????挺納斯達克的人不可能一直被打壓：他們堅稱，最近的拋盤是一時反應過激，甚至提供了更好的買入機會。4月10日，納斯達克綜合指數大跌130點，跌幅3.1%，成為自2011年11月9日大跌3.9%以來的最大單日跌幅。

????這么大幅度的重新估值理所應當。假以時日，納斯達克指數將一如既往地漲漲跌跌，但整體軌跡應該是下行。實際上，此次大跌損失最大的正是那些納斯達克指數中最昂貴的那些股票。相對于其他股票，這些股票為納斯達克指數過去的上漲做出了更多貢獻。但現在市場已經走到了一個新的里程碑。

????這些被狂熱高估的股票主要可以分為兩類：社交網絡和生物科技。讓我們先看看這其中8家公司所經歷的瘋狂上漲。它們基本上就是市場中市值最大的那些股票：社交網絡類股票包括Facebook 、谷歌（Google）和來自中國的百度（Baidu）；生物科技類股票包括Alexion、Gilead、Celgene 、Biogen 和Amgen。

????2013年年初，這8只股票的總市值約為5,700億美元，占納斯達克100指數當時總市值3.1萬億美元的18%。（納斯達克100指數由市值最大的前100家公司股票構成。）

????自那以來，納斯達克100指數一路高奏凱歌，至暴跌前一天的4月8日，累計漲幅39%。但這8只大漲股的總市值躍升了80%以上，漲幅超過該指數整體漲幅的兩倍還多。其中，Alexion上漲了66%，Celgene上漲了88%，Gilead上漲了92%，Biogen上漲了104%，而Facebook更是飆升了122%。僅Amgen增幅為相對溫和的40%——未能與整體市場拉開較大差距。

????截至4月8日，這8只股票的市值從占納斯達克100指數的18%膨脹至近四分之一，提升超過6個百分點。

????而且，這些股票估值變得非常非常昂貴。Facebook和Alexion的市盈率分別升至了97倍和113倍。唯一一家市盈率低于28倍（谷歌市盈率水平）的公司是Amgen，為17倍。

????過去4個季度，這8家公司公布的利潤總和為280億美元，而市值總和超過1萬億美元。因此，這8家公司若整體來看，市盈率為37倍。

????如果投資者希望持有這些股價大幅波動的股票能帶來8%的年度回報，這些公司將需要連續8年每年收益增長15%，實現期間利潤增長兩倍。這種情況不太可能發生。

????納斯達克的這個問題凸顯出了市值加權指數存在的明顯弱點。由于這8家領跑公司的股價走勢領先于指數的其他成份股，投資者持有的投資越來越多地向這些最昂貴股票轉移。如果人們在這個階段不斷向納斯達克指數基金投資，每一次投資實質上都是在按照越來越高的比例買入這些高價股票。

????這種情況與沃倫?巴菲特（Warren Buffett）的價值投資策略相悖。納斯達克投資者如今持有過多的高價股，純粹是“自討苦吃”。眼下，這個瘋狂的市場正在調轉方向，完全是合乎情理的事情。（財富中文網）

????The Nasdaq boosters can't be kept down: The recent selloff, they insist, is a frenzied overreaction that's serving up even better buys. On April 10, the Nasdaq composite index fell 130 points, or 3.1%, marking its largest one-day loss since Nov. 9, 2011, when it fell 3.9%.

????The sharp re-pricing is well-deserved. Over time the Nasdaq will careen through spikes and valleys as usual, but the overall trajectory should be downward. In fact, the big losers in the sudden rout are precisely the stocks that grew into the most extravagantly expensive corner of the index. That group, more than any other, made the Nasdaq soar. Now it's a millstone.

????The wildly overpriced stocks fall into two main areas, social networking and biotech. Let's examine the fantastic run experienced by eight companies in those categories. They're mostly the ones with the highest market caps: In social networking, the group comprises Facebook (FB), Google (GOOG), and Baidu (BID) of China; the biotech players are Alexion (ALXN), Gilead (GILD), Celgene (CELG), Biogen (BIIB), and Amgen (AMGN).

????At the start of 2013, the total value of those eight stocks stood at around $570 billion, accounting for 18% of the Nasdaq 100's aggregate market cap of $3.1 trillion. (The Nasdaq 100 consists of the 100 largest companies in the overall index, ranked by market cap.)

????Since then, the Nasdaq has gone on a tear, rising by 39% by April 8, the day before the selloff. But the combined value of the eight high-flyers jumped by more than 80%, more than double the overall gain in the index. Alexion rose 66%, Celgene 88%, Gilead 92%, Biogen 104%, and Facebook 122%. Only Amgen -- it gained a relatively modest 40% -- failed to beat the market by a wide margin.

????By April 8, the value of those eight stocks had swelled from 18% of the Nasdaq 100's total market cap to almost one-quarter, an increase of over 6 percentage points.

????And they became really, really expensive. The price-to-earnings ratios grew to 97 at Facebook and 113 at Alexion. The only company with a multiple below 28 (the number for Google) was Amgen at 17.

????Over their past four quarters, the eight companies have posted combined earnings of $28 billion, vs. a combined market value of more than $1 trillion. Hence, the group, taken as a whole, is selling at 37 times profits.

????If investors seek an 8% annual return from holding these volatile stocks, these companies will need a growth spurt in earnings of 15% annually for eight years, so that their profits would triple over that period. It's unlikely to happen.

????The Nasdaq problem underscores a glaring weakness in cap-weighted indexes. As the prices of our eight sprinters outraced the rest of the index, a bigger and bigger share of an investor's holdings shifted to the most expensive stocks. If you kept adding money to a Nasdaq fund over that period, you were simply buying increasing portions of the overpriced stuff with every purchase.

????That's the opposite of a Warren Buffett-style value strategy. Nasdaq investors are now stuck with far too much money in pricey shares that are cruisin' for a bruisin'. This crazy market is finally making a turn that makes perfect sense.