Feng Jianxiong sighed: "Brother Fan, the investment concept of 'long-term investment and not relying on selling stocks to realize' you said can certainly exist in theory. If a company pays dividends in a profitable year, Warren Buffett and his ilk can recoup their capital by paying dividends - but how many 'promising' companies in China have paid dividends to shareholders?

Are the three barrels of oil profitable? They seem to be losing money every year. In such a company, the annual dividends are not as good as the interest on bank deposits, do you want shareholders to hold them for decades and let them starve to death?

There are other profitable high-performance stocks, but how many have you seen cash dividends? I dare say that out of 100 profitable A-share companies, there are absolutely less than 10 of them that pay cash dividends. Other companies prefer to have a full list of financial statements and show profits...... But at the end of the year, it is better to allocate new shares to shareholders than to take out the cash flow and share even a dime.

Of course, this trick is theoretically correct, after all, there are gold-lettered signboards such as 'investing profits in expanding business and upgrading technology' to cover up the shame. The country's favorite boast is not that 'Hong Kong capital was short-sighted, and Huawei ZTE wanted to pay dividends as soon as it made a profit, but fortunately, Ren Zhengfei and his ilk withstood the pressure, parted ways with Hong Kong capital, and invested the profit funds in the next year's re-scientific research, so that Huawei ZTE has today's achievements'.

However, there are hundreds of high-performing stocks on the A-share market, are all of them Huawei and ZTE? Are all of them qualified to say, 'All profit and cash flow must be spent on the cutting edge'?

Isn't the proportion of 'shareholders' money entering the stock market, which can only be cashed out from other later shareholders, and it is absolutely impossible to spit it out from the mouths of listed companies that have raised capital'?

Internet celebrity economists' understanding of Graham's "value investing" theory seems to be "worthy of value investment" as long as the company's assets, future expected earnings and total cash flow are higher than the current total share capital.

But they ignore the most important point:

That is the key to value investment, which lies in whether the realization channel of the equity investment amount is sound.

According to the theory of value investing, there should be two types of monetization channels:

The first type is that I don't need to sell stocks, but I get dividends from stocks every year, if it can be higher than bank savings, bond wealth management, or "the total amount of dividends expected to be higher than other investment products in the future", then it is worth investing.

The second type is that when the shareholding company enters its twilight years, it can be expected that the sum of its total income in the future until "death" is less than the sum of its existing assets (for example, all the tangible and intangible assets of a company are currently evaluated, and the sum is worth 10 billion, but it can be expected that its business is outdated, just like Kodak Film, which is a sunset industry, if it is theoretically calculated that it can earn back a total of 9.5 billion yuan in the future until death. Then, at this critical point, value investors should withdraw and call on companies to stop doing business and divide the 10 billion to dispose of.

The dividends in the rising period and the one-time return on the corpse in the recession and death period add up to the entire harvest of value investors.

Note that the "exit" in this does not include the "drumming and passing the flowers" of "selling the equity to the next family", which is still the consideration of "speculative realization", not the value of "value investment".

With such an explanation, it can be seen that those Internet celebrity economists who "dog leash theory" say that value investment can also be carried out in China are outrageously wrong.

Taking PetroChina as an example, let's first look at its ability to return to its original value: according to its virtue over the years, it can basically be expected that its profitability will always be negative, with annual losses, never able to turn over, and never able to pay dividends. Then, the value they evaluate from the perspective of "dividends/dividends" should be 0, and it is not worth a penny.

Shareholders have held PetroChina for 100 years and have not received 1 cent in dividends.

Looking at the second part, when "it can be expected that this company will never be able to make money in the future, and will only toss more and less existing assets", decisively kill the company to divide the meat - this road is also blocked by the state, because the state is not allowed to divide the three barrels of oil.

So the value of this piece, according to the value investment theory, is also theoretically 0.

Therefore, no matter how low PetroChina falls, it does not dare to say that "the bubble has been squeezed dry".

……

"This kind of stock, as long as the shareholders can't find a place to beat the drum and pass on their shares, there is no other way to guarantee the bottom line to realize the bottom -- you say, aren't the people who buy this kind of stocks cheap? What is the difference between them and those who fall into the pit and pyramid scheme because of greed? Even if this kind of person makes money, he is just a fool, and it has nothing to do with investment, and it is okay to go to a casino.

The most simple investment truth in the world is that B gave money to A, hoping that A will return it to him when he develops in the future. But in China, how many A say to B: Although you gave me money, but don't expect me to return this thing, you should expect C to trust me more than you, and then transfer your confidence in me to C - what is this special thing?

Therefore, I have always felt that insider trading crimes in China should be divided into different situations in legal theory. Those who illegally raise funds, of course, should be shot – because they are deceiving civilians who want to make deposits, disguised as banks to absorb deposits. And the people have no right to choose the people who are not right, and everyone has to deposit.

Insider trading in the field of bonds and futures is equivalent to the crime of insider trading in a foreign country, and the same punishment is also appropriate.

As for insider trading in the stock market, to speak a conscience, the nature can be similar to that of a casino player, and it is not a change of cards or dice. It's the kind of 'cards and dice have been drawn, and then peek at the results of other people's hole cards and dice' type of thousands. ”

Feng Jianxiong said these bloody words sonorously, and the men and women in the audience fell silent.

Truth, in fact, they usually know a little bit vaguely, but they are not as thorough and naked as Feng Jianxiong said.

Therefore, it makes those righteous gentlemen and famous ladies more or less uncomfortable.

Fan Jian originally wanted to elevate his and his father's career to some glorious height, but in the end, it didn't seem to be so great - just a man who caught a thousand people in a casino.

Are you protecting investors? No, you're protecting a bunch of gamblers.

To be exact, a group of gamblers who know that "although I may be peeked at, I am deaf and blind, and I have a relationship, and there are always more fat sheep who are deaf and blind than me, and I will see the cards".

Fan Jian felt that the whole person was not good, and he was not even interested in chatting.

Fortunately, Feng Jianxiong didn't really want to offend him, he just wanted to knock him subtly.

So, the sweet dates after the mallet soon arrived: "Brother Fan, don't be discouraged, I still have a lot of respect for Ling Zun's deeds." It's just that the current judicial resources, in good conscience, are impossible to eradicate evil. With limited resources, you tend to focus on those who are harming the more innocent, isn't it? ”

Of course, Fan Jian could see what Feng Jianxiong meant, but he didn't want to refute or get angry back then.

Because reasoning really can't be explained.

He asked himself that he was not the kind of gentleman who bullied men and women, and that his father was not a corrupt official - on the contrary, he was a "good official".

Feng Jianxiong also learned about a similar situation from Zhou Tianyin - those who can be parachuted in to "rectify the rule of officials", no matter what their own ability is, they should not be greedy.

The disadvantage is just a good name, and at the same time, the people around you are arrogant - people who stand on the moral high ground are easily arrogant.

It is precisely because of this that Feng Jianxiong had to solve this problem in a relatively tactful way.

If Director Fan is greedy, then everything will be easy to do - Feng Jianxiong has already designed to send the other party in.

Zhou Tianyin saw that Fan Jian was a little silent, and he was afraid of angering the other party, so he thought about it and hurriedly asked a crooked question: "Xiao Feng, then do you think that since the domestic stock market is so pitted, why are there still so many people speculating in stocks?"

This topic really succeeded in attracting the attention of most people, so that they were no longer obsessed with Fan Jian's speechlessness.

Feng Jianxiong also took advantage of the situation to get off the donkey: "There is nowhere to go for hot money! The money for stock speculation is already many times less than that for real estate speculation." In the final analysis, Chinese are too fond of saving and investing, and their desire for intergenerational comparison is too strong. There are too many people who can live like people for the rest of their lives, but they hope that their sons' and grandchildren's generations can get ahead and help him glorify his ancestors.

Therefore, Chinese people do not like to consume luxury, and even if they are extravagant, they are all extravagant in a way that does not affect the overall situation of their money, which is much worse than the individualistic world of Americans.

And Americans don't feel that their son's success is their own success, and they don't feel that there is any point in giving up the current quality of life for the sake of the 'glory of their ancestors' for the sake of the future generations after their deaths.

So, if 70% of the social wealth in the United States is used for consumption, and 30% of the social wealth is used for money to make money. So in China it's the other way around, although we don't have as much money as Americans, 70% of our money wants to be used to make money, and only 30% is willing to be spent. This kind of excessive vindictive insecurity cannot be solved, and any junk assets will be blown into a bubble.

Who makes us always think, 'If my grandson's generation is not as rich as the grandson of the old Wang family next door, then the generation will snowball, and the grandson of my grandson's grandson will one day be killed by the grandson of the grandson of the grandson next door. We are too insecure and wary of the future.

Perhaps, when our country develops to the point where the generation of people who "starved when they were young" and all die of old age and death, will this trend of national thinking be completely reversed. The development of economy and science and technology is very fast, but the development of human nature is very slow. Maybe the psychological shadow of starving in the same year can really make people feel insecure for a lifetime. ”

Feng Jianxiong secretly thought in his heart: Perhaps, this is also the reason why a certain generation of leaders wanted to alleviate poverty in an all-round way and eradicate the poor population. Tens of millions of people are poor, which may seem like nothing, but it can poison the hearts and minds of a country of more than a billion people. Because the greatest scourge of poverty is the spread of insecurity in a society that is already largely safe. A few pickpockets on a city's bus system are enough to distract millions of passengers every day and clutch their wallets.

……

The number of words on it is already enough for 3000, and it is free to say a few words of nonsense.

Yesterday someone complained that I sprayed Luo Fat.

Where did I spray? I'm just being honest. Even Luo Fatzi himself said that he was a setter, and what he said was not necessarily right, but only to inspire the audience to become aware of a new field and then study it themselves.

Someone also asked me in a private message, evaluating Luo Fatzi and Gao Dasong, and I had to lead the battle to divide the advantages and disadvantages.

I would say that these two people are not the same kind of people at all, so there is nothing to compare to. Luo Fatzi is a businessman, and Gao Dasong is a literati, so they are very different in the selection of topics for the show.

In terms of quality, the probability of Gao Dasong being right is definitely higher, because his topic selection is basically what he likes to say, wants to say, and understands. (Of course, it can't be absolute, as far as I can see, there are about one-tenth of the program, which is the content specified by the advertising sponsor, and people give money, so if you don't want to say it, you have to say it.) ）

But Luo Fatzi's topic coverage must be wider, because he is a businessman. Literati can only say what they are interested in and understand, and you can buy what I sell, regardless of the market. And the businessman must respect the market, and you have to produce what the customer wants to buy. What are the hot spots that users are concerned about at the moment, he must say, even if he doesn't understand, he has to find behind-the-scenes knowledge to plan the line of fire to make up for it (so the probability of quality flaws must be high, because he didn't understand it in the first place, and he swallowed the dates.) ）。

A merchant has the value of a merchant, and a literati has the value of a literati, and that's it.

The same is true in the field of online literature, there are business-type writers, and they can write whatever the market wants. There are also literati-type writers who write whatever they know and want to express.