If your investment strategy is buying stocks that trade at low multiples of earnings and book value and waiting for them to recover, you are playing a game of mean reversion. It may work for you, but there is little that you are bringing to the investing table, and there is little that I would expect you to take away. If you want to price a stock, you have to bring in not just how cheap it is but also look at measures of value that may explain why the stock is cheap.

　　2，很多看上去便宜的股票都是便宜得有理由的：

　　如果你的投资策略是买入市盈率和市净率低的股票然后等它们回涨，那么你用的是均值回归的玩法。这对你来说可能管用，但是你带上投资桌面上的赌注不多，那我觉得你能够获得的回报也不多。如果你想给一只股票定价，你要弄清楚的不仅仅是这支股票有多便宜，还要看看其价值的计算方式，解释清楚为什么这支股票是便宜的。

　　3. If you are paying a price, you are "estimating" the future:

　　When I do an intrinsic valuation (as I did a couple of weeks ago with Snap), I am often taken to task by some readers for playing God, i.e., forecasting revenue growth, margins and risk for a company with a very uncertain future. I accept that critique but I don't see an alternative.

　　If your view is that using a multiple lets you evade this responsibility, it is because you have chosen not to look under the hood, If you pay 50 times revenues for a company, which is what you might be with Snap, you are making assumptions about revenue growth and margins, whether you like it or not.

　　The only difference between us seems to be that I am being explicit about my assumptions, whereas your assumptions are implicit. In fact, they may be so implicit that you don't even know what they are, a decidedly dangerous place to be in investing.

　　3，如果你在给股票定价，那么你其实在“预测”未来：

　　在预测企业的内在价值时（像几周前给Snap估值时），我经常会被很多读者说成“神算子”，比方说：为未来不明朗的公司预测营收增长、利润率，评估风险。我接受这种批评，但我也别无选择。你认为用比率可以避免这种负担，这只是因为你选择掩耳盗铃罢了。

　　如果你给以50倍营收买了一家公司的股票，比方说像Snap这样的公司，你其实已经在预测营收增长和净利润率了，无论你喜欢与否。我们之间唯一的区别在于我的假设很鲜明，而你的假设却模棱两可。实际上，你的假设也许已经模糊到你根本不知道自己究竟在假设什么，这种境地对于投资而言是致命的。?

转载请注明出处。