而且，从表面上来看，按上市价计算，Zynga公司70亿美元的估价未免过高，这也属实。70亿美元，已经相当于该公司过去一年营收额的7倍，净收入的95倍。一方面，按多数标准衡量，这不免有些荒唐，因为不管怎么说，标准普尔指数（S&P）500强公司的股票交易价都是其赢利的14倍。另一方面，互联网股票投资者通常能心甘情愿地接受对有些网络股票的过高估价。亚马逊公司（Amazon）的市赢率就为95，但有些分析师预测说，该公司的每股赢利将降至2007年以来的最低点。而且，与LinkedIn相比，Zynga的市赢率也相对较低。前者的市赢率高达400，尚在健康范围之内。而Groupon过去一年内则损失惨重。

    今天，许多市场专家对Zynga公司70亿美元的市值提出了质疑；相比之下，如果在今年夏天Zynga如日中天时就提出质疑，无疑要困难得多；那时，只有寥寥几名分析师预计Zynga市值将达200亿美元。早在今年2月，投资者们曾兴高采烈地认为，Zynga的市值将达100亿美元。当时的最新财务数据显示，其营收额要远低于最近公布的数字。

    这到底是怎么回事？有几个原因。首先，Zynga的指标显示，其发展速度放缓。最近几个季度，该公司的活跃用户持续呈下降之势。此外，其运营利润也持续震荡走低。虽然这些现象投资游戏行业投资的必然现象，，谁也不知道公司推出的下一款游戏会是什么情况，而且这一行业就赢利而言，旱的旱死，涝的涝死。Zynga的财务状况自然也逃脱不了这个规律。但是，它的表现仍然胜过其他所有不断出产热门游戏的休闲游戏公司。

    And on the face of it, it's also true that Zynga's $7 billion valuation at launch was too high. At $7 billion, Zynga was worth seven times revenue and 95 times its net income over the past 12 months. On the one hand, that's absurd by most measures. After all, the S&P 500 is trading at 14 times earnings. On the other hand, investors in Internet stocks are routinely willing to tolerate higher valuation for some web stocks. Amazon (AMZN) has a price-earnings ratio of 95, even though some analysts are predicting the company will post its lowest earnings per share since 2007. And Zynga's PE is a relative bargain compared to LinkedIn, which is just on the sane side of 400, and Groupon, which has posted a significant loss over its past 12 months.

    For many market pundits, it's somehow easier to be easier to question Zynga's $7 billion value today than it was this summer, when only a few were wagging their fingers at the prospect of a $20 billion Zynga. And back in February, investors were delighted to value Zynga at $10 billion, when the most recent financial data had revenue showed revenue well below the most recently disclosed figure.

    What happened? A couple of things. First, Zynga's metrics hinted at a slowdown. Active users have been declining in recent quarters. And operating margins have fluctuated downward. But these things are part and parcel of investing in the gaming industry, where you're only as good as your last title and profits are a feast-or-famine phenomenon. Zynga hasn't proven invulnerable to such choppy financials, but it's doing a better job than any other casual-gaming company of churning out hit after hit.

    对于Web 2.0公司而言，营收额和利润波动不定，本是寻常之事。我们来看看对Zynga和LinkedIn的营收额和运营利润进行比较的两张图。虽然Zynga的营收额增长稳定（如果其增长稍显缓慢的话，不妨看看最后一个季度的数字），但其运营利润却跟LinkedIn一样摇摆不定。过去的5个季度中，Zynga的利润始终至少是LinkedIn的3倍。

    但是，LinkedIn的股票价格却高于Zynga。原因何在？也许那是因为LinkedIn首席执行官雷德•霍夫曼摆出了一付惹人怜爱的姿态，使得该公司成了公众眼中的神话。而Zynga首席执行官马克•平克斯则被描述成了笨蛋。而且，平克斯还由于严格限制股东的投票权而饱受指责。相形之下，LinkedIn则因为采用了双重股票结构，虽然此结构也会限制股东的权利，但引发的争议却小得多。

    上述所有论证并非要说明，Zynga的股票交易价必须更高。它并不值那么多，但2011年其他多数实行同类首次公开募股的网络公司，同样也不值那么高的估价。Zynga与这些公司一样，它所面临的风险并未完全体现在股票交易价中。它们的股价将继续摇摆不定。但如果仅仅因此，根据一支股票两天内的交易情况就下断论说，这支股票的长期前景惨淡，那也未免太过荒谬。

    Zynga上市后不冷不热的股票交易价，恰恰说明它是一支高昂又颇具风险的股票。这一现象说明，市场运转正常。现在的问题是，市场是否会对其他被高估了的网络首次公开募股产生同样的影响。

    译者：朴成奎

    Volatile revenues and profit margins aren't unusual for web 2.0 companies. Look at the charts comparing Zynga's revenue and operating margin with LinkedIn. Not only Zynga's revenue growing steadily (if a bit more slowly, looking at the last quarter) but it's operating margin is just as volatile as LinkedIn's. And yet Zynga's profit margin margin is at least three times as big as LinkedIn in any of the past five quarters.

    Yet LinkedIn trades at a higher valuation. Why? Perhaps it's because LinkedIn's CEO Reid Hoffman is drawing profiles so fawning they border on an apotheosis, while Zynga's Mark Pincus is depicted as a lout. Pincus was also called out for controlling Zynga's hoarding the voting rights of shareholders. But LinkedIn employed a dual-class stock structure that also limited shareholder rights, to much less of a controversy.

    None of this is to argue that Zynga deserves to trade higher. It doesn't, but neither do most of the other web IPOs of the class of 2011. Like them, Zynga faces risks that aren't fully reflected in their trading prices. They will all be volatile, and because of that it doesn't make sense to write off a stock's long-term prospects based on two days of trading.

    Zynga's lukewarm reception is the proper response to an expensive, risky stock. It shows the market is working. Now if it would only work on other overpriced web IPOs as well.