?

?

?

也許是因?yàn)樘萍{德·特朗普,，或是伯尼·桑德斯,，或是圍繞大選的一切不確定性,，又或許是美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)和利率上調(diào)。無(wú)論原因是什么,，即便是股市的道瓊斯指數(shù)進(jìn)軍2萬(wàn)點(diǎn),，都不足以維持商界交易的活力。對(duì)于并購(gòu),，以及首次公開(kāi)募股而言,，2016年都是慘淡的一年。

2016年,，美國(guó)的并購(gòu)交易規(guī)模同比下滑了21%,。而在融資方面，首次公開(kāi)募股的融資數(shù)額也是2003年以來(lái)的最低值,，以及1992年以來(lái)的第二低值,。

不過(guò)，盡管交易變少了,，卻仍有相當(dāng)一部分交易本不應(yīng)該去做[說(shuō)的就是你,，威瑞森（Verizon）]，另外,，過(guò)去幾年的一些交易在今年矚目的糟糕表現(xiàn)導(dǎo)致了它們的上榜,。以下是《財(cái)富》（Fortune）選出的2016年最糟糕的交易。

威瑞森-雅虎

Perhaps it was Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders, or all the uncertainty around the election. Or maybe it was the Federal Reserve and the fact that interest rates began to rise. Whatever the reason, even the stock market's march to Dow 20,000 wasn't enough to the keep the business world's deal juices flowing. For mergers and acquisitions, and for initial public offerings in particular, 2016 was a flop.

U.S. M&A volume dropped 21% from the previous year. In terms of dollars raised, it was the lowest year for IPOs since 2003, and the second-lowest year since 1992.

But even through there were fewer deals, there were still a fair share of ones that should never have been announced in the first place (we're looking at you, Verizon), along with a couple from past years whose glaring flaws undid them this year. Here are Fortune's picks for the dumbest deals of 2016.

Verizon-Yahoo

?

?

?

甚至在雅虎（Yahoo）遭到兩次大規(guī)模黑客攻擊的消息傳出之前,，威瑞森對(duì)這家過(guò)氣的電子郵件王者的出價(jià)就已經(jīng)顯得過(guò)高。他們7月宣布的48億美元的收購(gòu)報(bào)價(jià),，是雅虎現(xiàn)金流的5倍,。對(duì)科技公司來(lái)說(shuō)，這不算太多,。比如即使是遭遇麻煩的Twitter,，出售價(jià)格也達(dá)到了現(xiàn)金流的15倍。不過(guò)Twitter仍然在發(fā)展，而雅虎卻沒(méi)有,。

曾經(jīng)的神童,、雅虎首席執(zhí)行官梅麗莎·梅耶爾過(guò)去四年里一直試圖扭轉(zhuǎn)局勢(shì)，公司開(kāi)始轉(zhuǎn)播足球比賽,，還招來(lái)了凱蒂·柯麗克等鼎鼎有名的記者,。但是沒(méi)有效果。梅耶爾執(zhí)掌公司期間,，雅虎的核心業(yè)務(wù)價(jià)值縮水了24億美元?，F(xiàn)金流也從2012年的15億美元下降到8,000萬(wàn)美元。

顯然,，威瑞森認(rèn)為他們可以止住這種頹勢(shì),。他們的策略可能是把雅虎和公司2015年收購(gòu)的美國(guó)在線(xiàn)（AOL）合并，從而與谷歌（Google）與Facebook競(jìng)爭(zhēng),。不過(guò)新的雅虎在線(xiàn)（YahoOL）距離趕超對(duì)手還有很長(zhǎng)的路要走,。而如今，遭到黑客攻擊也導(dǎo)致雅虎的主要特色——安全和非工作郵件受到了質(zhì)疑,。威瑞森已經(jīng)開(kāi)始就收購(gòu)價(jià)格重新展開(kāi)談判,。市場(chǎng)估計(jì)他們會(huì)把開(kāi)價(jià)降低10億美元。不過(guò)38億美元的收購(gòu)價(jià)仍然太高了,。

時(shí)代華納的杰夫·比克斯所做的每一筆交易

Even before news surfaced that Yahoo had been the victim of two massive hacks, Verizon (vz) looked to be overpaying for the fallen king of email. The $4.8 billion bid, announced in July, values Yahoo at 5 times cash flow. That's not a lot for a tech company. Even troubled Twitter (twtr), for instance, trades at 15 times cash flow. But Twitter is still growing. Yahoo (yhoo) is not.

The once-wunderkind CEO Marissa Mayer has spent the past four years trying to turn the company around—streaming football games and hiring big-name journalists like Katie Couric. It hasn't worked. Yahoo's core business lost $2.4 billion in value under Mayer. And cash flow is down to just over $800 million, from $1.5 billion in 2012.

Verizon, of course, thinks it can stop the decline, perhaps by combining Yahoo with AOL, which it bought in 2015, to create a competitor to Google (googl) or Facebook (fb). But YahoOL has a lot of catching up to do. And now the hacking news has soured Yahoo's main asset—secure, non-work email. Verizon is already trying to renegotiate its buying price. The market thinks it will cut its bid for Yahoo by $1 billion. That may still mean it's paying $3.8 billion too much.

Every Deal Ever Done by Time Warner's Jeff Bewkes

?

?

?

?

?

?

時(shí)代華納（Time Warner）的首席執(zhí)行官杰夫·比克斯一直以來(lái)都在這家媒體巨頭中大肆活動(dòng)。今年,，他們還計(jì)劃與AT&T進(jìn)行強(qiáng)強(qiáng)聯(lián)合,。不過(guò)直到2016年，我們才搞清楚比克斯之前進(jìn)行的那些交易有多么糟糕,。

在比克斯2009年把美國(guó)在線(xiàn)和時(shí)代華納有線(xiàn)電視（Time Warner Cable）拆分后,，兩家公司的市值都開(kāi)始飆升?！敦?cái)富》的母公司時(shí)代（Time Inc.）則在2014年類(lèi)似的拆分后市值下滑了,。所以此舉可能幫時(shí)代華納的股東省了些錢(qián)——不過(guò)這不足以彌補(bǔ)比克斯其他拆分舉動(dòng)給他們帶來(lái)的損失。

根據(jù)美國(guó)在線(xiàn)和時(shí)代華納有線(xiàn)電視在被比克斯拆分后最終的收購(gòu)價(jià)格,，時(shí)代華納的股價(jià)在AT&T合并的消息宣布之前可能高達(dá)103.65美元,。而目前公司的實(shí)際股價(jià)只有96美元。AT&T提出要以每股107.5美元的價(jià)格收購(gòu)時(shí)代華納,，如果這些公司沒(méi)有被拆分,，它們可以賣(mài)出更高的價(jià)錢(qián)。時(shí)代華納拆分帶來(lái)的損失還不僅于此,。AT&T明顯認(rèn)為,，時(shí)代華納如果保留了有線(xiàn)電視業(yè)務(wù),，價(jià)值會(huì)更高，所以無(wú)論有沒(méi)有AT&T的這次交易,，假如比克斯沒(méi)有把時(shí)代華納有線(xiàn)電視拆分出去,，時(shí)代華納的股價(jià)本該高得多。

比克斯認(rèn)為,，美國(guó)在線(xiàn),、時(shí)代華納有限公司和時(shí)代華納都會(huì)因?yàn)橐?guī)模更小，業(yè)務(wù)重點(diǎn)更明確而受益,。但諷刺之處在于：假如真的如此,，那按照比克斯的邏輯，與AT&T合并就是一次十分糟糕的交易了,。

NantHealth的首次公開(kāi)募股

Time Warner (twx) CEO Jeff Bewkes has long been wheeling and dealing atop the media giant, culminating in this year's proposed mega-merger with AT&T. Only in 2016, though, did it become clear how truly dumb Bewkes's previous deals have been.

Both AOL and Time Warner Cable (twc) soared in value after Bewkes spun them off in 2009. Time Inc. (time), the parent company of Fortune, has dropped in value after being similarly cast aside in 2014, so jettisoning it perhaps saved Time Warner shareholders some money--but not nearly enough to make up for how much they've missed on Bewkes' other spin-offs.

All told, Time Warner's shares, based on what AOL and Time Warner Cable were eventually acquired for after Bewkes tossed them aside, could have been worth as much as $103.65 before the AT&T deal was announced. Instead, they currently trade at around $96. AT&T has offered to pay $107.50 per share for Time Warner; if the company still owned those spin-offs, it could be selling for much more. And that conclusion doesn't factor in all the costs Time Warner incurred in the spin-offs. AT&T clearly thinks Time Warner is worth more when connected to a cable provider, so it's likely that Time Warner's shares would have been worth much more, with or without the AT&T deal, had Bewkes not spun off Time Warner Cable.

Bewkes has argued that AOL and Time Warner Cable, as well as Time Warner, have benefited from being smaller and having a tighter focus. But there's an irony there: if that argument is right, combining his company with AT&T is, by Bewkes's own logic, a very poor deal.

NantHealth's IPO

?

?

?

?

?

2015年底,，洛杉磯湖人隊(duì)的股東和洛杉磯最富有的人之一陳頌雄，推遲了他的公司NantHealth的首次公開(kāi)募股日期,。這家提供醫(yī)療測(cè)試,、支付處理和醫(yī)療信息技術(shù)服務(wù)的公司最終在2016年6月上市,。

也許他們應(yīng)該等更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的,。NantHealth的股價(jià)在掛牌交易的第一天飆升至21美元，不過(guò)之后就開(kāi)始暴跌,。如今,，公司股價(jià)距離峰值已經(jīng)下滑了超過(guò)50%，僅有約10.5美元,，導(dǎo)致這成為了2016年最糟糕的首次公開(kāi)募股之一,。在首次公開(kāi)募股時(shí)，陳頌雄表示他們是首家同時(shí)提供癌癥基因組測(cè)試和賬單服務(wù)的公司,。不過(guò)是否有足夠的醫(yī)院和醫(yī)生需要這種二合一的服務(wù)還不得而知,。在2016年的前九個(gè)月，NantHealth虧損了1.24億美元,，較之2015年同期的5,400萬(wàn)美元還有所增加,。

而且，在首次公開(kāi)募股不足六個(gè)月后,，這家公司似乎就開(kāi)始缺乏現(xiàn)金了,。12月底，NantHealth又通過(guò)發(fā)行可轉(zhuǎn)換債券募集了1億美元,。為了籌得這筆資金,，NantHealth給投資者提供了5.5%的利率，而一般的可轉(zhuǎn)換債券的回報(bào)率只有3.3%,。

投資網(wǎng)站Motley Fool對(duì)他們的評(píng)價(jià)：“NantHealth不是合格的投資對(duì)象,，支持它完全是一場(chǎng)投機(jī),。”

輝瑞制藥-艾爾健

In late 2015, Patrick Soon-Shiong, part owner of the Los Angeles Lakers and one of L.A.'s richest men, delayed the IPO of his company NantHealth. The company, which offers a mash-up of medical testing, payments processing, and medical infotech, eventually went public in June.

Perhaps it should have waited longer. Shares of NantHealth (nh) soared on their first day of trading to as high as $21, but have plummeted since. The stock is now down more than 50% from that peak, to around $10.50, making it one of the worst-performing IPOs of 2016. At the time of the IPO, Soon-Shiong crowed that his company was the first to match up genomic cancer testing with billing services. But it's not clear that enough hospitals or doctors are looking for those combined services. In the first nine months of 2016, NantHealth lost $124 million, up from a loss of $54 million in the same period in 2015.

And it appears the company, less than six months after its IPO, is already hurting for cash. In late December, NantHealth raised another $100 million in a convertible-bond offering. To do so, NantHealth had to offer a 5.5% interest rate to investors. The average convertible bond pays just 3.3%.

Investing website Motley Fool's bottom line: "NantHealth simply does not qualify as an investment; it's a pure speculation."

Pfizer-Allergan

?

?

?

這是一個(gè)“看我口型”的時(shí)刻,。2015年11月，輝瑞制藥（Pfizer）的首席執(zhí)行官伊恩·瑞德宣布他們將收購(gòu)艾爾?。ˋllergan）,。他在聲明中強(qiáng)調(diào)，盡管這筆1,600億美元的收購(gòu)會(huì)讓輝瑞制藥的官方總部遷至愛(ài)爾蘭,，但這并不是為了避免美國(guó)的稅務(wù),。瑞德反復(fù)表示：“我要強(qiáng)調(diào)，我們這次交易并不是為了避稅,?！?

好吧，既然他堅(jiān)持這么說(shuō),。不過(guò)2016年4月,，就在美國(guó)財(cái)政部宣布新規(guī)，嚴(yán)格限制跨國(guó)交易帶來(lái)的稅務(wù)減免后的兩天,，輝瑞制藥和艾爾健的交易就取消了,。這次交易的取消也表明，瑞德并沒(méi)有真正計(jì)劃借此來(lái)提高公司利潤(rùn),，只是想避稅而已,。而投資者也因此受到連累：盡管輝瑞制藥的股價(jià)在2016年末迎來(lái)了一次飆升，但也只是大概回到了交易取消時(shí)的水平,。

諾德斯特姆-Trunk Club

It was a "read my lips" sort of moment. In November 2015, when Pfizer CEO Ian Read announced his company's deal to buy Allergan, he stressed that while the $160 billion acquisition would move Pfizer's official headquarters to Ireland, it was not about avoiding U.S. taxes. No, the Pfizer-Allergan combination was highly strategic. “I want to stress that we are not doing this transaction simply as a tax transaction," Read reiterated.

Oh well, if he insists. But in April, just two days after the Treasury Department announced new rules that would significantly limit the tax savings from cross-border deal, the Pfizer-Allergan deal was called off. The cancelation of the deal made it clear that Read didn't really have a vision for how to boost his company's profits other than by cutting taxes. And shareholders have suffered: Despite a late 2016 rally, shares of Pfizer (pfe) are stuck roughly where they were when the deal was called off.

Nordstrom-Trunk Club

11月時(shí)，諾德斯特姆（Nordstrom）承認(rèn)自己犯了時(shí)尚的錯(cuò)誤,。這家高端百貨公司宣布自己在Trunk Club上虧損了近2,000萬(wàn)美元,，這是他們兩年前收購(gòu)這家在線(xiàn)購(gòu)物服務(wù)公司所花資金的大約一半。當(dāng)時(shí),，他們希望借此增加諾德斯特姆在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的影響力,。不過(guò)在諾德斯特姆的指揮下，這項(xiàng)服務(wù)從未盈利,。在諾德斯特姆收購(gòu)Trunk Club后不久,，后者就開(kāi)始開(kāi)設(shè)實(shí)體店面。事后看來(lái),，這是個(gè)明顯的警示信號(hào)：他們的網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)略沒(méi)有起到效果,。希望諾德斯特姆下次在收購(gòu)時(shí)能更好地做足功課。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

作者：Stephen Gandel

作者：嚴(yán)匡正

In November Nordstrom (jwn) admitted it had made a fashion faux pas. The high-end department store announced it was taking a nearly $200 million writedown on Trunk Club, about half of what it had paid for the online shopping service just two years earlier. The deal was meant to jumpstart Nordstrom's presence online. But under Nordstrom's command, the service has never made money. Shortly before Nordstrom bought the company, Trunk Club had started opening up its own physical stores. In hindsight, that should have been a pretty good warning sign that its online strategy wasn't working. Nordstrom will hopefully be a more diligent shopper next time.