《金融时报》|巴菲特自1979年便知之事
先生：从史蒂夫·约翰逊的大局观文章《老板薪酬计算方式引热议》（《金融时报》财富管理版，4 月 16 日）来看，不少投资者和行业协会（如英国保险协会）已经认识到，每股收益增长、股东总回报乃至净资产收益率，作为设定薪酬所依据的管理绩效衡量标准，均有缺陷，因此转而采用已动用资本回报率。
Sir, From Steve Johnson’s Big Picture article “Debate starts on the way bosses’ pay is calculated” (FTfm, April 16), it appears that a number of investors and industry associations such as the Association of British Insurers have recognised the fact that earnings per share growth, total shareholder return and even return on equity are flawed as measures of managerial performance on which remuneration should be based, and have alighted upon return on capital employed.
我很难理解，既然伯克希尔·哈撒韦 1979 年董事长致股东的信中已经写明：“衡量管理层经济绩效的首要标准，是投入的股权资本实现了高回报率（不借助过度杠杆、会计把戏等手段），而不是每股收益的持续增长。”那么，这为什么还会被当作什么新发现。
It is hard for me to see why this should be regarded as a revelation given this statement in Berkshire Hathaway’s chairman’s letter for 1979: “The primary test of managerial economic performance is the achievement of a high earnings rate on equity capital employed (without undue leverage, accounting gimmickry etc) and not the achievement of consistent gains in earnings per share.”
那么，相比这些英国机构投资者，我们现在凭什么要听沃伦·巴菲特的？毕竟，连他们中的一部分人也花了 33 年才醒悟过来。
But then why should we listen to Warren Buffett now compared with these UK institutional investors? After all, it has only taken 33 years for even some of them to wise up.
Terry Smith
Terry Smith
Financial Times
Financial Times