????但格雷厄姆更喜歡采用的“平均盈利”測試卻指向相反的方向，認(rèn)為蘋果股票估值處于危險的高位。16倍的市盈率意味著，要想股價持續(xù)上漲，蘋果就需要在2012財年營收417億美元的基礎(chǔ)上，盈利實(shí)現(xiàn)大幅增長。投資者仍在預(yù)期蘋果股票年收益率在8.3％左右（6.3％的收益率<相當(dāng)于其市盈率15.9的倒數(shù)>加上2％的預(yù)期通脹率）。去年8月份，蘋果從遵循不派息政策轉(zhuǎn)為每年向股票持有者派發(fā)100億美元股息。在9月份股價達(dá)到最高位時，這筆股息所對應(yīng)的股息率為1.5％。因此，投資者預(yù)計從蘋果未來的盈利增長中再獲得每年6.7％的收益（預(yù)期8.3％的收益率減去1.5％的股息率）。

????考慮到蘋果最近幾年業(yè)績激增而連創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的情況，這近7％的增長要求聽起來似乎是輕而易舉就能做到的事情。但問題是，在蘋果股價處于705美元的高位時，市場預(yù)期蘋果能夠在業(yè)績增速早已巨大以及盈利早已巨大的基礎(chǔ)上，進(jìn)一步實(shí)現(xiàn)顯著的增長。到2017年，蘋果將需要實(shí)現(xiàn)580億美元的盈利，才能給股票持有者提供8％以上的收益，而屆時其市值將飆升至9,000多億美元。

????那么，如果投資者當(dāng)時也權(quán)衡蘋果過往業(yè)績的話，情況會是怎樣呢？過去五年里，蘋果按照前四個季度計算的平均盈利為161億美元。過去的三年里，這個數(shù)字是220億美元。

????這兩個數(shù)字都沒有對蘋果未來的盈利潛力給予一個明確的看法。但它們強(qiáng)烈表明，蘋果股票在去年9月份絕對不便宜，而是一個極其昂貴、風(fēng)險很大的賭注。即便采用220億美元這個平均盈利數(shù)據(jù)來計算，蘋果經(jīng)調(diào)整后的市盈率也達(dá)到30倍。處于這么高的估值水平，一旦蘋果出現(xiàn)任何令人失望的業(yè)績，都會導(dǎo)致它的股票因遭到拋售而急劇暴跌。而這恰恰是現(xiàn)在出現(xiàn)的情況。

????華爾街宣稱蘋果已達(dá)到一個全新的盈利起始平臺，其凈利潤將從這個基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步飆升——這正是格雷厄姆的預(yù)測方法指出錯誤的那種思維方式。去年10月份，晨星（Morningstar）、美林（Merrill Lynch）、摩根大通（JP Morgan）、摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）、德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）和高盛集團(tuán)（Goldman Sachs）都把蘋果股票2013年的目標(biāo)價格設(shè)置在714美元至880美元的區(qū)間內(nèi)，而當(dāng)時蘋果股價已跌至600美元左右。這些預(yù)期的蘋果目標(biāo)價格都超過了該股9月份達(dá)到的最高價位，而且它們的平均值為776美元。

????為了證明自己的觀點(diǎn)，華爾街各大公司都預(yù)測蘋果盈利將會大幅增長，他們預(yù)期的盈利漲幅從8.2％至23％不等，平均值為10％。

????但通過查看蘋果的10K年度財報，投資者自然會犯愁，推動這家科技巨頭的盈利超越400億美元的超高利潤率是否會像分析師所預(yù)言的那樣，不僅是完全可以重復(fù)的，甚至是可以顯著超越的呢? 2012財年期間，iPhone及相關(guān)產(chǎn)品在蘋果營收總額中占據(jù)了51％的份額，在扣除研發(fā)開支及企業(yè)日常管理費(fèi)用前的毛利率中貢獻(xiàn)了56％的份額——比iPad和iPod高出20個百分點(diǎn)。

????這么高的利潤勢必會吸引競爭對手，而且結(jié)果幾乎總是曇花一現(xiàn)?，F(xiàn)在，iPhone正面臨三星（Samsung）Galaxy智能手機(jī)的挑戰(zhàn)，引起了市場的高度關(guān)注。根據(jù)平均盈利測試來判斷，我們甚至不能明確從其最高價位已下跌近30％的蘋果股票目前是否已經(jīng)估值便宜了。沒有什么比重新閱讀本?格雷厄姆存在已久的投資智慧更能揭露華爾街極端狂熱的預(yù)期。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：iDo98

????The "average earnings" test preferred by Graham pointed in the opposite direction, towards danger. The 16 multiple meant that Apple would need to generate substantial earnings increases, over and above the $41.7 billion, to keep the stock rising. Investors were still expecting an annual return of around 8.3% (that's the earnings yield of 6.3% plus 2% anticipated inflation). In August, Apple went from a no-dividend policy to paying out $10 billion a year to shareholders. At the September peak, that dividend represented a 1.5% yield. So investors expected an additional 6.7% (the 8.3% expected return minus the 1.5% yield) from growth in future earnings.

????The nearly 7% growth requirement sounds like a snap, given Apple's explosive record. The problem is that, at $705 a share, the market was anticipating significant increases on top of already gigantic increases and gigantic earnings. By 2017, Apple would need to earn $58 billion to hand shareholders that 8%-plus return, and its valuation would soar to over $900 billion.

????So what's the picture if investors had also weighed Apple's past performance? Over the past five years, Apple's average earnings, based on four trailing quarters, is $16.1 billion. Over the past three years, the figure is $22 billion.

????Neither number gives a definitive view of Apple's future earnings potential. But they indicate strongly that Apple's stock in September was not cheap at all, but an extremely pricey, risky bet. Even using the $22 billion number, its adjusted PE was 30. At those levels, any disappointment causes a steep sell-off. And that's precisely what happened.

????The Wall Street pitch was that Apple had reached a new earnings threshold, and that profits would soar from there -- just the kind of prediction that the Graham method debunks. In October, Morningstar, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs placed target prices of between $714 and $880 a share for 2013 on Apple's stock, which had already declined to around $600. Those projected prices all exceed the September peak, and average $776.

????To support their view, the Wall Street firms all forecast big gains in earnings, ranging from 8.2% to 23%, and averaging 10%.

????But reviewing Apple's 10K, investors would naturally fret whether the fantastic margins that propelled the tech colossus to over $40 billion profits were not just repeatable, but eminently beatable, as the analysts were forecasting. For fiscal 2012, the iPhone and related products accounted for 51% of Apple's revenues, and generated gross margins, before R&D and corporate overhead, of 56%, 20 points higher than the iPad and iPod.

????Margins that high are a magnet for competitors, and almost always prove ephemeral. Now, the iPhone is facing a highly-publicized challenge from Samsung's Galaxy. It's not even clear that Apple is a bargain now after its almost 30% fall, based on the average earnings test. There's nothing like re-reading old Ben Graham to keep a check on Wall Street's wild expectations.