Question

请英文高手帮忙翻译这段话

Buy Damaged Stocks, Not Damaged Companies
Let’s say Wall Street is holding a sale of solid merchandise that it has to move. And let’s say you take that merchandise home only to find it doesn’t work, has a hole in it or is missing a key part. If we were on Main Street, of course, it wouldn’t matter. There are guarantees and warranties galore on Main Street. You can take anything back.

You can’t return merchandise on Wall Street and get your money back. Nope, no way.

Which is why I always say:

You have to buy damaged stocks, not damaged companies.Sometimes these buys are easy to discern. In 1998, when Cendant (CD – news – Cramer’s Take) was defrauded by the management of CUC International through a series of bogus financials, the stock went from $36 to $12 in pretty much a straight line. Was that a one-day sale that should be bought? No, that was a damaged company. It took years for Cendant to work its way back into the hearts of investors. Some say it has never recovered.

But when Eastman Chemical (EMN – news – Cramer’s Take – Rating) announced a shortfall in early 2005 because of a problem – a fixable problem – at one of its facilities, that 4-point dip was a classic panic sale, one that you had to buy. The stock subsequently moved up a quick 8 points when the division recovered in the next quarter.

Sometimes, the sales on Wall Street aren’t as obvious. I got snookered in 2004 thinking that Nortel’s (NT – news – Cramer’s Take – Rating) accounting problems were a simple sale of a damaged stock, with the company quite whole. In fact, the company was gravely damaged by an accounting fraud, and it has looked doubtful the company would ever recover.

And sometimes the sale is so steep that it looks as if something’s dreadfully wrong, when really the problem is something that over the longer term will go away.

How do we know if there is something wrong with the company instead of just the stock? I think that’s too complicated a question. What I like to do is develop a list of stocks I like very much, and when Wall Street holds an en masse sale, I like to step up to the plate. I particularly like to be ready when we have multiple selloffs in the stock market because of events unrelated to the stocks I want to buy, a major shortfall of an important bellwether stock, or perhaps some macro event that doesn’t affect my micro-driven story.

Of course, sometimes you just have to deduce that the company’s fortunes haven’t really changed, and the fundamentals that triggered the selloff (either in the market or in the company) will be something that will reverse themselves shortly. But you never know. Which is, again, why I think that rule no. 3 must be obeyed. If you don’t buy all the stock at once, and if you take your time, it is more likely that you won’t be left holding a huge chunk of merchandise when more bad news comes around the corner.

Answer 1

买股票,不损坏公司利益
我们说,华尔街正举办一个销售商品的活动。让我们说参加的商家,发现没多大作用,有些缺陷或丢失了一个重要组成部分。如果我们是在大街上,当然,这不会有问题。有担保、保证堆积如山的大街上。你可以做任何事。

你不能返回华尔街的商品,把你的钱要回来。不行,不行。

这就是为什么我总是说:

你有买股票,不损坏公司…有时这些很容易辨别。在1998年,当胜腾(CD -新闻-克拉的花)被制裁、被监理管理。国际上通过一系列的虚假的财务、股票从36美圆12美元在相当多的一段时期。是那一天的销售应该买吗?不,那是一个受损的公司。此后很多年,胜腾去上班的途中,它的投资者。有人说它再也没有恢复过来。

但当伊士曼化工(人物-新闻-克拉的带-评级)宣布了一个缺口，早在2005年,因为一个问题——一个固定不变的问题——在其设施,这是一个经典的恐慌分制泡,卖、出售,你不得不买。随后的股票上升了8分，分工迅速恢复时,在接下来的四分之一。

有时,销售在华尔街并不明显。我碰了钉子，用2004年的思维方式,为新台币-新闻-克拉的带-评级)会计问题是一个简单的销售公司,破损存货非常完整。事实上,这个公司是一个因会计舞弊而严重受损的公司,看上去可能公司会恢复。

有时是如此强烈,销售看起来好像有点难堪错误时,真正的问题是,从长远来说就会消失。

我们如何知道是否有毛病,而不只是公司的股票吗?我认为这太复杂的