TIP850：沃尔玛（WMT）：从折扣零售商到电商巨头的蜕变，对话 Kyle Grieve 与 Shawn O'Malley

所以如果沃尔玛的运营成本上升了，那他们就没法把省下来的钱转给顾客，也就没法

So if Walmart were running away that caused cost to rise, well then there's just no way they could pass those savings on to their customers and they wouldn't be able

利用同样的规模效应了。

to take advantage of the same scale efficiencies.

对，规模效应绝对是最明显的优势。而且关于信任那部分，我觉得也融入了品牌力量的因素。

Yeah, those scale efficiencies are definitely the most obvious advantage And the part about trust too, I think that also weaves in an element of brand power.

不过我得说，考虑到沃尔玛的规模如此之大，这个优势其实相对较弱。

Although I would say this is an advantage that's much weaker for Walmart given its incredibly high levels of scale.

当然，沃尔玛的品牌非常强大，但这更多反映的是他们运营的规模水平。

Of course, the Walmart brand is very strong, but that's really more to say about the level of scale that they operate at.

我觉得有趣的是，尽管沃尔玛有这种能力，但在过去将近二十年里，他们的利润率并没有因此得到提升。

And I think the interesting thing though about Walmart's skill is that this hasn't really led to them being able to improve margins at all over the last nearly two decades or so.

我觉得这在规模效应上有点奇怪，因为你通常会预期规模效益会随时间不断累积，而且他们可能还有更多的经营杠杆可以释放。

And I think this is a little strange when thinking of scale because you would expect scale benefits to continue to accrue to a company over time and that there might be some more operating leverage for them to unlock.

理论上，随着规模扩大，他们可以在保持低价给消费者的同时，解锁更高的利润率。

And in theory, as they scale, they could unlock growing margins while still relaying lower prices to consumers.

这大概就是好处所在。

That would be sort of the benefit.

然而，沃尔玛的利润率表现却完全无法支撑这一论点。

And yet the margin profile for Walmart doesn't really support that thesis at all.

而且，自2005年以来，毛利率上升了一个百分点，而营业利润率实际上从6%下降到了今天的4%。

And, gross margins are up a percentage point since 2005 and operating margins are actually down from 6% to 4% today.

当你谈论的是数千亿美元的销售额时，这些微小的百分比差异就相当于数十亿美元的收益。

And when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in sales, these small percentage differences are so worth billions of dollars in earnings.

所以我认为我们不应该低估这一点的重要性，也不应该轻易忽视营业利润率实际上下降了三分之一的事实。

So I don't think we should underestimate the significance in that and, you know, write off of basically what is a one third decline in operating margins.

我的猜测是，首先，大型零售商和电商运营的盈利能力存在硬性限制。

And my guess would be that there are hard limits on just how profitable a major retailer and e commerce operation can be sort of firstly.

但其次，激烈的竞争，尤其是来自亚马逊的竞争，可能一直在持续压制它们。

But then also that intense competition has probably constantly weighed on them in this time, namely from Amazon.

然而，在同一二十年期间，如果我们看看好市多，它的营业利润率却增长了三分之二。

But still over this same twenty year period, if we look at Costco, Costco has seen its operating margins increase by two thirds.

所以，你知道，这某种程度上是沃尔玛特有的现象。

So, you know, this is somewhat of a Walmart unique phenomenon.

同时，我觉得好市多的利润率其实也不算特别高，对吧？

And at the same time, I would say the margins at Costco though are not so massive, right?

他们仍然在低个位数百分比上运营。

They're still operating at low single digit percentages.

对我来说，这恰恰说明这两家公司都是在刀尖上跳舞，整体上赚得盆满钵满，但从百分比来看，利润率跟我们在节目里聊过的几乎任何公司都没法比。

And to me that just shows how both of these companies are really operating on a razor's edge and they make plenty of money overall, but in percentage terms, the margins are nothing like, well, really almost any company that we've covered on this show.

我们谈到的大多数公司，其护城河并不是单纯来自规模经济，以及相应的规模共享，也就是把从规模中获得的几乎所有利润增长都回馈给顾客，降低价格，这样一来，除了亚马逊和好市多，可能还有塔吉特这样的公司，其他人几乎无法与他们竞争。

Most of the companies we talk about don't singularly draw their moat from economies of scale and scaled economies shared correspondingly, which is this idea of recycling almost all of your margin gains from scale back into lower prices for customers, which makes it almost impossible for anyone besides Amazon and Costco and maybe to a lesser extent, a place like Target to compete with them.

所以我想知道的是，沃尔玛是否基本上把从规模中积累的利润增长，甚至更多，都转化成了更低的价格，这在理论上会支持收入增长，或者面对激烈的竞争，也许只是为了保住市场份额而不得不这样做。

So I guess what I'm wondering is whether Walmart has basically recycled all of its margin gains that it would have accrued from scale and maybe more into lower prices for customers, which would in theory support revenue growth or in light of really intense competition, perhaps be necessary for them just to defend their market share.

我觉得你说得对，沃尔玛从财务角度来看，并没有直接从规模扩张中获益。

And I think I'd agree with you that Walmart specifically from a financial standpoint hasn't directly benefited from their ability to scale explicitly.

但我认为它确实间接获益了。

But I think it has absolutely benefited implicitly.

最近我又看了一篇乔什·泰拉索夫写的很棒的文章，他在里面讨论了显性信念和隐性信念的概念。

Now I recently revisited a really good article by Josh Terasoft in which he discussed the concept of explicit and implicit conviction.

在投资里，显性信念通常是通过数字、指标和关键绩效指标来体现的。

So explicit conviction in investing is generally seen through numbers, you know, metrics and KPIs.

比如沃尔玛，根据我的计算，它的投入资本回报率是16%，这就是显性信念，因为这个数字是实实在在存在的。

So Walmart for instance has a return on invested capital of 16% according to my calculations, and that is explicit conviction because that number exists.

但隐性信念就更微妙了，如果没有更深入的思考和理解，很难识别出来。

But implicit conviction is more subtle and hard to identify without a higher degree of maybe thinking and understanding.

泰拉索夫举了个例子，说当一家公司遇到一些逆风时，你得问自己，你觉得他们能不能挺过去，这时候体现的就是隐性信念。

So TerraSoft gives the example that implicit conviction is evident when a company goes through maybe some headwinds and you have to ask yourself whether you think they can come out well on the other side.

这就是隐性信念。

That's implicit conviction.

基于这个，我觉得我们可以从隐性角度来看看他们的规模经济。

So building on top of this, I think we can kind of look at their economies of scales implicitly.

比如说，确实，随着业务规模扩大，他们的利润率并没有提高，但他们把大批量采购省下来的成本用在了哪里呢？我觉得这又回到了你刚才问的那个问题。

For instance, yes, they're not improving their margins as the business scales, but what are they doing with the cost savings they get from buying larger volumes, which I think gets back to the question that you just posed.

你知道，他们没有把那些利润留给自己，而是让利给顾客，让他们能以更低的价格买到商品，这也是他们能一直推行天天低价策略的原因。

You know, instead of taking more of that margin for themselves, they're passing along to their customers and allowing them to buy their goods at a lower price, which is why they can run the whole everyday low pricing angle to begin with.

这让他们再次成为一个非常强大的竞争对手，我们没看到这必然转化为巨大的利润增长，但也可以解释为什么他们也没有遭受巨大的利润损失，即使竞争对手从他们那里抢走市场份额，并且有一种去杠杆效应。

And it just makes them, again, such a formidable competitor where we're not seeing that necessarily translate into massive margin gains, but also we can probably attribute to why they haven't had massive margin losses either as competitors take market share from them and there's sort of a deleveraging effect.

这个概念我知道我们俩都是从尼克·斯利普的信件中学到的。

And this is a concept I know we both have learned from Nick Sleep's letters.

对于不熟悉的人来说，他是一位非常出色的投资者。

And so he was a really incredible investor for anyone not familiar.

他写到了我们一直在提到的规模共享经济这个想法。

And he wrote about this idea of scale economy shared that we've sort of been alluding to.

公司不是把规模扩大的好处只留给企业所有者，而是与顾客分享这些好处。

And instead of a company reaping the benefits of scaling and returning those benefits just simply to the owners of the business, they share them with its customers.

斯利普在他的信件中大力宣扬这个概念，但他没有写沃尔玛。

And so Sleep evangelized that concept in his letters, but he didn't write about Walmart.

他选了他们的一个竞争对手，好市多。

He picked one of their competitors, Costco.

在价格方面，我确实认为只要你能接受大包装，好市多就是最终权威。

And on price, I do think Costco is a final authority as long as you're okay with bulk sizing.

作为顾客，你在外面能找到的每单位成本，差不多就是它这个水平了。

It's about as good as it gets in per unit costs as a customer that you're going to find out there.

但我确实认为同样的理念也完全可以应用到沃尔玛和亚马逊身上。

But I do think the same idea could very much be applied to Walmart as well as Amazon.

对，我觉得没错。

Yeah, I think that's right.

现在我要稍微跑题一下，但我会拉回来的。

Now I'm going go off on a bit of a tangent here, but I'll bring it back.

沃尔玛还有一个优势，这个解释起来有点奇怪，但我会尽力说清楚。

So there's another advantage that Walmart has that's a little weirder to try and explain, but I'll give it my best shot.

想象一下你在经营一个柠檬水摊。

So imagine you're running a lemonade stand.

要做柠檬水，你需要原料。

Now to make lemonade, you need supplies.

你需要柠檬、糖、冰块、水等等。

You need lemon, you need sugar, ice, water, etcetera.

幸运的是，你的供应商非常非常慷慨，他们提供你所有需要的原料。

Lucky for you, your supplier who supplies all those inputs is very, very generous.

他们把你需要的所有物资都送过来，但只要求你在收到货后六十天付款。

So they send you all the supplies you need, but only require that you pay for them, Let's say sixty days after you get them.

与此同时，你大约三十天就会用完所有物资。

In the meantime, it takes you about thirty days to run out of all of your supplies.

所以整整一个月，你已经拿到了卖柠檬水赚的钱，却还没付给供应商一分钱。

So for a full month, you've already got the cash from all the lemonade that you sold and you still haven't paid your supplier a dime.

这基本上就是沃尔玛的做法，只不过规模大到让人难以想象。

Now that's basically what Walmart does, but at a scale that's pretty hard to really grasp.

他们把商品摆上货架，先收钱，然后再付钱给供应商。

So they sell stuff on the shelves and collect the cash before they paid the companies that supplied it to them.

用金融术语来说，这叫做负营运资本。

So in finance terms, this is referred to as negative working capital.

截至最近一个季度，这个数字大约是负270亿美元，而且这些年一直在稳步增长。

And as of the latest quarter, it sits at about negative $27,000,000,000 a figure that has been steadily growing over the years.

这是一个非常大的优势。

And this is a very large advantage.

所以基本上意味着供应商在替沃尔玛承担大部分库存的资金压力。

So it basically means that suppliers finance much of Walmart's inventory on Walmart's behalf.

也就是说，他们不需要借债来为这部分业务融资。

And that means that they don't need to take on debt to finance this part of the business.

但这并不是说沃尔玛就没有任何风险了。

Now that's not to say that Walmart is free of any risk.

对供应商有这么大的影响力，意味着沃尔玛在这种关系中拥有巨大的权力，这当然大部分时候是好事，但也意味着你需要确保这段关系维护得很好，因为你绝对不想把它搞砸。

So having that much leverage over your supplier means that Walmart has a ton of power in that relationship, which yes, is great for the most part, But it also means that you need to make sure that that relationship is very well cultivated as you most definitely do not want to blow it up.

我知道沃尔玛在这方面挺出名的，因为他们的供应商对于为了给顾客更低价格而被压榨这件事，确实不太高兴。

It's an area I know Walmart is sort of notorious for because well, their suppliers are not exactly thrilled about getting squeezed so customers can have lower prices.

但作为供应商，你很难反抗，因为没有其他客户能像沃尔玛这样，让你卖出这么大的量。

But you can't really push back if you're a supplier because there's no other client out there like Walmart for you to sell to and for you to be able to sell the kind of volumes that you might be able to.

所以负营运资本也是很多优秀零售企业的核心支柱，从亚马逊、沃尔玛到AutoZone都是这样。

And so negative working capital too is also, really a pillar of a lot of great retail businesses from Amazon and Walmart to AutoZone as well.

我们之前还聊过Alphabet，它也是一家护城河很宽的公司。

And we recently spoke about Alphabet, which is another company with a very wide moat.

我们讨论过的一个观点是，护城河宽的企业往往花很多时间在法庭上，试图告诉律师、法官和公众他们不是垄断企业。

And one of the points we discussed was how wide moat businesses often spend a lot of time in court trying to tell lawyers and judges and the public that they're not a monopoly.

这个想法是从彼得·蒂尔那里学来的，他在《从0到1》里讲过。

That's sort of an idea that we learned from Peter Thiel and they spoke Zero to One.

而且我觉得百事最近有些新闻，也许可以用作沃尔玛议价能力和寡头垄断权力的案例研究。

And I do believe that there's some recent news from Pepsi that maybe we can use as a case study on Walmart's bargaining and oligopolistic power.

百事这个案例确实很好，能展示我认为沃尔玛凭借其规模所拥有的各种优势。

The PepsiCo case is a really good case study to show the kinds of advantages that I think Walmart has given its scale.

去年，联邦贸易委员会对百事提起诉讼，指控其操纵价格。

So last year, the Federal Trade Commission opened a case against PepsiCo alleging price rigging.

具体来说，他们给沃尔玛优惠定价，据称让那些与沃尔玛竞争百事软饮料转售的零售商处于不利地位，这些零售商遍布全美，包括家族经营的社区杂货店、本地便利店、中档超市和独立零售商。

So specifically, they gave Walmart preferential pricing, quote, disadvantaged retailers who compete with Walmart in the resale of Pepsi soft drinks across The United States, including family owned neighborhood grocery stores, local convenience stores, mid tier grocers, and independent retailers.

不过说实话，这个案子最后被驳回了，但我觉得这确实能说明沃尔玛对供应商有多大的影响力。

Now to be fair, the case was eventually dismissed, but I do think it goes to show you just how powerful Walmart is with its suppliers.

因为它能买卖的商品量实在太大了。

Because of just the sheer volume of goods that it can buy and sell.

它可以从供应商那里争取到让步，而规模较小的竞争对手根本做不到，也永远不可能做到。

They can demand concessions from suppliers that smaller competitors simply just can't do and are never really going to be capable of doing.

或者，比如拿德国来说吧。

Or, you know, take Germany as an example.

德国现在连一家沃尔玛都没有，但以前其实有过。

So Germany is a country that doesn't even have a Walmart today, but it did once have one.

当时沃尔玛的价格便宜到基本上把那些小竞争对手都挤垮了，他们根本没法跟沃尔玛竞争，因为它的价格太低了。

Now Walmart's prices were so cheap that it was basically destroying smaller competitors who just couldn't compete with Walmart because of its cheap prices in Germany.

所以德国监管机构介入，要求沃尔玛必须涨价，好让其他企业还能有竞争力。

So German regulators stepped in, they demanded that Walmart literally increase their prices so as to allow other businesses to remain competitive.

从监管机构的角度看，这招奏效了，因为沃尔玛最后完全退出了德国市场。

And it worked from the regulators angle as Walmart ended up exiting Germany entirely.

哇。

Wow.

这确实说明了沃尔玛的一个潜在缺点。

Well that speaks to one of the potential downsides of Walmart.

虽然我很感激附近有沃尔玛，但我……

As much as I'm thankful to have a Walmart nearby, I...

如果我是小本经营的店主，我的看法可能就不一样了，对吧？

My perspective would probably be different if I was a mom and pop retailer, right?

我是说，我见过美国很多小镇，沃尔玛一进来，几乎立刻就让几十家本地店铺倒闭了。

I mean, I've seen plenty of small towns across The US where Walmart came in and pretty much immediately put maybe dozens of local stores at a business.

再说，这就是资本主义，作为顾客，我很感激能从中受益。

And again, that's just capitalism and as a customer, I am thankful to be able to benefit from that.

但你能理解为什么有些社区对此不满，为什么有些地方或整个市场会抵制它。

But you can see why it rubs some communities the wrong way and why they get pushed back in some places or in entire markets.

是的，我也完全能理解。

Yeah, I can totally see it too.

这真的让我想起了BC省的一个小镇，我路过好几次，叫梅里特。

It actually really reminds me of the small town in BC that I've been through multiple times called Merit.

所以如果你经过那里需要买东西，基本上你肯定会直奔沃尔玛。

So if you pass through there and you need to shop for something, chances are basically you're gonna head straight to Walmart.

你知道，如果你想找其他商店，也许我在那里待的时间不够长，它们其实真的很稀少。

You know, if you're looking for other shops and perhaps I haven't spent enough time there, they're actually really sparse.

我觉得那是因为沃尔玛自己就能满足这个镇的需求。

And I think that's because Walmart just is able to meet the town's demand on its own.

所以，你知道，我确实认为沃尔玛是那种你可以说不是双赢的企业，因为他们的运作方式基本上就是把竞争完全排除在外。

So, you know, I do think Walmart is one of those businesses that you can argue isn't a win win because the way they function is to just basically remove competition from the equation entirely.

而且因为他们能从供应商那里大量采购，获得这么有利的条件，他们基本上创造了一个生态系统，在价格上几乎不可能和他们竞争。

And since they can buy such large volumes from suppliers and secure these favorable terms, they basically create this ecosystem where it's nearly impossible to compete with them on price.

而且因为他们规模这么大，他们基本上可以随意选择，在特定商品上几乎零利润甚至亏本卖，如果他们觉得这样能挤掉竞争对手，吸引顾客，而这些顾客最终还是会买沃尔玛其他高利润的商品。

And since they have so much scale, they can basically just pick and choose to make essentially zero margin or even a loss on specific items if they feel like that's gonna choke out competition and bring in customers who are going to still end up buying, you know, other high margin products from Walmart.

不过我现在想放下这个话题，因为我确信很多听众都熟悉芒格对好市多的看法。

Now I want to get off my high horse here though, because I'm sure a lot of listeners are familiar with Munger's thoughts on Costco.

说实话，好市多的做法其实也差不多。

And to be honest, Costco does things very similarly.

所以，大公司挤压小企业的问题绝对不只是沃尔玛一家的问题。

So this problem of a large corporation stomping out the little guy most definitely is not just a Walmart problem.

所以，我得说，沃尔玛确实有很惊人的规模经济优势，但只要他们继续压低价格，未来很可能还会遇到这些反垄断的问题。

So, you know, I will say that Walmart clearly has some incredible economies of scale, but as long as they are going to continue to try to reduce prices, chances are pretty good that they're going to continue running into these antitrust issues in the future.

所以，我在准备今天这期节目的时候，翻了沃尔玛的投资者关系演示文稿，我得承认，看到他们在幻灯片里展示两个资本效率指标时，我挺喜欢的。

So when I was doing my homework for today's episode, I went through the Walmart IR deck and I had to admit that I liked what I saw when they featured two different capital efficiency metrics in their slide deck.

这些指标并不是我们传统上特别关注的。

These aren't metrics that we traditionally focus as much on.

我觉得他们能把这些指标放进去本身就是件好事，说明管理层很注重资本配置效率，这非常有前景。

I think the fact that they're in there at all is a great thing and shows that the management team is pretty devoted to allocating capital efficiently and that's very promising.

这两个关键指标就是资产回报率和投资回报率。

Those two KPIs are return on assets and return on investments.

所以，资产回报率是8%，而投资回报率超过了15%。

And so the ROA, the return on assets is 8% while the ROI, return on investments is over 15%.

我个人会更看重投资回报率这个数字。

And I would give the return on investment number a bit more weight personally.

但我确实理解他们为什么关注资产回报率，因为这家公司多年来积累了大量资产，其中大部分来自物业、设备以及库存。

But I do see why they look at return on assets because that is a business that has accumulated quite a few assets over the years with the majority of that figure coming from property and equipment as well as inventory.

所以这是衡量公司内部运营效率的一个很好的指标。

So it's a good measure of the efficiency of the internal operations of the company.

对，我同意你关于投资回报率的观点，但我觉得重要的是他们优先考虑资本配置，这在企业中是比较少见的。

Right, and I agree with your point there on the return on investment, but I think the important part is that they're just prioritizing capital allocation, right, which I think is a pretty rare thing to see in businesses.

所以我自己对这家公司的投资资本回报率做了计算，过去三年里，每年都略高于16%。

So I ran my own calculations on the returns on invested capital for this business, and over the last three years, they have slightly exceeded 16% each year.

所以我有点觉得这验证了沃尔玛确实是一家高质量的企业。

So I kind of think this validates that Walmart is a really high quality business.

虽然它不是一家快速增长的公司，但它绝对是那种明显受到竞争对手很好保护的公司，而且未来很可能继续为股东创造价值。

And while it's not a rapidly growing company, it's definitely the type of company that's clearly very well protected from competitors and probably will continue to generate shareholder value into the future.

在它过去的辉煌时期，沃尔玛是一家能够将利润再投资以扩大门店数量的企业。

Now, in its former glory, Walmart was a business that could reinvest profits to expand its store count.

所以所有门店都是沃尔玛自己运营的，有的是完全自有，有的是租的。

So all stores are run by Walmart and they're a mix of completely owned and leased locations.

但在过去四年左右，他们通过分红和股票回购等方式，把大约82%的收益返还给了股东。

But over the past four years or so, they've returned about 82% of their earnings to shareholders through things like dividends and share repurchases.

所以你可能也猜到了，沃尔玛只把大约18%的利润再投入业务，再投资的机会其实很有限。

So as you can probably guess with Walmart only reinvesting about 18% of their profits back into the business, reinvestment opportunities are limited.

而且从2022年以来，他们的门店数量只增加了369家，这个数字非常小，还不到1%。

And since 2022, they've expanded their store count by three sixty nine or a very modest kegger, which is below 1%.

现在他们还在资本支出上继续投入，2027财年大约有260亿美元。但为了让你了解其中有多少是用于新店的，在2026财年，他们花在新店和会员店上的资本支出不到10%，大部分投资都投向了供应链、电商和门店改造这些方面。

Now they're still expanding on capex with fiscal twenty twenty seven coming in at around $26,000,000,000 But just to give you a picture of how much of this is going into new stores, in fiscal year twenty twenty six they spent less than 10% of capex on new stores and clubs with the bulk of those investments going into things like supply chain, e commerce, and store remodels.

我并不是说沃尔玛的增长故事已经完全饱和了。

I'm not under any illusion that the Walmart growth story is fully saturated.

我觉得过去一年他们在美国新增了9家门店，这其实还算不错。

I think over the past year they've added nine units in The US, which is actually fairly solid.

不过，真正的增长点还是在国际业务上。

The international story though is where all the growth is.

而且他们在美国以外的地方一年内新增了192家门店。

And they've added 192 locations outside of The US year over year.

但更重要的是，我觉得沃尔玛主要更关注从现有客户那里获得更多收入，而不是吸引新客户。

But more than anything, think Walmart is primarily more focused on generating more revenue from existing customers than new ones.

所以他们推出了会员计划，沃尔玛+。

Hence the rise of their membership program, Walmart Plus.

对，我也这么觉得。

Yeah, and that sounds right to me.

我认为持续的投资会

I think continued investments will be

用在让顾客不断回头的方面。

in things that just keep customers coming back.

所以你可以关注的一个关键指标是同类门店销售额。

So the KPI that you can look at that deals with this is called same store sales.

不过我想在这里谈谈股票回购，因为过去几年他们在这方面做得非常好。

So I'd like to touch on the buybacks here though, as they've been very well done over the last few years.

所以，是的，你可以说沃尔玛很幸运，而且因为他们现在的股价只比历史最高点低20%，如果他们在更早的时候进行回购，那这些回购最终都会是增值的。

So yes, you can argue that Walmart has been lucky and since they currently trade at just 20% below their all time high, any buybacks would have ended up being value accretive, assuming that they had done it at an earlier time.

但数字非常非常好看。

But the numbers are very, very good.

在过去三年里，他们以平均95美元、73美元和51美元的价格回购了股票，而现在的价格是107美元。

So over the last three years, they have repurchased shares at an average price of $95 $73 and $51 versus the current price of 107.

现实是，零售业能带你走的路是有限的，而且相信我，沃尔玛已经走得非常非常远了。

The reality is that retail can only take you so far, and believe me it's taken Walmart very, very far.

但亚马逊进入了流媒体和云计算领域，然后MercadoLibre，人们称之为拉丁美洲的亚马逊，他们进入了金融科技领域，所以对我来说，关于沃尔玛能否在未来几十年成为一个令人难以置信的复利机器，最大的问题是……

But Amazon got into streaming and cloud computing and then MercadoLibre, which people refer to as the Amazon of Latin America, They got into fintech and so the big question for me about whether Walmart can be maybe an incredible compounder for decades to come.

我认为这在某种程度上取决于他们能否将零售业务的利润重新部署到新的、利润率更高的业务中。

I think that to some extent boils down to their ability to redeploy their profits from the retail business into new higher margin businesses.

我完全是在猜测他们是否会尝试这样做，但广告业务与他们的现有电商业务是相邻的，而且他们在这方面已经取得了一些成功。

And I'm completely speculating about whether they will try and do that, but advertising is sort of adjacent to their existing e commerce operations and they've had some success there.

但真正让我好奇的是，他们能否证明自己有能力在未来重塑自我，就像Meta、亚马逊和微软这些公司所做的那样。

But really, I'm wondering if they can prove that they're able to reinvent themselves in the future in ways that companies like Meta and Amazon and Microsoft have done.

所以，把资本返还给股东，对于中期回报来说是不错的。

And so the returns of capital to shareholders is nice for generating returns in the intermediate term.

但话说回来，他们需要用产生的现金做一些更大胆的长期规划，幸运的是，他们确实产生了大量现金。

But again, they need to do something more bold longer term with the cash they're generating, which fortunately they do generate a lot of cash.

而且，凭借他们产生的所有现金，他们也不需要太多杠杆就能运营。

And with all the cash they spit off, they also don't need much leverage to be able to operate.

考虑到沃尔玛保守的商业模式，确实依赖于尽可能削减成本，我猜他们倾向于远离债务，不想支付那些利息融资费用。

And given Walmart's conservative business model that really relies on cutting costs everywhere possible, I assume that they tend to stay away from debt and they don't want to pay that interest financing.

对，这很有意思，因为我的直觉反应是这家公司应该背负很少的债务。

Yeah, this is interesting because my gut reaction would be that this business would carry very little debt.

虽然我绝不会认为这是一家过度杠杆化的公司，但他们确实有一些债务。

And while I wouldn't consider this to be an over leveraged company by any means, they do carry some debt.

目前总债务大约在400亿美元左右。虽然这个绝对数字很大，但要记住沃尔玛的业务规模有多大，以及它产生了多少现金。

So currently total debt is around $40,000,000,000 Now while this is a large absolute number, have to remember just how large of a business Walmart is and how much cash it generates.

如果从净债务与EBITDA的比率来看，他们的杠杆率不到1。

If you look at it from a net debt to EBITDA basis, their leverage ratio is less than one.

所以你知道，这方面其实没什么问题。

So you know, not really any issues there.

而且如果从纯粹的自由现金流角度来看——我觉得对这家公司来说可能比用EBITDA更好，因为它考虑了营运资本和资本支出——那也还算合理，只有2.6倍。

And if you look at it from a pure free cash flow perspective, which I think is probably even better than using EBITDA for this business because it accounts for working capital and CapEx, it's still within reason at just 2.6 times.

我在看他们的契约条款时，发现一个挺有意思的小细节，就是

One interesting factoid I learned when reading their covenants is that

他们的条款其实相当灵活。

things are quite flexible for them.

比如说，他们没有任何限制向股东分红的契约条款。

And they don't really have any covenants that restrict their ability to pay distributions to shareholders for example.

所以基本上，他们的债务条款对股东非常友好。

And so basically they have very shareholder friendly debt terms.

而这种

And this kind

情况跟之前我们聊过的达美乐披萨相比，简直是小巫见大巫。

of pales in comparison with Domino's Pizza, which we covered a short while back.

我记得你跟我说过，你觉得他们那种追索权债务，比如涉及特许权使用费的那些，非常令人担忧。

I remember you telling me that you thought it was very concerning just how much recourse debt they had over things like royalty payments.

不过，你知道，沃尔玛没有这个问题，就是因为他们资产太多了，偿还债务的能力根本不用担心。

Well, you know Walmart doesn't have the same issue simply because they just have so many assets and its ability to its debt payments really isn't in question at all.

另外，沃尔玛还有一个好处是，因为他们没有那种特别激进的增长计划，所以宣布新的融资交易来稀释股东的可能性非常低。

Now another bonus for Walmart in general is that since it doesn't have these overly aggressive growth plans, there's a very low probability of any new financing deals being announced that could further dilute shareholders.

而且考虑到他们回购股票的历史，这其实也不意外。

And given their history of buybacks, well, this shouldn't really come as a surprise.

过去二十年里，他们的股票数量减少了18%，而且看起来短期内也不会停止减少。

They've reduced the share count by 18% in the last two decades, and it doesn't really look like it's going to stop reducing that count anytime soon.

这又是一个家族持股比例高的好处，沃尔顿家族的持股比例随着时间推移还在不断增加。

This is another really good boost from high family ownership as the Walton family just continues to see its own ownership stake increase with time.

我们稍微休息一下，听听今天赞助商的广告。

Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors.

对在线交易感兴趣，但还没迈出第一步？

Curious about online trading, haven't taken the first step yet?

你不是一个人。

You're not alone.

而Plus500期货是一个很好的起点。

And Plus500 futures is a great place to start.

期货市场瞬息万变，通过Plus500，你可以探索石油、黄金、标普500、比特币等热门资产。

The futures markets are moving fast and with Plus500, you can explore popular assets like oil, gold, S and P 500, Bitcoin, and more.

从加密货币到大宗商品，总有事情在发生。

From crypto to commodities, there's always something happening.

这个平台非常容易使用，你可以直接在手机上随时交易。

The platform is super easy to use, so you can trade on the go right from your phone.

你只需100美元就能开始，立即投入行动。

You can get started with just $100 and jump into the action.

看到感兴趣的东西了吗？

See something interesting?

账户开通后，只需几次点击就能进行交易。

Once your account is open, you can trade it in just a couple of clicks.

如果你还没准备好，也可以用免费模拟账户练练手。

And if you're not quite ready yet, you can practice with a free demo account.

没有风险，也没有压力。

No risk, no pressure.

凭借二十年的经验，Plus500让交易比以往任何时候都更容易上手。

With twenty years of experience, Plus500 makes trading more accessible than ever.

去+500.com看看吧。

Check it out at +500.com.

交易和期货涉及亏损风险，并非适合所有人，也不是所有申请者都能通过审核。

Trading and futures involves risks of loss and is not suitable for everyone, not all applicants will qualify.

Plus500，交易加一点。

Plus500, it's trading with a plus.

每周我们都会在节目中分析一些公司，并问同一个问题：管理层真的在高效运营这家公司吗？

Every week we analyze companies on this show and ask the same question, is management actually running this business efficiently?

这是目前大多数公司最诚实的答案。

Here's the honest answer for most companies right now.

那些领先的公司，正是那些把AI用在日常事务上的公司。

The ones pulling ahead are the ones putting AI to work on the everyday stuff.

这正是Netsuite Next的初衷。

That's exactly what Netsuite Next was built for.

Netsuite Next在你最需要的时候，精准地提供洞察。

Netsuite Next surfaces insights exactly when you need them.

它让智能代理处理日常任务和问题，并且允许你用日常语言提出复杂问题，就像跟一位知识渊博的同事聊天一样。

It puts agents to work on routine tasks and problems, and it lets you ask complex questions in plain language, like talking to a knowledgeable colleague.

但技术只是故事的一部分。

But technology is only part of the story.

AI也在重塑人们和团队的合作方式，而这种转变已经在进行中。

AI is also reshaping how people and teams work together, and that shift is already underway.

今天，你手中就有一份专家制作的商业指南。

Expert created business guide in your hands today.

它叫做《对齐：AI如何改变日常工作》，现在你可以免费获取。

It's called Aligning for the How AI is Changing Everyday Work, and right now it's yours absolutely free.

在里面，你会发现AI如何重塑整个组织的工作方式，以及如何让你的企业从中受益。

Inside, you'll discover how AI could reshape work across your entire organization, and how to position your business to prosper from it.

我自己在用这个，你也应该试试。

I use this and you should too.

如果你的收入至少达到七位数，就去netsuite.com/tip免费获取我们的商业指南《为智能体时代做好准备：AI如何改变日常工作》。

If your revenues are at least in the 7 figures, get our free business guide aligning for the agentic era, how AI is changing everyday work at netsuite.com/tip.

这份指南在netsuite.com/tip免费提供给你。

The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/tip.

netsuite.com/tip。

Netsuite.com/tip.

今年九月，

This September,

我去了纽约参加内在价值会议。

I was in New York for the Intrinsic Value Conference.

演讲很精彩，但我一直在想的是会议之外发生的事情。

The talks were great, but what I kept thinking about is what happened around them.

周五晚上，我们大约20个人挤在时代广场附近一家意大利家庭餐馆的长桌旁。

On Friday night, about 20 of us crowded around a long table at a family style Italian spot near Times Square.

周六，我们又聚了一次。

Saturday, we did it again.

周日早上，我们一群人还在早餐时争论苏格拉底，然后大家各自回家。

And Sunday morning, a group of us were still debating Socrates over breakfast before everyone headed home.

那些桌子旁的许多人之前只在我们的智囊团社区的电话中认识彼此。

Many of the people at those tables had only known each other from our calls in the mastermind community.

那是我和凯尔·格里夫、丹尼尔·蒙卡一起主持的社区。

That is the community I host with Kyle Grieve and Daniel Monca.

每周，我们都会通过直播电话会议深入探讨市场和个别企业。

Each week, we get together on live calls to dig into markets and individual businesses.

我们会邀请基金经理、运营者和作家作为嘉宾。

We bring in fund managers, operators, and authors as guest speakers.

每年几次，比如今年秋天的纽约和每年春天的奥马哈，我们会线下见面。

And a few times a year, like New York this fall and Omaha every spring, we meet in person.

如果你想和那些同样以十年为单位思考的人一起交流，可以免费申请，网址是 theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermind。

If you want to think in decades alongside people who do the same, apply for free at theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermind.

如果你的申请特别突出，我会亲自联系你。

If your application stands out, I'll be the one to reach out to you personally.

好了，我们回到节目。

All right, back to the show.

当你减少股票数量时，实际上发生的是，每个人分到的蛋糕份额变大了。

What effectively happens when you shrink the share count is that you increase the size of everyone's slice of the pie.

所以，如果你是一名股东，而股票数量减少了，那么恭喜你，你对公司的持股比例增加了。

So if you're a shareholder and the share count reduces, well congratulations, your percentage ownership of the company has increased.

因此，和21世纪一些最激进的股票回购大户相比，沃尔玛在回购方面的排名并不靠前，比如AutoZone，这已经是我今天第二次提到这家公司了。

And so compared to some of the most potent share cannibals of the twenty first century, Walmart does not rank that highly up the list in doing buybacks compared to say AutoZone, which is actually the second time I've invoked that company during today's episode.

但尽管如此，对于一家目前增长机会有限、我们作为股东能看到的再投资机会不多的公司来说，他们的股票数量正在朝着正确的方向变化。

But nonetheless, their share count is moving in the right direction for a company that has pretty limited growth opportunities to reinvest in at the moment that are visible to us as shareholders.

所以我担心的是，他们基本上是在以30到40倍的市盈率回购股票，这意味着他们为注销股票支付的价格，比你对一家零售商的预期要高。

And so my concern is that they're basically buying back stock at 30 or 40 times earnings which just means they're paying a higher price to retire stock than you might otherwise expect for a retailer.

所以每一块钱的回购不一定能发挥最大的作用。

So each dollar of buybacks doesn't necessarily go as far as it could.

你知道，如果回头看2012年，沃尔玛的股价每年复合增长率接近12.5%，这真的很厉害。

You know, if you look at going back to 2012, Walmart stock has compounded at almost 12.5% a year, which is really impressive.

但你会发现，这几乎全部来自市盈率的扩张。

But then you see that almost all of that is multiple expansion.

市盈率每年复合增长11.5%，而实际上他们的每股收益在过去十五年里每年只增长了大约4%。

The PE has compounded at 11.5% a year and actually their earnings per share has only compounded at about 4% in the last fifteen years.

所以基本上，市场对沃尔玛的估值从12倍市盈率涨到了38倍，而每股收益的增长其实非常疲软。

So basically the market went from paying 12 times earnings to 38 times earnings for Walmart while earnings per share growth has actually been very anemic.

我觉得这挺有意思的，当你想到他们一直在做的回购，以及他们在公开市场上回购股票时是否得到了一个好价格。

I think that's just sort of an interesting point when you think about the buybacks that they've been doing and whether they're getting a good price on the stock that they've been repurchasing in the open market.

还有一件事我们应该讨论的是，沃尔玛过去做过一些收购。

And one other thing we should talk about is that Walmart has made some acquisitions in the past.

其中一个比较大的名字是Jet.com，他们在2016年以33亿美元收购了这家公司。

One of the bigger names was jet.com and they purchased that for $3,300,000,000 in 2016.

但到了2020年，也就是仅仅四年后，他们就把那笔投资的全部金额都注销了。

But by 2020, just four years later, they'd written off the full amount of that investment.

所以，哎呀，这真是个代价高昂的失误。

So, oops, that's a pretty costly blunder.

而且我知道凯尔，你对资本配置特别较真。

And I know you're a bit of a stickler for capital allocation, Kyle.

你对那些犯下这种大错的公司非常不宽容。

You're very unforgiving of companies that make these kind of big mistakes.

所以我真的很想听听你对这笔交易的看法，以及他们是否还有其他大失误，会让你想把沃尔玛排除在投资之外。

So I definitely wanna hear your thoughts on the deal and whether they've made any other big mistakes that would make you want to rule out Walmart as an investment.

是的，完全同意，肖恩。

Yeah, absolutely, Shawn.

所以我想首先回应一下你关于回购的观点。

So I think just first I want to comment on your point on buybacks there.

我认为，显然那个价格在表面上看很高，但也许这意味着管理层认为30到40倍的市盈率是合理的，如果他们能继续以当前速度增长，市场在五年后可能也会对这个业务有类似的看法，那样的话，回购可能会增加价值。

I think that, obviously that is an optically high price, but perhaps it means that management views that 30 to 40 times earnings range as being a reasonable multiple, and if they can continue growing at current rates, the market will probably have a similar feeling about this business in, let's say, five years time, in which case the buybacks probably will be value accretive.

但你知道，这显然要由你，听众，来决定这个价格是否合理。

But you know, obviously that's up to you, the listener here to decide if that's a reasonable price or not.

所以回到你刚才提到的资本配置那个点。

So getting back to the point, that you just made on capital allocation.

是的，肖恩，你说得完全对。

Yes, Shawn, you're completely right.

我绝对是个较真的人。

I am most definitely a stickler.

如果我找到一家公司做了我不太喜欢的资本配置操作，说实话，那通常就足以让我要么直接卖掉整个公司，要么如果我在评估它，发现有什么我不喜欢的地方，我就会直接说，我不喜欢这家公司，就这样。

If I find a business that does a capital allocation move that I don't really like, to be honest, that's usually enough for me to either just sell the business entirely or if I'm evaluating it, if I find something I don't like, I'm just gonna be like, I don't like the business and that's that.

没得商量。

End of story.

所以，你知道，当我最初看到Jet.com那笔交易时，我确实有点那种不舒服的感觉，因为从表面上看，考虑到他们全额减记，这确实是一笔相当糟糕的交易。

So, know, when I initially looked at the jet.com deal, I definitely got a little bit of that icky feeling because at its face value, it's a pretty bad deal when you consider that they had the full write off.

但当你真正深入挖掘时，这笔交易对沃尔玛来说其实相当不错。

But when you think you really dig down, this deal was actually pretty good for Walmart.

所以你得记住，看待这笔交易得结合一些背景来看。

So you have to remember to look at this deal with a little bit of context.

Jet.com的老板叫马克·洛尔，他把diapers.com卖给了亚马逊，卖了五亿美元。

So jet.com's owner was a man named Mark Lohr who sold diapers.com to Amazon for $500,000,000.

之后他在亚马逊的电商部门待了几年，深入了解了那门生意的门道。

He then spent a few years inside of Amazon's e commerce arm learning the intricacies of that business.

然后他又创办了一家新公司。

Then he started another venture.

所以我觉得，沃尔玛收购Jet.com，其实主要是为了把马克·洛尔这个人招进来，因为他在扩展沃尔玛那有点挣扎的电商业务上，显然价值巨大。

So I think the jet.com deal was a way for Walmart to basically acquire Mark Lohr who clearly was insanely valuable for scaling Walmart's kind of struggling e commerce business.

他很快就把几千万种沃尔玛商品搬到了线上，结果电商板块增长得特别惊人。

So he rapidly brought tens of millions of Walmart products online, and as a result, the e commerce segment grew absolutely spectacularly.

现在沃尔玛电商的成功，很大程度上都得归功于洛尔。

Much of Walmart's e commerce success today can pretty much be tracked to Lohr.

所以虽然这笔交易因为减值看起来不怎么样，但它更像是一个聪明的收购策略，表面上是收购，实际上是为了招揽人才。

So while this deal does look very meh because of the write down, it was more of a smart higher strategy dressed up as kind of an acquisition.

现在我要提到的另一笔收购是Flipkart，这是一家印度的电商公司，他们在2018年以大约160亿美元的价格收购了它。

Now the other acquisition that I'd mentioned is Flipkart, an India based e commerce company, which they purchased in 2018 for about $16,000,000,000.

随着国际电商每年持续增长超过20%，我认为这也是一笔相当明智的资金运用。

So with international e commerce continuing to grow over 20% annually, I think it was probably a pretty intelligent use of capital as well.

Flipkart让沃尔玛能够立刻在印度市场立足，而不需要从零开始建设。

Flipkart allowed Walmart to just immediately have a presence rather than building from scratch in India.

所以总的来说，你知道，我觉得沃尔玛的资金分配是相当不错的。

So overall, you know, I think Walmart's capital allocation is quite good.

我觉得像沃尔玛这样的大公司，决策起来会相对容易一些，因为他们再投资的机会有限。

I think the decision making becomes kind of easier for a large business like Walmart simply because they have these limited reinvestment opportunities.

虽然股价看起来确实偏高，但回购一直在增加价值。

Now while the shares do seem overpriced, the buybacks have been value accretive.

但再说一次，你知道，你得面向未来做决定，判断现在的回购是否合理。

But again, you know, you have to kind of make your decision into the future if you think that the current buybacks make sense or not.

这确实是个棘手的处境。

It's a tough situation to be in.

他们显然没有一个成功的收购策略可以一直复制下去，对吧？

They don't obviously have a successful playbook for acquisitions that they can keep rolling out, right?

他们不是那种连环收购的公司。

They're not a serial acquirer.

而且就像我说的，当你的股价比市场溢价那么多的时候，回购自己的股票也只能起到有限的作用。

And then like I said, buying back their own stock only goes so far when you're trading at such a premium to the market.

所以我说他们可能需要寻找新的途径来大幅多元化业务，但这也有两面性。

Which is why I say they may need to look into new ways to dramatically diversify their business, But that also cuts both ways.

如果他们想找到自己版本的亚马逊AWS那样的成功，并且扩展到零售以外的完全不同的领域。

If they're going to try and find their own version of Amazon's AWS success and, you know, expanding into a completely different area from retail.

在能力圈之外扩张是非常困难的，如果做不好，可能会让人丢掉工作，对吧？

Expanding outside your circle of competency is just very difficult and it can get people fired if done wrong, right?

这关系到很多人的职业生涯。

There's a lot of careers to it.

说‘我们是沃尔玛，我们会继续做沃尔玛该做的事’很容易，但要说‘我们要做一些截然不同的事情’就难了。

It's very easy to say, well, we're Walmart, we're gonna keep doing what Walmart does, as opposed to saying, you know, we're gonna do something dramatically different.

但确实需要某种创新来打破企业停滞的循环。

But also some sort of innovation here is really needed to break corporate stagnation cycle.

所以我们刚才花了一些时间看了管理层在资本配置上的决策。

So we just spent some time looking at management's capital allocation decisions.

那我们也来看看他们的业绩记录，再看看你觉得他们是否把激励机制设计得很好，让管理层和股东的利益保持一致。

So let's also look at their track record in more detail as well as whether you think they've organized this incentive structure very well in a way that creates value alignment with shareholders.

在我回答这个问题之前，

Before I get

我想先回应一下你刚才关于创新的观点。

to that question, I just want to address the points you just made about innovation.

有意思的是，沃尔玛显然是一家非常具有创新精神的大公司。

It's interesting because Walmart obviously is this really big innovative company.

至少山姆·沃尔顿的基因里就有这种创新精神，他做了各种新尝试。

At least Sam Walton, you know, in his DNA was this kind of innovator who did all sorts of new things.

但我觉得和亚马逊最大的区别在于，亚马逊的基因里就喜欢尝试那些非常宏大、而且不一定和核心业务直接相关的新事物。

But, you know, I think the big difference towards Amazon, whereas is that Amazon, it's in their DNA to try new things that are really, really big and not necessarily directly connected to the core business.

所以你看，亚马逊基本上就是发明了AWS，因为那就像往墙上扔个球试试看能不能粘住。

So whereas Amazon, you know, basically invented AWS because it was just kind of a ball to throw at the wall and see if it would stick.

当然，他们也经历了很多失败。

Obviously, had a lot of failures as well.

我觉得这真的不是沃尔玛的基因，所以沃尔玛想要靠自己去创新来持续增长，可能会难得多。

I don't really think that's in Walmart's DNA, so it's probably gonna be a lot harder for Walmart to try to innovate themselves to continue to grow over time.

但也许我错了，也许这就是为什么有些投资者给它这么高的估值倍数。

But, know, maybe I could be wrong and maybe that's why some of these investors are giving it the high multiple.

现在回到你刚才提到的管理层问题，我经常说，优秀的企业往往有非常非常强的文化。

Now getting back to your point on management here, I've often discussed how great businesses tend to have these really, really strong cultures.

而优秀文化的一个标志就是内部晋升。

And one hallmark of a great culture is that they promote from within.

所以，如果你在一家公司干了二十年，某个你可能整个职业生涯都在努力争取的职位空缺了，结果却被一个外人抢走了。

So, you know, if you spent twenty years working in a business and a position that maybe you've spent your entire career trying to achieve opens up and you're passed over for an outsider.

那确实挺难接受的。

Well, you know, that's a pretty tough pill to swallow.

所以看到沃尔玛的情况真的很棒，现任总裁兼CEO约翰·弗纳从1993年就加入沃尔玛，刚开始只是按小时计酬的普通员工。

So it's really great to see that in Walmart's case, the current president and CEO John Furner has been with Walmart since 1993 working just simply as an hourly employee when he first started.

从那以后，他几乎做过你能想到的每一个职位，最终担任了沃尔玛美国的总裁兼CEO。

And since then, he's worked in pretty much every role that you can think of, eventually serving as a president and CEO of Walmart US.

在那段时间里，沃尔玛美国的增长还算不错，但我觉得不算特别突出，收入和营业利润都增长了大约百分之五点五。

Now during that time, Walmart US has had decent, but I would say not spectacular growth of about five and a half percent in both revenue and operating income.

但就像我之前指出的，美国市场现在真的已经饱和了，所以我觉得这些增长数字不一定就是对弗纳的否定。

But as I pointed out earlier, you know, The US is really saturated at this point, so I don't think these growth numbers are necessarily an indictment against Werner.

我觉得弗纳作为CEO的履历显然还不够长。

I think Werner doesn't have a long enough track record of CEO, obviously.

他从2026年初才开始担任这个职位，所以我觉得现在想对他做出评价确实太早了。

He's only been in the position since the beginning of twenty twenty six, so I would definitely say it's really early to try and get a read on him.

不过我觉得再过一年我们再来看，应该能更清楚地看到他作为沃尔玛的领导者是否带来了价值。

And I think if we check back in another year though, we should have something of a clearer view of whether he's been able to add some value as the leader of Walmart.

而且你想想像篮球队这样的企业，你不能用同样的方式去对待它们。

And when you think of a business like a basketball team, you can't really treat them the same.

如果一位NBA教练上任，球队只赢了四分之一的比赛，那这位教练很可能会被解雇。

If an NBA coach comes in and the team only wins a quarter of its games, then there's a good chance that the coach is gonna be fired.

因为教练对赛季的走向影响非常大。

Because they have a lot of really influence on exactly how that season unfolds.

但在商业领域，这就像一艘邮轮，你知道的。

But in business, it's like a cruise liner, you know.

要扭转这些庞大的企业集团，做出重大改变，真的很难。

It's really hard to turn it and make big changes to these massive massive conglomerates.

所以，在商业中，尤其是对于那些更成熟、更注重长期发展的公司，很难像对待NBA赛季那样，在短期内把责任归咎于领导者。

So, you know, in business, especially for companies that are more mature and long term oriented, it's just harder to place the blame on the leader in short term timeframes in the way that you might do with maybe an NBA season.

肖恩知道篮球梗最能打动我，但我觉得你说得完全对。

Shawn knows that the key to my heart is basketball references, but you know, I think you're totally right.

说实话，即使在NBA，如果一位教练带队赢了大概20场比赛，也就是四分之一，但球队正在重建，那这实际上可能被视为朝着正确方向迈出的一步。

And honestly, even in the NBA, if a coach were to win, let's say 20 games, which is about a quarter, but that team is rebuilding, well, that still might be actually seen as a step in the right direction.

现在，就沃尔玛的情况而言，我把约翰·弗纳看作是一位接手了一支已经非常成熟球队的教练。

Now, Walmart's case, I see John Furner as a coach taking over an already very well established team.

你知道，他不需要大幅提升他们，但他需要继续培养现有球员，并尽可能发挥他们的潜力。

You know, he doesn't have to really improve them drastically, but he needs to continue developing the players and just getting as much out of the players that he already has.

弗纳只有几次电话会议可以得出结论，但他在最近一次财报中有一句很棒的话，我想和你分享，我觉得这表明他是一位注重长期发展的CEO。

Furner only has a few conference calls to draw conclusions from, but he had one really great quote that I want to share with you here from the latest earnings that I think shows that he's a long term focus CEO.

他说，我们不是为一个季度管理业务。

So he said, we're not managing our business for one quarter.

我们是在多年基础上管理业务，以赢得胜利。

We're managing our business on a multi year basis to play to win.

在过去的几个季度里，沃尔玛一直在自我再投资，这导致了一点利润率压缩。

Now over the past few quarters, Walmart has been reinvesting into itself, which has helped create a little bit of margin compression.

但我认为他觉得这是继续推动公司未来发展的正确策略。

But I think he feels that that's the right strategy to continue growing this company into the future.

这看起来很有前景，而且我不

It does look promising and I don't

认为他会成为像贝索斯或马斯克那样的远见者，但在他们这个成长阶段，我也不认为那是他们需要实现的目标。

think he's gonna be a visionary like Bezos or Musk, but at this stage of their growth, I also don't think that's what they need to accomplish.

他们目前设定的目标，需要一个优秀的运营者，可能更像蒂姆·库克那样的人，而不是史蒂夫·乔布斯。

The goals that they currently have set out right now, they need a great operator, they need a maybe somebody more like a Tim Cook than they need a Steve Jobs.

除非他们又想找到自己的AWS版本，我今天一直在猜测这个。

Unless again, they want to kind of find their own version of AWS, which I I keep speculating about today.

这种真正戏剧性的转型，可能让他们成为美国伟大的商业巨头之一，比现在更厉害。

This sort of really dramatic pivot that could allow them to become one of the great business titans in America, you know, more so than they already are.

但你怎么看他们的利益一致性呢？

But how do you think about their alignment though?

我是说，之前提到沃尔顿家族拥有大量沃尔玛股票，因为家族几代人一直在传承股份。

I mean, mentioned that the Waltons own a ton of Walmart stock as the family has just continued to pass on shares across the generations.

所以我觉得这通常是个好事，但他们参与沃尔玛日常运营的程度有多深呢？

And so I think that's generally a pretty good thing, but how involved are they in Walmart's day to day operations?

我希望他们不要干涉得太紧。

I hope that they're not interfering too closely.

通过沃尔顿企业和沃尔顿家族信托，他们拥有沃尔玛超过50%的股份。

So through the Walton Enterprise and the Walton Family Trust, they own over 50% of Walmart shares.

说到日常运营，其实他们参与得并不多。

Now getting to your point about the day to day operations, it's really not that much.

有一位沃尔顿家族的成员，斯图尔特·沃尔顿，是山姆·沃尔顿的孙子，他在董事会里。

So there's one Walton, Stuart Walton, is actually Sam Walton's grandson who's on the board.

但除此之外，他们并不真正管理公司，只是持有大量有投票权的股份。

But other than that, they don't really run things, but do have much of the voting stake.

至于沃尔顿家族之外的高管持股情况，其实并不突出。

Now, as for insider ownership outside of the Walton family, it's not that amazing.

公司内部人员持有的沃尔玛股份只有百分之零点几。

So insiders in the born own just a fraction of a percent of Walmart shares.

不过，因为这家公司的创始成员已经不在世了，这也不足为奇。

But since the founding members of this business aren't really around, that's not that big of a surprise.

而且，这家公司的市值高达8400亿美元。

Plus the business, you know, it has a market cap of $840,000,000,000.

难怪沃尔顿家族能一直这么富有。

It certainly makes sense how the Walton family has stayed so wealthy.

你得给他们鼓个掌，能这么长时间持有这么大股份可不容易。

You have to give them a round of applause for holding such a large stake in the business for so long as well.

而且我觉得他们摆脱了那种把钱全花光的常见倾向，真正创造了跨代财富。

And they've escaped, I think, standard tendency to just spend everything and actually have been able to truly create multi generational wealth.

那除了沃尔顿家族，管理层拿的薪酬怎么样？

But outside of the Waltons then, how does the compensation that management is getting look?

不幸的是，这算是这家公司让我不太满意的第一点。

So unfortunately, this was kind of the first part of the business that I wasn't too happy about.

把基本工资之外的薪酬都算进去的话，高管们的总薪酬看起来相当高。

So total compensation for executives when factoring in total compensation above their base salary seems pretty high.

2026年，CEO约翰·弗纳赚了2730万美元，其他高管在薪酬上也差不了多少。

So in 2026, CEO John Furner made $27.3000000 and other executives just weren't really that far behind them in terms of their comp either.

不过，咱们先别急着下结论，还是看看这些激励是怎么实现的，了解一下背景再说。

But, you know, let's at least get some context here and look at how these incentives are achieved before we pass too much judgment.

最近一份代理声明中批准的提案要求82%的薪酬基于绩效。

So the proposal that was approved in the latest proxy called for 82% of compensation to be performance based.

这绝对是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。

Now that's definitely a step in the right direction.

这些目标基于营业收入、销售额和投资回报率等指标。

So the goals were based on things like operating income, sales, ROI.

我觉得这是一个相当不错的激励计划。

Now I would say this is a pretty strong incentive program.

如果管理层能在这三个指标上都达到目标，而且每年的收入和运营指标目标都在提高，投资回报率目标可能保持不变，那么在多年的时间里，股东价值很难不随之增长。

I think that if management hits targets for all three of these metrics and they have goals that are higher each year for the revenue and operating metrics and maybe just static for the ROI, it would be pretty hard to see how over a multi year time period shareholder value is not going to increase at the same time.

我在看你分享给我的图表，看起来大部分薪酬来自股票奖励，这会稀释股东的权益。

So I'm looking at the chart that you shared with me and it looks like much of the compensation comes from stock awards that will dilute shareholders.

不过话说回来，稀释率并不高，大约只有1%，而且过去十年左右，股票数量还以每年1%的复合增长率稳步减少。

But then again, that dilution rate isn't that bad at around 1%, but the share count has also been able to steadily reduce by a 1% CAGR over the last decade or so.

所以看起来净股票数量下降的趋势还会继续。

So it does seem like the trend and net share count declining will continue to go on.

实际上，如果股价下跌，他们能以更低的市盈率回购股票，那他们减少股票数量的速度可能会快得多，这对股东来说是个相当不错的局面。

And actually, if the stock sold off and they were able to do buybacks at a cheaper multiple, that would probably go much faster in their ability to retire more shares, which would be a pretty good situation for shareholders to be in.

但这确实假设了他们一直在进行的高额支出——你知道，我们看到他们的营业利润率在过去二十年里下降了三分之一——不会影响他们未来将资本用于回购的能力。

But this does assume that the elevated spending that they've been doing, you know, where we've seen their operating margins fall over the last two decades by a third, doesn't eat into their ability to deploy capital into buybacks going forward.

这是一个非常重要的点，因为这确实是一家必须花钱才能继续增长，同时也要维持运营的企业。

And that's a really important note because this definitely is a business that has to spend money to continue growing as well as just, you know, maintain the business.

目前，该业务的折旧和摊销费用每年大约为580亿美元。

So depreciation and amortization for the business are currently running at about $58,000,000,000 annually.

所以，你知道，这确实是一家需要大量资本才能保持一切顺利运转的企业。

So, know, this is definitely a business that does require quite a bit of capital to keep everything running smoothly.

沃尔玛在过去一年里赚了大约7350亿美元。

Walmart has made about $735,000,000,000 over the last year.

所以，你知道，从这个角度来看，他们相当安全。

So, you know, they're pretty safe from that standpoint.

值得注意的是，资本支出占销售额的比例在过去几年里略有上升，从2024年的约3%上升到最新财报中的约4%。

It's worth noting that CapEx as a percentage of sales has ticked up slightly over the past few years from around 3% in 2024 to about 4% in the latest earnings, report.

这有几个原因。

There are a few reasons for this.

所以沃尔玛把资本支出用在了新店、翻新和国际扩张上。

So Walmart has expanded its CapEx into new stores, remodels, and international expansion.

国际扩张这块确实很有意思，因为它一直增长得不错，而且由于美国市场基本饱和了，这可能会带来很大的未来增长空间。

The international expansion area is definitely interesting as it's been growing very well and could provide significant future growth since that US segment has been largely saturated.

我完全能想象，资本支出占收入的比例保持在4%左右会成为新常态。

I could very much see a scenario where that 4% number is the new norm for CapEx as a percentage of revenue.

再看看山姆会员店，它似乎表现不错。

And if you look at Sam's Club, it seems to be doing well.

所以那一直是一个增长点。

So that's been a growth lever.

然后还有沃尔玛Plus，它似乎也发展得不错，这意味着如果沃尔玛想继续推动这个业务、会员计划、销量，尤其是电商的发展，那么配送中心就会成为他们需要投入的另一个领域。

Then you have the fact that Walmart Plus seems to be doing well too, meaning that fulfillment centers will become another area that Walmart will need to spend on if they want to continue growing the segment and their loyalty programs and volumes and especially in e commerce and so.

另外，再看看沃尔玛国际，我们知道它跟美国业务相比规模还是比较小的。

And then also looking at Walmart International, we do know that this is comparatively pretty small compared with The US segment.

但你也说了，那是一个增长很快的业务。

But you did say it's a fast growing segment.

那他们是不是也在那个领域投入了很多？

So is that an area that they're spending a lot more on as well?

是的，肖恩，我觉得这是非常明智的做法。

They are Shawn and I think that's a really smart move.

他们已经在国际扩张上做了几十年了，对国际市场有非常深刻的了解。

So they've been expanding internationally now for decades and have some really, really good insights into those international markets.

过去十二个月里，他们新开了大约200家国际门店，而且自2023年以来，沃尔玛国际的营收年复合增长率大约是9%。

So over the last twelve months, they've opened about 200 international stores and since 2023 Walmart International's compounded revenue at about 9% per annum.

沃尔玛的展示中，把中国和印度这两个地方视为国际增长的主要驱动力。

So Walmart's presentation sites kind of these two locations in China and India as major drivers for international growth.

在中国，这主要来自沃尔玛实体店；在印度，因为沃尔玛拥有Flipkart，所以他们在那里有很强的电商业务。

So in China, this would be from actual Walmart locations and in India, since Walmart owns Flipkart, they have this kind of large e commerce presence there.

沃尔玛披露了一些国际营收数据，中国是主要的增长引擎，过去三年的营收年复合增长率约为20%。

Walmart discloses some of its international revenue and China has been a major growth driver with about a 20% revenue CAGR over the last three years.

所以我认为，他们投资这些消费者明显认可并喜欢的领域，是一个非常积极的信号。

So I'd say it's a very good sign that they are investing in these areas where consumers clearly are validating that they like their offering.

那他们的Walmart Plus会员计划怎么样？

What about their Walmart Plus membership program?

你觉得这对他们的收入增长有多大的推动作用？

How meaningful of a growth engine do you see that to be in adding revenue for them?

我觉得还不错，会员费收入增长得挺好的。

So I think it's decent, you know, membership fee revenue has grown well.

自2021年以来，这个收入以21%的年复合增长率增长，但该板块的收入仍然不到总收入的1%。

It's grown at a 21% CAGR since 2021, but the revenue from the segment is still less than 1%.

所以很难说这个业务长期能成为多大的增长引擎。

So it's pretty hard to see what kind of growth driver this business can really, really be over the long term.

我觉得这个业务真正的另一个增长引擎是电子商务。

I think the other real growth driver for this business is in e commerce.

全球电商销售额增长约23%，占沃尔玛收入的四分之一，这个增长板块很容易就能为沃尔玛带来显著影响。

So with global e commerce growing sales at about 23% and representing a quarter of Walmart's revenue, that's a growth segment that could easily help move the needle for Walmart.

电商业务的另一个增长点是，它的利润率可能会高于实体店业务。

The other growth lever in the e commerce business is that its margin profile is probably going to be superior to that of the brick and mortar business.

所以这意味着，如果我们继续看到这个板块的收入占比增加，长期来看我们也能看到一些运营杠杆效应。

So this means that if we continue to see a larger share of revenue from this segment, we could also see some operating leverage over time.

嗯，你看看沃尔玛过去几年的增长趋势，确实看到了一些加速，对吧？

Well, you look at Walmart's growth trends over the last few years, we have seen some acceleration, right?

之前有一段时间增长比较平缓，现在业务又回升了，同比增长6%，虽然不算特别大。

Where they were kind of pretty flat for a period of time and the business has picked up again and, you know, it's growing at 6% year over year, which is not massive.

但这确实说明，其中一些增长动力开始真正发挥实质性作用了。

But it does tell you that some of these growth levers are really starting to contribute meaningfully.

我仍然不确定这些动力能否让业务恢复到两位数的增长率，但未来几年保持中高个位数的增长，似乎还是有可能的。

I'm still not sure these levers will get the business back to double digit growth rates, but having mid to high single growth rates for years going into the future, that would be seemingly somewhat doable.

随着业务向电商板块扩展，对实体店的依赖减少，这可能会带来一些运营杠杆，但同时也会带来新的风险。

And as the business scales up into this e commerce segment and relies less on their physical locations, that could create some operating leverage, but also it's going to create new sorts of risks for them as well.

因为零售确实是沃尔玛的核心业务，也是他们基因中非常重要的一部分。

Because retail is really the bread and butter of Walmart and definitely a major part of their DNA.

确实如此。

It is.

但我们得记住，电商对沃尔玛来说其实不算什么新业务。

But we have to remember that, you know, e commerce isn't really a new segment for Walmart.

如果他们决定自己造自动驾驶汽车，或者进军AI数据中心，那我可能会挺担心的。

If they decide to build their own autonomous vehicles or get into AI data centers, I would probably be pretty concerned.

但电商，我觉得对沃尔玛来说是个顺理成章的相邻业务，而且他们已经证明这块业务是能跑通、能增长、还能赚大钱的。

But e commerce is, you know, I think a logical adjacent business for Walmart that I think they have validated as a working, growing, and highly profitable piece of their business.

所以，我个人觉得这家公司最大的风险可能出在劳动力成本上。

So the largest risk that I personally see for this business probably lies in labor costs.

我们得记住，沃尔玛的利润率非常非常薄，任何超出他们控制的成本上涨，都会让公司面临非常大的挑战，必须得想办法克服。

So we have to remember that Walmart does operate on these very very razor thin margins and any increase in expenses beyond its control would mean that the business would face some very very big hurdles that it has to overcome.

所以，劳动力方面就有潜在的风险。

So here's the potential risk with labor.

现在有好几股压力同时起作用。

There are multiple pressures working simultaneously.

借用查理·芒格的话，这可以叫“合奏效应”，可能会对沃尔玛不利。

You can call it a Lollapalooza effect if I'm borrowing from Charlie Munger that could potentially work against Walmart.

首先，劳动力市场正在收紧。

So first is that labor markets are tightening.

这意味着工资增长可能会超过通货膨胀。

This means that wage growth could outpace inflation.

其次，工会不会消失。

Second, unions just they're not going away.

沃尔玛在加拿大的员工已经加入了工会。

So Walmart already has employees in Canada who are in unions.

尽管美国到目前为止还没有受到影响。

Although The US has made it out unscathed so far.

第三，医疗成本持续上升，沃尔玛需要继续招聘更多员工，并照顾他们的医疗需求。

Third is that healthcare costs are continuing to rise and Walmart will need to continue hiring more people and then taking care of their healthcare needs.

而且，如果这些劳动力成本上升，他们就越难把节省下来的成本传递给顾客，这使得像亚马逊这样的竞争对手更有可能抢走他们的市场份额。

And then you have the fact that if these labor costs rise, it becomes harder and harder for them to pass the savings on to your customers, making competitors like Amazon more likely to steal their market share.

幸运的是，如果沃尔玛在劳动力成本上遇到困难，亚马逊也会面临同样的问题。

Fortunately for Walmart, if they're struggling with labor costs, then Amazon is also going to too.

但我确实觉得，亚马逊的仓库自动化程度要高得多，可能占整体业务的比例也更大，对吧？

But I do get the impression that Amazon's warehouses are much more automated as a share of maybe the total business, right?

因为我们知道沃尔玛有这么大的实体店面，需要很多员工来运营这些门店。

Just because we know that Walmart has such a large physical footprint manned by lots of employees working those stores.

所以这可能是亚马逊的一个相对优势。

So that may actually be something of an advantage for Amazon comparatively.

而且，正如你所说，这个行业本身固定成本就很高。

And then this business has some pretty high fixed costs already too, as you discussed.

折旧和摊销占了收入的8%。

The depreciation and amortization take up 8% of revenue.

就像拥有一辆昂贵的车，你知道吗？

So it's like having an expensive car, you know?

维护起来要花很多钱，而且还会随时间贬值。

It costs a lot of money to maintain, and it depreciates over time.

当你拥有这么多门店和仓库时，这影响会非常大。

And that can be really significant when you have all these stores and warehouses.

你得考虑到将来需要更换它们，或者至少需要进行大量的维护工作。

You have to account for the fact that you're gonna need to replace them, or at least there's gonna be serious maintenance work that you need to do.

所以即使今年这是一笔非现金支出，你没有对仓库和门店进行大规模翻新，但最终你还是得这么做。

And so even if this year it's a non cash expense, you're not making major renovations to those warehouses and stores, eventually you will have to.

这就是那个项目想要反映的情况。

And so that's sort of what that line item is meant to reflect.

回到你之前提到的自动化问题，我觉得这可能会有所帮助。

And kind of getting to your point back there on automation, I think that will probably help here.

你知道，沃尔玛其实多年来一直在推进自动化，但即使没有自动化，他们仍然面临劳动力成本上涨的压力。

You know, Walmart has actually been automating for years now, but you know, even without automation, they're still facing these labor inflation costs.

所以，大多数普通企业可能会通过提价来解决这个问题，但这显然与他们专注于每日低价的策略相悖，违背这个品牌承诺可能会导致客户流失。

So, you know, most normal businesses could maybe solve this by raising their prices, but obviously that flies in the face of their focus on these everyday low prices and violating that brand promise could lead to losing customers.

我觉得他们不愿意冒这个风险。

And that's something that I don't think that they're willing to do.

所以我列出的第二个风险与人工智能在寻找最佳交易方面带来的问题有关。

So the second risk that I'd outlined here relates to issues that AI is creating with finding the best possible deals out there.

所以从沃尔玛切换到亚马逊的转换成本基本上为零，而AI对沃尔玛来说并没有太大帮助。

So the switching costs to switch from, let's say Walmart to Amazon are basically zero and AI isn't really helping Walmart's cause.

比如说，我们用一个智能代理工具，它能帮我们做产品搜索、发现、广告或者购买这些事情。

So let's say we use an agentic tool that can help with things like product search, discovery, advertising, or purchasing.

这些智能代理工具现在可能已经存在了，而且它们会不断改进，这会让顾客的电商购物变得更加高效。

So these agentic tools are probably out there and they're going to continue to improve, which is going to make customers e commerce shopping even more efficient.

这就带来了一些风险。

And this causes a few risks.

首先，它可能会从其他电商公司找到更便宜或者打折的商品。

First, it may be able to find better priced or sale items from other e commerce companies.

其次，它减少了顾客通过沃尔玛实体店和网站体验全渠道服务的需求，这样一来，沃尔玛通过会员和广告等方式从顾客身上赚钱的能力就会下降。

Second, it reduces the need for customers to access omnichannel experiences through Walmart's physical store and websites, which would then have the effect of cutting down on Walmart's ability to monetize customers via things like memberships and advertising.

这个风险挺有意思的，值得想一想。

It's a pretty interesting risk to think about it.

比如说，如果我想买我最喜欢的洗衣液，但没时间去店里，又急需用，我可能会去沃尔玛或亚马逊的网站，或者我也可以试试用Claude这样的AI代理帮我搜索。

If I wanted to, let's say, buy my favorite brand of laundry detergent when I don't have time to get it but I do need it ASAP, could go to Walmart or Amazon's website or I could try using an AI agent through maybe Claude to search for me.

我直接让它帮我找最便宜的洗衣液，还要当天送达，然后这个代理根本不在乎是谁卖的。

I could just ask it to find me the cheapest detergent with same day shipping and then the agent doesn't care who offers it.

如果其他公司有折扣或者送货更快，它能帮我翻遍互联网找到这些信息。

And if another company offers a sale or faster shipping, it can dig through the internet and find that for me.

这样一来，沃尔玛就失去我这个客户了。

And so then Walmart would lose my business.

所以，如果大家都通过ChatGPT、Claude这些AI代理来购物，那客户关系就不在沃尔玛手里了。

And so it sort of takes the customer relationship out of their hands if everybody's shopping through ChatGPT and Claude and AI agents.

而且更进一步，我觉得这会让某些类型的网上购物变得商品化，这会让沃尔玛处境很艰难。

And even further, it commoditizes I think certain types of shopping on the internet which is gonna put Walmart in a tough position.

你知道，我对于大家会不会都用代理购物还有疑虑，但确实有很多人认为这很有可能。

You know, I have my doubts about whether we'll all be shopping with agents, but there's certainly a lot of people who think that that is very possible.

没错。

Exactly.

所以，我个人对用代理购物还不太放心，但我能想象一旦我认识的朋友或家人试过并且成功了，跟我分享了好体验，我可能很快就会改变想法。

So, you know, I personally don't feel too comfortable with agentic buying yet, but I could see that changing quickly once I have, you know, some family or friends who try it out with success and share the good experiences with me.

但在那之前，我可能还是会去亚马逊或沃尔玛这样的网站买大部分东西。

But until then, I'm probably just gonna log on to something like Amazon or Walmart to buy most of my stuff.

如果要多付个10美分，那也没办法。

If I have to pay, you know, 10¢ extra, so be it.

所以我要说的最后一个风险，跟沃尔玛的供应链有关。

So the final risk I'd share relates to Walmart supply chain.

在沃尔玛最新的财报里，据说公司收到了大约29亿美元的关税退款。

In the latest Walmart earnings report, the company reportedly received about $2,900,000,000 in tariff refunds.

这说明他们确实受到了关税成本的影响。

So this means that they were clearly affected by the cost side of tariffs.

沃尔玛也披露过，他们大部分进口商品确实来自中国。

Walmart discloses that most of its imports do come from China.

所以这个威胁其实一直存在。

So that threat really isn't going anywhere.

而且现在中美关系，说好听点也不算太好，所以关税问题会一直存在，可能会影响沃尔玛的业务。

And with the current state of US Chinese relationships, you know, not being so great to put it mildly, tariffs will continue to be an issue that could affect Walmart's business.

而且，中美之间一旦出现任何地缘政治问题，沃尔玛肯定就不得不从其他国家采购商品了。

On top of that, any geopolitical issue between China and US would certainly force Walmart to have to source its merchandise from other countries.

我猜那些商品的价格会更高。

And I'd assume the prices on those products would be higher.

不然的话，沃尔玛早就用那些国家做供应商了，也不用担心关税可能带来的影响了。

Otherwise Walmart would already be using them as a supplier and not having to worry about the potential effects of tariffs.

所以，我觉得这些风险目前都不至于威胁到它的生存，但如果情况恶化，短期内确实可能给沃尔玛带来不小的麻烦。

So, you know, I don't really think any of these risks are existential by any means at this time, but they could definitely cause Walmart some real pain in the short term if they were to worsen.

这点我同意，但供应链和关税的不确定性还是存在的。

I agree with you there, but still you got supply chain and tariff uncertainties.

还有智能体AI购物、劳动力紧张、溢价回购股票，这些都可能浪费现金，未必是创造内在价值的最佳方式。

You've got agentic AI shopping, you've got labor tightness, you've got these buybacks at a premium which can kind of squander away cash and maybe not be the optimal way to create intrinsic value.

美国市场增长也在放缓，尤其是来自亚马逊的竞争。

You've got maturing growth in The US, competition from Amazon in particular.

感觉这确实是一家面临很多挑战的公司。

It just does feel like a business that's facing a lot of challenges.

虽然我们之前提到过，这个业务很简单，而且显而易见是个好生意。

Even though we sort of mentioned earlier that it is a great business in its simplicity and it's sort of self evident.

但话说回来，这并不意味着他们对所有这些可能影响业务的威胁完全免疫，尤其是当你以接近40倍市盈率买入的时候，对吧？

But then again, still, that does not mean that they're completely antifragile to all of these different threats that could be weighing on the business, especially when you're buying it at nearly 40 times earnings, right?

如果你是以10倍市盈率买入，那我会说，我觉得这些担忧大多已经被消化在价格里了。

If you're buying it at 10 times earnings, would say, well, you know, I think a lot of these concerns are more than priced in.

但40倍市盈率的话，你就会想，嘿，没什么回旋余地了。

At 40 times earnings, you're thinking, hey, there's not a lot of wiggle room.

如果未来几个季度和几年里，事情不是那么顺利，没能超出华尔街的预期，那股票很可能会跑输他们实际的收入和营业利润增长。

If things don't, you know, go perfectly well and more than beat Wall Street's expectations in the coming quarters and years, there's a real chance that the stock lags the performance of their underlying revenue and operating earnings growth.

所以我觉得，说到这儿，我们应该花点时间，这集也该聊聊沃尔玛的内在价值了。

So I think on that note, we should take a moment and I think it's that time of the episode where we should go over and the intrinsic value of Walmart.

那我们就从你对这个业务价值的整体看法开始吧。

So maybe let's start there with your kind

对，从高层面来看。

of high level view of the business's value.

所以我觉得在估值方面，我完全同意你的观点。

So I think I'd echo your points there on the evaluation part totally.

但我要说的是，沃尔玛，如果我们把估值放一边，它真的是一家非常非常有意思的公司。

But I will say that Walmart, we take the evaluation part out of it, it's just a really, really interesting company.

你知道，我真的看到了这家公司在规模上的优势，而且随着他们不断扩大规模，价格很可能会保持非常有吸引力，甚至可能对寻找最优价格的消费者来说更有吸引力。

You know, I I really see the benefits that the business has in scale, and as they scale up, you know, chances are that prices will remain very attractive, probably more attractive for shoppers looking for the best possible price.

很难在其他地方找到每天的低价。

It's gonna be hard to find, you know, an everyday low price from somewhere else.

虽然他们处于一个竞争激烈的行业，但几乎不可能有竞争对手能在价格上和他们竞争，因为他们很可能永远不会有沃尔玛目前拥有的规模。

And while they are in a highly competitive industry, it's just nearly impossible for any competitor to compete with them on price just because chances are they're never gonna have the same scale that Walmart currently has.

亚马逊和好市多是最接近的两个竞争对手，但你知道，我觉得这三家都有成功的空间。

Amazon and Costco are the two closest competitors, but you know, I think there's room for all three of them to succeed.

由于沃尔玛能订购如此大量的商品，他们对供应商有了议价能力。

Since Walmart can order such large quantities of merchandise, they get bargaining power over their suppliers.

这将帮助他们继续为顾客提供低价，让那些低价竞争对手更难尝试与他们竞争。

This is going to help them continue to offer customers low prices that make it even harder for low price competitors to even attempt to compete with them.

所以我真的很喜欢沃尔玛的竞争优势。

So I really like Walmart's competitive advantages here.

我觉得他们不太可能真的走下坡路，而且随着电商和国际业务等增长动力的推动，他们很可能会在未来多年继续增长，尽管增长率大概在中等个位数到低个位数之间。

I doubt they're gonna really go anywhere and with its growth drivers coming from things like e commerce and international chances are they're gonna continue to grow for years to come, albeit at kind of these mid to single digit growth rates.

那么，既然说了这么多，你对沃尔玛的内在价值有没有一个具体的数字？

So with all that said then, is there a number here that you land on for the intrinsic value of Walmart?

对我来说，

For my

在基本假设下，我假设沃尔玛的营收增长率能保持在历史平均水平附近，略低于5%。

base case, I assume that Walmart can grow its revenues at around its historical average revenue growth rate a touch below 5%.

要让这个数字成立，你不需要做任何特别大胆的假设。

You don't really have to make any heroic assumptions for this number to hold.

所以，嗯，

So U.

同店销售额需要稳定在4%到5%左右。

Same store sales need to hold steady somewhere around four to 5%.

国际业务也会继续以高个位数的速度增长，这对我来说似乎都很合理。

International would continue to grow in the high single digits as well, which seems all quite reasonable to me.

至于净利润率，我在未来五年里稍微提高了一点，到略高于3%。

Now for the net margins, I increased them a touch over the next five years to a little over 3%.

这部分比较难建模，因为沃尔玛的披露信息有限，我们不清楚他们那些高利润率的收入板块，比如电商、广告、市场和物流，背后的具体数字是怎样的。

This was a harder part to model for because we simply just don't get that much information from Walmart's disclosures as to what kind of numbers are behind their higher margin revenue segments like e commerce, advertising, marketplace, and fulfillment.

所以这些业务显然增长很快，但我们不知道它们的利润率是多少，或者要达到什么水平才能持续盈利。

So they are clearly growing really fast, but we don't know what the margins are or where they need to be to generate consistent profits.

所以我对这个数字还算满意，但一旦有更多信息披露，可能会调整。

So I'm okay with this number, but it could be adjusted once more information is disclosed.

至于退出倍数，我最终用了20倍。是的，对于一个增长5%、利润率扩张微乎其微的企业来说，这看起来可能偏高，但我认为这反映了市场对一家公认的、资本效率极高的持久企业的乐观态度。

Now as for the exit multiple, I ended up using 20 times and yes, that might seem high for a business growing at 5% with negligible margin expansion, but I think it reflects the market's optimism for an admittedly durable business with very, very good capital efficiency.

所以综合这些，我得出一个

So with all this, I get a

价格大约是78美元，20倍的市盈率作为五年退出倍数可能不算太离谱，甚至可能偏保守，因为近年来市场对沃尔玛的估值一直是这样。

price of about $78.20 times earnings for a five year exit multiple probably isn't too crazy and maybe even conservative based on how the market has been valuing Walmart in recent years.

但长期来看，一个成熟的零售商可能会以更低的倍数交易。

But definitely longer term, a mature retailer could probably trade at an even lower multiple.

除非他们能找到一些方法，再次大幅重振增长并重新构想他们的业务，但我没有看到任何他们准备这样做的迹象。

And unless they find some ways to again, dramatically reinvigorate growth and reimagine their business, which I haven't seen any evidence of them being prepared to do.

那么，当你比较牛市和熊市的情况时，公司股价的波动幅度有多大？

So how widely does the value of the company shares fluctuate when you compare the bull case and the bear case between them?

所以，如果我把我的熊市和牛市情况考虑进去，再加上15%的安全边际，实际上得到的内在价值大约是50美元，这还不到当前股价的一半。

So if I factor in my bear and bull case, add in a 15% margin safety, actually get an intrinsic value about $50 which is less than half of the current share price.

所以，你知道，我觉得我们俩都清楚，沃尔玛是一家很棒的企业，但正如查理·芒格著名地教给沃伦·巴菲特的，你想以合理的价格买入一家优秀的企业。

So, you know, I think it's clear to both of us that Walmart is a great business, but as Charlie Munger famously taught Warren Buffett, you want to buy a wonderful business at a decent price.

在我看来，沃尔玛是一家优秀的企业，但在当前的价格下，我对成为股东不感兴趣。

And in my view, Walmart is a wonderful business, but at its current price, I'm just not interested in being a shareholder.

不过我还是会去那里购物。

I'll keep shopping there though.

所以即使在我的牛市情况下，没有安全边际，你只能获得1%的回报，当然你可以把1%的股息率加到回报中，但你知道，这仍然不能改变你实际上连通胀都跑不赢的事实。

So even in my bull case, without the margin of safety, you're making just a 1% return and sure you can add in the 1% dividend yield to the returns, but you know, it still just doesn't really change the fact that you aren't really even beating inflation.

如果股息收益率有5%，回报率又很低，那或许还说得过去，但我实在想不出其他理由来证明持有这家公司是合理的。

Perhaps it would be defensible if you were making a 5% dividend yield with a really low return, but I just can't really see any other way of justifying owning this business.

所以我要说的是，如果股价跌到50美元甚至更低，我可能会感兴趣，因为这是一家非常高质量的公司，纯粹是市盈率扩张的机会。

So I will say if the business drops to $50 or even further below $50 I would probably get interested as a simple multiple expansion play on a really, really high quality business.

但就目前而言，这是一家很棒的公司，但价格嘛——抱歉，各位股东——实在是不怎么样。

But as it stands, this is just a wonderful business at a price that I'm sorry to any shareholders out there, but it's pretty abysmal.

你知道，我可不想跟沃尔玛竞争。

You know, wouldn't want to be competing with Walmart.

我对此非常有信心，而且我很高兴能成为沃尔玛的顾客。

I knew that very confidently and I'm very happy to be a customer of Walmart.

但以现在的价格，我想当股东吗？

But do I want to be a shareholder at today's prices?

我觉得不想。

I don't think so.

我同意你的看法。

I'm in agreement with you there.