| Symbol | Name | Last Trade | Type | Industry/Category | Exchange |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JO | iPath DJ-UBS Coffee TR Sub-Idx ETN | 31.61 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJC | iPath DJ-UBS Copper TR Sub-Idx ETN | 44.02 | ETF | PCX | |
| GAZ | iPath DJ-UBS Natural Gas TR Sub-Idx ETN | 2.67 | ETF | PCX | |
| BAL | iPath DJ-UBS Cotton TR Sub-Idx ETN | 56.13 | ETF | PCX | |
| DJP | iPath DJ-UBS Commodity Index TR ETN | 40.53 | ETF | PCX | |
| SGG | iPath DJ-UBS Sugar TR Sub-Idx ETN | 67.16 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJG | iPath DJ-UBS Grains TR Sub-Idx ETN | 52.08 | ETF | PCX | |
| COW | iPath DJ-UBS Livestock TR Sub-Idx ETN | 26.34 | ETF | PCX | |
| NIB | iPath DJ-UBS Cocoa TR Sub-Idx ETN | 28.66 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJS | iPath DJ-UBS Softs TR Sub-Idx ETN | 53.17 | ETF | PCX | |
| LD | iPath DJ-UBS Lead TR Sub-Idx ETN | 53.01 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJU | iPath DJ-UBS Aluminum TR Sub-Idx ETN | 22.49 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJT | iPath DJ-UBS Tin TR Sub-Idx ETN | 54.78 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJP | iPath DJ-UBS Prec Metals TR Sub-Idx ETN | 84.17 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJN | iPath DJ-UBS Nickel TR Sub-Idx ETN | 23.20 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJE | iPath DJ-UBS Energy TR Sub-Idx ETN | 17.67 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJA | iPath DJ-UBS Agriculture TR Sub-Idx ETN | 54.91 | ETF | PCX | |
| JJM | iPath DJ-UBS Ind Metals TR Sub-Idx ETN | 32.87 | ETF | PCX | |
| PGM | iPath DJ-UBS Platinum TR Sub-Idx ETN |
Sunday, March 10, 2013
ETN
Gambling and Investing.
"It is generally agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of stock exchanges." - John Maynard Keynes
What is the difference between gambling and investing? In order to differentiate between the two, we should start by defining them. Comparisons are often made between the two activities, but I've never seen the terms explicitly defined. If you're sufficiently motivated, I encourage you to try to define the terms 'gambling' and 'investing' before you continue reading this essay... you may surprise yourself. (Go ahead, I'll wait here for you.)
What definitions did you come up with? Are investing and gambling mutually exclusive, or is there an area of overlap? And are the boundaries clearly delineated, or is there a gray area in the middle?
Let's see what the dictionary says. Here's what the Random House dictionary on my bookshelf says:
"Gamble: To play at any game of chance for stakes. To stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance."
"Invest: To put money to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering profitable returns."
Both seem reasonable upon cursory review, but a closer look reveals that they're not terribly helpful. The definition for gambling could apply just as well to investing, and vice-versa.
The Dictionary.com web site says:
"Gamble: To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit."
"Invest: To commit money or capital in order to gain a financial return."
Again, the distinction isn't clear. In investing, are you not betting on an uncertain outcome? Are you not taking a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or benefit? In gambling, are you not committing money? Are you not doing it in order to gain a financial return?
Beyond the Dictionary
OK, so the dictionary definitions aren't very useful. Perhaps if we examine some of the ways in which gambling and investing are generally perceived to differ, we might be able to build definitions from those characteristics.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is a good thing, gambling is a bad thing.
I think it would be hard to argue with the claim that investing is, on the balance, a good thing. Investing is widely regarded as the engine that drives capitalism. It tends to put money in the hands of those with the most promising and productive uses for it, and drives the economy gradually upward. Investors aren't merely betting on which companies will succeed, they're providing the capital those companies need to accomplish their goals. The U.S.'s leadership position in technology is largely due to investments by venture capital firms, angel investors and technophilic individual investors. Similarly, you can change the world in a small way by investing in companies you believe in, such as socially or environmentally conscious firms and mutual funds, or biotech companies that are working on diseases that might affect you or someone close to you.
Gambling, on the other hand, is not so clearly making a positive contribution. Gambling does tend to help local economies, but also usually brings with it well-documented unpleasant side effects. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether gambling is, on the balance, a plus or a minus. Looking to the financial markets, one could make the case that people who gamble in this realm do serve a function, by adding to the market's depth, liquidity, transparency, and efficiency. But that's of relatively minor value, and those gamblers probably capture most of that value for themselves. On the other hand, they often increase the volatility of the markets, which is on the balance usually a negative (although it does afford savvy investors opportunities for larger profits). As Warren Buffett has said, "Wall Street likes to characterize the proliferation of frenzied financial games as a sophisticated, prosocial activity, facilitating the fine-tuning of a complex economy. But the truth is otherwise: Short-term transactions frequently act as an invisible foot, kicking society in the shins."
The questions of whether gambling is morally wrong and how strictly it should be regulated are important but are well beyond the scope of this essay, and so I'll mention them only in passing. Governments generally frown on gambling (unless, of course, they're getting the lion's share of the profits, such as with state lotteries). Many religions frown on gambling (but they don't seem to mind church bingo). I have no problem with a person being morally opposed to gambling, as long as that person knows exactly what he/she means by 'gambling'.
I should hasten to add that not all types of investing are productive. Buying and holding results in a positive contribution to the economy, but buying and selling quickly, the way day traders do, results in no net contribution. For the purposes of the current investigation, we could either reclassify investing-type activities that aren't productive as gambling, or we could consider these to be exceptions to the rule. I lean toward the latter interpretation.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: In investing, the odds are in your favor; in gambling, the odds are against you.
Peter Lynch has said that "An investment is simply a gamble in which you've managed to tilt the odds in your favor." But that position is too simplistic. There are plenty of investments where the odds are against you: futures, options, and commodities trading (where you get hurt on commissions and the bid/ask spread), frequent stock trading (for the same reason), and selling short (since the market goes up rather than down in the long run), to name just a few examples. Similarly, while for most types of gambling the odds are against you, it is possible for the odds to be in your favor. I spent one summer during college working in Arizona, and I drove up to Nevada most weekends to play blackjack. By counting cards, I was able to obtain a small but predictable advantage over the house, about 1.5% per betting unit on average. (I haven't returned since then, for several reasons: it's not intellectually challenging; while card counting is not illegal, Vegas casinos can make you leave if they suspect you of doing it; and I've found it easier and more enjoyable to make money in stocks than in blackjack.) Expert poker players can also make money at casinos, because their competition is other players rather than the house, and as long as the house takes its cut it doesn't care how the rest of the money is redistributed among the players.
There are additional problems with this attempted characterization of gambling as a losing bet and investing as a winning bet. It implies that a given activity switches from gambling to investing (or vice versa) as soon as the odds swing past the breakeven point. Similarly, if two players are participating in an activity in which one has an advantage over the other, it would mean that one person is gambling and the other is investing. That would imply that institutions which get in on IPOs at the offering price would be investors, and the little folks that those institutions immediately flip the shares to for a profit would be gamblers. Furthermore, while it's possible to calculate exact odds for some casino games, this is rarely the case on Wall Street. How can you know for sure whether the odds are for or against you if you decide to buy a particular stock today?
What about venture capital investments, you say? Aren't the odds stacked against them? Yes, the majority of venture capital investments result in loss, often a total loss of the amount invested. However, venture funds typically yield higher returns than stocks because a small percentage of the firm's investments are home runs, more than making up for complete losses on other investments. So while venture capital might seem like gambling in that the odds are against the VC firms on any given bet, on average the expected payoff is positive, so the odds in the long run are actually in their favor.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Gambling can be addictive and destructive, but investing can't.
Compulsive gambling has been correctly identified as a problem, and organizations like Gamblers Anonymous are helping people cope with the problem. No similar problem is generally thought to exist in investing. There is no Investors Anonymous, and no one talks about compulsive investors. But while there isn't yet widespread acknowledgement of investing addiction, there will be soon. Marvin Steinberg, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Compulsive Gambling, recently said this about investing addiction: "We don't know the true extent of the problem because hardly anyone identifies it as a gambling problem -- they see it as a 'financial problem' or an 'investing problem.' " Many online investors who claim to be buy-and-hold investors check their portfolios on a daily or hourly basis, and jump in and out of stocks more often than they realize. Active trading can be expensive, both in terms of the commissions and bid/ask spreads and in terms of emotional fatigue. Also, some people invest more aggressively than they should, which is virtually identical to gamblers who bet more money than they can afford to lose. This page provides a list of questions to help a person determine if he/she might be a compulsive gambler. Replace the word 'gambler' with 'investor' for each question and the questionnaire is equally useful, but for a different purpose.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Gambling is entertainment, investing is business.
As Brad Hill has said, "Global financial markets represent the greatest spectator sport humanity has ever devised. It has planetary reach, a multitude of local competitive arenas, volumes of statistics, star players, and -- best of all -- anyone can move between the domains of observer and participant, fan and player. If you squint just right, the steadfast newscasters of CNBC appear to be play-by-play announcers, calling the game for U.S. fans. And do financial sections of newspapers differ from sports sections in their presentation of story, data, and personality? Not essentially." While the 'gambling as entertainment, investing as business' dichotomy may have been clear in the past, the line is being blurred. The internet has enabled online brokerages and other financial web sites to revolutionize retail investing, which on the balance is a tremendous benefit to both individual investors and the economy in general. However, the widespread accessibility of cheap online trades has also attracted some people who enjoy betting and view online trading as a new form of entertainment. The major factors accelerating this trend are that gambling is strictly regulated and not ubiquitous, and that the odds are usually better in investing than in gambling.
Chris Anderson, executive director of the Illinois Council on Problem and Compulsive Gambling, has said that compulsive gambling isn't really about making money, it's about "action", and the lure of the big win. While I'm not a neuroscientist, I suspect that the chemical changes that occur in the brains of compulsive gamblers and compulsive day traders are similar, since they're both riding on the same emotional roller coaster of wins and losses. Similarly, while some people who invest in high-tech stocks do it for the potential returns, others do it because of the rush they get from the tremendous volatility. It feels right to classify the latter group as gamblers rather than investors.
I don't mean to imply that I think it's acceptable to gamble for entertainment but not to invest for entertainment. I think both are equally acceptable, provided the person enjoys the activity (as opposed to feeling a compulsion to participate) and provided the person uses only money he/she can afford to lose. But I'm probably not the best person to make a judgment on this question, because I've never found either gambling or investing to be entertaining... my goal has always been value creation rather than enjoyment, and I place bets only where the odds are most heavily in my favor, not where I expect to find the most excitement.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is saving for specific goals, such as retirement, while gambling isn't.
Many people regard investing as a planned strategy of wealth-building for specific future goals. And this is certainly true of some types of investing. But this is largely a by-product of having the odds in one's favor. If you have the edge (whether in blackjack or in equities), time and the laws of probability are a powerful combination. Gambling would work just as well as investing for financial event planning if gambling games were in your favor.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investors are risk-averse, while gamblers are risk-seekers.
Risk-taking is intrinsic to both gambling and investing. There are a few investments that don't entail risk, such as fixed annuities and government bonds held to maturity, but even those have inflation risk. The major difference between the two groups seems to be the participant's relative willingness to accept risk. Investors tend to avoid risk unless adequately compensated for taking it, but gamblers don't. To put it another way, investors take only the risks they should take, while gamblers also take some risks they shouldn't take. Would you rather have $50 or a 50/50 chance at $100? If you take the $50, you're an investor. If you go for all or nothing, you're a gambler. Would you rather put your money under your mattress or in an extremely volatile stock that could go bankrupt or could double in value? The question is slightly different, but the answer is equally instructive. If you expect to double your money quickly, whatever you're doing is probably gambling, even if it happens on Wall Street rather than in Las Vegas.
However, this characterization of gamblers as risk-takers applies only to non-professional gamblers, people who visit Atlantic City for a weekend for entertainment purposes. Professional gamblers who have managed to tip the odds in their favor behave more like investors, shying away from risk unless the reward is sufficient to justify taking the chance. In fact, one could make the argument that investors generally take on more risk than professional gamblers, because of the uncertainly inherent in the financial markets. As I mentioned before, it's difficult for investors to calculate how much of an advantage they have, but the odds of a given gambling strategy can be known either precisely or at least approximately.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is a continuous process; gambling is an immediate event or series of events.
This rule does seem to hold in most cases. Investing is a continuous process of deployment of capital in search of continually increasing net worth. As a result, delayed gratification is implied. Gambling is a specific act or series of acts, centered around immediate gratification. In this respect, day trading resembles gambling: the participant gets in, the price moves up or down, and he/she gets out, usually in a matter of minutes. The same could be said of buying with the belief that a stock is about to jump, or buying IPO shares with the intention of flipping them in a few hours or days, or buying options which are close to expiration. On the other hand, buying in the belief that a stock's price will eventually reflect its value, with the plan of holding as long as it takes for this to happen, is more like investing.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is the ownership of something tangible; gambling isn't.
The latter half of the statement is certainly true, but the former half is only sometimes true. Some investments involve the ownership of something tangible, but many don't. For example, derivatives are investments 'derived' from other investments. An option is a derivative that gives the owner the right to buy or sell a specific amount of a given security at a specified price during a specified period of time. Options are generally classified as investing rather than gambling, and rightly so, but they do not represent ownership of anything tangible. However, when you realize that an option is essentially a bet that a given security will or won't be above a certain price on or by a certain date, it starts to feel more like gambling than investing.
An even more strict definition of investing would require that it involves the purchase of an asset which either produces a stream of income or can be made to produce a stream of income. But this definition would eliminate such assets as collectibles, stamps, art, and gold, which have no intrinsic value. I don't think it makes sense to exclude them simply on this basis. We might choose not to consider them investments because of their poor long-term performance, but we shouldn't choose not to consider them investments simply because they won't ever produce a stream of income.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is based on skill and requires the use of a system based on research, while gambling is based on luck and emotions.
A lot of so-called investors don't do nearly as much research as they should. Many buy on tips or rumors, or based on some analyst's price target, without doing their own exhaustive research. It feels right to call such behavior gambling. Similarly, investors who are making decisions based on emotions (especially greed and fear), rather than remaining emotionally detached and sticking with their strategy, are to some extent gambling.
On the other side of the coin, some gamblers do serious research, often paying hundreds of dollars a month for real time data on what the current lines are (for example, on http://www.scoresandodds.com or http://www.vegasinsider.com). Professional sports investors devote 12 hours a day, every day, to handicapping sports. They read dozens of newspapers, subscribe to line services, maintain inside contacts, and have years of experience, usually on both sides of the betting counter. These professionals keep their emotions away from the decision-making process. Once they have a system that works for them, they don't second-guess it, focusing on long-term profits instead of day-to-day performance. Also, they concentrate on the areas in which they achieve maximum results. Many professionals bet only on one sport, which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Warren Buffett's idea of staying within one's "circle of competence".
While investing and gambling probably initially appear to be worlds apart, the above attempts at differentiation revealed that the actual differences are smaller than the perceived differences, and that there is a significant gray area in the middle. Based on the above characterizations, it is clear that the appropriate classification isn't wholly dependent on the activity, but also on the way in which the activity is conducted. There's a big difference between buying a stock after thoroughly researching it and buying a stock by hitting it on a dartboard. This is true even if the same stock happens to be chosen. Similarly, there's a big difference between buying exotic derivatives to hedge against an existing risk or position and buying the same derivatives because you saw a web site touting them. As a final example, there's a big difference between buying a government bond in order to collect the interest it earns and buying the same bond in the belief that interest rates are about to drop and the bond's value will skyrocket.
One interesting thing to note is the pattern of exceptions to the attempted characterizations. Most of the exceptions were people who were doing investing-related things but weren't behaving like investors, or people who were doing gambling-related things but weren't behaving like gamblers. Of the four groups, recreational investors, professional investors, recreational gamblers, professional gamblers, there are more similarities between the two recreational groups and between the two professional groups than between the two investing groups and between the two gambling groups. Specifically, those who use a rigorous system, do research, tilt the odds in their favor, treat it as a business rather than as entertainment, avoid addiction, and keep their emotions in check tend to behaving like investors, and those who don't tend to be behaving like gamblers. It might not be such a stretch to call professional gamblers 'investors' and recreational investors 'gamblers'.
A Third Option: Speculating
Another possibility is that the two terms 'gambling' and 'investing' aren't sufficient to cover the entire range of activities under consideration. A third term, 'speculating', is often used to straddle the two, specifically to handle activities that would ordinarily be considered investing but are done in a way that make them feel more like gambling.
In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes defined speculation as "the activity of forecasting the psychology of the market", and speculative motive as "the object of securing profit from knowing better than the market with the future will bring." Many people consider billionaire George Soros to be an investor, but he prefers the term speculator. In fact, he has said that "an investment is a speculation that has gone wrong." What he means by this is that, among speculators, an 'investment' is the name they give to a speculation that didn't work out the way they expected and that left them stuck with a position they hope will improve with time. Soros and other speculators make their predictions partially based on market psychology, and in this respect their behavior fits perfectly with the Keynes' definition of speculation. But there is much more to speculating than just interpreting market psychology, and this definition isn't sufficiently distinct from the ones we formulated for gambling and investing in the above section.
According to the dictionary on my bookshelf, speculation is "the engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk for the chance of large gains." By this definition, the entire distinction rests on the degree of risk and size of potential gains. In support of this definition, bond rating agencies commonly use the term "speculative" to refer to high-risk bonds (those rated below BBB by S&P or Baa by Moody's).
In their book Investments, Zvi Bodie, Alex Kane, and Alan Marcus argue that "a gamble is the assumption of risk for no purpose but enjoyment of the risk itself, whereas speculation is undertaken in spite of the risk involved because one perceives a favorable risk-return trade-off." But this is too simplistic... no one would play casino games if the only possible outcomes were either breaking even or losing; the rush they experience comes from the possibility of winning and not merely from the taking of risk. They continue: "To turn a gamble into a speculative prospect requires an adequate risk premium for compensation to risk-averse investors for the risks that they bear. Hence risk aversion and speculation are not inconsistent." This part I agree with. In fact, whether they realize it or not, their definition reclassifies gambling as speculation when the odds can be sufficiently tipped in the player's favor, such as in professional blackjack or poker, which fits in nicely with argument made in the previous section.
Zvi Bodie et al appear to be saying that in order to be speculating rather than gambling, the person must not take greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. Others say that in order to be speculating rather than investing the person must be taking greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. For example, in Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's classic Security Analysis, they argue that "an investment operation is one which upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Both positions are defensible. But perhaps a better interpretation would rest on the realization that different investors have different tolerances for risk. Perhaps speculators are those who are risk-neutral, while gamblers are risk-seekers and investors are risk-averse. While adding the term 'speculation' to the mix might have some value, it probably adds more confusion than clarification, so I prefer to leave it out and focus on just 'gambling' and 'investing'.
Conslusions
So what's my resolution to this definition conundrum? Well, the purpose of words is to communicate concepts. So it doesn't really matter what definitions you use, as long as you and the person(s) you're communicating with are clear about what is meant by those words. And even more importantly, as long as you know what you're doing, investing or gambling, before you do it.
But with that said, it would be beneficial if everyone could agree on what the terms mean, so we don't need to make our definitions explicit every time we want to use them. To this end, I offer the following definitions, which are built from the various characterizations in the above section:
Investing - "Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results."
Gambling - "Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results."
Speculating - I would prefer to avoid this term entirely, but if necessary I would define it as "Investing or gambling characterized by a high degree of risk and a high potential for reward."
Are you disappointed that I didn't crystallize the essence of gambling and investing into a single distinguishing feature? Did I merely sidestep the ambiguity, and sweep the gray areas and the important exceptions under the rug? I don't think so. The taxonomy doesn't have to be completely distinct in order to be useful, nor does it need to be just a single feature. And just because some of the characterizations had exceptions doesn't mean they should be thrown out entirely. Nearly everyone agrees that the concept of 'chair' is a useful one, even though it's difficult to define exactly what the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a chair are.
Why Does it Matter?
What is the difference between gambling and investing? In order to differentiate between the two, we should start by defining them. Comparisons are often made between the two activities, but I've never seen the terms explicitly defined. If you're sufficiently motivated, I encourage you to try to define the terms 'gambling' and 'investing' before you continue reading this essay... you may surprise yourself. (Go ahead, I'll wait here for you.)
What definitions did you come up with? Are investing and gambling mutually exclusive, or is there an area of overlap? And are the boundaries clearly delineated, or is there a gray area in the middle?
Let's see what the dictionary says. Here's what the Random House dictionary on my bookshelf says:
"Gamble: To play at any game of chance for stakes. To stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance."
"Invest: To put money to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering profitable returns."
Both seem reasonable upon cursory review, but a closer look reveals that they're not terribly helpful. The definition for gambling could apply just as well to investing, and vice-versa.
The Dictionary.com web site says:
"Gamble: To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit."
"Invest: To commit money or capital in order to gain a financial return."
Again, the distinction isn't clear. In investing, are you not betting on an uncertain outcome? Are you not taking a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or benefit? In gambling, are you not committing money? Are you not doing it in order to gain a financial return?
Beyond the Dictionary
OK, so the dictionary definitions aren't very useful. Perhaps if we examine some of the ways in which gambling and investing are generally perceived to differ, we might be able to build definitions from those characteristics.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is a good thing, gambling is a bad thing.
I think it would be hard to argue with the claim that investing is, on the balance, a good thing. Investing is widely regarded as the engine that drives capitalism. It tends to put money in the hands of those with the most promising and productive uses for it, and drives the economy gradually upward. Investors aren't merely betting on which companies will succeed, they're providing the capital those companies need to accomplish their goals. The U.S.'s leadership position in technology is largely due to investments by venture capital firms, angel investors and technophilic individual investors. Similarly, you can change the world in a small way by investing in companies you believe in, such as socially or environmentally conscious firms and mutual funds, or biotech companies that are working on diseases that might affect you or someone close to you.
Gambling, on the other hand, is not so clearly making a positive contribution. Gambling does tend to help local economies, but also usually brings with it well-documented unpleasant side effects. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether gambling is, on the balance, a plus or a minus. Looking to the financial markets, one could make the case that people who gamble in this realm do serve a function, by adding to the market's depth, liquidity, transparency, and efficiency. But that's of relatively minor value, and those gamblers probably capture most of that value for themselves. On the other hand, they often increase the volatility of the markets, which is on the balance usually a negative (although it does afford savvy investors opportunities for larger profits). As Warren Buffett has said, "Wall Street likes to characterize the proliferation of frenzied financial games as a sophisticated, prosocial activity, facilitating the fine-tuning of a complex economy. But the truth is otherwise: Short-term transactions frequently act as an invisible foot, kicking society in the shins."
The questions of whether gambling is morally wrong and how strictly it should be regulated are important but are well beyond the scope of this essay, and so I'll mention them only in passing. Governments generally frown on gambling (unless, of course, they're getting the lion's share of the profits, such as with state lotteries). Many religions frown on gambling (but they don't seem to mind church bingo). I have no problem with a person being morally opposed to gambling, as long as that person knows exactly what he/she means by 'gambling'.
I should hasten to add that not all types of investing are productive. Buying and holding results in a positive contribution to the economy, but buying and selling quickly, the way day traders do, results in no net contribution. For the purposes of the current investigation, we could either reclassify investing-type activities that aren't productive as gambling, or we could consider these to be exceptions to the rule. I lean toward the latter interpretation.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: In investing, the odds are in your favor; in gambling, the odds are against you.
Peter Lynch has said that "An investment is simply a gamble in which you've managed to tilt the odds in your favor." But that position is too simplistic. There are plenty of investments where the odds are against you: futures, options, and commodities trading (where you get hurt on commissions and the bid/ask spread), frequent stock trading (for the same reason), and selling short (since the market goes up rather than down in the long run), to name just a few examples. Similarly, while for most types of gambling the odds are against you, it is possible for the odds to be in your favor. I spent one summer during college working in Arizona, and I drove up to Nevada most weekends to play blackjack. By counting cards, I was able to obtain a small but predictable advantage over the house, about 1.5% per betting unit on average. (I haven't returned since then, for several reasons: it's not intellectually challenging; while card counting is not illegal, Vegas casinos can make you leave if they suspect you of doing it; and I've found it easier and more enjoyable to make money in stocks than in blackjack.) Expert poker players can also make money at casinos, because their competition is other players rather than the house, and as long as the house takes its cut it doesn't care how the rest of the money is redistributed among the players.
There are additional problems with this attempted characterization of gambling as a losing bet and investing as a winning bet. It implies that a given activity switches from gambling to investing (or vice versa) as soon as the odds swing past the breakeven point. Similarly, if two players are participating in an activity in which one has an advantage over the other, it would mean that one person is gambling and the other is investing. That would imply that institutions which get in on IPOs at the offering price would be investors, and the little folks that those institutions immediately flip the shares to for a profit would be gamblers. Furthermore, while it's possible to calculate exact odds for some casino games, this is rarely the case on Wall Street. How can you know for sure whether the odds are for or against you if you decide to buy a particular stock today?
What about venture capital investments, you say? Aren't the odds stacked against them? Yes, the majority of venture capital investments result in loss, often a total loss of the amount invested. However, venture funds typically yield higher returns than stocks because a small percentage of the firm's investments are home runs, more than making up for complete losses on other investments. So while venture capital might seem like gambling in that the odds are against the VC firms on any given bet, on average the expected payoff is positive, so the odds in the long run are actually in their favor.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Gambling can be addictive and destructive, but investing can't.
Compulsive gambling has been correctly identified as a problem, and organizations like Gamblers Anonymous are helping people cope with the problem. No similar problem is generally thought to exist in investing. There is no Investors Anonymous, and no one talks about compulsive investors. But while there isn't yet widespread acknowledgement of investing addiction, there will be soon. Marvin Steinberg, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Compulsive Gambling, recently said this about investing addiction: "We don't know the true extent of the problem because hardly anyone identifies it as a gambling problem -- they see it as a 'financial problem' or an 'investing problem.' " Many online investors who claim to be buy-and-hold investors check their portfolios on a daily or hourly basis, and jump in and out of stocks more often than they realize. Active trading can be expensive, both in terms of the commissions and bid/ask spreads and in terms of emotional fatigue. Also, some people invest more aggressively than they should, which is virtually identical to gamblers who bet more money than they can afford to lose. This page provides a list of questions to help a person determine if he/she might be a compulsive gambler. Replace the word 'gambler' with 'investor' for each question and the questionnaire is equally useful, but for a different purpose.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Gambling is entertainment, investing is business.
As Brad Hill has said, "Global financial markets represent the greatest spectator sport humanity has ever devised. It has planetary reach, a multitude of local competitive arenas, volumes of statistics, star players, and -- best of all -- anyone can move between the domains of observer and participant, fan and player. If you squint just right, the steadfast newscasters of CNBC appear to be play-by-play announcers, calling the game for U.S. fans. And do financial sections of newspapers differ from sports sections in their presentation of story, data, and personality? Not essentially." While the 'gambling as entertainment, investing as business' dichotomy may have been clear in the past, the line is being blurred. The internet has enabled online brokerages and other financial web sites to revolutionize retail investing, which on the balance is a tremendous benefit to both individual investors and the economy in general. However, the widespread accessibility of cheap online trades has also attracted some people who enjoy betting and view online trading as a new form of entertainment. The major factors accelerating this trend are that gambling is strictly regulated and not ubiquitous, and that the odds are usually better in investing than in gambling.
Chris Anderson, executive director of the Illinois Council on Problem and Compulsive Gambling, has said that compulsive gambling isn't really about making money, it's about "action", and the lure of the big win. While I'm not a neuroscientist, I suspect that the chemical changes that occur in the brains of compulsive gamblers and compulsive day traders are similar, since they're both riding on the same emotional roller coaster of wins and losses. Similarly, while some people who invest in high-tech stocks do it for the potential returns, others do it because of the rush they get from the tremendous volatility. It feels right to classify the latter group as gamblers rather than investors.
I don't mean to imply that I think it's acceptable to gamble for entertainment but not to invest for entertainment. I think both are equally acceptable, provided the person enjoys the activity (as opposed to feeling a compulsion to participate) and provided the person uses only money he/she can afford to lose. But I'm probably not the best person to make a judgment on this question, because I've never found either gambling or investing to be entertaining... my goal has always been value creation rather than enjoyment, and I place bets only where the odds are most heavily in my favor, not where I expect to find the most excitement.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is saving for specific goals, such as retirement, while gambling isn't.
Many people regard investing as a planned strategy of wealth-building for specific future goals. And this is certainly true of some types of investing. But this is largely a by-product of having the odds in one's favor. If you have the edge (whether in blackjack or in equities), time and the laws of probability are a powerful combination. Gambling would work just as well as investing for financial event planning if gambling games were in your favor.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investors are risk-averse, while gamblers are risk-seekers.
Risk-taking is intrinsic to both gambling and investing. There are a few investments that don't entail risk, such as fixed annuities and government bonds held to maturity, but even those have inflation risk. The major difference between the two groups seems to be the participant's relative willingness to accept risk. Investors tend to avoid risk unless adequately compensated for taking it, but gamblers don't. To put it another way, investors take only the risks they should take, while gamblers also take some risks they shouldn't take. Would you rather have $50 or a 50/50 chance at $100? If you take the $50, you're an investor. If you go for all or nothing, you're a gambler. Would you rather put your money under your mattress or in an extremely volatile stock that could go bankrupt or could double in value? The question is slightly different, but the answer is equally instructive. If you expect to double your money quickly, whatever you're doing is probably gambling, even if it happens on Wall Street rather than in Las Vegas.
However, this characterization of gamblers as risk-takers applies only to non-professional gamblers, people who visit Atlantic City for a weekend for entertainment purposes. Professional gamblers who have managed to tip the odds in their favor behave more like investors, shying away from risk unless the reward is sufficient to justify taking the chance. In fact, one could make the argument that investors generally take on more risk than professional gamblers, because of the uncertainly inherent in the financial markets. As I mentioned before, it's difficult for investors to calculate how much of an advantage they have, but the odds of a given gambling strategy can be known either precisely or at least approximately.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is a continuous process; gambling is an immediate event or series of events.
This rule does seem to hold in most cases. Investing is a continuous process of deployment of capital in search of continually increasing net worth. As a result, delayed gratification is implied. Gambling is a specific act or series of acts, centered around immediate gratification. In this respect, day trading resembles gambling: the participant gets in, the price moves up or down, and he/she gets out, usually in a matter of minutes. The same could be said of buying with the belief that a stock is about to jump, or buying IPO shares with the intention of flipping them in a few hours or days, or buying options which are close to expiration. On the other hand, buying in the belief that a stock's price will eventually reflect its value, with the plan of holding as long as it takes for this to happen, is more like investing.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is the ownership of something tangible; gambling isn't.
The latter half of the statement is certainly true, but the former half is only sometimes true. Some investments involve the ownership of something tangible, but many don't. For example, derivatives are investments 'derived' from other investments. An option is a derivative that gives the owner the right to buy or sell a specific amount of a given security at a specified price during a specified period of time. Options are generally classified as investing rather than gambling, and rightly so, but they do not represent ownership of anything tangible. However, when you realize that an option is essentially a bet that a given security will or won't be above a certain price on or by a certain date, it starts to feel more like gambling than investing.
An even more strict definition of investing would require that it involves the purchase of an asset which either produces a stream of income or can be made to produce a stream of income. But this definition would eliminate such assets as collectibles, stamps, art, and gold, which have no intrinsic value. I don't think it makes sense to exclude them simply on this basis. We might choose not to consider them investments because of their poor long-term performance, but we shouldn't choose not to consider them investments simply because they won't ever produce a stream of income.
Perceived distinguishing characteristic: Investing is based on skill and requires the use of a system based on research, while gambling is based on luck and emotions.
A lot of so-called investors don't do nearly as much research as they should. Many buy on tips or rumors, or based on some analyst's price target, without doing their own exhaustive research. It feels right to call such behavior gambling. Similarly, investors who are making decisions based on emotions (especially greed and fear), rather than remaining emotionally detached and sticking with their strategy, are to some extent gambling.
On the other side of the coin, some gamblers do serious research, often paying hundreds of dollars a month for real time data on what the current lines are (for example, on http://www.scoresandodds.com or http://www.vegasinsider.com). Professional sports investors devote 12 hours a day, every day, to handicapping sports. They read dozens of newspapers, subscribe to line services, maintain inside contacts, and have years of experience, usually on both sides of the betting counter. These professionals keep their emotions away from the decision-making process. Once they have a system that works for them, they don't second-guess it, focusing on long-term profits instead of day-to-day performance. Also, they concentrate on the areas in which they achieve maximum results. Many professionals bet only on one sport, which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Warren Buffett's idea of staying within one's "circle of competence".
While investing and gambling probably initially appear to be worlds apart, the above attempts at differentiation revealed that the actual differences are smaller than the perceived differences, and that there is a significant gray area in the middle. Based on the above characterizations, it is clear that the appropriate classification isn't wholly dependent on the activity, but also on the way in which the activity is conducted. There's a big difference between buying a stock after thoroughly researching it and buying a stock by hitting it on a dartboard. This is true even if the same stock happens to be chosen. Similarly, there's a big difference between buying exotic derivatives to hedge against an existing risk or position and buying the same derivatives because you saw a web site touting them. As a final example, there's a big difference between buying a government bond in order to collect the interest it earns and buying the same bond in the belief that interest rates are about to drop and the bond's value will skyrocket.
One interesting thing to note is the pattern of exceptions to the attempted characterizations. Most of the exceptions were people who were doing investing-related things but weren't behaving like investors, or people who were doing gambling-related things but weren't behaving like gamblers. Of the four groups, recreational investors, professional investors, recreational gamblers, professional gamblers, there are more similarities between the two recreational groups and between the two professional groups than between the two investing groups and between the two gambling groups. Specifically, those who use a rigorous system, do research, tilt the odds in their favor, treat it as a business rather than as entertainment, avoid addiction, and keep their emotions in check tend to behaving like investors, and those who don't tend to be behaving like gamblers. It might not be such a stretch to call professional gamblers 'investors' and recreational investors 'gamblers'.
A Third Option: Speculating
Another possibility is that the two terms 'gambling' and 'investing' aren't sufficient to cover the entire range of activities under consideration. A third term, 'speculating', is often used to straddle the two, specifically to handle activities that would ordinarily be considered investing but are done in a way that make them feel more like gambling.
In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes defined speculation as "the activity of forecasting the psychology of the market", and speculative motive as "the object of securing profit from knowing better than the market with the future will bring." Many people consider billionaire George Soros to be an investor, but he prefers the term speculator. In fact, he has said that "an investment is a speculation that has gone wrong." What he means by this is that, among speculators, an 'investment' is the name they give to a speculation that didn't work out the way they expected and that left them stuck with a position they hope will improve with time. Soros and other speculators make their predictions partially based on market psychology, and in this respect their behavior fits perfectly with the Keynes' definition of speculation. But there is much more to speculating than just interpreting market psychology, and this definition isn't sufficiently distinct from the ones we formulated for gambling and investing in the above section.
According to the dictionary on my bookshelf, speculation is "the engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk for the chance of large gains." By this definition, the entire distinction rests on the degree of risk and size of potential gains. In support of this definition, bond rating agencies commonly use the term "speculative" to refer to high-risk bonds (those rated below BBB by S&P or Baa by Moody's).
In their book Investments, Zvi Bodie, Alex Kane, and Alan Marcus argue that "a gamble is the assumption of risk for no purpose but enjoyment of the risk itself, whereas speculation is undertaken in spite of the risk involved because one perceives a favorable risk-return trade-off." But this is too simplistic... no one would play casino games if the only possible outcomes were either breaking even or losing; the rush they experience comes from the possibility of winning and not merely from the taking of risk. They continue: "To turn a gamble into a speculative prospect requires an adequate risk premium for compensation to risk-averse investors for the risks that they bear. Hence risk aversion and speculation are not inconsistent." This part I agree with. In fact, whether they realize it or not, their definition reclassifies gambling as speculation when the odds can be sufficiently tipped in the player's favor, such as in professional blackjack or poker, which fits in nicely with argument made in the previous section.
Zvi Bodie et al appear to be saying that in order to be speculating rather than gambling, the person must not take greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. Others say that in order to be speculating rather than investing the person must be taking greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. For example, in Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's classic Security Analysis, they argue that "an investment operation is one which upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Both positions are defensible. But perhaps a better interpretation would rest on the realization that different investors have different tolerances for risk. Perhaps speculators are those who are risk-neutral, while gamblers are risk-seekers and investors are risk-averse. While adding the term 'speculation' to the mix might have some value, it probably adds more confusion than clarification, so I prefer to leave it out and focus on just 'gambling' and 'investing'.
Conslusions
So what's my resolution to this definition conundrum? Well, the purpose of words is to communicate concepts. So it doesn't really matter what definitions you use, as long as you and the person(s) you're communicating with are clear about what is meant by those words. And even more importantly, as long as you know what you're doing, investing or gambling, before you do it.
But with that said, it would be beneficial if everyone could agree on what the terms mean, so we don't need to make our definitions explicit every time we want to use them. To this end, I offer the following definitions, which are built from the various characterizations in the above section:
Investing - "Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results."
Gambling - "Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results."
Speculating - I would prefer to avoid this term entirely, but if necessary I would define it as "Investing or gambling characterized by a high degree of risk and a high potential for reward."
Are you disappointed that I didn't crystallize the essence of gambling and investing into a single distinguishing feature? Did I merely sidestep the ambiguity, and sweep the gray areas and the important exceptions under the rug? I don't think so. The taxonomy doesn't have to be completely distinct in order to be useful, nor does it need to be just a single feature. And just because some of the characterizations had exceptions doesn't mean they should be thrown out entirely. Nearly everyone agrees that the concept of 'chair' is a useful one, even though it's difficult to define exactly what the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a chair are.
Why Does it Matter?
- Lawmakers and regulatory bodies need to be clear on what the terms mean, so they understand the scope of their legislation and regulation, regarding prohibited behavior, adequate disclosure, participant protection and similar issues. In general, I'm in favor of less regulation and more disclosure for both activities described as gambling and those described as investing, but I'm no expert on the subject and a thorough discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.
- Everyone needs to realize how easy the internet makes it to gamble under the guise of investing. When people use generic terms without ever specifying what they mean, it's easy for those terms to gradually change in meaning, and I think that's exactly what the internet is causing to happen. I don't mean to imply that the internet's democratization of investing is a bad thing. In fact, I think it's the one of the most important developments in the history of investing. My hope in pointing this out is to awaken those individuals who are acting like gamblers but who think they're acting like investors.
- Investing addiction is as serious as gambling addiction, and should be treated as such. If more people start to view buying and selling stocks online as a way to get the betting rush that previously required a trip to a casino, is there any reason to think the same negative consequences that follow gambling won't also follow investing? Perhaps investing addiction is not getting the attention it deserves because most people are attaching to it all the positive connotations of investing and none of the negative connotations of gambling.
- Those who have ethical problems or religious issues with gambling (or even investing) owe it to themselves to figure out exactly what they object to and why. As I mentioned, I have no such ethical problems with either gambling or investing, but again, this discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
美国下一次繁荣的宠儿
最大的受益者是能耗大户企业，如化工厂和炼钢厂等。《巴伦周刊》(Barron)挑选出了应该能从天然气优势推动下的美国制造业复苏中获得巨大成功的八只股票，它们是西南能源公司(Southwestern Energy)、利安德巴塞尔工业公司(LyondellBasell Industries)、纽柯钢铁公司(Nucor)、都福集团(Dover)、卡尔派恩公司(Calpine)、CF工业控股(CF Industries)、威廉姆斯公司(Williams)和联合太平洋铁路公司(Union Pacific)。不过复兴也会对区域性借贷机构、住房建筑商和各地的小企业产生影响。纽约研究机构国际策略与投资集团(International Strategy & Investment Group)的联席主管南希•拉扎尔宣称：“美国是天然气领域的沙特阿拉伯。美国中部是我最看好的新兴市场。”
美国的能源优势要感谢液压破碎法。这是一种备受争议的开采方式，利用高压将液体打穿岩层，深度往往达到一英里以上，以获得石油和天然气。批评人士谴责液压破碎法会破坏环境，但甚至连他们都承认，这种做法能带来大量的廉价天然气。过去六年多来，美国的石油和天然气产量从每天1500万桶油当量跃升至2010万桶油当量，创下20年来的新高。同期的美国原油进口从每天1400万桶降低至800万桶，为近25年来的最低水平。
有一个趋势值得关注：南达科他矿业理工学院(South Dakota School of Mines & Technology)毕业生的就业率达到88%，要求的起薪中值比耶鲁大学(Yale Univesity)毕业生高出16%。他们的吉祥物是：地精矿工(Grubby the Miner)。
国际能源署(International Energy Agency)称，到2020年，美国将成为世界上最大的石油生产国。埃克森美孚公司(ExxonMobil)预测，到2025年，北美将成为能源净出口地区。
美国在能源上的优势足以维持数十年之久。T. Rowe Price基金公司自然资源类股票组合经理提姆•派克(Tim Parker)说：“美国的优势不仅在于地下蕴藏的巨大储备，而在于一连串可以预想到的组合拳，包括早已建成的基础设施、专业技能、相对丰富的水源，以及一个有利的许可权制度，从而确保土地所有者在开采过程中能获得应有收益。”与此形成对比的是，欧洲反对液压破碎法，基础设施缺乏；日本几乎找不到任何页岩地形；中国虽然资源丰富，但只有靠近长江的页岩地区拥有足够水源进行液压破碎法开采。
当然，一个尤其寒冷的冬季可能会推动美国天然气价格飙升，但这种波动只是暂时的。由于天然气储备不断扩大以及库存屡创新高，商品策略师预计美国天然气价格将在未来数年内保持在每百万英国热力单位三到五美元的区间──远低于国外的天然气价格。
廉价天然气并非美国唯一的优势所在。自2001年加入世界贸易组织(World Trade Organization)以来，中国已成为全世界的低成本工厂。然而，中国工人的工资和福利正在以每年15%到20%的速度增长，而美国的工资水平则停滞不前。虽然中国政府力求保持币值稳定，但自2005年以来，人民币对美元已升值33%。中国整体的工业用地平均成本为每平方英尺10.22美元，但在沿海城市宁波已上涨至11.15美元，深圳为21美元──而美国田纳西州和北卡罗来纳州仅为1.30美元到4.65美元。波士顿咨询公司(Boston Consulting Group)高级合伙人哈尔•西尔金(Hal Sirkin)说：“未来五年内，如果在美国一些地方建造工厂，其许多产品的整体生产成本仅比中国沿海城市高10%到15%左右。”如果再考虑关税和运费，美国与中国的制造成本差距将进一步缩小。
如今，制造商在为工厂选址时的考虑因素也不仅仅是成本。哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)教授加里•皮萨诺(Gary Pisano)表示，美国仍是全世界最大的消费市场，而把供应链贴近美国，有助于加快企业的市场反应速度和创新速度。普华永道会计师事务所(PricewaterhouseCoopers)美国工业企业部负责人罗伯特•麦卡琼(Robert McCutcheon)说：“在美建厂不仅能保护产品的知识产权，还能保护产品的生产流程。”
当然，美国企业不可能完全关闭海外工厂。与其他许多国家相比，美国的企业税依然很高。由于自动化技术进步和产能提高，回归美国的就业岗位也有限。不过，波士顿咨询公司的西尔金做出一个保守估计，认为到2020年，美国将增加250万到500万制造业岗位，从而让美国目前接近7.8%的失业率下降二到三个百分点。由于德国和日本等发达国家竞争对手的生产成本较高，美国的出口也将进一步扩大。美国的港口设施齐全，但容量闲置，目前吞吐量仅为最大运营能力的54%，低于欧洲的59%，拉丁美洲的67%，以及东南亚的76%。
更多的工厂回归本土有助于美国经济的整体发展。全美制造商协会(National Association of Manufacturers)表示，在制造业上每投入一美元，能额外拉动1.48美元的经济。还有一个好处是：制造业在研发上的投入占美国私人板块研发投入的三分之二。
五三银行私人银行(Fifth Third Private Bank)的首席投资策略师杰弗里•科赞尼克(Jeffrey Korzenik)表示，这一切只是开始：丰富的天然气资源以及较弱的美元是一个长期趋势，在失业率低于6%之前，美国的人工成本将保持稳定。“美国制造业的离岸外包已持续数十年，但重新回归的趋势仅仅开始了两三年。”
下面列出应该受益于这一趋势变化的八只股票。
1、西南能源公司(SWN)
廉价能源是制造商的福音，却是能源开采企业的诅咒；因此，投资者对受天然气价格猛跌影响最大的能源生产企业避之唯恐不及。西南能源公司99%的产量和储备都是天然气，当天然气价格逼近十年以来的最低点时，你可能以为这家休斯顿公司的管理者会急得如同热锅上的蚂蚁。
但事实恰恰相反。这是因为西南能源公司的生产效率极高，生产成本很低。这家公司在北卡罗亚纳州南部城市费耶特维尔(Fayetteville)有 926,000公顷的页岩气田，凭借密井、一些自有钻井平台以及垂直一体化的服务保证了运营生产的稳定性。该公司在宾夕法尼亚州马塞勒斯(Marcellus)也有187,000公顷的页岩气田。目前该公司的股价为34美元，比同类公司稍高，但依然低于公司的净资产价值。
RS全球自然资源基金(RS Global Natural Resources Fund)的联席投资经理肯•赛托斯(Ken Settles)预计，美国的天然气价格最终将达到五美元到六美元的水平。“投资一个低成本生产商的好处在于，即使天然气价格低于长期可持续水平，西南能源公司的资产依然在产生利润，为股东们创造价值。”
西南能源公司计划把2013年的天然气产量增加11%到13%，分析师预计其本年度的每股盈利将攀升19%。如果天然气价格上扬，公司的利润增长将更为强劲，但投资者无须对此翘首以盼，就能安享投资收益。
2、利安德巴塞尔工业公司(LYB)
化工厂对能源的需求极大，同时依赖于石油天然气提纯过程中的副产品作为原材料，如乙烷、丁烷和丙烷等。因此，页岩气的大发展对其是一个双重利好消息，一方面提供了廉价原料，另一方面提供了廉价能源。事实上，普华永道认为我们可能会开始看到越来越多的基于塑料的替代品，以取代金属、玻璃或木材。这对杜邦公司(DuPont)和陶氏化学公司(Dow Chemical)这样的多元化特种化工巨头企业是个好消息，陶氏化学正在投资40亿美元提升产能，在得克萨斯州建造一个乙烯厂，预计招聘2,000名工人。
不过，T. Rowe Price基金公司的提姆•派克认为，原本利润率较小、趋于大众商品化的基础化工企业能从廉价原料和能源的新格局中斩获更多。他推荐的股票是：利安德巴塞尔工业公司。
这家公司总部位于荷兰鹿特丹(Rotterdam)，从2010年4月的破产保护中浴火重生后，其在纽约上市的股票大涨184%，近期的交易价格为62美元，基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为10.7倍。利安德巴塞尔工业公司的管理团队正在提升公司盈利水平，并通过股票回购和分红向股东返还本金。公司的股息率为2.6%，净利润率5.6%，超过同类公司3.7%的平均水平。德意志银行(Deutsche Bank)的分析师大卫•贝格雷特(David Begleiter)坚信，凭借新增加的产能、廉价的原料以及140亿美元的自由现金流，利安德巴塞尔工业公司2016年的每股收益将达到10美元，股价有望突破100美元。
3、纽柯钢铁公司(NUE)
钢铁公司并非只是能源消耗大户，钢管和钢铁产品也是能源开采和运输的有机组成部分，更不用说能源生产和基础设施建设了。纽柯钢铁公司99%的收入来源于美国市场，是美国规模最大的小钢厂运营商和金属回收商，因此能够牢牢抓住美国能源优势和制造业复苏所带来的商机。
钢铁行业困扰于产能过剩问题，股票价格随着喜怒无常的经济数据大幅波动，而纽柯钢铁公司的股票与同类公司相比更具防御性。富国银行(Wells Fargo)钢铁板块分析师山姆•达宾斯基(Sam Dubinsky)从长期角度看好这只股票，“理由是其具有精简的成本结构以及灵活的产品多样性，从而推动其盈利水平处于同业领先地位”。在美国建筑市场的触底过程中，纽柯钢铁公司已做好各方面的准备，健康的资产负债表和3.1%的股息率进一步增加了该股票的吸引力（近期股价为47.78美元）。
4、都福集团(DOV)
美国真的准备好再次投身于制造业吗？美国制造工厂的平均年龄为15.5年，而设备的使用时间接近六年。这两个指标都处于近50年来的最高位。美国钢铁协会(ISI)在一份报告中这样写道：“设备和工厂老旧，因此需要进行大范围的更新换代。”美国钢铁协会认为，未来五年内，资本支出在美国经济中的比重将从10.2%上升至14%，接近20世纪80年代初的顶峰水平。这对都福集团来说是个好消息：这家大型企业集团生产各式各样的工业产品──从制冷系统到特种水泵，从钻头到条形码设备等──因此能在美国的制造业复苏中获益良多。
与其他经济敏感型股票相比，都福集团的产品更趋多元化和稳定性。管理层的资本运作较为巧妙，购并企业，回购股票，将资本回报率提升至12.4%，达到十年来的最高水平。其股息生息率为2.1%，其9.7%的利润率超过了行业平均水平。然而，其股价仅为67美元，基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为12.8倍，低于市场平均市盈率，也低于其他机械类股票的市盈率。
5、卡尔派恩公司(CPN)
卡尔派恩公司是美国最大的私营天然气发电企业，运营着好几家最先进、最高效的发电站。仅在六年前，美国有近一半的电力来源于煤炭发电，但天然气发电的占比快速提升，已从第五位上升至第三位，煤电则已日渐衰落。
美国正在不断转向更清洁的天然气，这也是《巴伦周刊》对这只股票青眼有加的原因之一（详情参见2012年7月23日的文章《卡尔派恩蓄势待发》(Calpine Gets Ready to Light Up)）。公司还有闲置的天然气发电产能，因此能在煤电转为天然气发电的大潮中稳坐钓鱼台。
该公司的股价为19美元，2013年每股预计利润为69美分，市盈率27.6倍。乍一看来，公司的优势已经充分体现在股价当中，但这看似很高的市盈率依然低于其近五年来的中值，而且该公司每股的自由现金流达到一美元，并在不断减少债务水平。RS全球自然资源基金的联席投资经理麦肯齐•戴维斯(MacKenzie Davis)说：“当电力价格处于低位时，卡尔派恩可以从产能效率不高的发电商那里获得更多的市场份额。而当电力价格上涨时，公司的利润率和现金流还会进一步改善。”
6、CF工业控股公司(CF)
在化肥生产过程中，能源成本占到总成本的将近70%。蒙特利尔私人银行(BMO Private Bank)首席投资长杰克•阿布林(Jack Ablin)认为，CF工业控股公司是天然气富足时期的一个很大受益者。
该公司总部位于伊利诺伊州东北部城市迪尔菲尔德(Deerfield)，主要生产氮肥和磷肥，85%的收入来自于美国市场。目前的股价为226美元，超过同类公司，近两年来上涨了73%，最近一次涨幅得益于旱灾所导致的玉米和大豆价格飙升。分析师担心公司盈利水平达到周期顶点，因此下调这只股票的推荐评级；投资者也心神不宁，担心管理层耗资38亿美元扩大氮肥产能会降低公司利润率，影响股票回购规模。
然而，股价回落对长期投资者来说反而是一个大好机会。低廉的天然气成本应该能让该公司的营业毛利保持在接近50.1%的历史高位。玉米供应短缺、密西西比河水位下降以及美国玉米带(Corn Belt)的持续干旱会对谷物价格和化肥价格形成支撑，CF的投资级信用等级和低债务水平有助于让公司在有资金需求时以较低成本借贷资金。其股票基于过去12个月利润的市盈率仅为8.2倍，远低于公司2005年上市以来12.3倍的市盈率中值。
7、威廉姆斯公司(WMB)
为什么天然气价格如此便宜，而美国开车一族不能在加油站享受到更低的油价？其中一个原因在于，油价是由全球供需关系决定的。经过数十年进口石油的日子，我们需要重新设计基础设置，以便销售美国国内生产的天然气。这对天然气管道运营商来说是个好消息，有不少这类公司采取“业主有限合伙制企业”(MLP)的形式以达到避税目的，而如果投资者不想纠缠于这种复杂的组织结构，可以选择它们的母公司进行投资。
威廉姆斯公司从事天然气的开采和运输工作，拥有同名MLP子公司Williams Partners 78%的股份。公司具有多元化的资产结构，股息率3.9%，并将从天然气运输及基础设施建设的需求升温中获益。
不过，2012年是13年以来MLP投资回报率首次落后于股市整体水平的一年，原因是天然气价格疲软，税收顾虑，以及多年盈利后的利润分配。
Williams Partners公司的投资回报率为6.6%，下降22%。母公司Williams的股价也较为疲软，原因是Williams私营控股的Access Midstream Partners公司及其MLP投资了一个22.5亿美元的复杂项目，而Williams专门增发股票为其融资。
不过，该交易提升了Williams在尤蒂卡(Utica)页岩区和马塞勒斯页岩区的话语权，并为公司带来稳定的许可费收入，以缓解大宗商品价格波动对其产生的不利影响。Williams的股价为34美元，投资者一度担心公司需要进一步融资，但其今年约16亿美元的现金流超过了华尔街预测的8.16亿美元的调整后净收入，足以覆盖公司的各项支出，从而确保Williams能够实现之前的承诺，即每年提高股息率20%，直至2015年。
8、联合太平洋铁路公司(UNP)
任何生产出来的产品都必须从工厂运往其他地方。铁路运营商堪萨斯城南方铁路（Kansas City Southern）拥有的南北线路得天独厚，直接连接美国中西部和墨西哥，因此能在美国一部分制造业移往墨西哥的过程中受益。不过，真正的铁路之王还是联合太平洋铁路公司。
150年前，亚伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)签署了《太平洋铁路法案》(Pacific Railway Act)，联合太平洋铁路公司应运而生，其密集的铁路网络遍布密西西比河以西的美国版图。Stephens资本管理公司的运输行业分析师布莱德•德尔科(Brad Delco)认为，联合太平洋铁路公司是与汽车、化工和钢铁等能源敏感板块关联性最强的铁路股票之一。该公司的铁路网络覆盖墨西哥湾岸区(Gulf Coast)，拥有各家铁路运营商中规模最大的化工产品运输权，占美国西部汽车及零备件运输量的75%，而其在美国东海岸相对较少的线路使其能够避开煤电衰弱所带来的不利影响。
联合太平洋铁路公司的股票过去两年来已经上涨44%，达到133美元，是同类公司平均水平的近两倍，其基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为14倍，稍高于同类公司，但还不到它自己的历史平均水平。公司管理层将营运毛利率提升至36%，为十年来的最高值。股票的股息率为2.1%；自1899年蒸汽机推动美国进入第一次工业现代化以来，该公司每年都支付股息。在美国进入能源新时代之际，这家铁路巨头也已整装待发。
美国的能源优势要感谢液压破碎法。这是一种备受争议的开采方式，利用高压将液体打穿岩层，深度往往达到一英里以上，以获得石油和天然气。批评人士谴责液压破碎法会破坏环境，但甚至连他们都承认，这种做法能带来大量的廉价天然气。过去六年多来，美国的石油和天然气产量从每天1500万桶油当量跃升至2010万桶油当量，创下20年来的新高。同期的美国原油进口从每天1400万桶降低至800万桶，为近25年来的最低水平。
有一个趋势值得关注：南达科他矿业理工学院(South Dakota School of Mines & Technology)毕业生的就业率达到88%，要求的起薪中值比耶鲁大学(Yale Univesity)毕业生高出16%。他们的吉祥物是：地精矿工(Grubby the Miner)。
国际能源署(International Energy Agency)称，到2020年，美国将成为世界上最大的石油生产国。埃克森美孚公司(ExxonMobil)预测，到2025年，北美将成为能源净出口地区。
美国在能源上的优势足以维持数十年之久。T. Rowe Price基金公司自然资源类股票组合经理提姆•派克(Tim Parker)说：“美国的优势不仅在于地下蕴藏的巨大储备，而在于一连串可以预想到的组合拳，包括早已建成的基础设施、专业技能、相对丰富的水源，以及一个有利的许可权制度，从而确保土地所有者在开采过程中能获得应有收益。”与此形成对比的是，欧洲反对液压破碎法，基础设施缺乏；日本几乎找不到任何页岩地形；中国虽然资源丰富，但只有靠近长江的页岩地区拥有足够水源进行液压破碎法开采。
当然，一个尤其寒冷的冬季可能会推动美国天然气价格飙升，但这种波动只是暂时的。由于天然气储备不断扩大以及库存屡创新高，商品策略师预计美国天然气价格将在未来数年内保持在每百万英国热力单位三到五美元的区间──远低于国外的天然气价格。
廉价天然气并非美国唯一的优势所在。自2001年加入世界贸易组织(World Trade Organization)以来，中国已成为全世界的低成本工厂。然而，中国工人的工资和福利正在以每年15%到20%的速度增长，而美国的工资水平则停滞不前。虽然中国政府力求保持币值稳定，但自2005年以来，人民币对美元已升值33%。中国整体的工业用地平均成本为每平方英尺10.22美元，但在沿海城市宁波已上涨至11.15美元，深圳为21美元──而美国田纳西州和北卡罗来纳州仅为1.30美元到4.65美元。波士顿咨询公司(Boston Consulting Group)高级合伙人哈尔•西尔金(Hal Sirkin)说：“未来五年内，如果在美国一些地方建造工厂，其许多产品的整体生产成本仅比中国沿海城市高10%到15%左右。”如果再考虑关税和运费，美国与中国的制造成本差距将进一步缩小。
如今，制造商在为工厂选址时的考虑因素也不仅仅是成本。哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)教授加里•皮萨诺(Gary Pisano)表示，美国仍是全世界最大的消费市场，而把供应链贴近美国，有助于加快企业的市场反应速度和创新速度。普华永道会计师事务所(PricewaterhouseCoopers)美国工业企业部负责人罗伯特•麦卡琼(Robert McCutcheon)说：“在美建厂不仅能保护产品的知识产权，还能保护产品的生产流程。”
当然，美国企业不可能完全关闭海外工厂。与其他许多国家相比，美国的企业税依然很高。由于自动化技术进步和产能提高，回归美国的就业岗位也有限。不过，波士顿咨询公司的西尔金做出一个保守估计，认为到2020年，美国将增加250万到500万制造业岗位，从而让美国目前接近7.8%的失业率下降二到三个百分点。由于德国和日本等发达国家竞争对手的生产成本较高，美国的出口也将进一步扩大。美国的港口设施齐全，但容量闲置，目前吞吐量仅为最大运营能力的54%，低于欧洲的59%，拉丁美洲的67%，以及东南亚的76%。
更多的工厂回归本土有助于美国经济的整体发展。全美制造商协会(National Association of Manufacturers)表示，在制造业上每投入一美元，能额外拉动1.48美元的经济。还有一个好处是：制造业在研发上的投入占美国私人板块研发投入的三分之二。
五三银行私人银行(Fifth Third Private Bank)的首席投资策略师杰弗里•科赞尼克(Jeffrey Korzenik)表示，这一切只是开始：丰富的天然气资源以及较弱的美元是一个长期趋势，在失业率低于6%之前，美国的人工成本将保持稳定。“美国制造业的离岸外包已持续数十年，但重新回归的趋势仅仅开始了两三年。”
下面列出应该受益于这一趋势变化的八只股票。
1、西南能源公司(SWN)
廉价能源是制造商的福音，却是能源开采企业的诅咒；因此，投资者对受天然气价格猛跌影响最大的能源生产企业避之唯恐不及。西南能源公司99%的产量和储备都是天然气，当天然气价格逼近十年以来的最低点时，你可能以为这家休斯顿公司的管理者会急得如同热锅上的蚂蚁。
但事实恰恰相反。这是因为西南能源公司的生产效率极高，生产成本很低。这家公司在北卡罗亚纳州南部城市费耶特维尔(Fayetteville)有 926,000公顷的页岩气田，凭借密井、一些自有钻井平台以及垂直一体化的服务保证了运营生产的稳定性。该公司在宾夕法尼亚州马塞勒斯(Marcellus)也有187,000公顷的页岩气田。目前该公司的股价为34美元，比同类公司稍高，但依然低于公司的净资产价值。
RS全球自然资源基金(RS Global Natural Resources Fund)的联席投资经理肯•赛托斯(Ken Settles)预计，美国的天然气价格最终将达到五美元到六美元的水平。“投资一个低成本生产商的好处在于，即使天然气价格低于长期可持续水平，西南能源公司的资产依然在产生利润，为股东们创造价值。”
西南能源公司计划把2013年的天然气产量增加11%到13%，分析师预计其本年度的每股盈利将攀升19%。如果天然气价格上扬，公司的利润增长将更为强劲，但投资者无须对此翘首以盼，就能安享投资收益。
2、利安德巴塞尔工业公司(LYB)
化工厂对能源的需求极大，同时依赖于石油天然气提纯过程中的副产品作为原材料，如乙烷、丁烷和丙烷等。因此，页岩气的大发展对其是一个双重利好消息，一方面提供了廉价原料，另一方面提供了廉价能源。事实上，普华永道认为我们可能会开始看到越来越多的基于塑料的替代品，以取代金属、玻璃或木材。这对杜邦公司(DuPont)和陶氏化学公司(Dow Chemical)这样的多元化特种化工巨头企业是个好消息，陶氏化学正在投资40亿美元提升产能，在得克萨斯州建造一个乙烯厂，预计招聘2,000名工人。
不过，T. Rowe Price基金公司的提姆•派克认为，原本利润率较小、趋于大众商品化的基础化工企业能从廉价原料和能源的新格局中斩获更多。他推荐的股票是：利安德巴塞尔工业公司。
这家公司总部位于荷兰鹿特丹(Rotterdam)，从2010年4月的破产保护中浴火重生后，其在纽约上市的股票大涨184%，近期的交易价格为62美元，基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为10.7倍。利安德巴塞尔工业公司的管理团队正在提升公司盈利水平，并通过股票回购和分红向股东返还本金。公司的股息率为2.6%，净利润率5.6%，超过同类公司3.7%的平均水平。德意志银行(Deutsche Bank)的分析师大卫•贝格雷特(David Begleiter)坚信，凭借新增加的产能、廉价的原料以及140亿美元的自由现金流，利安德巴塞尔工业公司2016年的每股收益将达到10美元，股价有望突破100美元。
3、纽柯钢铁公司(NUE)
钢铁公司并非只是能源消耗大户，钢管和钢铁产品也是能源开采和运输的有机组成部分，更不用说能源生产和基础设施建设了。纽柯钢铁公司99%的收入来源于美国市场，是美国规模最大的小钢厂运营商和金属回收商，因此能够牢牢抓住美国能源优势和制造业复苏所带来的商机。
钢铁行业困扰于产能过剩问题，股票价格随着喜怒无常的经济数据大幅波动，而纽柯钢铁公司的股票与同类公司相比更具防御性。富国银行(Wells Fargo)钢铁板块分析师山姆•达宾斯基(Sam Dubinsky)从长期角度看好这只股票，“理由是其具有精简的成本结构以及灵活的产品多样性，从而推动其盈利水平处于同业领先地位”。在美国建筑市场的触底过程中，纽柯钢铁公司已做好各方面的准备，健康的资产负债表和3.1%的股息率进一步增加了该股票的吸引力（近期股价为47.78美元）。
4、都福集团(DOV)
美国真的准备好再次投身于制造业吗？美国制造工厂的平均年龄为15.5年，而设备的使用时间接近六年。这两个指标都处于近50年来的最高位。美国钢铁协会(ISI)在一份报告中这样写道：“设备和工厂老旧，因此需要进行大范围的更新换代。”美国钢铁协会认为，未来五年内，资本支出在美国经济中的比重将从10.2%上升至14%，接近20世纪80年代初的顶峰水平。这对都福集团来说是个好消息：这家大型企业集团生产各式各样的工业产品──从制冷系统到特种水泵，从钻头到条形码设备等──因此能在美国的制造业复苏中获益良多。
与其他经济敏感型股票相比，都福集团的产品更趋多元化和稳定性。管理层的资本运作较为巧妙，购并企业，回购股票，将资本回报率提升至12.4%，达到十年来的最高水平。其股息生息率为2.1%，其9.7%的利润率超过了行业平均水平。然而，其股价仅为67美元，基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为12.8倍，低于市场平均市盈率，也低于其他机械类股票的市盈率。
5、卡尔派恩公司(CPN)
卡尔派恩公司是美国最大的私营天然气发电企业，运营着好几家最先进、最高效的发电站。仅在六年前，美国有近一半的电力来源于煤炭发电，但天然气发电的占比快速提升，已从第五位上升至第三位，煤电则已日渐衰落。
美国正在不断转向更清洁的天然气，这也是《巴伦周刊》对这只股票青眼有加的原因之一（详情参见2012年7月23日的文章《卡尔派恩蓄势待发》(Calpine Gets Ready to Light Up)）。公司还有闲置的天然气发电产能，因此能在煤电转为天然气发电的大潮中稳坐钓鱼台。
该公司的股价为19美元，2013年每股预计利润为69美分，市盈率27.6倍。乍一看来，公司的优势已经充分体现在股价当中，但这看似很高的市盈率依然低于其近五年来的中值，而且该公司每股的自由现金流达到一美元，并在不断减少债务水平。RS全球自然资源基金的联席投资经理麦肯齐•戴维斯(MacKenzie Davis)说：“当电力价格处于低位时，卡尔派恩可以从产能效率不高的发电商那里获得更多的市场份额。而当电力价格上涨时，公司的利润率和现金流还会进一步改善。”
6、CF工业控股公司(CF)
在化肥生产过程中，能源成本占到总成本的将近70%。蒙特利尔私人银行(BMO Private Bank)首席投资长杰克•阿布林(Jack Ablin)认为，CF工业控股公司是天然气富足时期的一个很大受益者。
该公司总部位于伊利诺伊州东北部城市迪尔菲尔德(Deerfield)，主要生产氮肥和磷肥，85%的收入来自于美国市场。目前的股价为226美元，超过同类公司，近两年来上涨了73%，最近一次涨幅得益于旱灾所导致的玉米和大豆价格飙升。分析师担心公司盈利水平达到周期顶点，因此下调这只股票的推荐评级；投资者也心神不宁，担心管理层耗资38亿美元扩大氮肥产能会降低公司利润率，影响股票回购规模。
然而，股价回落对长期投资者来说反而是一个大好机会。低廉的天然气成本应该能让该公司的营业毛利保持在接近50.1%的历史高位。玉米供应短缺、密西西比河水位下降以及美国玉米带(Corn Belt)的持续干旱会对谷物价格和化肥价格形成支撑，CF的投资级信用等级和低债务水平有助于让公司在有资金需求时以较低成本借贷资金。其股票基于过去12个月利润的市盈率仅为8.2倍，远低于公司2005年上市以来12.3倍的市盈率中值。
7、威廉姆斯公司(WMB)
为什么天然气价格如此便宜，而美国开车一族不能在加油站享受到更低的油价？其中一个原因在于，油价是由全球供需关系决定的。经过数十年进口石油的日子，我们需要重新设计基础设置，以便销售美国国内生产的天然气。这对天然气管道运营商来说是个好消息，有不少这类公司采取“业主有限合伙制企业”(MLP)的形式以达到避税目的，而如果投资者不想纠缠于这种复杂的组织结构，可以选择它们的母公司进行投资。
威廉姆斯公司从事天然气的开采和运输工作，拥有同名MLP子公司Williams Partners 78%的股份。公司具有多元化的资产结构，股息率3.9%，并将从天然气运输及基础设施建设的需求升温中获益。
不过，2012年是13年以来MLP投资回报率首次落后于股市整体水平的一年，原因是天然气价格疲软，税收顾虑，以及多年盈利后的利润分配。
Williams Partners公司的投资回报率为6.6%，下降22%。母公司Williams的股价也较为疲软，原因是Williams私营控股的Access Midstream Partners公司及其MLP投资了一个22.5亿美元的复杂项目，而Williams专门增发股票为其融资。
不过，该交易提升了Williams在尤蒂卡(Utica)页岩区和马塞勒斯页岩区的话语权，并为公司带来稳定的许可费收入，以缓解大宗商品价格波动对其产生的不利影响。Williams的股价为34美元，投资者一度担心公司需要进一步融资，但其今年约16亿美元的现金流超过了华尔街预测的8.16亿美元的调整后净收入，足以覆盖公司的各项支出，从而确保Williams能够实现之前的承诺，即每年提高股息率20%，直至2015年。
8、联合太平洋铁路公司(UNP)
任何生产出来的产品都必须从工厂运往其他地方。铁路运营商堪萨斯城南方铁路（Kansas City Southern）拥有的南北线路得天独厚，直接连接美国中西部和墨西哥，因此能在美国一部分制造业移往墨西哥的过程中受益。不过，真正的铁路之王还是联合太平洋铁路公司。
150年前，亚伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)签署了《太平洋铁路法案》(Pacific Railway Act)，联合太平洋铁路公司应运而生，其密集的铁路网络遍布密西西比河以西的美国版图。Stephens资本管理公司的运输行业分析师布莱德•德尔科(Brad Delco)认为，联合太平洋铁路公司是与汽车、化工和钢铁等能源敏感板块关联性最强的铁路股票之一。该公司的铁路网络覆盖墨西哥湾岸区(Gulf Coast)，拥有各家铁路运营商中规模最大的化工产品运输权，占美国西部汽车及零备件运输量的75%，而其在美国东海岸相对较少的线路使其能够避开煤电衰弱所带来的不利影响。
联合太平洋铁路公司的股票过去两年来已经上涨44%，达到133美元，是同类公司平均水平的近两倍，其基于2013年预计利润的市盈率为14倍，稍高于同类公司，但还不到它自己的历史平均水平。公司管理层将营运毛利率提升至36%，为十年来的最高值。股票的股息率为2.1%；自1899年蒸汽机推动美国进入第一次工业现代化以来，该公司每年都支付股息。在美国进入能源新时代之际，这家铁路巨头也已整装待发。
Thursday, February 14, 2013
DOW 30 dividend yield
The following table is sorted by Dividend Yield.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)