甲骨文已宣布不可抗力了吗？

甲骨文正在用人工智能强行推动这件事。

Oracle is forcing the issue with AI.

《傻瓜投资秘籍》现在开始。

Motley Fool hidden gems investing starts now.

欢迎收听《傻瓜投资秘籍》。

Welcome to Motley Fool hidden gems investing.

我是主持人克劳。

I'm your host, Crowe.

今天和我一起的是长期撰稿人卢·怀特曼和乔恩·夸斯特。

And today, I'm joined by long time Fool contributors, Lou Whiteman and Jon Quast.

两位，你们知道，我们今天本来有计划，但用我们之前一位主持人的话说，新闻仙女在我们录制前突然出现了，所以我们决定稍微调整一下。

And, guys, you know, we had a plan for today, but using the term from one of our prior hosts, the news fairy showed up, right before we recorded, and we decided we had to change it up a little bit.

我们今天先聊聊甲骨文对新墨西哥州一个数据中心项目宣布不可抗力的消息。

We're gonna start today with the news that Oracle has called Force Majeure on a new data center project in New Mexico.

我想用《王牌播音员》里罗恩·伯甘蒂的语气说，因为，天哪，事情发展得太快了。

And I wanna channel my, like, Ron Burgundy voice from Anchorman, because, boy, that escalated quickly.

基本上，Oracle是在说，如果这个项目——我记得叫朱庇特项目——延期了，他们不承担任何费用或开支的责任。

I mean, basically, Oracle is claiming that it isn't liable for costs or expenses if this project, I think it's called the Jupiter project, is delayed.

这个项目本来应该在2028年上线，而这个故事读起来几乎就像我们见过的AI基础设施投资或主题中的常见套路，尤其是那些论点不太稳固的项目。

It's supposed to come online in 2028, and this story almost reads like a usual suspects line of the AI infrastructure play or theme that we've seen, and especially a lot of the ones where the thesis is a little bit shakier.

我们这里有一个私人资本公司的子公司。

I mean, we have a subsidiary of private capital company.

Blue Owl是开发商。

Blue OWL is the developer.

显然，私人资本和开发在那里一直是个挑战。

Obviously, private capital and developing has been a challenge one there.

这是OpenAI和软银支持的大型项目之一。

It is one of the big projects backed by OpenAI and SoftBank.

另外，在能源方面，这是唯一一个承诺使用燃料电池的项目，这也一直是Bloom Energy进入AI基础设施交易的部分论点。

And additionally, on the energy side, it's the one project that has committed to using fuel cells, which has been part of the thesis for Bloom Energy getting into the AI infrastructure trade.

这里有很多事情悬而未决。

We've got a lot of things kind of up in the air here.

这个项目两年前就宣布了，本来也没指望它这么快上线。

This project was announced two years ago and wasn't expected to come online for a bit.

今天这些股票全都跌了。

Like, all of these stocks are down today.

各位，你们对这个消息有什么反应？

Guys, what was your reaction to this?

因为我觉得这事儿有点让人担心。

Because I found this one kind of alarming.

我觉得甲骨文这么做完全合理，原因如下。

It makes total sense to me that Oracle would make this move, and here's why.

没人会否认甲骨文在数据中心基础设施建设的投入上已经拼尽全力了。

Nobody is gonna argue that Oracle isn't pushing the limits when it comes to extending itself to fund the data center infrastructure build out.

它确实是在拼尽全力。

It is absolutely extending itself.

其实，就算你拼尽全力，也有可能成功，关键是要确保进来的钱能覆盖出去的钱，对吧？

Now, you can succeed even when you extend yourself, you just have to make sure that money coming in is going to cover the money going out, right?

而且就这个数据中心来说，有理由认为它可能不会在甲骨文希望它上线、预期它上线、需要它上线的时候上线。

And when it comes to this data center in particular, there are reasons to think that maybe this doesn't come up when Oracle wants it to come up, when it expects it to, when it needs it to.

舆论的潮流，公众舆论，已经猛烈地转向反对数据中心，我甚至觉得在左倾的州，比如新墨西哥州，情况可能更糟，而这个项目就在那里。

The tide of opinion, public opinion, has turned violently against data centers, and I would say it's maybe even worse in left leaning states, such as New Mexico, where this particular project is.

所以确实有理由说，可能会有来自监管机构的延误，各种因素都可能推迟甲骨文能够从这个数据中心获利的时间。

So there is real reason to say there might be delays from regulatory bodies, from all sorts of things that could push back when Oracle is able to monetize this data center.

所以，我觉得它加入这个条款是合理的，这样它就不用在还没产生收入之前就付款。

So, makes sense to me that it would put this clause in place so it's not having to make payments before it is generating revenue.

这不一定意味着项目就完了，也不一定意味着甲骨文现在有大麻烦，但这确实表明甲骨文已经过度扩张了，而且在项目完成之前，它真的不能开始支付那些款项。

That doesn't necessarily mean that the project is doomed, it doesn't necessarily mean that Oracle is now in big trouble, but it does point to the fact that Oracle has extended itself and it really can't start making those payments before it is getting the job done there on the project.

来了，对吧，泰勒？

Here we go, right, Tyler?

正是你说的，我们看到了所有这些公司上了头条。

Exactly what you said, that we have all of these companies that have been in the headlines.

我觉得乔恩说得对，很多这些都是技术性的，比如保留权利。

I think Jon's right, that a lot of this is just technicality, like reserving rights.

我觉得这挺有意思的，我们待会儿可以聊聊为什么是现在，为什么是这个时候，因为我想在这里猜测一下。

I do think it's fun, we should talk about it in a second, why now, why this second, because I want to speculate there.

但你看，我觉得这对投资者来说真的很有用，不管它是好消息还是坏消息。

But look, I think this is really useful for investors, whether or not it's good news or bad news.

乔恩说，你知道，左倾的州，但你看，我们在德克萨斯州看到了暂停令，到处都有暂停令。

Jon says that, you know, left leaning states, but look, we're seeing moratoriums in Texas, we're seeing moratoriums all over the place.

我们一直都说，这个问题迟早会出现的。

We've been saying forever, this is going to come up.

而且，在专家、分析师、律师之间，一直有一个公开的争论，关于到底会发生什么，谁负责，责任有多大，责任落在哪里。

And there's been an open debate among pundits, among analysts, among lawyers about exactly what would happen, who's liable, how much liability, where it all falls.

我觉得如果这件事能真正发生一次，那会很有用，这样我们就能回答这些问题，而不是隔着过道互相喊叫。

I think it would be really useful for it to play out once and so we could answer these questions instead of yell across the aisle at each other.

所以，来吧。

So bring it on.

如果甲骨文在这件事上成功了，那会减轻甲骨文的压力，也许还有其他一些正在做出承诺的公司。

If Oracle is successful in this, it takes pressure off Oracle and maybe some of the other ones that are making commitments.

也许这意味着会有更多可预测的承诺。

Maybe it means more predict commitments.

这可能意味着人们会更加激进，因为他们可以更进一步冒险而不会出事。

It might mean people are more aggressive because they can kind of go further onto thin ice and be safe.

如果他们在这里受到打击，至少可能会引发重新思考。

If they get slapped here, it could at least cause a rethinking.

如果他们真的退出，蓝色阵营能填补空缺吗？

If they do walk away, can blue out backfill?

我们就能看到实际需求了。

We get a test on demand.

有很多问题一直只是假设，或者只是让我们这样的人争论的话题，没人知道答案，但如果这件事真的发生，我们可能就会开始得到答案了。

There are so many questions that have been out there just as hypotheticals or as stuff for people like us to argue about without anybody knowing that maybe if this plays out, we'll start to get answers to.

对投资者来说，这就是随着时间推移逐渐清晰。

As an investor, that's clarity over time.

我有几个问题。

I've got a couple questions here.

其中一个问题我可能得戴上阴谋论的帽子，你可能得稍微拉我一把，别让我走极端。

And one of them I may actually have to put on a conspiratorial tin hat, and you may have to walk me off the ledge here a little bit.

但我看到这个消息时，脑子里立刻冒出几个反应。第一，Oracle在两年后才需要付款，现在就开始提不可抗力了。

But here are some of the reactions I immediately thought of when I saw this, was number one, like Oracle's calling Force Majeure two years before they even have to like make a payment on anything.

从某种程度上说，这让我觉得有点震惊。

That was in some senses to me alarming.

我来自石油天然气行业，听到不可抗力，就意味着现在出了什么坏事，导致我三个月后无法履行合同。

Like, coming from oil and gas, when I hear Force Majeure, it's like something bad happened right now, and I can't deliver on a contract three months from now.

两年是很长的开发周期，他们现在就这么早提这个，有点可疑。因为我们在讨论这个项目时，Oracle就像我们说的，一直是比较不稳的那个。

Two years is a long development time, and the fact that they're already calling this is somewhat questionable because I think of when we we have been talking about this development, Oracle has been, as we've said, one of the shakier ones.

它一直用表外交易来推进，而不是像Alphabet、亚马逊那样承担更多债务。

It's been using off balance sheet deals to get it done, not taking on a lot more debt relative to the Alphabets, the Amazons, the worlds to do it.

所以这么快就提不可抗力，我觉得很有意思，也让我对它的竞争地位有点担忧。

And so to to as quickly call Force Majeure, I found fascinating and also a little bit on the competitive position here.

接下来是我的阴谋论想法。

And here's my conspiratorial thought.

再说，你可以把我从悬崖边拉回来，但甲骨文和OpenAI做了很多这样的交易，比如他们投资了OpenAI，我们之前也聊过这种循环融资。

And, again, you can walk me off the ledge here, but Oracle has been doing a lot of these deals with OpenAI, where it's like OpenAI they take an investment in OpenAI, and we've talked about these circular financings.

现在突然之间，所有这些AI公司都以安全为由推迟IPO，或者说他们是以安全为由。

And now all of a sudden, all of these AI companies are delaying their IPOs for safety reasons, or they're saying safety reasons.

我们看到了很多关于明显安全问题的报道。

We've seen a lot of stories coming out about obvious safety questions.

所以我有点觉得，也许甲骨文这么做是因为他们知道自己很难从那些声称已经获得承诺的人那里拿到钱。

And so part of me is saying like, well, maybe Oracle's doing this because they know they are gonna struggle to get paid from the people that they said they got the commitments from.

我觉得这挺有意思的。

I think that's interesting.

我的意思是，看，我对这些安全问题的阴谋论是，这些公司在IPO前想专注于收入，而不是科学项目，那可能意味着，你知道，也许前沿模型不会得到所有关注，所以需要的计算量会减少。

I mean, look, I think that my conspiracy theory on these safety things is that these companies pre IPO wanna focus on revenue and not the science project, and that would mean kind of, you know, maybe not the frontier models getting all of the attention and so less compute needed.

很难说，但我觉得有可能。

It's hard to say, but I think that's possible.

我确实说过，为什么是他们，为什么是现在？

I do think I said like why them and why now?

我觉得这些问题很有意思。

I think are very interesting questions.

我觉得为什么是甲骨文，而不是，我不知道，Alphabet或者其他公司来做这件事，是因为正如我们所知，甲骨文的基础比较薄弱。

I think the why them versus, I don't know, alphabet or someone else that's doing this is because as we know, Oracle is starting from a weaker foundation.

他们在这里确实有点如履薄冰。

They they do have kind of thinner ice here.

不是说冰太薄，不是说他们会掉下去，但他们确实，你知道，他们确实没有那么多资源来支撑这件事。

Not that it's too thin, not that they're gonna fall, but they do have, you know, they do have less resources to back this up.

为什么是现在，这让我很着迷，因为你说得对，可能只是那个原因，也可能是甲骨文基于他们已经借的钱在回答这些问题，他们的一些债权人也在问问题，或者可能意味着他们想做更多的交易，而这种威胁或者相关的责任在某种程度上阻碍了进展。

The why now fascinates me because you're right, it could just be that or it could be that either Oracle is taking questions on this based on what they've already borrowed and some of their creditors are asking questions, or it could mean they want to do more deals and this, you know, kind of the threat of this or the liability attached here is kind of holding things back.

最大的收获是我们不知道。

The big takeaway we don't know.

其中很多都是猜测，但最大的收获是，我想，我们已经知道的是，甲骨文并不是从强势地位出发的，就是这样。

A lot of this is speculation, but the big takeaway here is, I guess, what we already knew is that, you know, Oracle isn't coming from a position of strength, period.

我同意你的部分观点，泰勒。

I'll meet you halfway, Tyler.

我是说，当你想到所有事情的发展方向时，不可否认的是，长尾效应仍然存在。

I mean, when you think about where everything is going, it's undeniable that the long tail is still in place.

我们正在重新构想整个互联网的基础设施，我不认为有什么能阻止这列火车，但一切变化太快了，以至于谁在领跑、他们如何领跑、以及所需的计算资源是什么，这些都变化得太快，以至于任何事都有可能被质疑，而且，是的，OpenAI 特别提到，他们需要重新考虑与 Oracle 合作的一些情况。

We are reimagining the entire infrastructure of the internet, and I don't think that anything stops this train, but everything is so fast changing that who is leading, how are they leading and what are the compute requirements to do that, it changes so quickly that anything is is up for debate and whether or not, yeah, OpenAI specifically is saying, oh, we we're needing to rethink some things here with our situation with Oracle.

我是说，这是一个值得提出的问题，而且我不禁怀疑，这样的对话是否正在另一个房间里进行。

I mean, that is a valid question to be asking and wondering if that conversation isn't happening in another room.

我只想说，如果有什么能阻止这列火车的话，那就是在美国非常擅长阻止火车的东西——法庭诉讼。

All I'll say is if there's one thing that can stop this train, it's been very good at stopping trains in The United States, it's litigation in court.

所以我觉得接下来可能会有一个非常精彩的故事。

So I think we could have a fascinating story coming up here.

我们会在休息之后稍微回到正题。

We'll get a little bit back more on schedule coming up after the break.

他们说，领导力不仅仅在于你要去哪里。

They say leadership isn't just about where you're going.

更在于你到达那里所需要的信念。

It's about the conviction it takes to get there.

对于那些追求极致、有决心去争取的人来说，有一款同样卓越的座驾。

For those who demand the world and possess the drive to claim it, there's a vehicle of equal distinction.

卓越。

Distinction.

设计动感，专为纯粹冲击力而生，路虎揽胜运动版在你领跑的那一刻，便与你相得益彰。

Dynamic by design and engineered for pure impact, the Range Rover Sport rises to meet you the moment you take the lead.

这是迄今最先进的揽胜运动版，堪称毫不妥协的性能与无拘无束的敏捷性的典范。

This is the most advanced Range Rover Sport yet, a master class in uncompromised performance and unbridled agility.

车内，创新无缝融合。

Inside, the innovation is seamless.

你会发现一块优雅的13.1英寸触控屏，车辆系统的全面掌控尽在指尖。

You'll find an elegant 13.1 inch touchscreen that puts total control of the vehicle's systems right at your fingertips.

但真正让它与众不同的是那份精致。

But it's the refinement that sets it apart.

雕塑般的22向加热座椅，内置按摩功能，确保每一段旅程都享有无与伦比的舒适。

Sculpted 22 way heated seating with built in massage function ensures every journey is defined by peerless comfort.

无论是独特的内饰装饰还是定制的轮毂选项，个性化你的揽胜运动版的方式几乎无穷无尽。

Whether it's through unique interior finishes or custom wheel options, the ways to personalize your Range Rover Sport are nearly unlimited.

吸引目光，体验移动中的极致奢华。

Command attention and experience ultimate luxury in motion.

现在就有专属优惠。

Exclusive offers are available now.

更多详情，请访问rangerover.com。

Explore further at rangerover.com.

你刚发现你的销售团队可能完不成销售指标。

You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota.

别慌。

Don't panic.

直接问Rippling AI。

Just ask Rippling AI.

因为它基于你的实时人事和业务数据，Rippling AI可以从Rippling和Salesforce中提取数据，生成一个会议就绪的仪表盘，显示各地区的配额完成情况、人员编制计划和月度收入与配额的对比。

Since it's built on your real time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region.

几秒钟内，你就能清楚看到配额风险背后的原因，并在错过之前及时解决。

In seconds, you'll see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed.

问题得到解答，行动已经采取，危机化解了。

Question answered, action taken, Crisis averted.

当你有关键的业务问题需要答案时，不要只是提交工单，然后等上几周才能拿到过时的报告。

When you have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report.

描述你的需求，让 Rippling AI 根据你的实时人员和业务数据立即构建解决方案。

Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data.

无论是带有详细图表的仪表板，还是带有正确触发器、条件和审批的自动化工作流。

Whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals.

准备好掌控你的业务了吗？

Ready to rule your business?

前往 rippling.ai/fool，获取唯一能让你全面了解情况并能在整个组织中执行复杂操作的 AI。

Head to rippling.ai/fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization.

网址是 rippling.ai/fool。

That's rippling.ai/fool.

今天就注册获取独家访问权限，rippling.ai/fool。

Sign up for exclusive access today, rippling.ai/fool.

通常我们在节目最后会回答听众问题，但今天这个问题挺有分量的，所以我想多留点时间来讨论。

Now normally, we do a listener question at the end of the show, but today, we got a pretty meaty question here, so I wanted to give us a little bit of extra time to discuss it.

记住，如果你有问题，尽管发邮件到 podcast@fool.com。

Remember, if you have a question, go ahead and email us at podcast@fool.com.

是 podcast，带个 s。

That's podcast with an s.

邮件地址在节目简介里也有，方便你查看。

We have also got the email in the show description in case you need it there.

今天的问题来自 Zach，各位，我要把它拆开来说，因为就像我说的，这个问题内容很丰富，包含了好几个问题，我觉得值得深入探讨。

Today's question comes in from Zach, and guys, I'm gonna split it up because it's, like I said, meaty questions, several questions, and I thought it was worth diving into.

嗨，Motley Fool 团队，我是老听众了，很喜欢这个节目。

Hi, Motley Fool team, longtime listener and love the show.

最近美敦力发起了自愿交换要约，打算拆分其糖尿病业务 MiniMed，我一直在想，普通投资者应该如何评估这类公司行为。

With Medtronic recently launching a voluntary exchange offer to separate its diabetes business, MiniMed, I have been thinking about how everyday investors should evaluate these types of corporate actions.

既然你在邮件里提供了很棒的高层次教育视角，谢谢，扎克。

Since you provide great high level educational perspectives in the mailbag, Thanks, Zach.

你能解释一下拆股和交换要约是怎么运作的吗？

Could you break down how splits and exchange offers work?

我们先从他特别想知道的第一个问题开始。

And we'll start with this first question that he wants specifically.

股息投资者的两难困境。

The dividend investor dilemma.

以收入为目标的投资者，应该如何权衡继续持有成熟的派息股，还是换成增长迅速但不派息的纯业务公司，即使有内置激励？

How should income focused investors weigh keeping an established dividend payer versus swapping for a fast growing nondividend pure play even with a built in incentive.

在这个案例中，关于美敦力的MiniMed，作为投资者，你在分拆中会获得7%的估值折扣。

And in this case, for the mini Medtronic MiniMed thing, there's a 7% valuation discount that you get as investor as part of the spin off.

那么，各位，一个股息投资者在交换中获得不派息的股票，这到底是怎么回事？

So, guys, a dividend investor getting a non dividend stock in an exchange, how does this work?

你们怎么看？

What are your thoughts?

我们这档节目不给出具体的投资建议，是有原因的。

There's a reason why we don't give personalized investing advice on this show.

这不只是为了规避风险，而是因为投资本身非常个性化，你得对某人的个人情况了如指掌才行，而我们做不到这一点。

It's not just covering our back end, it literally is because so much of investing is personal, and you would need to know somebody's personal situation so intimately, and we don't.

所以我们不会针对个人的具体情况发表意见。而这个问题里，关于股息收入和增长——特别是营收增长之间的权衡，就特别相关。

So, we don't speak to individual situations, and in this, it's very relevant for this question, the debate between dividend income and growth, revenue growth specifically.

我觉得从理论上来讲，选择增长是说得通的。

I would say that on paper, it makes sense to go with growth.

波士顿咨询集团做过一项长达二十年的滚动周期研究，我记得大概是这个时间跨度，也可能是十年滚动周期。结果显示，在表现最好的前四分之一股票中，增长是带来收益的最大因素。

Boston Consulting Group did a long, long study over twenty year rolling periods, I believe it was, or maybe it was ten year rolling periods, showing that among the top quartile of best performing stocks, growth was the biggest contributing factor to the gains.

所以从纸面数据来看，我觉得我应该把投资组合的重心放在增长上，因为增长的潜力会超过股息带来的提升。

And so, on paper, that to me points to, I want to maximize my portfolio for growth, because that's going to outweigh the boost that dividends provide.

不过，真实的投资并不只是纸上谈兵。

However, real life investing doesn't take place just on paper.

它发生在现实世界里，我有实际的顾虑，有情绪波动，也有希望在持仓中看到的东西。

It takes place in the real world where I have real concerns, I have emotions, and I have things that I want to see in my portfolio.

而且我觉得，可能有些人不想承受增长带来的波动，而这种波动正是这种投资方式的一部分。

And I don't maybe people don't want to have the volatility that comes with growth and that is part and parcel to that method of investing.

所以，这真的取决于具体情况。

So, it really depends on the situation.

我认为，持有一批稳定派息的股票，在多元化投资组合中是有道理的。

I think that having a stack of just consistent dividend paying stocks makes sense in a diversified portfolio.

我也理解那种想法，就是我要把这只派息股换成更好的增长机会。

I also see the rationale in saying, I'm gonna trade out this dividend payer for a better growth opportunity.

我觉得两种做法都有道理，取决于你的情况。

I think either can make sense, depending on your situation.

我觉得，是的，扎克在提问时的措辞让我有点倾向于他的方向，因为他说，一个以收入为导向的投资者应该怎么做，而且，扎克，我不知道，但我可以告诉你我会怎么想。

I think, yeah, Zach kinda tipped the scales for me in kinda how he worded the question, because he said, how should an income focused investor and again, I don't know, Zach, I can tell you though how I would think about this.

如果我买美敦力是为了股息，如果我专注于收入，我可能会保留这份收入，我会更倾向于继续持有美敦力，保留股息。

If I bought Medtronic for the dividend, if I'm focused on income, I'm probably keeping the income and I'm going to be more swayed by keeping Medtronic and keeping the dividend.

关于这一点，他还问到了分拆和换股是怎么运作的，这基本上是一种免税的公司拆分，有时候你两者都能得到，有时候你只能选一个，就像这个案例，但这是对公司进行免税的拆分。

The great thing about this, and he kind of asks also like how do split and exchanges work, it's basically a tax free, sometimes you get both, sometimes you got to choose one or the other like in this case, but it's a tax free carving up of the company.

好消息是，你可以两者兼得。

Here's the great thing, you can have both.

你可以继续持有美敦力，同时买入另一家公司MiniMed的股票，如果想的话，税务影响也是一样的。

You can keep your Medtronic and buy the other company, MiniMed, buy shares for the same tax implications if you want.

所以其实你不需要做选择。

So you kind of don't have to choose.

你的选择在于，你需要投入新的资金。

Your choice would be you have to commit new capital.

但你看，如果你是个注重收入的投资者，买股息股就是为了这个，那我觉得如果是我，我可能会倾向于继续持有这只股息股。

But look, if you are an income focused investor and that's the reason you bought a dividend stock, I think if it was me, I'd probably lean towards keeping the dividend stock.

如果你更看重增长，当初买美敦力是因为看好它的增长潜力，那股息对你来说可能就没那么重要了，你可能会考虑另一家。

If you're focused on growth and you bought Medtronic because you were excited about the growth, then probably the dividend means less to you and maybe you look at the other one.

那么问题的第二部分来了，我会尽量把它说得更通用一些，因为扎克的问题比较集中在医疗保健领域。

So here's the second part of the question, and I'm gonna try to make it a little bit more general because Zach's question's a little bit focused on the healthcare part.

但从你的投资组合策略来看，当一家成熟的大公司剥离一个较小的业务单元，结果虽然提升了总收入，但利润率却降低了，这到底意味着什么呢？

But what does it for in terms of your portfolio strategy, what does it signal when an established giant company divests a smaller unit that as a result, you know, it drives up top line revenue, but kind of makes for lower margins.

这里可以有很多不同的方向，我先让你们说，然后我再总结。

There it can go in a lot of different directions here, and I'll let you guys go and then I'll finish up.

嗯，首先想到的是，任何拆分或者公司一分为二的时候，如果你想想，任何有多部门的公司内部都存在资本争夺。

Well, first thing that comes to mind, think with any split or any time a company breaks itself in two, there is, if you think about it, a war for capital inside any company with multiple divisions.

不是每个人都能得到同样多的资本。

Not everybody gets the same amount of capital.

母公司，CEO只有那么多资金可以分配给子公司，他们都在争抢。

The parent, the CEO only has so much allowance to give to his subsidiaries and they're fighting for it.

一般来说，理论上，拆分之所以有效，是因为竞争消失了。

In general, in theory, why splits work is that competition goes away.

两家公司，在这种情况下，一个可能增长较慢，一个增长较快。

Both companies, in this case, you have a maybe slower growth and a faster growth.

他们可以根据各自业务的需求来分配资本。

They can allocate capital towards the needs of their specific business.

所以这基本上就是拆分看涨的理由。

So that is kind of the bull case for splits in general.

不管这是个好主意还是坏主意，我觉得这还是要看具体情况，一个一个分析。

Whether or not it's a good idea, bad idea, I think again, that's an individual, case by case thing.

不过我要说的是，在这个案例里，一个很大的信号就是他们给投资者提供溢价来收购MiniMed。

I will say in this case, a huge flag is that they are offering a premium for investors to take MiniMed.

他们提供的，就像Zach提到的，是7%的估值折扣。

They are offering that, as Zach mentioned, a 7% valuation discount.

这可能是因为美敦力是一家分红型公司。

Now it could be because Medtronic is a dividend player.

他们认为自己的投资者群体对增长不太感兴趣，所以想通过这种方式来平衡他们目标受众的期望。

They think their investment base is less interested in growth, so they're just trying to even the playing fields that way with their target audience.

或者这也可能是一个信号，表明市场可能更看好美敦力。

Or it could be a signal that the market is probably favoring Medtronic.

你知道，这很难给出一个统一的答案，但我确实认为你得具体分析每个情况，弄清楚这些信号到底在说什么。

I you know, it's again, it's hard to just give one size fits all answers here, but I do think you have to read the individual situation and kind of figure out, like, what are the what are the signals telling?

就像我在和美敦力打扑克，这里的破绽是什么？

Like, if I'm playing poker with Medtronic here, what is the tell here?

他们没告诉我的那些信息，哪些是我可以用来做决定的？

What are they telling me that they're not telling me that I can use to make a decision?

是的，我喜欢把MiniMed从美敦力分拆出来的这个举措。

Yeah, I like this move as far as splitting out MiniMed from Medtronic.

我觉得这是个好决定。

I think it was a good move.

说到增长率的差异，其实差别不大。

When you talk about the difference of the growth rates, it's not that different.

我的意思是，MiniMed确实更好，但并没有在增长水平上拉开一个档次。

I mean, MINI MED is better, but it's not drastically in another category of growth level.

也就是中个位数和高个位数的区别。

It's, you know, mid single digits and high single digits.

差距不是特别大，但利润率差异相当显著，所以对我来说，美敦力把MiniMed分拆出去，然后能用自己的资本去发展利润率更高的业务，这确实合理。

It's not that huge of a difference, but the profit margin difference is quite significant, and so it does make sense to me for Medtronic to spin out MiniMed and then be able to dedicate its own capital to growing its higher margin business.

在我看来，这样美敦力的利润增长潜力可能会比MiniMed的利润增长更快。

That to me is going to potentially grow profits faster at Medtronic than what the profits are gonna grow at MiniMed.

所以，我觉得这个举动非常合理，但如果你听过这个说法，就打断我。

So, it makes a lot of sense to me that it would make this move, but stop me if you've heard this one before.

我的意思是，如果我们要总结一些大方向的话，每笔交易都不一样，每件事都有其独特性，所以每一笔都需要根据其本身的价值来审视。

I mean, if we're taking broad takeaways here, every deal is different, everything is unique, and so each one does need to be examined on the merits.

过去有些时候，我觉得某家公司拆分或做出类似的企业动作是错的，但也有其他时候，这显然是正确的选择。

There are times in the past where I thought that a business made a mistake to split up a company, make a corporate move like that, and there are other times that it was clearly the right move.

我会说，尽量去弄清楚背后的动机是什么。

I would say, do your best to see what is motivating it.

这是一个好的商业决策吗？你能看到商业逻辑吗？还是说感觉我们只是在试图讨好股东，你知道，激励股东士气，或者让人觉得我们在做点什么，而实际上两条船都在下沉？

Is it a good business decision, can you see the business rationale, or does it feel like we're just trying to win some shareholder, you know, rally the shareholder troops or something and make it seem like we're doing something when really both ships are going down?

更广泛地说，我觉得你们可能都会同意，有时候市场的共识是错的，也许你自己的判断也是错的。

To speak more generally to it, and I think you guys would likely all agree with this, is sometimes the consensus thesis is wrong, and perhaps your own thesis is wrong as well.

我们见过很多拆分、剥离或分拆的案例，市场共识是，哦，这是好的部分，剩下的都是垃圾，但结果往往是那个理论上的垃圾部分反而表现得非常好。

We've seen plenty of cases where we've had splits or divestitures or spin offs or something like that, and the market consensus was, oh, this was the great part, and you're left with the duds, and what ended up happening was that theoretical dud ended up doing much, much better.

我觉得通用电气的拆分就是一个很好的例子。

I think the GE split was a great or General Electric split was a great example.

大家都觉得GE医疗是那个被分拆出去的现金奶牛，是皇冠上的明珠。

Everyone thought that GE Healthcare was the cash generating, you know, crown jewel that got split off.

确实是这样。

And it's true.

它确实能产生大量现金。

It generates a lot of cash.

但他们当时觉得GE Vernova会成为问题孩子。

But they thought GEV Vernova was gonna be the problem child.

我们看，自从分拆以来，GE Vernova的表现远远超过其他所有部分，很大程度上是因为市场格局的变化等等。

We look, since the split, GEV Vernova has been by far the greatest performer out of all of those in large part because of shifting dynamics and whatnot.

但不管你对这些分拆最初有什么看法，都要保留一点，就是情况可能会变。

But it whatever your initial thoughts may be with a lot of these, these spin offs, reserve the right that it could change.

休息之后，我们要聊聊金融科技和那里的变化格局。

Coming up after the break, we're gonna talk about fintech and the changing landscape there.

每周二，我们都会在Mac Break Weekly上报道最新的苹果新闻。

Every Tuesday, we cover the latest Apple news on Mac break weekly.

嗨。

Hi.

我是TWIP播客网络的Leo Laporte，邀请你本周和我一起，嘉宾有Jason Snell、Christina Warren和Andy Inaco。

This is Leo Laporte from the TWIP podcast network inviting you to join me this week with Jason Snell, Christina Warren, and Andy Inaco.

我们将和即将离任的蒂姆·库克道别。

We'll wave goodbye to the departing Tim Cook.

欢迎约翰·特尼斯，聊聊他的领导可能给苹果带来什么变化，还有Vision Pro部门更多裁员的消息，不过Vision Pro也有个好用途。

Say hello to John Turnis and talk about what his regime may bring to Apple, plus more layoffs in the Vision Pro division, but there is a good use for the Vision Pro.

Jason发现了这个用途。

Jason's found it.

这些内容，尽在本周的Macbreak Weekly。

That and more this week on Macbrick weekly.

你可以在twit.tv/mbw以及任何你收听播客的地方找到我们。

You'll find it at twit.tv/mbw and wherever you get your podcasts.

每周三，我们会在Intelligent Machines节目中讨论AI和机器人技术。

Every Wednesday, we cover AI and robotics on intelligent machines.

你好。

Hi.

我是TWIP播客网络的Leo Laporte，这周邀请你和Jeff Jarvis、Paris Martino一起，和27岁的Div Gark聊聊。

This is Leo Laporte of the TWIP Podcasting Network inviting you to join me, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martino this week as we talk to Div Gark, 27 years old.

他创办了一家专注于小型模型的公司，这些模型小到可以装进手机里。

He's got a startup that is designed around little models, models small enough to fit in your phone.

他认为这才是AI的未来，不是大模型，而是那些能处理很多小事情的小模型。

He thinks that's the future of AI, not big models, just little models that do a lot of little things.

这周我们会在《智能机器》节目里聊这个话题。

We'll talk about that on Intelligent Machines this week.

欢迎加入我们。

Join us.

你可以在twit.tv/im或者任何你收听节目的地方找到我们。

You'll find it at twit.tv/im or wherever you get your shows.

我们今天节目一开始，其实要先聊这条新闻。

We're actually gonna start today's show with this news story.

但是因为Oracle的新闻，我们觉得必须在这里停下来。

But with the Oracle news, we thought we needed to stop there.

而今天这个故事，我觉得，正好属于那种“小心你许的愿”的类别。

And today, this particular story here, I think, come goes under the category, be careful what you ask for.

因为我们看到很多金融科技公司最近上市，表现其实还不错，而且其中很多都在反对银行业的监管，说这些监管是在保护既得利益。

Because we've seen a lot of fintech companies going public recently, doing actually relatively well, and a lot of them have been, you know, kind of arguing against regulations in the banking industry because they're protecting the entrenched interests.

结果呢，他们最近确实得到了更宽松的监管，但这样一来，我们就会看到一些非常大的竞争者进入这个领域。

Well, they've kinda gotten what they've asked for with more lax regulations as of late, and as a result, we're gonna see some very large competition coming into the space.

拉丁美洲的金融科技公司New Bank，还有欧洲的金融科技巨头Revolut，这些公司比我们现在在美国看到的很多金融科技公司要大得多。

Latin American fintech company, New Bank, and European, fintech giant, Revolut, these are companies that are much, much larger than a lot of the fintechs companies we see in The United States today.

他们实际上正在寻求获得银行牌照，打算进入美国市场，很大程度上是因为美国的银行业市场比他们目前所在的市场大得多，尽管美国市场已经有很多参与者，但他们还是看到了增长的机会。

They are actually looking to get banking charters and looking to come to The United States, and in large part because The United States banking industry is so much larger than in their current markets, and they see it as an opportunity for growth despite all of the entrants in the market already in The United States.

所以各位，当我读到这份报告时，我第一反应就是，哇。

So guys, when I read this report, the immediate thing that I said was, wow.

这个行业的进入门槛肯定没有金融科技行业里那些看涨的人想的那么高。

The barriers to entry in this industry mustn't be as much as some of the bulls in the fintech business thought it was.

我是说，这对整个行业来说意味着什么？

I mean, what does this say about the industry?

我跟你说，这对我来说就是证实了我的想法。

I'll tell you, like, this is just confirmation bias for me.

我想起了九十年代，那时候我不得不去上斯托尼尔银行学院的课。

And I go back to the nineteen nineties when I had to sit through the stonier school of banking.

我记得有句话一直让我印象深刻，也一直指引着我，那就是这个行业本质上就是在买卖货币，然后靠这个赚钱。

And I remember something really kind of stayed with me and kind of guides me here is that really all this industry is doing is buying and selling money and trying to make money that way.

而且这个领域里几乎所有的创新都只是营销手段。

And almost all innovation in this space is just marketing.

对吧？

Alright?

真的，这就是我为什么一直避开金融科技公司，因为我觉得这又一次提醒了我，在这个领域竞争有多容易。

And really, that's why I've avoided the fintechs because I think it if with this is just another reminder of how easy it is to compete here.

这个国家有八千家银行和信用合作社。

There are 8,000 banks and credit unions in this country.

现在几乎有超过500家，可能接近1000家是纯线上银行。

There are almost over 500, maybe close to a thousand online only.

这些银行没有什么特别的。

There's nothing special about any of these things.

归根结底，银行业是个简单的生意。

At the end of the day, banking is a simple business.

任何人只要营销做得好或者定价激进，就能抢占市场份额。

Anyone can grab share with either strong marketing or aggressive pricing.

所以，估值的时候要相应谨慎一点。

And look, just hold your valuations accordingly.

为什么New Bank和Revolut想进入美国市场？

Why does New Bank and Revolut want to come to The US?

答案就是，他们为什么不想呢？

The answer is why wouldn't they want to?

这是个巨大的市场，而且现在联邦银行监管机构的负责人说美国现在对商业开放，这和过去不一样了。

This is a huge market, and the opportunity right now with people in charge of the federal banking area saying The USA is now open for business, unlike how it has been in the past.

所以，这就是窗口期，他们说这是一个巨大的市场机会，而且监管环境也允许我们轻松进入。

So, this is the window, they're saying this is a huge market opportunity, and regulatory environment is such that we're going to be able to waltz in.

就像卢说的，他们之后怎么利用这个机会，关键就在于他们怎么运营这些活动，对吧？

To Lou's point, what they do with it from there, is really how they run the campaigns, right?

我的意思是，这未必是一个增长中的领域，美国市场已经非常饱和了。

I mean, it's not like this is a growing space necessarily, The US market is very saturated.

你能靠好的形象来抢占市场份额吗？

Can you take share with good optics?

我觉得可以，所以这里可能有一点机会。

I think that you can, so there might be a little bit of an opportunity here.

我认为现在金融科技公司面临的主要问题不是进入门槛，而是不断变化的动态。

I think that the bigger issue with fintechs right now is not necessarily the barriers to entry, it is more the shifting dynamics.

我确实认为，回到我们之前说的，智能体经济，没有什么能阻止这列火车，我认为没有什么能阻止现在正在构建的智能体层。

I do think that the agentic economy, to go back to what we were saying earlier, nothing stops this train, I think that nothing stops the agentic layer that is being built right now.

我们正在看到这种情况发生，我让我的AI代理替我执行某些交易。

We're seeing it happen, where I'm telling my AI agent to do certain transactions on my behalf.

我觉得这只会越来越深刻，那这对你的互联网金融科技层意味着什么呢？

I think that it's only gonna get more profound, and what does that do to your fintech layer of the internet?

我觉得事情会很快变得非常不同。

I think that things get really different really fast.

我觉得这指向那些有网络效应的公司，我们说，嘿，这就是我们在这里的优势，比如Block的Cash App，我觉得在这个日益增长的代理经济环境中，那可能会受到挑战。

I think that this points to companies that have like a network effect, that we're saying, hey, this is why we have an advantage here, such as Block's Cash App, I think that that is one that might be challenged in this environment, this growing agentic economy.

但我认为这指向实体销售点设备，也许在某种程度上是一种护城河，因为代理商业的角度不会影响我在体育场买热狗时的行为。

But I think that it points to the physical point of sale device perhaps being a little bit of a moat in some ways, because the agentic commerce angle does not impact what I do at a stadium when I buy a hot dog.

那仍然会是一笔实体交易。

That that's still gonna be a physical transaction.

所以，那些能够从实体销售点设备中获取分成比例的公司，在我看来似乎更持久一些。

So a physical point of sale device where those companies are able to have a take rate, that seems a little bit more durable to me.

所以，我认为你的支付转移，你的TOST，这些层面能够稍微持久一些，但我认为一些纯互联网金融科技公司，它们的利润率可能会开始收缩。

So, I think your shift for payments, I think that your TOST, I think that those are layers that are able to endure a little bit, but I think that some of your pure play internet fintechs, those may see their margins start to contract.

Lou，在我们结束之前，像Revolut还没有上市，它仍然是私有交易。

Lou, as we finish out here, like Revolut has not it's still privately traded.

我觉得在私募市场上，它的估值大概有1200亿美元。

I think it's about $120,000,000,000 valuation on the private markets.

它正在考虑上市，可能会在美国和伦敦双重上市，时间大概在2027年或2028年。

It's looking at doing an IPO, perhaps in a dual listing US, London sometime in, like, 2027, 2028.

考虑到这一点，Jon提到了一些他认为会从这一趋势或缺乏竞争中受益的公司。

With that in mind, Jon highlighted some of the companies he sees as benefiters of this specific trend or, you know, the the lack of competition.

你觉得有哪些公司会从这种更宽松的监管或金融科技领域的变动中受益呢？

Are there any companies that you see that are beneficiaries of this more lax regulation or the shifting sands, I guess, if you will, in the fintech space?

我对这一切的问题是，我不认为有真正改善消费者生活的创新。

The issue is I have with all of this is that I don't think that there is innovation that really makes consumers' lives better.

只是暂时的定价权。

There is temporary pricing power.

我们看到SOFI，尽管它取得了成功，而且在增长客户群方面确实很成功。

We saw SOFI for all of its success, and SOFI has been a great success in growing its customer list.

但这是以牺牲交叉销售和盈利能力为代价的，而且他们是通过某种非理性或不太理性的定价来实现的。

They've done that at the expense of cross selling, so profitability, and also they've done it by with kind of irrational pricing or less rational pricing.

所以每个群体都有对应的群体。

So there is a gang for every gang.

我不认为，尽管说了那么多，是的，我们在引进新人，但我觉得事情并没有发生太大变化。

I don't think that we for all the rhetoric, yeah, we're bringing new people in, I don't think things are shifting that much.

如果有机会，虽然这是最无聊的看法，但我觉得你会看到很多信用合作社转成银行并上市，这些就是我认为未来大赢家的一些小盘股。

If there is opportunity, and this is the most boring way to look at it is though, I think you're gonna see a lot of credit unions convert the banks and become stocks, and those are some of the small caps that I think are tomorrow's big winners.

所以这就是我关注的方向。

So that's kind of where I'm looking here.

至于金融科技，它已经变成了一种商品。

As for fintech, it is a commodity.

即使是那些支付公司，甚至Toast这样的公司，有一天也可能被削弱成一种商品。

Even those payment even toast things someday can be whittled away to a commodity.

只要记住，它们可能是好生意，但要为这些东西支付合理的估值。

Just be aware that they can be good businesses, but pay an appropriate valuation for these things.

Lou，从信用合作社转成股票，听起来像是这个播客里最Lou的事情。

Lou, thrift conversions to stocks from credit unions sounds like the most Lou thing imaginable for this podcast.

泰乐，这里面有很多钱可以赚。

Lot of money to be made, Tyler.

好了，今天的时间就到这里。

Well, that's all the time we have for today.

和往常一样，节目中的嘉宾可能对他们讨论的股票有兴趣，而The Motley Fool也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 to 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来买卖股票。

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.

广告是赞助内容，仅供参考。

Advertisements are sponsored content and provide for informational purposes only.

要查看我们的完整广告披露，请查看我们的节目说明。

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

感谢我们的制作人Dan Boyd，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.

感谢乔恩、卢和我自己，感谢收听，我们很快再聊。

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