Samuel Corum/Getty Images News
Some software companies, such as Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Oracle (NYSE:ORCL), stand to benefit from higher free cash flow due to some of the elements of U.S. President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," according to Evercore ISI.
一些軟體公司，如微軟（NASDAQ:MSFT）和甲骨文（NYSE:ORCL），可能因川普的「One Big Beautiful Bill」而受益於更高的自由現金流，根據 Evercore ISI。
"We believe that the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' could deliver a stealth FCF tailwind to profitable software companies, thanks to favorable changes in tax treatment for R&D and capital expenditures," said Evercore analysts, led by Kirk Materne. "Based on our analysis, the companies that stand to benefit most are those with high R&D intensity and capex levels and that are currently paying meaningful cash taxes."
Evercore 分析師 Kirk Materne 表示，「One Big Beautiful Bill」可能為獲利軟體公司帶來隱性自由現金流優勢，源於研發和資本支出的有利稅務變動。受益最大的公司是研發強度和資本支出高、 且支付顯著現金稅者。
Microsoft is estimated to receive an $11B increase in free cash flow, or $1.50 per share, according to Evercore. Oracle's free cash flow could rise by $3.3B, or $1.12 per share.
Evercore 估計微軟自由現金流將增加 110 億美元（每股 1.50 美元），甲骨文則增加 33 億美元（每股 1.12 美元）。
"The average benefit across software names paying cash taxes is roughly 9%, largely due to the more favorable R&D treatment ... It's also worth noting that these are tax accounting changes, not financial accounting, and largely based on tax benefits related to R&D and bonus depreciation being pulled forward," Materne said.
Materne 指出，支付現金稅的軟體公司平均受益約 9%，主要因更有利的研發稅務處理。這些是稅務會計變動，非財務會計，且基於研發和獎勵折舊的稅務優惠提前。
The bill includes the reinstatement of expensing for domestic research and development. It also includes the return of 100% of bonus depreciation for qualified capital expenditures put into service from 2025 through 2029.
該法案恢復國內研發費用化，並在2025至2029年實施合格資本支出的100%獎勵折舊。
"The net impact is an additional cash tax savings of 80% of the 2025 R&D expense," Evercore noted. "On the capex side, the 'bonus depreciation' seen on capex was being phased down since 2022, whereby in 2025, 40% of capex could be deducted immediately for cash tax purposes, while the remaining 60% was amortized over the life of the assets. As a result of OBBB, the entire capex spend will see the full 100% 'bonus depreciation' in year 1."
Evercore 指出，淨影響為額外現金稅節省達 2025 年研發費用的 80%。資本支出方面，獎勵折舊自 2022 年逐步減少；2025 年原僅 40%可立即扣除，其餘 60%分攤。OBBB 實施後，全部資本支出將在首年享受 100%獎勵折舊。
Microsoft and Oracle are among the software names set to benefit the most due to high capex. Evercore estimates their capital expenditures at $69.7B and $23.6B, respectively, for 2025. Much of this capex is related to artificial intelligence and data center buildouts.
微軟和甲骨文因高資本支出受益最大，Evercore 估計其 2025 年資本支出分別為 697 億美元和 236 億美元，主要用於人工智慧和資料中心建設。
Evercore rates Microsoft at Outperform and increased its price target on the stock to $515 from $500. Oracle, which is also rated at Outperform, had its price target increased to $215 from $180.
Evercore 給予微軟「優於大盤」評級，目標價從 500 美元調升至 515 美元；甲骨文同為「優於大盤」，目標價從 180 美元升至 215 美元。
What's more, as corporations across an array of sectors receive these benefits, Evercore expects more investments into AI and tech as a whole.
隨著更多產業公司受益，Evercore 預期整體 AI 和科技投資將增加。
More on Microsoft and Oracle
- Microsoft: Risks That The Market Does Not Yet See
- Microsoft: Time For Trimming (Rating Downgrade)
- Microsoft: Cloud Pointing To Market Cap Convergence With Alphabet
- Oracle sees price target raised at Jefferies amid 'mega deals' accelerating growth
- Oracle is said to offer big discounts to U.S. government on software
Comments (36)
Have a tip? Submit confidentially to our News team. Found a factual error? Report here.
Google 也應受益
亞馬遜2024財年資本支出830億美元，研發支出880億美元。
法案糟透了。富人變富卻無益，毫無必要。科技公司如微軟資金充裕，不需減稅。但政府只會浪費稅收。總之是災難。
若由你制定稅制，會如何平衡全球競爭力、就業率、GDP 增長與創新？
不工作自由派的災難！
企業是美國經濟的引擎。減稅時應以企業稅為首要之務。
我與民主黨的主要分歧在於企業稅政策。提高或維持高企業稅會阻礙經濟成長、減少高技能就業，並促使企業採取避稅手段。例如高州稅常導致企業進行財務操作或將員工遷至低稅地區，這類受稅率影響的戰略決策往往損害產品品質。波音公司就是典型案例：為降低州稅將製造遷至南卡羅來納州，最終對企業與公眾皆造成負面影響。Scandinavian countries, known for high taxes, actually have considerably lower corporate taxes than any company based in California or New York does. Clearly they want to keep Ikea and Spotify headquartered in Sweden, and are happy to collect 20% rather than the 30-odd percent in high-tax states including the 21% federal tax rate. Plus, from a tax collection efficiency standpoint, it's far wiser to tax income or goods than corporations. I'd rather see a 50% highest bracket federal tax rate (so 25% for federal long-term capital gains) than a high corporate tax rate.
北歐國家公司稅僅20%，低於加州或紐約的30%以上，旨在留住宜家等企業。徵收所得稅或商品稅更高效，寧可設50%最高所得稅率（25%長期資本利得稅）而非高公司稅。
公司稅最應最小化，資本利得稅次之。高資本利得稅會讓前1%拋售股票，引發暴跌。50%個人所得稅雖不佳，但破壞性較小。As far as personal income taxes are concerned, I favor a flat tax rate that everyone pays, with personal exemptions and most deductions eliminated. Only a modest mortgage interest deduction, charitable donations, and 401K deductions should be allowed. This way, everyone has skin in the game, which might in turn impart some sanity into government spending.
支持統一稅率，取消多數減免，僅保留房貸利息、慈善捐贈和退休儲蓄扣除。人人參與可約束政府支出。
統一稅率不可行，需削減社福或醫保，增加赤字傷害老弱群體。同意移除多數減免，但批評農業補貼等是政治浪費。Capital gains is tough for me. I really like that we halve long-term capital gains at a federal level. Most countries don't do that. Encouraging buy-and-hold investing and taxing trading/speculation at the rate of income to me makes sense. Wealth taxes are also bad for this reason - taxing unrealized capital gains leads to a lot of bad incentives and outcomes for the market as you mentioned. For most people, invested capital is already taxed at least once before any equities are bought. However, rich people could avoid any taxation if not for capital gains. Maybe we have it about right currently?
資本利得稅棘手。支持減半長期資本利得稅以鼓勵長期投資。財富稅不佳，徵稅未實現收益有害。當前設置可能合理。
統一稅率需收支平衡。取消多數減免使收入全應稅。取消福利給能工作者，提高最低工資。降低公司稅可保就業，增加稅基。
支持提高最低工資減少企業福利。見過因低工資不工作者。問題在紅州，低工資加福利阻礙就業。The health care problem is a complete mess in this country - we have the world's best quality health care and the developed world's worst health care system. A lot of people choose not to work, or work very few hours so they can still qualify for Medicaid. Then a bunch of working-class people barely see a doctor because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but have really bad/no health insurance. That was the case for us growing up for a few years.
醫療系統混亂，質量優但系統劣。許多為醫療補助不工作。工薪階層難就醫因保險差。
作為獨立政策，我反對提高最低工資。只有在降低企業稅和取消福利與食品券的條件下，我才支持提高最低工資。
你的觀點偏自由主義。我部分認同自由主義，但政府政策上更傾向技術官僚立場。以基礎科研為例，這類項目需要大型企業或政府資助（少數來自私人慈善）。企業思維比政客更長遠，但政府優勢在於無需五到七年內回報。單此項就為 GDP 貢獻數兆美元，長期效益顯著。
共和黨與自由意志黨的原則高度重疊。由於美國沒有可行的自由意志黨，共和黨將贏得他們的許多選票。Back in the mid-1980's, I knew some people who were trying to draw new members to the Libertarian Party in Dallas. Since they were all wack jobs, it was clear that the party wasn't going to gain much traction. Adding in the similarity with Republicanism, their doesn't seem to be a solid niche for the Libertarians. The only opening the Libertarians might get is if the Republicans drift to the far right and the Libertarians have strong leadership that is capable of seizing the opportunity to become the centrist party.
1980年代中期，我在達拉斯認識一些試圖招募自由黨新成員的人。由於成員素質不佳，該黨難獲支持。加上與共和黨理念相近，自由黨缺乏明確定位。唯一機會是若共和黨極右傾，而自由黨出現強勢領導，趁機轉型為中間派政黨。You have a good point on corporate versus government R&D. However, the differences you outlined are a post-cold war phenomenon. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, a large amount of R&D spend in the USA was funded by the department of defense, so large corporations could afford to take a long-term view. The funding pipeline was significantly reduced after the cold war ended. In turn, the new need to fund a larger percentage of R&D internally drove corporate executives to shift their focus on shorter term results.
企業與政府研發差異確屬冷戰後現象。柏林圍倒塌前，美國大量研發經費來自國防部，企業得以長期佈局。冷戰結束後資金銳減，企業須自籌更高比例研發支出，導致高層轉向追求短期成果。
你說得對，但我不確定今日共和黨除了激怒自由派和推行無財源減稅外還有什麼原則。國家確實需要某種第三勢力，但現存兩大第三政黨都充斥怪人。記得自由黨辯論時，他們因蓋瑞·強森支持駕照制度而噓他。如今綠黨更糟—他們連環保議題都做不好，還明顯與克里姆林宮關係曖昧。I have my issues with Rand Paul on vaccinations and his tendency to defend Putin and other brutal dictators, but I do wish him or someone similar actually led the Libertarian Party. There's a big opening to be fiscally responsible (i.e. work towards a balanced budget), fight back against tariffs and counter-productive regulations, cut subsidies, defend civil/personal liberties, and actually build an efficient government rather than the inefficient DOGE insanity. I could definitely see myself supporting such a party.
我有意見，例如蘭德·保羅在疫苗議題的立場，以及他為普丁等獨裁者辯護的傾向。但我仍希望他或類似人物能領導自由意志黨。當前存在重要契機：推動財政責任（如平衡預算）、抵制關稅與弊大於利的法規、削減補貼、捍衛公民/個人自由，並建立高效政府而非低效的瘋狂政策。這樣的政黨確實可能獲得我的支持。Yep, the list of inventions that came out of DARPA and similar groups is quite something to say the least. Post-Cold War seems right for the cut-off as well. The good news is that venture capital boomed after the Cold War in particular, and that has led to a lot of long-term investing. The AI boom that we're heavily invested in has a lot to do with some companies (NVIDIA in particular) and venture capital that have a long-term vision. Plus, government-funded research grants and our ability to attract really bright people to immigrate here were important as well.
確實，DARPA 等機構催生的發明清單令人驚嘆。冷戰後作為分水嶺也合理。好消息是風投在冷戰後蓬勃發展，促成許多長期投資。我們深度參與的 AI 熱潮，關鍵在於輝達等具長遠眼光的企業與風投。此外，政府研究補助與吸引頂尖人才移民的能力亦至關重要。
共和黨的基本原則是財政責任、維護憲法、法律與秩序及個人責任。兩黨都有觀點扭曲的個體。
你犯了錯誤類比。民主黨哪裡有像川普這樣的人物？偏激觀點確實存在，但並非來自高層。那些原則對共和黨而言只是表面文章，川普及其政府全數違背。
共和黨基本原則為財政責任、維護憲法、法律與秩序及個人責任。川普財政不負責任，意圖建立君主制；其國會暴動反法律與秩序。
我同意。 川普無疑是個名義共和黨人。
特朗普獨一無二，民主黨雖無類似人物，卻非盡皆聖人。 許多民主黨政策已然扭曲，例如福利制度。 其黨派主張如綠色能源欠缺理念基礎，僅為討好新興產業以獲取金主與選票。One of the reasons why Trump won the 2024 election is that Never-Trump Republicans like me saw Kamala Harris as a worse choice. Even in deep blue New Jersey, although Kamala won the state, Trump won more counties than Kamala (12 versus 9 respectively). Moreover, Kamala won by a much smaller margin compared to Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020.
特朗普贏得2024年大選，部分因反特朗普共和黨人視賀錦麗為更糟選擇。 即便在深藍的紐澤西州，賀錦麗雖贏得該州，特朗普卻拿下更多縣份（12比9）。 相較希拉蕊2016年與拜登2020年的勝幅，賀錦麗領先差距大幅縮小。
在美國政治中，「名義上的共和黨員」（RINO）是共和黨內的貶稱，指被視為對黨忠誠度不足或意識形態不符的黨員。類似用語早在 1900 年代初便已出現，而首字母縮寫 RINO 則於 1990 年代開始普及。
我非共和黨亦非民主黨：「米老鼠當總統！」除特朗普外皆可。
川普關稅法令展現君主統治與違憲例證。www.livemint.com/...
川普在2009年前是註冊民主黨員。他轉換黨派實因商人本性，視此為通往總統大位的途徑。其行為更包含漠視憲法精神、罔顧法律秩序，並向特定群體傳遞「困境非其過錯」之訊號，違背共和黨強調的自我責任原則。此外，他能否落實財政保守主義亦存疑。凡此種種，川普實為共和黨名義黨員的教科書範例。
我曾與你理念相同，直到2024年。 2016年投希拉蕊，2020年投拜登。 但民主黨提名賀錦麗競選總統，我認為她比特朗普更差。 這就是我的看法，結果所有反特朗普陣營的朋友也都投了特朗普。 我住在新澤西州共和黨占優的郡，儘管鄰近特朗普國家高爾夫俱樂部，2016年本郡投希拉蕊，2020年投拜登，2024年卻轉向特朗普。 值得注意的是，本鎮教育程度遠高全國平均（73%成人擁有學士以上學位），而特朗普成功贏得了這群選民。
同意川普是教科書級的投機分子和名義共和黨員（RINO），所有批評都精準到位。 諷刺的是，川普及 MAGA 支援者竟將所有異議者都貼上 RINO 標籤——試問彭斯拒絕引發憲政危機、不在敗選後摧毀共和國，就該被稱 RINO？ 荒謬至極。I think this mentality lasts beyond Trump - while he is a singular toxic character of sorts that appeals to some in this country, the cu1t plus desire for a strongman is likely to run Republican politics. Kamala Harris had her faults, but no cu1t following or authoritarian tendencies - in fact, Dems don't want her to run again after her clear loss to the worst president ever. That's a big difference.
我認為這種心態會延續到川普之後——儘管他是個獨具毒性的存在，吸引部分美國民眾，但這種個人崇拜與強人渴望將持續主導共和黨政治。賀錦麗雖有缺點，但沒有個人崇拜或威權傾向——事實上，民主黨在她慘敗給史上最差總統後已無意讓她再選。這點差異很大。
我寧願投票給米老鼠總統，高飛當選也無所謂。
你的願望已實現。2024總統大選基本就是米老鼠與高飛的對決。
我認為更像是羅賓漢的約翰王子而非高飛狗，大眾選了約翰王子。
佩佩樂皮尤對決奧莉薇，大眾選擇奧莉薇。
微軟持續裁員...
現金直達利潤
Evercore 表示一項重大法案將提升微軟和甲骨文的自由現金流
'One Big Beautiful Bill' should boost free cash flow for Gates, Catz, Bezos, Fink, Dimon and other various one percenters: Me
一個大型美麗法案將增加蓋茨、卡茨、貝佐斯、芬克、迪蒙和其他頂尖收入者的自由現金流。
這些人的公司僱用了成千上萬的美國人並繳納稅款。
So quit being jealous, you are free to start your own company and become a billionaire.
別再嫉妒了；你可以創辦自己的公司成為億萬富翁。