Are Job Cuts A Sword Or A Knife?

New Year, New Job Cuts, Motley Fool Money Stars Now. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Deidre Woolard here with Motley Fool Analysts. David Meyer, David, how are you today?

新年，新的裁员，愚蠢的傻瓜金钱之星现在开始。欢迎来到愚蠢的傻瓜金钱节目。我是迪德拉·伍拉德，这里有愚蠢的傻瓜分析师大卫·迈耶。大卫，你今天过得怎么样？

I'm doing very well. How are you?

我过得很好。你呢？

Good. I'm happy about it. I wanted to talk to you this week about job cuts because this year has kicked off with a lot of cuts and I'm kind of surprised by it, but we've got Amazon, Unity Software, BlackRock, Rent the Runway, Google, even Xerox. So last year to me felt like the year of the big layoff. This year, maybe the small layoff, what's happening here?

好的。我对此感到高兴。我本周想和你谈一下裁员的事情，因为今年开始以来，裁员的情况很多，这有些让我感到惊讶，但我们有亚马逊、Unity软件、瑞银资本、Rent the Runway、谷歌，甚至还有施乐公司。所以去年对我来说感觉是大规模裁员的一年。而今年可能是小规模裁员，这是怎么回事呢？

Then we'll tell if we're going to find out if this is a new round of bigger layoffs or if this is just a sort of a ones they didn't get to, companies didn't get to in 2023. Because if we go back and think about what was being communicated in 2023, a lot of the growth in tech companies slowed and the push for profits and cash flow increased. So that leads me to believe that, hey, if there's any, now's the time when, when, when companies are finalizing their budgets and getting ready for the next year. So if the companies are rationalizing their growth plans, where investment dollars are being cut, unfortunately, there's a good chance labor dollars have to get cut with it, right? You need to match. That's the idea of matching your potential revenue with the potential expenses. So, you know, so we'll see what happens. But obviously a lot of announcements to start the year. And the question I'm asking myself, is it iterative? Is it incremental? Are we sort of like honing our focus here? It's kind of hard to know.

然后我们就会知道是不是这是一轮新的更大规模的裁员，还是只是2023年公司没有做到的那些。因为如果我们回顾一下2023年时传达的信息，很多科技公司的增长放缓了，对利润和现金流的追求增加了。所以我认为，嘿，如果有的话，现在是公司制定预算并为下一年做好准备的时候。所以如果公司在合理化他们的增长计划，削减投资资金的话，很不幸，很可能劳动力支出也会遭到削减，对吧？需要保持匹配。这就是将潜在收入与潜在支出相匹配的理念。所以，我们会看到会发生什么。但显然今年初有很多宣布。我自己在问的问题是，这是迭代的吗？是增量的吗？我们在这里是在专注精炼吗？很难知道。

And the other thing I'm kind of juxtaposing that with is the macro. So I chatted recently with Lizanne Saunders from Schwab. We're going to have her on her Saturday show. And she said that some companies might be hoarding labor. So there's this kind of conflicting data between the macro. Top numbers are still strong, but we're also seeing all of these little layoffs. So how do we balance all of that?

另外一个我正在对比的是宏观经济情况。最近我和Schwab的Lizanne Saunders进行了交谈，并打算在周六的节目中邀请她来参与。她说有些公司可能在囤积劳动力。因此，宏观数据存在一些矛盾。虽然总体数字仍然很强劲，但我们也看到了很多小规模的裁员。那么我们应该如何平衡这一切呢？

Yeah, that's it. That is an excellent point you've made and an excellent question. So as a bottom-up investor, what I'm trying to stay focused on is what the companies are saying and doing, more so than the higher level data. And that's because the first and foremost, what I'm trying to figure out is if a stock is attractive or not. And that starts with company data. But as you so rightly pointed out, we have to pay more attention to the macro data. Because what that does is it helps us understand the type of investing environment that we're in. And to your point, right now, the data from a company level versus the higher level data seems to be a little bit conflicting. Unemployment is still very low. And that's even as interest rates have been rising. So right now, with overall good employment, we have wages that have gone up, we have the rate of inflation falling. That seems to be good for the economy and should be good for stocks. However, we need to evaluate what's happening at a company level in order to figure out if the particular stock we're interested is attractive or not.

是的，没错。这是一个非常好的观点和一个非常好的问题。所以作为一个自下而上的投资者，我试图保持关注的是公司所言所行，而不仅仅是更高级别的数据。这是因为首要的是，我试图弄清楚一支股票是否具有吸引力。而这始于公司数据。但正如你所指出的，我们必须更多地关注宏观数据。因为这有助于我们了解我们所处的投资环境类型。而且按照你所说，目前来看，公司层面的数据与更高层次的数据似乎存在一些冲突。失业率仍然很低。而这是在利率上升的背景下实现的。因此，眼下，虽然整体就业状况良好，工资上涨，通胀率下降，这似乎对经济和股票应该是有利的。然而，我们需要评估公司层面的情况，以弄清楚我们感兴趣的特定股票是否具有吸引力。

Yeah, that's such a good point because some of the companies I mentioned, there's a big difference between an alphabet versus your rent the runway. These are just very different types of companies.

是的，这个观点非常好，因为我提到的一些公司，谷歌公司和Rent the Runway这样的公司之间存在很大的差异。它们是完全不同类型的公司。

100%. Yeah. And so all of that really is interesting when you think about this because you've got the overall macro and then you've got this sort of underneath of like, okay, there's a lot of layoffs. And then you've got the layer deeper and you talked about being a bottom up investor. It's always conflicting for me because as an individual, I hate layoffs. I was a victim of one way back when I worked at AOL and there were a few more before me and it was painful. But as an investor, I kind of have to look at this and sometimes I see the stock go up and I have to think about this from a more kind of impersonal standpoint. So what kind of questions are you asking yourself?

是的。所以当你考虑这一切的时候，它确实很有趣，因为你有整体的宏观情况，然后还有这种类似于底层的东西，就是说，好吧，有很多裁员。然后你再往深处一层，你谈到了自己是一个从底层向上投资的人。对我来说，这总是矛盾的，因为作为一个个体，我讨厌裁员。我在以前在AOL工作时就成为了受害者，而在我之前也有一些人，那真是痛苦的经历。但作为一名投资者，我必须从一种更加客观的角度来看待这个问题，有时我看到股价上涨，我不得不从这种更加客观的角度来思考。所以你自己会问自己什么样的问题呢？

So I have fortunately not been in a layoff, although I have seen them happen around me at some companies that I used to work for. So I can completely empathize with what you're saying. But as an analyst, the main thing that I want to know is, is this decision consistent with what management's outlook going forward is? Or what is what if it's inconsistent is what we're seeing a sign of potential problems ahead. So as an outsider, right, as an outside investor looking in at the company's data, I'm not privy to the internal conversations that happen about these things. So they can be made for a variety of different reasons. But it's important for me to think about the decision relative to the strategy and the tactics that the company is communicating. And again, it's about consistency. Like, tell me, does this make, does the decision that you're making make sense with where your business is headed?

所以我很幸运没有经历过裁员，尽管我曾在我之前工作的一些公司看到过这种情况发生。所以我完全能够理解你的说法。但作为一名分析师，我最想知道的是，这个决定是否符合管理层对未来的展望？如果不一致，我们所看到的是否是潜在问题的迹象。作为一个外部人，作为看待公司数据的外部投资者，我并不了解关于这些事情的内部讨论。因此，这些决定可能是出于各种不同的原因。但对我来说，思考决策相对于公司所传达的战略和策略是很重要的。而且，关键是一致性。告诉我，你所做的决定是否符合你的企业发展方向的逻辑？

Well, that's such a good point too because I look at the press releases. I used to work in PR. So I understand PR speak a bit. But you know, and I look at this like with BlackRock, they were talking about we're doing these layoffs, but that's because we see more money going toward ETFs. We look at Amazon and Google and they each have a reason that is interesting.

好吧，这也是一个很好的观点，因为我看过新闻稿。我以前在公关行业工作过，所以我对公关术语有一些了解。但是你知道的，我看待这个问题的角度与BlackRock有关，他们谈到裁员是因为我们看到更多的资金流向ETF。我们看看亚马逊和谷歌，它们各自有一个有趣的原因。

So with Google, they're laying off some of the people around the Google Assistant, but they're also putting more energy into it. And with Amazon, you've got cuts in Twitch, you've got cuts in prime video, MGM Studios, maybe that's indicating a cost of content. So these are small little niggly moves in these massive behemoths. But what are they also signals, not just about the job cuts like, hey, we need to balance the budget, but also, hey, we're going in a different direction. And that's why this is necessary. Oh, so we're bringing in another variable here. That's what you're telling me. But again, your point is spot on.

所以，谷歌正在裁员谷歌助手团队的一些人，但他们也在加大力度发展这一领域。而亚马逊则在Twitch、Prime Video以及MGM Studios进行裁员，这可能表明了对内容成本的控制。这些在这些巨头公司中算是小小的改变，但也传递出一些信号，不仅仅是关于裁员，意味着我们需要平衡预算，还有我们正在朝着不同的方向发展。所以，这里又引入了另一个变量。不过，你的观点完全正确。

And again, I'll go back to the consistency question. So let's use Google's announcement as the example to walk through here. There may be cuts there, sorry, there may be costs and benefits of the work that needs to go into maintaining and improving Google Assistant at this point in its lifecycle, right? But you could argue that that technology is probably matured. If it's matured enough, it may need a different amount of labor to do the maintenance and incremental innovation that's required to keep it going. So one thing could be, hey, I don't need as much direct labor making these big leaps and bounds in terms of technological innovations. Maybe I need less labor and more AI in order to have a better control of my costs that keep that service up and running and interesting for the people who are using it on their phones.

再次回到一致性的问题。让我们以谷歌的公告作为例子来详细说明。在维护和改进谷歌助手这一阶段，可能会有成本和利益。但你可以说这项技术很可能已经成熟了。如果它已经足够成熟，可能需要不同程度的劳动力来进行维护和渐进式创新，以保持其运行。因此，一种可能是，我可能不需要太多直接劳动力来进行技术创新的巨大跃升。也许我需要更少的劳动力和更多的人工智能，以更好地控制成本，并使那些使用手机的用户对该服务保持兴趣和运行。

Yeah, space be start to wonder if we don't know if these are AI-related cuts. And everyone's looking for that. So it's sort of tricky where we're at right now in the cycle. But I think that point is, again, spot on. These are the types of things that I think people don't necessarily appreciate in terms of what AI can do. It's not just, hey, I'm going to revolutionize the way we do business, right? If I can assign AI to do tasks and be more efficient at tasks that I need done, companies are going to do that. That's one way you get a scale advantage in your labor. Unfortunately, is to reduce the labor and get more output as a result of that labor using technology.

是的，空间开始怀疑我们是否不知道这些是与人工智能相关的削减。每个人都在寻找答案。所以在目前的循环中，我们的处境有些棘手。但是我认为这一点是非常准确的。这些就是我认为人们在评估人工智能能够做到的事情时不一定能够欣赏到的类型。它不仅仅是“嘿，我要彻底改变我们的业务方式”，对吗？如果我可以让人工智能来处理任务并更高效地完成我需要完成的任务，企业肯定会这样做。这是通过减少劳动力并利用技术获得更多产出的方法之一。

Well, and then you have to balance also the optics of this, coming back to the PR. So Google announced this and immediately there was a tweet from the Alphabet Workers Union saying, these small cuts are if they're unnecessary for a company of this size. And then you had another story that was sort of like an almost job cut from Salesforce. So Fortune had this story of Salesforce might be freezing hiring. And so then Salesforce had to come out and say that they're strategically hiring, which is interesting because Benioff has been CEO Mark Benioff of Salesforce. Big job cuts last year. Then their last earnings call, he seemed to be like throwing open the door saying, AI is making us boom, we're hiring. So how do you like to see companies handle some of these really tricky optics? Be consistent. Yes, please.

嗯，然后你还得平衡一下这个问题在公关方面的形象。所以谷歌宣布这个消息后，字母表工会立刻发了一条推文，表示对于这样一个规模的公司来说，这些小规模拖累是不必要的。然后，又有一个关于Salesforce将要减少职位的故事传出来。于是《财富》杂志刊登了Salesforce可能冻结招聘的报道。因此，Salesforce不得不出面声明他们的战略性招聘，这很有意思，因为去年首席执行官马克·贝尼奥夫(Mark Benioff)进行了大规模裁员。而在他们上次的盈利电话会议上，他似乎敞开大门说，人工智能使我们繁荣，我们正在招聘人才。所以，您希望看到公司如何应对这些非常棘手的形象问题呢？保持一致。是的，请保持一致。

So I think if we look at the context, focus on Salesforce and Mark Benioff here, and we look at the context, look, Mark Benioff is a promotional CEO. He loves to grow. He loves to talk about his company. He loves to talk about the culture within Salesforce. And there's nothing wrong with that. But as a mature company, if growth is picking up and your company needs more labor to execute and capture that growth, then you can talk about hiring. There's no problem with that. But if growth is slowing down and your company needs less labor as a result in order to provide a return to shareholders, look, that's not a fun story to tell. And you know, Mark Benioff doesn't want to tell that story, right? That's just not who he is as a person as a CEO. But it's the right one to tell.

所以我认为，如果我们看一下上下文，重点关注Salesforce和马克·贝尼奥夫，我们会发现马克·贝尼奥夫是一个爱宣传的CEO。他热衷于公司的发展，喜欢谈论Salesforce的企业文化。这没有错。但是作为一家成熟的公司，如果增长开始放缓，公司为了回报股东需要减少劳动力，这就不是一个令人愉快的故事了。马克·贝尼奥夫不想讲这个故事，对吧？作为一个人和CEO，这不符合他的性格。但这才是正确的故事要讲述的。

So you know, again, be consistent, try to be rational here. And again, for me as an analyst, I'm looking for that consistency. I want to make sure there is a match between what you're saying, what you're doing as a company, and why you're doing it. If there's a mismatch, that leads to more questions. Yeah. The consistency is so important.

所以，你知道的，再说一次，保持一致，尽量理性一点。对于我作为分析师来说，我希望看到这种一致性。我想确保你所言所行的公司行为以及背后的原因是匹配的。如果存在不匹配，那就会引发更多问题。是的，一致性非常重要。

I'm going to switch topics a bit because yesterday on the show, Dylan and Jason, they talked about the SEC's approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs. They were waiting sort of to hear the official announcement because it hadn't come out when they did the show. Now we've got Gary Gensler, of course, head of the SEC and his statement. There was a phrase that stuck with me that the SEC doesn't really approve or endorse Bitcoin. And they said, investors need to remain cautious. So I read that as the SEC kind of had to do this.

我要稍微转换一下话题，因为昨天在节目中，Dylan和Jason谈到了SEC对现货比特币交易基金（ETF）的批准。他们在节目录制时还在等待正式公告，因为当时还没有发布。现在我们有了SEC主席Gary Gensler的声明。其中有一句话让我印象深刻，SEC并不真正批准或支持比特币，他们说投资者需要保持谨慎。因此，我认为SEC这么做可能是出于必要。

What do you think? What's your take? Once the idea for Bitcoin ETF got started and got support from the various service providers that were going to make this happen, it was an out-vulal. The momentum was not going to stop. And it was not going to be a case where, you know, no, we're just not going to do this.

你觉得怎么样？你有什么看法？一旦比特币ETF的想法开始，并得到了将会推动这一举措的各种服务提供商的支持，它就变成了无法避免的。势头将不会停下来。这不是一个情况，你知道的，不，我们不会这样做的。

And so what I think the SEC has been trying to do in this quote unquote negotiation phase before the approval phase is figure out how they can get best organized in order to provide some sort of oversight. Look, the gravitational pull of Bitcoin is very strong. And the opportunity for service providers to make incremental revenue fee that could actually be really, really big is also strong. So it was going to happen sooner rather than later. That's always been my feeling.

所以我认为美国证监会在批准阶段之前所谓的谈判阶段所做的，是为了弄清楚他们如何组织起来以提供一些监管。看，比特币的引力非常强大。而服务提供商有机会获得可观的额外收益，这可能实际上是非常大的。所以这早晚会发生。这一直是我的感觉。

Well, now it's happened. We've got a potential 11 of these coming to market. So the frenzy is on. We've got the great Bitcoin trust and the iShares Bitcoin trust. Those were first out of the gate. Early trading went way up. We know people, there's pent up demand here, right? There's going to be this flurry of excitement. I think about this sort of like, is it more like an IPO where I want to watch maybe wait a year, see how the market, you know, the market, the way the market works on a company? Or is it more like like a gold ETF or something like that? How do you think about the comparison here?

好吧，现在终于发生了。我们有了可能有11个类似产品要上市了。所以狂热已经开始了。我们有了伟大的比特币信托和iShares比特币信托。它们是最早推出的。早期交易价格大幅上涨。我们知道人们对此有压抑的需求，对吧？会有一阵子的狂热兴奋。我想到这有点像是IPO，我想观望一年，看看市场，看看公司的发展情况。或者是更像黄金ETF之类的东西？你如何看待这个比较？

So this is an excellent question and one I had to think quite a bit about. But I think I lean towards the IPO approach that you just mentioned and think it's best to wait and see how lots of things shake out and how, especially how the market for Bitcoin actually responds, right? I mean, potential for, you know, how is this all going to work? Because if there is all this potential demand, you know, that wants it, what's going to happen to the Bitcoin, well, I guess it's not a security yet, the Bitcoin asset, how it responds.

这是一个非常好的问题，我必须认真思考了一段时间才能给出答案。但我倾向于你刚才提到的IPO方式，并且认为最好是等待并观察很多事情的发展，尤其是比特币市场的实际反应，对吧？我的意思是，这一切将如何运作？因为如果有很多潜在需求，那么比特币（或者我猜现在还不是一个证券）这个资产会有什么反应呢？

So yeah, what I'm really looking for is to see just how much institutional demand there is for this ETF because that's who they're targeting. Well, it's difficult for many institutional investors to actually invest in Bitcoin itself. So this provides them a way to do that. So, and to your point, you know, between this one being approved on 11 more right behind it, look, we know there's demand. Otherwise, iShares wouldn't have been pursuing this product, right? It just remains to be seen how much there is.

所以，我真正想要看到的是机构需求对这个ETF的程度，因为这正是他们的目标对象。实际上，对于许多机构投资者来说，直接投资比特币是很困难的。这为他们提供了一种方法来实现这个目标。所以，正如你所指出的，这个ETF得到批准的同时其后面还有更多的产品，我们知道有需求存在。否则，iShares就不会追求这个产品，对吧？现在只剩下看这种需求有多大了。

So I think the key to making any decision about whether or not you want to buy this ETF early on is you have to be, you have to have some way of handicapping that demand as well as a way of figuring out what's the potential impact of that demand on the asset itself, Bitcoin.

所以我认为，在决定是否要早期购买这个ETF时，关键在于你必须有一种方法来预测需求，并找到需求对比特币这一资产本身潜在影响的方式。

You know, I thought of it like an IPO and that I went back to maybe it's more like gold because with an IPO, you have the revenue potential, you have the story emerging. With Bitcoin, you've got a price. Like there's not, there's fewer variables there.

你知道的，我想把它类比为IPO（首次公开募股），然后回想起也许更像是黄金，因为在IPO中，你有潜在收入，有一个故事正在崭露头角。而在比特币中，你有一个价格。就像在那里，变数较少。

That's an excellent point. The comparison is not perfect, right? Because we don't have an asset which is a company which we have plenty of, you know, if you go through the IPO process, now we have all of the financial statements, right? We have all of the information that gives us insight into what this company is going to do and how it's going to do it and how it's going to grow, et cetera, et cetera. We just don't have that with an asset like Bitcoin. But in the other hand, it is all about price. I mean, that's really it. It's supply and demand. Supply is for now, right? Held constant and we know demand is there. So, you know, the implication is price go up.

这是一个非常好的观点。这个比较并不完美，对吧？因为我们没有一个像公司这样的资产，我们有很多，你知道，如果你经历了IPO过程，现在我们有所有的财务报表，对吧？我们拥有所有信息，这让我们能够洞察这家公司将会做什么，以及它将如何做以及如何成长，等等。但是对于像比特币这样的资产，我们却没有这样的信息。但另一方面，它与价格有关。我的意思是，就是价格问题。这是供给和需求。供给目前是恒定的，我们知道需求是存在的。所以，你知道，暗示着价格会上涨。

So, you know, it's difficult. But unlike gold, I think this approach, the wait and see approach is better because I think there'll be a lot more volatility in Bitcoin than there likely be with a commodity like gold.

所以，你知道的，这很困难。但和黄金不同，我认为这种观望的方式更好，因为比特币的波动性可能会比黄金等商品更大。

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for breaking this down with me today, David.

没错，没错。感谢你今天跟我一起解释清楚，大卫。

Thank you, Deidre.

谢谢你，迪德拉。

We talk about a lot of stocks on the show, but it's just a peek at the Motley Fool's Investing Universe. This year, we're rolling out a new offering. It's called Epic Bundle. The service includes seven stock recommendations every month, model portfolios, and stock rankings, all based on your investor type. We are offering Epic Bundle to Motley Fool Money listeners at a reduced rate as a thanks for listening to the show. So, for more information, head to www.fool.com/epic bundle. We'll also include a link in the show notes for you.

在节目中我们会讨论很多股票，但这只是一角落的Motley Fool投资宇宙。今年，我们将推出一项新服务，叫做Epic Bundle。这项服务每月会推荐七支股票，提供模型投资组合和股票排名，所有这些都会根据您的投资者类型进行定制。为了感谢您收听节目，我们向Motley Fool Money的听众以特惠价格提供Epic Bundle。想要了解更多信息，请访问www.fool.com/epicbundle。我们还会在节目注释中为您提供链接。

One of the most powerful questions that investors can ask doesn't involve any math. Ricky Mowley clapped up with Alicia Alfieri for an introduction to the snap test and apply it to a few companies. Alicia, I think this is a foolish sort of test for a company, but I think it's a powerful question that anyone can and maybe should ask before buying a stock. It's called the snap test. So to set the table, can you explain what the question is and how it works?

一个最强大的问题投资者可以提出并不涉及任何数学。Ricky Mowley与Alicia Alfieri合作进行snap test（突然测试）的介绍，并将其应用于几家公司。Alicia，我认为这对于一家公司来说是一种愚蠢的测试方式，但我认为这是任何人在购买股票前都可以甚至应该提出的一个强大问题。它被称为snap test。那么为了开场，你能解释一下这个问题是什么以及它是如何起作用的吗？

Yeah, definitely. So the snap test is from David Gardner. And so for fans of the Marvel Universe, it's essentially the Thanos test, which means if you snap your fingers and the company is gone, people will be angry. Would they notice? So it's shorthand for figuring out if a company has an incredible moat or a competitive advantage. And sometimes again, to help you think structurally about a company, is their competition? Are there adequate substitutes? Can anything be rebuilt with time and effort, of course? But would the loss of a thing drive the need to rebuild? But I would also caution you and say that it's just a piece of the puzzle for investing.

是的，确实如此。所以snap test是由大卫·加德纳提出的。对于漫威宇宙的粉丝来说，它基本上是“灭霸测试”，这意味着如果你一挥手，公司消失了，人们会感到愤怒，那么他们会注意到吗？这是一种快速判断公司是否拥有强大护城河或竞争优势的简便方法。同时，它也有助于你从结构上对公司进行思考：它们面临竞争吗？是否有足够的替代品？当然，任何事情在时间和努力的作用下都可以重建，但是失去一样东西是否会驱使人们迫切需要重建？然而，我也要警告你，它只是投资拼图中的一部分。

Yeah, it's not one question you can ask and then say, move on. But it would be easier if it was that way. I think the obvious company to apply it to would be Snapchat because it's one of those things where you can talk about very necessary companies, where if they shut down, things would go very, very awry. But also with a company like Snapchat, if that was immediately shut down, you would have a lot of upset people who could not communicate with their friends.

是的，这并不是一个你问完就能随便跳过的问题。但如果是那样的话会更容易。我认为最明显的应用对象是Snapchat，因为它是那种讨论非常必要的公司，如果它关闭了，情况会变得非常非常糟糕。而且对于像Snapchat这样的公司，如果立即关闭，将会有很多不满的人无法与朋友进行交流。

You would. And perhaps I have a bit of a hot take here because I do think, so for those who are unfamiliar, the Snapchat app is an app that allows for visual messaging. And it is wildly popular. So in the third quarter, 406 million global users and over 5 million subscriptions. According to Pew Research Center report, Snapchat was one of the most widely used online platforms for teens. Here's the problem though. I do feel like there are a lot of social media apps and therefore a lot of substitutions. So if this company were to be snapped away, would its users miss it? Yes, I think so. But I don't think they would have to really wait long before turning to TikTok, Instagram, maybe even the old school Facebook, or what's up? Turning. Yeah, I think they would figure something out. I don't know about Facebook. I think that's one of my favorite takes is I don't use Facebook anymore. I'm just on Instagram. It doesn't really work. I did have what I was working with this. I was talking to a teenager for this volunteer thing and he told me that he is on Snapchat because he lets everyone see his location. And the reason he does that is because what if you were dying and you needed someone to come save you? And so he allows every single person that he's ever met in high school to see his location at all times. The social dynamics with Snapchat, there's a lot of hurt feelings because people can see if their friends are gathering without them. It is terribly unhealthy.

你会的。或许我有一个稍微有些激进的观点，因为我认为，对于那些不熟悉的人来说，Snapchat是一款可以进行视觉消息传递的应用程序。而且它非常流行。因此，在第三季度，这款应用有全球4.06亿的用户和超过500万的订阅者。根据皮尤研究中心的报告，Snapchat是青少年最广泛使用的在线平台之一。但问题是，我觉得有很多社交媒体应用程序，因此有很多替代选择。所以，如果这家公司被淘汰，它的用户会错过它吗？是的，我认为会。但我认为他们不必等很久就能转向TikTok、Instagram，甚至是老牌的Facebook或WhatsApp。是的，我认为他们会找到其他解决办法。至于Facebook，我不知道。我认为我的观点中最喜欢的一个是，我不再使用Facebook，我只用Instagram。这个在我写这篇文章时很有用。我和一个十几岁的孩子谈论这个志愿者的事情，他告诉我他在Snapchat上分享自己的位置，原因是如果你快要死了，你需要有人来救你。所以他允许他高中时认识的每个人随时看到自己的位置。Snapchat的社交动态很复杂，因为人们可以看到他们的朋友是否在聚会中排除自己。这是非常不健康的。

Yeah, yeah. Okay, so maybe not Snapchat, but how about Netflix? That's something that people have been snapped, especially over last year when Netflix started cracking down on password sharing. A lot of people understood like, oh, I'm a little upset. I'm not getting my Netflix right now.

是的，是的。好吧，或许不是Snapchat，但Netflix怎么样？这是人们最近一年以来被“截胡”的一个东西，尤其是Netflix加强了对密码共享的限制。很多人理解了这一点，就像是，哦，我有点生气，现在不能用我的Netflix了。

So Netflix is just about everywhere, right? Streaming content in over 190 countries with content in lots of different genres and languages. 247 million paid subscribers at the end of the third quarter. And it's still the only major peer play streaming content provider, right? It was incredibly disruptive to the old way of watching and distributing content. And it did so well that as we know, a lot of companies tried to copy the model. It has an incredible amount of content that continues to resonate with its users.

那么Netflix几乎无处不在，对吧？它在超过190个国家提供流媒体内容，涵盖了各种不同的类型和语言。截至第三季度末，已经有2.47亿付费订阅用户。而且它仍然是唯一一家重要的同行流媒体内容提供商，对吗？它对传统的观看和分发内容方式产生了巨大的冲击。它做得非常出色，以至于我们知道，很多公司都试图模仿它的模式。它拥有大量令用户感兴趣的内容。

So he's reading about a Nielsen study. And they looked at the US watching habits for the first 38 weeks of 2023. And Netflix had the most watch original series for 37 of those weeks and the most watched movie for 31 of those weeks. So we're talking about something that really resonates with people. So it was also found that it was more than all of the other streaming services and platforms in terms of screen time, except for YouTube. Yeah.

所以他正在阅读一份尼尔森的研究报告。他们调查了2023年前38周美国人的观影习惯。Netflix在其中的37周中拥有最多观看的原创系列，以及在31周中有最多观看的电影。所以我们正在谈论的是某种真正打动人心的事情。研究还发现，Netflix在屏幕时间方面超过了其他所有流媒体服务和平台，除了YouTube。是的。

So the snap test. So several years ago, when it was mostly just Netflix in the space, the company could easily pass over that hurdle for the snap test. It's a little bit more complicated now. There are plenty of substitutes, Disney Plus, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Hulu and others. But we can argue about whether those are actually adequate substitutes for Netflix, right? Netflix changed the way we consume entertainment. And it's still the largest streaming service out there. So I think that this one passes the snap test for now, though maybe not in another few years if others can catch up. Yeah.

所以，Snap测试。几年前，当市场上主要只有Netflix的时候，该公司可以轻松通过Snap测试这个难题。现在情况有点复杂了。有很多替代品，比如Disney Plus，Apple TV，亚马逊Prime，Hulu等等。但我们可以争论这些是否真正是Netflix的合适替代品，对吧？ Netflix改变了我们消费娱乐的方式。而且它仍然是最大的流媒体服务提供商。所以我认为暂时来说它通过了Snap测试，尽管也许再过几年，其他竞争对手可能会迎头赶上。对。

When I think of the snap test, I think snap Netflix, those are some fun ones. But then there's ones where the world would be seriously damaged if these companies wouldn't exist. And for that, my mind kind of goes to a lot of the semiconductor companies, whether it's Taiwan semiconductor, which manufactures the chips or ASML, which manufactures the machines that make the chips. If either of those companies went away, there would be very serious problems for the fragile civilization we live in. Yeah.

每当我想到“ SNAP 测验”时，我会想到 SNAP 网飞（Netflix），这些都是一些有趣的企业。但也有一些公司，如果它们不存在的话，世界将会受到严重破坏。在这方面，我会想到很多半导体公司，比如台湾半导体（Taiwan Semiconductor）生产芯片，以及 ASML 公司制造用于芯片制造的机器。如果其中任何一家公司消失，我们所依赖的脆弱文明将会面临非常严重的问题。是的。

No, that's absolutely correct because we're talking about semiconductors are vital to electronics and to your everyday life. And that's not at all being hyperbolic. It's true. And we're talking about companies that are important in terms of the supply chain of those electronic goods. So definitely those would pass the snap test.

不，那是完全正确的，因为我们正在讨论半导体对电子产品和你的日常生活的至关重要性。这一点决不是夸大其词。这是事实。我们正在谈论的是在电子产品供应链中发挥重要作用的公司。所以这些公司绝对能通过snap（SNAP测试，指一种投资标准）。

So we've assessed, and you mentioned this earlier where you said just because you pass the snap test, it doesn't mean that it's an attractive stock for an investor. Let's put that to practice then. So what are some companies that you think maybe pass the snap test? The world would go awry. It would be very difficult if these companies didn't exist, but you're not running out to buy those stocks.

所以我们已经评估过了，你之前提到过，你说仅仅通过快照测试并不意味着这是一只对投资者有吸引力的股票。那么，让我们来实践一下。那么，你认为哪些公司可能通过了快照测试? 如果没有这些公司，世界会变得混乱。但你并不会急着购买这些股票。

Well, everything in context, right? It depends on individual companies, but I would say that the sector where this would be the case would be the utility company sector, right? So we know if the electrical grid in your area were to disappear, that would be a massive problem, but that doesn't mean you would want to invest in a company.

嗯，一切都要看具体的情况，对吧？这取决于不同的公司，但我想说这种情况可能会发生在公用事业公司行业，对吗？所以我们知道，如果你所在地区的电网消失了，那将是一个巨大的问题，但并不意味着你会想要投资某家公司。

So as with everything, it depends on the individual company and circumstances, but these companies often have a fair amount of debt. So the utility industry is one of the most leveraged, and that's because it has this requirement to maintain and build infrastructure. A lot of these companies pay a dividend, but if a company is taking on too much debt and burning cash, it can put their ability to pay dividends at risk. And if that's your reason for investing in one to have the dividends, you're going to run into some trouble there. And they've also run into some trouble with the cops now as interest rates rise, and a lot of the utility companies were paying a healthy dividend. That becomes a little bit less attractive if you can get a United States literally risk free investment for four or five percent. Right.

因此，就像任何事情一样，这取决于个别公司和具体情况，但是这些公司通常负债较多。因此，公用事业行业是最债务杠杆化的行业之一，原因是它必须维护和建设基础设施。很多这些公司支付股息，但如果一家公司承担了太多债务并且持续亏损，这可能会危及他们支付股息的能力。如果你选择投资其中一家公司是为了获得股息，那么你可能会遇到一些麻烦。随着利率上升，很多公用事业公司也遇到了一些麻烦，因为他们付出了可观的股息。如果你可以获得一个风险极低的美国投资，利息率为百分之四到五，那么这个选择可能会显得不那么有吸引力。

And it might sound crazy that a utility company would suspend or cut their dividend, but it has happened. Last year, a utility company called Algonquin Power and Utilities actually cut their dividend, something like 40% to shore up their finances.

也许听起来很疯狂，一个公用事业公司会中止或削减他们的股息，但这确实曾经发生过。去年，一个叫做奥尔冈金能源和公用事业公司的公用事业公司实际上削减了他们的股息，大约削减了40%，以巩固他们的财务状况。

All right. So to add even a little bit more nuance, maybe there's a company you like that completely fails the snap test, but maybe has historically been a good stock. One example I talked about recently with Bill Barker on the show was Crocs. I think that's a company that for the past few years, it's beating the market. If one did not have Crocs in existence, people could find alternate footwear, clogs, sandals, that kind of thing. Yeah, definitely.

好的。为了增加一点细微差别的解释，也许有一家你喜欢的公司完全不符合"即时通过测试"，但从历史上来看可能一直是一只好股票。我最近在节目中和比尔·巴克尔谈到的一个例子就是卡骆驰（Crocs）。我认为在过去的几年里，这家公司一直击败了市场。如果没有卡骆驰存在，人们可以找到替代的鞋类，类似木底拖鞋、凉鞋之类的。是的，确实如此。

So for me, it would be Costco. Really? Yeah. So that would be a very painful loss if I didn't have Costco. It would be, it would be for sure.

对我来说，我的选择会是Costco。真的吗？是的。如果我没有Costco，那将是一个非常痛苦的损失。那肯定会的，绝对是的。

So we know, you know, they pioneered the membership warehouse club, keeps customers coming back, member retention rate in the 90% range continues to grow, generate cash, but there is a lot of retail competition and there are substitutes in the space, right? Like Sam's Club.

所以我们知道，你们知道，他们开创了会员仓储俱乐部这个概念，这使得顾客不断回流，会员保留率在90%左右，持续增长，创造了现金。但是在零售领域存在很多竞争，并且有其他替代选择，对吗？比如说山姆会员店。

So if you snapped it away, it's members, including me and I'm guessing you would definitely feel the loss and be sad about the, particularly the loss of those bargain hot dogs. But competitors could come in to fill the gap. If you're a Costco member, you could still get groceries, you could still get tires somewhere else. Absolutely. It would be incredibly annoying and I wouldn't like it very much.

如果你把它关闭了，它的成员，包括我和我猜你肯定会感到失落，并为此感到难过，尤其是那些便宜的热狗的流失。但是竞争对手可能会进来填补这个空缺。如果你是Costco的会员，你仍然可以在其他地方买到食品杂货，你仍然可以在其他地方买到轮胎。绝对的。这会非常恼人，我不会喜欢这样。

Right. Lishow Fieri, thank you for your time and your insight. Glad to be here.

没错，Lishow Fieri，谢谢你抽出时间并给予见解。很高兴能来到这里。

As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. So don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear.

就像往常一样，节目中的人可能对他们谈论的股票有兴趣，而愚公志可能会对其做出正式的建议或反对。所以，不要仅凭你听到的内容来买卖股票。

I'm Dietrich Willard. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye.

我是迪特里希·威拉德。谢谢你的聆听。我们明天见。再见。