8% dividend and its fast-growing Arizona territory. Scottish Power, with 60% of revenue from the U.S., falls through the cracks in Wall Street research coverage, has a 5.1% yield and an attractive valuation.
With professional investors uninterested, these are the sort of stocks that may not be good for a trade going into yearend, but might be worth owning beyond then.
若无新的刺激因素，股市必将下跌
如同什么是好孩子的评判标准一样简单，衡量股市健全与否的一项重要指标就是其在没有“监护人”的计划或各种各样的刺激因素的照看下，是否具有自娱的能力。从这种角度而言，当前的股市略有些令人失望，它无法在不依靠更新和更好的刺激因素的情况下，把握自己的快乐。
上周的市场中，没有被广泛关注的经济数据发布，而仅有一些零星的公司收益报告披露，交易员们都在忙碌著各自的当务之急；有的关注技术上值得高度重视的指数点位；有的看重极具价值的公司消息，还有的则跟随专业基金经理们的年底操作战术。
结果就是股指从年内的高点无量回落，这种抛售表明投资者中间存在一定的焦虑情绪。究竟是应该锁定今年的收益还是参与年底的可能的上涨行情，这两种想法折磨著投资者。
道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数上周跌140点，收于9628点，跌幅1.4%。标准普尔500指数跌15点，收于1035点，差不多也跌去1.4%。那斯达克综合指数跌36点，至1893点，跌幅略大一些，原因在于半导体类股的某些长期领头羊已经抹去了今年以来的部分涨幅。
上周传出的公司消息没能提振个股走势。道琼斯指数成份股中，惠普(Hewlett-Packard)第四财政季度盈利略微超过预期水平，但由于该公司毛利率水平江河日下，该股依然跌89美分至21.28美元。Home Depot第三财政季度盈利亦超过预期水平，但在该股过去一年的凶猛走势之后，上周依然小幅下挫。
而默克(Merck)，在由交易员推动的大型制药类股轮动行情开始仅一周以后，就因一项一度被认为前途无量的治疗糖尿病药物试验的中断而受到了惩罚。默克跌4.36美元至42.21美元。
同样，新的恐怖袭击、美元再度下挫，以及海外投资者对美国证券投资减少的报告勾勒出令人不快的背景音。这使得国际大环境风险即刻被推到了前台。
当然，这种略些许的不安情绪可能具有建设性意义，一直以来市场因对下跌风险漠然置之而屡遭非难。正如俗语所言，人无远虑必有近忧。
就今年余下时间内的股市可能走势而言，目前存在著两种截然不同的观点。一种观点认为，随著投资者急于在本月兑现利润，他们将继续抛售股票，而只有在追求业绩的投资经理在12月份发动上攻行情时，投资者才会买入股票。类似观点则认为，股市近几周来已错过了创新高的最后一次良机，因此势必将从此走向衰落。
另外一种观点则认为，市场将仅仅进行调整，等待下一次反弹行情。这与今年的数次情形别无二致。Ned Davis Research的一篇报告指出，今年的股市上涨过程是自1996年以来，未出现5%以上跌幅的持续时间最长的一次。这既表明了股市的潜在买盘充裕，也表明股市上攻动能衰减的状况。
当然，阻碍市场的短期走势是徒劳无益的，投资者目前所能作的只是尝试著理解哪些预期已经反应在股价中。
在这方面，瑞银华宝(UBS)定量分析策略师约瑟夫?(Joseph Mezrich)认为，当前股市已经反映了美国国内生产总值(GDP)增长不足3%的状况，这低于多数经济学家的预期。但在公司收益方面，他认为标普500指数目前的点位表明，企业的长期收益增长率应能达到11.6%，而自1989年以来的5年公司收益增长率平均仅为10.2%。
当然，长期收益增长率也创历史纪录，高达4%-7%，这得益于过去数年远远高出当前水平的通货膨胀率对公司收入带来的大力扶持。想要在博彩中取胜的第一步就是要熟谙赌博的特点。
一般而论，感恩节临近时投资者的注意力集中于抛售那些所谓的“鸡肋”。也就是说，从传统上来讲，出于避税目的，投资者希望卖出亏损股票。如果华尔街所流传的知识与基于历史经验的论断值得信赖的话，则那些市值较其他股票更小、流动性更差的所谓劣质股的大肆抛售就是股市“元月效应”的先兆。所谓元月效应，也就是小型股的表现通常会在新年过后的几周中胜于大型股指数的趋势，究其原因大概是因为抛盘减少，投资者顺应美国国税局(IRS)的规定回补这些股票所致。
当然，由于这一季节性趋势已得到广泛认同，交易员一直以来均试图在12月份买入小型股，以便在这场较量中赢得先机。
但元月效应今年是否仍能有声有色地展开却颇值得商榷。
US Bancorp Piper Jaffray策略师布莱恩(Brian Belski)描述的这样一种理论的发展已颇有时日，他将股市今年全年走势形容为一次大的元月效应，即：市值较小、质量不高、以往鲜有出色表现的股票今年的表现全面超过其他类股。考虑到这一点以及今年没有多少股票下跌的事实，布莱恩对于股市明年是否能有一波波澜壮阔的元月效应行情提出怀疑。
数据最能说明问题。截至上周，2002年度标普500指数中表现最差的25%个股今年迄今为止总体已上涨66%；去年在罗素2000指数中垫底的后四分之一股票亦上涨了122%，涨幅之大令人不禁目瞪口呆。
与此同时，今年各股指中表现最差的25%股票今年年内仅下跌了大约5%，这种现象意味著目前出于税收目的考虑而抛售亏损股这一条路已没有多少油水可榨。
这种现象与布莱恩的看法不谋而合。布莱恩认为，随著2004年度的临近，大型股应开始从小型股手中接过领涨大旗。
在这一点上，市场上种种分析颇多。股市权威人士一般提出如下理由，即：美元走软对于大型跨国公司的帮助颇多。
摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)策略师拜伦?维恩(Byron Wien)在报告中写道，在公司近来为此与基金经理交换意见时，认为大型股明年将领涨的人士占到了三分之二。
此种观点的逻辑基础扎实，但这取决于市场逻辑动机的相应转变，而不依赖于一成不变的现有市场逻辑。因此这种转变的风险比理论上的风险更大。
-0-职业投资者目前对公用事业类股没什么兴趣。美林(Merrill Lynch)最新公布的基金经理月度调查显示，49%的基金经理宣称他们减持了公用事业类股。鉴于市场对周期性股票的追捧以及公用事业公司收益的不确定性，这种操作举动可以理解。但是，这种对公用事业类股的偏见可能有点目光短浅。
Imperium Capital Mangement董事总经理戈德菲尔德(Stephen Goldfield)重点关注公用事业及能源类股，他在市场同时进行长期和短期操作。他认为当前一些趋势对公用事业类股有利，但市场没有充分挖掘这些趋势的价值。
股息税减免一度曾是市场的重磅新闻，但其光芒被随后的科技股飙升所掩盖。不过，股息税减免仍使具有高收益率的公用事业类股变得更具吸引力。
戈德菲尔德还认为，夏季停电事故（以及上周官方对此发布的报告）帮助将监管机构的注意力转移到加强电力基础设施建设上面，此前监管机构颁布的一些提高公用事业费率的规定阻碍了公用事业公司的利润增长。最后，正在国会讨论的能源法案应会导致《公用事业持股公司法令》(Public Utility Holding Company Act,PUHCA)的废止，该法令对行业并购的限制也将不复存在。
戈德菲尔德认为可能进行并购的小型公司有CH Energy、Dayton Power & Light、Scana、Vectren和PNM Resources。在大型公司中，戈德菲尔德认为PPL、First Energy和XCEL存在并购可能。最后，他指出Berkshire Hathaway应会继续收购公用事业公司，Berkshire在不久前刚收购了Mid-American Energy。Berkshire的沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)对投资公用事业公司一直直言不讳，但他在PUHCA被废止之前对此类投资仍心存顾虑。
个股当中，戈德菲尔德看好OGE Energy、Ameren Energy、Pinnacle West和Scottish Power。选择Pinnacle West的原因是其股息率为4.8%，在亚利桑那州的业务发展迅速。虽然Scottish Power在华尔街研究报告中不见踪影，但该公司股息收益率为5.1%，股价具吸引力。Scottish Power有60%的收入来自美国。
由于职业投资者对公用事业类股不感兴趣，此类股票在年底之前可能不是好的交易对象，但在明年以后可能值得持有。
风水轮流转，公用事业股遭弃
职业投资者目前对公用事业类股没什么兴趣。美林(Merrill Lynch)最新公布的基金经理月度调查显示，49%的基金经理宣称他们减持了公用事业类股。鉴于市场对周期性股票的追捧以及公用事业公司收益的不确定性，这种操作举动可以理解。但是，这种对公用事业类股的偏见可能有点目光短浅。
Imperium Capital Mangement董事总经理戈德菲尔德(Stephen Goldfield)重点关注公用事业及能源类股，他在市场同时进行长期和短期操作。他认为当前一些趋势对公用事业类股有利，但市场没有充分挖掘这些趋势的价值。
股息税减免一度曾是市场的重磅新闻，但其光芒被随后的科技股飙升所掩盖。不过，股息税减免仍使具有高收益率的公用事业类股变得更具吸引力。
戈德菲尔德还认为，夏季停电事故（以及上周官方对此发布的报告）帮助将监管机构的注意力转移到加强电力基础设施建设上面，此前监管机构颁布的一些提高公用事业费率的规定阻碍了公用事业公司的利润增长。最后，正在国会讨论的能源法案应会导致《公用事业持股公司法令》(Public Utility Holding Company Act,PUHCA)的废止，该法令对行业并购的限制也将不复存在。
戈德菲尔德认为可能进行并购的小型公司有CH Energy、Dayton Power & Light、Scana、Vectren和PNM Resources。在大型公司中，戈德菲尔德认为PPL、First Energy和XCEL存在并购可能。最后，他指出Berkshire Hathaway应会继续收购公用事业公司，Berkshire在不久前刚收购了Mid-American Energy。Berkshire的沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)对投资公用事业公司一直直言不讳，但他在PUHCA被废止之前对此类投资仍心存顾虑。
个股当中，戈德菲尔德看好OGE Energy、Ameren Energy、Pinnacle West和Scottish Power。选择Pinnacle West的原因是其股息率为4.8%，在亚利桑那州的业务发展迅速。虽然Scottish Power在华尔街研究报告中不见踪影，但该公司股息收益率为5.1%，股价具吸引力。Scottish Power有60%的收入来自美国。
由于职业投资者对公用事业类股不感兴趣，此类股票在年底之前可能不是好的交易对象，但在明年以后可能值得持有。
今年未见起色，嘉信理财股价是否偏低？
旁观者眼中不禁露出讥讽之色。在一些人看来，最具讽刺意味的是，就在今年那斯达克市场飙升40%，且投资者已经返回股市之际，嘉信理财(Charles Schwab)的股价却仍然处于其1月1日的水平以下。
但是，换个角度来看讽刺意味就越发浓厚了。尽管嘉信理财股价落后于大盘，以及同类股已经很长时间了，但考虑到该公司业绩回升缓慢，并面临诸多战略性挑战，该股股价显得仍太高。
嘉信理财差不多是折扣经纪业务的首创者，公司业务在九十年代飞速发展。它吸引众多投资者上网交易，创建了规模庞大的共同基金超市，和广泛的投资顾问网络。但自从股市泡沫破裂以来，嘉信理财不断裁员，增长时断时续，而这被看作是公司业务缺乏战略重点的表现。
透过CyberTrader部门，嘉信理财向那些交易活跃的，有时未免反应过度的交易者们提供服务；与此同时，其U.S. Trust部门却服务于那些较不活跃的有钱人。此外，嘉信理财一直努力向大众，至少是“富裕的大众”，提供投资建议，这包括按客户需求挑选共同基金，透过定量筛选为股票评级，以及将客户介绍给投资顾问等。
在上周的投资者日，嘉信理财的管理层解释了公司的“结构性优势”，即在不太坏的时机处于市场中正确的位置。嘉信理财正向一个颇具吸引力，且人数不断扩大的客户群提供独立的投资建议和众多投资产品，这一事实不容否认。
但批评人士认为，嘉信理财被卡在中间，既不是一家全服务证券公司，也非纯粹仅提供折扣经纪服务。
但是，在那些不轻易改变观点的人看来，嘉信理财真正的问题并不在于品牌定位方面，而是公司利润长期低于整体市场复苏的进程。即使扣除了惯常出现的重组支出，嘉信理财今年每股收益预计仅能升至36美分，高于上年的29美分。明年这一数字有望达到47美分。但与此同时，嘉信理财上周向分析师们发出警告，称惨淡经营数年后，公司明年还将面临较高的薪金和市场营销费用。
即使按照公司预计的2004年利润增长25%来计算，该股最新股价11.42美元也几乎达到来年每股预期收益的25倍，大大高于其他证券公司和资产管理类股的本益比。
嘉信理财上周宣布收购机构研究和经纪公司Soundview Technology Group，但此举并未平息分析师们对其战略重点漂移不定的争论。嘉信理财斥资3.24亿美元现金收购这家从未持续盈利的证券公司，旨在在机构造市领域扩大规模。嘉信理财的资本市场业务基本处于盈亏平衡状态。
一些投资者上周对嘉信理财收购Soundview到底意欲何为提出质疑，他们觉得要实现上述目的，只需积极招募出色员工就可以了。为了避免利益冲突，嘉信理财将中止或者出售Soundview的投资银行业务，但为了留住分析师和交易员，嘉信理财还必须动用大笔资金。
在刚刚结束的财政季度，Soundview收入较前一个季度增加了16.6%，但薪金费用则激增29%。上个财政季度，Soundview每收入1美元，就要向其雇员支付75美分，而业内平均支付水平约为50%。领取这些高额薪金的银行家中，无疑会有一部分不会加入嘉信理财，但即使如此，这项费用基础看起来还是高得不同寻常。Soundview今年的经纪业务收入基本持平，年运营费用约为1亿美元。
嘉信理财表示，这项业务将于2005年为公司的利润增长助一臂之力。但Sandler O'Neill的分析师Richard Repetto认为，要实现预定的利润率，嘉信理财将在Soundview大约250名员工中裁员150人才行。他从上周才开始追踪研究嘉信理财股票，并将该股首次评级定为卖出。
虽然Repetto没有明明白白地这样说，但他的估算意味著嘉信理财以每人超过300万美元的代价招募了100名分析师和交易员。减去Soundview最近一份财务报表上显示的1.4亿美元有形帐面资产后，这笔招募支出会降至每人200万美元左右，但嘉信理财现在就得付款了。也许嘉信理财“独立”研究业务的价值已经大幅提升了，但同时也为自身设定了一个相当高的盈亏平衡点。
对于嘉信理财这个市值160亿美元的公司来说，这笔收购交易并非关乎存亡，何况公司一直在为其核心业务吸引更多客户资产。但是，对于公司形象而言，这笔交易还值得审视。
请注意，嘉信理财在决定收购时的时机选择一直有欠妥当。2002年2月份，当日交易如火如荼之时，嘉信理财同意以价值4.88亿美元的股票收购CyberTrader；在那之前一个月，还宣布以价值27亿美元的股票收购U.S. Trust，而那时也正是资金管理业的价值高峰期。现在，那斯达克市场在过去的一年中飙升了70%，嘉信理财又宣布要收购Soundview这家科技类研究和经纪公司了。
当然，现在回头看去，用价格高昂的股票来进行的前几次交易的价格不算太高。然而，嘉信理财这次可要拿出真金白银来才能收购Soundview了。对于那些看跌嘉信理财股价的投资者而言，能让他们略微质疑自己看法的因素就是卖方分析师看跌和看好该股的人数相当。在追踪该股的15位分析师中，6位分析师将该股评级定为卖出，6位定为持有，另外有3位分析师的评级是买进。（嘉信理财在广告中不时讥讽华尔街的分析师们，它当然无法获得分析师的欢心了，不过这也并非分析师们看跌该股的全部理由。）
无论如何，在公共基金经理人眼中，嘉信理财仍然是一只相当有份量的价值型折扣经纪类股，因此其较高的本益比也一直居高不下。但是，即使不考虑监管机构对共同基金业的调查，嘉信理财要实现其股价中暗含的乐观预期还有很长的一段路要走。
