<p>投资者可以拥有尽可能多的个股，只要他们有能力。有时候，假设你只能选择一只股票，这种想法可能会带来启发。这个思维实验迫使你评估和排名你关注的每个投资候选者的优缺点。这个过程可以在某种程度上帮助你将选择缩小到少数几个最佳选项。</p>
<p>或者只有一只。</p>
<p>我知道对我来说那只股票是哪一只。如果我只能买入并持有一只股票，那就是 <strong>亚马逊</strong>（AMZN 0.25%）。以下是原因。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://g.foolcdn.com/image//query-b3A9cmVzaXplJnVybD1odHRwczovL2cuZm9vbGNkbi5jb20vZWRpdG9yaWFsL2ltYWdlcy84Mjk2MjAvaW52ZXN0b3Itc2l0dGluZy1pbi1mcm9udC1vZi1sYXB0b3Atd2hpbGUtcmV2aWV3aW5nLWludmVzdG1lbnQtb3B0aW9ucy5qcGVnJnc9NzAw?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://g.foolcdn.com/image//query-b3A9cmVzaXplJnVybD1odHRwczovL2cuZm9vbGNkbi5jb20vZWRpdG9yaWFsL2ltYWdlcy84Mjk2MjAvaW52ZXN0b3Itc2l0dGluZy1pbi1mcm9udC1vZi1sYXB0b3Atd2hpbGUtcmV2aWV3aW5nLWludmVzdG1lbnQtb3B0aW9ucy5qcGVnJnc9NzAw"/></p>
<p>图片来源：Getty Images。</p>
<h2>亚马逊到底是什么</h2>
<p>你很可能已经知道这家公司。亚马逊当然是北美电子商务的王者，根据 Digital Commerce 360 的研究，占据了市场总收入的近 40%。它在海外的表现也不错。此外，还有其云计算部门亚马逊网络服务（Amazon Web Services），虽然提供的收入相对较小，但却占据了公司近 60% 的运营利润。</p>
<p>然而，这些数字仍然无法完全讲述整个故事。亚马逊还管理着一个按需视频平台（Prime），拥有杂货连锁店 Whole Foods Markets，为其他在线零售商提供配送服务，并通过其 Pillpack 部门销售处方药。顺便提一下，它还通过允许卖家支付更显著的推广费用来实现在线商城的货币化，创造了一个广告业务，上个季度的收入达到了 157 亿美元。除此之外，它还拥有网站 IMDb.com 和 Twitch，并且是摄像头门铃品牌 Ring 的母公司。</p>
<p>不过，这些看似不同的业务背后是有其方法的。虽然大多数公司专注于极其出色地做好一两件事，但亚马逊却协调了几条不同的业务线，每一条都为另一条提供支持，反之亦然。最终的结果是形成了不同利润中心的网络，最终将消费者和企业引入亚马逊的生态系统。</p>
<p>是的，这很复杂，但亚马逊能够应对。</p>
<p>不过，这并不是我愿意将亚马逊作为我唯一持有的股票的唯一原因。</p>
<h2>杰夫·贝索斯创办了它</h2>
<p>由超凡领导者创办或发展的公司可能会成为潜在的问题投资。很难判断是公司本身特别，还是个人特别。如果是个人，那么当这个人不再掌舵时会发生什么？</p>
<p>例如：<strong>通用电气</strong> 在杰克·韦尔奇于 2001 年辞去首席执行官后再也没有恢复往日的辉煌。史蒂夫·乔布斯在 2011 年将接力棒交给蒂姆·库克时，几乎与 <strong>苹果</strong> 画上了等号。虽然库克是一位出色的接班人，但他无疑没有前任那样迷人或神奇。在他领导下的苹果也不再是原来的苹果。</p>
<p>尽管如此，大多数高管，尤其是创始人，仍然能够在公司的文化上留下印记。这种印记即使在他们缺席时也仍然是组织精神的一部分。例如，现任亚马逊首席执行官安迪·贾西并不是杰夫·贝索斯，但贝索斯的理念依然存在。</p>
<p>例如，公司的实验意愿。正如贝索斯在 2016 年致亚马逊股东的信中所指出的那样，“大多数大型组织都接受创新的理念，但不愿意承受一系列失败实验所带来的痛苦。”</p>
<p>然而，这并不适用于亚马逊。贝索斯特别强调培养一种 “快速失败，频繁失败” 的工作文化，确实产生了一些失败，例如 Fire 智能手机。然而，这些实验也导致了亚马逊网络服务和亚马逊 Prime 的诞生，后者已成为公司巨大的增长驱动力。</p>
<p>现在贾西正在将自己的思维方式与贝索斯的结合起来。他在讨论公司的 16 项核心领导原则时表示：“在亚马逊，如果你认为我们在客户或业务方面做错了，你不仅有权发声，而且被期望这样做，无论你的级别如何。”</p>
<p>这有效。现在的亚马逊比贝索斯辞去首席执行官时更大。</p>
<h2>不要低估创新意愿的力量</h2>
<p>许多投资者会指出，健康的企业文化并不能支付账单。我同意。在某个时刻，每家公司都必须以盈利的方式销售其产品或服务，亚马逊也不例外。</p>
<p>然而，历史表明，鼓励创新且不惩罚失败的企业文化的公司往往会繁荣，而谨慎和防御性管理的组织则常常会挣扎。</p>
<p>例如，比较今天的 <strong>字母表</strong> 与韦尔奇时代后的通用电气。制造业巨头在多年掩盖其保险部门负债的真实深度后最终碰壁，管理团队本可以解决这些问题（尽管该公司也并没有真正拥抱数字时代的到来）。或者比较 Blockbuster 与 <strong>Netflix</strong>。曾经庞大的视频租赁连锁店在 2000 年时有机会以仅 5000 万美元的价格收购后者。当时，Blockbuster 的年营业额约为 40 亿美元，完全可以轻松收购 Netflix，哪怕只是为了将其新兴竞争对手排除在市场之外。但它没有。</p>
<p>为其辩护的是，Blockbuster 当时的决定并不是事后看来那么明显的失误。请记住，当时 Netflix 还没有提供流媒体服务。它仍然只是通过邮寄租赁 DVD。考虑到 Blockbuster 在 2000 年时在实体电影租赁业务中的主导地位，这种新型电影租赁商业模式的物流显然对这家现已倒闭的公司来说没有意义。</p>
<p>在许多方面，这个故事更有效地强调了这里的基本主题。即使百视达不想要 Netflix，百视达完全可以利用自己强大的品牌成为一个流媒体巨头。同样，如果没有 Netflix，其他一些有进取心的公司最终也会推出流媒体视频业务。Netflix 只是第一个尝试这个想法的公司，知道这样做可能会以失败告终。</p>
<p>因此，我会押注于一家在管理实验的成功与失败方面都有经验的公司——并从中学习——以便不断发展壮大。</p>
<p>也就是说，亚马逊拥有财务灵活性进行实验，这无疑对看涨的论点是有利的。凭借 2.5 万亿美元的市值，它每年进行超过 6000 亿美元的业务，并将其中约 600 亿美元转化为净收入。同时，它的长期债务仅略超过 800 亿美元。当你实际上能够承担大风险、错过机会并再次尝试时，不害怕失败就容易得多。</p>

亚马逊

亚马逊每日 2 倍做多 ETF - Direxion

<p>这篇文章讨论了亚马逊（AMZN）作为顶级投资选择的优点，强调了其在北美电子商务中的主导地位以及来自亚马逊网络服务的重大贡献。文章突出了亚马逊多样化的商业模式，包括视频流媒体、杂货、药品和广告，形成了一个强大的生态系统。作者还反思了创始人杰夫·贝索斯所培养的创新文化，这种文化在现任首席执行官安迪·贾西的领导下得以延续。作者认为，亚马逊愿意进行实验和适应，使其成为一个强有力的长期投资</p>

<p>Investors can own as many individual stocks as they want and can afford. Sometimes, though, hypothetically imagining that you're limited to just one can be enlightening. That thought experiment forces you to rate and rank the strengths and flaws of every investment candidate on your radar. This process can -- in a good way -- really help you narrow down your list to a small handful of top options.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投资者可以拥有尽可能多的个股，只要他们有能力。有时候，假设你只能选择一只股票，这种想法可能会带来启发。这个思维实验迫使你评估和排名你关注的每个投资候选者的优缺点。这个过程可以在某种程度上帮助你将选择缩小到少数几个最佳选项。</p>
</div><p>Or one.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>或者只有一只。</p>
</div><p>And I know exactly which one that would be for me. If I could only buy and hold a single stock, it would be <strong>Amazon</strong>(AMZN 0.25%). Here's why.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我知道对我来说那只股票是哪一只。如果我只能买入并持有一只股票，那就是 <strong>亚马逊</strong>（AMZN 0.25%）。以下是原因。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://g.foolcdn.com/image//query-b3A9cmVzaXplJnVybD1odHRwczovL2cuZm9vbGNkbi5jb20vZWRpdG9yaWFsL2ltYWdlcy84Mjk2MjAvaW52ZXN0b3Itc2l0dGluZy1pbi1mcm9udC1vZi1sYXB0b3Atd2hpbGUtcmV2aWV3aW5nLWludmVzdG1lbnQtb3B0aW9ucy5qcGVnJnc9NzAw" alt="" original-src="https://g.foolcdn.com/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg.foolcdn.com%2Feditorial%2Fimages%2F829620%2Finvestor-sitting-in-front-of-laptop-while-reviewing-investment-options.jpeg&amp;op=resize&amp;w=700"/></p>
<p>Image source: Getty Images.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>图片来源：Getty Images。</p>
</div><h2>What Amazon really is</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>亚马逊到底是什么</h2>
</div><p>You very likely already know the company. Amazon is, of course, the king of North American e-commerce, accounting for nearly 40% of the market's total revenue, according to research by Digital Commerce 360. It's doing alright overseas, too. Then there's its cloud computing arm, Amazon Web Services, which provides a relatively small portion of its revenue, but is responsible for nearly 60% of the company's operating profits.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>你很可能已经知道这家公司。亚马逊当然是北美电子商务的王者，根据 Digital Commerce 360 的研究，占据了市场总收入的近 40%。它在海外的表现也不错。此外，还有其云计算部门亚马逊网络服务（Amazon Web Services），虽然提供的收入相对较小，但却占据了公司近 60% 的运营利润。</p>
</div><p>However, these numbers still don't even come close to telling the whole story. Amazon also manages an on-demand video platform (Prime), owns grocery store chain Whole Foods Markets, does delivery work for other online retailers, and sells prescription pharmaceuticals through its Pillpack arm. It also monetizes its online mall by allowing its sellers to pay for more prominent promotion, creating an advertising business that generated $15.7 billion in revenue last quarter alone, by the way. On top of all that, it owns websites IMDb.com and Twitch, and is the parent to camera-doorbell brand Ring.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，这些数字仍然无法完全讲述整个故事。亚马逊还管理着一个按需视频平台（Prime），拥有杂货连锁店 Whole Foods Markets，为其他在线零售商提供配送服务，并通过其 Pillpack 部门销售处方药。顺便提一下，它还通过允许卖家支付更显著的推广费用来实现在线商城的货币化，创造了一个广告业务，上个季度的收入达到了 157 亿美元。除此之外，它还拥有网站 IMDb.com 和 Twitch，并且是摄像头门铃品牌 Ring 的母公司。</p>
</div><p>There's a method to the madness behind these seemingly disparate lines of business, though. While most companies focus on doing one or two things extremely well, Amazon has orchestrated several different lines of business, each of which fuels another, and each of which is fueled by another. The result is a mesh of different profit centers that ultimately funnels consumers and corporations into Amazon's ecosystem.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>不过，这些看似不同的业务背后是有其方法的。虽然大多数公司专注于极其出色地做好一两件事，但亚马逊却协调了几条不同的业务线，每一条都为另一条提供支持，反之亦然。最终的结果是形成了不同利润中心的网络，最终将消费者和企业引入亚马逊的生态系统。</p>
</div><p>Yes, it's complicated, but yes, Amazon can handle it.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>是的，这很复杂，但亚马逊能够应对。</p>
</div><p>That's not quite the only reason I'd be willing to make Amazon my one and only stock holding, though.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>不过，这并不是我愿意将亚马逊作为我唯一持有的股票的唯一原因。</p>
</div><h2>Jeff Bezos started it</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>杰夫·贝索斯创办了它</h2>
</div><p>Companies founded or grown by bigger-than-life leaders can make for potentially problematic investments. It's just difficult to determine if it's the company that's something special, or the person. If it's the person, what happens when that individual is no longer at the helm?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>由超凡领导者创办或发展的公司可能会成为潜在的问题投资。很难判断是公司本身特别，还是个人特别。如果是个人，那么当这个人不再掌舵时会发生什么？</p>
</div><p>Case in point: <strong>General Electric</strong> was never quite the same after Jack Welch stepped down as CEO in 2001. Steve Jobs was also nearly synonymous with <strong>Apple</strong> until he passed the torch to Tim Cook in 2011. While Cook has been a solid successor, he's arguably not quite as captivating or magical as his predecessor. Neither is Apple under him.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>例如：<strong>通用电气</strong> 在杰克·韦尔奇于 2001 年辞去首席执行官后再也没有恢复往日的辉煌。史蒂夫·乔布斯在 2011 年将接力棒交给蒂姆·库克时，几乎与 <strong>苹果</strong> 画上了等号。虽然库克是一位出色的接班人，但他无疑没有前任那样迷人或神奇。在他领导下的苹果也不再是原来的苹果。</p>
</div><p>Still, most high-profile chief executives -- and founders in particular -- manage to leave their mark on their company's culture. That imprint remains part of the organization's ethos even in their absence. While current Amazon CEO Andy Jassy is no Jeff Bezos, for instance, Bezos' philosophy remains.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>尽管如此，大多数高管，尤其是创始人，仍然能够在公司的文化上留下印记。这种印记即使在他们缺席时也仍然是组织精神的一部分。例如，现任亚马逊首席执行官安迪·贾西并不是杰夫·贝索斯，但贝索斯的理念依然存在。</p>
</div><p>Take, for example, the company's willingness to experiment. As Bezos noted in his 2016 letter to Amazon's shareholders, &#34;Most large organizations embrace the idea of invention, but are not willing to suffer the string of failed experiments necessary to get there.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>例如，公司的实验意愿。正如贝索斯在 2016 年致亚马逊股东的信中所指出的那样，“大多数大型组织都接受创新的理念，但不愿意承受一系列失败实验所带来的痛苦。”</p>
</div><p>That does not describe Amazon, though. Bezos made a point of fostering a &#34;fail fast, fail often&#34; work culture that did end up producing some failures, such as the Fire smartphone. Such experiments, however, also led to the creation of Amazon Web Services and Amazon Prime, the latter of which has been a massive growth driver for the company.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，这并不适用于亚马逊。贝索斯特别强调培养一种 “快速失败，频繁失败” 的工作文化，确实产生了一些失败，例如 Fire 智能手机。然而，这些实验也导致了亚马逊网络服务和亚马逊 Prime 的诞生，后者已成为公司巨大的增长驱动力。</p>
</div><p>Now Jassy is blending his own mindset with Bezos'. As he said while discussing the company's core 16 leadership principles, &#34;At Amazon, you are not just empowered to speak up if you think we're doing something wrong for customers of the business. You're expected to do so, regardless of level.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>现在贾西正在将自己的思维方式与贝索斯的结合起来。他在讨论公司的 16 项核心领导原则时表示：“在亚马逊，如果你认为我们在客户或业务方面做错了，你不仅有权发声，而且被期望这样做，无论你的级别如何。”</p>
</div><p>It works. Amazon is an even bigger company now than it was when Bezos stepped down as CEO.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这有效。现在的亚马逊比贝索斯辞去首席执行官时更大。</p>
</div><h2>Don't underestimate the power of a willingness to innovate</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>不要低估创新意愿的力量</h2>
</div><p>Many investors will point out that a healthy corporate culture doesn't pay the bills. I agree. At some point, to thrive, every company must sell its products or services profitably. Amazon is no exception.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>许多投资者会指出，健康的企业文化并不能支付账单。我同意。在某个时刻，每家公司都必须以盈利的方式销售其产品或服务，亚马逊也不例外。</p>
</div><p>History has shown, however, that companies with corporate cultures that encourage innovation and don't punish failure tend to prosper while organizations that are cautiously and defensively managed often struggle.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，历史表明，鼓励创新且不惩罚失败的企业文化的公司往往会繁荣，而谨慎和防御性管理的组织则常常会挣扎。</p>
</div><p>Compare <strong>Alphabet</strong> today to post-Welch GE, for instance. The manufacturing conglomerate ultimately hit a wall after years of obscuring the true depth of its insurance arm's liabilities from a management team that might have been able to fix them (although the company didn't exactly embrace the advent of the digital age either). Or compare Blockbuster to <strong>Netflix</strong>. The once-giant video rental chain infamously had a chance to buy the latter for a mere $50 million back in 2000. At the time, Blockbuster was doing on the order of $4 billion worth of business per year, and could have easily purchased Netflix, if only to take its budding competitor out of the market. But it didn't.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>例如，比较今天的 <strong>字母表</strong> 与韦尔奇时代后的通用电气。制造业巨头在多年掩盖其保险部门负债的真实深度后最终碰壁，管理团队本可以解决这些问题（尽管该公司也并没有真正拥抱数字时代的到来）。或者比较 Blockbuster 与 <strong>Netflix</strong>。曾经庞大的视频租赁连锁店在 2000 年时有机会以仅 5000 万美元的价格收购后者。当时，Blockbuster 的年营业额约为 40 亿美元，完全可以轻松收购 Netflix，哪怕只是为了将其新兴竞争对手排除在市场之外。但它没有。</p>
</div><p>In its defense, Blockbuster's decision at the time wasn't quite the obvious misstep it seems in retrospect. Remember, Netflix wasn't yet streaming then. It was still only renting DVDs by mail. Given Blockbuster's dominance of the brick-and-mortar movie rental business back in 2000, the logistics behind this new kind of movie rental business model understandably didn't make sense to the now-defunct company.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>为其辩护的是，Blockbuster 当时的决定并不是事后看来那么明显的失误。请记住，当时 Netflix 还没有提供流媒体服务。它仍然只是通过邮寄租赁 DVD。考虑到 Blockbuster 在 2000 年时在实体电影租赁业务中的主导地位，这种新型电影租赁商业模式的物流显然对这家现已倒闭的公司来说没有意义。</p>
</div><p>In many regards, though, that story underscores the underlying theme here in an even more effective way. Even if Blockbuster didn't want Netflix, Blockbuster certainly could have leveraged its own powerful brand to become a streaming powerhouse. Likewise, if not Netflix, some other enterprising outfit would have eventually launched the streaming-video business. Netflix was simply the outfit that tried the idea out first, knowing when it did so that it might end in failure.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在许多方面，这个故事更有效地强调了这里的基本主题。即使百视达不想要 Netflix，百视达完全可以利用自己强大的品牌成为一个流媒体巨头。同样，如果没有 Netflix，其他一些有进取心的公司最终也会推出流媒体视频业务。Netflix 只是第一个尝试这个想法的公司，知道这样做可能会以失败告终。</p>
</div><p>So for my money, I'll bet on a company that is experienced with managing experiments' successes as well as failures -- and learning from both -- to evolve and thrive.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>因此，我会押注于一家在管理实验的成功与失败方面都有经验的公司——并从中学习——以便不断发展壮大。</p>
</div><p>That said, it certainly doesn't hurt the bullish argument that Amazon has the financial flexibility to experiment. With its $2.5 trillion market cap, it does more than $600 billion worth of business per year, and turns about $60 billion of that into net income. Meanwhile, it's only sitting on a little over $80 billion in long-term debt. It's much easier not to fear failure when you can actually afford to take big swings, miss, and try again.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>也就是说，亚马逊拥有财务灵活性进行实验，这无疑对看涨的论点是有利的。凭借 2.5 万亿美元的市值，它每年进行超过 6000 亿美元的业务，并将其中约 600 亿美元转化为净收入。同时，它的长期债务仅略超过 800 亿美元。当你实际上能够承担大风险、错过机会并再次尝试时，不害怕失败就容易得多。</p>
</div>

If I Could Only Buy and Hold a Single Stock, This Would Be It

- 亚马逊在北美电商市场占据近 40% 的总收入。  
- 其云计算部门 AWS 贡献了近 60% 的运营利润。  
- 亚马逊的创新文化和财务灵活性使其具备持续发展的能力。

如果我只能选择买入并长期持有一只股票，那就是这只股票