????假如說以前還看不清，現在已經很清楚了：大型石油公司眼下碰到大麻煩了。

????在國際油價保持每桶100美元左右、接近歷史高點的一年里，埃克森美孚(ExxonMobil)這家一流能源公司上周三在紐約的分析師會議上公布，2013年的已動用資本回報率(ROCE)為17%。我重復一遍，是17%。伙計們，這是一個很糟糕的數字。

????應該承認，17%的ROCE已經是很多公司夢寐以求的水平，即使是其他一些能源公司。但它是埃克森美孚。談到開采化石燃料，沒有其他能源公司能像埃克森美孚那樣長袖善舞，用好政治和經濟資源。2000-2010年，埃克森美孚ROCE的強勁表現令人稱奇，內部基準是35%；ROCE可以衡量已運用資本的盈利能力和使用效率。據一位長期服務于埃克森美孚的工程師表示，ROCE低于30%會被公司保守派視為失敗。

????但金融危機終結了埃克森美孚的盈利盛宴。期間，石油和天然氣價格暴跌，因此，埃克森美孚的ROCE大跌也是意料之中的事情。但它的ROCE當時仍然保持在25%左右的水平。這個數字盡管不如人意，但也還算不上世界末日。因此，投資者們沒有揪住不放。他們相信一旦混亂結束，埃克森美孚就會重振雄風。

????而現在，我們得到的是17%。即使油價高企，這家公司的ROCE卻連20%都沒有達到？更令人尷尬的是，另一家美國能源大公司雪佛龍(Chevron)的ROCE預計將輕松超越埃克森美孚——2010年以來每年都是如此。

????這一定讓埃克森美孚的首席執行官雷克斯·蒂勒森非常心煩。周三，蒂勒森采取了行動，他相信減少支出能提升埃克森美孚傳奇性的盈利能力。蒂勒森出人意料地宣布，2014年埃克森美孚龐大得出奇的400億美元資本支出預算將削減40億美元，降幅約10%。減少資本支出意味著如果利潤保持不變，ROCE將上升。這可能是一個好點子，畢竟一個項目需要幾年、甚至幾十年的時間才能開始產生回報。

????那么，蒂勒森的做法是對的？市場可不這么認為：消息公布后，埃克森美孚的股價跌了3%，還拉低了整個道瓊斯工業指數。蒂勒森一定很困惑。他認為，他做的正是股東和分析師們希望他做的，提高ROCE。

????ROCE雖然重要，但并不是投資者關心的唯一指標。投資埃克森美孚的人們往往是保守的價值投資者，比起是否實現一些財務指標，他們更看重長期持續的現金流。例如，價值投資之王沃倫·巴菲特去年11月份披露，2013年第二季度他增持了近1%的埃克森美孚股票，市值約34.5億美元。

????巴菲特買入埃克森美孚的同時，相對較大幅度地減持了江河日下的能源巨頭康菲(ConocoPhillips)公司的股票，后者目前正在經歷重大重組。有些投資者認為他的選擇十分奇怪，因為康菲的股價當時年內漲幅為27%，而埃克森美孚的股價只漲了8%。但這關乎價值投資主題。埃克森美孚的利潤穩定，具有明確的長期盈利潛力，而康菲的未來仍未可知。不確定性并不是價值投資者的最愛，即便放棄不確定性可能意味著放棄一些上漲空間。

????埃克森美孚表明，就算油價波動，盡可能實現回報率穩定也是有意義的。如果它表示，將投資400億美元，投資者們相信，未來一些年，這家公司的ROCE將達到世界級水平。

????因此，上周三當蒂勒森宣布將削減資本支出預算時，投資者們奪路而逃。他們原本認為，埃克森美孚會繼續向新項目投錢，這些項目的長期回報率將保持在強勁的20%-30%。當然，如果能把多出來的40億美元分給股東也不錯，但這只能管一年。價值投資者著眼于長期，削減資本支出意味著可以預見未來收入的減少。

????當然，沒人說埃克森美孚單純為了不閑著就應該投資不盈利的業務，雖然太多公司都在這么干。聽到一家公司自己都認為自己無法實現足夠高的回報率，難以讓精心規劃的資本支出預算自圓其說，投資者們一定非常失望。

????更讓人擔心的是——埃克森美孚認為17%的ROCE已足夠好，足以捍衛去年龐大的資本支出？如果真的是這樣，既然埃克森美孚能從這些項目上輕松地削減這么多支出，它究竟認為未來一些項目能帶來多大的回報？15%？還是10%？大家自己可以看看這種想法引發了怎樣的恐慌。（財富中文網）

????譯者：楊智

????

????If it wasn't clear before, it certainly is now: Big Oil has got some big problems.

????In a year in which oil remained near historic highs at around $100 a barrel, ExxonMobil (XOM), the all-around best-in-class energy company, said on Wednesday at its analyst meeting in New York that its return on capital employed (ROCE) for 2013 was 17%. Let me repeat that -- 17%. This is bad, people.

????Admittedly, achieving a 17% ROCE is something many companies would kill for -- even other energy companies. But this is ExxonMobil. No other energy company is as skilled or as adept at maneuvering the political and economic quagmire that comes with drilling for fossil fuels than Grandpappy Exxon. In the 2000s, ExxonMobil's ROCE, which is a measure of profitability and efficiency of how capital is employed, was legendary for its strength and power, with 35% considered the internal benchmark. Achieving a level below 30% was considered failure among Exxon's conservative lot, according to a long-time engineer at the firm.

????But the financial crisis put an end to ExxonMobil's profit party. Oil and natural gas prices plummeted, and, as one would expect, so did Exxon's ROCE. It still stayed in the mid 20% range, which, while disappointing, wasn't the end of the world. But investors cut the company some slack. They thought that once the tumult was over Exxon would again reign supreme.

????And now we have this -- 17%. Even amid high oil prices, the company couldn't even hit 20%? Even more embarrassing, Chevron (CVX), the other big U.S. energy company, is expected to beat Exxon hands down when it comes to ROCE -- it has done so every year since 2010.

????This must be very disturbing for Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive. On Wednesday, Tillerson took action, which he believes will boost Exxon's legendary profitability -- spend less. In a surprise move, Tillerson said that 2014 will see a $4 billion, or about 10%, decrease in ExxonMobil's ridiculously large $40 billion capital expenditures budget. Spending less capital means that the ratio will go up, provided that profits stay level. That's probably a good bet considering that it takes years, even decades, for a project to start paying off.

????So is Tillerson making the right move? The markets don't think so -- Exxon's stock price sank 3% after the announcement, dragging the entire Dow Jones Industrial Index down with it. Tillerson must be very confused. He is doing exactly what he thought shareholders and analysts wanted -- delivering a higher ROCE.

????But while ROCE is an important metric, it isn't the only thing investors care about. People who invest in ExxonMobil tend to be conservative value players, more interested in consistent cash flow with long time horizons than with hitting some financial target. For example, Warren Buffett, the king of value investing, disclosed last November that he had accumulated a nearly 1% stake in ExxonMobil during the second quarter of 2013, equating to some $3.45 billion.

????At the same time he bought Exxon, Buffett slashed his relatively large stake in dimming energy giant ConocoPhillips (COP), which, at the time, was going through a major reorganization. Some investors found his choice strange as ConocoPhillips' stock was up 27% for the year at that point, while Exxon's stock was up only 8%. But it plays to the theme of value investing. Exxon's earnings are stable, with defined long term earnings potential, while COP's future had been up in the air. Uncertainty isn't ideal for value investors, even if it means giving up some of the upside.

????Exxon has made a point to be as consistent as possible with its returns, despite, of course, the volatility in oil prices. When it says it is going to invest $40 billion, investors trust that the company will deliver world-class returns on that money over the next few years.

????That's why when Tillerson said on Wednesday that he was cutting the CapEx budget, investors ran for the exits. They had projected that Exxon would continue to plough money into new projects and that those projects would yield strong and consistent 20% to 30% returns over time. Sure, it is nice to have that extra $4 billion returned to shareholders, but that's just this year. Value investors are in it for the long haul and cutting CapEx means that they should expect decreased revenue down the road.

????To be sure, no one is saying that Exxon should invest in unprofitable ventures just to keep busy -- too many companies already do that. It was just disappointing for investors to hear that the company doesn't believe it can deliver a strong enough return to justify their carefully planned CapEx budget.

????Then there is the big fear -- did Exxon think a 17% ROCE was a strong enough return to justify last year's massive capital expenditure outlay? If so, what exactly does Exxon think its future projects will yield if they can so easily slash so much off of it -- 15%? Maybe 10%? You can see how this might have caused a bit of a panic.