<p>目前，CEF（封闭式基金）领域正在发生一场激进投资者的故事。不论结果如何，这可能导致这些高收益基金的折扣缩小。</p>
<p>我们将分析今天发生的事情。然后，我将告诉你我最喜欢的方式，以便在自己的投资组合中为这样的单次事件做好准备——激进投资、收购、股票拆分。</p>
<p><strong>Ackman/CP 是经典的激进投资 “解锁”</strong></p>
<p>最成功的激进投资之一发生在比尔·阿克曼（Bill Ackman）将资深铁路人亨特·哈里森（Hunter Harrison）任命为加拿大太平洋铁路（Canadian Pacific Railway）首席执行官时——现在称为 <strong>加拿大太平洋堪萨斯城（CP）</strong>。五年后，股票价格翻了一番以上：</p>
<p><strong>“经典” 激进投资举动点燃了 CP</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CP-Total-Returns.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CP-Total-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>但当然，并不是每个激进投资举动都如此成功。</p>
<p>这让我回到了 CEF，更具体地说，是 GAMCO 投资公司与激进投资者博阿兹·温斯坦（Boaz Weinstein）领导的 Saba 资本管理公司之间的对抗。</p>
<p>我们在 3 月 19 日的文章中讨论过的这一举动，涉及 GAMCO 希望将其 <strong>Gabelli Utility Trust (GUT)</strong> 的副总裁放在两个 Saba CEF 的董事会中。</p>
<p>这很有趣，因为这有点角色反转：GAMCO 更像是我所称的传统 CEF 管理者，而 Saba 则更专注于投资者激进主义。</p>
<p>当然，问题是：将 GUT 的影响力加入 Saba 的基金是否有效？</p>
<p>上周，我们更关注 Saba 的基金。今天我想更仔细地看看 GUT，它持有主要的公用事业和管道股票，如 <strong>NextEra Energy (NEE)</strong>、<strong>Duke Energy (DUK)</strong> 和 <strong>ONEOK (OKE)</strong>，看看它是否值得我们关注。然后我会给你我对 GAMCO/Saba 局势的最新看法，以及我对这种激进投资举动的首选方法。</p>
<p>我们将从收益率为 10% 的 GUT 开始，其 10 年总回报如下图紫色所示。</p>
<p><strong>GUT 在长期内获利——但未能超越其基准</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Total-Returns.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Total-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>在此期间，GUT 获得了 8.8% 的年化回报。这很强劲，但看看上面的橙色线：作为一个公用事业基金，GUT 最适合与 <strong>State Street</strong> <strong>Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLU)</strong> 进行基准比较。正如你所看到的，它落后于该 ETF。</p>
<p>现在，在 CEF 的情况下，这通常不是基金经理的错；毕竟，Gabelli 的员工都是专业且对市场了解的。而尽管费用（具体来说是资产的 1.52%）可能是故事的一部分，但许多 CEF 的费用更高，因此这可能不是这里滞后的全部原因。</p>
<p>此外，如果你更仔细地查看那张图表，你会发现 GUT 曾经确实表现优于一段时间，所以这也许只是短期的不幸？</p>
<p>幸运的是，CEF 为我们提供了一个 “干净” 的管理技能指标，没有基于情绪的基金市场价格波动。它被称为总净资产（NAV）回报，直接与基金投资组合的表现相关。</p>
<p>下面我们看到，GUT 的总 NAV 回报（橙色）确实超越了其基于市场价格的回报（紫色），但仍然未能达到基准的 162% 回报：</p>
<p><strong>投资组合回报改善，但仍然落后</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-NAV-Returns.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-NAV-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>这种表现不佳是 GUT 的一个风险。另一个风险？该基金的交易价格与 NAV 之间的溢价极高——确切地说是 83%。而且，这个溢价波动很大，有时超过 100%。这里的风险当然是，这个巨大的溢价会崩溃。即使降到仍然很高的水平，比如 50%，也可能给投资者带来重大损失，无论管理层做什么。</p>
<p>事实上，这大致就是在 2024 年中期发生的事情，当时 GUT 的溢价在四个月内从约 117% 崩溃至 52%。结果是基于市场价格的总回报下降了 14%，尽管其总 NAV 回报在此期间跃升了 27%：</p>
<p><strong>GUT 的独特风险：在其投资组合获利时出现亏损</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-2024.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-2024.png"/></p>
<p>这表明，由于今天更高的溢价，GUT 的市场价格表现面临风险。即使基金团队在 NAV 基础上能够超越基准，投资者仍可能遭受损失。因此，总结一下，我认为 GUT 现在是一个卖出：首先，因为它的溢价太高，其次，因为它在 NAV 和市场价格基础上都表现不佳。</p>
<p><strong>但激进投资举动呢？</strong></p>
<p>现在让我们回到 GAMCO 将 GUT 的副总裁放在两个 Saba 基金董事会的举动：<strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund II (SABA)</strong> 和 <strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund (BRW)</strong>。这个提议是，这将有助于将这两个基金的折扣——目前都在 13.5% 左右——转变为溢价。</p>
<p>但会成功吗？让我们将 GUT 的表现与这两个基金进行比较：</p>
<p><strong>NAV 和市场价格再次讲述两个不同的故事</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Saba-Funds.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Saba-Funds.png"/></p>
<p>上面的两个图表比较了过去五年 GUT（紫色）、SABA（橙色）和 BRW（蓝色）的表现。在第一个图中，我们看到 GUT 在市场价格基础上表现优于 SABA，但劣于 BRW。同时，GUT 在总 NAV 回报基础上明显超越了。</p>
<p>这种差异告诉我们两件事：1）GUT 投资者不能总是期待基金的市场回报完全流向他们。2）GUT 的管理才能实际上可能会给 Saba 基金带来提升。</p>
<p>但这里还有另一个因素在起作用。</p>
<p>那就是这些基金之间存在的简单事实。这些基金非常不同。正如前面提到的，GUT 持有相对稳定的公用事业股票。而 Saba 的基金则持有更多投机性资产，例如 SABA 在 Alternative Capital Investments Fund III LP（一个专注于诉讼融资的私募基金）中的头寸，以及 SABA 和 BRW 持有的以加密货币为重点的 <strong>Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETCG)</strong>。</p>
<p>这与经营一个以公用事业为重点的基金如 GUT 的提议截然不同，这告诉我们，即使 GAMCO 在这里取得成功，也可能不会惠及 SABA 或 BRW 的投资者。</p>
<p><strong>我偏好的激进投资策略</strong></p>
<p>与其试图预测已经在进行中的激进投资斗争，我们的目标是通过拥有激进投资者最初瞄准的投资类型来抢先一步。</p>
<p>实现这一目标的一种方法是关注以折扣交易的股票封闭式基金，并以价值为导向进行管理。例如，<strong>中央证券公司 (CET)</strong> 旨在持有产生强劲现金流的被低估公司的股票。</p>
<p>这些公司包括 <strong>亚马逊 (AMZN)</strong>，它因人工智能而削减成本并报告强劲的销售增长，但仍落后于其他许多 “七大科技巨头”。</p>
<p>这些类型的封闭式基金提供上涨空间、高且不断增长的股息（CET 当前收益率为 5.4%）和价值（该基金以大约 15% 的折扣交易）。</p>
<p>关键在于？CET 持有的股票最有可能吸引激进投资者、收购要约或其他可能解锁价值的举动。这些封闭式基金自身的广泛折扣也可能吸引这种关注。因此，关注这些类型的封闭式基金比试图猜测下一个激进投资目标更能从这些事件中获益。</p>
<p><strong>这 9.6% 收益的 “人工智能基金” 便宜（并将在这个春天引起关注）</strong></p>
<p>还记得人工智能吗？感觉这项革命性技术在伊朗战争的头条新闻中被遗忘了。但它确实存在——每天都在悄然融入经济中的各个业务。</p>
<p>削减成本。提高生产力。产生新线索。</p>
<p>与此同时，人工智能的受益者——无论是这项技术的供应商还是利用它来简化业务的公司——由于地缘政治的头条新闻而被抛弃。这包括我为从人工智能革命中获利而推荐的四个顶级封闭式基金。</p>
<p>在我写这篇文章时，这些基金的平均收益率为 <strong>8.7%</strong>，其中收益最高的基金的收益率为 <strong>活泼的 9.6%!</strong></p>
<p>这四个基金都是绝佳的便宜货，因为头条新闻将投资者的注意力吸引到石油上。但这种情况不会持续。购买这四个基金的时机就是现在。<strong>点击这里，我将告诉你更多关于这些 8.7% 收益者的信息，并提供一份免费的特别报告，揭示它们的名称和代码</strong> <strong>。</strong></p>
<h5>另见：</h5>
<p> 沃伦·巴菲特的股息股票</p>
<p> 股息增长股票：25 位贵族</p>
<p> 未来的股息贵族：接近竞争者</p>
<p>此处表达的观点和意见是作者的观点和意见，并不一定反映纳斯达克公司的观点。</p>

标普全球公用事业 ETF - iShares

SABA

公用事业 ETF - Vanguard

GAMI

GUT-C

<p>目前封闭式基金（CEFs）的激进投资者情况涉及 GAMCO Investors 和 Saba Capital Management，重点关注基金折扣的潜在变化。GAMCO 旨在将其 Gabelli Utility Trust（GUT）的副总裁任命为 Saba 的董事会成员。GUT 的收益率为 10%，表现强劲，但落后于其基准。它的交易价格高于净资产价值（NAV），给投资者带来了风险。文章建议由于其溢价和表现不佳，GUT 应被出售，同时质疑 GAMCO 的激进投资策略在改善 Saba 基金折扣方面的有效性</p>

<p>There's an activist story shaking the CEF world right now. And no matter how it plays out, it could lead to shrinking discounts in these high-yielding funds.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>目前，CEF（封闭式基金）领域正在发生一场激进投资者的故事。不论结果如何，这可能导致这些高收益基金的折扣缩小。</p>
</div><p>We're going to break down what's happening today. Then I'm going to give you my favorite way to line yourself up for one-time events like this--an activist play, a takeover, a stock split--in your own portfolio.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我们将分析今天发生的事情。然后，我将告诉你我最喜欢的方式，以便在自己的投资组合中为这样的单次事件做好准备——激进投资、收购、股票拆分。</p>
</div><p><strong>Ackman/CP Was the Classic Activist &#34;Unlock&#34;</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>Ackman/CP 是经典的激进投资 “解锁”</strong></p>
</div><p>One of the most successful activist plays came when Bill Ackman installed veteran railroader Hunter Harrison at Canadian Pacific Railway--now <strong>Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CP)</strong>. Five years later, the stock had more than doubled:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>最成功的激进投资之一发生在比尔·阿克曼（Bill Ackman）将资深铁路人亨特·哈里森（Hunter Harrison）任命为加拿大太平洋铁路（Canadian Pacific Railway）首席执行官时——现在称为 <strong>加拿大太平洋堪萨斯城（CP）</strong>。五年后，股票价格翻了一番以上：</p>
</div><p><strong>&#34;Classic&#34; Activist Move Ignited CP</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>“经典” 激进投资举动点燃了 CP</strong></p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CP-Total-Returns.png" alt="" original-src="https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CP-Total-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>But of course, not every activist move is this successful.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但当然，并不是每个激进投资举动都如此成功。</p>
</div><p>Which brings me back to CEFs, and more specifically a faceoff between GAMCO Investors, run by well-known value investor Mario Gabelli, and Saba Capital Management, run by activist investor Boaz Weinstein.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这让我回到了 CEF，更具体地说，是 GAMCO 投资公司与激进投资者博阿兹·温斯坦（Boaz Weinstein）领导的 Saba 资本管理公司之间的对抗。</p>
</div><p>This move, which we discussed in my March 19 article, involves GAMCO aiming to put the vice-president of its <strong>Gabelli Utility Trust (GUT)</strong> on the boards of two Saba CEFs.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我们在 3 月 19 日的文章中讨论过的这一举动，涉及 GAMCO 希望将其 <strong>Gabelli Utility Trust (GUT)</strong> 的副总裁放在两个 Saba CEF 的董事会中。</p>
</div><p>That's interesting because it's a bit of a role reversal: GAMCO is more of what I'd call a traditional CEF manager, while Saba focuses more on investor activism.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这很有趣，因为这有点角色反转：GAMCO 更像是我所称的传统 CEF 管理者，而 Saba 则更专注于投资者激进主义。</p>
</div><p>The question, of course, is: Will adding GUT's influence to Saba's funds work?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>当然，问题是：将 GUT 的影响力加入 Saba 的基金是否有效？</p>
</div><p>Last week, we focused more on the Saba funds. Today I want to take a closer look at GUT, which holds major utility and pipeline stocks, like <strong>NextEra Energy (NEE)</strong>, <strong>Duke Energy (DUK)</strong> and <strong>ONEOK (OKE)</strong>, to see if it's worth our attention. Then I'll give you my updated thinking on the GAMCO/Saba situation and my preferred approach to activist moves like this.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上周，我们更关注 Saba 的基金。今天我想更仔细地看看 GUT，它持有主要的公用事业和管道股票，如 <strong>NextEra Energy (NEE)</strong>、<strong>Duke Energy (DUK)</strong> 和 <strong>ONEOK (OKE)</strong>，看看它是否值得我们关注。然后我会给你我对 GAMCO/Saba 局势的最新看法，以及我对这种激进投资举动的首选方法。</p>
</div><p>We'll start with 10%-yielding GUT, whose 10-year total return is shown in purple below.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我们将从收益率为 10% 的 GUT 开始，其 10 年总回报如下图紫色所示。</p>
</div><p><strong>GUT Gains in the Long Run--But Falls Short of Its Index</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>GUT 在长期内获利——但未能超越其基准</strong></p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Total-Returns.png" alt="" original-src="https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Total-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>In that time, GUT has earned an 8.8% annualized return. That's strong, but look at the orange line above: As a utilities fund, GUT is best benchmarked to the <strong>State Street</strong> <strong>Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLU)</strong>. And as you can see, it has lagged that ETF.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在此期间，GUT 获得了 8.8% 的年化回报。这很强劲，但看看上面的橙色线：作为一个公用事业基金，GUT 最适合与 <strong>State Street</strong> <strong>Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLU)</strong> 进行基准比较。正如你所看到的，它落后于该 ETF。</p>
</div><p>Now, in the case of CEFs, this is often <em>not</em> the fault of the fund manager; Gabelli's staff are all professional and knowledgeable about markets, after all. And while fees (1.52% of assets, to be precise) could be part of the story, many CEF fees are higher, so that's likely not the whole reason for the lag here.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>现在，在 CEF 的情况下，这通常不是基金经理的错；毕竟，Gabelli 的员工都是专业且对市场了解的。而尽管费用（具体来说是资产的 1.52%）可能是故事的一部分，但许多 CEF 的费用更高，因此这可能不是这里滞后的全部原因。</p>
</div><p>Moreover, if you look more closely at that chart, you'll see that GUT <em>did</em> outperform for a time, so maybe this is just a short-term run of bad luck?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此外，如果你更仔细地查看那张图表，你会发现 GUT 曾经确实表现优于一段时间，所以这也许只是短期的不幸？</p>
</div><p>Luckily, CEFs give us a &#34;clean&#34; indicator of management's skill without sentiment-based swings in a fund's market price. It's called the total NAV--or &#34;net asset value&#34;--return, and it's tied directly to the performance of the fund's portfolio.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>幸运的是，CEF 为我们提供了一个 “干净” 的管理技能指标，没有基于情绪的基金市场价格波动。它被称为总净资产（NAV）回报，直接与基金投资组合的表现相关。</p>
</div><p>Below we see that GUT's total NAV return (in orange) did outrun its market price-based return (in purple), but still came up short of the benchmark's 162% return:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>下面我们看到，GUT 的总 NAV 回报（橙色）确实超越了其基于市场价格的回报（紫色），但仍然未能达到基准的 162% 回报：</p>
</div><p><strong>Portfolio Return Improves, But Still Falls Short</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>投资组合回报改善，但仍然落后</strong></p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-NAV-Returns.png" alt="" original-src="https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-NAV-Returns.png"/></p>
<p>That underperformance is one risk with GUT. The other? The fund trades at an incredibly high premium to NAV--83%, to be exact. Moreover, that premium has varied widely, sometimes topping 100%. The risk here, of course, is that this huge premium collapses. Even a drop to a still-high level of, say, 50%, could entail significant losses for investors, regardless of what management does.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这种表现不佳是 GUT 的一个风险。另一个风险？该基金的交易价格与 NAV 之间的溢价极高——确切地说是 83%。而且，这个溢价波动很大，有时超过 100%。这里的风险当然是，这个巨大的溢价会崩溃。即使降到仍然很高的水平，比如 50%，也可能给投资者带来重大损失，无论管理层做什么。</p>
</div><p>In fact, that's more or less what happened in mid-2024, when GUT's premium cratered from around 117% to 52% in four months. The result was a 14% drop in its total return based on market price, even though its total NAV return jumped 27% in that span:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>事实上，这大致就是在 2024 年中期发生的事情，当时 GUT 的溢价在四个月内从约 117% 崩溃至 52%。结果是基于市场价格的总回报下降了 14%，尽管其总 NAV 回报在此期间跃升了 27%：</p>
</div><p><strong>GUT's Unique Risk: Posting Losses While Its Portfolio Gains</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>GUT 的独特风险：在其投资组合获利时出现亏损</strong></p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-2024.png" alt="" original-src="https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-2024.png"/></p>
<p>This suggests GUT's market price performance is at risk due to today's higher premium. And even if the fund's team can beat the index on a NAV basis, investors may still lose. So to sum up, I see GUT as a sell now: first because its premium is too high and second because it's been underperforming on both a NAV and market-price basis.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这表明，由于今天更高的溢价，GUT 的市场价格表现面临风险。即使基金团队在 NAV 基础上能够超越基准，投资者仍可能遭受损失。因此，总结一下，我认为 GUT 现在是一个卖出：首先，因为它的溢价太高，其次，因为它在 NAV 和市场价格基础上都表现不佳。</p>
</div><p><strong>But What About That Activist Play?</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>但激进投资举动呢？</strong></p>
</div><p>Now let's go back to GAMCO's move to put GUT's vice-president on the boards of two Saba funds: the <strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund II (SABA)</strong> and the <strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund (BRW)</strong>. The pitch is that this will help turn these funds' discounts--both around 13.5% as I write this--into premiums.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>现在让我们回到 GAMCO 将 GUT 的副总裁放在两个 Saba 基金董事会的举动：<strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund II (SABA)</strong> 和 <strong>Saba Capital Income &amp; Opportunities Fund (BRW)</strong>。这个提议是，这将有助于将这两个基金的折扣——目前都在 13.5% 左右——转变为溢价。</p>
</div><p>But will it? Let's stack up GUT's performance with these two funds:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但会成功吗？让我们将 GUT 的表现与这两个基金进行比较：</p>
</div><p><strong>NAV, Market Price Again Tell 2 Different Stories</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>NAV 和市场价格再次讲述两个不同的故事</strong></p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Saba-Funds.png" alt="" original-src="https://contrarianoutlook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUT-Saba-Funds.png"/></p>
<p>The top two charts compare GUT (in purple), SABA (in orange), and BRW (in blue) over the last five years. In the top one, we see that GUT has done better than SABA and worse than BRW on a market-price basis. Meantime, GUT has clearly outperformed on a total NAV return basis.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上面的两个图表比较了过去五年 GUT（紫色）、SABA（橙色）和 BRW（蓝色）的表现。在第一个图中，我们看到 GUT 在市场价格基础上表现优于 SABA，但劣于 BRW。同时，GUT 在总 NAV 回报基础上明显超越了。</p>
</div><p>This divergence tells us two things: 1) GUT investors can't always expect the fund's returns in the market to flow to them in full. 2) GUT's management acumen could, in fact, give the Saba funds a boost.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这种差异告诉我们两件事：1）GUT 投资者不能总是期待基金的市场回报完全流向他们。2）GUT 的管理才能实际上可能会给 Saba 基金带来提升。</p>
</div><p>But there's another factor at play here.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但这里还有另一个因素在起作用。</p>
</div><p>And that is the simple fact that these are very different funds. GUT, as mentioned, holds comparatively steady utility stocks. Saba's funds, meantime, hold more speculative assets, such as SABA's position in Alternative Capital Investments Fund III LP (a private fund focused on litigation finance) and the crypto-focused <strong>Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETCG)</strong>, which is held by SABA and BRW.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>那就是这些基金之间存在的简单事实。这些基金非常不同。正如前面提到的，GUT 持有相对稳定的公用事业股票。而 Saba 的基金则持有更多投机性资产，例如 SABA 在 Alternative Capital Investments Fund III LP（一个专注于诉讼融资的私募基金）中的头寸，以及 SABA 和 BRW 持有的以加密货币为重点的 <strong>Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETCG)</strong>。</p>
</div><p>That's a much different proposition than running a utility-focused fund like GUT, and it tells us that even if GAMCO is successful here, it may not benefit investors in SABA or BRW.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这与经营一个以公用事业为重点的基金如 GUT 的提议截然不同，这告诉我们，即使 GAMCO 在这里取得成功，也可能不会惠及 SABA 或 BRW 的投资者。</p>
</div><p><strong>How I Prefer to Play Activist Moves</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>我偏好的激进投资策略</strong></p>
</div><p>Rather than try to predict activist battles that are already in motion, we aim to get ahead of them by owning the kinds of investments activists target in the first place.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>与其试图预测已经在进行中的激进投资斗争，我们的目标是通过拥有激进投资者最初瞄准的投资类型来抢先一步。</p>
</div><p>One way to do that is to focus on equity CEFs trading at discounts and managed with an eye toward value. <strong>Central Securities Corporation (CET)</strong>, for example, aims to own shares of undervalued companies generating strong cash flows.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>实现这一目标的一种方法是关注以折扣交易的股票封闭式基金，并以价值为导向进行管理。例如，<strong>中央证券公司 (CET)</strong> 旨在持有产生强劲现金流的被低估公司的股票。</p>
</div><p>Those include <strong>Amazon.com (AMZN)</strong>, which is cutting costs due to AI and reporting strong sales growth, but has still lagged many of the other Magnificent 7 tech stocks.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些公司包括 <strong>亚马逊 (AMZN)</strong>，它因人工智能而削减成本并报告强劲的销售增长，但仍落后于其他许多 “七大科技巨头”。</p>
</div><p>These kinds of CEFs offer upside, high--and growing--dividends (CET yields 5.4% today) and value (the fund trades at a roughly 15% discount).</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些类型的封闭式基金提供上涨空间、高且不断增长的股息（CET 当前收益率为 5.4%）和价值（该基金以大约 15% 的折扣交易）。</p>
</div><p>The kicker? The kinds of stocks CET holds are most likely to attract an activist, a takeover offer or other move that could unlock value. These CEFs' own wide discounts could also attract that kind of attention. That makes focusing on CEFs like these a better way to gain from these kinds of events than trying to guess the next activist target.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>关键在于？CET 持有的股票最有可能吸引激进投资者、收购要约或其他可能解锁价值的举动。这些封闭式基金自身的广泛折扣也可能吸引这种关注。因此，关注这些类型的封闭式基金比试图猜测下一个激进投资目标更能从这些事件中获益。</p>
</div><p><strong>These 9.6%-Paying &#34;AI Funds&#34; Are Cheap (and Set to Grab Attention This Spring)</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>这 9.6% 收益的 “人工智能基金” 便宜（并将在这个春天引起关注）</strong></p>
</div><p>Remember AI? It feels like this revolutionary tech has been lost in the Iran War headlines. But it's very much out there--quietly blending itself into businesses across the economy every single day.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>还记得人工智能吗？感觉这项革命性技术在伊朗战争的头条新闻中被遗忘了。但它确实存在——每天都在悄然融入经济中的各个业务。</p>
</div><p>Cutting costs. Boosting productivity. Generating new leads.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>削减成本。提高生产力。产生新线索。</p>
</div><p>At the same time, shares of AI <em>beneficiaries</em>--both suppliers of this tech and companies using it to streamline their businesses--have been cast aside due to geopolitical headlines. That includes my 4 top CEFs for profiting from the AI revolution.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>与此同时，人工智能的受益者——无论是这项技术的供应商还是利用它来简化业务的公司——由于地缘政治的头条新闻而被抛弃。这包括我为从人工智能革命中获利而推荐的四个顶级封闭式基金。</p>
</div><p>As I write this, these funds pay <strong>an 8.7% yield</strong> on average, with the highest payer of the bunch paying <strong>a sprightly 9.6%!</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在我写这篇文章时，这些基金的平均收益率为 <strong>8.7%</strong>，其中收益最高的基金的收益率为 <strong>活泼的 9.6%!</strong></p>
</div><p>All 4 are terrific bargains as the headlines draw investors' attention to oil. But that won't last. The time to buy these 4 funds is now. <strong>Click here and I'll tell you more about these 8.7% payers and give you a free Special Report revealing their names and tickers</strong> <strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这四个基金都是绝佳的便宜货，因为头条新闻将投资者的注意力吸引到石油上。但这种情况不会持续。购买这四个基金的时机就是现在。<strong>点击这里，我将告诉你更多关于这些 8.7% 收益者的信息，并提供一份免费的特别报告，揭示它们的名称和代码</strong> <strong>。</strong></p>
</div><h5>Also see:</h5>
<div class="lb-trans"><h5>另见：</h5>
</div><p> Warren Buffett Dividend Stocks</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p> 沃伦·巴菲特的股息股票</p>
</div><p> Dividend Growth Stocks: 25 Aristocrats</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p> 股息增长股票：25 位贵族</p>
</div><p> Future Dividend Aristocrats: Close Contenders</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p> 未来的股息贵族：接近竞争者</p>
</div><p>The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此处表达的观点和意见是作者的观点和意见，并不一定反映纳斯达克公司的观点。</p>
</div>

如何在激进投资者搅动封闭式基金时获利并获取高额股息