GE航空进军垂直领域（整合）

专业化已经过时了。

Specialization is out.

垂直整合又回来了。

Vertical integration is back.

Motley Fool 隐藏宝石投资现在开始。

Motley Fool hidden gems investing starts now.

欢迎收听 Motley Fool 隐藏宝石投资。

Welcome to Motley Fool hidden gems investing.

我是你们的主持人，Crowe。

I'm your host, Crowe.

今天和我一起的是长期撰稿人 Lou Whiteman。

And today, I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors, Lou Whiteman.

还有临时加入的。

And pulling in for spot duty.

今天周二节目请到了 Travis Hoium。

We got Travis Hoium today on the Tuesday show.

所以我们要聊聊网络安全。

So we're gonna talk about cybersecurity.

最近这事儿经常上新闻，而且我们有一家公司，波士顿科学，就最近发生的网络安全和黑客攻击的影响，发布了一个相当重要的公告。

It's been in the news lately, and we had a company, Boston Scientific, make a pretty significant announcement related to the impacts of cybersecurity and hacks that have happened recently.

我们待会儿会聊到邮件，但今天想先从一个，不能说最大的新闻，但绝对值得讨论的事情开始。

Gonna get into the mailback, but we want to start today with, I wouldn't say the biggest news, but certainly something that is worth discussing.

通用电气航空航天宣布，将以大约117亿美元收购私营公司联合精密产品。

GE Aerospace announced it is acquiring private company Consolidated Precision Products for about $11,700,000,000.

这是一家由私募股权拥有的精密制造公司之一。

It's one of those precision manufacturing companies owned by private equity.

你知道，对于通用电气航空航天这样一家3520亿美元的公司来说，这不算小交易，但也不一定算大。

You know, for a $352,000,000,000 company that is GE Aerospace, you know, that's not a small deal, but it's not necessarily big either.

管理层声称，这将在第一年就增加每股收益。

Management claims it'll be about it'll earnings per share accretive in year one.

我们拭目以待。

We'll see.

你知道吗？

You know?

但我觉得，这更多是一个战略性的举措。

But, you know, I think more than anything, this is a strategic move.

Consolidated Precision Products是这个行业中四大主要零部件制造商之一，主要生产像喷气涡轮叶片之类的产品。

Consolidated Precision Products is one of four major component manufacturers in this industry, kind of building, like, jet turbine blades and things like that.

所以我的问题是，Travis，你看到这笔交易时，你的主要反应是什么？

So I guess my question is, Travis, when you looked at this deal, what was your major reaction here?

我觉得从战略上讲，这非常合理，尤其是如果这是你的瓶颈之一，你看到增长和需求，如果供应商能在你需要的时候多供应一些，你或许就能满足这些需求。

I think it makes a ton of strength sense strategically, especially if this is one of your bottlenecks, you see growth and and demand that you can maybe meet if the supplier would just supply you with a little bit more stuff when you need it.

所以从这个角度看，我觉得这非常合理。

So from that sense, it it I think it makes a lot of sense.

但当你看看工业领域和能源领域，这个价格有点离谱。

The price is a little bit wild when you look at the industrial space and energy.

通常，公司不会以26倍的EBITDA来收购，而这笔交易就是这样的。

Typically, companies aren't going for 26 times EBITDA, which is what this deal was for.

他们说，在考虑协同效应等因素之后，实际价格会低于这个数。

They said it's gonna be less than that after things like synergies.

关于你提到的会提升每股收益这一点，确实会提升，因为他们是用资产负债表上的现金和债务来融资的。

And to your point about it's going to be EPS accretive, well, it's going to be accretive because they're using cash on the balance sheet and debt to be able to fund it.

所以，如果他们只是用股票来收购，而不发行新股，我觉得可能就不会那么提升每股收益了。但你知道，这样会提高公司的杠杆率。

So if you're not issuing shares, I don't think it probably would be all that accretive if they were just buying it with stock, but you know, that's gonna lever up the balance sheet.

所以从资产负债表上拿出70亿美元现金，再加上一些债务，这会让公司风险更高一些。

So pulling $7,000,000,000 in cash off the balance sheet, gonna add a little bit more debt, know, it just makes the company a little bit more risky.

所以从战略上看，这很可能很有意义。

So strategically, probably makes a lot of sense.

但从纯粹的财务角度看，这真的有那么重要吗？

Financially, strictly, is it gonna be that big a deal?

可能不会。

Probably not.

对。

Right.

26倍的EBITDA，但GE的估值，你知道，按企业价值算是28倍的EBITDA。

26 times EBITDA, but GE is trading at, you know, 28 times EBITDA on an enterprise value basis.

所以很明显，他们没用股票，没用那个货币，但现在整体估值都高得离谱。

So certainly, they're not using that stock, they're not using that currency, but valuations are crazy high right now across the board.

我觉得这是GE在表明他们认为这个水平是可持续的，即使不会从这里再往上涨。

And I think this is GE saying that they think that that level is sustainable even if it's not going up from here.

所以我觉得，是的，从历史上看不合理，但考虑到现在的参与者和GE看到的机会，可能稍微合理一些。

So I think, yeah, it's unreasonable historically, but I think maybe a little more reasonable given the players today and the opportunity GE sees.

对我来说有趣的是，我们谈到了钱的问题，从财务角度看，我觉得我们不会看到这次收购带来每股收益的大幅提升。

The interesting thing to me, and we talked about the money aspect of it, from a financial, I don't think we're gonna see, like, a huge bump in earnings per share from this one.

就像你说的，这是一个关键组成部分。

Like you said, it's a it's a critical component.

他们可能花了大价钱才拿到它，因为就像我说的，Precision Products是这类特定产品的四家制造商之一。

They're probably paying out the nose to get it because it like, as I said, Precision Products is one of, like, the four manufacturers of these particular types of things.

所以记住这一点，这个行业里还有其他公司。

So keeping that in mind, like, there are other companies in the in this industry.

我们有普惠在RTX，还有罗尔斯·罗伊斯，其他也在造喷气发动机的公司，这只是航空航天和国防工业中众多例子之一，这些关键部件正在被收购。

We've got Pratt and Whitney over at RTX, other or Rolls Royce, anybody else who's building jet engines and other and that's just one of many examples in the aerospace and defense industry where these are critical components are, you know, being bought.

所以我几乎是在想，这里的赢家和输家是谁，因为如果GE航空航天把所有这些东西都内部化了，我猜他们不是为了卖给别人才这么做的。

So I'm I'm thinking of it in almost like a sense of, like, the winners and literatures here because if GE Aerospace is taking all of this in house, I would assume that they're not doing it so they can sell to other people.

对吧？

Right?

那么，由于这种整合一个主要部件制造商的做法，行业里谁会赢，谁会输呢？

So who's gonna win and lose in the industry as a result of this kind of integrating a major component manufacturer?

所以正如你所说，这基本上就是垂直整合。

So as you say, this is basically vertical integration.

CPP和GE合作已经超过十五年了，主要是做叶片。

CPP has been working with GE for more than fifteen years now, mostly on the airfoil.

就是喷气发动机的叶片。

That's the blades of the jet engine.

他们可能是GE第三大供应商，在他们那类公司里。

And they are maybe the third largest supplier of their kind of group of companies to GE.

所以他们远不是最大的，但他们做的事情做得很好。

So they are by far not the biggest, but what they do, they do well.

那这对GE来说意味着什么呢？

So what does this do for GE?

把生产收回来内部做，确实能省一些成本。

There's some cost savings for bringing in house.

对。

Yes.

但主要不是成本节省的问题。

But mostly, we're not talking about cost savings here.

关键是你能在采购上排到前面，扩产时动作更快，而且在设计新发动机时，把这家关键供应商纳入内部也有帮助。

It's you get ahead of the line on procurement, you move quicker on ramping up, and it also should help them by bringing in sort of this key supplier in house as you design new engines.

这对CPP的竞争对手来说是一种威胁。

This is kind of a threat to other to CPP's competitors.

我觉得这其实不太重要。

I don't think that that really matters.

我注意到HONA，就是你可以看作竞争对手的那家上市公司，股价跌了7%到8%。

Now I saw HONA, which is the public company you can look at as a competitor here, was down 7%, 8%.

我觉得这反应过度了。

I think that's an overreaction.

目前，HONA是GE更大的供应商。

Right now, HONA is a bigger supplier to GE.

长期来看，他们可能会尝试把一些业务内部化，但我觉得至少得五年左右才能看到动静。

Over time, maybe they try and move some in house, but you're talking five years out or so, I think, before you see any movement there.

而且就像你说的，CPP那边也挺尴尬的。

And as you say, CPP, it's awkward on the other side too.

他们也为霍尼韦尔做工作。

They do work for Honeywell.

他们也为普惠做工作。

They do work for Pratt and Whitney.

如果CPP被GE内部化，豪迈特和其他竞争对手可能会有新的机会，来弥补他们在GE可能失去的业务。

There could be new opportunities for how Met and other rivals if CPP is brought in house to kind of offset any lost business that they might have at GE.

对。

Yeah.

其实，看待这个问题的关键在于，垂直整合的价值和模块化或者横向商业模式的价值相比，哪个更大。

And really the way to think about this is the value of vertical integration versus the value of modularization or be having a horizontal business model.

所以现在，GE在说，嘿，我们看重的是能把这件事收归内部，让这个供应商只给我们供货，也许能让我们的下一代产品变得更好一点，就像Lou说的那样。

So right now, GE is saying, hey, we we value being able to pull this in house and be able to have have this supplier only supply us, maybe make our next generation products a little bit better like Lou said.

但随着时间的推移，这种事情通常都是来回摇摆的。

But over time, these typically these things typically go back and forth.

你会把某个供应商分拆出去，你知道，底特律基本上对每一个供应商都这么干过。

You spin off your one of your suppliers, you know, Detroit has done this with basically every one of their suppliers.

所以到了这个阶段，他们基本上只是在组装零件，因为最终你会意识到，嘿，我们已经有足够的生产能力，而且我们非常擅长制造这些零件。

So they're just assembling pieces at this point because eventually you get to the point where, hey, we've got enough capacity and we're really good at making these parts.

为什么不把它们不仅卖给我们自己，也卖给其他人呢？

Why don't we sell them not only to ourselves but to somebody else?

所以，我觉得这不一定像Lou说的那样会从根本上改变行业，如果你能从其他竞争对手那里得到折扣，那可能就是一个买入的机会。

And so that's where I I don't think this is necessarily gonna fundamentally change the industry like Lou said, if you get discounts with some of these other competitors, that could maybe being a be a buying opportunity.

我觉得吧，大家在这块儿看到的整体需求太多了，所以估值倍数高得离谱，市场里已经提前把乐观预期都算进去了，基本上整个行业都是这样。

I just think, you know, they're seeing so much demand in this space in general that the multiples are just extremely high and there's a lot of optimism already priced into the market for for basically everybody in the space.

说到供应链整合、重组或者拆分，还有外包这些事儿，我感觉像是三十年前那波剥离业务、精益生产和供应链管理的浪潮又回来了。

To that point of the integration consolidation, disintegration, I guess, if you will, of supply chains and outsourcing and all that, it seems like the I I would call it, like, the thirty year wave of spin offs and lean manufacturing and supply chain management.

我倒不是说这事儿彻底结束了，但确实感觉我们正往回走，重新走向整合和垂直一体化。

I don't wanna say it's completely come to an end, but it really does feel like we are moving back towards the consolidation vertical integration.

比如波音要求Spirit AeroSystems那样做，就是个例子。

We saw it with Spirit AeroSystems with Boeing requiring that.

而且，我们达成了这笔交易。

And, we've got this deal.

现在越来越多的讨论不再局限于企业层面，而是上升到了国家层面，大家都在努力确保关键基础设施、关键矿产等供应链的安全。

There's been more and more talks of, you know, not just necessarily on a company basis, but also, like, on a country basis where you're trying to secure your own supply chains in certain critical infrastructure, critical minerals, and things like that.

显然，我们在航空航天和国防等行业已经看到了这种现象。

Obviously, we've seen this in industries like aerospace and defense.

所以我想问的是，这是否已经成为所有行业的普遍趋势？还是说这只是集中在某些关键行业，因为政府可能在背后施加压力？

And so my question is, is this an actual trend across all business, or is this maybe just isolated to these, I would say, more critical sort of industries where maybe governments might be pushing on the thumb a little bit, be like, hey.

能不能把更多的东西放到内部来做，这样我们就不用担心从我们不太喜欢的人那里采购了？

Can you bring more of this in house so that we don't have to worry about trying to acquire from someone we don't necessarily like?

我觉得这是所有行业的一个趋势，而且它就像一个钟摆。

I I I think it is a trend across all industries, and I think it's a pendulum.

我认为钟摆永远不会停下来。

I don't think the pendulum ever stops.

很高兴你提到Spirit AeroSystems，因为我觉得那是一个非常典型的例子。

I'm glad you mentioned Spirit Aero Systems because I think that's such an illustrative case.

波音基本上是通过并购把Spirit AeroSystems组装起来的。

Boeing basically assembled Spirit Aero Systems using m and a.

到最后，Spirit基本上是在制造机身，就是整个飞机的主体。

And by the end of it, Spirit was basically making the airframe, the the actual plane.

他们就在威奇托制造，然后用火车运到西雅图，在那里加上发动机和电子设备。

They would just make them in Wichita, put them on a on a train, and then take the whole airframe out to Seattle to add the engines and the electronics.

波音把它分拆出去，因为他们不想再做那个业务了，但后来基本上又把它买回来了，因为Spirit独立运营时，波音把它的利润压得太低了。

Boeing spun that off because they didn't want to be in that business anymore, and then bought it back basically when Spirit didn't have they squeezed the margins so bad, Boeing did, because it was independent.

当波音想提高产量时，Spirit 没有足够的资金来扩大规模，所以他们不得不把生产收回来自己做。

Spirit didn't have the capital to scale when Boeing wanted to ramp up production, they had to bring it in house.

这种阴阳对立一直存在。

You've had this yin yang forever.

我觉得这就是它的运作方式。

I think that's how this works.

把生产收回来自己做确实有吸引力。

There is attractiveness to bringing it in house.

你处理一段时间后，会发现，等等，我们可以通过把所有这些好东西卖到我们业务之外来创造更多价值，所以你就把它分拆出去，然后随着时间推移你又变得控制欲很强。

You deal with that for a while, you realize, wait, we can create more value selling all this goodness outside of what we're doing, so you spin it out and then you become a control freak over time.

所以这就是在控制事物和最大化其变现之间的一种拉锯战。

So it's that tug of war between kinda controlling things and maximizing the monetization of it.

这两者总是相互冲突，而制造商处理这种冲突的方式似乎总是循环往复。

Those are always in conflict, and it seems to just go in cycles the way how the the way manufacturers deal with that conflict.

冲突。

Conflict.

这里最大的收获可能就是，这就是为什么投资银行家总是赢家，因为每次这些交易被拆分或重新组合时，他们都能赚钱。

And the big takeaway here may just be this is why the investment bankers always win because they make money every time these deals are spun off or put back together.

他们从中捞了一大笔。

They're collecting a big chunk.

所以我觉得，得到的教训就是，永远想办法成为庄家，而不是试图下更大的注去对抗它。

So I guess the takeaway lesson is always find a way to be the house instead of trying to bet more against it than you get away.

好的。

Alright.

休息之后，我们要聊聊网络安全，以及它如何改变许多行业的格局。

Coming up after the break, we're gonna talk about cybersecurity and how it's changing the game in a lot of different industries.

上个月，医疗器械制造商波士顿科学公司宣布，他们成为了黑客攻击的目标，部分生产和分销网络受到了影响。

Last month, medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific announced that it had been a target of a hack, disrupted some of its manufacturing and its distribution network.

你知道，他们的一些生产线实际上运行在被黑客入侵的软件上，结果没法用了。

You know, some of its manufacturing lines actually were running on software that got hacked and couldn't be, you know, used.

如今，这种披露已经算是比较常见的了。

These days, this is kind of a run-in the middle disclosure.

就像那种周五下午，把消息埋在8-K文件里，没人会注意。

One of those like Friday afternoon, bury it in eight k, nobody cares.

但这次有点特别的是，公司今天宣布，因为这次黑客攻击，他们无法达到季度和年度销售目标，因为他们还在努力恢复系统，而且已经过去一个多月了。

But what makes this one a little bit more unique is that the company announced today that it won't be able to meet its quarterly annual and annual sales targets as a result of this hack as they're trying to get their systems back up online, and it's been over a month.

据路透社报道，这是2026年针对公司的第29次重大网络攻击。

According to Reuters, this is the twenty ninth major cyber attack on a company in 2026.

其中最引人注目的几次发生在医疗保健、医疗器械和制药行业。

And some of the most notable ones are in health care, medical devices, the pharmaceutical industry.

我觉得最值得报道的是诺和诺德，他们的多个患者数据以及药物发现软件被黑客攻击，基本上被拿到暗网上出售了。

I think the big newsworthy one was Novo Nordisk where it had several patient data as well as its drug discovery software were hacked and basically sold on the dark web.

特拉维斯，我想先听听你的看法。

Travis, I wanna start with you.

现在这对所有企业来说是不是就是家常便饭了，他们得处理这种事，比如要么付赎金，要么努力加固系统？

Is this just kind of table stakes for all businesses these days where they have to deal with this in like a, yeah, we'll pay the ransom or we'll, you know, try to shore up our systems?

或者我想搞清楚，投资者或企业怎么能运营得更好，也许每隔几年，你可能会成为黑客攻击的受害者，这可能会让你的整个公司陷入……

Or I'm trying to figure out, like, how investors or how businesses can operate in a way where maybe, like, once every couple of years, you might be the victim of a hack that can bring your entire company to

完全停摆。

a grinding halt.

这确实是个很棘手的处境。

It is kind of a crazy place to be.

我一直在想，这些公司，你只要看看名单就知道了。

And one of the things that I've been thinking about with these is you you just go through this list of companies.

这根本不是他们的主业。

This is not what they do.

波士顿科学不是网络安全公司，所以他们肯定会把这块外包给别人。

I mean, Boston Scientific is not a cybersecurity company, so they're gonna offload that to somebody else.

还有一点，想想那些AI公司的新闻，对吧？

And and the other thing that just just comes to mind, think about the headlines with all these AI companies, right?

OpenAI被黑进Hugging Face，这些公司本该最懂网络安全，结果他们自己都没搞定。

OpenAI hacking into Hugging Face, these are companies that should know exactly what to do when it comes to cybersecurity and they don't even have it all together.

那那些主业不是网络安全的公司得有多脆弱？他们忙着造能救命的医疗设备，CEO和管理层根本没时间整天想着黑客怎么入侵他们的系统。

So how weak are the companies whose core business is doing something else, creating a medical device that's gonna save somebody's life and they're not spending the CEO and you know, management team is not spending 20 fourseven thinking about, boy, how could hackers get into our system?

我一直觉得AI会让这变得容易得多，你可以回到，几乎任何一家上市公司你都能看到某种网络攻击的披露。

I just continue to think AI is gonna make this much easier, you we can go back to, you can almost every any public company you can see some sort of disclosure of cyber hacking.

记得吗，2023年，美高梅度假村是我关注的公司之一。

Remember, you know, 2023, it was MGM Resorts is one of the companies I follow.

那家公司你根本不会想到它跟网络安全有什么关系，甚至算不上科技巨头，但他们也得处理这种事。

That's not a company you think of as a as a cyber company at all or even a big tech leader, but they're having to deal with this.

如果AI会让这变得更普遍，你猜怎么着？

And if this is gonna become more common with AI, guess what?

我们会花更多的钱用AI来防御这些攻击。

We're gonna spend more money using AI to defend this.

这整个就是一个AI支出的良性循环，但实际上对任何人都没有带来任何价值。

And it's all just kind of a virtuous cycle of AI spending that doesn't actually add any value to anybody.

所以结论就是买CrowdStrike。

So the takeaway is just by CrowdStrike.

就这？

Is that it?

或者买类似的东西？

Or by something like that?

我觉得可能吧，

Think probably,

对。

yeah.

对。

Yeah.

你知道，作为投资者，我真的不知道该怎么看这件事，因为感觉波士顿科学公司能挺过去。

I you know, as an investor, I I I don't know what to think of this because it feels like Boston Scientific, they'll get through it.

对吧？

Right?

这会毁了他们的这一年，但不会毁掉他们的业务。

This ruins their year, but not their business.

自从他们开始披露这件事以来，股价在最近几个月应该已经下跌了30%。

It should be stocks down 30% in recent months since they first started disclosing this.

如果你喜欢这家公司，这感觉像是一个买入机会，因为你是靠一个暂时的问题导致股价大幅波动。

It feels like a buying opportunity if you like this company because you get a temporary thing causing a real movement of stock.

但如果这是基本要求，而他们在这方面做得不好，而且会有大量开支来加强和继续应对，那这难道不是买入机会吗？因为从今往后你的成本只会无限增加，情况只会变得更糟、更吓人。

But if this is table stakes and they're no good at it and there's tons of expenses that are gonna come to kind of fortify and continue to fight, Is this not a buying opportunity because it's just your costs go up indefinitely from here and it only gets worse and scarier?

所以，我的意思是，这算是留给你们的一个开放性问题。

So I I mean, it's kind of an open question to you guys.

我不知道该怎么想。

I don't know what to think.

这感觉既是一个已知的风险，又是一个可能从这里变得更糟的未知因素，作为投资者，这确实是个很难下手的事情。

It feels like both a risk we know about and a wild card that could get a lot worse from here, which is kind of a tough thing to to to jump into as an investor.

实际上，在我们前期准备和讨论的时候，有一点让我印象最深，如果你看看名单上的公司，就像我说的，很多都是医疗保健公司。

This is actually I I would as we were thinking through this preproduction and and discussing this here, one of the things that really point stuck out to me the most, if you look at the the companies on the list, like I said, it was a lot of health care companies.

还有很多金融市场公司，甚至开始涉及一些关键基础设施、电力公用事业之类的。

It was a lot of, like, financial markets companies and even starting to get in some critical infrastructure, electric utilities, and things like that.

看起来很多这样的公司，它们掌握着大量关键信息，但可能不一定在网络安全系统方面那么与时俱进，或者对自己的漏洞了解得不够透彻。

It seems to be a lot of those companies where they hold a lot of critical information but may not necessarily be as up to date with their, you know, cybersecurity systems or anything like that or understanding their vulnerabilities as well.

我其实想问你们两位的是，这些特定行业，我觉得会是未来最大的关注点。

And I kinda think it was the question I wanted to get to both of you guys is these particular industries is, I think, where this is gonna be the biggest focus.

掌握关键信息、关键基础设施，但未必有处理这些的能力。

Critical information, critical infrastructure, but not necessarily the know how to handle it.

这会改变投资逻辑吗？

Does that change the investment thesis at all?

因为就像Lou说的，如果这些公司每隔两三年就要被彻底打乱，然后说，好吧，我们大概要停摆三个月才能搞定。

Because as to Lou's point, if if these companies every two or three years are gonna be, you know, completely disrupted and be like, well, I guess we're out for three months until we figure this out.

它们还能那么有活力吗？或者说，它们会是好生意，但对股票投资者来说，还是好的投资标的吗？

Are they as viable or as well, not they'll be viable businesses, but are they great investable businesses for stock investors?

也许问题在于，它们有没有超越这个的定价能力？

Maybe the question is, is their pricing power above and beyond this?

比如公用事业公司，取决于你看的是哪种公用事业，它们的回报是受监管的。

I mean, a a utility, they depending on the kind of utility you're looking at, they're gonna have regulated returns.

所以如果它们说，你知道吗？

So if they say, you know what?

我们得花十亿美元升级系统，免得被黑客攻击，然后他们会去找监管机构说，嘿。

We've gotta spend a billion dollars to upgrade our system so that we don't get hacked, they're gonna go to the regulator and say, hey.

如果我们不这么做，人们就会断电，然后他们就能得到补偿。

If we don't do this, people are gonna lose their power, and they're gonna get that covered.

波士顿科学公司，如果他们必须花一大笔钱更新系统，他们能提高价格吗？

Boston Scientific, are they gonna be able to raise prices if they have to spend a whole bunch of money, you know, updating their system?

可能不行。

Probably not.

所以我觉得我们大家要考虑的是，网络安全带来的额外成本，比如把这些工具引入内部，或者可能得上云，因为那是他们的专长。

So I think that is the thing for all of us to think about is what are the added costs that we're gonna have from cybersecurity, from, you know, in in bringing some of these tools in house or maybe you have to go into the cloud where that's where they what they specialize in.

看起来这里会有很多变数，而且很多公司可能在过去几年里并没有预料到这些开支。

It seems like there's gonna be a lot of moving parts here and a lot of expenses that a lot of these companies weren't necessarily anticipating coming into the last couple of years.

对。

Yeah.

我同意。

I I I agree.

感觉这个问题必须得解决。

It it it feels like it has to get solved.

感觉这就像是那种，我们甚至不能说是无知，因为现在就是未知。

It feels like this is one of those things that it's kind of just our I don't even call it ignorance because it's just the unknown right now.

这是一个新世界，我们必须去适应这个新世界。

This is a new world and we have to figure out this new world.

最终我们会搞明白的。

Then eventually we'll figure it out.

但就像我说的，就拿波士顿科学来说，我真的不想太较真，因为不知道怎么解决，心里也没底。

But like I said, just on this Boston Scientific, I hate to really lean in here, not knowing how you solve this and not really feeling good.

如果他们跟你说，相信我，我们已经搞定了，不会再发生了。

If they say, trust me guys, we figured this out, it won't happen again.

我倒是想看到时间证明，而不是光听他们嘴上说说，毕竟出了这种事。

I'd kind of like to see proof over time on that, not just take them at their word after what's happened.

对吧？

Right?

所以我觉得这确实是个很难应对的局面，至少短期内是这样。

So I I think it's a real tough situation to navigate, at least in the near term.

回到那个整合还是拆分的讨论，听起来其中一个解决方案可能是，嘿，也许我们不再在云上做任何事了，全都回到企业内部的企业级服务器之类的。

Back to that integration versus deconsolidation, it sounds like one of the solutions may be, hey, maybe we're not doing anything on the cloud anymore, and we're all going back to on premises enterprise style servers and things like that to

保护IBM，来了来了。

protect IBM, here we go.

对。

Yeah.

所有旧的东西又变新了。

Everything that is old is new again.

休息之后，我们会进入邮件环节。

Coming after the break, we're gonna hit the mailbag.

大家好。

Hey, everyone.

快速提醒一下。

Just a quick reminder.

如果你想给我们发邮件，请发送到 podcastatfool.com。

If you wanna get an email into us, email us @podcastatfool.com.

是 podcast，带个 s。

That's podcast with an s.

我们也在节目描述里留了邮箱地址。

We've also left the email in the show description for you.

今天的问题来自凤凰城的乔。

Today's question comes from Joe in Phoenixville.

他的问题是：嘿，各位傻瓜们。

His question is, hey, fellow fools.

想听听你们对为了免于退市而进行反向拆股的看法。

Curious to hear your thoughts on reverse stock splits for the purpose of avoiding a delist.

你们有没有遇到过自己长期持有的股票发生这种情况？

Has this ever happened to a stock you were long on?

你们是继续持有吗？

Did you hold?

那结果怎么样？

And how did it turn out?

很感谢这个节目，每天都很喜欢听。

Appreciate the show and love listening every day.

那我们先来把背景讲清楚，因为不是每个人都懂避免退市和反向拆股这些事。

So just let's kind of set the table here because not everybody understands like avoiding a delist, reverse stocks.

卢，他说的到底是什么？

Lou, what exactly is

他说的到底是什么，好让所有听众都能跟上？

he talking about here just so everyone else is up to to speed that's listening?

你有没有遇到过这种情况？结果怎么样？

And how's it happened to you and how did it turn out?

主要交易所要求每只股票维持最低1美元的买入价。

The major exchanges require you to us each stock to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.

也就是说，股票基本上得在1美元以上交易。

And so that means that the stock basically has to trade above a dollar.

如果股价低于一美元持续三十天，退市程序就可能启动，这意味着你就失去了那个黄金地段，也就是纳斯达克或纽约证券交易所的上市资格，股票会转到粉单市场或者其他地方去。

If it's below a dollar for thirty days, the delisting process can begin, which means you kinda lose that beachfront real estate, which is a NASDAQ listing or a New York Stock Exchange listing going off to the pink sheets, going off elsewhere.

所以你真的想保住那个黄金地段。

So you really want to keep that beachfront property.

你可以，你知道的，让投资者兴奋起来，把股价推高。

You could just, you know, get investors excited to bid up the stock.

但另一种做法是，如果你有更少的股票，我们总是说这就像用不同的方式切蛋糕，如果你有更少的股票，每股的价值就会更高，所以你可以人为地把股价拉回一美元以上。

But the other way of doing it is, is that if you have fewer shares, and we always talk about it's just slicing the pie in different ways, if you have fewer shares, each share is going to be worth more so you can kind of artificially get your stock back above a dollar.

现在，如果作为投资者你觉得这有什么吸引力，那你真的没在听，对吧？

Now, if anything about this is appealing as an investor, you haven't really been listening, right?

因为我们说的是那些无法让投资者足够兴奋、无法把股价推到一美元以上的公司，试图基本上人为制造这种情况。

Because what we're talking about is companies that can't excite investors enough for them to bid the stock over a dollar, trying to basically manufacture that.

这在我身上发生过。

It has happened to me.

这通常是一个危险信号。

It's usually a red flag.

我得说，确实有些例子是投资者赚到钱的，但没错，我就碰到过这种情况。

I will note that there are some examples where it's worked out for investors, but yes, it's happened to me.

没有。

No.

实际上，我现在还持有一只这样的股票，现在又跌回一块钱以下了。

In fact, I still own one of them and it's back down below a dollar now.

所以这通常只是短期的解决办法。

And so it's usually a short term fix.

长期的解决办法是把生意做好，而这真的很难做到。

The long term fix is do better at business, and that can be really, really hard to do.

这通常不是什么看涨的信号。

Not generally the most bullish thing.

我觉得可以这么说。

I think that would be the way to to put it.

低价股在市场上被单独划出来，是有原因的。

There's a reason that the penny stocks are kind of in their own little corner of the market.

如果你是一家正规的上市公司，你肯定不想成为仙股。

You don't wanna be a penny stock if you're, you know, a legit public company.

你说话的时候，我刚刚查了一下，我用了Gemini。

While you were talking, I just went through and I had I had Gemini.

所以如果这里有什么错误，可以怪AI。

So if there's any mistakes here, can blame AI.

我查了过去五年一些著名的股票拆分。

Go through some of the notable stock splits over the past five years.

Beyond Meat、WeWork、Nikola公司，不一定都是

Beyond Meat, WeWork, Nikola Corporation, not necessarily It's

这些公司真是烂大街了。

a real murderer's row of great companies there.

对。

Yeah.

不一定都是好的长期投资。

Not necessarily the great long term investments.

所以，你知道，我觉得如果你投资时间够长，如果你有一个多元化的投资组合，你最终都会经历这种情况。

So, you know, I think if you invest long enough, if you have a diversified portfolio, you will go through this eventually.

我经历过。

I have held through it.

我基本上一直持有到归零，你知道，希望会有某种转机，也许能拿回一点钱，但损失惨重。

I have held through it essentially to zero, you know, hoping for some sort of turnaround, you know, maybe maybe getting a few shekels back, but but major losses.

但总的来说，这不是你想经历的事情，而且它往往可能是一个恶性循环。

But generally, it's not something that you wanna go through and it can often be a downward spiral.

我的意思是，作为一家上市公司，挑战之一就是，如果你的商业模式的一部分是筹集资金，并且依赖于作为一家能够进入公开市场的上市公司，那么如果你的股价开始下跌，跌破一美元大关，你开始进行反向拆股，这对一家公司的长期生存来说可能是一个真正的挑战。

I mean, is one of the challenges as a public company is if part of your business model is raising capital and is predicated on being a public company that can access public markets, if your stock starts to go down, it goes through that dollar mark, you start doing reverse splits, it can be a real challenge for a company being viable long term.

想想我们刚才提到的那些公司，就能在实践中看到这一点。

Think with just those names that we talked about, can kinda see that in practice.

快速说一下，让我们看看乐观的一面，因为我们得说那句“所以你说还有机会”的梗，对吧？

Real quick, let's do the glass half full because we gotta get the the the so you're saying there's a chance meme, right?

好的。

Okay.

也不是每次都这样，我至少有一个例子。

It doesn't always there's I got one example at least.

2003年，priceline.com，在互联网泡沫破裂后，连威廉·夏特纳的广告也不管用了。

2,003, priceline.com, the Bill Shatner ads weren't good enough after the .com crash.

他们的股价跌到一美元以下，做了1比6的反向拆股，把股价拉上去，勉强维持。

They were down below a dollar, they did a one for six reverse split to get the stock price up and to just keep treading water.

Priceline后来当然收购了Booking，改了名字。

Priceline, of course, bought Booking, changed its name.

讽刺的是，现在他们反而做了正向拆股，因为股价涨得太高了。

They've honest ironically, they've done splits the other way now because the stock went up too much.

那不到一美元的股票，现在粗略算一下，值超过4000美元。

That below $1 share is now worth over $4,000 just back of the envelope real quick.

所以如果公司业务好，能撑到那个时候，还是有可能的，但那是例外。

So it can work if you have a good business to buy the time, but that is the exception now.

我不是

I'm not

不是说那时候那不一定是个好生意。

saying that wasn't necessarily a good business at the time.

那是第一点。

That's the No.

不。

No.

不。

No.

但它确实扭转了局面。

But it did turnaround.

不管怎么说，结局是好的。

There was a happy ending one way or the other.

对。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

我觉得你挑了一个特别成功的例子，但其他大部分都是希腊的干散货航运公司，过去十年里做了七次反向股票、反向并购或者反向拆股。

I I feel like you picked the one example where it worked out incredibly well while the rest of it is a bunch of Greek dry bulk shipping companies that have done seven reverse stock, reverse mergers or reverse stock splits in the past, like, ten years.

所以，是的。

So Yeah.

你看。

Look.

我觉得大部分情况下，你进入反向拆股这个领域，就是在趟浑水。

I feel like for the most part, you're treading in pretty dirty water here, when you're going into the reverse stock split territory.

我自己的例子中，我没见过多少成功的。

I don't think I've seen a lot of my own, examples working out.

一如既往，节目上的人可能对他们谈论的股票有兴趣，而Motley Fool可能有正式的推荐或反对意见。

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

所以不要仅仅根据你听到的内容买卖股票。

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

所有个人理财内容都遵循Motley Fool的编辑标准，并且未经广告商批准。

All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers.

广告内容仅供参考，不构成任何建议。

Advertisements respond to content and provide for informational purposes only.

要查看完整的广告披露信息，请查看我们的节目笔记。

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

感谢我们的制作人丹·博伊德以及The Motley Fool团队的其他成员。

Thanks to our producer, Dan Boyd, the rest of The Motley Fool team.

我是卢、特拉维斯和我自己，感谢收听，我们下次再聊。

For Lou, Travis, and myself, thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.