2008年金融危机中，百年投行贝尔斯登用100:1的杠杆豪赌次级抵押贷款，当房地产泡沫破裂时，72小 时内就从华尔街神坛跌落，最终以2.36亿美元的"白菜价"被收购。更触目惊心的是普通投资者的案例： 2020年，一位投资者通过杠杆把200万本金炒到1800万市值，却在随后的下跌中不断加仓，最终不到三 年亏光近千万，连本金都化为乌有。 这些悲剧的根源在于，杠杆彻底改变了波动的性质。没有杠杆时，50%的暴跌只是账面浮亏，只要企业 基本面不变，时间可能还会带来反弹机会；但加了1倍杠杆后，50%的跌幅就意味着本金归零，连翻身 的机会都没有。就像给自行车装火箭筒，看似跑得更快，一旦遇到坑洼就会粉身碎骨。行为金融学研究 发现，杠杆会放大投资者的损失厌恶心理，在波动中做出"割肉在底部"的非理性决策，这也是为什么巴 菲特反复强调："投资的第一条准则是不要亏损，第二条准则是永远不要忘记第一条。" 来源：美股研究社 当波动来袭时，两种投资者的境遇形成了鲜明对比： 有人盯着暴跌的K线图彻夜难眠，而另一些人却在认真阅读持仓企业的年报，在股价腰斩时反而加仓 ——这两种结局的分野，不在于预测波动的能力，而在于应对波动的智慧。价值投资的核 ...

看透企业，波动只是海浪，巴菲特曾说："市场短期是投票机，长期是称重机。" 真正的价值投资者都明白，股价的日常波动就像海浪，而企业 的内在价值才是船的龙骨。1988年，巴菲特在观察可口可乐52年后大举买入，彼时市场正经历1987年股灾的余波，股价动荡不安。但他看到的 不是涨跌，而是"新可乐"事件中消费者对传统配方的疯狂捍卫——这瞬间验证了品牌护城河的坚固。随后三十年里，可口可乐股价历经无数次 暴跌，甚至有过20年零增长的低迷期，但巴菲特持有至今，仅股息分红就早已收回初始投资的12.99亿美元。 这背后的逻辑简单而深刻：优质企业会通过持续的产品创新、稳定的盈利增长自我造血。标普500指数的历史数据更印证了这一点——自1957年 以来，尽管经历过12次熊市，但其年化回报率仍达10.26%，48个上涨年份远多于20个下跌年份。那些真正穿越周期的企业，就像礁石上的松 柏，短期的狂风暴雨只会让根系更牢固。投资者若能像了解自家冰箱里的食物那样熟悉企业的产品、研发和现金流，就不会被短期价格波动吓 得惊慌失措。毕竟，你见过哪家真正的好公司因为股市跌了几天就停产了？ 拒绝杠杆，杠杆就像给投资装上了扳机，平时可能加速收益，一旦遇上 ...

Core Viewpoint - The discussion around Coca-Cola's sweetener source has intensified following former President Trump's comments advocating for the use of real cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in Coca-Cola products sold in the U.S. [1][3][5] Group 1: Trump's Comments and Company Responses - Trump expressed gratitude towards Coca-Cola's management for agreeing to consider using cane sugar in their products, labeling it a positive move [1][3] - Coca-Cola acknowledged Trump's enthusiasm for their brand and indicated that they would soon share more information about innovative products in their lineup [3] - PepsiCo's CEO stated that they would cater to consumer preferences for sugar and natural ingredients if there is a clear demand [3][5] Group 2: Historical Context of Sweetener Use - The switch from cane sugar to HFCS in Coca-Cola began in 1984, driven by cost considerations and the availability of cheap corn in the U.S. [5][19] - HFCS became popular due to government subsidies for corn production, which lowered its production costs compared to cane sugar [5][19] - Consumer calls for a return to cane sugar have persisted since the initial switch, reflecting a growing awareness and concern over ingredient sourcing [5][19] Group 3: Economic Implications of Sweetener Choices - The cost of HFCS is significantly lower than that of cane sugar, with estimates suggesting that switching to cane sugar could increase product costs by 10% to 15% [19][26] - In 1985, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo anticipated substantial savings from using HFCS, with Coca-Cola estimating a savings of approximately $30 million annually [26] - The market for HFCS surged, with its usage in the U.S. expected to increase by 500,000 tons annually following the switch [26] Group 4: Consumer Sentiment and Advocacy - Consumer backlash against the use of HFCS has been notable, with some advocating for a return to cane sugar due to health concerns associated with HFCS [31] - The discussion around sweeteners has gained traction, with political figures also voicing opposition to HFCS, linking it to health issues like childhood obesity [31] - Over the past two decades, the usage of HFCS in the U.S. has been gradually declining, while the consumption of cane sugar has been on the rise [31]