佛罗里达大学商学院演讲实录(1998-10-15)

演讲 · 原文约 14913 词
译文与英文原文逐段对齐可在本页展开英文,也可打开发布者原址核对上下文。
打开来源正文

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

1998 年 10 月 15 日,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学商学院的演讲。这场演讲是格雷厄姆-巴菲特教学捐赠基金赞助的系列讲座中的第一场。该基金由梅森·霍金斯(1970 届佛罗里达大学校友)于 1997 年捐赠 100 万美元设立。

Buffett Lecture at the University of Florida School of Business October 15, 1998 This speech was the first in a series sponsored by the Graham-Buffett Teaching Endowment, established in 1997 by a $1 million gift from (1970 UF graduate) Mason Hawkins.

http://Tinyurl.com/c85or

http://Tinyurl.com/c85or

引言:

Introduction:

格雷厄姆-巴菲特投资课程对这个学院来说很重要,因为它能帮我们吸引到那些想要这种投资和企业管理视角的学生——这种视角已经被巴菲特先生、霍金斯先生,以及在他们之前的本杰明·格雷厄姆成功运用。这个视角非常简单,但有时却被我们大学分析中的复杂性淹没了。这个视角就是:你必须理解你所投资、所从事的企业的底层经济逻辑。你必须头脑清醒,不被大众或一时的风尚左右。你必须学习并坚持遵守纪律的商业估值原则。从长远来看,这种有纪律的方法往往能带来成功,更重要的是,能避免灾难性的失败。希望我们能在佛罗里达大学成功传递这些原则,为最优秀的学生打造一个项目,假以时日,也能吸引到最优秀的雇主。我们感谢霍金斯先生的捐赠(100 万美元),也与他今天的想法一致。梅森·霍金斯:过去 30 年来,我一直非常钦佩他。此外,他也是一个我们每个人都可以效仿的人生榜样。我很荣幸介绍我们这一生中最优秀的长期投资者…………

巴菲特(拿着麦克风):测试一下:100 万美元,200 万美元……300 万美元。我主要想说几句话,然后对我来说,最精彩的部分是回答你们的问题。我想谈谈你们心里想的事。你们的未来。

The Graham-Buffett Course sequence is important to this college because it enables us to attract students who want this perspective on investing and managing corporations—a perspective that has been successfully employed by Mr. Buffett, Mr. Hawkins and before them, Benjamin Graham. This perspective is quite simple but is sometimes lost in the complexity of our University analysis. The perspective is that you have to understand the underlying economics of the businesses that you invest in, work in. You have to be clear-eyed and not be swayed by the crowd or passing fancies of the moment. And you have to learn and stick to disciplined principles of business valuation. In the long run this disciplined approach will more often than not bring success or more importantly avoid spectacular failures. Hopefully at the University of Florida we can successfully convey those principles and create a program for the very best students and in time the very best employers as well. We thank Mr. Hawkins for his gift ($1 million) and share his thoughts today. Mason Hawkins: He is someone I have admired tremendously for the last 30 years. In addition, he is someone each of us could pattern our lives after as a role model. It is my honor to introduce our lifetime's best long-term investor…… ------------Buffett: (holds mike) Testing: One million $, two million $….three million $. I would like to say a few words primarily and then the highlight for me will be getting your questions. I want to talk about what is on your mind. Your Future

我只想用一分钟对学生们谈谈你们离开这里后的未来。因为你们会学到大量关于投资的知识,你们都有能力做得出色;你们都有足够高的智商去做好。你们都有精力和主动性去做好,否则你们就不会在这里。你们中的多数人都会如愿以偿获得成功。1

I would like to talk for just one minute to the students about your future when you leave here. Because you will learn a tremendous amount about investments, you all have the ability to do well; you all have the IQ to do well. You all have the energy and initiative to do well or you wouldn't be here. Most of you will succeed in meeting your aspirations. 1

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学给 MBA 学生的讲话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

但决定你能取得何种成就的,远不止智力和精力。我想就此简短谈两句。事实上,奥马哈有位叫皮特·基维特的人,他选人时只看三样:正直、智慧和精力。他说,如果一个人缺少前两样,后两样反而会害了他——因为要是一个人不正直,你反倒希望他既蠢又懒。我们想谈的是前两样,因为我知道你们后两样都有。你们都是 MBA 二年级的学生,对同学已足够了解。想象一下,我赋予你们一项权利——你可以买下某位同学未来一生收入的 10%。你不能选家里有富爸爸的,必须选一个靠自身本事打拼的人。我给你一小时考虑。你会给他们做智商测试,然后挑智商最高的那个吗?我觉得不会。你会选成绩最好的?精力最旺盛的?除了定量因素,你会开始寻找定性特质,因为每个人都不缺头脑和精力。你大概会选那个你最合得来的人,那个有领导力的人,那个能让他人助力自己目标的人。那个人慷慨、诚实,会把功劳归给别人。各种各样的品质。就是班上你最欣赏的那个人。然后我再加个反转:除了做多这位同学,你还得做空另一位同学。这就有趣多了。我会想放空谁?你不会选智商最低的,你会想那个让你反感的人,那个自私、贪婪、走捷径、稍微不诚实的人。当你审视左边和右边的这些品质,会发现一个有趣的现象:它们不是把橄榄球扔出 60 码的能力,不是 9.3 秒跑完 100 码的能力,也不是班上最好看的外表。左边的那些品质,只要你真想拥有,就完全可以拥有。它们是行为、性情、品格方面的品质,是可以实现的,不是你们这群人中任何人不能拥有的。而如果你看看右边那些让你反感他人的品质,没有哪一个是你必须具备的。你可以摆脱它们。在你这个年纪摆脱它们,比在我这个年纪容易得多,因为大多数行为都会变成习惯。习惯的枷锁,轻得让人感觉不到,直到它们重得让人无法挣脱。这一点毫无疑问。我在我这个年纪,甚至比我再年轻二十岁的人身上,看到过这些自我毁灭的行为模式,他们真的被这些模式困住了。他们四处行事,到处惹人反感。他们本不必如此,但到某个节点,他们几乎无法改变。但在你们这个年纪,你可以拥有任何你想拥有的习惯、任何行为模式。这仅仅取决于你选择什么。

But in determining whether you succeed there is more to it than intellect and energy. I would like to talk just a second about that. In fact, there was a guy, Pete Kiewit in Omaha, who used to say, he looked for three things in hiring people: integrity, intelligence and energy. And he said if the person did not have the first two, the later two would kill him, because if they don't have integrity, you want them dumb and lazy. We want to talk about the first two because we know you have the last two. You are all second-year MBA students, so you have gotten to know your classmates. Think for a moment that I granted you the right--you can buy 10% of one of your classmate’s earnings for the rest of their lifetime. You can't pick someone with a rich father; you have to pick someone who is going to do it on his or her own merit. And I gave you an hour to think about it. Will you give them an IQ test and pick the one with the highest IQ? I doubt it. Will you pick the one with the best grades? The most energetic? You will start looking for qualitative factors, in addition to (the quantitative) because everyone has enough brains and energy. You would probably pick the one you responded the best to, the one who has the leadership qualities, the one who is able to get other people to carry out their interests. That would be the person who is generous, honest and who gave credit to other people for their own ideas. All types of qualities. Whomever you admire the most in the class. Then I would throw in a hooker. In addition to this person you had to go short one of your classmates. That is more fun. Who do I want to go short? You wouldn't pick the person with the lowest IQ, you would think about the person who turned you off, the person who is egotistical, who is greedy, who cuts corners, who is slightly dishonest. As you look at those qualities on the left and right hand side, there is one interesting thing about them, it is not the ability to throw a football 60 yards, it is not the ability the run the 100 yard dash in 9.3 seconds, it is not being the best looking person in the class, they are all qualities that if you really want to have the ones on the left hand side, you can have them. They are qualities of behavior, temperament, character that are achievable, they are not forbidden to anybody in this group. And if you look at the qualities on the right hand side the ones that turn you off in other people, there is not a quality there that you have to have. You can get rid of it. You can get rid of it a lot easier at your age than at my age, because most behaviors are habitual. The chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too heavy to be broken. There is no question about it. I see people with these selfdestructive behavior patterns at my age or even twenty years younger and they really are entrapped by them. They go around and do things that turn off other people right and left. They don't need to be that way but by a certain point they get so they can hardly change it. But at your age you can have any habits, any patterns of behavior that you wish. It is simply a question of which you decide.

2
2

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学 MBA 班的演讲

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

如果你这样做……本·格雷厄姆环顾他钦佩的人,本·富兰克林在他之前也做过同样的事。本·格雷厄姆在十几岁时就这么做了——他观察那些他敬佩的人,然后对自己说:“我想被人敬佩,那为什么不像他们那样行事呢?”他发现,像他们那样行事并非不可能。同样地,他在反面也做了同样的事,去摒弃那些不良品质。我建议,如果你把这些品质写下来,琢磨一段时间,让它们成为习惯,那么等这一切结束时,你就会成为那个你愿意买入 10% 股份的人。而美妙之处在于,你已经 100% 拥有自己,并且一辈子都得带着这个自己。所以,你不如就努力成为那个人、那个别人眼中的你。好了,这是个简短的小布道。现在我们言归正传,聊聊你们感兴趣的话题。开始提问吧………

提问:关于日本你怎么看?你的想法是什么?

巴菲特:我的想法?我不是一个宏观派。我对自己说,伯克希尔·哈撒韦可以在日本以 1% 的利率借到 10 年期资金。1% 啊!我说,天哪,我 45 年前上过格雷厄姆的课,这辈子一直在努力干这行,也许我每年能赚到超过 1% 的收益,这似乎并非不可能。我不想去承担汇率风险,所以必须是日元计价的投资。那我得投日本房地产、日本公司之类的,而我需要做的仅仅是超过 1%。这就是我的资金成本,而且我能拿到 10 年期的资金。但到目前为止,我还没找到什么可投的。这挺有意思的。日本企业的净资产收益率很低——4% 到 5% 到 6% 左右——当你的投资标的不怎么赚钱时,作为投资者你也很难赚大钱。当然有人做到了。事实上,我有个朋友叫沃尔特·施洛斯,他和我同时在格雷厄姆那里工作。我最初买股票的方法就是买那些股价远低于营运资本的股票。这是一种非常廉价、数量化的选股方法。我称之为“烟蒂股”投资法。你走在街上,四处找烟蒂。终于看到一个,它湿漉漉的,有点恶心,但里面还剩一口可以抽。于是你捡起来,那免费的一口就是——这就是烟蒂股。你免费抽一口,然后扔掉,再找下一个。这不优雅,但行得通。那些是低回报的企业。但时间是好生意的朋友,是烂生意的敌人。如果你在烂生意里待久了,即便买得便宜,结果也是糟糕的。如果你在好生意里待久了,哪怕买入时多付了一点钱,长期持有也会得到好结果。目前我在日本发现的好生意非常少。他们的文化也许会在某些方面改变,让管理层更关注股东回报,从而提高股票收益率。但眼下,你会发现很多低回报企业,即便在日本经济繁荣时也是如此。这很惊人——他们曾经

If you did this… Ben Graham looked around at the people he admired and Ben Franklin did this before him. Ben Graham did this in his low teens and he looked around at the people he admired and he said, "I want to be admired, so why don't I behave like them?" And he found out that there was nothing impossible about behaving like them. Similarly he did the same thing on the reverse side in terms of getting rid of those qualities. I would suggest is that if you write those qualities down and think about them a while and make them habitual, you will be the one you want to buy 10% of when you are all through. And the beauty of it is that you already own 100% of yourself and you are stuck with it. So you might as well be that person, that somebody else. Well that is a short little sermon. So let's get on with what you are interested in. Let's start with questions……….. Question: What about Japan? Your thoughts about Japan? Buffett: My thoughts about Japan? I am not a macro guy. Now I say to myself Berkshire Hathaway can borrow money in Japan for 10 years at one percent. One percent! I say gee, I took Graham's class 45 years ago and I have been working hard at this all my life maybe I can earn more than 1% annually, it doesn't seem impossible. I wouldn't want to get involved in currency risk, so it would have to be Yen-denominated. I would have to be in Japanese Real Estate or Japanese companies or something of the sort and all I have to do is beat one percent. That is all the money is going to cost me and I can get it for 10 years. So far I haven't found anything. It is kind of interesting. The Japanese businesses earn very low returns on equity - 4% to 5% - 6% on equity and it is very hard to earn a lot as an investor when the business you are in doesn't earn very much money. Now some people do it. In fact, I have a friend, Walter Schloss, who worked at Graham at the same time I did. And it was the first way I went at stocks to buy stocks selling way below working capital. A very cheap, quantitative approach to stocks. I call it the cigar butt approach to investing. You walk down the street and you look around for a cigar butt someplace. Finally you see one and it is soggy and kind of repulsive, but there is one puff left in it. So you pick it up and the puff is free--it is a cigar butt stock. You get one free puff on it and then you throw it away and try another one. It is not elegant. But it works. Those are low return businesses. But time is the friend of the wonderful business; it is the enemy of the lousy business. If you are in a lousy business for a long time, you will get a lousy result even if you buy it cheap. If you are in a wonderful business for a long time, even if you pay a little bit too much going in you will get a wonderful result if you stay in a long time. I find very few wonderful businesses in Japan at present. They may change the culture in some way so that management gets more share holder responsive over there and stock returns are higher. At the present time you will find a lot of low return businesses and that was true even when the Japanese economy was booming. It is amazing; they had an

3
3

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

没有惊人公司的惊人市场。它们在业务量方面确实惊人,但实现的净资产收益率并不惊人——这一点最终反噬了它们。所以我们至今在那里按兵不动。但只要资金成本还是 1%,我们就会继续寻找机会。

问:传闻说你是长期资本管理公司(LTCM)的潜在救援买家之一,当时是怎么考虑的,你看到了什么?

巴菲特:封面是鲁珀特·默多克的那期《财富》杂志,把我们参与的前因后果都讲了,挺有意思的一个故事。我是在一个周五下午接到关于 LTCM 的紧急电话,说情况正在恶化。那些人我大部分都很熟——我在所罗门的时候,就认识他们中的绝大多数。当时那家机构正在内爆,美联储那个周末已经派人过去了。从那个周五到下一个周三,纽约联储实际上在组织救援行动,但没有动用任何联邦资金。我那段时间相当活跃,但找人联系特别费劲。周三早上我们报了一个价。我跟纽约联储的比尔·麦克多诺通了电话。我们出价 2.5 亿美元收购净资产,但在此基础上我们还会注入 37.5 亿美元——伯克希尔出 30 亿,AIG 出 7 亿,高盛出 3 亿。我们提交了报价,但限时很短,因为你在竞标 1000 亿美元仍在波动的证券时,不想把固定价格单挂太久。最后银行家们自己谈成了交易,但那段时间很有意思。整个 LTCM 事件确实令人着迷:拉里·希伦布兰德、埃里克·罗森菲尔德、约翰·梅里韦瑟,加上两位诺贝尔奖得主——这 16 个人放在一起,智商水平不输给美国任何一家企业里的 16 个人,包括微软。一个房间里聚集了如此惊人的智慧。再结合第二点:这些人都在他们操作的领域里拥有丰富的经验。他们不是一群靠卖男装赚了钱突然转行做证券的人。这 16 个人加起来,有 300 到 400 年的经验,做的正是他们现在在做的事。再加上第三个因素:他们大部分人把自己相当可观的净资产都押在了这个生意里——数亿美元的自有资金处于风险之中。超高的智商,在自己熟悉的领域里操作——结果他们基本上破产了。这对我来说绝对令人着迷。如果有天我写本书,书名就叫《为什么聪明人做蠢事》。我的合伙人说那应该是自传。不过这件事也许是个有趣的例证。他们都是非常好的人,我尊重他们,我在所罗门遇到麻烦时他们帮过我。他们绝不是坏人。但为了赚他们并不拥有、也不需要拥有的钱,他们拿自己拥有、也确实需要的东西去冒险。这纯粹是愚蠢——跟智商高低无关。如果你为了对你不重要的东西,去冒险对你重要的东西,那简直……

incredible market without incredible companies. They were incredible in terms of doing a lot of business, but they were not incredible in terms of the return on equity that they achieved and that has finally caught up with them. So we have so far done nothing there. But as long as money is 1% there, we will keep looking. Question: You were rumored to be one of the rescue buyers of Long Term Capital, what was the play there, what did you see? Buffett: The Fortune Magazine that has Rupert Murdoch on the cover. It tells the whole story of our involvement; it is kind of an interesting story. I got the really serious call about LTCM on a Friday afternoon that things were getting serious. I know those people most of them pretty well--most of them at Salomon when I was there. And the place was imploding and the FED was sending people up that weekend. Between that Friday and the following Wed. when the NY Fed, in effect, orchestrated a rescue effort but without any Federal money involved. I was quite active but I was having a terrible time reaching anybody. We put in a bid on Wednesday morning. I talked to Bill McDonough at the NY Fed. We made a bid for 250 million for the net assets but we would have put in 3 and 3/4 billion on top of that. $3 billion from Berkshire, $700 mil. from AIG and $300 million. from Goldman Sachs. And we submitted that but we put a very short time limit on that because when you are bidding on 100 billion worth of securities that are moving around, you don't want to leave a fixed price bid out there for very long. In the end the bankers made the deal, but it was an interesting period. The whole LTCM is really fascinating because if you take Larry Hillenbrand, Eric Rosenfeld, John Meriwether and the two Nobel prize winners. If you take the 16 of them, they have about as high an IQ as any 16 people working together in one business in the country, including Microsoft. An incredible amount of intellect in one room. Now you combine that with the fact that those people had extensive experience in the field they were operating in. These were not a bunch of guys who had made their money selling men’s clothing and all of a sudden went into the securities business. They had in aggregate, the 16, had 300 or 400 years of experience doing exactly what they were doing and then you throw in the third factor that most of them had most of their very substantial net worth’s in the businesses. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of their own money up (at risk), super high intellect and working in a field that they knew. Essentially they went broke. That to me is absolutely fascinating. If I ever write a book it will be called, Why Smart People Do Dumb Things. My partner says it should be autobiographical. But this might be an interesting illustration. They are perfectly decent guys. I respect them and they helped me out when I had problems at Salomon. They are not bad people at all. But to make money they didn’t have and didn’t need, they risked what they did have and what they did need. That is just plain foolish; it doesn’t matter what your IQ is. If you risk something that is important to you for something that is unimportant to you it just

4
4

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

这根本说不通。我不在乎你成功的概率是 99 比 1 还是 1000 比 1。如果你递给我一把有一百万个弹仓、里面只装了一颗子弹的枪,把它顶在你的太阳穴上,然后付钱让我扣动扳机,不管给多少钱我都不会扣。你可以任意开价,但这件事对我没有任何好处,而坏处相当清楚。然而人们在财务上却经常不假思索地这么做。沃尔特·古特曼写过一本内容很烂但书名很棒的书——《你只需要富一次》。这听起来再基本不过了。如果你年初有 1 亿美元,不使用杠杆你能赚 10%,使用杠杆在 99% 的情况下能赚 20%,到了年底你是有 1.1 亿美元还是 1.2 亿美元,有什么区别?毫无区别。如果你年底死了,编故事的人可能打错字,就算你实际有 1.2 亿,他可能写成 1.1 亿。你什么也没得到。这绝对没有任何区别。对你的家人或任何其他人也没有区别。坏的一面,特别是当你管理别人的钱时,不仅是赔光所有钱,还有耻辱、丢脸,以及面对被你赔了钱的亲朋好友。然而 16 个智商极高的人却参与了这种游戏。我认为这是疯狂的。这在一定程度上源于对某些东西的过度依赖。那些人在所罗门兄弟公司时告诉我:六西格玛事件不会碰到我们。但他们错了。历史不会告诉你未来会发生什么。他们极度依赖数学。他们认为股票的贝塔值能告诉你该股票的风险。在我看来,它对股票的风险屁用没有。西格玛值在我看来也不会告诉你破产的风险,也许现在他们也这么认为了。但我不喜欢拿他们当例子。类似的事情,以不同方式可能发生在任何一个人身上,那就是我们对某个至关重要的东西真的有盲点,因为我们知道一大堆别的东西。就像亨利·考夫曼说的:“在这种情况下一贫如洗的人有两种:一种是什么都不知道的人,另一种是什么都知道的人。”从某种角度看这很可悲。我恳请你们。我们基本上从不借钱。我即使只有 1 万美元时也从不借钱,这有什么区别呢?我在一路走来时都玩得很开心,除非遇到医疗紧急情况,我拥有 1 万还是 10 万还是 100 万其实没区别。我有点钱时做的事和有很多钱时做的事一样。如果你想想我和你的区别:我们穿的衣服差不多(我的衣服是太阳信托银行给的),吃的东西差不多——我们都去麦当劳,或者更好一点去冰雪皇后,住的房子冬天暖和夏天凉快。我们在宽屏电视上看内布拉斯加橄榄球赛。你看到的和我看到的一样。我们做所有事都一样——我们的生活并没有多大差别。唯一的不同是我们旅行的方式不一样。我能做什么是你不能做的?

doesn’t make sense. I don’t care if the odds you succeed are 99 to 1 or 1000 to 1 that you succeed. If you hand me a gun with a million chambers with one bullet in a chamber and put it up to your temple and I am paid to pull the trigger, it doesn’t matter how much I would be paid. I would not pull the trigger. You can name any sum you want, but it doesn’t do anything for me on the upside and I think the downside is fairly clear. Yet people do it financially very much without thinking. There was a lousy book with a great title written by Walter Gutman—You Only Have to Get Rich Once. Now that seems pretty fundamental. If you have $100 million at the beginning of the year and you will make 10% if you are unleveraged and 20% if you are leveraged 99 times out of a 100, what difference if at the end of the year, you have $110 million or $120 million? It makes no difference. If you die at the end of the year, the guy who makes up the story may make a typo, he may have said 110 even though you had a 120. You have gained nothing at all. It makes absolutely no difference. It makes no difference to your family or anybody else. The downside, especially if you are managing other people’s money, is not only losing all your money, but it is disgrace, humiliation and facing friends whose money you have lost. Yet 16 guys with very high IQs entered into that game. I think it is madness. It is produced by an over reliance to some extent on things. Those guys would tell me back at Salomon; a six Sigma event wouldn’t touch us. But they were wrong. History does not tell you of future things happening. They had a great reliance on mathematics. They thought that the Beta of the stock told you something about the risk of the stock. It doesn’t tell you a damn thing about the risk of the stock in my view. Sigma’s do not tell you about the risk of going broke in my view and maybe now in their view too. But I don’t like to use them as an example. The same thing in a different way could happen to any of us, where we really have a blind spot about something that is crucial, because we know a whole lot of something else. It is like Henry Kauffman said, “The ones who are going broke in this situation are of two types, the ones who know nothing and the ones who know everything.” It is sad in a way. I urge you. We basically never borrow money. I never borrowed money even when I had $10,000 basically, what difference did it make. I was having fun as I went along it didn’t matter whether I had $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 unless I had a medical emergency come along. I was going to do the same things when I had a little bit of money as when I had a lot of money. If you think of the difference between me and you, we wear the same clothes basically (SunTrust gives me mine), we eat similar food—we all go to McDonald’s or better yet, Dairy Queen, and we live in a house that is warm in winter and cool in summer. We watch the Nebraska (football) game on big screen TV. You see it the same way I see it. We do everything the same—our lives are not that different. The only thing we do is we travel differently. What can I do that you can’t do?

5
5

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

我现在能做自己热爱的工作,但我一直做的工作也都是我热爱的。当年我觉得赚 1000 美元是件大事的时候,我同样热爱它。我劝你们去做自己热爱的工作。如果你因为觉得它能让简历好看而一直做不喜欢的工作,那你就是疯了。前些天我在哈佛跟一个小伙子交谈,他带我去演讲。他 28 岁,跟我讲了他这辈子做过的一切,非常出色。然后我问:“接下来你打算做什么?”他说:“嗯,可能等我拿到 MBA 之后,我会去一家咨询公司上班,因为这样能让简历好看。”我说:“听着,你 28 岁,已经做了这么多事,你的简历比我见过的任何人都强 10 倍。这难道不像是在把性爱存到老年再享用吗?总该到开始做自己想做的事的时候了。找一份你热爱的工作。你会早上从床上跳起来。我刚从哥伦比亚商学院毕业时,想立刻去给格雷厄姆干活,白干都行。他觉得我开价太高了。但我一直缠着他。我卖了三年证券,一直给他写信,最后终于为他工作了两年。那是很棒的经历。但我始终在做自己热爱的工作。你真的应该找一份工作,就算你财务独立了也会去做的那份工作。你会学到东西,会对它充满热情,会从床上跳起来。你不可能失手。之后你或许会尝试别的,但从中得到的会多得多,而且我不在乎起薪是多少。从这儿出去后,找一份你热爱的工作,而不是你觉得能让简历好看的工作。你应该找到你喜欢的东西。如果你觉得赚 2 倍的钱会比赚 1 倍更快乐,那你很可能错了。如果你觉得赚 10 倍或 20 倍会让你更快乐,那你会惹上麻烦——因为那时你会在不该借钱的时候借钱,或者偷工减料。这完全没道理,而且回头看时你不会喜欢。”

问题:什么样的公司会让你喜欢?

巴菲特:我喜欢我能理解的生意。先拿这个说。这就能把范围缩小 90%。有各种各样我不懂的东西,但幸好,我懂的东西也够多了。这个世界广阔无边,几乎每家公司都是公开上市的。所以你能接触到几乎所有美国公司。因此,去碰你能理解的东西是合理的。我能理解这个,任何人都能理解(巴菲特举起一瓶可口可乐)。从 1886 年起,这就是个简单的生意,但不是个容易做的生意——我不希望这是一门对竞争对手来说很容易的生意。我想要一个周围有护城河的生意。我想要一座非常值钱的城堡在中间,然后我希望负责这座城堡的公爵非常诚实、勤奋、能干。然后我希望城堡周围有护城河。护城河可以是各种东西:我们汽车保险生意 GEICO 的护城河是低成本。

I get to work in a job that I love, but I have always worked at a job that I loved. I loved it just as much when I thought it was a big deal to make $1,000. I urge you to work in jobs that you love. I think you are out of your mind if you keep taking jobs that you don’t like because you think it will look good on your resume. I was with a fellow at Harvard the other day who was taking me over to talk. He was 28 and he was telling me all that he had done in life, which was terrific. And then I said, “What will you do next?” “Well,” he said, “Maybe after I get my MBA I will go to work for a consulting firm because it will look good on my resume.” I said, “Look, you are 28 and you have been doing all these things, you have a resume 10 times than anybody I have ever seen. Isn’t that a little like saving up sex for your old age? There comes a time when you ought to start doing what you want. Take a job that you love. You will jump out of bed in the morning. When I first got out of Columbia Business School, I wanted to go to work for Graham immediately for nothing. He thought I was over-priced. But I kept pestering him. I sold securities for three years and I kept writing him and finally I went to work for him for a couple of years. It was a great experience. But I always worked in a job that I loved doing. You really should take a job that if you were independently wealthy that would be the job you would take. You will learn something, you will be excited about, and you will jump out of bed. You can’t miss. You may try something else later on, but you will get way more out of it and I don’t care what the starting salary is. When you get out of here take a job you love, not a job you think will look good on your resume. You ought to find something you like. If you think you will be happier getting 2x instead of 1x, you are probably making a mistake. You will get in trouble if you think making 10x or 20x will make you happier because then you will borrow money when you shouldn’t or cut corners on things. It just doesn’t make sense and you won’t like it when you look back. Question: What makes a company something that you like? Buffett: I like businesses that I can understand. Let’s start with that. That narrows it down by 90%. There are all types of things I don’t understand, but fortunately, there is enough I do understand. You have this big wide world out there and almost every company is publicly owned. So you have all American business practically available to you. So it makes sense to go with things you can understand. I can understand this, anyone can understand this (Buffett holds up a bottle of CocaCola). Since 1886, it is a simple business, but it is not an easy business—I don’t want an easy business for competitors. I want a business with a moat around it. I want a very valuable castle in the middle and then I want the Duke who is in charge of that castle to be very honest and hard working and able. Then I want a moat around that castle. The moat can be various things: The moat around our auto insurance business, Geico, is low cost.

6
6

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

人们必须买汽车保险,所以大致上每辆车都会有一份保单。我没法卖给他们二十份,但他们必须买一份。我可以卖给他们一份。他们会依据什么来买呢?(依据什么标准?)客户会依据服务和成本来购买。大多数人会认为各家公司的服务都一样,或至少差不多。所以他们只会依据成本来决定。因此,我必须成为一个低成本生产者——这就是我的护城河。只要我的成本低于对手的幅度越大,我就相当于在护城河里扔进了几条鲨鱼。你一直拥有这座美妙的城堡,但外面总有人想要攻进来,想把它从你手上夺走。我想要一座我能看懂的城堡,但我要的是一座周边环绕着护城河的城堡。三十年前,伊士曼柯达的护城河跟可口可乐的护城河一样宽。我是说,如果你想给你六个月大的宝宝拍张照片,而且你想在二十年或五十年后再端详这张照片。你不会再有重来的机会——你不是专业摄影师——所以你无法判断,什么样的照片在二十年或五十年后仍会看起来很棒。你心里对那家摄影类公司的认知(心智份额)才最重要。因为他们在向你承诺,你今天拍下的这件对你极为珍贵的东西,在二十到五十年后看起来依然会很棒。嗯,三十年前柯达在这一点的确做到了极致,他们完全拥有这点。他们掌握了我所说的“心智份额”。别管市场份额了,看心智份额。他们拥有的那样东西——那个黄色小盒子——意味着柯达就是最好的。这是无价的。他们丢掉了一部分。倒不是全丢了。这并非乔治·费希尔(George Fisher)的错。乔治做得非常出色,但他们任由那条护城河变窄了。他们让富士以各种方式挤了进来,让护城河逐步收窄。他们让富士进入了奥运会,并夺走了那种曾认为“只有柯达才适合拍摄奥运会”的独特地位。于是富士得手了,在人们心中,富士立马就变得跟柯达平起平坐了。你在可口可乐身上可没见过这种事;可口可乐现在的护城河比三十年前更宽了。你无法日复一日地看到护城河的变化,但每次可口可乐在某个国家建立起基础设施时——即便那个市场目前对可口可乐来说尚未盈利,但二十年之后会盈利——护城河就在悄悄加宽一点。事情总是会在某个方向上,或者另一个方向上,发生一点细微的变化。十年之后,你就会看出区别。对于我们旗下各公司的经理们,我只传递一个信息:我们要加宽护城河。我们要往护城河里扔鳄鱼、鲨鱼还有短吻鳄——大概就是这些——以阻挡竞争者。这靠的是服务、靠产品质量、靠成本,有时靠专利,以及/或者地理位置。这就是我在寻找的生意。那么,我会在哪些地方找到这类生意呢?嗯,我会在简单易懂的产品里找到它们,因为我没办法搞清楚像甲骨文、莲花或微软这样的公司,十年后护城河会是什么样。盖茨是我有生以来遇见过的最精明的企业家,他们也握有极其强大的市场地位,但我真不知道那门生意十年后会变成什么样。我当然也不知道

People have to buy auto insurance so everyone is going to have one auto insurance policy per car basically. I can’t sell them 20, but they have to buy one. I can sell them 1. What are they going to buy it on? (based on what criteria?) They (customers) will buy based on service and cost. Most people will assume the service is identical among companies or close enough. So they will do it on cost. So I have to be a low cost producer--that is my moat. To the extent that my costs are further below the other guy, I have thrown a couple of sharks into the moat. All the time you have this wonderful castle, there are people out there who are going to attack it and try to take it away from you. I want a castle I can understand, but I want a castle with a moat around it. Kodak 30 years ago, Eastman Kodak’s moat was just as wide as Coca-Cola’s moat. I mean if you were going to take a picture of your six-month old baby and you want to look at that picture 20 years from now or 50 years from now. And you are never going to get a chance—you are not a professional photographer—so you can evaluate what is going to look good 20 or 50 years ago. What is in your mind about that photography company (Share of Mind) is what counts. Because they are promising you that the picture you take today is going to be terrific 20 to 50 years from now about something that is very important to you. Well, Kodak had that in spades 30 years ago, they owned that. They had what I call share of mind. Forget about share of market, share of mind. They had something—that little yellow box—that said Kodak is the best. That is priceless. They have lost some of that. They haven’t lost it all. It is not due to George Fisher. George is doing a great job, but they let that moat narrow. They let Fuji come and start narrowing the moat in various ways. They let them get into the Olympics and take away that special aspect that only Kodak was fit to photograph the Olympics. So Fuji gets there and immediately in people’s minds, Fuji becomes more into parity with Kodak. You haven’t seen that with Coke; Coke’s moat is wider now than it was 30 years ago. You can’t see the moat day by day but every time the infrastructure that gets built in some country that isn’t yet profitable for Coke that will be 20 years from now. The moat is widening a little bit. Things are, all the time, changing a little in one direction or the other. Ten years from now, you will see the difference. Our managers of the businesses we run, I have one message to them, and we want to widen the moat. We want to throw crocs, sharks and gators—I guess—into the moat to keep away competitors. That comes about through service, through quality of product, it comes about through cost, some times through patents, and/or real estate location. So that is the business I am looking for. Now what kind of businesses am I going to find like that? Well, I am going to find them in simple products because I am not going to be able to figure what the moat is going to look like for Oracle, Lotus or Microsoft, ten years from now. Gates is the best businessman I have ever run into and they have a hell of a position, but I really don’t know what that business is going to look like ten years from now. I certainly don’t know

7
7

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈时的讲话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

他十年后的竞争对手会是什么样。但我知道口香糖这门生意十年后会是什么样。互联网不会改变我们嚼口香糖的方式,其他东西也很难带来什么改变。会有很多新产品面市。但绿箭和黄箭会消失吗?那是不可能发生的。你给我 10 亿美元,让我打入口香糖行业,去真正重创箭牌口香糖(Wrigley's),我做不到。这就是我考察生意的方式。我对自己说:给我 10 亿美元,我能给这家伙带来多大伤害?给我 100 亿美元,我能在全球范围给可口可乐造成多大创伤?我办不到。这些才是好生意。反过来,现在给我一笔钱,叫我去另一个领域去伤害某家公司,我倒是能想出法子来。因此,我想要的是一门简单的生意,容易理解,当前的经济状况优异,管理层诚实能干,然后我才能大致上看到它们十年后的模样。如果我看不清它们十年后会在哪里,我就不想买。基本上,我不想买入任何一只股票,哪怕纽交所明天就关闭五年,只要我持有它我依然能感到安心。我购入一个农场,哪怕五年都不看它的报价,只要农场经营得不错,我就开心。我买入一栋公寓楼,五年不看报价,只要公寓楼能产出我所期望的收益,我就开心。而人们买完股票,第二天早上就去看股价,并以此判定自己投资做得优不优秀。这太荒唐了。他们买入的,是这门生意的一部分。这正是格雷厄姆教给我的东西里,最根本的部分。你不是在买一只股票,你是在买入一家企业的部分所有权。只要这家企业做得好,而你又没支付一个彻底愚蠢的价格,你就会做得好。投资的全部要义就在于此。你应该买入你能理解的生意。就像你买农场,你理当买你看得懂的农场。这件事并不复杂。顺便提一句,当人们把这套理念称为“格雷厄姆-巴菲特”时,这其实是纯粹的格雷厄姆。我非常走运。我十九岁时读到了他的书(《聪明的投资者》);我在六岁或七岁时开始对股票产生兴趣,十一岁时买入了人生第一只股票。但我之前一直在瞎折腾——我画图、研究成交量,做各种技术分析之类的事情。然后我拿起了那本小书,书中说,你并不是在买某个每天跳来跳去的行情代码,你是在买入企业的一部分。当我开始用这种方式去思考时,剩下的一切都顺理成章了。非常简单。所以我们买入我们认为自己能理解的企业。在座诸位没有人理解不了可口可乐……(第一面结束。)要是我在商学院教课,在期末考试上,我会发给学生一家互联网公司的资料,要求他们每个人给它估值。谁要是敢给我一个答案,我会直接让他不及格(笑声)。我自己就不知道该如何估值。但人们却一直在做这种事;这么做更刺激。如果你把这当成是去赛马,那另当别论——可如果你是在投资……投资的本质是拿出一笔钱,为的是将来能以合适的回报率拿回更多。

what his competitors will look like ten years from now. I know what the chewing business will look like ten years from now. The Internet is not going to change how we chew gum and nothing much else is going to change how we chew gum. There will lots of new products. Is Spearmint or Juicy Fruit going to evaporate? It isn’t going to happen. You give me a billion dollars and tell me to go into the chewing gum business and try to make a real dent in Wrigley’s. I can’t do it. That is how I think about businesses. I say to myself, give me a billion dollars and how much can I hurt the guy? Give me $10 billion dollars and how much can I hurt Coca-Cola around the world? I can’t do it. Those are good businesses. Now give me some money and tell me to hurt somebody in some other fields, and I can figure out how to do it. So I want a simple business, easy to understand, great economics now, honest and able management, and then I can see about in a general way where they will be ten (10) years from now. If I can’t see where they will be ten years from now, I don’t want to buy it. Basically, I don’t want to buy any stock where if they close the NYSE tomorrow for five years, I won’t be happy owning it. I buy a farm and I don’t get a quote on it for five years and I am happy if the farm does OK. I buy an apartment house and don’t get a quote on it for five years, I am happy if the apartment house produces the returns that I expect. People buy a stock and they look at the price next morning and they decide to see if they are doing well or not doing well. It is crazy. They are buying a piece of the business. That is what Graham—the most fundamental part of what he taught me. You are not buying a stock, you are buying part ownership in a business. You will do well if the business does well, if you didn’t pay a totally silly price. That is what it is all about. You ought to buy businesses you understand. Just like if you buy farms, you ought to buy farms you understand. It is not complicated. Incidentally, by the way, in calling this Graham-Buffett, this is pure Graham. I was very fortunate. I picked up his book (The Intelligent Investor) when I was nineteen; I got interested in stocks when I was 6 or 7. I bought my first stock when I was eleven. But I was playing around with all this stuff—I had charts and volume and I was making all types of technical calculations and everything. Then I picked up a little book that said you are not just buying some little ticker symbol, that bounces around every day, you are buying part of a business. Soon as I started thinking about it that way, everything else followed. It is very simple. So we buy businesses we think we can understand. There is no one here who can’t understand Coke………….. (end of first side.) If I was teaching a class at business school, on the final exam I would pass out the information on an Internet company and ask each student to value it. Anybody that gave me an answer, I’d flunk (Laughter). I don’t know how to do it. But people do it all the time; it is more exciting. If you look at it like you are going to the races--that is a different thing--but if you are investing…. Investing is putting out money to be sure of getting more back later at an appropriate rate.

8
8

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈时的讲话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

要做到这一点,你在任何时候都得明白自己在做什么。你得懂这门生意。你能够弄懂一些生意,但不可能弄懂所有生意。

提问:你刚才谈到了前半部分,也即努力去理解并买入一门生意。你还提到了从投入生意中的资本里获得回报。那么你如何判断,为一个生意支付什么价格才是合适的?

巴菲特:这确实很难定夺,但我不会去买入任何我心里不是极其笃定的生意。而正因为我极其笃定,它大概率就不会提供令人难以置信的高回报。一个实质上稳操胜券的生意,凭什么要给你提供每年 40% 的回报呢?我们脑子里想的从来都不是什么巨额回报,我们脑子里想的是,一分钱都不能亏。1972 年我们买下了喜诗糖果(See's Candy)。当时喜诗糖果年销量为 1600 万磅,每磅售价 1.95 美元,每磅赚 0.25 美元,也就是 400 万美元的税前利润。我们支付了 2500 万美元买下它——相当于税前利润的 6.25 倍,或税后利润的约 10 倍。这笔生意几乎用不着什么资本。当我们审视这门生意时——基本上就是我和我的搭档查理——我们需要判断的是,那里是否还存在尚未被挖掘的定价权。也就是那盒 1.95 美元的糖果,能不能卖到 2.00 到 2.25 美元。如果能卖到 2.25 美元,也就是说每磅再提价 0.30 美元,那在 1600 万磅的基数上就是 480 万美元利润。相对于 2500 万美元的买价,这就很不错了。我们这一辈子从没请过咨询顾问;我们心目中的咨询就是出门去买一盒糖果,然后吃掉。我们当时确切知道的是,他们在加州占据了人们的心智。那里有些独特的东西。加州的每个人心里都对喜诗糖果有个印象,而且绝大多数是好印象。他们在情人节时拿着一盒喜诗送给某个女孩,然后那女孩亲吻了他。要是当时她扇了他一巴掌,我们可就没生意做了。只要她亲吻了他,那就是我们希望在人们心里扎根的东西。喜诗糖果就意味着被亲吻。如果我们能在人们心里把这种感觉立住,那我们就能提价。我 1972 年买下它,此后每年的 12 月 26 日,也就是圣诞节刚过完,我都会提价一次,因为我们很大一部分生意都来自圣诞季。事实上,今年我们能赚 6000 万美元。在 3000 万磅糖果上,我们每磅赚 2 美元。生意还是那门生意,配方还是那个配方,一切照旧——6000 万美元,而且照样不依赖什么资本投入。十年后我们还会赚得更多。但这 6000 万美元里有 5500 万,是在圣诞节前的三周内赚到的。而我们公司的主题曲是:“耶稣真是我们的良友。(What a friend we have in Jesus.)”(笑声)这真是一门好生意。稍微琢磨一下就知道。大多数人买盒装巧克力不是为了自己吃,而是当礼物送的——某人的生日,或者更大概率是在某个节日。情人节是一年里销售最旺的一天。而圣诞季则是卖得最多的整个时节。女人们为圣诞节采购,她们会提前做规划,在持续大约两到三周的时间里完成购买。男人们则在情人节当天才买。他们正开车回家;我们在电台里投广告。负罪感,负罪感,负罪感——被我们电台广告一通狂轰之后,那些男人们压根不敢不给自家那位带一盒巧克力就进门,于是纷纷在高速公路沿线左右改道去买。所以情人节是最大的一天。你敢想吗,在情人节那天回家——如今托我“英明”的福,喜诗糖果已经卖到 11 美元一磅了。我们假设市面上还有卖 6 美元一磅的糖果。你真的

And to do that you have to understand what you are doing at any time. You have to understand the business. You can understand some businesses but not all businesses. Question: You covered half of it which is trying to understand a business and buying a business. You also alluded to getting a return on the amount of capital invested in the business. How do you determine what is the proper price to pay for the business? Buffett: It is a tough thing to decide but I don’t want to buy into any business I am not terribly sure of. So if I am terribly sure of it, it probably won’t offer incredible returns. Why should something that is essentially a cinch to do well, offer you 40% a year? We don’t have huge returns in mind, but we do have in mind not losing anything. We bought See’s Candy in 1972, See’s Candy was then selling 16 m. pounds of candy at a $1.95 a pound and it was making 2 bits a pound or $4 million pre-tax. We paid $25 million for it—6.25 x pretax or about 10x after tax. It took no capital to speak of. When we looked at that business—basically, my partner, Charlie, and I—we needed to decide if there was some untapped pricing power there. Where that $1.95 box of candy could sell for $2 to $2.25. If it could sell for $2.25 or another $0.30 per pound that was $4.8 on 16 million pounds. Which on a $25 million purchase price was fine. We never hired a consultant in our lives; our idea of consulting was to go out and buy a box of candy and eat it. What we did know was that they had share of mind in California. There was something special. Every person in Ca. has something in mind about See’s Candy and overwhelmingly it was favorable. They had taken a box on Valentine’s Day to some girl and she had kissed him. If she slapped him, we would have no business. As long as she kisses him, that is what we want in their minds. See’s Candy means getting kissed. If we can get that in the minds of people, we can raise prices. I bought it in 1972, and every year I have raised prices on Dec. 26th, the day after Christmas, because we sell a lot on Christmas. In fact, we will make $60 million this year. We will make $2 per pound on 30 million pounds. Same business, same formulas, same everything--$60 million bucks and it still doesn’t take any capital. And we make more money 10 years from now. But of that $60 million, we make $55 million in the three weeks before Christmas. And our company song is: “What a friend we have in Jesus.” (Laughter). It is a good business. Think about it a little. Most people do not buy boxed chocolate to consume themselves, they buy them as gifts— somebody’s birthday or more likely it is a holiday. Valentine’s Day is the single biggest day of the year. Christmas is the biggest season by far. Women buy for Christmas and they plan ahead and buy over a two or three week period. Men buy on Valentine’s Day. They are driving home; we run ads on the Radio. Guilt, guilt, guilt—guys are veering off the highway right and left. They won’t dare go home without a box of Chocolates by the time we get through with them on our radio ads. So that Valentine’s Day is the biggest day. Can you imagine going home on Valentine’s Day—our See’s Candy is now $11 a pound thanks to my brilliance. And let’s say there is candy available at $6 a pound. Do you

9
9

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈时的讲话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

你真的想在情人节走进去,把一盒糖果递给她——她这些年来对喜诗糖果的印象一直很好——然后说:“亲爱的,今年我挑了最便宜的那款。”再把这盒糖塞过去。这根本行不通。所以从某种意义上说,存在尚未开发的定价权——它不是价格依赖型的。想想迪士尼。迪士尼把家庭录像带卖到 16.95 美元或 18.95 美元之类。全世界——这里我们尤其要说母亲们——心里对迪士尼都有某种认知。这屋里每个人,提到迪士尼,脑海里都会浮现出一些东西。当我说环球影业,或者我说 20 世纪福克斯,你脑子里不会有什么特别的东西。但如果我说迪士尼,你心里就有了特别的东西。全世界都是如此。现在想象一下,你带着几个小孩,每天想把他们打发几个小时,好让自己清静一下。你知道,随便拿到一部录像带,他们能看二十遍。于是你去音像店之类的地方买录像带。你会坐在那里,把十部不同的录像带各预看一个半小时,再决定该给孩子买哪一部吗?不会。假设那里有一部卖 16.95 美元,迪士尼那部卖 17.95 美元——你知道拿走迪士尼那部就没问题。所以你买了。对于你不想花时间去甄别的事,你就不用自己做品质判断。这样一来,迪士尼就可以多收一点钱,还能卖出多得多的录像带。这让它成了一门极好的生意,也让竞争对手异常艰难。你怎样才能打造一个去跟迪士尼在全世界竞争的品牌——梦工厂正在尝试——用某种“环球影业”的概念取代人们心中对迪士尼的认知?好让一位母亲走进去,会优先挑一部环球影业的录像带而不是迪士尼的。这不可能发生。可口可乐在全世界都与人们的快乐联系在一起。迪士尼乐园、世界杯、奥运会——每一个人们快乐的地方。快乐与可乐分不开。现在你给我——我不在乎多少钱——并告诉我,我要在全球用皇冠可乐(RC Cola)做到同样的事,让五十亿人心中对皇冠可乐产生好感。你根本做不到。你可以胡来,想做什么都行,可以在周末打折,但你就是撼动不了它。这才是你想在一门生意里拥有的东西。这就是护城河。你希望那条护城河不断变宽。如果你是喜诗糖果,你就会尽一切努力,确保馈赠体验基本上能带来正面的回应。这既指盒子里装的东西,也指卖给你糖果的那个人,因为我们的生意全是在最忙的时候做的。人们在圣诞节前那几周、情人节前那几周涌进来,排着长队。于是,下午五点钟,某个女店员正把最后一盒糖卖给某位顾客,那人可能已经等了二三十个顾客的队。如果那位店员对最后这位顾客微笑,我们的护城河就变宽了;如果她对顾客恶语相向,护城河就变窄了。我们看不见,但它每天都在发生。而这就是关键。这是产品交付体验的全部,就是一切。

really want to walk in on Valentine’s Day and hand—she has all these positive images of See’s Candy over the years—and say, “Honey, this year I took the low bid.” And hand her a box of candy. It just isn’t going to work. So in a sense, there is untapped pricing power—it is not price dependent. Think of Disney. Disney is selling Home Videos for $16.95 or $18.95 or whatever. All over the world—people, and we will speak particularly about Mothers in this case, have something in their mind about Disney. Everyone in this room, when you say Disney, has something in their mind about Disney. When I say Universal Pictures, if I say 20th Century Fox, you don’t have anything special in your mind. Now if I say Disney, you have something special in your mind. That is true around the world. Now picture yourself with a couple of young kids, whom you want to put away for a couple of hours every day and get some peace of mind. You know if you get one video, they will watch it twenty times. So you go to the video store or wherever to buy the video. Are you going to sit there and premier 10 different videos and watch them each for an hour and a half to decide which one your kid should watch? No. Let’s say there is one there for $16.95 and the Disney one for $17.95—you know if you take the Disney video that you are going to be OK. So you buy it. You don’t have to make a quality decision on something you don’t want to spend the time to do. So you can get a little bit more money if you are Disney and you will sell a lot more videos. It makes it a wonderful business. It makes it very tough for the other guy. How would you try to create a brand—Dreamworks is trying—that competes with Disney around the world and replaces the concept that people have in their minds about Disney with something that says, Universal Pictures? So a mother is going to walk in and pick out a Universal Pictures video in preference to a Disney. It is not going to happen. Coca-Cola is associated with people being happy around the world. Everyplace – Disneyland, the World Cup, the Olympics—where people are happy. Happiness and Coke go together. Now you give me—I don’t care how much money—and tell me that I am going to do that with RC Cola around the world and have five billion people have a favorable image in their mind about RC Cola. You can’t get it done. You can fool around, you can do what you want to do. You can have price discounts on weekends. But you are not going to touch it. That is what you want to have in a business. That is the moat. You want that moat to widen. If you are See’s Candy, you want to do everything in the world to make sure that the experience basically of giving that gift leads to a favorable reaction. It means what is in the box, it means the person who sells it to you, because all of our business is done when we are terribly busy. People come in during theose weeks before Chirstmas, Valentine’s Day and there are long lines. So at five o’clock in the afternoon some woman is selling someone the last box candy and that person has been waiting in line for maybe 20 or 30 customers. And if the salesperson smiles at that last customer, our moat has widened and if she snarls at ‘em, our moat has narrowed. We can’t see it, but it is going on everyday. But it is the key to it. It is the total part of the product delivery. It is having everything

10
10

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

一提喜诗糖果,就联想到甜蜜的体验。商业的要义正在于此。问:有没有我明明买了某家公司,数字却告诉我不要买的情况?其中定量和定性各占多大分量?巴菲特:最佳买入往往出现在数字几乎告诉你不要买的时候。因为那时你对产品有极强的信念,而不只是图便宜捡了一根抽剩的雪茄烟蒂。那种情况下,买入是无法抗拒的。我曾经拥有一家风车公司。相信我,风车就是烟蒂股。我买得非常便宜,只花了营运资本的三分之一。我们确实从里面赚到了钱,但它赚不了重复发生的利润。这类东西只有一次性的利润,并不是该长久做的事。我走过那个阶段。我买过有轨电车公司,买过各种千奇百怪的东西。就定性而言,我大概在接到电话的瞬间就能判断。我们收购的几乎每一家企业,分析都只需要五到十分钟。今年我们收购了两家公司。通用再保险是一笔 180 亿美元的交易,我从来没去过他们的总部,我倒希望它还在那儿。(笑声)“没准那儿有几个人在嘀咕:这个月咱们该给巴菲特递什么数字?”我都能想象他们每月碰一次头,然后说我们银行里有 200 亿美元,不是 180 亿。我从没去过那儿。在收购 Executive Jet——也就是公务机分时所有权业务——之前,我也从没去过。三年前我给家人买了这个计划四分之一权益。我看到了服务,感觉发展得不错。数字我也拿到了。但如果你不够了解,无法立刻看懂一门生意,那给你一个月或两个月照样看不懂。你必须拥有某种背景理解,清楚自己懂什么、不懂什么。这就是关键。也就是界定你的能力圈。每个人的能力圈都不一样。重要的不是圈子有多大,重要的是圈子的大小;重要的是留在圈子里。如果纽交所成千上万家公司中你的圈子里只有 30 家,只要你知道是哪 30 家,你就没问题。你应该对那些生意足够熟悉,熟悉到不需要读海量材料。早年我做了大量功课,就是为了熟悉各类生意,我用的正是菲利普·费雪所说的“闲聊法(Scuttlebutt Approach)”。我会出去找客户、供应商,有时候还找前员工聊。所有人。每次我对某个行业感兴趣,比如煤炭,我就走遍每一家煤炭公司。我会问每位 CEO:“如果你只能买一家不是你自己的煤炭公司的股票,你会买哪家,为什么?”把这些碎片拼起来,过一阵子你就弄懂了这个行业。有意思的是,只要你问的是竞争对手,得到的答案会非常相似。要是你有一颗银子弹,可以打进一个竞争对手的脑袋,你会选哪个对手,为什么?这样你就能找出业内最厉害的家伙。所以方法有很多。

associated with it say, See’s Candy and something pleasant happening. That is what business is all about. Question: If I have every bought a company where the numbers told me not to. How much is quantitative and how much is qualitative? Buffett: The best buys have been when the numbers almost tell you not to. Because then you feel so strongly about the product. And not just the fact you are getting a used cigar butt cheap. Then it is compelling. I owned a windmill company at one time. Windmills are cigar butts, believe me. I bought it very cheap, I bought it at a third of working capital. And we made money out of it, but there is no repetitive money to be made on it. There is a one-time profit in something like that. And it is just not the thing to be doing. I went through that phase. I bought streetcar companies and all kinds of things. In terms of the qualitative, I probably understand the qualitative the moment I get the phone call. Almost every business we have bought has taken five or ten minutes in terms of analysis. We bought two businesses this year. General Re is a $18 billion deal. I have never been to their home office. I hope it is there. (Laughter) “There could be a few guys there saying what numbers should we send Buffett this month?” I could see them going once a month and saying we have $20 billion in the bank instead of $18 billion. I have never been there. Before I bought Executive Jet, which is fractional ownership of jets, before I bought it, I had never been there. I bought my family a quarter interest in the program three years earlier. And I have seen the service and it seems to develop well. And I got the numbers. But if you don’t know enough to know about the business instantly, you won’t know enough in a month or in two months. You have to have sort of the background of understanding and knowing what you do or don’t understand. That is the key. It is defining your circle of competence. Everybody has got a different circle of competence. The important thing is not how big the circle is, the important thing is the size of the circle; the important thing is staying inside the circle. And if that circle only has 30 companies in it out of 1000s on the big board, as long as you know which 30 they are, you will be OK. And you should know those businesses well enough so you don’t need to read lots of work. Now I did a lot of work in the earlier years just getting familiar with businesses and the way I would do that is use what Phil Fisher would call, the “Scuttlebutt Approach.” I would go out and talk to customers, suppliers, and maybe ex-employees in some cases. Everybody. Everytime I was interested in an industry, say it was coal, I would go around and see every coal company. I would ask every CEO, “If you could only buy stock in one coal company that was not your own, which one would it be and why? You piece those things together, you learn about the business after awhile. Funny, you get very similar answers as long as you ask about competitors. If you had a silver bullet and you could put it through the head of one competitor, which competitor and why? You will find who the best guy is in the industry. So there are a lot of things

11
11

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

你可以了解一家企业。我过去就是这么做的,只选那些我觉得能看懂的生意,所以现在不用再重复了。投资的好处在于,你不需要学任何新东西。你想学也可以,但如果你四十年前就了解箭牌口香糖,那么你现在依然了解箭牌口香糖。随着时间推移,你并不会得到很多额外的伟大洞见。所以你会在大脑里积累一个数据库。有个叫弗兰克·鲁尼的家伙,他经营梅尔维尔百货很多年;他岳父去世了,留下了一家叫 H.H. 布朗的鞋业公司。他把这家公司交给了高盛帮忙出售。他当时正在佛罗里达跟我的一个朋友打高尔夫,提起了这事,我那朋友说:“你干吗不给沃伦打个电话?”打完球他就给我打了电话,五分钟之内我就基本敲定了这笔交易。但我认识弗兰克,也了解这个行业。我对鞋业的基本经济逻辑多少心里有数,所以我能买下来。从数量上,我得决定价格是多少。但你看,这其实就是个“是”或“否”的问题。我不会在谈判上瞎折腾。他们报的价我觉得合理,我就买;不合理,那我在买之前就挺开心,买了之后不开心的日子照样也能过得去。

提问者:亚洲危机怎么影响像可口可乐这样的公司?他们刚宣布第四季度盈利会降低。

巴菲特:嗯,我基本上喜欢这个状况。因为可口可乐产品未来二十年在国际市场的增长速度会比在美国本土快得多。它在国内的人均消费量也会增长。接下来可能会是艰难时期——谁知道是三个月还是三年——但不会持续二十年。全球的人们还是会高效地工作,他们会发现,相对于工作一天要付出的时间,这是一种很划算的产品;更好的情况是,像我一样一天喝五瓶。这个产品在 1936 年我第一次买的时候,六瓶才 25 美分,我卖出去每瓶 5 美分。那是 6.5 盎司的瓶子,瓶子押金还要付 2 美分。当时 5 美分能买 6.5 盎司;现在是 12 盎司的易拉罐,如果你周末买或者批量买,包装上省下来的钱就够了——基本上 12 盎司不到 20 美分就能买到。所以每盎司的价格比 1936 年贵不了多少。多年以来,这个产品相对于人们的购买力来说,变得越来越便宜。而且人们都喜欢它。在 200 个国家里,人均消费量每年都在增长,这是一个超过一百年历史、主导市场的产品。简直不可思议。人们没弄明白的一点是,为什么这个产品值几百亿美元?一个简单事实适用于所有可乐,不过我们暂且只谈可口可乐吧。恰好这是个我喜欢的名字。可乐没有味觉记忆。你可以在早上 9 点、10 点、下午 1 点和 5 点各喝一瓶。下午 5 点那瓶,喝起来就跟早上喝的那瓶一样美味。

you can learn about a business. I have done that in the past on the business I felt I could understand so I don’t have to do that anymore. The nice thing about investing is that you don’t have to learn anything new. You can do it if you want to, but if you learn Wrigley’s chewing gum forty years ago, you still understand Wrigley’s chewing gum. There are not a lot of great insights to get of the sort as you go along. So you do get a database in your head. I had a guy, Frank Rooney, who ran Melville for many years; his father-in-law died and had owned H.H. Brown, a shoe company. And he put it up with Goldman Sachs. But he was playing golf with a friend of mine here in Florida and he mentioned it to this friend, so my friend said “Why don’t you call Warren?” He called me after the match and in five minutes I basically had a deal. But I knew Frank, and I knew the business. I sort of knew the basic economics of the shoe business, so I could buy it. Quantitatively, I have to decide what the price is. But, you know, that is either yes or no. I don’t fool a lot around with negotiations. If they name a price that makes sense to me, I buy it. If they don’t, I was happy the day before, so I will be happy the day after without owning it. Question: The Asian Crisis and how it affects a company like Coke that recently announced their earnings would be lower in the fourth quarter. Buffett: Well, basically I love it, but because the market for Coca-Cola products will grow far faster over the next twenty years internationally than it will in the United States. It will grow in the U.S. on a per capita basis. The fact that it will be a tough period for who knows—three months or three years—but it won’t be tough for twenty years. People will still be going to be working productively around the world and they are going to find this is a bargain product in terms of a portion of their working day that they have to give up in order to have one of these, better yet, five of them a day like I do. This is a product that in 1936 when I first bought 6 of those for a quarter and sold them for a nickel each. It was in a 6.5 oz bottle and you paid a two cents deposit on the bottle. That was a 6.5 oz. bottle for a nickel at that time; it is now a 12 oz. can which if you buy it on Weekends or if you buy it in bigger quantities, so much money doesn’t go to packaging—you essentially can buy the 12 ozs. for not much more than 20 cents. So you are paying not much more than twice the per oz. price of 1936. This is a product that has gotten cheaper and cheaper relative to people’s earning power over the years. And which people love. And in 200 countries, you have the per capita consumption use going up every year for a product that is over 100 years old that dominates the market. That is unbelievable. One thing that people don’t understand is one thing that makes this product worth 10s and 10s of billions of dollars is one simple fact about really all colas, but we will call it Coca-Cola for the moment. It happens to be a name that I like. Cola has no taste memory. You can drink one of these at 9 O’clock, 10 O’clock, 1 O’clock and 5 O’clock. The one at 5 o’clock will taste as good to you as the one you drank early in the morning,

12
12

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

奶油苏打、根汁啤酒、橙味、葡萄味——这些都不行。这些东西都会让你腻。大多数食品和饮料都会让人腻;过一段时间你就会厌烦。如果你吃喜诗糖果——我们有些员工刚到喜诗糖果上班时,头一天会狂吃,但一周后他们吃的量就跟买来吃的人差不多了,因为巧克力也会让你腻。可乐则没有味觉记忆,这意味着全世界都会有人成为重度消费者——每天喝五瓶,如果是健怡可乐,甚至每天喝七到八瓶。其他产品永远做不到这一点。所以你得到了难以置信的人均消费量。这个地区的人们,或者再往北一点,每天平均摄入 64 盎司液体。其中 64 盎司都可以是可乐,只要一开始你多少喜欢它,你就永远不会喝腻。但换成任何其他东西就不行;如果你整天只吃一种产品,过一阵子你就会有点恶心。这是一个巨大的因素。如今全世界每天售出超过 10 亿份可口可乐产品,这个数字每年都在增长。几乎每个国家都在增长,人均消费量也在增长。二十年后,海外市场增长速度将远超美国,所以我确实更喜欢那个市场,因为随着时间的推移,那里有更多增长空间。但短期内这会让他们受损,不过这没什么意义。可口可乐 1919 年上市,股价每股 40 美元。钱德勒家族在 1880 年代后期以 2000 美元买下了整个公司。1919 年上市,每股 40 美元。一年后股价跌到 19 美元。一年内跌了 50%。你可能觉得这是某种灾难,你可能会想,糖价上涨了,装瓶商造反了。还有一大堆因素。你总能找到理由,说那不是买入的理想时机。多年后你还会看到大萧条、二战、糖配给制、热核武器等等——总有理由。但最终,如果你在 40 美元时买了一股,并把股息再投资,现在价值 500 万美元(40 美元按 14.63% 复利 86 年!)。这个因素压倒了一切。如果你看准了生意,你就会赚大钱。时机的把握极其棘手,所以如果我有一个出色的生意,我不会担心任何特定事件——比如它明年会怎样之类。这个国家在不同时期有过价格管制,那连最好的生意也会搞乱。比如 12 月 31 日我没法给喜诗糖果提价。但这并不会因为它恰好发生就让它变成糟糕的生意,因为价格管制不会永远持续下去。我们在 70 年代初就有过价格管制。出色的生意——你能想明白会发生什么,但算不准什么时候发生。你不该过分关注“何时”,而应该关注“什么”。如果“什么”你看对了,你就不用太担心“何时”。

问:那你的投资失误呢?

巴菲特:你有多长时间?对我来说,我和我的合伙人查理·芒格在投资中最有趣的事是,最大的错误不是“做了”的错误,而是“没做”的错误。那些失误是我们对生意了解得足够多,本该去做。

you can’t do that with Cream Soda, Root Beer, Orange, Grape. All of those things accumulate on you. Most foods and beverages accumulate; you get sick of them after a while. And if you eat See’s Candy—we get these people who go to work for us at See’s Candy and the first day they go crazy, but after a week they are eating the same amount as if they were buying it, because chocolate accumulates on you. There is no taste memory to Cola and that means you get people around the world who will be heavy users—who will drink five a day, or for Diet Coke, 7 or even 8 a day. They will never do that with other products. So you get this incredible per capita consumption. The average person in this part of the world or maybe a little north of here drinks 64 ozs. of liquid a day. You can have 64 ozs. of that be Coke and you will not get fed up with Coke if you like it to start with in the least. But if you do that with anything else; if you eat just one product all day, you will get a little sick of it after a while. It is a huge factor. So today over 1 billion of Coca-Cola product servings will be sold in the world and that will grow year by year. It will grow in every country virtually, and it will grow on a per capita basis. And twenty years from now it will grow a lot faster internationally than in the U.S., so I really like that market better, because there is more growth there over time. But it will hurt them in the short term right now, but that doesn’t mean anything. Coca-Cola went public in 1919; the stock sold for $40 per share. The Chandler family bought the whole business for $2,000 back in the late 1880s. So now he goes public in 1919, $40 per share. One year later it is selling for $19 per share. It has gone down 50% in one year. You might think it is some kind of disaster and you might think sugar prices increased and the bottlers were rebellious. And a whole bunch of things. You can always find reasons that weren't the ideal moment to buy it. Years later you would have seen the Great Depression, WW II and sugar rationing and thermonuclear weapons and the whole thing—there is always a reason. But in the end if you had bought one share at $40 per share and reinvested the dividends, it would be worth $5 million now ($40 compounding at 14.63% for 86 years!). That factor so overrides anything else. If you are right about the business you will make a lot of money. The timing part of it is very tricky thing so I don’t worry about any given event if I got a wonderful business what it does next year or something of the sort. Price controls have been in this country at various times and that has fouled up even the best of businesses. I wouldn’t be able to raise prices Dec 31st on See’s Candy. But that doesn’t make it a lousy business if that happens to happen, because you are not going to have price controls forever. We had price controls in the early 70s. The wonderful business—you can figure what will happen, you can’t figure out when it will happen. You don’t want to focus too much on when but you want to focus on what. If you are right about what, you don’t have to worry about when very much. Question: What about your business mistakes? Buffett: How much time do you have? The interesting thing about investments for me and my partner, Charlie Munger, the biggest mistakes have not been mistakes of commission, but of omission. They are where we knew enough about the business to do

13
13

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈。

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

有些事我们本可以去做,但出于这样或那样的原因,我们却坐在那里干瞪眼,愣是什么都没做。于是乎,我们错过了那些明明能弄明白、本可以赚到几十上百亿美元的机会,更别提那些我们根本搞不懂的事了。我没能从微软身上赚到几十亿美元,这根本不说明任何问题,因为我从来就理解不了微软。但假如我能从医疗保健股上赚几十亿,那我就应该赚到。克林顿提出医疗改革方案时,那些股票全跌进了坑里,我当时就该大赚一笔,因为我懂那个领域,结果我没赚到。80 年代中期,我本该从房利美身上狠赚一大笔,可我也没做。这些动辄几十亿、甚至几百亿美元的失误,通用会计准则压根儿不会记到账上。你看到的那些失误,比如几年前我买美国航空优先股,那是我犯的错。当时我手里现金太多。我钱一多就容易犯傻。查理让我去酒吧别在办公室待着,可我在办公室闲逛,兜里揣着钱,就会干蠢事,每次都这样。所以我买了那玩意儿,没人逼我买。现在我每次想买航空公司股票,都会打一个 800 热线。我说:“我是沃伦,我是个航空瘾君子。”那边的人劝我:“别急,继续聊,别干冲动事。”最后我总算扛过去了。可当初我确实买了,而且看上去我们可能会把投进去的钱全赔光,事实上也差点全赔光。可以说我们活该赔钱——我们买它,是因为它是一只诱人的证券,但它所在的行业毫无吸引力。我在所罗门兄弟也干过同样的事:买了一只诱人的证券,但只买它的债(没买它的股权)。这也算一种错误:因为喜欢条款而投资,却并不真正喜欢那门生意。我过去干过,以后可能还会再犯。更大的错误是那些没做的。当年我只有 1 万美元的时候,拿出 2000 美元投进一家辛克莱加油站,全亏了,那笔钱的机会成本现在大约是 60 亿美元——相当严重的失误。伯克希尔股价下跌反而让我好受些,因为我的辛克莱加油站的机会成本也缩水了,那 20% 的机会成本嘛。我得说,尽量从别人的错误里学习是最好的。但我们从不花时间回头看伯克希尔的过去。我的搭档查理·芒格,我们做了四十年朋友,从来没吵过架。我们经常意见不合,但从不争论。我们从不回头看,只想着眼前有那么多值得期待的事,没必要去想当初本可以怎么做。那根本无济于事。人只能向前活。从错误里或许能学到点什么,但最重要的是坚守自己懂的业务。所以,如果犯的是能力圈之外的通用型错误——比如听别人推荐就买了自己一无所知的东西——你就该从中吸取教训:只做自己能搞明白的事。你真的应该对着镜子做决策,对自己说:“我以 55 美元的价格买入 100 股通用汽车,因为……”如果你要买,这就是你的责任。必须得有个理由,如果连理由都说不出来,那你就

something and where, for one reason or another, sat they're sucking out thumbs instead of doing something. And so we have passed up things where we could have made billions and billions of dollars from things we understood, forget about things we don’t understand. The fact I could have made billions of dollars from Microsoft doesn’t mean anything because I never could understand Microsoft. But if I can make billions out of healthcare stocks, then I should make it. And I didn’t when the Clinton health care program was proposed and they all went in the tank. We should have made a ton of money out of that because I could understand it. And didn’t make it. I should have made a ton of money out of Fannie Mae back the mid-1980s, but I didn’t do it. Those are billion dollar mistakes or multi-billion dollar mistakes that generally accepted accounting principles don’t pick up. The mistakes you see. I made a mistake when I bought US Air Preferred some years ago. I had a lot of money around. I make mistakes when I get cash. Charlie tells me to go to a bar instead. Don’t hang around the office. But I hang around the office and I have money in my pocket, I do something dumb. It happens every time. So I bought this thing. Nobody made me buy it. I now have an 800 number I call every time I think about buying a stock in an airline. I say, “I am Warren and I am an air-aholic.” They try to talk me down, “Keep talking don’t do anything rash.” Finally I got over it. But I bought it. And it looked like we would lose all our money in it. And we came very close to losing all our money in it. You can say we deserved to lose our money it. We bought it because it was an attractive security. But it was not in an attractive industry. I did the same thing in Salomon. I bought an attractive security in a business I wouldn’t have bought the equity in. So you could say that is one form of mistake. Buying something because you like the terms, but you don’t like the business that well. I have done that in the past and will probably do that again. The bigger mistakes are the ones of omission. Back when I had $10,000 I put $2,000 of it into a Sinclair Service Station which I lost, so the opportunity cost on that money is about $6 billion right now-fairly big mistakes. It makes me feel good when my Berkshire goes down, because the cost of my Sinclair Station goes down too. My 20% opportunity cost. I will say this, it is better to learn from other people’s mistakes as much as possible. But we don’t spend any time looking back at Berkshire. I have a partner, Charlie Munger; we have been pals for forty years—never had an argument. We disagree on things a lot but we don’t have arguments about it. We never look back. We just figure there is so much to look forward to that there is no sense thinking of what we might have done. It just doesn’t make any difference. You can only live life forward. You can learn something perhaps from the mistakes, but the big thing to do is to stick with the businesses you understand. So if there is a generic mistake outside your circle of competence like buying something that somebody tips you on or something of the sort. In an area you know nothing about, you should learn something from that which is to stay with what you can figure out yourself. You really want your decision making to be by looking in the mirror. Saying to yourself, “I am buying 100 shares of General Motors at $55 because……..” It is your responsibility if you are buying it. There’s gotta be a reason and if you can’t state the reason, you

14
14

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

不应该买。如果是因为有人在鸡尾酒会上告诉你,那理由不够充分。也不能因为成交量或图表看起来不错这种原因。必须有一个买入这家企业的理由。我们一直严格遵循这一点。这是本·格雷厄姆教我的事情之一。

问题:当前脆弱的经济形势和利率走势?我们会走向何方?

巴菲特:我不考虑宏观因素。你在投资中真正要做的是,搞清楚什么是重要的、什么是可知的。如果某事不重要且不可知,那就忘掉它。你提到的那些事固然重要,但在我看来,它们是不可知的。理解可口可乐、箭牌或伊士曼柯达的业务是可知的,你能了解那些可知的企业。重要与否取决于你的估值导向以及公司价格等因素。但我们从来没有因为任何宏观感受而买入或卖出过企业,因为那根本无关紧要。比如 1972 年我们买下喜诗糖果,我想尼克松后来不久就实施了价格管制,但那又怎样?如果我们因为对自己不擅长的东西做预测而错过了一个花 2500 万美元买下如今税前利润达 6000 万美元的机会,那才是遗憾。所以我们完全不阅读或听取与宏观因素有关的东西。典型的投资顾问机构会搬出他们的经济学家,让他出来给你描绘一幅宏大的宏观图景,然后从那里开始往下推演。在我们看来,那是胡说八道。就算艾伦·格林斯潘坐在我左边,罗伯特·鲁宾坐在我右边,两人都在我耳边悄悄告诉我他们未来十二个月要做什么,那也不会影响我为 Executive Jet 或通用再保险或任何其他公司支付什么价格。

问题:作为非华尔街的“外地人”,相比身处华尔街,有什么好处?

巴菲特:我在华尔街工作过几年,我在东西海岸都有最好的朋友。我喜欢去见他们,去那里能获得想法。但思考投资的最佳方式,是独自待在一个房间里,好好想。如果那也不管用,别的招数也没用。身处像华尔街这样极端的市场环境中,坏处是你会被过度刺激。你会觉得自己每天都得做点什么。钱德勒家族买下这家公司(可口可乐)只花了 2000 美元。如果你挑中了那种股票,你根本不需要做太多别的事。而诀窍就是不要再做别的事,甚至不要在 1919 年卖出——钱德勒家族后来就卖了。所以,你要找的是每年获得一个好主意的办法,然后把它发挥到极致。而在人们每五分钟就来回喊价、把报告推到你鼻子底下的环境里,这非常难做到。华尔街靠交易活动赚钱,你靠不动赚钱。

shouldn’t buy it. If it is because someone told you about it at a cocktail party, not good enough. It can’t be because of the volume or a reason like the chart looks good. It has to be a reason to buy the business. That we stick to pretty carefully. That is one of the things Ben Graham taught me. Question: The current tenuous economic situation and interest rates? Where are we going? Buffett: I don’t think about the macro stuff. What you really want to in investments is figure out what is important and knowable. If it is unimportant and unknowable, you forget about it. What you talk about is important but, in my view, it is not knowable. Understanding Coca-Cola is knowable or Wrigley’s or Eastman Kodak. You can understand those businesses that are knowable. Whether it turns out to be important depends where your valuation leads you and the firm’s price and all that. But we have never not bought or bought a business because of any Macro feeling of any kind because it doesn’t make any difference. Let’s say in 1972 when we bought See’s Candy, I think Nixon put on the price controls a little bit later, but so what! We would have missed a chance to buy something for $25 million that is producing $60 million pre-tax now. We don’t want to pass up the chance to do something intelligent because of some prediction about something we are no good on anyway. So we don’t read or listen to in relation to macro factors at all. The typical investment counselor organization goes out and they bring out their economist and they trot him out and he gives you this big macro picture. And they start working from there on down. In our view that is nonsense. If Alan Greenspan was on the one side of me and Robert Rubin on the other side and they both were whispering in my ear exactly what they were going to do the next twelve months, it wouldn’t make any difference to me what I would pay for Executive Jet or General Re or anything else I do. Question: What is the benefit of being an out-of-towner as opposed to being on Wall Street? Buffett: I worked on Wall Street for a couple of years and I have my best friends on both coasts. I like seeing them. I get ideas when I go there. But the best way to think about investments is to be in a room with no one else and just think. And if that doesn’t work, nothing else is going to work. The disadvantage of being in any type of market environment like Wall Street in the extreme is that you get over-stimulated. You think you have to do something every day. The Chandler family paid $2,000 for this company (Coke). You don’t have to do much else if you pick one of those. And the trick then is not to do anything else. Even not to sell at 1919, which the family did later on. So what you are looking for is some way to get one good idea a year. And then ride it to its full potential and that is very hard to do in an environment where people are shouting prices back and forth every five minutes and shoving reports in front of your nose and all that. Wall Street makes its money on activity. You make your money on inactivity.

15
15

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈。

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

如果在座的每个人都每天互相交易彼此的股票组合,最终你们全都会破产,而中间商则会把所有钱都赚走。如果你们持有一批普通企业的股票,并且就这么坐在原地不动 50 年,你们最终会得到相当可观的一笔钱,而你们的经纪人则会破产。他就像一个医生,收入取决于你换药有多频繁。如果他给你一粒药丸就能让你终身痊愈,那他只能做成一笔买卖,一次交易,就到此为止了。但如果他让你相信每天换药才是通往健康的不二法门,那对他和药剂师来说就大有好处了。你的健康状况不会有任何改善,而你的财务状况会糟得多。你要远离任何刺激交易行为的环境。华尔街恰恰起到了这种作用。当我回到奥马哈时,我总是带着一整串想实地考察的公司名单,那些差旅费我花得物有所值,但回到奥马哈后,我会静下心来思考。

问题:如果伯克希尔或微软不派发股息,该如何评估它们?

巴菲特:它也不会派任何股息。这个承诺我能够兑现。你从伯克希尔获得的全部回报就是:把它放进你的保险箱,然后每年下去一次,摸一摸它。你把它取出来,再放回去。这里面蕴含着巨大的精神愉悦。别低估了这一点。核心问题是,我们能否把留存下来的每一块钱,以合理的回报率变成超过一块钱。这就是我们努力在做的。为了这个目标,查理·芒格和我把我们所有的钱都投在了里面。这是我们唯一会获得的报酬。我们不会拿任何股票期权,也不会拿什么值得一提的薪水。但这就是我们正在努力实现的目标。这项工作越来越难了。我们管理的资金越多,就越难做到这一点。如果伯克希尔的规模只有现在的百分之一,我们的收益率会好得多。这家公司是为其所有者运作的,但运作的目的不是派发股息,因为到目前为止,我们赚来的或者说本可以派发的每一块钱,都已经变成了超过一块钱。把它留下比发出去更值钱。因此,派发现金股息会是愚蠢的做法。即使所有股东都免税也一样。在伯克希尔派发股息将是一个错误。因为迄今为止,留存下来的一块钱已经变成了超过一块钱。但没有人保证未来也能如此。到某个时候,这种游戏就会走到尽头。这就是这门生意的全部含义。除此之外,我们不拿任何其他标准来评判自己。我们不以总部大楼的规模来判断自己,也不以像员工人数这样的任何东西来判断。伯克希尔总部只有 12 个人,而旗下有 45000 名雇员;总部占地 3500 平方英尺,我们不会改变这一点。但我们用公司的业绩来评判自己,这也是我们获得报酬的唯一方式。不过请相信我,这比过去难多了。

问题:你怎么知道一项投资已经达到了它的全部潜力?

巴菲特:我买入可口可乐时,并没有抱着它 10 年或 50 年内会动力耗尽的念头。也许会发生什么事情,但我认为这种可能性几乎为零。所以我们所

If everyone in this room trades their portfolio around every day with every other person, you will all end up broke. And the intermediary will end up with all the money. If you all own stock in a group of average businesses and just sit here for the next 50 years, you will end up with a fair amount of money and your broker will be broke. He is like the Doctor who gets paid on how often to get you to change pills. If he gave you one pill that cures you the rest of your life, he would make one sale, one transaction and that is it. But if he can convince you that changing pills every day is the way to great health, it will be great for him and the prescriptionists. You won’t be any healthier and you will be a lot worse off financially. You want to stay away from any environment that stimulates activity. And Wall Street would have the effective of doing that. When I went back to Omaha, I would go back with a whole list of companies I wanted to check out and I would get my money’s worth out of those trips, but then I would go back to Omaha and think about it. Question: How to evaluate Berkshire or MSFT if it does not pay dividends? Buffett: It won’t pay any dividends either. That is a promise I can keep. All you get with Berkshire, you stick it in your safe deposit box and then every year you go down and fondle it. You take it out and then you put it back. There is enormous psychic reward in that. Don’t underestimate it. The real question is if we can retain dollar bills and turn them into more than a dollar at a decent rate. That is what we try to do. And Charlie Munger and I have all our money in it to do that. That is all we will get paid for doing. We won’t take any options or we won’t take any salaries to speak of. But that is what we are trying to do. It gets harder all the time. The more money we manage the harder it is to do that. We would do way better percentage wise with Berkshire if it was 1/100th the present size. It is run for its owners, but it isn’t run to give them dividends because so far every dollar that we earned or could have paid out, we have turned into more than a dollar. It is worth more than a dollar to keep it. Therefore, it would be silly to pay it out. Even if everyone was taxfree that owned it. It would have been a mistake to pay dividends at Berkshire. Because so far the dollar bills retained have turned into more than a dollar. But there is no guarantee that happens in the future. At some point the game runs out on that. That is what the business is about. Nothing else about the business do we judge ourselves by. We don’t judge it by the size of its home office building or anything the like the number of people working there. We have 12 people working at headquarters and 45,000 employees at Berkshire, 12 people at HQ and 3,500 sq ft. and we won’t change it. But we will judge ourselves by the performance of the company and that is the only way we will get paid. But believe me, it is a lot harder than it used to be. Question: What tells you when an investment has reached its full potential? Buffett: I don’t buy Coke with the idea it will be out of gas in 10 years or 50 years. There could be something that happens by I think the chances are almost nil. So what we

16
16

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生座谈。

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

我们想做的,是买入那些我们乐意永远持有的企业。这跟我对买入伯克希尔股票的人所持的看法是一样的。我希望买入伯克希尔的人打算永远持有它。他们可能会因为这样或那样的原因做不到,但我希望他们在买入的那一刻,是认为自己买入了一家想要永远持有的企业。我并不是说这是唯一的买入方式。只是,会选择这种方式的人会加入我的行列,因为我并不想面对一个不断变动的股东群体。我衡量伯克希尔的一个标准,就是它股票的交易活跃度有多低。如果我自己有一个教堂,我是牧师,每个星期天都有半数教众离开,我是不会说:“我的教徒流动性这么高,太了不起了。”好棒的换手率……我宁愿去一个每个星期天所有座位都被同一批人坐满的教堂。嗯,这就是我们看待我们买入的企业的方式。我们想买几乎可以永远持有的东西。而这样的东西我们找不到很多。在我刚起步那会儿,主意比钱多得多,所以我不得不持续卖出最没有吸引力的那只股票,好去买我刚发现的、看上去甚至更便宜的东西。但现在已经不是我们的问题了。所以我们希望,我们买入的企业,五年后我们跟现在一样乐意持有它。要是我们碰到一笔巨大的收购,届时也许我们不得不卖出一些东西,也许是为了做成那笔收购,但这会是一个相当愉快的烦恼。我们买入任何东西时,从来不会在心里设定一个目标价。我们从来不会在 30 元买入,然后想,要是涨到 40 就卖,或者 50、60、100。我们根本不那样做。同样,当我们花 2500 万美元买下像喜诗糖果这样的私人企业时,我们也不会说,要是有人出价 5000 万美元来买这家公司我们就卖。这不是看待企业的方式。看待企业的方式是:随着时间的推移,这家公司会不会持续产出越来越多的钱?如果答案是肯定的,你就不需要再问别的问题了。

问题:当初是怎么决定投资所罗门兄弟的?

巴菲特:所罗门兄弟,就像我说的,我介入是因为它在 1987 年 9 月是一份票面利率 9% 的证券。当时道琼斯指数涨了 35%,我们卖出了很多东西。我手头有不少闲钱,看起来我们似乎永远也做不成什么事了,于是我就买入了一份有吸引力的证券,尽管我永远都不会想去买这家公司的普通股。我是因为这个原因进去的,而且我现在觉得这总体来看是个错误。最后结果还算可以。但这并不是我当时应该做的事情。我要么就该等待,那样的话大概一年后我就能买到更多的可口可乐,要么我甚至应该在可口可乐当时的价位就买进,尽管当时它已经卖得不便宜了。所以那是个错误。至于长期资本管理公司,那是——我们多年来也拥有过其他跟证券打交道的业务——其中之一就是套利。我做套利已有 45 年,格雷厄姆在那之前也做了 30 年。不幸的是,这是一项我必须守在电话边上的业务。我得自己守在办公室里操作(套利操作),因为

really want to do is buy businesses that we would be happy to own forever. It is the same way I fell about people who buy Berkshire. I want people who buy Berkshire to plan to hold it forever. They may not for one reason or the other but I want them at the time they buy it to think they are buying a business they are going to want to own forever. And I don’t say that is the only way to buy things. It is just the group to join me because I don’t want to have a changing group all the time. I measure Berkshire by how little activity there is in it. If I had a church and I was the preacher and half the congregation left every Sunday. I wouldn’t say, “It is marvelous to have all this liquidity among my members.” Terrific turnover… I would rather go to church where all the seats are filled every Sunday by the same people. Well that is the way we look at the businesses we buy. We want to buy something virtually forever. And we can’t find a lot of those. And back when I started, I had way more ideas than money so I was just constantly having to sell what was the least attractive stock in order to buy something I just discovered that looked even cheaper. But that is not our problem really now. So we hope we are buying businesses that we are just as happy holding five years from now as now. And if we ever found a huge acquisition, then maybe we would have to sell something. Maybe to make that acquisition but that would be a very pleasant problem to have. We never buy something with a price target in mind. We never buy something at 30 saying if it goes to 40 we’ll sell it or 50 or 60 or 100. We just don’t do it that way. Anymore than when we buy a private business like See’s Candy for $25 million. We don’t ever say if we ever get an offer of $50 million for this business we will sell it. That is not the way to look at a business. The way to look at a business is this going to keep producing more and more money over time? And if the answer to that is yes, you don’t need to ask any more questions. Questions: How did you decide to invest in Salomon? Buffett: Salomon like I said, I went into that because it was a 9% security in 1987 in September 1987 and the Dow was up 35% and we sold a lot of stuff. And I had a lot of money around and it looked to me like we would never get to do anything, so I took an attractive security form in a business I would never buy the common stock of. I went in because of that and I think generally it is a mistake. It worked out OK finally on that. But it is not what I should have been doing. I either should have waited in which case I could have bought more Coca-Cola a year later or thereabouts or I should have even bought Coke at the prices it was selling at even though it was selling at a pretty good price at the time. So that was a mistake. On Long-Term Capital that is—we have owned other businesses associated with securities over the years-–One of them is arbitrage. I’ve done arbitrage for 45 years and Graham did it for 30 years before that. That is a business unfortunately I have to be near a phone for. I have to really run it (arbitrage operations) out of the office myself, because

17
17

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

这要求你对市场更敏感,可我已经不想再那样做了。所以,除非出现我理解的特大型套利机会,否则我不太会再做很多(套利)了。但我这辈子至少参与过约 300 笔套利交易,可能更多。这曾是一门好生意,完完全全的好生意。LTCM 手里有一大堆头寸,他们有许许多多头寸,但前十大头寸大概占了 90% 的风险敞口,而我对那十大头寸有所了解。我绝不是说它们的一切我都懂,但我了解的程度足以让我觉得,如果以很大的折价介入,而且我们有坚守到底的实力,我会感到安心。我们可能会在某笔交易上亏钱,但胜算站在我们这边。这是我懂的游戏。我们还有一些其他的头寸,规模没那么大,因为它们也不可能做到那么大。它们可能涉及收益率曲线关系,或者新券和旧券国债之间的价差——这些只是你在证券市场待久了自然会学到的东西。它们不是我们业务的基本盘。平均而言,它们大概为我们的年度回报率贡献了 0.5 到 0.75 个百分点。这不过是你在这个市场上待得足够久而得到的一点点额外收益。

it requires being more market-attuned because I don’t want to do that anymore. So unless a really big arbitrage situation came along that I understood, I won’t be doing much of that. But I’ve probably participated in about 300 arbitrage situations at least in my life maybe more. It was a good business, a perfectly good business. LTCM has a bunch of positions, they have tons of positions, but the top ten are probably 90% of the money that is at risk, and I know something about those ten positions. I don’t know everything about them by a long shot, but I know enough that I would feel OK at a big discount going in and we had the staying power to hold it out. We might lose money on something on that, but the odds are with us. That is a game that I understand. There are few other positions we have that are not that big because they can’t get that big. But they could involve yield curve relationships or on the run/off the run governments that are just things you learn over time being around securities markets. They are not the base of our business. Probably on average, they have accounted for ½ - ¾ a percentage point of our return a year. They are little pluses you get for actually having been around a long time.

套利

Arbitrage

我最早做过的套利之一,涉及一家公司,它允许用股票来换可可豆。那是 1955 年。我买入股票,将股票交付出去,换回了可可豆的仓单,它们恰好是不同品种,存在基差,我就把它们卖了。那时我正好在场,所以就学到了这一手。那之后,再也没出现过可可豆的交易。四十多年了,我一直等着再遇到一笔可可豆交易,但再也没见过。这份记忆还留在我脑海里,万一哪天又出现了呢。LTCM 就是把这种事放到了极大的规模上。

问:关于分散投资?

巴菲特:问题是关于分散投资的。我对此有一个双重回答。如果你不是专业的投资者,如果你的目标不是通过管理资金以取得远超市场的回报,那我就坚信极度分散。我认为 98% 到 99% 的投资者应该进行广泛的分散投资,并且不要交易,所以这会引导他们做出投资成本极低的指数基金这类决定。他们所要做的,就是拥有美国的一小部分。而且他们已经认定,拥有美国的一小部分是值得的。对此我完全认同。这就是他们应该采用的方法,除非他们想把这场游戏玩得更投入,去自己做决策并开始评估企业。一旦你进入了评估企业的行当,并已决定要投入相应的努力、专注和时间来把这件事做好,那么我认为,任何程度的分散投资都是一个可怕的错误。前几天在太阳信托(SunTrust)也有人问我同样的问题。如果你真的懂企业,你大概不应该持有超过六家公司。如果你能找出六家出色的企业,那就是你所需要的所有分散。而且你会赚很多钱。我可以担保,与其把钱投进第七个好主意,不如把更多钱投进你第一好的主意,前者必定是一个可怕的错误。很少有人能靠他们第七好的想法致富,但有很多人靠他们最好的想法发了大财。

One of the first arbitrages I did involved a company that offered cocoa beans in exchange for their stock. That was in 1955. I bought the stock, turned in the stock, got warehouse certificates for cocoa beans and they happen to be a different type but there was a basis differential and I sold them. That was something I was around at the time, so I learned about it. There hasn’t been a cocoa deal since. 40 odd years, I have been waiting for a cocoa deal. I haven’t seen it. It is there in my memory if it ever comes along. LTCM is that on a big scale. Question: Diversification? Buffett: The question is about diversification. I have a dual answer to that. If you are not a professional investor. If your goal is not to manage money to earn a significantly better return than the world, then I believe in extreme diversification. I believe 98% - 99% who invest should extensively diversify and not trade, so that leads them to an index fund type of decision with very low costs. All they are going to do is own part of America. And they have made a decision that owning a part of America is worthwhile. I don’t quarrel with that at all. That is the way they should approach it unless they want to bring an intensity to the game to make a decision and start evaluating businesses. Once you are in the businesses of evaluating businesses and you decide that you are going to bring the effort and intensity and time involved to get that job done, then I think diversification is a terrible mistake to any degree. I got asked that question the other day at SunTrust. If you really know businesses, you probably shouldn’t own more than six of them. If you can identify six wonderful businesses, that is all the diversification you need. And you will make a lot of money. And I can guarantee that going into a seventh one instead of putting more money into your first one is gotta be a terrible mistake. Very few people have gotten rich on their seventh best idea. But a lot of people have gotten rich with their

18
18

1998 年,巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

最好的主意。所以我会说,对于任何用正常资本运作、确实了解自己进入的行业的人来说,六个就足够了,而且可能我最喜欢的也只持有其中一半。我自己不做多元化。所有我认识的做得不错的人,除了沃尔特·施洛斯——沃尔特做了大量多元化。我叫他诺亚,他每种都持有两样。问:你怎么区分可口可乐这类公司和宝洁这类公司?巴菲特:宝洁是非常非常好的生意,拥有强大的分销能力和众多品牌,但如果你问我,我要离开二十年,把我全家净资产投到一家公司,我会选宝洁还是可口可乐?实际上宝洁在产品线上更多元化,但我对可口可乐的把握比宝洁更大。如果有人告诉我必须持有宝洁二十年,我不会不开心。我的意思是,那会排在我前 5% 的候选名单里。因为它们不会完蛋,但我觉得可口可乐未来二三十年在单位销量增长和定价权方面更胜一筹。现在定价权可能有点难,但想想每天 10 亿份饮料,每份赚 1 美分,就是每天 1000 万美元。我们拥有 8%,所以伯克希尔·哈撒韦每天进账 80 万美元。你还能再从这东西身上多赚 1 美分。这看起来并非不可能。我觉得它值再多 1 美分。现在在大多数市场想提价是个错误。但随着时间的推移,可口可乐每份赚的钱会比现在多。二十年后我保证它们每份赚得更多,而且销售份数也会多得多。我不知道多多少份或多多少钱,但我清楚这一点。宝洁的主要产品——我不认为它们有那种统治力,也没有那种单位销量增长,但它们是很好的生意。如果有人告诉我必须把全家净资产投到宝洁,而且那是我唯一持有的股票,我不会不开心。我可能会更喜欢其他某个名字,但我不会喜欢超过 100 个其他名字。问:你会买麦当劳然后离开二十年吗?巴菲特:麦当劳有很多优势,尤其是在国外。在国外许多国家,它的地位比在美国更强。但随着时间的推移,它是更难做的生意。人们不想每天在麦当劳吃饭——除了孩子们在送豆宝宝玩具之类的时候除外。如果一个人每天喝五瓶可乐,他明天很可能还会喝五瓶。快餐生意比那个难做,但如果你必须在快餐生意里选一只手,而快餐将是全球一个巨大的行业,你会选麦当劳。我的意思是,它拥有最强的地位。它在成年人的口味测试中不赢。它对儿童很有吸引力,对成年人也还行,但它不像是一个明确的赢家。而且近年来它陷入了更多价格促销的游戏——你还记得大约一年前的那个实验吧。它

best idea. So I would say for anyone working with normal capital who really knows the businesses they have gone into, six is plenty, and I probably have half of what I like best. I don’t diversify personally. All the people I’ve known that have done well with the exception of Walter Schloss, Walter diversifies a lot. I call him Noah, he has two of everything. Question: How do you distinguish the Cokes of the world from the Proctor & Gambles of this world? Buffett: Well, P&G is a very, very good business with strong distribution capability and lots of brand names, but if you ask me and I am going to go away for twenty years and put all my family’s net worth into one business, would I rather have P&G or Coke? Actually P&G is more diversified among product line, but I would feel more sure of Coke than P&G. I wouldn’t be unhappy if someone told me I had to own P&G during the twenty-year period. I mean that would be in my top 5 percent. Because they are not going to get killed, but I would feel better about the unit growth and pricing power of a Coke over twenty or thirty years. Right now the pricing power might be tough, but you think a billion servings a day for a penny each or $10 million per day. We own 8% of that, so that is $800,000 per day for Berkshire Hathaway. You could get another penny out of the stuff. It doesn’t seem impossible. I think it is worth a penny more. Right now it would be a mistake to try and get it in most markets. But over time, Coke will make more per serving than it does now. Twenty years from now I guarantee they will make more per serving, and they will be selling a whole lot more servings. I don't know how many or how much more, but I know that. P&G's main products--I don't think they have the kind of dominance, and they don't have the kind of unit growth, but they are good businesses. I would not be unhappy if you told me that I had to put my family's net worth into P&G and that was the only stock I would own. I might prefer some other name, but there are not 100 other names I would prefer. Question: Would you buy McDonald’s and go away for twenty years? Buffett: McDonald’s has a lot of things going for it, particularly abroad again. Thee position abroad in many countries is stronger than it is here. It is a tougher business over time. People don't want to be eating--exception to the kids when they are giving away beanie babies or something--at McDonald’s every day. If people drink five Cokes a day, they probably will drink five of them tomorrow. The fast food business is tougher than that but if you had to pick one hand to have in the fast food business, which is going to be a huge business worldwide, you would pick McDonald’s. I mean it has the strongest position. It doesn't win taste test with adults. It does very well with children and it does fine with adults, but it is not like it is a clear winner. And it is gotten into the game in recent years of being more price promotional--you remember the experiment a year ago or so. It has

19
19

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

变得比产品销售本身更依赖促销手段了。我更喜欢产品本身。如果人们买吉列锋速 3 是因为喜欢这款产品,而不是因为随刀附赠了一个豆豆娃,那我对吉列的感觉会更好。所以我认为,从根本上看,如果情况如此,它是一种更强的产品。而实际情况很可能就是这样。我们持有大量吉列股票,只要想想几十亿男人脸上都在长胡子,你晚上就能睡得很踏实。你睡觉的时候胡子还在一直长。女人有两条腿,情况更妙。这比数羊管用多了。这类生意就是你(要找的)。不过我下个月要推出什么促销活动来对抗汉堡王?如果他们签下了迪士尼而我拿不到迪士尼该怎么办?我更喜欢那种不依赖价格促销或花哨噱头就能独立存在的产品——当然,靠促销也能做出很好的生意。麦当劳是门极好的生意,但它没有可口可乐那么好。实际上,几乎没有生意能比得上可口可乐。麦当劳是非常好的生意,如果你要在那个领域押注一家公司,那就押(听不清)麦当劳。我们不久前收购了冰雪皇后,所以我在这里毫无羞耻地给它打广告。提问:我对公用事业行业怎么看?巴菲特:我考虑过很多,因为你可以往里面投大笔钱。我甚至想过收购整个公司。奥马哈确实有个人通过卡尔能源公司做过一些类似的事。但我不太理解在放松管制的情况下这个行业的游戏规则会如何演变。我能看到的是,高成本生产商一旦不再受垄断区域的保护,会摧毁大量价值。但我不确定谁会受益、受益多少。显然,拥有极低成本电力的人——比如能以每千瓦时 2 美分成本发电的水电企业——有巨大优势。但他能保留多少优势?能把电力输送到原本区域以外的范围有多大?我一直没想明白。所以我不敢说真知道这个行业十年后会是什么样。但这确实是我在考虑的事情,如果哪天我对它有了需要行动的认识,我会采取行动。因为我自认为能理解这个产品的吸引力——用户需求确定、产品便宜等所有方面我都理解。但我不明白十年后谁会赚到钱。正是这一点让我远离它。提问:为什么 1998 年大盘股表现优于小盘股?巴菲特:我们不在乎一家公司是大盘、小盘、中盘还是微盘。这没有任何区别。对我们来说唯一重要的问题是:

gotten more dependent on that rather than selling the product by itself. I like the product by itself. I feel better about Gillette if people buy the Mach 3 because they like the Mach 3 than if they get a Beanie Baby with it. So I think fundamentally it is a stronger product if that is the case. And that is probably the case. We own a lot of Gillette and you can sleep pretty well at night if you think of a couple billion men with their hair growing on their faces. It is growing all night while you sleep. Women have two legs, it is even better. So it beats counting sheep. And those are the kinds of business…(you look for). But what type of promotion am I going to put out there against Burger King next month or what if they sign up Disney and I don't get Disney? I like the products that stand alone absent price promotion or appeals although you can build a very good business based on that. And McDonald’s is a terrific business. It is not as good a business as Coke. There really hardly are any. It is a very good business and if you bet on one company in that field bet on (garbled) McDonald’s. We bought Dairy Queen a while back that is why I am plugging it shamelessly here. Question: What do I think about the utility industry? Buffett: I have thought about that a lot because you can put big money in it. I have even thought of buying the entire businesses. There is a fellow in Omaha actually that has done a little of that through Cal Energy. But I don't quite understand the game in terms of how it is going to develop with deregulation. I can see how it destroys a lot of value through the high cost producer once they are not protected by a monopoly territory. I don't for sure see who benefits and how much. Obviously the guy with very low cost power or some guy has hydro-power at two cents a KwH has a huge advantage. But how much of that he gets to keep or how extensively he can send that outside his natural territory, I haven't been able to figure that out so I really know what the Industry will look like in ten years. But it is something I think about and if I ever develop any insights that call for action, I will act on them. Because I think I can understand the attractiveness of the product. All the aspects of certainty of users need and the fact it is a bargain and all of that. I understand. I don't understand who is going to make the money in ten years. And that keeps me away. Question: Why do large caps outperform small caps (1998)? Buffett: We don't care if a company is large cap, small cap, middle cap, micro cap. It doesn't make any difference. The only questions that matter to us: • • •

我们看懂了这个生意吗?我们喜欢经营它的人吗?它的卖价有吸引力吗?

Do we understand the business? Do we like the people running it? And does it sell for a price that is attractive?

从我个人的角度来看,现在管理伯克希尔,因为我们按通用再保险的备考基准,有 750 亿到 800 亿美元可用来投资,而我只想投五样东西,所以我确实只局限于非常大的公司。但如果我是在投资 10 万美元,我才不在乎

From my personal standpoint running Berkshire now because we got, pro forma for Gen. Re, $75 to $80 billion to invest in and I only want to invest in five things, so I am really limited to very big companies. But if I were investing $100,000, I wouldn't care whether

20
20

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的对话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

我根本不管什么大盘股、小盘股之类的。我只找我看得懂的企业。现在回过头来看,我认为总体而言,过去十年大盘股作为企业表现极其出色——远远好过人们早先的预期。美国企业的净资产收益率实际已经接近 20%。这是谁都没想到的,而且这些收益是由超大公司整体创造出来的。所以,因为利率下降和资本回报率大幅提高,你看到了巨大的向上重估。如果美国企业本质上是一张伪装成债券、票息 20% 的证券,那它比票息 13% 的债券好得多。这正是近年来大公司身上发生的事——至于这是否永久,那是另一个问题。我对此持怀疑态度。我根本不会去想它——除了我们管理资金规模的问题——我根本不会去考虑企业的大小。我们买下喜诗糖果的时候,它只是个 2500 万美元的生意。如果现在还能找到类似规模的公司,以我们现在的体量,我很乐意买下来。确定性才是关键。提问:房地产证券化呢?巴菲特:房地产的债务也已经大规模证券化了,而这是目前堵塞资本市场的问题之一。抵押贷款支持证券根本动不了——商业地产的,不是住宅抵押贷款支持证券。但我认为你问的问题可能指向股票。股票,如果你把公司形式撇开的话,是一种很差的持有股权的方式。你把公司所得税插了进去,而个人本来只需缴纳一道税就能持有资产;在标准的公司形式下,你要承担双重税负。你根本不需要它,它吃掉太多回报。REITs 实际上创造了一个导管,让你避免双重税负,但它们通常也有相当高的运营费用。如果你持有房地产,比如说你能以 8% 左右的收益率买到相当简单的房产,等你把股票期权什么的都算进去,扣掉差不多 1% 到 1.5%,那持有房地产的方式就没什么吸引力了。也许这是只有 1000 美元或 5000 美元的人才能持有的方式,但如果你有 100 万美元或 1000 万美元,你最好自己直接持有房产,而不是夹个中间人进去,让中间人拿走相当大一部分回报。所以,我们在那个领域没找到什么机会。未来几周你会看到一个公告,可能跟我今天说的矛盾。我不想让你觉得我在骗你。但总的来说,我们在那个领域几乎没看到什么让我们兴奋的东西。人们有时候会搞混——他们会看一些大型土地公司,比如德克萨斯太平洋土地信托,那家公司存在了 100 多年,在德克萨斯有几百万英亩地。它们每年卖掉 1% 的地,然后用那笔钱(作为收入?听不清)算出一些巨大的价值,远超市值。但如果你真的拥有那些地产,那是胡扯。你卖不掉。你卖不掉 50% 的地产,也卖不掉 20% 的地产,它比流动性差的股票还糟得多。所以我觉得,你会在很多地产估价上看到一些非常愚蠢的数字。

something was large cap or small cap or anything. I would just look for businesses I understood. Now, I think, on balance, large cap companies as businesses have done extraordinarily well the last ten years--way better than people anticipated they would do. You really have American businesses earning close to something 20% on equity. And that is something nobody dreamed of and that is being produced by very large companies in aggregate. So you have had this huge revaluation upwards because of lower interest rates and much higher returns on capital. If America business is really a disguised bond that earns 20%, a 20% coupon it is much better than a bond with a 13% coupon. And that has happened with big companies in recent years, whether it is permanent or not is another question. I am skeptical of that. I wouldn't even think about it--except for questions of how much money we run--I wouldn't even think about the size of the business. See's Candy was a $25 million business when we bought it. If I can find one now, as big as we are, I would love to buy it. It is the certainty of it that counts. Question: The securitization of real estate? Buffett: There has been enormous securitization of the debt too of real estate and that is one of the items right now that is really clogging up the capital markets. The mortgage back securities are just not moving, commercial, not residential mortgage backs. But I think you are directing your question at equities probably. The equities, if you leave out the corporate form, have been a lousy way to own equities. You have interjected a corporate income tax into something that people individually have been able to own with a single tax, and to have the normal corporate form you have a double taxation in there. You really don't need it and it takes too much of the return. REITS have, in effect, created a conduit so you don't get the double taxation, but they also generally have fairly high operating expenses. If you get real estate, let's just say you can buy fairly simple types of real estate at an 8% yield, or thereabouts, and you take away close to 1% to 1.5% by the time you count stock options and everything, it is not a terribly attractive way to own real estate. Maybe the only way a guy with a $1,000 or $5,000 can own it but if you have $1 million or $10 million, you are better off owning the real estate properties yourself instead of sticking some intermediary in between who will get a sizable piece of the return for himself. So we have found very little in that field. You will see an announcement in the next couple of weeks that may belie what I am telling you today. I don't want you to think I am double crossing you up here. But generally speaking we have seen very little in that field that gets us excited. People sometimes get very confused about--they will look at some huge land company, like Texas Pacific Land Trust, which has been around over 100 years and has got a couple of million acres in Texas. And they will sell 1% of their land every year and they will take that (as income? Garbled) and come up with some huge value compared to the market value. But that is nonsense if you really own the property. You can't move. You can't move 50% of the properties or 20% of the properties, it is way worse than an illiquid stock. So you get these, I think, you get some very silly valuations placed on a lot of real

21
21

1998 年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学对 MBA 学生的讲话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

那些不动产公司,通常是由一些并不了解拥有这类公司是怎么回事、也不懂如何大量出售物业的人在经营。如各位所知,REITs 在这轮市场中表现极差,它们作为一个资产类别有可能变得极不受欢迎,以至于成交价会远低于你实际出售物业所能拿到的价格,这一点并非不可想象。当它们作为一个类别变得有吸引力时,问题就在于管理层在这个过程中会不会阻碍你,因为他们会因此失去管理资产带来的收入流,而他们的利益可能与股东利益相悖。对那些声称旗下资产非常优质、股价非常便宜,管理层却又跑出去增发股票的 REITs,我一直心存疑问。这本身是矛盾的。他们说我们的股票 28 美元时非常便宜,然后又以 28 美元减去承销佣金的价格大量卖出股票。这里面就说不通了。不过这是我们关注的领域。查理和我能看懂不动产,我们也愿意时不时参与超大型交易。如果不动产领域出现类似于长期资本管理公司(LTCM)那样的局面,我们愿意出手,麻烦在于,太多其他人也会愿意出手,所以不太可能以令我们心动的价格成交。提问:市场下跌对你有好处?巴菲特:我不知道市场会往哪里走。我更希望它下跌。但我的偏好影响不了市场。市场对我的感受一无所知。这是买股票首先要学会的一件事。你买了 100 股通用汽车(GM)的股票。现在你突然对通用汽车产生了各种情绪。它跌了,你可能会很生气。你可能会说:“唉,只要它涨回我的买入价,我的日子就又美好了。”或者它涨了,你可能会觉得自己真聪明,你和通用汽车之间有种热恋的感觉。你会有所有这些情绪。但股票并不知道你持有它。股票只是待在那里;它不在乎你付了多少钱,也不在乎你是不是它的股东。市场不会回应我的任何感觉。我说这话的意思是,我们在这里讲的是最彻底的冷脸相待。在座几乎所有人,未来十年大概率是股票的净买入者,而不是净卖出者,所以你们每个人本应希望价格更低。如果你未来十年是汉堡的净食客,只要你不是养牛的,你就会希望汉堡降价。如果你想买入可口可乐,而你现在没有持有可口可乐的股票,你就该希望可乐价格下跌。你盼的是这个周末去超市时它能打折。你希望周末去超市买东西时它降价,而不是涨价。纽约证券交易所就是一个超大的公司超市。你接下来是要买股票的,你想看到什么局面?你想让这些股票跌,狠狠地跌;那样你才能买得更划算。等二三十年后,你进入动用积蓄的阶段,或者由你的继承人为你动用积蓄的时候,你可能会在意更高的价格。格雷厄姆《聪明的投资者》里有第八章讲如何看待股票市场波动,以及第二十章讲安全边际

estate companies by people who really don't understand what it is like to own one and try to move large quantity of properties. REITS have behaved horribly in this market as you know and it is not at all inconceivable that they become a class that would get so unpopular that they would sell at significant discounts from what you could sell the properties for. And they could get interesting as a class and then the question is whether management would fight you in that process because they would be giving up their income stream for managing things and their interests might run counter to the shareholders on that. I have always wondered about REITS that have managements they say their assets are so wonderful, and they are so cheap and then they (management) go out and sell stock. There is a contradiction in that. They say our stock is very cheap at $28 and then they sell a lot of stock at $28 less an underwriting commission. There is a disconnect there. But it is a field we look at. Charlie and I can understand real estate, and we would be open for very big transactions periodically. If there was a LTCM situation translated to real estate, we would be open to that, the trouble is so many other people would be too that it would unlikely go at a price that would get us really get us excited. Question: A down market is good for you? Buffett: I have no idea were the market is going to go. I prefer it going down. But my preferences have nothing to do with it. The market knows nothing about my feelings. That is one of the first things you have to learn about a stock. You buy 100 shares of General Motors (GM). Now all of a sudden you have this feeling about GM. It goes down, you may be mad at it. You may say, "Well, if it just goes up for what I paid for it, my life will be wonderful again." Or if it goes up, you may say how smart you were and how you and GM have this love affair. You have got all these feelings. The stock doesn't know you own it. The stock just sits there; it doesn't care what you paid or the fact that you own it. Any feeling I have about the market is not reciprocated. I mean it is the ultimate cold shoulder we are talking about here. Practically anybody in this room is probably more likely to be a net buyer of stocks over the next ten years than they are a net seller, so everyone of you should prefer lower prices. If you are a net eater of hamburger over the next ten years, you want hamburger to go down unless you are a cattle producer. If you are going to be a buyer of Coca-Cola and you don't own Coke stock, you hope the price of Coke goes down. You are looking for it to be on sale this weekend at your Supermarket. You want it to be down on the weekends not up on the weekends when you tend the Supermarket. The NYSE is one big supermarket of companies. And you are going to be buying stocks, what you want to have happen? You want to have those stocks go down, way down; you will make better buys then. Later on twenty or thirty years from now when you are in a period when you are dis-saving, or when your heirs dis-save for you, then you may care about higher prices. There is Chapter 8 in Graham's Intelligent Investor about the attitude toward stock market fluctuations, that and Chapter 20 on the Margin of Safety

22
22

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

就我所知,这是迄今为止关于投资最重要的两篇文章。因为我 19 岁读到第 8 章的时候,我明白了刚才说的那些——它显而易见,但我自己并没有想明白,是它给我讲清楚的。不然的话,我可能再花一百年也还是觉得股票上涨才是好事。我们希望东西跌,但我完全不知道股市会怎么走。我从来不知道,也永远不会知道。这根本不是我会去琢磨的事。股市跌的时候,我会更使劲地看当天能买什么,因为我知道那里更有可能出现值得我用钱有效投资的货品。

主持人:好的,沃伦,我们让你再回答观众一个问题……

巴菲特:你挑谁吧,你来当那个人……(笑声)

提问:如果你能重活一次,你会怎么做来活得更幸福?

巴菲特:这话听起来有点恶心。问题是,如果重活一次,我要怎么才能活得更幸福?唯一的办法就是选一个能让人活到 120 岁的基因池,从我的来源那里来。我这辈子运气好得不得了。我是说,我拿这个例子讲一两分钟,因为我觉得值得稍微想一想。假设你出生前 24 小时,一个精灵来找你说:“赫伯,你看上去很有前途,我有个大麻烦。我必须设计你要生活的世界。我决定这太难了,你来设计吧。你有 24 小时,你定好社会规则、经济规则和政府规则,你和你的孩子、你孩子的孩子都要按这些规则生活。”你说:“我可以设计任何东西吗?肯定有陷阱吧?”精灵说,有个陷阱。你不知道你会生为黑人还是白人、有钱还是贫穷、男性还是女性、体弱还是强壮、聪明还是迟钝。你只知道你要从一个大桶里抓一个球,桶里有 58 亿个球。你要参加这个卵巢抽奖。而这将是你人生中最重要的事,因为这将决定你是生在这里还是生在阿富汗,是智商 130 还是智商 70。它将决定太多太多了。你会设计什么样的世界?我觉得这是看待社会问题的一个好方法,因为不知道你会抽到哪个球,你会想设计一个能提供大量商品和服务的系统,因为你希望人们总体上过得好。你还希望它生产越来越多,让你的孩子过得比你好,你的孙子比他们的父母过得好。但你也想要一个能生产大量商品和服务的系统,它不会抛弃那个不小心抽到坏球、天生不太适合这套特定系统的人。我天生就适合我掉进来的这套系统。我出来之后,碰上了能让我配置资本的事情。没有什么比这更

are the two most important essays ever written on investing as far as I am concerned. Because when I read Chapter 8 when I was 19, I figured out what I just said but it is obvious, but I didn't figure it out myself. It was explained to me. I probably would have gone another 100 years and still thought it was good when my stocks were going up. We want things to go down, but I have no idea what the stock market is going to do. I never do and I never will. It is not something I think about at all. When it goes down, I look harder at what I might buy that day because I know there is more likely to be some merchandise there to use my money effectively in. Moderator: Ok, Warren, we will let you take one more question from the audience…. Buffett: I will let you pick who get it. You can be the guy…(laughter). Question: What would you do to live a happier life if you could live over again? Buffett: This will sound disgusting. The question is how would I live my life over again to live a happier life? The only thing would be to select a gene pool where people lived to 120 or something where I came from. I have been extraordinarily lucky. I mean, I use this example and I will take a minute or two because I think it is worth thinking about a little bit. Let's just assume it was 24 hours before you were born and a genie came to you and he said, "Herb, you look very promising and I have a big problem. I got to design the world in which you are going to live in. I have decided it is too tough; you design it. So you have twenty-four hours, you figure out what the social rules should be, the economic rules and the governmental rules and you and your kids and their kids will live under those rules. You say, "I can design anything? There must be a catch?" The genie says there is a catch. You don't know if you are going to be born black or white, rich or poor, male or female, infirm or able-bodied, bright or retarded. All you know is you are going to take one ball out of a barrel with 5.8 billion (balls). You are going to participate in the ovarian lottery. And that is going to be the most important thing in your life, because that is going to control whether you are born here or in Afghanistan or whether you are born with an IQ of 130 or an IQ of 70. It is going to determine a whole lot. What type of world are you going to design? I think it is a good way to look at social questions, because not knowing which ball you are going to get, you are going to want to design a system that is going to provide lots of goods and services because you want people on balance to live well. And you want it to produce more and more so your kids live better than you do and your grandchildren live better than their parents. But you also want a system that does produce lots of goods and services that does not leave behind a person who accidentally got the wrong ball and is not well wired for this particular system. I am ideally wired for the system I fell into here. I came out and got into something that enables me to allocate capital. Nothing so

23
23

巴菲特 1998 年在佛罗里达大学与 MBA 学生的谈话

Buffett Talk to MBA Students at Florida University 1998.

这真是太棒了。如果我们所有人都被困在某个荒岛上,永远无法离开,那么那里最有价值的人,就是那个能长期种出最多稻米的人。我可以说:“我能做资本配置!”你们对此可不会太兴奋。所以我出生在正确的地方。盖茨说,如果我出生在 300 万年前,我早就成了某种动物的午餐了。他说:“你跑不快,爬不了树,什么也干不了。”你第一天就会被嚼碎吃掉。你很幸运,出生在了今天。我也是这样。回到那个问题:这里有一个装着 65 亿个球的桶,代表世界上的每个人。如果你能把自己的球放回去,然后他们随机取出 100 个球,你必须从中选择一个,你会把自己的球放回去吗?这 100 个球里,大约有 5 个是美国人,95 个是其他人。所以如果你想留在这个国家,你只有 5 个球可选,其中一半是女人一半是男人——我让你们自己决定怎么选。一半智商低于平均水平,一半高于平均水平。你愿意把自己的球放回去换那 100 个吗?你们大多数人肯定不愿意。所以你们其实是在说:我现在坐在这个房间里,已经是世界上最幸运的 1% 了——顶尖的 1%。我就是这种感觉。我很幸运出生在这里,因为我出生时美国的机会是 50 比 1。我幸运地拥有好父母,幸运地有各种好条件,幸运地天生以某种方式思考,而在市场经济中,这种思考方式让我赚得盆满钵满。它不会给像我一样优秀的公民带来同样的回报,比如那些带领童子军、主日学校,或是养育出色家庭的人,只是他们碰巧没有我这种思维方式。所以我一直极其幸运,我还想再幸运一次。那么实现的方法就是:继续玩这场游戏,一辈子做自己喜欢的事,和自己喜欢的人在一起。我只和我喜欢的人共事。如果和一个让我胃不舒服的人合作能赚 1 亿美元,我会说不,因为这很像为钱结婚——在任何情况下这都不算好主意,但如果你已经很有钱,那就更疯狂了。我不会为钱结婚。我几乎会完全重复我做过的事,只是不会买美国航空。谢谢。

wonderful about that. If all of us were stranded on a desert island somewhere and we were never going to get off of it, the most valuable person there would be the one who could raise the most rice over time. I can say, "I can allocate capital!" You wouldn't be very excited about that. So I have been born in the right place. Gates says that if I had been born three million years ago, I would have been some animal's lunch. He says, "You can't run very fast, you can't climb trees, you can't do anything." You would just be chewed up the first day. You are lucky; you were born today. And I am. The question getting back, here is this barrel with 6.5 billion balls, everybody in the world, if you could put your ball back, and they took out at random a 100 balls and you had to pick one of those, would you put your ball back in? Now those 100 balls you are going to get out, roughly 5 of them will be American, 95/5. So if you want to be in this country, you will only have 5 balls, half of them will be women and half men--I will let you decide how you will vote on that one. Half of them will below average in intelligence and half above average in intelligence. Do you want to put your ball in there? Most of you will not want to put your ball back to get 100. So what you are saying is: I am in the luckiest one percent of the world right now sitting in this room--the top one percent of the world. Well, that is the way I feel. I am lucky to be born where I was because it was 50 to 1 in the United States when I was born. I have been lucky with parents, lucky with all kinds of things and lucky to be wired in a way that in a market economy, pays off like crazy for me. It doesn't pay off as well for someone who is absolutely as good a citizen as I am (by) leading Boy Scout troops, teaching Sunday School or whatever, raising fine families, but just doesn't happen to be wired in the same way that I am. So I have been extremely lucky so I would like to be lucky again. Then the way to do it is to play out the game and do something you enjoy all your life and be associated with people you like. I only work with people I like. If I could make $100 million dollars with a guy who causes my stomach to churn, I would say no because in way that is very much like marrying for money which is probably not a very good idea in any circumstances, but if you are already rich, it is crazy. I am not going to marry for money. I would really do almost exactly what I have done except I wouldn't have bought the US Air. Thank you.

END.

END.

24
24