这段是老巴1983年用喜诗糖果来论述通胀环境中的商誉反而可能带来好处的，但是也是一段深入浅出地讲明白了“PB/ROE”估值内在逻辑的一个例子，以及所谓“好的商业模式为何估值更高”。我建议大家没读过的都读一读，像我这么愚钝的最好读上五遍以上...（不想读英文的可以直接拉到下面渣翻）
That probability exists because true economic Goodwill tends to rise in nominal valueproportionally with inflation. To illustrate how this works, let’s contrast a See’s kind ofbusiness with a more mundane business. When we purchased See’s in 1972, it will berecalled, it was earning about $2 million on $8 million of net tangible assets. Let us assume that our hypothetical mundane business then had $2 million of earnings also, but needed $18 million in net tangible assets for normal operations. Earning only 11% on required tangible assets, that mundane business would possess little or no economic Goodwill.
A business like that, therefore, might well have sold for the value of its net tangible assets, or for $18 million. In contrast, we paid $25 million for See’s, even though it had no more in earnings and less than half as much in "honest-to-God" assets. Could less really have been more, as our purchase price implied? The answer is "yes" – even if both businesses were expected to have flat unit volume – as long as you anticipated, as we did in 1972, a world of continuous inflation.
To understand why, imagine the effect that a doubling of the price level would subsequently have on the two businesses. Both would need to double their nominal earnings to $4 million to keep themselves even with inflation. This would seem to be no great trick: just sell the same number of units at double earlier prices and, assuming profit margins remain unchanged, profits also must double.
But, crucially, to bring that about, both businesses probably would have to double their nominal investment in net tangible assets, since that is the kind of economic requirement that inflation usually imposes on businesses, both good and bad. A doubling of dollar sales means correspondingly more dollars must be employed immediately in receivables and inventories. Dollars employed in fixed assets will respond more slowly to inflation, but probably just as surely. And all of this inflation-required investment will produce no improvement in rate of return. The motivation for this investment is the survival of the business, not the prosperity of the owner.
Remember, however, that See’s had net tangible assets of only $8 million. So it would only have had to commit an additional $8 million to finance the capital needs imposed by inflation. The mundane business, meanwhile, had a burden over twice as large – a need for $18 million of additional capital.
After the dust had settled, the mundane business, now earning $4 million annually, might still be worth the value of its tangible assets, or $36 million. That means its owners would have gained only a dollar of nominal value for every new dollar invested. (This is the same dollar-for-dollar result they would have achieved if they had added money to a savings account.)
See’s, however, also earning $4 million, might be worth $50 million if valued (as it logically would be) on the same basis as it was at the time of our purchase. So it would have gained $25 million in nominal value while the owners were putting up only $8 million in additional capital – over $3 of nominal value gained for each $1 invested.
真实的商誉价值是能够跟随通胀率而增长的。以喜诗糖果为例——我们在1972年通胀高涨时期买入喜诗糖果的股票，当时这家公司用价值800万美元的净有形资产，每年能赚取200万美元的利润。
做个假设，同期有这样一家普通公司M，用价值1800万美元的净有形资产，每年同样也能赚200万美元，账面没有商誉。对于这样一家普通公司，合理的出价可能是接近净资产的1800万美元；而我们当年实际上为喜诗糖果付出的对价是2500万美元（3.125倍PB），尽管它的盈利和M公司一样多，而且账面上少很多“实打实”的资产。
我们对这个出价是非常满意，下面是为什么——
假设若干年后，M公司和喜诗糖果都需要使利润翻倍到400万美元的水平（以对抗通胀对实际盈利造成的侵蚀），它们需要做的是通过涨价让销售价格达到此前的两倍。假设利润率不变，这意味翻倍的销售额对应了翻倍的净营运资本投入。这时候，喜诗糖果需要的额外资本投入只有800万美元，而M公司所需要的额外资本投入则是1800万美元。
那么，若干年后。M公司的盈利翻了一倍到400万美元，净有形资产增加了一倍到3600万美元，它仍然只值3600万美元。于是，股东们相当于用1800万美元的新增资本投入，换来了1800万美元的市值增值，从资本回报角度根本没赚。
而每年利润400万美元的喜诗糖果，合理价值应该是5000万美元。投资者用800万美元的新增资本投入，换来了2500万美元的市值增值，从资本回报角度每花出去的1美元换来了超过3美元。
---
从股东或者企业主的角度来说，初始投资喜诗糖果的估值无论是从市盈率（12.5pe vs 9pe）还是市净率（3pb/1pb）的角度来看都“显著高于”投资M公司。后者看似更“便宜”，但在长期通胀的环境下，真正作为股东/企业主的ROIC是大大逊色的，甚至“和存银行一样”。
由此可见所谓好的商业模式应该“享有”更高的估值水平，这并不是什么市场喜好、主观共识，是有客观基础，可以去算账的。合理的PE区间是主观的，合理的PB区间也可以是主观的，但是ROIC是不会欺骗你的。过度强调商业模式的优越而无限放宽估值容忍度（过高的出价使ROIC实际上降到了一个很低的水平），过度追求低“估值”而忽略糟糕的现金流实际上没有在为股东创造任何价值——看似两种极端的风格，实际上是踩的是同一个坑。
@今日话题