人工智能的期望达到高潮

今天在《The Motley Fool 隐藏 gems 投资》节目中，我们来聊聊人工智能企业如何达成高昂的盈利预期。

Meeting lofty AI earnings expectations today on Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

欢迎收听《The Motley Fool 隐藏 gems 投资》。

Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

我是你们的主持人泰勒·克罗。

I'm your host, Tyler Crowe.

今天，我邀请到了两位长期的池区贡献者——卢·怀特曼和马特·弗兰克尔。

And today, I'm joined by long time pool contributors, Lou Whiteman and Matt Frankel.

稍后我们会聊到国防企业，谈谈最近行业里的大动作，也会回应听众来信和提问。

We're gonna talk about defense companies later in the show, talking about kind of some of the big moves that are happening in the industry lately and as well as hitting letters or questions.

不过在开始之前，你们也知道，那些构建人工智能的超大规模云服务商，支出还在持续飙升，半导体公司也纷纷创下纪录，但市场似乎还不满足。

But before we get started today, you know, hyperscalers, those builders of AI, they just keep spending more and more, and semiconductor companies are posting record results, but even that doesn't seem to satisfy the market.

三星电子的财报，按任何标准来看都堪称亮眼，可股价却暴跌到触发了韩国综合股价指数的全天交易熔断。

Samsung Electronics reported by what I think any measure would be a resoundingly successful quarter, but the stock dropped so much that it caused a circuit breaker suspension of trading on the entire Korean composite stock price index today.

今天上午，这种跌势已经蔓延到整个半导体板块，许多内存和处理器制造商的股价都出现了明显下滑。

Those losses have carried more or less over into the semiconductor space today as many memory and processing chip manufacturers are down as of this morning.

所以，你们怎么想的？三星的利润比去年这个时候涨了19倍，怎么反而把整个韩国股市都给砸停了？

So guys, how on earth did we go from profits up 19 times compared to this time last year at Samsung to stop the entire Korean stock market?

是的。

Yeah.

这背后确实有很多东西值得细说。

So, I mean, a lot to unpack there.

很多股票的价格，早就押注了一季又一季的超预期表现，不一定是完美，但至少得不断打破纪录。

So a lot of these stocks were priced for not necessarily perfection, but to report blowout quarter after blowout quarter after blowout quarter.

当你已经预期会大爆，结果真出了个大丰收的季度，股价反而可能下跌。

When you expect a blowout and you get, as you called it, a resounding successful quarter, it's enough to make the stock drop.

最近几期财报我们已经看到好几次这样的情形了，不只是内存板块，就连英伟达的几份财报看起来漂亮极了，股价照样跌。

We've we've seen this with several recent earnings reports and not just in the memory space, and and several of NVIDIA's reports look fantastic and the stock ends up falling.

说到三星，你说得对。

In Samsung's case, yes, you're right.

他们确实预期季度运营利润会增长近19倍，但这主要是由AI内存需求推动的。

They are expecting a roughly 19 times increase in quarterly operating profit, but that's being that's being driven by AI memory demand.

投资者似乎开始怀疑，AI内存芯片的涨势是不是涨过头了。

And investors seem to be questioning whether or not the AI memory chip rally has gotten ahead of itself.

这不只是三星的问题。

And it's not just Samsung.

比如美光，就在今天这波跟风下跌之前，财报发布后股价已经跌了大约三成，那还是几周前的事。

If you look at Micron, for example, even before today's, you know, kind of sympathy drop, it was down by about 30% since earnings, and that was just a couple weeks ago.

公司营收也略微没达到预期，所以这季度并不完美。

So the company also slightly missed revenue guidance, so it's not a a flawless quarter.

还有SK海力士在美国上市，融了数百亿美元，这也在增加市场压力——现在内存芯片的供应量实在太多了。

And there's also SK Hynix US listing that raised billions and billions of dollars of capital, and that could be adding pressure as memory there's just more memory stock supply, in the market right now.

说到底，你说得对。

I mean, the bottom line is you're right.

三星这季度绝对不算差，但市场已经把太多利好预期都定价进去了，有点过头了。

Samsung didn't have a bad quarter by any definition, but the amount of good news that has been priced into these stocks seems to have gone a little bit too far.

是的。

Yeah.

在市场层面，这确实让行情停了下来。

On the market, this is halting the market thing.

值得注意的是，SK海力士和三星两家公司加起来占了韩国综合指数的53%。

It's important to note that two companies, SK Hynix and Samsung, make up about 53% of the Korean, total market index.

所以一家公司确实能拖住整个市场，但话说回来，三星今年至今已经涨了150%，其他公司涨得更多。

So this one company can hold to market kind of, but, look, even with this, Samsung is up 150% to date, others are up more.

在我看来，这完全说得通。

This seems 100% rational to me.

市场总是前瞻性的。

The market is forward looking.

我们永远都在看未来。

We're always looking to the future.

这种行情要么会一直持续，要么就不会。

This is either going to last forever or it's not.

如果它不会永远持续，那迟早该落袋为安了。

And if it's not going to last forever, at some point you should take profits.

我觉得这正是我们今天看到的情况。

I think that's what we're seeing today.

我觉得这事没那么复杂，没必要过度解读。

I don't think there's really too much to read into it more than that.

我觉得投资者和我们其他人一样，都在看同样的世界：这波行情确实不错，但不知道能不能一直持续下去，不如先落袋为安。

I think investors are looking at the same world that I think the rest of us are and saying, Look, this has been great, I don't know if it can go on forever, I'm going to book some gains.

说到这些预期，我最难理解的是，就算按最普通的眼光来看，从基本面——比如资本支出这些数据——也依然非常强劲。

You know, the thing that's hard for me to also rationalize when we're talking about the expectations game of all of this is that even by most standards, this is looking like from a fundamental basis, like you look at the underlying numbers of like capital investment and all that stuff, it still looks incredible.

简直难以想象，这样的表现还满足不了华尔街的期望。

It's almost hard to fathom that this can't meet the appetite of what Wall Street's expecting.

今天早些时候，亚马逊宣布要发行大约250亿美元的债券，而且利率还非常优惠。

I mean, Amazon earlier today announced it was raising about $25,000,000,000 in debt and at very favorable rates.

当然，这是亚马逊嘛。

I mean, of course, it's Amazon.

除此之外，你还能指望什么？

What else would you expect?

这也不是第一家这么做的公司了。

This isn't the first company to do it either.

Alphabet 今年就已经在债务和股权市场上融资了。

I mean, Alphabet's tapped the debt and equity markets this year.

几乎所有的超大规模云服务商，从 Alphabet 到亚马逊、Meta，都是一样的。

And like nearly all hyperscalers from Alphabet to Amazon, Meta, you name it.

他们增发资本预算的时候，连眉头都不皱一下，CFO 也根本睡不着觉，好像每季度都在加码。

They're they don't even raise an eyebrow or even like the CFO doesn't even seem to like lose a bit of sleep when they're increasing their annual capital spending budgets seemingly every quarter.

那我们该怎么解释这些股价的剧烈波动呢？我们之前不是说，这是在玩预期游戏吗？可基本面看起来依然强得惊人啊。

So like how do we rationalize these wild stock moves and what were we saying, playing the expectation games when the fundamentals still look surprisingly strong?

明白了。

Okay.

对。

Yep.

先说亚马逊吧。

First of all, on Amazon.

明白。

Okay.

对这些大公司来说，关键是融资成本。

For these big companies, the focus is always on cost of capital.

能用最省钱的方式筹钱，就尽量这么干。

You raise money at the most cost effective way you can.

就像你刚才说的，他们现在拿到的利率真的很优惠。

And as you said, they're getting very favorable rates here.

四十年期的融资，利率只比美国国债高不到1.5个百分点。

Forty year money at less than 150 basis points above US treasuries.

这条件简直太好了。

That is a really, really good deal.

考虑到他们庞大的资金需求，别光说AI了，物流、其他所有方面呢？

Given their massive cash needs, forget AI, what about logistics, everything else?

有这么低的融资成本，不这么做才怪呢。

And given the cost here, they'd be crazy not to do this.

所以我觉得，这其实没什么特别的，就是一家大公司按该做的那样在行事。

So I don't think this really says anything other than they are a large company doing as they should.

但更关键的问题是，这里到底发生了什么？

As to the bigger question though of like, what's going on here?

这能持续下去吗？

Is it sustainable?

为什么会出现这么大的分歧？

Why is there this dissidence?

我觉得，得提一下杰里米·格兰瑟姆，这位非常非常聪明的投资者。

I think, and I got to credit Jeremy Grantham here, the very, very, very smart investor.

这是他的观点，但真的特别重要。

This is his point, but it's such an important one.

这些公司，包括MAG七巨头和所有超大规模云服务商，比如亚马逊、谷歌，都是从切入一个细分领域并彻底掌控它开始崛起的。

All of these companies, all of the MAG seven, all of the hyperscalers, Amazon, Alphabet, all of them got to where they are by jumping into a niche and dominating it.

这群领军人物的共同经验就是：要快速建立自己的帝国，尽早占领自己的地盘。

The collective learned experience from this group of leaders is the pathway to access is to build your empire, claim your turf as quickly as possible.

在这种情况下，没人会退出人工智能领域，尤其是因为AI已经被捧上了神坛，成了前所未有的终极目标。

No one is backing down on AI in that scenario, especially since AI has been presented as the holy grail, the quest like no other.

除非别无选择，否则谁都不会退缩。

You are not going to back down unless you have no other choice.

所以，事情是不是已经失控了？

So are things getting out of hand?

有可能，大概率是的。

Maybe, probably.

但我坚信，这些公司会一直干下去，直到实在干不动为止。

But I really believe that these companies, it will continue until they can't.

这次融资就是一个提醒：他们手里还有大把的牌可打，所以肯定会继续推进。

And the debt raise here is a reminder, there's still plenty of levers to pull and so they will be continuing.

对。

Yeah.

而且我得补充一点背景，这可不只是亚马逊拿下了二百五十亿美元的融资那么简单。

And I mean, just to throw some additional context behind that, I mean, this isn't just a $25,000,000,000 capital raise from Amazon.

这还不算他们今年通过发债已经筹集的大约650亿美元。

This is in addition to the 65,000,000,000 or so they've already raised this year through bond sales.

也就是说，亚马逊今年总共筹集了900亿美元。

I mean, that's so that's 90,000,000,000 from Amazon this year.

谷歌过去一年的债务融资也达到了约850亿美元。

Alphabet's raised about 85,000,000,000 in debt over the past year.

而且他们可能还没完。

And they might not be done.

我看到一个数据，今年整个超大规模云服务商的债券发行总额预计将达到3万亿美元，而去年才1.21万亿。

I mean, I saw one statistic that total hyperscaler bond sales are expected to reach about 300,000,000,000 this year versus a 121,000,000,000 for last year.

路说得很对。

And Lou's right.

这些融资条件非常有利，尤其是四十年期的债券。

These terms are very favorable, especially for forty year bonds.

这不仅是为了以低成本融资，还能锁定几十年的利率，规避利率波动的风险。

They serve that that extra purpose of not only, you know, low cost capital, but locking in the rate for decades, protecting from interest rate fluctuations.

而且，你看我们目前看到的投资者兴趣，我刚提到的这些交易——比如谷歌那八百五十亿美元的融资——几乎全都超额认购了。

And and, I mean, the investor interest we're seeing, all of these deals that I just talked about, you know, the 85,000,000,000 in app in in deals from Google, they've pretty much all been oversubscribed.

这说明，今年他们再筹集更多资金应该不会有什么困难。

So it shows that any further capital raises this year are likely to not be a problem.

而且这两家公司目前的杠杆率仍然很低，至少从账面上看是这样。

And both these companies still have very low leverage ratios, at least on paper.

这些可都是规模巨大的企业。

These are massive, massive companies.

我们看到的债务与EBITDA比率大概在百分之零点四到百分之零点七之间。

I mean, point four to point 7% debt to EBITDA ratios is what we're seeing here.

而整个投资级信用债的平均比率大约是三倍左右。

The overall investment grade credit rated average is about three times debt to EBITDA.

所以它们的缓冲空间其实非常充裕。

And so there's a lot of cushion here.

与此同时，这些超大型科技公司还是第一次在资产负债表上增加这种规模的债务。

At at the same time, these are the first time these mega cap tech companies are really adding this type of debt to their balance sheets.

所以，这些人工智能投资能否持续，关键在于它们得尽快产生让投资者满意的高利润率收入。

So the the the question of whether or not it's sustainable, these AI investments are gonna have to start generating high margin revenue at a pace that satisfies investors.

这么说有点模糊，但这是有意为之。

And now that's vague for a reason.

我们也不确定具体指什么，但未来我们确实得看到这样的进展。

We don't know when that's what that means, but that's what we're gonna need to see here.

我们会继续关注季度预期，因为不久后就要公布第二季度的财报了。

Well, we'll we'll keep playing the quarterly expectations game because we do have second quarter earnings coming up in the not too distant future here.

广告结束后，我们再来聊聊国防行业的动态公司。

Coming up at another after the break, we're gonna do some movers and shakers in the defense industry.

2026年，我一直在努力改善健康，但我发现一件事：如果你不追踪血液指标，那就等于在瞎子摸象。

In 2026, I've been trying to improve my health, but here's the thing I found, if you're not tracking your blood work, you're basically flying blind.

所以我才特别高兴能和Rhythm合作。

That's why I'm excited to partner with Rhythm.

Rhythm是目前最容易使用的血液检测服务，能帮你了解身体内部的真实状况。

Rhythm is the world's easiest blood test to help you learn what's happening inside your body.

在家操作只要两分钟，不用打针，只需贴一个设计简洁、无痛的采集装置在手臂上。

Takes about two minutes at home, no needles, just a sleek and painless collection device that sticks on your arm.

血液采好后，把样本放进Rhythm提供的包装里，他们还会主动安排上门取件。

Once your blood is collected, you put the sample in the package that Rhythm provides, and they will even arrange to have it picked up from your front door.

我一个月前做了第一次检测。

I did my first test about a month ago.

Rhythm的检测套件寄到家里了。

The rhythm kit came in the mail.

我花两分钟就采好了血。

I drew my blood in about two minutes.

再简单不过了。

Couldn't be easier.

大概两天后结果就出来了，他们的平台让数据一目了然。

The results were live in about two days, and their portal makes it easy to understand what's going on.

他们还配了AI健康助手，帮你解读结果并给出建议。

They've even got an AI health coach to help explain your results and recommend actions.

自从做了检测，我的饮食习惯就变了。

Since I got my labs, I've changed the way I've eaten.

体重开始往下掉，而且很容易判断像GLP-1这样的疗法是否适合你。

Pounds are starting to come off, and it's easy to determine if something like a GLP one is right for you.

我平时不太爱跑医院，但能在家完成检测、快速拿到结果，这让我彻底入坑了，第二套工具已经寄在路上了。

I'm not one to run to the doctor, So the fact that I can do this at home and get fast results is what has me hooked, and my second kit is already on the way.

Rhythm每月只要79美元，还不到传统检测费用的零头，直接送货上门，随时可退。

Rhythm is only $79 per month, a fraction of traditional lab testing, ships right to your door, and you can cancel anytime.

现在，Rhythm为我们的听众提供首月85折优惠，还有免运费，访问 rhythm.com/fool 即可领取。

Right now, Rhythm is offering our listeners 15% off for your first month and free shipping at rhythm.com/fool.

记得通过 rhythmhealth.com/fool 注册，首月85折，包邮到家。

That's rhythmwith1hrythmhealth.com/fool for 15% off your first month and free shipping.

别再瞎猜了。

Stop guessing.

开始检测吧，访问 rhythmhealth.com/fool。

Start testing rhythmhealth.com/fool.

这周北约峰会正在土耳其安卡拉举行，接下来几天肯定会有不少与国防相关的消息发布，毕竟一堆首席执行官聚在一起，总得谈点生意。

So with the NATO summit happening this week in Ankara, Turkey, there's likely gonna be a lot of defense related announcements this weekend in the coming days because, you know, bunch of CEOs get together.

他们一聊起来，交易自然就来了。

They start talking, you know, deals start to happen.

昨天我们就看到第一个动静了，洛克希德·马丁宣布收购一家叫Ultramaritime的私人声呐公司，价格是34.5亿美元。

And we got one of the first ones yesterday when Lockheed Martin announced it was acquiring sonar specialist, its private company, Ultramaritime, for 3,450,000,000.

我知道，对洛克希德这种体量的公司来说，这笔钱不算大，但这会影响他们在行业里的地位吗？

Now I get that this on a Lockheed scale thing is a relatively small deal, but does this change the company's standing in the industry at all?

Lou，如果我没理解错的话，洛克希德现在是想分散业务，别再那么依赖F-35战斗机了——那玩意儿可是他们长期以来的王牌平台。

Correct me if I'm wrong, Lou, but I think Lockheed is trying to diversify its portfolio, not be quite as reliant on the F-thirty five fighter, which has been kind of their like, call it like their flagship platform for a while.

对。

Yeah.

洛克希德·马丁其实是整个行业里业务最多元的公司，但F-35还是占了很大一块，差不多占了年收入的三成。

So the Lockheed Martin is arguably the most diversified portfolio in the sector, but the F-thirty five is still a lot of it, about 30% of annual revenue.

他们还做直升机、导弹、导弹防御系统、传感器，还有航天业务。

Lockheed does helicopters, they do missiles, missile defense, sensors, space.

所以他们做的业务挺多的。

So they do a lot of things.

很多能力，尤其是传感器和电子设备方面的，都是通过收购得来的。

And a lot of those capabilities, especially in areas like sensors and electronics came via acquisitions.

主承包商长期以来都习惯用小规模收购来补充研发。

The Primes have a long history of augmenting their R and D with bolt on deals.

这正是当前的趋势之一。

That's part of the trend here.

在这一点上，洛克希德的实力可能不如一些其他公司。

This is an area where, you know, Lockheed isn't as strong as maybe some other players.

这确实是他们关注的领域之一，但更多是顺势而为，而不是什么战略性的重大举动。

It is an area of interest among many other things, but, so it it fits well in the overall trend, But I don't think this is really a statement deal as much as it is opportunistic.

Lou，你提到的这种配套收购，我记得你过去十年里一直都在写这个话题——像洛克希德这样的公司，收购其实是有上限的，毕竟国防主承包商这个圈子已经相当集中了。

So Lou, when you talk about bolt on deals, and this is something I think I've seen you write about for, I don't know, probably like the past ten years, is the idea of like, there's only so much acquisition that like, the companies like Lockheed can do because it's a pretty consolidated industry when it comes to like the defense primes.

而且现在，像洛克希德和RTX这种公司，根本不可能再合并了。

And, you know, there's certainly no place where, I don't know, Lockheed and RTX can join forces these days.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yeah.

而且他们其实也不太想这么做。

And, nor do they want to really.

但确实，我我

But yeah, I I

我觉得看待这个问题的方式，不是说加新平台有多难。

think the way to think of this isn't it's hard to add platforms.

洛克希德当年收购西科斯基的时候就做过，确实有这种机会，但那时候卖家就是想脱手，五角大楼也得给直升机业务找个好归宿。

Lockheed did it when they bought Sikorsky, so there are some opportunities But in that case, the seller just wanted out, so the Pentagon needed to get a good home for the helicopter business.

你买的是研发能力。

What you are buying here is the R and D.

你买的是技术准入和供应链资源，而不是新的平台，大部分主承包商的交易都是冲着这个来的。

What you are buying is access to technologies, kind of access to the supply chains more than you are new platforms, and that's where you see most of the prime deals happen.

另外，马特，为了给你一些背景，刚才路谈到的是直升机、航天、航空这类领域。

And, Matt, just for some context here, like Lou was talking about helicopters, space, aeronautics, stuff like that.

你知道，我之前没怎么提潜艇和声呐这方面。

You know, I didn't mention as much about submarines and sonar.

那以洛克希德为例，这在多大程度上改变了他们的定位？

So in terms of, like, Lockheed, where does this kind of position them a little bit?

这算是进入新领域了吗？

This is moving into new territory here?

是的。

Yeah.

你的说法没错，从洛克希德整体业务来看，这笔交易确实很小。

I mean, so you're right in the sense that this is a very small deal in in the overall business.

还不到洛克希德年总收入的5%。

It's less than 5% of of Lockheed's total annual revenue.

但它显著增强了他们在反潜作战领域的实力，而目前全球对这一领域的国防需求正在快速上升。

It does significantly grow the position in anti submarine warfare, and that's really an area of defense where we're seeing global demand rising right now.

水下威慑是美国和北约当前的重中之重，主要是应对海外局势和正在发生的冲突。

Undersea deterrence is a big priority of US, NATO, in response to what's going on overseas and in the conflicts we're seeing.

对。

Yeah.

确实，任何能与情报传感器这类技术挂钩的，

Certainly anything that can be tied to

比如探测设备这类东西，而不是

intelligence sensors seeking stuff like that, versus

金属加工似乎成了现在的主流趋势。

metal bending seems to be the trend here.

我觉得这个超远洋交易最吸引我的一点是，它触及了国防工业中一个较少被讨论的趋势——国防采购重点的转变。

Then that's one of the things I found most intriguing about this ultra maritime deal is I think it hits at one of the lesser discussed stories in the defense industry, and that's the changing priorities for defense sending.

这十年来的各种冲突，无论是伊朗、乌克兰还是其他地方，都清楚地表明，小型、廉价、一次性使用的无人机在对抗昂贵装备时非常有效。

One thing that has become abundantly clear in conflicts this decade, whether it would be Iran, Ukraine, elsewhere, is the emergence of small, cheap, single use drones that are very, very effective against much, much more expensive equipment.

这种趋势是不是彻底改变了整个行业？

And I in this is this trend like a complete game changer to the industry?

我是这么想的，我觉得确实是这样。

I I mean, I certainly think though.

或者你们怎么看？

Or it you know, what do you guys say?

这是主要方向，还是仅仅作为一个补充？

Is it that or just like a supplemental add on?

因为在我看来，无人机和小型装备不需要像制造F-35战斗机或巨型航母那样，依赖庞大的供应链和高度协调的协作。

Because the way I see it, drones and smaller equipment doesn't require, like, the massive supply chains and coordinated efforts to build the f 35 or a gigantic aircraft carrier or something like that.

你知道的，洛克希德·马丁、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼以及其他那些大型国防承包商，几十年来一直擅长的是把二十七个不同的分包商整合到一起，去完成一些规模宏大的项目。

You know, the things that Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, and the other defense prime contractors have specialized in for decade is taking 27 different subcontractors, pulling them all together and doing something epically large.

而一次性无人机，大概十五到二十五磅重，带点炸药，再加个遥控器。

Single use drones, I don't know, fifteen, twenty five pounds, couple explosives, and a and a remote control.

这似乎真的改变了我们做事的方式。

It seems to really change the way we're doing things here.

对。

Yeah.

嗯，重点放在廉价一次性无人机上，这明显反映了国防预算的转向。

Well, I mean, the emphasis on cheap single use drones, it's a clear shift in defense budgets.

这种趋势是和传统合同模式并行的，并不一定取代它。

It's happening alongside their traditional contract model, not necessarily replacing it.

现在五角大楼的预算里，这一项金额很大，但传统项目的拨款也大多在增加。

It's a big line item in in the Pentagon's budget right now, but the the traditional line items have mostly increased as well.

国防部的弹头部门有个无人机主导计划，打算采购数十万架小型攻击无人机，但他们把这些都当成消耗品，而不是耐用品。

I mean, the Department of Warhead, they have their drone dominance program that aims to buy hundreds of thousands of small attack drones, but they've kinda considered them consumable supplies, not as durable equipment.

所以五角大楼已经订购了大约两万两千架这类无人机。

So the the Pentagon's ordered about 22,000 of these.

这可不是小数目，而且产能还在快速提升。

So that's you know, it's not a small order, and production is just ramping up.

但这些无人机和战斗机、潜艇、导弹系统相比，是完全不同的工具，用在不同的任务上。

But these are different tools for different jobs compared to like fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems.

确实供应链简化了一些，但如果你看看像AirVironment或Kratos这样的大公司，就会发现供应链依然相当复杂。

So there is some supply chain simplification, but I think if you look at some of these big companies like AirVironment or Kratos, you will see that there is still pretty complex supply chains.

归根结底，这些还是系统集成商，该做的工作一样都不能少。

These are at the end of the day systems integrators and you still need to do that work.

只是规模不一样了。

It's just at a different scale.

作为投资者，我觉得这些低成本无人机的商业故事有点矛盾——让军方感兴趣的成本优势，反而让投资者提不起劲。

The issue as an investor, a business story with these low cost drones is what makes them intriguing to defense planners makes them, I think, less intriguing for investors, the cost.

你得靠销量来把利润补回来。

You know, you you really have to make it up on volume here.

不过更大的趋势呢，泰勒，你之前也提到过，就是别再一味追求金属加工了。

The bigger trend though, Tyler, and you and you mentioned this kind of to move away from metal bending.

这里最大的趋势，跟其他所有行业一样，就是数字化。

The big trend here is the same trend you see in every other industry, digitalization.

价值正从制造大型设备的人，转向那些让设备变智能的人——也就是电子技术部分。

The value is shifting from just the people who make the big objects to the ones that make them smart, the electronics.

这正是LHXS崛起背后的故事。

That's the story behind the emergence of LHXS.

这就是洛克希德想收购超蓝公司的来龙去脉。

That's the story of Lockheed wanting to buy Ultramarine.

这种情况还会继续下去。

This will continue.

好的。

All right.

关键在于，关于这些新兴企业是否能取代传统巨头，我认为它们实际上是在帮巨头们做事。

The thing is, and the real big trend here as far as whether it replaces the primes, I think it actually ends up working for them.

对国防承包商来说，中型市场处境非常艰难。

The middle market is brutal for defense contractors.

根本就没什么像样的中型市场。

There is almost not a middle market.

中型企业都被淘汰了，因为这行太难生存了。

It just gets consolidated out of business because it's a tough business to survive.

传统巨头最大的优势，在于他们能跟五角大楼同步节奏、顺畅沟通。

The biggest competitive advantage the primes have is their ability to work on the timetable and communicate with the Pentagon.

这对硅谷的初创公司来说尤其难掌握。

That is hard for especially a Silicon Valley startup to to learn.

大多数这类公司在五到十年内都不会保持独立。

Most of these companies will not be independent in five to ten years.

真正成功的可能只有一两家新公司能冒出来。

The successful ones, there might be one or two new companies that come out of it.

大部分会被并入更大的业务板块，不太成功的就只能拆了卖零件。

Most of them will be part of bigger portfolios, less successful ones will be sold for parts.

但我认为这不过是延续了二三十年来的趋势——更看重智能化，而不是单纯追求庞大笨重的装备。

But I think this is just continuing a twenty or thirty year story in just looking to smarter rather than just powerful big mammoth equipment.

说到业务板块的频繁调整，我有个小故事，正好能反映这个行业的大致状况。

To the portfolio shuffling, moving around thing, just an anecdote, and it kinda speaks to that industry in general.

我有个叔叔在给海军做声呐电子设备，这个项目

I have an uncle that works on basically sonar electronics for for the Navy and that

据说已经换过五家不同的国防巨头了，这充分说明了它的‘烫手山芋’属性——今天可能属于这个公司，明天就转到另一个了。

particular project has, I think, moved to five different defense primes at any given time and it really shows like, you know, the hot potato nature that, you know, one one moment it could be a part of one portfolio, it could be part of the other.

看起来资产一直在不断重组和优化。

There seems to be a lot of shuffling around and optimization of assets.

所以，像你所说的，很多中小型公司被吞并或者拆卖，拿走一部分，其余的卖掉，这其实一点都不意外。

And so it wouldn't be surprising to see a lot of, like you said, the smaller middle market people either getting gobbled up or sold off for parts and, you know, we'll take a little bit of this here and then sell off the rest.

这里有一件挺有意思的事，因为涉及这么多公司，哪怕有一家在无人水下设备领域特别火，洛克希德也直接给它们定了个估值倍数。

The one I think interesting thing too here, because you have so many companies, even if there's one that's really popular in underwater on on uncrewed vehicles, Lockheed sort of just put a valuation multiple on these.

他们对Ultra的估值大概是销售额的四倍，作为投资者，现在拿这个跟一些上市公司的估值比，会发现很多未来增长空间其实已经体现在价格里了。

You know, they're paying about four times sales for Ultra, which I think it's interesting now as an investor to compare that to some of the public company valuations out there, may suggest that a lot of the future growth is priced in.

我觉得你提到的这家公司。

I feel like you company here.

你能点一个具体的名字吗？

Do you wanna name a chain?

或者不用了。

Or no.

这方面的公司太多了。

There's a lot

这些公司都包括在内。

of them.

我们就说到这里吧。

Let's just leave it at that.

不过作为投资者，你始终应该看看可比公司的估值。

I think as an investor, you should always look at the comps, though.

广告之后，我们会回答一些听众提问。

Coming up after the break, we're gonna hit some podcast questions.

我一直想做一个关于贩毒集团在美国活动的报道。

I've been wanted to do a story about cartel presence in The US.

我们从一起女性遇害案开始调查，她被折磨，手指被砍断，最后惨遭杀害。

We started with a murder investigation of this woman who was tortured, and they cut off her fingers and then eventually killed her.

她是被贩毒集团杀害的，地点就在佐治亚州一个偏僻的地方。

And she was killed by the cartel, and it was in the middle of nowhere in Georgia.

后来我们跟进调查，发现他们无处不在，尤其喜欢在小镇上活动。

And then we followed the investigation, and she had realized that they're everywhere and particularly like to operate in small town America.

如果你想了解毒贩如何明目张胆地潜伏，不妨听听《乔丹·哈伯曼秀》第13集的第二部分。

If you wanna hear how cartels hide in plain sight, check out episode 13 o two of the Jordan Harbinger Show.

大家好。

Hey, everyone.

提醒一下。

Quick reminder.

如果你想让自己的问题在节目中被念到，就发邮件到 podcasts@fool.com。

If you wanna get your question read on air, go ahead and email us at podcasts@fool.com.

邮箱是 podcasts@fool.com。

That's podcastwithans@fool.com.

记住，问题要简短有趣，别问那种需要个性化建议的事，我们真没法提供，不然会惹麻烦。

Just remember, keep it foolish, keep it short, and don't ask for any try to any kind of personalized advice because we certainly can't do that without getting in trouble.

今天的问题来自丽莎。

So today's question comes from Lisa.

她问：我刚听说了沉没成本谬误。

And the question is, I just heard about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

我是股票投资的新手，手里持有一些亏损严重的股票。

I'm a new investor to individual stocks, and I've been holding on to some stocks that have had significant losses.

同时，我的投资组合里也有一些涨幅很大的股票。

I've also been looking at some stocks with huge gains in my portfolio.

我想知道，投资者到底该在什么时候，把钱投到有潜力赚钱的公司，而不是继续亏下去？

I wonder what point do investors reinvest in companies that could gain money instead of losing it.

到目前为止，我还没卖那些亏钱的股票，总觉得一卖，心里就乱了。

So far, haven't sold for loss, and I feel like I'd be opening up a can of worms for, myself mentally.

谢谢你们给出这么棒的建议。

Thank you for the awesome advice.

我每天都听你们的播客。

I listen to your podcast daily.

谢谢你，Lisa，这么暖心的留言。

Thank you, Lisa, for the for the kind words.

Matt，在你回答Lisa的问题之前，能不能先给大家简单讲讲什么是‘沉没成本谬误’？怕有些人还不太清楚。

And, Matt, before you give your answer to Lisa's question, why don't you just give us a quick refresher on sunk cost fallacy for anybody who may not necessarily be as aware of it?

是的。

Yeah.

沉没成本谬误指的是，你过去花的钱或投入的努力，影响了你未来的决策。

So the sunk cost fallacy, it it refers to letting money or effort that you've already spent influence a forward looking decision.

拿我们现在讨论的情况来说，你当初买股票的价格，跟它现在是不是个好投资完全没关系。

So to put that in the context of what we're doing here, what you originally paid for a stock has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good investment today.

Lou 以每股3美元的价格买了火箭实验室的股票。

Lou bought Rocket Lab for $3 a share.

那个价格跟它当前价位是否值得投资毫无关系。

That has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good investment at at the current price.

真正重要的，是公司现在的状况和未来的增长前景。

So only the current state of the business and its future growth prospects do.

从心理上讲，承认亏损并卖出，是个很难跨过的坎。

So psychologically, making a loss real by selling it is a tough hurdle to overcome.

说实话，这可能就是我比Tyler建议的多持有波士顿奥马哈股票整整两年的原因。

Honestly, it's probably why I held on to Boston, Omaha for two years longer than Tyler said I should have.

这实际上等于承认你的决定没达到预期，接受起来确实不容易。

It it essentially serves to confirm a decision didn't work out the way you wanted to, which can be difficult to accept.

所以你可以问问自己这个问题。

So try asking yourself this question.

如果你现在手里是现金，而不是这些股票，你会愿意按现在的价格再买进同样的股票吗？

If you had cash today instead of these shares of stock, would you choose to buy the exact stock at today's price?

如果答案是否定的，那很可能说明你该放手了。

If the answer is no, it's probably a sign that you should go ahead and move on.

记住，今天卖出并不意味着你当初的决定是错的。

Remember that selling today doesn't mean that your original decision was wrong.

它只是说明，这只股票现在不再是个好的投资选择。

It just means that the stock is no longer a good investment right now.

基于今天的信息做出这个决定，完全可能是正确的。

It could a 100% be the right move when it's based on today's information.

我也有类似的体会。

Got a similar answer.

对我来说，我总是回头想想当初为什么买，然后问自己那些理由现在还成立吗。

You know, for me, it's always I try and focus on the reasons I bought in the first place and ask myself if they're still valid.

说到底，时间越久，你掌握的信息就越多，这样能帮你做出更明智的决定。

If anything, time just gives you added data, you know, so you can maybe make a more informed decision.

只要当初的理由还站得住脚，不管涨得多高还是跌得多惨，我都会尽量拿着。

But if the reasons are still valid, whether it's up big or down big, I try and hold on.

如果理由不成立了，那确实该考虑卖了。

If they're not, then yeah, I probably should sell.

如果股价跌得特别厉害，也有可能是我当初买的时候判断错了。

It's possible my original reasons to buy were wrong if something's way down.

所以我觉得，时间带来的新信息确实该让你重新评估，但我个人从不拿涨跌来决定买进或卖出。

So I think you, again, the additional time gives you data, you should reassess, but I don't personally let performance drive my buy and sell decisions.

我买的大多数股票，都是打算拿上几十年，而不是几个季度。

Most stocks I'm buying, I'm hoping to hold for a long time in decades, not quarters.

所以如果一两年还没起色，不等于它将来就不会成功，但你要是完全不回头看看出了什么问题，那才真是糊涂。

So if things haven't worked out in a year or so, say, that isn't necessarily a reason to believe it can't work out long term, but you'd be crazy not to at least reassess and look at what has happened since you bought.

是的。

Yeah.

这个问题对很多人来说特别相关，因为最近单只股票的投资波动性，比以往任何时候都大。

This is a really relevant sort of question too for a lot of people because we've seen recently, single stock investing has been quite volatile relative to times we've ever seen.

我们刚才在节目开头还提到，半导体股票一天之内就能有几百亿美元的波动。

We were just talking about at the top of the show, big moves in semiconductor stocks that are moving hundreds of billions of dollars in any given day.

所以，要把企业的基本面——也就是我们买股票的根本理由——和短期内的价格波动区分开来，真的非常困难。

So it can be extremely challenging to separate the business case, which I think for most of us is the thesis that you buy a stock versus the price machinations in any given moment, the valuation.

很多人在投资时最难跨越的一步，就是搞清楚：当初买这只股票的理由还成立吗？现在看到的变动，到底是估值变化，还是企业本身真的出了问题，比如管理层变动，或者其他可能彻底改变公司前景的因素？

And that can be a hard bridge for a lot of people to cross or get over when it comes to investing is understanding, have the business fundamentals of why I bought this business still maintain, and is what I'm seeing today more valuation related than it is related to actual deterioration of business or a management change or something that, you know, may materially change the trajectory of the business.

所以在思考这些问题时，试着分辨清楚：是股价估值的问题，还是企业本身发生了变化？

So as you're thinking through these things, trying to find that separation of, is it stock valuation related or is it business change related?

能把这两者区分开来，对做出正确的投资决策会有很大帮助。

And finding the difference between those two can really help you make those sort of decisions.

和往常一样，节目中的嘉宾可能持有他们提到的股票，而The Motley Fool也可能对这些股票有正式的买入或卖出建议。

As always, people in the program may have interest in stocks they talk about and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against.

所以别光听别人说什么就去买或卖股票。

So don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear.

所有个人理财内容都遵循富达的编辑标准，并经过广告商审核。

All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is approved by advertisers.

广告属于赞助内容，仅提供信息参考。

Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only.

如需查看我们的完整广告披露，请参阅节目说明。

To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes.

感谢制作人丹·博伊德和整个团队。

Thanks from producer Dan Boyd and the rest of the team.

我是路、马特，还有我自己，感谢收听，我们下次再聊。

From Lou, Matt, myself, thanks for listening and we'll chat again soon.