1998年巴菲特在佛罗里达大学的演讲（中英对照）

巴尔扎克

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.
　　巴菲特：话筒测试，100万美元，200万美元.....300万美元。我想先讲几分钟的套话，然后我就主要来接受你们的提问。我想谈的是你们的所思所想。我鼓励你们给我出难题，畅所欲言，言无不尽。
　　I urge you to throw hard balls, it’s more fun for me if you follow speed and speeches come in end. You can ask anything about except football game last week in A&M, that’s out of limits. We have come here for some from Sun Trust, I have just attend the top meeting and I sat next to Jim·Williams who runs Sun Trust for many years and he wanted to be sure that I wear this Sun Trust shirt down here.
　　我希望你们扔些高难度的球，如果你们的投球带些速度的话，我回答起来会更有兴致.你们几乎可以问任何问题，除了上个礼拜的Texas A & M的大学橄榄球赛，那超出我所能接受的极限了。我们这里来了几个SunTrust（译者注：美国一家大型商业银行）的人。我刚刚参加完Coca Cola的股东大会（译者注：Warren Buffet的投资公司是Coca Cola的长期大股东之一），我坐在吉米.威廉姆斯边上。吉米领导了SunTrust多年。吉米一定让我穿上这件SunTrust的T恤到这来。
　　I tried to get the sponsorship from the Senior Gulf and I was sluggish and now on the back of the store I am doing much better .He said I get 1% of increase in deposit ,profits ,so all I gets for Sun Trust, yell for Sun Trust.
　　我一直试着让老年高尔夫联盟给我赞助，但是都无功而返。没想到我在SunTrust这，却做的不错。吉米说，基于SunTrust存款的增长，我会得到一定比例的酬劳。所以我为SunTrust鼓劲。（译者注：巴菲特在开玩笑）
　　Your Future
　　你的未来
　　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. 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.
　　关于你们走出校门后的前程，我在这里只想讲一分钟。你们在这里已经学了很多关于投资方面的知识，你们学会如何做好事情，你们有足够的IQ能做好，你们也有动力和精力来做好，否则你们就不会在这里了。你们中的许多人都将最终实现你们的理想。但是在智能和能量之外，还有更多的东西来决定你是否成功，我想谈谈那些东西。实际上，在我们Omaha（译者注：Berkshire Hathaway公司的总部所在地）有一位先生说，当他雇人时，他会看三个方面：诚信，智能，和精力。雇一个只有智能和精力，却没有诚信的人会毁了雇者。一个没有诚信的人，你只能希望他愚蠢和懒惰，而不是聪明和精力充沛。我想谈的是第一点，因为我知道你们都具备后两点。在考虑这个问题时，请你们和我一起玩玩这个游戏。你们现在都是在MBA的第二年，所以你们对自己的同学也应该都了解了。现在我给你们一个来买进10％的你的一个同学的权利，一直到他的生命结束。你不能选那些有着富有老爸的同学，每个人的成果都要靠他自己的努力。我给你一个小时来想这个问题，你愿意买进哪一个同学余生的10％。
　　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.
　　你会给他们做一个IQ测试吗，选那个IQ值最高的？我很怀疑。你会挑那个学习成绩最好的吗，我也怀疑。你也不一定会选那个最精力充沛的，因为你自己本身就已经动力十足了。你可能会去寻找那些质化的因素，因为这里的每个人都是很有脑筋的。你想了一个小时之后，当你下赌注时，可能会选择那个你最有认同感的人，那个最有领导才能的人，那个能实现他人利益的人，那个慷慨，诚实，即使是他自己的主意，也会把功劳分予他人的人。所有这些素质，你可以把这些你所钦佩的素质都写下来。（你会选择）那个你最钦佩的人。然后，我这里再给你们下个跘儿。在你买进10％你的同学时，你还要卖出10％的另外一个人。
　　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.
　　这不是很有趣吗？你会想我到底卖谁呢？你可能还是不会找IQ最低的。你可能会选那个让你厌恶的同学，以及那些令你讨厌的品质。那个你不愿打交道的人，其他人也不愿意与之打交道的人。是什么品质导致了那一点呢？你能想出一堆来，比如不够诚实，爱占小便宜等等这些，你可以把它们写在纸的右栏。当你端详纸的左栏和右栏时，会发现有意思的一点。能否将橄榄球扔出60码之外并不重要，是否能在9秒3之内跑100码也不重要，是否是班上最好看的也无关大局。真正重要的是那些在纸上左栏里的品质。如果你愿意的话，你可以拥有所有那些品质。
　　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 self- destructive behavior patterns at my age or even twenty years younger and they really are entrapped by them.
　　那些行动，脾气，和性格的品质，都是可以做到的。它们不是我们在座的每一位力所不能及的。再看看那些右栏里那些让你厌恶的品质，没有一项是你不得不要的。如果你有的话，你也可以改掉。在你们这个年纪，改起来比在我这个年纪容易得多，因为大多数这些行为都是逐渐固定下来的。人们都说习惯的枷锁开始轻得让人感受不到，一旦你感觉到的时候，已经是沉重得无法去掉了。我认为说得很对。我见过很多我这个年纪或者比我还年轻10岁，20岁的人，有着自我破坏性习惯而又难以自拔。
　　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.
　　他们走到哪里都招人厌恶。他们不需要那样，但是他们已经无可救药。但是，在你们这个年纪，任何习惯和行为模式都可以有，只要你们愿意，就只是一个选择的问题。
　　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.
　　就象本杰明.格拉姆（上个世纪中叶著名的金融投资家）一样，在他还是十几岁的少年时，他四顾看看那些令人尊敬的人，他想我也要做一个被人尊敬的人，为什么我不象那些人一样行事呢？他发现那样去做并不是不可能的。他对那些令人讨厌的品质采取了与此相反的方式而加以摒弃。所以我说，如果你把那些品质都写下来，好好思量一下，择善而从，你自己可能就是那个你愿意买入10％的人！更好的是你自己本就100％的拥有你自己了。这就是我今天要讲的。
　　Well that is a short little sermon. So let's get on with what you are interested in. Let's start with questions………..
　　下面就让我们开始谈谈你们所感兴趣的。我们可以从这儿或那儿举起的手开始。
　　Question: What about Japan? Your thoughts about Japan?
　　问题：你对日本的看法？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我对日本的看法？我不是一个太宏观的人。现在日本10年期的贷款利息只有1％。我对自己说，45年前，我上了本杰明.格拉姆的课程，然后我就一直勤勤恳恳，努力工作，也许我应该比1％挣的多点吧？看上去那不是不可能的。我不想卷入任何汇率波动的风险，所以我会选择以日元为基准的资产，如地产或企业，必须是日本国内的。我唯一需要做的就是挣得比1％多，因为那是我资金的成本。可直到现在，我还没有发现一家可以投资的生意。这真的很有趣。日本企业的资产回报率都很低。他们有少数企业会有4％，5％，或6％的回报。如果日本企业本身赚不了多少钱的话，那么其资产投资者是很难获得好的回报的。
　　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.
　　当然，有一些人也赚了钱。我有一个同期为本杰明.格拉姆工作过的朋友。那是我第一次买股票的方法，即寻找那些股票价格远低于流动资本的公司，非常便宜但又有一点素质的公司。我管那方法叫雪茄烟蒂投资法。你满地找雪茄烟蒂，终于你找到一个湿透了的，令人讨厌的烟蒂，看上去还能抽上一口。那一口可是免费的。你把它捡起来，抽上最后一口，然后扔了，接着找下一个。这听上去一点都不优雅，但是如果你找的是一口免费的雪茄烟，这方法还值得做。不要做低回报率的生意。
　　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 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.
　　时间是好生意的朋友，却是坏生意的敌人。如果你陷在糟糕的生意里太久的话，你的结果也一定会糟糕，即使你的买入价很便宜。如果你在一桩好生意里，即使你开始多付了一点额外的成本，如果你做的足够久的话，你的回报一定是可观的。我现在从日本没发现什么好生意。也可能日本的文化会作某些改变，比如他们的管理层可能会对公司股票的责任多一些，这样回报率会高些。但目前来看，我看到的都是一些低回报率的公司，即使是在日本经济高速发展的时候。说来也令人惊奇，因为日本这样一个完善巨大的市场却不能产生一些优秀的高回报的公司。日本的优秀只体现在经济总量上，而不是涌现一些优质的公司（译者注：对中国而言，这样的问题何止严重10倍！）。这个问题已经给日本带来麻烦了。我们到现在为止对日本还是没什么兴趣。只要那的利息还是1％，我们会继续持观望态度。
　　Question: You were rumored to be one of the rescue buyers of Long Term Capital, what was the play there, what did you see?
　　问题：有传闻说，你成为长期资金管理基金的救场买家？你在那里做了什么？你看到了什么机会？（译者注：长期资金管理基金是一家著名的对冲基金。1994年创立。创立后的头些年盈利可观，年均40％以上。但是，在1998年，这家基金在4个月里损失了46个亿，震惊世界）
　　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.t’s a long story so I wouldn’t go through all background. But I got the really serious call about LTCM  about four weeks ago ,my granddaughter, I got it at the mid afternoon ,my granddaughter was having her birthday party at evening and I was flying to Seatle go on the 12day trip with Gates on Alaska on our private plane and I was really out of communication. But I got this call on a Friday afternoon that things were getting serious. I got the other calls before the article go published.  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 because we were sailing up through these canyons which I have no interest in even though we were in Alaska. And the captain was saying we just stay over here and we might see some bears. I would say stay where we could get satellite signals.
　　巴菲特：在最近的一篇财富杂志（封面是鲁本.默多克）上的文章里讲了事情的始末。有点意思。是一个冗长的故事，我这里就不介绍来龙去脉了。我接了一个非常慎重的关于长期资金管理基金的电话。那是4个星期前的一个星期五的下午吧。我孙女的生日Party在那个傍晚。在之后的晚上，我会飞到西雅图，参加比尔.盖茨的一个12天的阿拉斯加的私人旅程。所以我那时是一点准备都没有的。于是星期五我接了这个电话，整个事情变得严重起来。在财富的文章发表之前，我还通了其他一些相关电话。我认识他们（译者注：长期资金管理基金的人），他们中的一些人我还很熟。很多人都在所罗门兄弟公司工作过。事情很关键。美联储周末派了人过去（译者注：纽约）。在星期五到接下来的周三这段时间里，纽约储备局导演了没有联邦政府资金卷入的长期资金管理基金的救赎行动。我很活跃。但是我那时的身体状况很不好，因为我们那时正在阿拉斯加的一些峡谷里航行，而我对那些峡谷毫无兴趣。船长说我们朝着可以看到北极熊的方向航行，我告诉船长朝着可以稳定接收到卫星信号的方向航行（才是重要的）（译者注：巴菲特在开玩笑，意思是他在船上，却一直心系手边的工作）。
　　We put in a bid on Wednesday morning.  By then I was in Montana. I talked to Bill McDonough at the NY Fed.  But they have a meeting with bankers at 10 o’clock that morning at NY time. I called them, actually, deliberate measures, he called me before 10 NY time. We made a bid ,because I was in Canada, long distance things were really an outline for the bid, but in the end, the bid was 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. Because we going to be shopped. In the end the bankers made the deal, but it was an interesting period.
　　星期三的早上，我们出了一个报价。那时，我已经在蒙塔那（译者注：美国西北部的一个州）了。我和纽约储备局的头儿通了话。他们在10点会和一批银行家碰头。我把意向传达过去了。纽约储备局在10点前给在怀俄明（译者注：美国西北部的一个州）的我打了电话。我们做了一个报价。那确实只是一个大概的报价，因为我是在远程（不可能完善细节性的东西）。最终，我们对2.5亿美元的净资产做了报价,但我们会在那之上追加30到32.5亿左右。Berkshire Hathaway（巴菲特的投资公司）分到30个亿, AIG有7个亿, Goldman Sachs有3个亿。我们把投标交了上去，但是我们的投标时限很短，因为你不可能对价值以亿元计的证券在一段长时间内固定价格，我也担心我们的报价会被用来作待价而沽的筹码。最后，银行家们把合同搞定了。那是一个有意思的时期。
　　The whole LTCM ,I hope you are get familiar with it but the whole story 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 that room. Now you combine that with the fact that the 16 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. So they have their own money up. 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.
　　整个长期资金管理基金的历史，我不知道在座的各位对它有多熟悉，其实是波澜壮阔的。如果你把那16个人，象John Meriwether, Eric Rosenfeld，Larry Hilibrand，Greg Hawkins, Victor Haghani，还有两个诺贝尔经济学奖的获得者，Myron Scholes和Robert Merton，放在一起，可能很难再从任何你能想像得到的公司中，包括象微软这样的公司，找到另外16个这样高IQ的一个团队。那真的是一个有着难以置信的智商的团队，而且他们所有人在业界都有着大量的实践经验。他们可不是一帮在男装领域赚了钱，然后突然转向证券的人。这16个人加起来的经验可能有350年到400年，而且是一直专精于他们目前所做的。第3个因素，他们所有人在金融界都有着极大的关系网，数以亿计的资金也来自于这个关系网，其实就是他们自己的资金。超级智商，在他们内行的领域，结果是他们破产了。
　　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.  
　　这于我而言，是绝对的百思不得其解。如果我要写本书的话，书名就是“为什么聪明人净干蠢事”。我的合伙人说那本书就是他的自传（笑）。这真的是一个完美的演示。就我自己而言，我和那16个人没有任何过节。他们都是正经人，我尊敬他们，甚至我自己有问题的时候，也会找他们来帮助解决。他们绝不是坏人。但是，他们为了挣那些不属于他们，他们也不需要的钱，他们竟用属于他们，他们也需要的钱来冒险。这就太愚蠢了。这不是IQ不IQ的问题。
　　If you risk something that is important to you for something that is unimportant to you it just 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. I am not interest in this kind of game. Yet people do it financially very much without thinking about it very much.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 ,make no difference to anything.
　　用对你重要的东西去冒险赢得对你并不重要的东西，简直无可理喻，即使你成功的概率是100比1，或1000比1。如果你给我一把枪，弹膛里一千个甚至一百万个位置，然后你告诉我，里面只有一发子弹，你问我，要花多少钱，才能让我拉动扳机。我是不会去做的。你可以下任何注，即使我赢了，那些钱对我来说也不值一提。如果我输了，那后果是显而易见的。我对这样的游戏没有一点兴趣。可是因为头脑不清楚，总有人犯这样的错。有这样一本一般般的书，却有着一个很好的书名，“一生只需富一次”。这再正确不过了，不是码？如果你有一个亿开始，每年没有一点风险的可以挣10％，有些风险，但成功率有99％的投资会赚20％。一年结束，你可能有1.1个亿，也可能有1.2个亿，这有什么区别呢？如果你这时候过世，写亡讯的人可能错把你有的1.2个亿写成1.1个亿了，有区别也变成没区别了（笑）。对你，对你的家庭，对任何事，都没有任何一点点不同。
　　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.  I just can’t imagine and acquision that make senseful.Yet 16 guys with very high IQs and energetic people 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.
　　但是万一有点闪失的话，特别是当你管理他人的钱时，你不仅仅损失了你的钱，你朋友的钱，还有你的尊严和脸面。我所不能理解的是，这16个如此高智商的能人怎么就会玩这样一个游戏。简直就是疯了。某种程度上，他们的决定基本上都依赖于一些事情。他们都有着所罗门兄弟公司的背景，他们说一个6或7西格玛的事件（指金融市场的波动幅度）是伤他们不着的。他们错了，历史是不会告诉你将来某一金融事件发生的概率的。他们很大程度上依赖于数学统计，他们认为关于股票的（历史）数据揭示了股票的风险。我认为那些数据根本就不会告诉你股票的风险！我认为数据也不会揭示你破产的风险。也许他们现在也这么想了？
　　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 except that I had a medical emergency come along.
　　事实上，我根本不想用他们来作例子，因为他们的经历换一种形式，很可能发生在我们中的每个人身上。我们在某些关键之处存在着盲点，因为我们懂得太多的其他地方。正象Henry Gutman所说的，破产的多是两类人：一是一窍不通者；一是学富五车者。这其实是令人悲哀的。我们是从来不借钱的，即使有保险做担保。即使是在我只有1万块钱的时候，我也决不借钱。借钱能带来什么不同玛？我只凭我一己之力时我也乐趣无穷。一万，一百万，和一千万对我都没有什么不同。当然，当我遇到类似紧急医疗事件的情况下会有些例外。
　　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 in terms of how we live, we wear the same clothes basically (SunTrust gives me mine), we eat similar food—we all go toMcDonald’s or better yet,Dairy Queen, and we live in a house that is warm in winter and cool in summer.  We watch theNebraska(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. I travel on my private plane and I love it. But it takes money. But if you leave the other side, if you leave this, our life is the same other than trouble. Think about it. Think that what can I do that you can’t do? 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.   
　　基本上，在钱多钱少的情况下，我都会做同样的事情。如果你从生活方式的角度来想想你们和我的不同，我们穿的是同样的衣服，当然我的是SunTrust给的；我们都有机会喝上帝之泉（说这话的时候，巴菲特开了一瓶可乐），我们都去麦当劳，好一点的，奶酪皇后（译者注：即DairyQueen，一家类似于麦当劳的快餐店），我们都住在冬暖夏凉的房子里，我们都在平面大电视上看Nebraska和Texas A& M（美国的两所大学）的橄榄球比赛，我们的生活没什么不同，你能得到不错的医疗，我也一样，唯一的不同可能是我们旅行的方式不同，我有我的私人飞机来周游世界，我很幸运。但是除了这个之外，你们再想想，我能做的你们有什么不能做呢？我热爱我的工作，但是我从来如此，无论我在谈大合同，还是只赚一千块钱的时候。我希望你们也热爱自己的工作。如果你总是为了简历上好看些就不断跳槽，做你不喜欢的工作，我认为你的脑子一定是进了水。
　　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 may change on it, just like 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 ought to find sth that you like and it works. 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.  
　　我碰到过一个28岁的哈佛毕业生，他一直以来都做得不错。我问他，下一步你打算做些什么？他说，可能读个MBA吧，然后去个管理资询的大公司，简历上看着漂亮点。我说，等一下，你才28岁，你做了这么多事情，你的简历比我看到过的最好的还要强十倍，现在你要再找一个你不喜欢的工作，你不觉得这就好像把你的性生活省下来到晚年的时候再用吗？是时候了，你就要去做的（不能老等着）。（这是一个比喻）但是我想我把我的立场告诉了他。你们走出去，都应该选择那些你热爱的工作，而不是让你的简历看上去风光。当然，你的爱好可能会有变化。（对那些你热爱的工作，）每天早上你是蹦着起床的。当我走出校园的时候，我恨不得马上就给格拉姆干。但是我不可能为他白干，于是他说我要的工资太高了（所以他没有要我）。但我总是不停地bug他，同时我自己也卖了3年的证券，期间从不间断地给他写信，聊我的想法，最终他要了我，我在他那儿工作了几年。那几年是非常有益的经验。我总是做我热爱的工作。抛开其他因素，如果你单纯的高兴做一项工作，那么那就是你应该做的工作。你会学到很多东西，工作起来也会觉得有无穷的乐趣。可能你将来会变。但是（做你热爱的工作），你会从工作中得到很多很多。起薪的多寡无足轻重。不知怎么，扯得远了些。总之，如果你认为得到两个X比得到一个让你更开心，你可能就要犯错了。重要的是发现生活的真谛，做你喜欢做的。如果你认为得到10个或20个X是你一切生活的答案，那么你就会去借钱，做些短视，以及不可理喻的事情。多年以后，不可避免地，你会为你的所作所为而后悔。
　　Question: What makes a company something that you like?
　　问题：讲讲你喜欢的企业吧, 不是企业具体的名字，而是什么素质的企业你喜欢？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我只喜欢我看得懂的生意，这个标准排除了90％的企业。你看，我有太多的东西搞不懂。幸运的是，还是有那么一些东西我还看得懂。设想一个诺大的世界里，大多数公司都是上市的，所以基本上许多美国公司都是可以买到的。让我们从大家都懂的事情上开始讲吧（巴菲特举起他的可乐瓶）。我懂得这个，你懂得这个，每个人都懂这个。这是一瓶樱桃可乐，从1886年起就没什么变化了。很简单，但绝不容易的生意。
　　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.
　　我可不想要对竞争者来说很容易的生意，我想要的生意外面得有个城墙，居中是价值不菲的城堡，我要负责的、能干的人才来管理这个城堡。我要的城墙可以是多样的，举例来说，在汽车保险领域的GEICO（译者注：美国一家保险公司），它的城墙就是低成本。
　　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.
　　人们是必须买汽车保险的，每人每车都会有，我不能卖20份给一个人，但是至少会有一份。消费者从哪里购买呢？这将基于保险公司的服务和成本。多数人都认为（各家公司的）服务基本上是相同的或接近的，所以成本是他们的决定因素。所以，我就要找低成本的公司，这就是我的城墙。当我的成本越比竞争对手的低，我会越加注意加固和保护我的城墙。当你有一个漂亮的城堡，肯定会有人对它发起攻击，妄图从你的手中把它抢走，所以我要在城堡周围建起城墙来。
　　Kodak柯达
　　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.
　　三十年前，柯达公司的城墙和可口可乐的城墙是一样难以逾越的。如果你想给你6个月的小孩子照张像，20年或50年后你再来看那照片，你不会象专业摄影师那样来衡量照片质量随着时间的改变，真正决定购买行为的是胶卷公司在你的心目中的地位。柯达向你保证你今天的照片，20年，50年后看起来仍是栩栩如生，这一点对你而言可能恰恰是最重要的。30年前的柯达就有那样的魅力，它占据了每个人的心。在地球上每个人的心里，它的那个小黄盒子都在说，柯达是最好的。那真是无价的。现在的柯达已经不再独占人们的心。
　　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.
　　这不怪George Fisher，George Fisher干得很淡，但 它的城墙变薄了，富士用各种手段缩小了差距。柯达让富士成为奥林匹克运动会的赞助商，一个一直以来由柯达独占的位置。于是在人们的印象里，富士变得和柯达平起平坐起来。
　　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.
　　与之相反的是，可口可乐的城墙与30年前比，变得更宽了。你可能看不到城墙一天天的变化。但是，每次你看到可口可乐的工厂扩张到一个目前并不盈利，但20年后一定会的国家，它的城墙就加宽些。企业的城墙每天每年都在变，或厚或窄。10年后，你就会看到不同。我给那些公司经理人的要求就是，让城墙更厚些，保护好它，拒竞争者于墙外。你可以通过服务，产品质量，价钱，成本，专利，地理位置来达到目的。我寻找的就是这样的企业。
　　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 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.  
　　那么这样的企业都在做什么生意呢？我要找到他们，就要从最简单的产品里找到那些（杰出的企业）。因为我没法预料到10年以后，甲骨文，莲花，或微软会发展成什么样。比尔.盖茨是我碰到过的最好的生意人。微软现在所处的位置也很好。但是我还是对他们10年后的状况无从知晓。同样我对他们的竞争对手10年后的情形也一无所知。虽然我不拥有口香糖的公司，但是我知道10年后他们的发展会怎样。互联网是不会改变我们嚼口香糖的方式的，事实上，没什么能改变我们嚼口香糖的方式。会有很多的（口香糖）新产品不断进入试验期，一些以失败告终。这是事物发展的规律。如果你给我10个亿，让我进入口香糖的生意，打开一个缺口，我无法做到。这就是我考量一个生意的基本原则。给我10个亿，我能对竞争对手有多少打击？给我100个亿，我对全世界的可口可乐的损失会有多大？我做不到，因为，他们的生意稳如磐石。给我些钱，让我去占领其他领域，我却总能找出办法把事情做到。
　　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.
　　所以，我要找的生意就是简单，容易理解，经济上行得通，诚实，能干的管理层。这样，我就能看清这个企业10年的大方向。如果我做不到这一点，我是不会买的。基本上来讲，我只会买那些，即使纽约证交所从明天起关门五年，我也很乐于拥有的股票。如果我买个农场，即使五年内我不知道它的价格，但只要农场运转正常，我就高兴。如果我买个公寓群，只要它们能租出去，带来预计的回报，我也一样高兴。人们买股票，根据第二天早上股票价格的涨跌，决定他们的投资是否正确，这简直是扯淡。正如格拉姆所说的，你要买的是企业的一部分生意。这是格拉姆教给我的最基本最核心的策略。你买的不是股票，你买的是一部分企业生意。企业好，你的投资就好，只要你的买入价格不是太离谱。
　　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.  
　　这就是投资的精髓所在。你要买你看得懂的生意，你买了农场，是因为你懂农场的经营。就是这么简单。
　　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.
　　这都是格拉姆的理念。我6、7岁就开始对股票感兴趣，在11岁的时买了第一只股票。我沉迷于对图线，成交量等各种技术指标的研究。然后在我还是19岁的时候，幸运地拿起了格拉姆的书。书里说，你买的不是那整日里上下起伏的股票标记，你买的是公司的一部分生意。自从我开始这么来考虑问题后，所以一切都豁然开朗。就这么简单。
　　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.
　　我们只买自己谙熟的生意。在坐的每一个人都懂可口可乐的生意。我却敢说，没人能看懂新兴的一些互联网公司。我在今年的Berkshire Hathaway的股东大会上讲过，如果我在商学院任教，期末考试的题目就是评估互联网公司的价值，如果有人给我一个具体的估价，我会当场晕倒的（笑）。我自己是不知道如何估值的，但是人们每天都在做！
　　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. 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.
　　如果你这么做是为了去竞技比赛，还可以理解。但是你是在投资。投资是投入一定的钱，确保将来能恰当幅度地赚进更多的钱。所以你务必要晓得自己在做什么，务必要深入懂得（你投资的）生意。你会懂一些生意模式，但绝不是全部。
　　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?
　　问题：就如你刚才所说，你已经讲了事情的一半，那就是去寻找企业，试着去理解商业模式，作为一个拥有如此大量资金的投资者，你的积累足以让你过功成身退。回到购买企业的成本，你如何决定一个合适的价格来购买企业？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：那是一个很难作出的决定。对一个我不确信（理解）的东西，我是不会买的。如果我对一个东西非常确信，通常它带给我的回报不会是很可观的。为什么对那些你只有一丝感觉会有40％回报的企业来试手气呢？我们的回报不是惊人的高，但是一般来讲，我们也不会有损失。
　　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.
　　1972年，我们买了See’s Candy（一家糖果公司）。See’s Candy每年以每磅1.95美元的价格，卖出1千6百万磅的糖果，产生4百万的税前利润。我们买它花了2千5百万。我和我的合伙人觉得See’s Candy有一种尚未开发出来的定价魔力，每磅1.95美元的糖果可以很容易地以2.25的价钱卖出去。每磅30分的涨价，1千6百万磅就是额外的4百80万呀，所以2千5百万的购买价还是划算的。
　　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.
　　我们从未雇过咨询师。我们知道在加州每个人都有一个想法。每个加州人心中对See’s Candy都有一些特殊的印象，他们绝对认这个牌子的糖。在情人节，给女孩子送See’s Candy的糖，她们会高兴地亲它。如果她们把糖扔在一边，爱理不理，那我们的生意就糟糕了。只要女孩子亲吻我们的糖，那就是我们要灌输给加州人脑子里的，女孩子爱亲See’s Candy的糖。如果我们能达到这个目标，我们就可以涨价了。
　　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.
　　我们在1972年买的See’s Candy，那之后，我们每年都在12月26日，圣诞节后的第一天，涨价。圣诞节期间我们卖了很多糖。今年，我们卖了3千万磅糖，一磅赚2个美元，总共赚了6千万。十年后，我们会赚得更多。在那6千万里，5千5百万是在圣诞节前3周赚的。耶稣的确是我们的好朋友（笑）。这确实是一桩好生意。
　　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 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.
　　如果你再想想，关于这生意的重要一点是，多数人都不买盒装巧克力来自己消费，他们只是用它来做为生日或节日的馈赠礼品。情人节是每年中最重要的一天。圣诞节是迄今为止最最重要的销售季节。女人买糖是为了圣诞节，她们通常在那前后2－3周来买。男人买糖是为了情人节。他们在回家的路上开着车，我们在收音机节目里放广告，“内疚，内疚”，男人们纷纷从高速路上出去，没有一盒巧克力在手，他们是不敢回家的。情人节是销售最火的一天。你能想像，在情人节那天，See’s Candy的价钱已经是11美元一磅了（译者注：又涨价了）。当然还有别的牌子的糖果是6美元一磅。当你在情人节的时候回家（这些都是关于See’s Candy深入人心的一幕幕场景，你的那位接受你的礼品，由衷地感谢你，祝福剩下的一年），递给你的那位（6块钱的糖），说，“亲爱的，今年我买的是廉价货”？这绝不可能行得通！
　　So in a sense, there is untapped pricing power—it is not price dependent.
　　在某种程度上，有些东西和价格是没关系的，或者说，不是以价格为导向的。
　　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.
　　这就像迪斯尼。迪斯尼在全世界卖的是16.95或19.95美元的家庭影像制品。人们，更具体的说，那些当妈妈的对迪斯尼有着特殊的感情。在座的每个人在心中对迪斯尼都有着一些情愫。如果我说环球影视，它不会唤起你心中的那种特殊情愫；我说20世纪福克斯公司，你也不会有什么反应。但是迪斯尼就不同。这一点在全世界都如此。
　　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.
　　当你的年纪变老的时候，那些（迪斯尼的）影像制品，你可以放心让小孩子每天在一边看几个小时。你知道，一个这样的影片，小孩子会看上20遍。当你去音像店时，你会坐在那儿，把十几种片子都看上一遍，然后决定你的孩子会喜欢哪一部？这种可能性很小。别的牌子卖16.95，而迪斯尼的卖17.95，你知道买迪斯尼的不会错，所以你就买了。在某些你没有时间的事情上，你不一定非要做高质量的决定。而作为迪斯尼而言，就可以因此以更高的价格，卖出多得多的影片。多好的生意！而对其他牌子来讲，日子就不那么好过了。
　　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.
　　梦想家们一直努力打造出类似于迪斯尼概念的品牌，来同它在世界范围内竞争，取代人们心中对迪斯尼的那份特殊情愫。比如，环球影视吧，妈妈们不会在音像店里买他们的片子，而放弃迪斯尼的。那是不可能发生的。可口可乐是在全球范围内和喜悦的情绪关联在一起的。不管你花多少钱，你想让全世界的50亿人更喜欢RC可乐（译者注：巴菲特杜撰出来的饮料牌子），那是做不到的。你可以搞些诡计，做折扣促销，等等，但都是无法得逞的。这就是你要的生意，你要的城墙。
　　Question: If I have every bought a company where the numbers told me not to. How much is quantitative and how much is qualitative?
　　问题：在你购买公司的分析过程里，是否有些数字会告诉你不要买？哪些东西是质化的，哪些东西是量化的？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：最好的买卖里，从数字的角度来讲，几乎都要告诉你不要买。你可能对（被购买公司的）产品的印象是非常之深，但是你对那套雪茄烟蒂式的廉价思维已经根深蒂固。我曾经拥有一个风力发电公司。相信我，风力发电公司如同雪茄烟蒂一般廉价。我们买的也很便宜，只相当于公司流动资金的三分之一的价钱。我们却实赚了钱，但是这种收益是不可复制的，更象是一次性的买卖。你可不想做那样的事情，但我经历了那样一个阶段，在那个阶段里，我还买过租车公司等等一些生意。谈到质化的东西，我可能在接到电话的那一刻就能感受到了。几乎我们买的所有企业，只需要10分钟，15分钟的分析。我今年买了两个企业。）我拿到了它们的经营数据。
　　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.
　　General Re（译者注：全球最大的再保险公司之一）是一个180亿的交易。我连它们的总部都没去过。我希望它们的的确确有个总部（译者注：巴菲特在开玩笑）。“总有那么几个人会问，我们这个月要发哪些数据给巴菲特？”我每个月会受到一份数据报表，报表上显示，我们银行的存款从180增长到200亿了。我真的从没去过他们总部。
　　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.
　　在那之前，我买了Executive Jet，主要做部分拥有小型飞机的生意（译者注：美国近年来，很流行私人拥有飞机。但毕竟花销很大，不是一般人能承受得起。所以，买一部分飞机的拥有权，这样你可以有一段你自己的飞行计划和路线，变得很实际）。在我们买之前，我也没去过它的公司总部。四年前，我给我的家庭买了一个飞机计划的四分之一拥有权。我亲身体会了他们的服务，我也看到了这些年它们的迅速发展。（在购买交易发生之前，）我拿到了它们的经营数据。
　　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.
　　如果你不能马上足够了解所作的生意，即使你花上一二个月，情况也未见得会有多少改观。你必须对你可能了解的和不能了解的有个切身体会，你必须对你的能力范围有个准确的认知。范围的大小无关大局，重要的是那个范围里的东西。
　　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.
　　哪怕在那个范围里只有成千上万家上市公司里的30个公司，只要有那30家，你就没问题。你所做的就应当是深入了解这30家公司的业务，你根本不需要去了解和学习其他的东西。在我早年的时候，我做了大量功课来熟悉生意上的事情。我们走出去，采取所谓‘抹黄油’的方式，去与企业的用户谈，与企业以前的雇员谈，与企业的供应商谈，我们能找到的每一个人。每次我看到业界的专业人员，举例来说，我对采煤业有兴趣，我会遍访每一家采煤公司，问每一位CEO,“如果要在业界买一家公司，你认为我该买哪一家？为什么？” 如果你把这些片段的信息串起来，你会学到很多业界的信息。
　　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 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.
　　当你问到竞争对手的时候，你会得到非常相似的答案。比如说，如果你有一个解决一切问题的良方，那么你首先要解决的竞争对手是谁？为什么？通过这种手段，你很快会发现谁是业界最好的企业。做投资的好处是你不用学习日新月异的知识和技能。当然你愿意那么去做，就另当别论了。四十年前你了解的口香糖的生意，现如今依旧适用，没有什么变化。
　　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.
　　我认识一个人，他的岳父去世了，丢下一间他创建的制鞋公司。这个人托Goldman Sachs来卖掉这家公司。他和我的一个朋友在佛罗里达打高尔夫，提到了这件事。我朋友让他给我打电话。他打了，结果我们用五分钟谈成了这桩生意。
　　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.
　　我认识这个人，我基本了解制鞋生意，所以我就买了。质化的方面定了后，就是价格了。我的答案只有是或者不是，很简单，谈判的时候没什么圈子可兜。只要价格合适，我就会买。不然的话，谈判之前我很快乐，谈判不成我也一样。
　　Question: The Asian Crisis and how it affects a company like Coke that recently announced their earnings would be lower in the fourth quarter.
　　问题：可口可乐最近发布了对未来季度调低盈利预期的消息。你对可口可乐并没有因为在美国之外的许多问题，包括亚洲危机，造成的负面影响而撒谎怎么看？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我很喜欢他们（的诚实）。事实上，在未来20年，可口可乐在国际上的市场增长要比在美国国内好得多。在美国国内的人均消费量会增长，但在别的国家的增长会快得多。可口可乐可能会有一段3个月，也可能是3年的艰难时期，但不会是未来的20年。人们在全世界的范围内高效地工作，他们会发现换取一瓶可乐（巴菲特举起手中的可乐瓶），就占他们每天所获得的劳动报酬的比例而言，实在是一笔很好的买卖。实际上，我是一天五瓶（笑）。在1936年的时候，我第一次用25美分买了6瓶可乐（单卖是5美分一瓶）。那是6.5盎司的瓶子，2美分的瓶子押金，实际上是6.5盎司的可乐只要5美分。现在是12盎司的罐子，如果你在周末去买大瓶装的，减少一些在包装上的费用，你基本上可以花20美分多一点买12盎司。你现在在每盎司上花的钱只是1936年的两倍多一点点。相对于人们不断增长的购买力而言，可乐实际上在年复一年地变得越来越便宜。
　　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. 在全世界的两百多个国家里，这个有着一百多年历史的产品的人均消费量每年都在增长。它霸占着饮料市场，真的是难以置信。
　　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, 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.  
　　有一件人们可能不懂，但却使这个产品有着数以百亿元的价值的简单事实就是可乐没有味觉记忆。你可以在9点，11点，下午3点，5点喝上一罐，5点时你喝的味道和你一早上9点喝的味道一样好。其他的饮料如甜苏打水，橙汁，根啤都做不到这一点，它们对味道有着累积作用（译者注：累积使味觉麻木），重复的饮用会使你厌烦。我们在See’s Candy的雇员可以免费享用公司生产糖果。在他们第一天工作的时候，他们渴着劲儿吃。但在那之后，他们再吃起来就跟要花钱买似的。为什么？巧克力一样有着味觉累积。
　　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.
　　但是可乐就没有味觉累积。这意味着，全世界的人们可以每天都可以消费很多次可乐，而不是其他的饮料，所以你得到的就是可乐之难以企及的人均消费量。在今天，全世界范围内可乐的日销售量超过800亿盎司。这个数目还在年复一年地增长。增长还体现在无论是以国家计还是人均计的消费量上。可乐和其它食物不一样，其它食物让你天天吃，你会很快受不了的，可乐每天来一瓶也没什么，这是很重要的因素。20年后，在美国之外的增长讲远远超过美国国内。我分外看好国际市场的前景。（目前可乐的国际危机，）短期来讲对他们确实有消极的影响，但这不是一个大不了的问题。
　　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.
　　可口可乐公司于1919年上市，那时的价格是40美元左右。一年后，股价降了50％，只有19美元。看起来那是一场灾难。瓶装问题，糖料涨价，你总能发现这样那样的原因让你觉得那不是一个合适的买入时机。一些年之后，又发生了大萧条，第二次世界大战，核武器竞赛等。总是有原因（让你不买）。如果你在一开始40块钱买了一股，然后你把派发的红利进行再投资（买入可口可乐的股票），一直到现在，那股可乐股票的价值是5百万。这个事实压倒了一切。如果你看对了生意模式，你就会赚很多钱。
　　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.
　　切入点的时机是很难把握的。所以，如果我拥有的是一个绝佳的生意，我丝毫不会为某一个事件的发生，或者它对未来一年的影响等等而担忧。当然，在过去的某些个时间段，政府施加了价格管制政策。企业因而不能涨价，即使最好的企业有时也会受影响，我们的See’s Candy糖果不能在12月26日涨价。但是，管制该发生的时候就会发生，它绝不会把一个杰出的企业蜕变成一个平庸的企业。政府是不可能永远实施管制政策的。
　　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.
　　一个杰出的企业可以预计到将来可能会发生什么，但不一定会准确到何时会发生。重心需要放在“什么”上面，而不是“何时”上。如果对“什么”的判断是正确的，那么对“何时”大可不必过虑。
　　Question: What about your business mistakes?
　　问题：谈谈你投资上的失误吧。
　　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 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.
　　巴菲特：你有多少时间？（译者注：巴菲特的幽默在这里表现得淋漓尽致）关于失误的有趣的一点是，在投资上，至少对我和我的合伙人而言，最大的失误不是做了什么，而是没有做什么。对于我们所知甚多的生意，当机会来到时，我们却犹豫了，而不是去做些什么。我们错过了赚取数以十亿元计的大钱的好机会。不谈那些我们不懂的生意，只专注于那些我们懂的。我们确实错过了从微软身上赚大钱的机会，但那并没有什么特殊意义，因为我们从一开始就不懂微软的生意。
　　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.
　　但是对于在医疗保健股票上理应赚得的几十亿，我们却错过了。当克林顿政府推出医疗保健计划时，医疗保健公司获益非浅。我们应当在那上面赚得盘满钵满的，因为我懂那里面的因果。
　　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.
　　80年代中期，我们应当在Fannie Mae（译者注：美国一家受政府支持，专做二级房贷的超大型公司）上获利颇丰，因为我们也算得清个中的究竟。这些都是数以十亿计的超级错误，却不会被GAAP会计法则抓个现形。
　　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.
　　你们所看到的错误，比如我买下了几年前我买的US Air（译者注：巴菲特在这笔交易中几乎损失了全部的投资，3.6个亿）。当我手里有很多现金的时候，我就很容易犯错误。查理（译者注：巴菲特的合伙人）让我去酒吧转转，不要总滞留在办公室里（笑）。但是我一有闲钱，又总在办公室里，我想我是够愚昧的，这种事时有发生。
　　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.
　　总之，我买了US Air的股票，虽然没人逼着我买。现在我有一个800的电话号码，每次我打算买航空公司的股票后，我就打这个电话。我跟他们讲我很蠢，老犯错，他们总是劝我别买，不断地和我聊，让我别挂电话，不要仓促地做任何决定。最后，我就会放弃要购买的冲动。（译者注：真有这么回事吗？听起来像是巴菲特在开玩笑）
　　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.
　　于是我买了US Air的股票。看上去我们的投资要打水漂了，而且我们的投资也确实几乎全打了水漂，（那笔糟糕的投资）理应全军覆没的。
　　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.
　　我因为价钱非常诱人而买了那些股票，但是那绝不是个诱人的行业。我对所罗门的股票犯了同样的错误，股票本身价廉诱人没错，但那应该是杜绝涉足的行业。你可以说那是一种犯错的模式。你中意具体交易的条件，但不感冒交易公司所处的行业。我以前犯过这样的错误，很可能将来我还会犯这样的错误。但更大的错误还是我一开始所讲的因犹豫和迟疑所致。当我只有1万块钱的时候，我投资了两千在汽修厂，而且肉包子打狗，那笔机会成本高达60个亿（笑），是个大错。当Berkshire的股价下降时，我还能感受好些，因为那也降低了汽修厂的购买成本（笑），以及20％的机会成本。
　　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. 当你聊到从失败中汲取经验时，我笃信你最好还是从他人的失败中来学习吧，越多越好（笑）。在Berkshire公司里，我们绝不花一点时间来缅怀过去。我和我的合伙人是40年的哥们了，从没有任何的争吵。我们有很多事情上会有不同的见解，但从没有过争吵，我们也从不回顾过去。我们总是对未来充满希冀，都认为牵绊于‘如果我们那样做了。。。’的假设是不可理喻的，那样做不可能改变既成的事实。
　　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 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.
　　你只能活在现在时。你也许可以从你过去的错误中汲取教训，但最关键的还是坚持做你懂的生意。如果是一个本质上的错误，比如涉足自己能力范围之外的东西，因为其他人建议的影响等等，所以在一无所知的领域做了一些交易，那倒是你应该好好学习的。你应该坚守在凭自身能力看得透的领域。当你做出决策时，你应该看着镜子里的自己，扪心自问，“我以一股55元的价格买入100股通用汽车的股票是因为。。。”。你对自己所有的购买行为负责，必须时刻充满理性。如果理由不充分，你的决定只能是不买。如果仅仅是有人在鸡尾酒会上提起过，那么这个理由远未充分。也不可能是因为一些成交量或技术指标看上去不错，或盈利等等。必须确实是你想拥有那一部分生意的原因，这一直是我们尽量坚持做到的，也是格拉姆教给我的。
　　Question: The current tenuous economic situation and interest rates? Where are we going?
　　问题：谈谈目前的经济形式和利率，和将来的走向？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我不关心宏观的经济形式。在投资领域，你最希望做到的应该是搞清楚那些重要的，并且是可以搞懂的东西。对那些既不重要，又难以搞懂的东西，你忘了它们就对了。你所讲的，可能是重要的，但是难以拎清。了解可口可乐，Wrigley（译者注：美国一家营销口香糖的公司），或柯达，他们的生意是可以拎得清的。当然你的研究最后是否重要还取决于公司的评估，当前的股价等因素。但是我们从未因对宏观经济的感觉来买或者不买任何一家公司。我们根本就不读那些预估利率，企业利润的文章，因为那些预估真的是无关痛痒。1972年，我们买了See’s Candy，那之后不久政府实施了价格管制，但那又怎么样呢，（如果我们因为价格管制的原因没有买）我们就错过了以2千5百万买下一个现如今税前利润6千万的生意！我们不愿因为自身本就不精通的一些预估而错过买到好生意的机会。我们根本就不听或不读那些涉及宏观经济因素的预估。在通常的投资咨询会上，经济学家们会做出对宏观经济的描述，然后以那为基础展开咨询活动。在我们看来，那样做是毫无道理的。假想Alan Greenspan（译者注：上一任美联储主席）在我一边，Robert Rubin（译者注：克林顿时期美财长）在我另一边，即使他们都悄悄告诉我未来12个月他们的每一步举措，我是无动于衷的，而且这也不会对我购买Executive Jets飞机公司或General Re再保险公司，或我做的任何事情有一丝一毫的影响。
　　Question: What is the benefit of being an out-of-towner as opposed to being on Wall Street?
　　相比身处华尔街，置身华尔街之外又有什么好处？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我在华尔街上工作了两年多。我在东西海岸都有最好的朋友。能见到他们让我很开心，当我去找他们的时候，总是会得到一些想法。但是最好的能对投资进行深思熟虑的方法就是去一间没有任何人的屋子，只是静静地想。如果那都不能让你想的话，没有什么可以。
　　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.（身处华尔街的）缺点就是，在任何一个市场环境下，华尔街的情况都太极端了，你会被过度刺激，好像被逼着每天都要去做点什么。钱德勒家族花两千块钱买了可口可乐公司，除此之外，就不要再做其他的事情了。事情的关键是无为而治，即使在1919年也不要卖（钱德勒家族在这一年卖掉了可乐公司）。所以，你所找寻的出路就是，想出一个好方法，然后持之以恒，尽最大可能，直到把梦想变成现实。在每五分钟就互相叫价一个来回，人们甚至在你的鼻子底下报价的环境里，想做到不为所动是很难的。华尔街靠的是不断的买进卖出来赚钱，你靠的是不去做买进卖出而赚钱。
　　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.
　　这间屋子里的每个人之间每天互相交易你们所拥有的股票，到最后所有人都会破产，而所有钱财都进了经纪公司的腰包。相反地，如果你们象一般企业那样，50年岿然不动，到最后你赚得不亦乐乎，而你的经纪只好破产。就像一个医生，依赖于你变更所用药品的频率而赚钱。如果一种用药就能包治百病，那么他只能开一次处方，做一次交易，他的赚头也就到此为止了。但是，如果他能说服你每天更新处方是一条接往健康的通途，他会很乐于开出处方，你也会烧光你的钱，不但不会更健康，反而处境会更差。
　　You want to stay away from any environment that stimulates activity. And Wall Street would have the effective of doing that.
　　你应该做的是远离那些促使你做出仓促决定的环境。华尔街自有它的功效。
　　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.
　　在我回Omaha之前，每六个月都有一个长长的单子的事情去做，一大批公司去考察，我会让自己做的事情对得起旅行花的钱。然后，我会（离开华尔街）回Omaha，仔细考量。
　　Question: How to evaluate Berkshire or MSFT if it does not pay dividends?
　　问题：投资人如何来给Berkshire或微软这样从来不分红的公司估值？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：这是个关于Berkshire从来不分红的问题。Berkshire将来也不会分红，这是一个我可以担保的承诺（笑）。你能从Berkshire得到的是将（红利）放进安全的存款箱，每年你可以拿出来好好地把玩一翻，然后再把它放回原位。这样，你会得到巨大的自我满足感。可别小瞧了这样的自我满足感！（译者：像不像葛朗台数钱？）
　　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.
　　当然，这里的核心问题是我们能否让截留下来的钱财以可观的幅度升值。这是我们一直孜孜以求的。查理和我的立身之本也在此处。当然，这项任务正变得越来越难。我们管的钱越多，就越难做到（以可观的幅度升值）。如果Berkshire的大小只有现在的百分之一，我们升值的幅度要比现在好得多。如果我们能做到不断地升值，那么派发红利自然是不明智的。到目前为止，我们做到了让截留下来的红利再投资胜过直接派发红利。但是，没有人可以保证在将来还能这样。在某一个阶段，总会有物极必反的时候。保持持续增长是我们努力的目标。那也是唯一衡量我们公司价值的标尺。公司总部的大小等等都不能用来衡量公司的价值。Berkshire有4万5千名雇员，但在总部只有12人和3千5百平方英尺（译者注：300多平米）的办公室。这一点我们不打算改变。
　　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.
　　我们用公司的表现来评估自己，我们也以此来谋生。相信我，比起从前来，（保持持续增长）难得多了。
　　Question: What tells you when an investment has reached its full potential?
　　问题：什么时候你会认为你的投资已经实现了它的增长极限？
　　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 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.
　　巴菲特：理想的情况是当你购买生意的时候，你不希望你买的企业有一个增长极限。我买可口可乐公司的时候，我不希望10年，15年后看到可乐弹尽粮绝。不排除有这个可能，但可能性接近于零。我们想看到的是，当你买一个公司，你会乐于永久地持有那个公司。同样的道理，当人们买Berkshire的股票的时候，我希望他们打算一辈子持有它。因为这样或那样的原因，这可能行不通。我不想说，这是唯一的购买股票的方式，但是我希望依据那样的方式来购买股票的一群人加入Berkshire，因为我不希望总是看到 一群不同的股东。我实际上对Berkshire股东的变化更替实行跟踪。
　　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.
　　举个例子，如果有一个教堂，我是行祷告之人，看到做礼拜的人每个星期都换掉一半，我不会说，这真是太好了，看看我的成员流动性有多强呀（笑）。我宁愿在每个星期天看到教堂里坐满了同样那么一批人。
　　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.
　　当我们考量生意的时候，这就是我们的原则。基本上我们寻找那些打算永久持有的生意。那样的企业并不多。在一开始，我的主意比资金多得多，所以我不断地卖出那些我认为吸引力差些的股票以便来购买那些新近发现的好生意。但这已经不是我们现在的问题了。（译者注：我们现在不缺钱，而是缺好生意)购买企业的五年后，我们希望彼时如同此时一般的满意。如果有一些极其庞大的兼并机会，也可能我们需要卖出一些股票（来筹措资金）。当然，我很乐于拥有那样的问题。
　　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.
　　我们在购买企业时从来不预先定下一个目标价。比如，如果我们的买入价是30，当股价到达40，50，60，或100时，我们就卖，诸如此类。我们不再如此的行事。当我们花2500万买私有公司See’s Candy时，我们没有“如果有人出5000万我们就卖”的计划。那不是一个考量生意的正确方式。
　　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.
　　我们考量生意的方式是，随着时间的推移，是否买下的企业会带来越来越多的利润？如果对这个问题的回答是肯定的，任何其他问题都是多余的。
　　Questions: How did you decide to invest in Salomon?
　　问题：你是如何看待对所罗门的投资的？类似的，长期管理资金的买卖？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我们投资所罗门的原因是，在1987年9月，所罗门公司是一家9％资产被证券化的企业，道指在这一年涨了35％，之前我们卖了很多股票，一下子手里有了很多现金，并且看上去我们暂时不会用得到它们。所以，在这个我通常不会购买股票的行业里，我们采用了这种有吸引力的证券形式，购买了所罗门。这是一个错误。最后结果还不错，但那不是我应该做的。我应该再等等，这样一年后我会多买一些可口可乐公司的股票，或者我在当时就该买，即便可乐那时的卖价真的不便宜。
　　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 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.
　　对于长期管理资金，我们，随着时间的推移，积累了对和证券有关的其他生意的了解。其中一个就是套利。套利，我做了45年，格拉姆做了30年。套利是必须靠近电话，我自己也必须东奔西跑地做，因为它要求我跟紧跟大市的脉动。现在我已经不做了，除非出现我自己看得懂，又是极大的套利机会。我这一辈子可能做了300桩，可能更多，套利的交易。
　　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.
　　套利本身是很好的生意。长期管理资金有很多套利的头寸，它前10名的头寸可能占据了90％的资金。我对那前10名的头寸有一些了解。我虽然不了解其中所有的细节，但是我已经掌握足够多的信息。同时，交易中我们将得到可观的折扣，我们也有足够的本钱打持久战，所以我们觉得交易可以进行。我们是可能在那样的交易中赔钱的。但是，我们占据了一些有利因素，我们是在我们懂得的领域作战。我们还有一些其他的头寸，不像长期管理资金那么大，因为像那么大规模的确实不多。那些头寸或涉及到收益曲线的关系（译者注：Yield Curve），或跟不同时期发布的政府债券有关等等（译者注：on the run, off the run)。如果在证券业足够长的话，这些品种都是要接触到的。它们不是我们的核心生意，平均大概占到我们年收益的0.5% 至0.75%，算是额外的一点惊喜吧。
　　Question: Diversification?
　　问题：谈一谈投资多元化吧。
　　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.  
　　巴菲特：如果你不是一个职业投资者，如果你的目标不是远超大多数人表现的话，那么你就需要做到最大可能的投资多元化。98％，99％，甚至更高比例的人需要尽可能地去多元化，而不是不断地买进卖出。你们面临的选择就是管理成本很低的指数类的共同基金了。（译者注：指数类的基金指用计算机模型来模拟股票指数，如道琼斯指数，纳斯达克指数，所包含的股票，权重，和走势。投资者可以将指数基金当成普通股票来投资） 如果你认为拥有部分美国是值得的话，就去买指数基金。你拥有了一部分美国。对此我没有任何异议，那就是你应该的做法，除非你想给投资游戏带些悬念，并着手对企业做评估。一旦你进入对企业做评估的领域，下定决心要花时间，花精力把事情做好，我会认为投资多元化，从任何角度来说，都是犯了大错。那天我在SunTrust的时候，有人问了一个问题。
　　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 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.
　　如果要做到真正懂生意的话，那么你懂的生意可能不会超过6个。如果你真的懂6个生意的话，那就是你所需要的所有多元化，我保证你会因此而赚很多钱。把钱放在第七个主意上，而不是选择投更多的钱于最好的主意，绝对是个错误。很少有人会因他们第七好的主意而赚钱，很多人却因为他们最棒的主意而发财。我认为，对任何一个拥有常规资金量的人而言，如果他们真的懂得所投的生意，6个已经绰绰有余了。 在我最看好的生意中，我只拥有一半左右。我自己就没有去做所谓的投资多元化。许多我所知晓的做的不错的人都没有多元化他们的投资。唯一的例外是Walter Schloss（译者注：同巴菲特一样，也是本杰明.格拉姆的门生。他的基金收益50年来一直领先大市），他做到了多元化，投资了方方面面。我管他叫诺亚，因为他在每个行业都投两个企业。（笑）（译者注：诺亚方舟的典故）
　　Question: How do you distinguish the Cokes of the world from the Proctor & Gambles of this world?
　　问题：你如何区分P & G和可口可乐公司？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：P& G是一个很好的公司，有着很强的行销网络，旗下有很多名牌，等等。如果你告诉我，我要离开20年，这期间我们家族的资产都放在了P& G上面，我不会感到不高兴的。P& G是我5％的选择之一。20年的时间，它不会消亡的。但是，未来20年，30年的时间里，相对于P& G，我对可口可乐公司的单位增长率，定价能力更看好些。
　　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.
　　目前可乐的定价能力可能差些。设想以下，数以十亿计的日均消费量，多一分钱，那就是一千万。Berkshire拥有8％的股份，那就是每天80万。看上去不是不可能，不是吗？现在就想涨价，在很多市场是行不通的。但假以时日，二十年后，可乐在单位消费量里一定赚得更多，并且总量上也会卖得更多。我不确信这个涨幅会有多大，但是我确信一定会增长。
　　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.
　　我不认为P& G的主要产品有可乐这样的统治力，有这样的消费量增长率，但是P& G依旧是好公司。即使我可能会更中意其他一些公司，但是那样的公司凤毛麟角。
　　Question: Would you buy McDonald’s and go away for twenty years?
　　问题：麦当劳的20年前景如何？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：麦当劳的情况里，许多因素都起作用，特别是海外的因素。麦当劳在海外的处境比在美国国内要强势一些。这个生意随着时间的推移，会越来越难。人们，那些等着派发礼物的孩子除外，不愿每天都吃麦当劳。喝可乐的人，今天喝五罐，明天可能还会喝五罐。快餐业比这要艰难得多。但是，如果你一定要在快餐业里，世界范围里这个行业规模是巨大的，选择一家的话，你会选麦当劳。它有着最好的定位。
　　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 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).
　　虽然对小孩子虽是美味，对成人而言它却不是最好吃的。近来，它进入了用降价来促销的领域，而不是靠产品本身来销售。我个人更中意那些靠产品本身就卖钱的公司。在这一点上，我更喜欢吉列。人们不是因为还有一些附送的小礼品而买Mark 3。在本质上，吉列的产品更强势些。Berkshire拥有很多吉列的股票。当你想到几十亿的男人脸上每天每夜长出的胡子，更好的是，还有女人的两条腿，你晚上的睡眠一定会很香甜。那才是你要的生意。
　　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.
　　如果你想的是下个月我要用什么降价策略来压制汉堡王（译者注：Berger King），如果它们和迪斯尼签了协议，而我却没有。。。等等。我偏爱那些独立的产品，不需要做降价促销这些噱头来让它更有吸引力。虽然你可以用那些伎俩来做好生意，比如，麦当劳就是一个非常优秀的企业，但它终究不像可乐那样，像可乐那样的几乎也没有。 如果你一定要在那个领域买一家企业，就买奶酪皇后吧！我是开玩笑的，还是买麦当劳吧。一段时间以前，Berkshire买了奶酪皇后，所以我在这儿给奶酪皇后不知羞耻地做广告（笑）。
　　Question: What do I think about the utility industry?
　　问题：你对能源基础行业的公司怎么看？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：我考虑了很久了，因为这方面的投资要花很多钱的。我甚至考虑过要彻底买下一个公司。我们Omaha公司总部的一个人员通过CalEnergy（译者注：一家位于Omaha的地热能源公司）做了一些投资。但是，对于能源行业在政府的调控下究竟会如何发展，我还不是太懂。我看到了一些因素对高成本的企业在曾经的垄断地域是如何的具有破坏性。我不确信哪家会因而得益，程度又是如何等等。
　　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.
　　当然，不同的能源企业的成本会有高有低。水利发电的成本是每千瓦2分钱，它们的优势就非同小可了。但是在它们所产出的电力里，它们自己能保留多少，它们又可以把多少电力发送到区外，我还没想通。所以，对于这个行业未来十年的情况，我还看不清。（译者注：在美国，发电公司的电力交易和定价并不完全是市场行为，而是有政府做管理调控的）但这的确是一个我一直以来不断考量的行业。一旦我理出些头绪，我会付诸行动的。我晓得产品的吸引力，各个方面用户需要的确定性，还有现在这些公司的价钱可能很便宜，等等。我只是不确定在未来的十年里，谁会从中赚大钱，所以我还处于观望的态度。
　　Question: Why do large caps outperform small caps (1998)?
　　问题：为什么资本市场更青睐大型企业，而不是小型企业？
　　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:
　　巴菲特：我们不在乎企业的大小，是巨型，大型，小型，还是微型。企业的大小无所谓。真正重要的因素是：
　　• Do we understand the business?
　　我们对企业，对生意懂多少；
　　• Do we like the people running it?
　　是否是我们看好的人在管理它们；
　　• And does it sell for a price that is attractive?
　　产品的卖价是否具有竞争力。
　　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 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.
　　从我自己管理Berkshire的经验来看，我需要将从General Re带来的750到800个亿的保费进行投资。我只能投资5桩生意，我的投资因而就只局限于那些大公司。如果我只有10万块，我是不会在乎所投资企业的大小的，只要我懂得它们的生意就行。
　　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.
　　在我看来，总体而言，大企业过去十年来表现非常杰出，甚至远远超过人们的预期。没人能预计到美国公司的资产收益率能接近于20％。这主要归功于特大型公司。由于较低的利息率，和高得多的资产回报率，对这些公司的评估也必然会显著的上调。如果把美国公司假想成收益率20％的债券，比起收益率13％的债券自然是好得多。这是近些年来确实发生的情况，是否会一直如此，那是另外一个问题。我个人对此表示怀疑。除了我所管理资金多少的因素，我不会在乎企业的大小。See’s Candy在我们买它时，还只是一个年收入二千五百万的生意。如果我们现在还能找到一个类似的，即使按照我们公司现在的运作规模，我也乐于买下它。（我认为）是那些令人确信的因素才真正重要。
　　Question: The securitization of real estate?
　　问题：在过去的五年里，不动产业的主流都是私有的。你对不动产业的证券化有何高见？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：巨大的不动产业债务的证券化的确是近来资本市场里的一个疑难症结。以房屋贷款为基础的证券了无生气。我指的是商业房贷，而不是居民房贷。我想你的问题是关于资产（证券化）方面的。拥有公司是一种很不好的拥有资产的方式。如果你把公司收入税摊派给个人，因而个人就可以只交纳一种税。如果是常规的公司形式，人们被迫两次缴税（译者注：一次公司，一次个人）。在不动产业，你不需要那样做的，（真那样的话）回报上会因缴税而受很大的影响。
　　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.
　　REIT（译者注：专门投资不动产业的共同基金，公司税率很低，但主要盈利都要派发给股东), 巧妙避开了法律的规定，因而人们不需要两次缴纳。但是它们的管理费用也很高。如果你进入不动产业，举例讲你如果买最简单的REIT，每年有8％的收益，除去1％或1.5％的费用后，所得也不是那么有吸引力了。对只有千把块钱或5千块钱的投资，可能还可以。但是如果是百万级的投资，直接去买不动产可能更划算些，这样你能避免在中间人上可观的开销。在不动产领域，我们鲜有令人激动的发现。看到一些特大型的地产公司，有些人可能会有些迷惑，我在这里试着不冒犯在座的各位，这里举一个例子，得克萨斯太平洋土地基金，这个有着百年历史的公司，在得克萨斯州有着几百万公顷的土地，每年卖掉1％的土地，并以那为基准，得出一个比市场行情高得多的估价。我认为，如果你是土地的拥有者，那样的估价是毫无道理的。你不可能交易50％，甚至是20％的土地，这比流动性很差的股票还要差得多。
　　So you get these, I think, you get some very silly valuations placed on a lot of real estate companies by people who really don't understand what it is like to own one and try to move large quantity of properties.
　　我认为对许多不动产公司的估价都是愚蠢的，都是那些不曾拥有土地的人或是想卖出大量土地套现的人的伎俩。
　　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.
　　REIT基金今年的市场表现很不好，这个你们可能都知道。不难想象它们将会变成没人要的一类，同你的不动产卖价相比，它们会以很大的折扣贱卖。事情会变得很有趣。因为接下来的问题是REIT基金的管理层是否会同你斗争到底，因为（卖出不动产的过程中）他们不得不放弃管理物业的收入。他们的实际利益同股东的正好相反。我总是在想，REIT基金一直在鼓吹他们优秀的不动产和廉价的股票，而管理层却在市场上卖股票，比如他们说28块钱的股票很便宜了，他们却在28元以下卖股票，这显然是自相矛盾的。但是，我们还是在关注着这一块。我们懂得这个行业，在不同的时段，我们会考虑进行一些特大笔的交易。如果有长期资金管理公司的事件在不动产领域里发生了，我们会敞开胸怀的。问题是其他许多人也会纷至沓来的，所以出现让我们兴奋的价格的可能性并不大。
　　Question: A down market is good for you?
　　问题：据我的理解，在你的理论里，熊市对抄底买家是很有利的。你是如何预计，在一个走下坡路的市场里，你的长期性盈利状况呢？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：对于大市的走势，我一无所知。虽然我的偏好无足轻重，但是我希望它向下调整。市场对我的感情是无暇顾及的（笑）。这是在你学习股票时，首要了解的一点。如果你买了100股通用汽车之后，对通用一下子充满了感情。当它降价时，你变得暴躁，怨天尤人；当它攀升时，你沾沾自喜，自以为聪明，对通用也是喜爱有加。你变得如此情绪化。但是，股票却不晓得谁买了它。股票只是一个物质存在而已，它并不在乎谁拥有了它，又花了多少钱，等等。我对市场的感情是不会有一丝回报的。我们这里靠的是一个异常冰冷的肩膀（笑）。
　　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.
　　未来10年里，在座的每个人可能都是股票的净买家，而不是净卖家，所以每人都应该盼着更低的股价。未来10年里，你们肯定是汉堡包的大吃家，所以你盼着更便宜的汉堡包，除非你是养牛“专业户”。如果你现在还不拥有可口可乐的股票，你又希望买一些，你一定盼着可乐的股价走低。你盼着超市在周末大甩卖，而不是涨价。
　　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 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.
　　纽约证交所就如同公司的超市。你知道自己要买股票，那么你盼着什么好事呢，你恨不得股价都跳水，越深越好，这样你就可以拣到些便宜货了。20年以后，30年以后，当你退休开始要支取养命钱了，或者你的后代支取你的养命钱时（笑），你也许会希望股价能高点。在格拉姆的“智慧的投资者”一书中的第8章，描述了对待股票市场上下波动的态度，以及第20章中讲到了安全边际效应的问题，我认为是所有描写投资的著述中最好的两篇。因为当我在19岁读到第8章时，我恍然大悟。我领悟到了上面涉及的心得。看上去它们显而易见，但我从前没有体会过。如果不是那文章里的解释，恐怕过了100年，我还在盼着股价节节高呢。我们希望股票降价，但是我并不晓得股票市场会有如何的走势。恐怕我永远也不会。我甚至想都不去想这些事情。当股市真的走低时，我会很用心的研究我要买些什么，因为我相信到那时我可以更高效地使用手上的资金。  
　　Moderator: Ok, Warren, we will let you take one more question from the audience….
　　主持人插:沃伦，下面的问题将是最后一个问题了
　　Buffett: I will let you pick who get it. You can be the guy…(laughter).
　　巴菲特马上笑着说，好，你就帮我选那个最后的幸运儿吧。你也可以选自己。（笑）
　　Question: What would you do to live a happier life if you could live over again?
　　最后一个问题：如果你有幸再重新活一次的话，你会去做些什么，让你的生活更快乐？
　　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.
　　巴菲特：这听上去有点让人反胃。我也许会从活到120岁的那群人的基因池中做个选择吧（笑）。
　　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.
　　我认为我自己是罕见的幸运。让我在这里花上一到二分钟讲个例子，也许值得我们好好想想。让我们做这样一个假设，在你出生的24小时以前，一个先知来到你的身边。他说，“小家伙，你看上去很不错，我这里有个难题，我要设计一个你将要生活的世界。如果是我设计的话，太难了，不如你自己来设计吧。所以，在24小时以内，你要设计出所有那些社交规范，经济规范，还有管理规范等等。你会生活在那样一个世界里，你的孩子们会生活在那样一个世界里，孩子们的孩子们会生活在那样一个世界里。”
　　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?
　　你问先知，“是由我来设计一切吗”？先知回答说是。你反问，“那这里肯定有什么陷阱”。先知说，“是的，是有一个陷阱。你不知道自己是黑是白，是富是穷，是男是女，体弱多病还是身体强健，聪明还是愚笨。。。你能做的就是从装着65亿球的大篮子里选一个代表你的小球”。我管这游戏叫子宫里的彩票。这也许是决定你命运的事件，因为这将决定你出生在美国还是阿富汗，有着130的IQ还是70，总之这将决定太多太多的东西。如何设计这个你即将降生到的世界呢？
　　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 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.
　　我认为这是一个思考社会问题的好方法。当你对即将得到的那个球毫不知情时，你会把系统设计得能够提供大量的物品和服务，你会希望人们心态平衡，生活富足，同时系统能源源不绝地产出（物品和服务），这样你的子子孙孙能活得更好。而且对那些不幸选错了球，没有接对线路的人们，这个系统也不会亏待他们。在这个系统里，我绝对是接对了路，找到了自己的位置。我降生后，人们让我来分配资金。这活本身也并不出彩。假设我们都被仍在了一个荒岛上，谁都走不出来，那么在那个岛上，最有价值的人一定是稻谷收获最多的人。如果我说，我能分配资金，估计不会招什么人待敬。我是在合适的时间来到了合适的地方。
　　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?
　　盖茨说如果我出生在几百万年前，权当了那些野兽的鱼肉耳。我跑不快，又不会爬树，我什么事也干不了。他说，出生在当代是你的幸运。我确实是幸运的。时不时地，你可以自问一下，这里有个装着65亿小球的篮子，世界上的每个人都在这里；有人随机取出另外100个小球来，你可以再选一个球，但是你必须把你现有的球放回去，你会放回去吗？100个取出的小球里，大约5个是美国人吧，95个不是。如果你想留在这个国家，你能选的就只有5个球。一半是男生，一半是女生，一半是高智商，一半是低智商。你愿意把你现在的小球放回去吗？盖茨说如果我出生在几百万年前，权当了那些野兽的鱼肉耳。我跑不快，又不会爬树，我什么事也干不了。他说，出生在当代是你的幸运。我确实是幸运的。时不时地，你可以自问一下，这里有个装着65亿小球的篮子，世界上的每个人都在这里；有人随机取出另外100个小球来，你可以再选一个球，但是你必须把你现有的球放回去，你会放回去吗？100个取出的小球里，大约5个是美国人吧，95个不是。如果你想留在这个国家，你能选的就只有5个球。一半是男生，一半是女生，一半是高智商，一半是低智商。你愿意把你现在的小球放回去吗？
　　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.
　　你们中的大多数不会为了那一百个球而把你自己的球放回去。所以，你们是世界上最幸运的1％，至少现在是这样。这正是我的感受。一路走来，我是如此幸运。在我出生的时候，出生在美国的比率只有50比1。我幸运有好的父母，在很多事情上我都得到幸运女神的眷顾。。。幸运地出生在一个对我报酬如此丰厚的市场经济里，对那些和我一样是好公民的人们，那些领着童子军的人们，周日教书的人们，养育幸福的家庭。它们可能在报酬上未必如我，但也并不需要像我一样呀。我真的非常幸运，所以，我盼着我还能继续幸运下去。
　　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.
　　如果我幸运的话，那个小球游戏给我带来的只有珍惜，做一些我一生都喜欢做的事情，并和那些我欣赏的人交朋友。我只同那些我欣赏的人做生意。如果同一个令我反胃的人合作能让我赚一个亿，那么我宁愿不做。这就如同为了金钱而结成的婚姻一般，无论在何种条件下，都很荒唐，更何况我已经富有了。我是不会为了金钱而成婚的。所以，（如果我有机会重新来过的话）我可能还会去做我做过的每一件事情，当然，购买USAir除外。
　　Thank you.
　　谢谢！
　　

admin

1998.10.15 巴菲特在佛罗里达大学商学院的演讲 第一部分
　　1998 年 10 月 15 日巴菲特在佛罗里达大学商学院的演讲
　　巴菲特：（手持麦克风）测试，1 百万、2 百万、3 百万。
　　我先简单说几句，把大部分时间留下来回答大家的问题。我想聊聊大家关心的话题。请各位提问的时候一定要刁钻。你们问的问题越难，才越好玩。什么都可以问，就是不能问上个月我交了多少税，这个问题我无可奉告。
　　各位同学，你们毕业之后未来会怎样？我简单说说我的想法。各位在这所大学能学到大量关于投资的知识，你们将拥有成功所需的知识，既然各位能坐在这里，你们也拥有成功所需的智商，你们还有成功所需的拼劲。你们大多数人都会成功地实现自己的理想。
　　但是最后你到底能否成功，不只取决于你的头脑和勤奋。我简单讲一下这个道理。奥马哈有个叫彼得•基威特的人，他说他招人的时候看三点：品行、头脑和勤奋。他说一个人要是头脑聪明、勤奋努力，但品行不好，肯定是个祸害。品行不端的人，最好又懒又蠢。
　　我知道各位都头脑聪明、勤奋努力，所以我今天只讲品行。为了更好地思考这个问题，我们不妨一起做个游戏。各位都是 MBA 二年级的学生，应该很了解自己周围的同学了。假设现在你可以选一个同学，买入他今后一生之内 10% 的收入。你不能选富二代，只能选靠自己奋斗的人。请各位仔细想一下，你会选班里的哪位同学，买入他今后一生之内 10% 的收入。
　　你会给所有同学做个智商测试，选智商最高的吗？未必。你会选考试成绩最高的吗？未必。你会选最有拼劲的吗？不一定。因为大家都很聪明，也都很努力，我觉得你会主要考虑定性方面的因素。好好想想，你会把赌注压在谁的身上？也许你会选你最有认同感的那个人，那个拥有领导能力，能把别人组织起来的人。这样的人应该是慷慨大方的、诚实正直的，他们自己做了贡献，却说是别人的功劳。我觉得让你做出决定的应该是这样的品质。找到了你最钦佩的这位同学之后，想一想他身上有哪些优秀品质，拿一张纸，把这些品质写在纸的左边。下面我要加大难度了。为了拥有这位同学今后一生 10% 的收入，你还要同时做空另一位同学今后一生 10% 的收入，这个更好玩。想想你会做空谁？你不会选智商最低的。你会想到那些招人烦的人，他们可能学习成绩优秀，但你就是不想和他们打交道，不但你烦他们，别人也烦他们。为什么有人会招人烦？原因很多，这样的人可能自私自利、贪得无厌、投机取巧或者弄虚作假。类似这样的品质，你想想还有什么，请把它们写在刚才那张纸的右边。
　　看看左右两边分别列出来的品质，你发现了吗？这些品质不是把橄榄球扔出 60 米，不是 10 秒钟跑完 100 米，不是相貌在全班最出众。左边的这些品质，你真想拥有的话，你可以有。
　　这些是关于行为、脾气和性格的品质，是能培养出来的。在座的各位，只要你想要获得这些品质，没一个是你得不到的。再看一下右边的那些品质，那些令人生厌的品质，没一个是你非有不可的，你身上要是有，想改的话，可以改掉。大多数行为都是习惯成自然。我已经老了，但你们还年轻，想摆脱恶*，你们年轻人做起来更容易。常言道，习惯的枷锁，开始的时候轻的难以察觉，到后来却重的无法摆脱。这话特别在理。我在生活中见过一些人，他们有的和我年纪差不多，有的比我年轻十几二十几岁，但是他们染上了一些坏*性，把自己毁了，改也改不掉，走到哪都招人烦。他们原来不是这样的，但是习惯成自然，积累到一定程度，根本改不了了。你们还年轻，想养成什么习惯、想形成什么品格，都可以，就看你自己怎么想了。
　　本•格雷厄姆，还有他之前的本•富兰克林，他们都这么做过。本•格雷厄姆十几岁的时候就观察自己周围那些令人敬佩的人，他对自己说：“我也想成为一个被别人敬佩的人，我要向他们学习。”格雷厄姆发现学习他敬佩的人，像他们一样为人处世，是完全做得到的。他同样观察周围遭人厌恶的人，摆脱他们身上的缺点。我建议大家把这些品质写下来，好好想想，把好品质养成习惯，最后你想买谁 10% 的收入，就会变成他。
　　你已经确定拥有自己 100% 的收入，再有别人的 10%，这多好。你选择了谁，你都可以学得像他一样。
　　我要讲的道理讲完了，下面聊聊大家感兴趣的，请各位提问吧。
　　问：请谈谈您对日本的看法？
　　巴菲特：我对日本的看法？我不研究宏观问题。我就想啊，伯克希尔可以在日本以 1% 的利率借到十年期的贷款，1% 的利率！我就琢磨了，我 45 年前听了格雷厄姆的课，一辈子都在研究这些东西，我要是用点心，收益率应该能超过 1% 吧？应该能做到吧？  
　　我不想承受汇率风险，所以我必须投资以日元计价的标的，只能投资日本房地产或日本公司，收益率超过 1% 就行，因为我的资金成本就是十年期利率 1%。我一直在找，还一个都没找到，你说有意思不？日本公司的净资产收益率很低，大多数公司的资净资产收益率只有 4% 到 6%。如果你投资的公司本身都不赚钱，你也很难赚钱。
　　有的人能做到。我有个朋友，沃尔特•施洛斯，当年我们都为格雷厄姆打工。我一开始买股票就这么买的，买那些股价远远低于营运资金的股票，从定量分析上看非常便宜的股票，我把这种投资方法叫捡烟头。在大街上四处溜达，看哪有烟头可捡。最后发现了一个，上面带着口水，看起来很恶心，但是还能抽一口，于是弯下腰把它捡起来，免费抽了一口。有的股票和别人扔的烟头一样。捡起来免费抽一口，扔掉，然后继续在大街上四处溜达，接着捡。一点都不体面。捡烟头的投资方法管用，但是用这种方法买的都是资产回报率很低的生意。
　　时间是好生意的朋友，烂生意的敌人。如果长期持有一个烂生意，就算买得再便宜，最后也只能取得很烂的收益。如果长期持有好生意，就算买得贵了一些，只要长期持有，还是会取得出色的收益。
　　我现在在日本没找到值得买的好生意。或许日本公司需要改变一下文化，管理层应该更注重股东利益，更注重提高股票的回报率。别说现在日本的大多数公司收益率很低，连日本经济繁荣的时候，也是如此。真是很奇怪，日本有不少公司占领了巨大的市场，却没几个值得投资的。日本公司把生意做得很大，但是净资产收益率太低，最后就出问题了。我们在日本还没有投资。只要日元保持 1% 的利率，我们会接着找。
　　提问：有传言说您是救赎长期资本管理公司的买家之一，到底发生了什么，能给我们讲讲吗？
　　巴菲特：最新一期的《财富》杂志，封面上是鲁伯特•默多克，其中有一篇报道，讲了我们是如何参与的。这件事非常耐人寻味。说来话长，我从我们开始参与时讲起。那是一个星期五的下午，我接到了一个电话，说长期资本管理公司出大事了。那天晚上我要参加我孙女的生日聚会，然后要飞到西雅图，和盖茨一家乘船游览阿拉斯加，行程是 12 天。后来，我在船上，和外界联系很困难。之前我也接到过几次电话，但在周五下午接到的那个电话里，我知道真是出大事了。我认识长期资本管理公司的那些人，和其中一些人还很熟，我临时接手所罗门的时候，他们中的很多人当时都在。长期资本管理公司要崩盘了，周末美联储派人进驻。从那个周五到下一周的周三，美联储纽约分行组织了一次纾困行动，希望在联邦政府不出钱的情况下能拯救长期资本，但是没成功。我非常积极地参与这件事，但是船在峡谷之间航行，根本没信号，我对看风景毫无兴趣。船长说往那边航行，也许能看到熊和鲸鱼。我说哪有卫星信号往哪开。
　　周三上午我们给了一个报价。在和美联储纽约分行的比尔•麦克唐纳谈过之后，我们出价 2.5 亿美元买入长期资本的净资产，此外还将注资 37.5 亿美元，其中伯克希尔出资 30 亿，AIG 出资 7 亿，高盛出资 3 亿。我们提交了方案，但是只给对方很短的时间考虑。我们要买的是 1000 亿美元的证券，价格瞬息万变，但我们的出价是固定的，所以不可能给对方很长时间。
　　最后，投行的人把交易谈成了。这件事很耐人寻味。长期资本管理公司的由来，相信在座的大多人都知道，实在太令人感慨了，约翰•梅里韦瑟、艾瑞克•罗森菲尔德、拉里•希利布兰德、格雷格•霍金斯、维克多•哈格哈尼，还有两位诺贝尔奖桂冠得主罗伯特•默顿和迈伦•舒尔兹，把他们这 16 个人加起来，他们的智商该多高，随便从哪家公司挑 16 个人出来，包括微软，都没法和他们比。第一，他们的智商高得不得了。第二，他们这 16 个人都是投资领域的老手。他们不是倒卖服装发的家，然后来搞证券的。他们这 16 个人加起来，有三四百年的经验了，一直都在投资这行摸爬滚打。第三，他们大多数人都几乎把自己的整个身家财产都投入到了长期资本管理公司，他们把自己的钱也投进去了。他们自己投了几亿的钱，而且智商高超，经验老道，结果却破产了。真是让人感慨。
　　要让我写一本书的话，书名我都想好了，就叫《聪明人怎么做蠢事》，我的合伙人说我的自传可以叫这个名字。但是，我们从长期资本这件事能得到很多启发。长期资本的人都是好人。我尊重他们。当我在所罗门焦头烂额的时候，他们帮过我。他们根本不是坏人。
　　但是他们为了赚更多的钱，为了赚自己不需要的钱，把自己手里的钱，把自己需要的钱都搭进去了。这不是傻是什么？绝对是傻，不管智商多高，都是傻。为了得到对自己不重要的东西，甘愿拿对自己重要的东西去冒险，哪能这么干？我不管成功的概率是 100 比 1，还是 1000 比 1，我都不做这样的事。假设你递给我一把枪，里面有 1000 个弹仓、100 万个弹仓，其中只有一个弹仓里有一颗子弹，你说：“把枪对准你的太阳穴，扣一下扳机，你要多少钱？”我不干。你给我多少钱，我都不干。要是我赢了，我不需要那些钱；要是我输了，结果不用说了。这样的事，我一点都不想做，但是在金融领域，人们经常做这样的事，都不经过大脑。
　　有一本很好的书，不是书好，是书名好。这是一本烂书，但是书名起得很好，是沃尔特•古特曼写的，书名是《一生只需富一次》。这个道理难道不是很简单吗？假设年初你有 1 亿美元，如果不上杠杆，能赚 10%，上杠杆的成功率是 99%，能赚 20%，年末时你有 1.1 亿美元，还是 1.2 亿美元，有区别吗？没一点区别。要是年末你死了，写讣告的人可能有个笔误，虽然你有 1.2 亿，但他写成了 1.1 亿。多赚的钱有什么用？一点用没有。对你、对你的家人，对别人，都没用。
　　要是亏钱了的话，特别是给别人管钱，亏的不但是钱，而且颜面扫地、无地自容，把朋友的钱都亏了，没脸见人。我真理解不了，怎么有人会像这 16 个人一样，智商很高、人品也好，却做这样的事，一定是疯了。他们吃到了苦果，因为他们太依赖外物了。我临时掌管所罗门的时候，他们和我说，六西格玛的事件、七西格玛的事件伤不着他们。他们错了。只看过去的情况，无法确定未来金融事件发生的概率。他们太依赖数学了，以为知道了一只股票的贝塔系数，就知道了这只股票的风险。要我说，贝塔系数和股票的风险根本是八竿子打不着。
　　会计算西格玛，不代表你就知道破产的风险。我是这么想的，不知道现在他们是不是也这么想了。说真的，我都不愿意以长期资本为例。我们都有一定的概率会摊上类似的事，我们都有盲点，或许是因为我们了解了太多的细枝末节，把最关键的地方忽略了。亨利•考夫曼说过一句话：“破产的有两种人，一种是什么都不知道的，一种是什么都知道的。”说起来，真是令人扼腕叹息。
　　同学们，引以为戒。我们基本上没借过钱，当然我们的保险公司里有浮存金。但是我压根没借过钱。我只有 1 万块钱的时候都不借钱，不借钱不一样吗？我钱少的时候做投资也很开心。我根本不在乎我到底是有 1 万、10 万，还是 100 万。除非遇上了急事，比如生了大病急需用钱。
　　当年我钱很少，但我也没盼着以后钱多了要过不一样的生活。从衣食住行来看，你我之间有什么差别吗？我们穿一样的衣服，我们都能喝天赐的可口可乐，我们都能吃上麦当劳，还有更美味的 DQ 冰淇淋，我们都住在冬暖夏凉的房子里，我们都在大屏幕上看橄榄球赛。你在大电视上看，我也在大电视上看。我们的生活完全一样，没多大差别。要是你生了大病，会得到良好的治疗。如果我得了大病，也会得到良好的治疗。我们唯一不一样的地方是我们出行的方式不同。我有一架小飞机，可以飞来飞去，我特别喜欢这架飞机，这是要花钱的。除了我们出行的方式不同，你说有什么是我能做，但你做不了的吗？
　　我有一份我热爱的工作，但我一直都在做我喜欢的工作。当年我觉得赚 1,000 美元是一大笔钱的时候，我就喜欢我的工作。同学们，做你们喜欢的工作。要是你总做那些自己不喜欢的工作，只是为了让简历上的工作经历更漂亮，那你真是糊涂了。有一次，我去做一个演讲，来接我的是一个 28 岁的哈佛大学的学生。我听他讲完了他的工作经历，觉得他很了不起。我问他：“以后你有什么打算？”他说：“等我 MBA 毕业后，可能先进一家咨询公司，这样能给简历增加一些分量。”我说：“你才 28 岁，已经有这么漂亮的工作经历了，你的简历比一般人的漂亮 10 倍。你还接着做自己不喜欢的工作，不觉得有点像年轻的时候把性生活省下来，留到岁数大的时候再用吗？
　　或早或晚，你们都应该开始做自己真心想做的事。我觉得我说的话，大家都听明白了。各位毕业之后，挑一个自己真心喜欢的工作，别为了让自己的简历更漂亮而工作，要做自己真心喜欢的。时间久了，你的喜好可能会变，但在做自己喜欢的事的时候，早晨你会从床上跳起来。我刚从哥伦比亚大学商学院毕业，就迫不及待地希望立刻为格雷厄姆工作。我说我不要工资，格雷厄姆说我要的薪水太高了。我一直骚扰他。回到奥马哈后，我做了三年股票经纪人，一直给格雷厄姆写信，告诉他我发现的投资机会。最后，我终于得到了机会，在他手下工作了一两年。那是一段宝贵的经历。总之，我做的工作始终都是我喜欢的。你财富自由之后想做什么工作，现在就该做什么工作，这样的工作才是理想的工作。做这样的工作，你会很开心，能学到东西，能充满激情。每天会从床上跳起来，一天不工作都不行。或许以后你喜欢的东西会变，但是现在做你喜欢的工作，你会收获很多。我根本不在乎工资是多少。不知怎么，扯得有点远了。
　　总之，如果你现在有 1 块钱，以为将来有 2 块钱的时候，自己能比现在过得更幸福，你可能想错了。你应该找到自己真心喜欢做的事情，投入地去做。别以为赚 10 倍或 20 倍能解决生活中的所有问题，这样的想法很容易把你带到沟里去。在不该借钱的时候借钱，或者急功近利、投机取巧，做自己不该做的事，将来都没地方买后悔药。
　　提问：您喜欢什么样的公司？
　　巴菲特：我喜欢我能看懂的生意。先从能不能看懂开始，我用这一条筛选，90% 的公司都被过滤掉了。我不懂的东西很多，好在我懂的东西足够用了。世界如此之大，几乎所有公司都是公众持股的。所有的美国公司，随便挑。首先，有些东西明知道自己不懂，不懂的，不能做。
　　有些东西是你能看懂的。可口可乐，是我们都能看懂的，谁都能看懂。可口可乐这个产品从 1886 年起基本没变过。可口可乐的生意很简单，但是不容易。我不喜欢很容易的生意，生意很容易，会招来竞争对手。我喜欢有护城河的生意。我希望拥有一座价值连城的城堡，守护城堡的公爵德才兼备。我希望这座城堡周围有宽广的护城河。护城河的表现形式有很多。我们的汽车保险公司 GEICO 的护城河是低成本。
　　汽车保险是必须买的，每辆车都要买一份。我们没办法让一个人买 20 份车险，但是他必须买一份。人们买车险看的是什么？看服务和价格。在大多数人眼里，各家保险公司的服务大同小异，所以人们买车险最后主要看价格。因此我们必须是成本最低的，这是我们的护城河。只要我们的成本比竞争对手又低了一些，我们的护城河里就多了一两条鲨鱼。如果你拥有一座漂亮的城堡，不管什么时候，总会有人来进攻，要把城堡从你手里抢走。我希望要的城堡是我能看懂的，而且城堡周围要有护城河。
　　30 年前，伊士曼柯达的护城河和可口可乐的护城河一样宽。那时候，你想给自己六个月大的孩子照一张相，希望 20 年后，50 年后，相片还能一样清晰。你不是专业的摄影师，不知道照片到底能不能保留到 20 年或 50 年之后，只能选择最值得信赖的胶卷公司。你要拍的照片对你有很重要的纪念意义，不能马虎。柯达公司承诺今天拍的照片在 20 年到 50 年后仍然栩栩如生。30 年前，柯达深受人们的信任，柯达拥有护城河。柯达拥有的是心理份额，市场份额算什么，我说的是心理份额。柯达的黄色小盒子在整个美国、在全世界所有人的心里都有一席之地，人们都知道柯达是最好的。这是用多少钱都买不来的。后来，柯达的护城河还在，但是却被削弱了。
　　这不是乔治•费舍尔的错，乔治做得很好，但柯达的护城河变窄了。柯达眼看着富士攻了过来，富士不断地蚕食柯达的护城河。柯达眼看着富士成为奥运会的赞助商。过去在人们心目中，只有柯达才能配得上拍摄奥运会，富士把柯达的光环抢走了。富士抢了柯达的声誉，也抢走了柯达在人们心目中的份额。富士逐渐开始和柯达平起平坐。
　　可口可乐没这样的遭遇。现在可口可乐的护城河比 30 年前更宽了。可口可乐的护城河，你看不到它每天在加宽。但是每次可口可乐在某个国家投资开一家新工厂，新工厂不赚钱，要 20 年后才能赚钱，它的护城河都会变宽一点。万事万物都无时无刻不在发生微小的改变，不是朝一个方向，就是另一个方向。十年后，我们就能看到明显的区别。我经常对伯克希尔子公司的管理者说，加宽护城河。往护城河里扔鳄鱼、鲨鱼，把竞争对手挡在外面。这要靠服务、靠产品质量、靠成本，有时候要靠专利或营业地点。我要找的就是这样的生意。
　　在哪能找到这样的生意呢？我从那些简单的产品里寻找好生意。像甲骨文、莲花、微软这些公司，我搞不懂它们的护城河十年之后会怎样。盖茨是我遇到过的最优秀的商业奇才，微软也拥有巨大的领先优势，但我真不知道微软十年后会怎样，无法确切地知道微软的竞争对手十年后会怎样。我知道口香糖生意十年后会怎样。互联网再怎么发展，都不会改变我们嚼口香糖的习惯，好像没什么能改变我们嚼口香糖的习惯。肯定会有更多新品种的口香糖出现，但白箭和黄箭会消失吗？不会。你给我 10 亿美元，让我去做口香糖生意，去挫挫箭牌的威风，我做不到。我就是这么思考生意的。我自己设想，要是我有 10 亿美元，能伤着这家公司吗？给我 100 亿美元，让我在全球和可口可乐竞争，我能伤着可口可乐吗？我做不到。这样的生意是好生意。
　　你要说给我一些钱，问我能不能伤着其他行业的一些公司，我知道怎么做。
　　我寻找的是简单的生意，很容易理解，当前的经济状况良好，管理层德才兼备，这样的生意，我能大概看出来它们十年后会怎样。有的生意，我看不出来十年后会怎样，我不买。一只股票，假设从明天起纽约股票交易所关门五年，我就不愿意持有了，这样的股票，我不买。我买一家农场，五年里没人给我的农场报价，只要农场的生意好，我就开心。我买一个房子，五年里没人给我的房子报价，只要房子的回报率达到了我的预期，我就开心。人们买完股票后，第二天一早就盯着股价，看股价决定自己的投资做得好不好。糊涂到家了。买股票就是买公司，这是格雷厄姆教给我的最基本的道理。
　　买的不是股票，是公司的一部分所有权。只要公司生意好，而且你买的价格不是高得离谱，你的收益也差不了。投资股票就这么简单。要买你能看懂的公司，就像买农场，你肯定买自己觉得合适的。没什么复杂的。
　　这个思想不是我发明的，都是格雷厄姆提出来的。我特别走运。19 岁的时候，我有幸读到了《聪明的投资者》。我六七岁的时候就对股票感兴趣，11 岁时第一次买股票。我一直都在自己摸索，看走势图、看成交量，做各种技术分析的计算，什么路子都试过。后来，我读到了《聪明的投资者》，书里说，买股票，买的不是代码，不是上蹿下跳的报价，买股票就是买公司。我转变到这种思维方式以后，一切都理顺了。道理很简单。所以说，我们买我们能看懂的公司。在座的各位，没有看不懂可口可乐公司的，但是某些新兴的互联网公司呢，我敢说，在座的各位，没一个能看懂的。今年在伯克希尔的股东大会上，我说要是我在商学院教课，期末考试时，我会出这样的题目，告诉学生一家互联网公司的信息，让他们给这家公司估值。哪个学生给出了估值，我就给他不及格。（笑）
　　我不知道怎么给这样的公司估值，从人们每天的行为看，他们觉得自己能做到，买互联网公司更刺激。有的人把买股票当成看赛马，那无所谓了，但是如果你是在投资的话，投资是把资金投进去，确定将来能以合适的收益率收回资金。
　　无论什么时候，都要知道自己在做什么，这样才能做好投资。必须把生意看懂了，有的生意是我们能看懂的，但不是所有生意我们都能看懂。
　　提问：您在前面讲到了要看懂生意，讲了买股票就是买公司。您还提到了，投资一家公司要获得合适的回报率。您只说了一半，到底该花多少钱买一家公司呢？您如何决定一家公司的公允价格？
　　巴菲特：多少钱买合适，很难决定。一家公司的确定性如果不是特别高，我不买。但是确定性特别高的话，价格一般都不便宜，实现不了多高的回报率。一件事，谁都做得到，凭什么有每年 40% 的回报率？我们想的不是怎么获得超高的回报率，而是始终牢记永远不亏钱。1972 年，我们买了喜诗糖果。当时喜诗每年能卖出 1600 万磅糖果，每磅售价 1.95 美元，每磅利润 0.25 美元，税前利润是 400 万美元。我们花了 2500 万买到了喜诗，喜诗用不着投入资本。我和我的合伙人查理在研究这家公司的时候，我们特别看好的一点是，它有定价权，有提价的潜力。1.95 美元一盒的糖果，能否轻松提价到 2 美元或 2.25 美元呢？如果能卖到 2.25 美元，每磅多赚 0.30 美元，按 1600 万磅的销量，能多赚 480 万美元，2500 万美元的买入价很合适。我们投资这么多年，从没请过咨询公司。我们眼中的咨询是去喜诗的店里买一盒糖果，尝一尝。
　　我们确切知道的是，喜诗在加州拥有心理份额，喜诗在人们心中很特别。加州的每个人心中都有喜诗糖果，人们对喜诗糖果的印象特别好。情人节送女孩一盒喜诗，会得到女孩的吻。如果被女孩扇一巴掌，我们就没生意可做了。只要送喜诗能得到女孩的吻，我们就在人们的心中拥有一席之地。人们一想到喜诗糖果，就想到亲吻。只要我们能在人们心中稳固这个形象，我们就能提价。1972 年买入喜诗之后，我每年都在圣诞节的第二天 12 月 26 日提价，因为圣诞节正是我们大卖的时候。今年我们能赚 6000 万美元，我们能卖出 3000 万磅，每磅赚 2 美元。还是那家公司，还是一样的配方，什么都没变，我们今年能赚 6000 万美元，喜诗还是用不着投入一分钱资本。10 年以后，喜诗会赚更多的钱。在这 6000 万美元里，有 5500 万美元是圣诞节之前的三个星期赚的。我们公司的主题歌是“耶稣基督真是我们的好朋友”。（笑）喜诗是个好生意。这个生意最关键的地方在哪呢？大家想一下。大多数人买盒装的巧克力不是为了自己吃，而是作为礼物送人，在别人过生日或者节日到来的时候，送给别人。每年的情人节是我们全年销售额最高的一天。圣诞季是我们全年销售额最高的一季。女人们买喜诗糖果为圣诞节做准备，她们会提前买，购买时间是圣诞节前的两三个星期。男人在情人节当天买喜诗。男人们在开车回家的路上，收音机里传出了我们投放的广告。内疚、内疚、内疚，男人们左右变道，心里非常不安。听到了我们的广告，他们不带一盒喜诗回家都不敢进门。所以每年的情人节是我们全年销售额最高的一天。
　　多亏了我的聪明才智，现在喜诗每磅售价 11 美元，假设另一种糖果每磅售价 6 美元，多年来，你的妻子心里装满了对喜诗的良好印象，你能想象这样的情景吗？情人节那天，你走进家门，把一盒糖果递给你妻子，说：“亲爱的，今年我买了便宜货。”根本不行。喜诗拥有提价的潜力，它对价格不是特别敏感。
　　再想想迪斯尼。迪斯尼的一部电影售价大概是 16.95 美元，要不就是 18.95 美元。全世界的人，特别是全世界的母亲们，心里都对迪斯尼有好感。我一说迪斯尼这个名字，在座的各位脑海里都能浮现出一些东西。要是我说环球影业或者 20 世纪福克斯，大家脑子里不会出现什么特别的东西。但是我一说迪斯尼，各位脑子里会有一种特别的感觉。全世界都如此。
　　假设你在带几个小孩子，希望每天能给他们找点事做，让他们老实一会，自己好清静清静。大家都知道小孩子能把一个电影看二十遍。你去音像店买电影。你会拿 10 部电影，坐在那把每一部都花一个半小时看一遍，决定哪部适合小孩观看吗？不会。假设有一盘卖 16.95 美元，但迪斯尼的那盘卖 17.95 美元，你知道，选迪斯尼那盘错不了，所以你就买迪斯尼的了。有的事你不想在上面花时间，不会精挑细选。这样的话，迪斯尼的每部电影能多赚一些，而且卖得更火。因此，迪斯尼做的是特别好的生意，竞争对手很难赶上迪斯尼。
　　如何才能打造一个在全世界与迪斯尼分庭抗礼的品牌？梦工厂现在正在做这件事。如何才能取代迪斯尼在人们心目中的地位？怎么才能让人们脑子里想到的是环球影业，不是迪斯尼？能让家长走到音像店里选环球影业，而不是迪斯尼吗？这些都做不到。
　　在世界各地，人们一想到可口可乐，就想到快乐。无论是在哪，迪斯尼乐园、世界杯、奥运会，人们快乐的地方都有可口可乐。开心快乐和可口可乐如影随形。不管你给我多少钱，让我成立个皇冠可乐公司，让全球的 50 亿人爱上皇冠可乐，我做不到。不管怎么折腾，不管用什么办法，打折促销、周末活动，都动不了可口可乐。我们要找的就是这样的生意，这就是护城河。要把护城河变得越来越宽。
　　作为喜诗糖果的经营者，要想尽一切办法保证人们送出喜诗糖果作为礼物时，收到礼物的人会很开心。要保证盒子里的糖果的质量，要重视糖果销售人员的服务。我们在旺季的时候忙得要命。人们集中在圣诞节前几周和情人节当天购买，要在店铺外面排很长的队。假设下午五点的时候，我们的一位女售货员把最后一盒糖果卖给最后一位顾客，这位顾客前面有二三十人，已经等了半天。如果我们的售货员对最后这位顾客微笑，我们的护城河就变宽了。如果她对最后这位顾客咆哮，我们的护城河就变窄了。这是我们看不见的，但它确实每天都在发生，这是我们能否让护城河更宽的关键。要重视产品的整个生产和销售环节，保证人们一想到喜诗糖果，就有喜诗糖果与快乐同在的感觉。这是这个生意的精髓。
　　提问：有的公司单看财务数字，很贵，您买过这样的公司吗？在投资中，定量分析占多少，定性分析占多少？
　　巴菲特：最值得买的公司，是那些你觉得从数字上看很贵，舍不得买，但还是很想买的公司。这说明你太看好这家公司的产品了。这样的公司不是别人抽剩了、扔掉的烟头，而是让人难以抗拒的好生意。我曾经买下了一家生产风车的公司。生产风车的公司，绝对是烟头，真的。我买的特别便宜，我买的价格只有营运资金的三分之一。我们从这笔投资里赚钱了，但是这个钱只能赚一次，不能重复赚。买这样的公司，盈利是一次性的。投资不能一直这么做，我已经过了那个阶段了。我还买过电车公司，各种各样的烟头都捡过。在定性方面，我在电话里和对方聊几句，就能把定性因素搞明白。我们买入的所有公司，我们花在分析上的时间都只有五分钟、十分钟左右。今年我们收购了两家公司，其中 General Re 是一笔 180 亿美元的交易。我都没去过 General Re 的总部，希望它不是一家皮包公司。（笑）别只有几个人在那边，每个月编一些数字发给我，我从来没去过这家公司。
　　Executive Jet 是一家分享租赁喷气式飞机的公司，我收购它之前，也没去这家公司看过。三年前，我为我的家人购买了一项租赁计划中四分之一的服务。我体验过这家公司的服务，感觉它发展的相当好。我看完它的财务数字，就决定买了。一门生意，要是你不能一眼看懂，再花一两个月的时间，你还是看不懂。要看懂一门生意，必须有足够的背景知识才行，而且要清楚自己知道什么，不知道什么。这是关键。我常说的能力圈就是这个意思，要清楚自己的能力圈。
　　每个人都有自己的能力圈，重要的不是能力圈有多大，而是待在能力圈的范围之内。如果主板中有几千家公司，你的能力圈只涵盖其中的 30 家，只要你清楚是哪 30 家，就可以了。你要对这 30 家公司特别了解，不是说你要读很多东西，做很多功课，才能把它们弄明白。我年轻的时候，为了熟悉各行各业的公司，做过大量功课。我做功课的方法是和菲利普•费雪学的，所谓的“四处打听”的方法。我出去调研，和公司的客户聊，和公司的前员工聊，有的时候还和供应商聊，只要能对了解公司有帮助的人，我都找他们聊。我总是找业内人士请教，如果我对煤炭行业感兴趣，我会把煤炭公司都跑一遍。我问每个 CEO：“要是你只能买一家煤炭公司的股票，除了你所在的公司以外，你会买哪家的？为什么？”把得到的信息拼凑起来，经过一段时间，就能把这个行业弄明白。
　　特别有意思，每次问关于竞争对手的问题，得到的回答都差不多。我会问：“要是你有一颗银子弹，可以用它干掉一个竞争对手，你会干掉谁？为什么？”通过这个问题，能了解行业中的佼佼者是谁。任何一个生意，里面都有很深的学问。我年轻的时候挑我觉得自己能看懂的公司，下了很大功夫，现在用不着重新做功课了。这是做投资的一个好处，不是一出来什么新东西，就一定要跟着学。愿意学的话，也可以。我的意思是，如果你 40 年前看懂了箭牌的口香糖生意，今天你还是能看懂这门生意。这些东西，不会因为时间的改变，就能变出什么新花样来。经过积累，脑子里自然会形成一个数据库。
　　有个叫 Frank Rooney 的人，他经营了 Melville 公司许多年。他岳父去世了，留下了 H.H. Brown 制鞋厂。Frank Rooney 请高盛把这家鞋厂卖出去。有一天，他和我的一个朋友在佛罗里达州打高尔夫球，随口和我朋友说到了这件事。我朋友说：“你可以打电话问问沃伦。”他打完球之后给我打了电话，我们聊了五分钟，这笔交易就成了。
　　但是我早就知道 Frank 这个人，也了解这门生意。我大概了解鞋厂这个生意，所以我能做这个决定。在定量方面，我必须决定多少钱合适。价钱行就行，不行就不行。我从来不谈来谈去，不讨价还价。我觉得对方的出价合理，我就买。要是不合理，买不到我也不在意，还是和以前没这家公司时一样开心
　　提问：可口可乐的公告称第四季度盈利会下降，亚洲金融危机对可口可乐有何影响？
　　巴菲特：我看好可口可乐。在今后二十年里，可口可乐在国际市场的增长速度会远远超过在美国的增长速度。按人均饮用量计算，可口可乐在美国也会增长，但是它在国际市场上增速更快。现在它面临一段艰难的时期，可能三个月、可能三年，谁都说不好，但是不会是二十年。全世界的人都在努力工作，人们发现可口可乐很便宜，从自己每天的工资里拿出一丁点就能买一罐，我是一天喝五罐。
　　1936 年，我花 25 美分买 6 瓶可口可乐，然后拿出去卖 5 美分一瓶。那时候一瓶 6.5 盎司，瓶子的押金是两美分，零售价是 5 美分一瓶。现在一罐 12 盎司的，要是周末促销时买，或者买量贩装的，12 盎司的可口可乐还不到 20 美分。所以说，现在买一盎司可口可乐，价格只有 1936 年的两倍多一点。人们收入水平越来越高，可口可乐这个产品却越来越便宜。人们当然喜欢了。可口可乐有 100 多年的历史，在市场上占据统治地位，但是在全球 200 多个国家，可口可乐的人均饮用量每年都在增长，太了不起了。
　　可口可乐的销售额能达到几百亿美元，真正的秘诀是可口可乐有一个特点，这家公司的所有可乐产品都有这个特点，我喜欢可口可乐这个名字，所以把它们统称为可口可乐。可乐没有味觉记忆。9 点钟喝一罐、11 点钟喝一罐、1 点钟喝一罐、5 点钟喝一罐，5 点钟喝的那罐和早晨喝的一样好喝。奶油苏打水、根汁汽水、橙汁、葡萄汁，这些都不行，这些饮料喝多了会腻。大多数食品和饮料都这样，吃多了或者喝多了会觉得腻。喜诗糖果就是。每次喜诗糖果新员工上岗的时候，公司都告诉他们所有糖果可以随便吃。第一天，他们使劲往嘴里塞，一个星期以后，他们就不怎么吃了，好像得自己花钱买一样。因为巧克力吃多了会腻，很多东西都会腻。可口可乐没有味觉记忆，全世界很多人都喝很多可乐，很多美国人一天喝五罐，健怡可乐的话，一天能喝七八罐，其他饮料都不行。这就是为什么可口可乐的人均饮用量如此之高。地球上这个区域或者再向北一些的区域，人均饮水量是每天 64 盎司，这 64 盎司可以都换成可口可乐，一开始就喜欢喝可乐的人，喝多少都不会腻。换成别的都不行，整天吃一样东西，没多长时间就会有些恶心。
　　这是很关键的一点。如今，可口可乐每天在全球卖出 18 亿瓶，这个数字每年都会增加。可口可乐的销量在每个国家都会增长，在每个国家的人均饮用量都会增长。二十年后，可口可乐在国际市场的增长速度会超过美国市场，我更喜欢可口可乐的国际市场，它在国际市场上增长潜力更大。目前，可口可乐在国际市场遇到了暂时的困难，但这根本算不上什么事。可口可乐是 1919 年上市的，当时它的股价是每股 40 美元。19 世纪 80 年代，钱德勒家族在可口可乐上市之前用 2000 美元把这个生意买了下来。1919 年，可口可乐的发行价是 40 美元。一年后，它的股价是 19 美元，一年内下跌了 50%。你可能把这当成天大的事，又是担心蔗糖价格上涨，又是担心装瓶商发难，什么都担心。你总是能找到各种理由，说当时不是买入的最佳时机。几年后，又出现了大萧条、二战、蔗糖定量配给、核武器危机，等等，总是有不买的理由。但是，要是你当年花 40 美元买了一股并把股息再投资，现在都值 500 万美元左右了。只要是好生意，别的什么东西都不重要。只要把生意看懂了，就能赚大钱。择时很容易掉坑里。只要是好生意，我就不管那些大事小事，也不考虑今年明年如何之类的问题。美国在不同时期都实施过价格管制，再好的生意都扛不住。政府实施价格管制的话，我没办法在 12 月 26 日提高喜诗糖果的售价。价格管制，我们不是没经历过。但是，政府实施价格管制不会把喜诗糖果变成烂生意，价格管制总有结束的一天。美国在 70 年代初就有过价格管制。
　　好生意，你能看出来它将来会怎样，但是不知道会是什么时候。看一个生意，你就一门心思琢磨它将来会怎么样，别太纠结什么时候。把生意的将来能怎么样看透了，到底是什么时候，就没多大关系了。
　　提问：能否讲讲您在商业中犯的错误？
　　巴菲特：你有多长时间？对于我和我的合伙人查理•芒格来说，我们犯过的最大的错误不是做错了什么，而是该做的没做。在这些错误中，我们对生意很了解，本来应该行动，但不知道怎么了，我们就在那犹豫来犹豫去，什么都没做。有些东西我们不明白就算了，但有些东西是我们能看明白的，本来可以赚几十亿、几百亿的，却眼睁睁看着机会溜走了。我本来可以买微软赚几十亿，但这不算数，因为我一直搞不懂微软。但是医药股，我本来是可以赚到几十亿的，这些钱是我该赚到的，我却没赚到。当克林顿当局提出医疗改革方案后，所有的医药股都崩盘了。我们本来可以买入医药股大赚特赚的，因为我能看懂医药股，我却没做这笔投资。
　　80 年代的时候，我本来可以买入房利美大赚一笔，我能看懂房利美，但是我却没买。这些都是代价几亿美元或几十亿美元的错误，在按一般公认会计原则编制的报表中体现不出来。至于各位能看到的错误，几年前我买入美国航空优先股是个错误。当时我手里闲钱很多。手里一有闲钱，我就容易犯错。查理让我去酒吧喝酒去，别在办公室里待着。但我还是留在办公室，兜里有钱，就做了傻事。每次都这样。当时我买了美国航空的优先股。没人逼我，是我自己要买的。现在我有一个 800 热线电话，每次我一想买航空股，就打这个电话。电话那边的人会安抚我。我说：“我是沃伦，又犯了想买航空公司的老毛病。”他们说：“继续讲，别停下，别挂电话，别冲动。”最后那股劲就过去了。我买了美国航空以后，差点把所有钱都亏进去，真是差一点全亏了。我活该亏钱。
　　我买入美国航空，是因为它是一只很合适的证券，但它的生意不好。对所罗门的投资也一样。我根本不想买它的生意，只是觉得它的证券便宜。这也算是一种错误。本来不太喜欢公司的生意，却因为喜欢证券的条款而买了。这样的错误我过去犯过，将来可能还会犯。最大的错误还是该做的没做。
　　当年，我只有 1 万美元的时候，我从里面拿出 2,000 美元投入到了辛克莱加油站，结果赔进去了。我这笔投资的机会成本到现在都有 60 亿美元了，多大的错误啊！每次伯克希尔股价下跌，我都感觉心里好受一些，因为我投资加油站的机会成本随之下降。那可是 20% 的机会成本。我想告诉大家，人们总说通过错误学习，我觉得最好是尽量从别人的错误里学习。不过，在伯克希尔，我们的处事原则是，过去的事就让它过去。我有个合伙人，查理•芒格，我们一起合作 40 年了，我们从来没红过脸。我们对很多东西看法不一样，但是我们不争不吵。我们从来不想已经过去的事。我们觉得未来有那么多值得期待的，何必对过去耿耿于怀。不纠结过去的事，纠结也没用。人生只能向前看。你们从错误里或许能学到东西，但最重要的是只投资自己能看懂的生意。如果你像很多人一样，跳出了自己的能力圈，听别人的消息买了自己毫不了解的股票，犯了这样的错，你需要反省，要记得只投资自己能看懂的。你做投资决策的时候，就应该对着镜子，自言自语：“我要用每股 55 美元的价格买入 100 股通用汽车，理由是……”自己要买什么，得对自己负责。一定要有个理由，说不出来理由，别买。是因为别人在和你闲聊时告诉你这只股票能涨吗？这个理由不行。是因为成交量异动或者走势图发出了信号吗？这样的理由不行。你的理由，一定是你为什么要买这个生意。我们恪守这个原则，这是本•格雷厄姆教我的。
　　提问：能否谈谈当前脆弱的经济形势和利率问题？对将来的经济形势怎么看？
　　巴菲特：我不研究宏观问题。投资中最紧要的是弄清什么事是重要的、可知的。如果一件事是不重要的、不可知的，那就别管了。你刚才说的东西很重要，但是我觉得是不可知的。看懂可口可乐、看懂箭牌、看懂伊士曼柯达，这些是可知的。大家都能看懂这些生意，这些生意是可知的。看懂了公司的生意之后，还要看你得出的估值、公司的价格等等。我们在决定买不买一家公司时，从来不把我们对宏观问题的感觉作为依据。我们不看关于利率或公司盈利的预测，看了没用。1972 年，我们买了喜诗糖果，后来没多久尼克松就实施了价格管制，即使我们提前知道了，又能怎样？我们没错过喜诗，花 2,500 万买下来了，现在它一年的税前利润就有 6,000 万美元。有的预测我们根本不会，我们不想因为这样的预测而错过明智的投资机会。宏观问题相关的东西，我们根本不看不听不理会。一般的咨询机构的套路是这样的，先把他们的经济学家拉出来溜两圈，讲一些大的宏观格局，然后自上而下地分析。我们觉得那些都是胡扯。
　　就算阿兰•格林斯潘和罗伯特•鲁宾一个在我左耳朵边，一个在我右耳朵边，悄悄告诉我他们今后十二个月会怎么做，我都不为所动，我该出多少钱买 Executive Jet 或 General Re，还是出多少钱，我还是会我行我素。
　　提问：和身处华尔街相比，住在偏远的小城市有什么好处？
　　巴菲特：我在华尔街工作过一两年，我在东西海岸都有朋友。我喜欢拜访他们。每次和他们见面，都能得到一些灵感。思考投资的最佳方法还是独自一人待在房间里，静静地想。要是这样不行，别的办法也都没用。在任何类似市场的环境中，你都很容易受到影响，做出过激的反应，华尔街是个典型的市场环境。在华尔街，你觉得每天不做点什么都不行。钱德勒家族花了 2000 美元买下了可口可乐公司，选中了可口可乐这样的公司，别的什么都不用做了，该做的事就是不做别的。1919 年都不应该卖，但是钱德勒家族后来把他们的股票卖了。你该怎么做呢？一年找到一个好的投资机会，然后一直持有，等待它的潜力充分释放出来。在一个人们每五分钟就来回喊报价的环境里，在一个别人总把各种报告塞到你面前的环境里，很难做到持有不动。华尔街靠折腾赚钱。你靠不折腾赚钱。
　　要是在座的各位每天都相互交易自己的投资组合，所有人最后都会破产，所有的钱最后都会进到中间商的口袋里。换个做法，你们都持有一般公司组成的投资组合，50 年里你们都一动不动，最后你们都会很有钱，你们的券商会破产。券商像这样一个医生，他让你换药的次数越多，他赚的越多。他要是给你一种药，把你的病根治了，他只能做成一笔买卖，一笔交易，然后就没了。如果他能让你相信每天换各种药吃对健康有益，这对他有好处，对卖药的有好处，你会亏很多钱。你的身体好不了，还会破财。任何刺激你瞎折腾的环境，都要远离。华尔街无疑就是这样的环境。
　　我回到奥马哈之后，每半年都去大城市一次。我每次都列一个清单，把自己要做的事写下来，比如要调研的公司等等。这些路费都没白花，该做完的事，做完了，我就回到奥马哈思考。
　　提问：伯克希尔和微软都不派息，您怎么看？
　　巴菲特：伯克希尔将来也不会派息，这个我敢保证。买了伯克希尔的股票，只要做一件事：把伯克希尔的股票放到保险箱里，每年拿出来抚摸一番。打开保险箱，拿出来，摸一摸，然后放回去。摸一摸，会有极大的满足感，我一点不夸张。
　　问题的关键是我们能否让留在伯克希尔的每一块钱以较高的速度增长，让钱生钱。这是我们的任务，我和查理•芒格，我们自己的钱也在里面。我们不从伯克希尔拿多少工资，也不要期权，只想着怎么让留在伯克希尔的每一块钱以较高的速度增长。这项工作越来越难了，我们管理的资金越多，困难越大。假如伯克希尔的规模只有现在的百分之一，我们的收益率会高很多。我们经营伯克希尔是为股东经营的，但不是为了给股东派息而经营的。目前，我们赚到的每一块钱，留在公司而没派发的每一块钱，我们都让它生成了更多的钱。把钱留在伯克希尔，可以赚到更多钱，派息的做法不明智。即使每个股东收到股息都不用交税，伯克希尔派息也是错误的做法，因为现在伯克希尔留下的每一块钱能赚来更多的钱。我们保证不了将来也能做到，总有一天会到头的。让资金持续增长是伯克希尔的目标，我们只用这一个标准衡量我们的表现。我们不在乎我们的办公楼有多大，员工有多少。我们的总部有 12 个员工，占地 3500 平方英尺，伯克希尔一共有 45,000 名员工，我们会将这一切保持不变。
　　我们衡量自己的标准是公司的表现如何，只有公司表现好，我们才会得到奖赏。说真的，现在比以前难多了。
　　提问：您刚才提到了找到好机会之后，一直持有，等待潜力充分释放出来。怎么才能知道一笔投资的潜力充分释放出来了？
　　巴菲特：最理想的情况是，买的时候，你觉得根本不会有这一天。我买可口可乐的时候，不觉得它 10 年或 50 年后就奄奄一息了。可能会发生意外，但是我觉得概率几乎是零。我们特别想买入我们愿意永远持有的公司。我们希望买伯克希尔股票的人，也像我们这样想。我希望买伯克希尔股票的人打算永远持有。他们之后可能改变想法，但是我希望他们在最初买入的时候想的是永远持有伯克希尔。
　　我不是说买股票只有这一种买法，只是希望我们能吸引到这样的投资者，不想让自己的投资者变来变去。我衡量伯克希尔的标准是它的无为。如果我是一所教堂的牧师，教众每个周末都换一半，我不会说：“太好了，看看我的教众，流动性多高，周转率多高。”我希望教堂里每个周末来听讲的都是同一批人。我们在买公司的时候也是这个思维方式，我们想买自己愿意永远持有的公司。我们现在找不到很多这样的公司。我刚开始做投资的时候，找到的投资机会特别多，钱很少。在发现了更便宜的股票之后，为了买下来，总是要从手里的股票中挑一个最不看好的卖出去。现在不一样了。我们希望自己买入的公司，现在看好，五年后一样看好。如果找到了大规模的收购机会，为了筹措资金，我们可能进行一些卖出交易，有这样的问题是好事。
　　不管买哪家公司，我们买的时候都不设定价格目标。例如，我们是 30 买的，从没想过涨到 40、50、60 或 100 就卖了，从来没这样过。当年的喜诗糖果是一家私人公司，我们花 2500 万买下来了，买了之后就没想卖。我们没盘算说，要是有人出 5000 万，我们就把喜诗糖果卖出去。看一家公司不能总想着多少钱卖出去，看一家公司正确的思维方式是，长期来看，这家公司是否能越来越赚钱？如果答案是能，别的问题都用不着问了。
　　提问：请讲一下您为什么投资所罗门公司，还有拯救长期资本管理公司？
　　巴菲特：那笔投资是 1987 年 9 月份做的，那年道指上涨了 35%，我们卖了很多股票，当时所罗门这只证券的收益率有 9%。我那时候钱很多，觉得很难找到合适的机会投出去。我不喜欢所罗门的生意，不会买它的普通股，但是我看上了它的可转换优先股，觉得很合适。我就是这样投资的所罗门，我觉得我做错了。这笔投资的结果最后还好，但这是一笔我不该做的投资。我应该等待，等到一年后买入更多的可口可乐，或者就按当时的价格买入可口可乐，虽然它当时的股价很高。这是我犯的错。
　　至于长期资本管理公司那笔投资，先从套利说起吧。我们经过长期投资经验的积累，熟悉了套利这种操作。我做了 45 年的套利，在我之前，格雷厄姆做了 30 年的套利。可惜的是，做套利投资，我必须守在电话旁边。因为需要掌握市场的最新动向，我必须亲自在办公室指挥操作，现在我不想做这样的工作了。除非是有特别大的套利机会，而且是我能看懂的，否则我不会在套利上花时间了。在我的投资生涯中，我可能做过 300 多笔套利。套利是个好生意，是非常好的生意。
　　长期资本管理公司的仓位极其分散，但是在所有存在风险的资金中，前十大持仓的资金占了 90%。我对这十大仓位中的品种有些了解，虽然没到了如指掌的程度，但是凭我的了解，我比较有把握，要是折扣够大的话，我愿意买，而且我们也有耐心长期持有，挺过去。里面有些品种可能会亏钱，但是概率是站在我们一边的。我明白这里面的门道。我们还有一些仓位，所占比重不大，因为这些投资的规模大不起来。这里面涉及收益率曲线的变化以及新老国债的差异，这些东西你接触证券市场久了就学会了，这些不是伯克希尔的主要利润来源，只占我们每年收益的 0.5% 左右。做投资时间长了，积累的知识多了，就能赚到这样的钱，算是锦上添花吧。我最早做的一笔套利交易中，一家公司宣布股东可以用股票换可可豆。那是 1955 年，我买了这只股票，用股票换来了提取可可豆的仓库凭单，把可可豆卖出去赚了一笔钱。当时我正好遇到这个机会，以后再也没碰上这样的机会，40 多年了，我还没等到下一个可可豆交易机会，根本没有，要是有的话，我肯定会记得。长期资本管理公司搞的套利规模特别大。
　　提问：请讲讲您对分散投资的看法？
　　巴菲特：这个要看情况了。如果不是职业投资者，不追求通过管理资金实现超额收益率的目标，我觉得应该高度分散。我认为 98% 到 99% 的投资者应该高度分散，但不能频繁交易，他们的投资应该和成本极低的指数型基金差不多。只要持有美国的一部分就可以了，这样投资，是相信持有美国的一部分会得到很好的回报，我对这样的做法毫无异议。对于普通投资者来说，这么投资是正路。如果想积极参与投资活动，研究公司并主动做投资决策，那就不一样了。既然你走上研究公司这条路，既然你决定投入时间和精力把投资做好，我觉得分散投资是大错特错的。那天我在 SunTrust 的时候，说到过这个问题。要是你真能看懂生意，你拥有的生意不应该超过六个。
　　要是你能找到六个好生意，就已经足够分散了，用不着再分散了，而且你能赚很多钱。我敢保证，你不把钱投到你最看好的那个生意，而是再去做第七个生意，肯定会掉到沟里。靠第七个最好的主意发家的人很少，靠最好的主意发家的人很多。所以，我说任何人，在资金量一般的情况下，要是对自己要投资的生意确实了解，六个就很多了，换了是我的话，我可能就选三个我最看好的。我本人不搞分散。我认识的投资比较成功的人，都不搞分散，沃尔特•施洛斯是个例外，沃尔特的投资非常分散，他什么东西都买一点，我说他是诺亚，什么东西都来两个。
　　提问：怎么才能区分可口可乐这样的公司和宝洁这样的公司？
　　巴菲特：宝洁的生意非常好，它拥有强大的分销渠道和大量知名品牌。要是你问我，我要是把我的所有资金都投入到一家公司，二十年不动，我会选宝洁还是可口可乐，其实宝洁的产品线更多元化，但是比较起来，我认为可口可乐的确定性比宝洁的确定性高。要是我在二十年里只能投资宝洁一家公司，我可以接受。宝洁可以入选我最看好的公司中的前 5%。宝洁不会被竞争对手打垮，但是从将来二三十年看，在宝洁和可可口乐之间，我更看好可口可乐的销量增长潜力和定价权。
　　现在可口可乐提价不太容易，但是你想想，每天卖出 10 亿多瓶，一瓶多赚 1 美分，一天就多赚 1000 万美元。我们拥有可口可乐 8% 的股份，其中 80 万美元的利润是伯克希尔的。可口可乐可以提价一美分，这个不难，我觉得可口可乐涨一分钱也不贵。现在可口可乐在大多数市场中提价还没到时候。但是，假以时日，可口可乐每卖出一瓶能比现在赚得更多。我敢肯定，二十年以后，可口可乐每卖出一瓶能赚得更多，而且可口可乐的销量也会比现在增加很多。我不知道可口可乐涨价能涨多少，销量能增加多少，但是我知道它的售价和销量都会往上走。
　　宝洁的主要产品，在市场占有率、销量增长潜力方面都不如可口可乐，但是宝洁的生意也是好生意。如果我在二十年里只能把我家的所有资产都投入到宝洁这一只股票中，我可以接受。我可能更看好一些别的公司，但是这样的好公司太少了。
　　提问：您愿意买入麦当劳，持有二十年吗？
　　巴菲特：麦当劳有许多有利因素，特别是在国外市场。麦当劳在国外的很多地方比在美国更好。这个生意其实是越来越难做的。麦当劳向小孩子赠送玩具，小孩子喜欢去麦当劳，大人们一般不愿意天天都吃麦当劳。人们今天能喝五罐可乐，明天还能喝五罐。麦当劳的快餐生意不如可口可乐的饮料生意好做。快餐行业在全球规模巨大，要是一定要从里面选一家公司的话，选麦当劳没错。麦当劳的竞争优势是最强的。大人们不是特别喜欢吃麦当劳，但是孩子们很爱吃，大人们也还可以，但是不是特别喜欢。麦当劳这几年的促销活动越来越多，它越来越依赖促销，而不是靠产品本身卖得好。我还是更喜欢产品本身卖得好的生意。我更喜欢吉列，人们买锋速3是因为他们喜欢锋速3这个产品本身，不是为了得到什么赠品才买的。我感觉吉列的锋速3这个产品，从根本上来说更强大。应该是这样。
　　我们持有不少吉列的股份，每天晚上，想想一两亿男人的胡子都在长，你睡觉的时候，男人们的胡子一直在长，你就能睡得很踏实。再想想，女人们都有两条腿，这更好了。这个方法比数绵羊管用多了。要找就找这样的生意。麦当劳就不一样了，总要想着下个月搞什么促销活动对付汉堡王，要担心汉堡王签下了迪斯尼，自己没签下来，怎么办？虽然麦当劳这样的生意也能做得很好，但我喜欢那些不靠促销打折也能卖得好的产品。麦当劳是好生意，但是不如可口可乐。比可口可乐还好的生意本来也没几个。麦当劳的生意还是很好的。从快餐行业选一家公司，我会选 DQ 冰淇淋。不久之前，我们收购了 DQ 冰淇淋，所以我厚着脸皮在这说 DQ 的好话。
　　提问：您如何看公用事业行业？
　　巴菲特：我花了很长时间思考这个行业，因为这个行业可以投入大量资金。我还考虑过整体收购公用事业公司。奥马哈有个人就经营着一家名叫 Cal Energy 的公用事业公司。这个行业里，有一点我还没太搞明白，我不知道放松管制对行业会产生什么影响。我能预见到的是，失去了垄断保护，许多高成本生产商陷入困境，大量价值会被毁灭。
　　我确定不了谁会成为受益者，能得到多少好处。显然，能源生产成本低的，水利发电成本为 2 美分每千瓦时的公司，拥有巨大优势。成本虽然低，但是能赚到多少钱？除了自己周围的区域，能覆盖的市场有多大？这些东西我还不清楚，还不确定这个行业十年后会怎样。但是我会接着想，一旦想明白了，需要行动，我就行动。我觉得我能看懂公用事业公司，用户需求是确定的，现在公共事业公司很便宜，这些我都知道。我就是不知道十年后谁会赚钱，所以我还没投资。
　　提问：为什么今年大盘股跑赢了小盘股？
　　巴菲特：我们不管一家公司是大盘、小盘、中盘、还是超小盘，我们不管这些东西。我们只考虑这么几点：
　　 这家公司的生意我们能不能看懂？
　　 这家公司的管理层我们喜不喜欢？
　　 这家公司的价格是否便宜？
　　从管理伯克希尔的角度出发，我们要将 Gen Re 大概 750 亿到 800 亿美元的保费用于投资，这么大的资金量，我只能买大公司，所以我只想投资五个生意。如果我投资的是 10 万美元，我才不管什么大盘、小盘呢，我就找我能看懂的公司。
　　总的来说，过去十年里，大盘股所代表的公司业绩特别好，远远超出了人们的预期。这十年里，美国公司的净资产收益率高达 20% 左右，十年前哪有人想到大公司的净资产收益率能有这么高，这还是大公司的平均水平。因为利率较低，而且大公司的资本回报率较高，所以大公司的估值得到了巨大提升。把美国所有公司当成一只债券，以前它的收益率是 13%，现在增加到了 20%，自然更值钱了。这几年大公司的收益率很高，能不能一直保持下去就不定了，我对此持怀疑态度。因为我们的资金量太大，我投资的时候受规模限制，否则的话，我根本不考虑公司的大小。我们买喜诗糖果的时候，是花 2500 万美元买的。现在要是能找到一个喜诗糖果这样的公司，别看我们规模这么大，我还是愿意买。重要的是确定性。
　　提问：请讲讲您对房地产证券化的看法？
　　巴菲特：房地产债务证券化工具大量涌现，现在已经成为资本市场的一大顽症。住宅抵押贷款还可以，但商业房地产抵押贷款证券已陷入停滞。我觉得你想问的应该是资产证券化的问题。以公司的形式持有房地产非常不利。如果是个人持有，只需交一次税，但通过公司持有，还要交纳公司所得税，以公司形式持有要交两遍税。何必这样呢？这样做的话，要从收益里拿出一大笔钱交税。
　　房地产投资信托基金 (REIT) 是一个途径，用不着交两次税，但是这些基金的运作需要费用。假设投资房地产获得的收益率是 8% 左右，买REIT的话，算上股票期权等各项成本，从收益率里扣掉 1% 到 1.5%，这样投资房地产的收益率也没多高了。或许钱少的人，比如只有 1,000 美元或者 5,000 美元，想投资房地产的话，可以买REIT，但是如果你有 100 万美元或 1,000 万美元，最好是自己直接买房产投资，用不着找中间商，把利润分给他们一份。总的来说，我们在房地产领域没发现特别看好的投资机会。有的时候人们看不懂一些大型房地产公司，以德克萨斯太平洋房地产信托为例，它有 100 多年的历史，在德州有几百万英亩的土地。它每年将这些土地的 1% 卖出去，拿这个卖地的收入计算自己的价值，说自己被市场严重低估了。要是你真拥有这么多土地，你就明白了，根本不是那么回事，土地没那么容易流通。你想从土地里拿出 50% 或 20%，卖出去，办不到，连流动性不足的股票都不如。很多人根本不知道拥有一家房地产公司，要运作大片的土地有多难，所以他们给很多房地产公司的估值很离谱。
　　在今年的市场上，REIT表现很差，将来人们不看好它们的时候，它们的价格甚至会远远低于它们持有的土地，这太有可能了。到时候，REIT可能值得考虑，问题是管理层愿不愿意放手，他们可能会和投资者对着干，舍不得他们的收入和福利，和股东产生利益冲突。有的REIT的管理层口口声声说它们的资产多优秀，被低估的多严重，背地里却在卖自家的股票，你说怪不怪？这不是自相矛盾吗？他们说自己的股票 28 美元很便宜，然后却在 28 美元大量卖出，明显的言行不一致。不过，我们在关注房地产行业。
　　查理和我都能看懂房地产生意，什么时候出现大的投资机会，我们愿意投资。如果长期资本管理公司的情形出现在了房地产领域，我们愿意出手，问题是别人也会抢着出售，价格很难让我们动心。
　　提问：您是否更喜欢下跌的市场？
　　巴菲特：我不知道市场会怎么走。我更愿意看到市场下跌，这是我的一厢情愿，市场该怎么走还怎么走。市场不懂我的感受。要投资股票，这是你必须首先学会的一个道理。你买了 100 股通用汽车，一下子，你就对通用汽车有感情了。它跌了，你很生气，你会说：“要是涨到我的成本价，我就又能高兴起来了。”它涨了，你可能说：“我多聪明啊，我真是太爱通用汽车了。”这些情绪都来了。股票哪知道你买没买它，它就待在那，不管你买没买，也不管你多少钱买的。不管我对市场产生什么感情，它都不理我，没有比市场更铁石心肠的了。在今后十年里，在座的各位都是要净买入股票的人，而不是要净卖出股票的人，各位都应该希望股价更低。如果今后十年里，你是吃汉堡的，不是养牛的，你肯定希望汉堡的价格下降。如果你常喝可口可乐，但是没有可口可乐的股票，你会希望可乐的价格下降，希望周末去超市的时候，可口可乐能有促销。去超市买可乐的时候，你希望可乐便宜，不希望可乐贵。
　　纽约股票交易所就是一个可以买到各种公司的大超市。你要买股票，你希望出现什么情况？你希望这些股票一直跌，这样你才能买的更合适。等到二三十年之后，当你要把积累的钱拿出来花的时候，或者你的子女帮你花的时候，那时候你才希望股价高。格雷厄姆在《聪明的投资者》的第 8 章中讲到了对待股市波动的态度，还有讲安全边际的第 20 章，我认为在所有关于投资的著述中，没有比这两章更重要的了。我是 19 岁的时候读到第 8 章的，我一下子豁然开朗，明白了我前面讲的那些东西。但是我是看了这本书才明白的，不是自己想明白的，是格雷厄姆在书里讲的。要不是看了这本书，可能再过 100 年，我还是觉得股价上涨好。我们希望股价下跌，但是我不知道市场会怎么走，过去从来不知道，将来也不会知道，我根本也不往这上面想。
　　股市大跌的时候，我更仔细地查看有什么值得买的，我知道大跌的时候更容易买到好货，更容易把钱用好。
　　主持人：沃伦，时间到了，我们回答最后一个问题。
　　巴菲特：你挑让谁问吧，坏人让你当……（笑）
　　提问：如果能重新活一次，为了让生活更幸福，您会怎么做？
　　巴菲特：希望我的回答，大家听了不会觉得不舒服。要是我重新活一次的话，我只想做一件事，选能活到 120 岁的基因。
　　我其实是非常幸运的。我经常举一个例子，觉得可能会对各位有启发，所以花两分钟时间讲讲。假设现在是你出生前 24 小时，一个神仙出现了，它说：“孩子，我看你前途无量，我现在手里有个难题，我得设计你出生后生活的世界，我觉得太难了，你来设计吧。你有 24 小时的时间，社会规则、经济规则、政府规则，这些都给你设计，你还有你的子孙后代都在这些规则的约束下生活。”
　　你问了：“我什么都能设计？”神仙说：“对，什么都能设计。”你说：“没什么附加条件？”神仙说：“有一个附加条件。你不知道自己出生后是黑人还是白人，是富有还是贫穷，是男人还是女人，是身体健壮还是体弱多病，是聪明过人还是头脑迟钝。你知道的就一点，你要从一个装着 58 亿个球的桶里选一个球。”我把这个叫娘胎彩票。你要从这 58 亿个球里选一个，这是你一生之中最重大的决定，它会决定你是出生在美国还是阿富汗，智商是 130 还是 70。选出来之后，很多东西都注定了。你会设计一个怎样的世界？
　　我觉得用这种思维方式可以很好地看待社会问题。因为你不知道自己会选到哪个球，所以在设计世界的时候，你会希望这个世界能提供大量产品和服务，你希望所有人都能过上好日子。你会希望这个世界的产品越来越丰富，将来你的子孙后代能越过越好。在希望世界能提供大量产品和服务的同时，还要考虑到有的人手气太差，拿到的球不好，天生不适合这个世界的体系，你希望他们不会被这个世界抛弃。我天生非常适合我们现在的这个世界。我一生下来就具备了分配资金的天赋。这其实没什么了不起的。如果我们都被困在荒岛上，永远回不来，我们所有人里，谁最会种地，谁最有本事。我再怎么说我多擅长分配资金，你们也不会理我。我赶上了好时候。盖茨说，要是我生在几百万年前，早成了动物的盘中餐。他说：“你跑不快，也不会爬树，什么都不行，刚生下来就得被吃了。你生在今天是走运。”我确实是走运。在座的各位，可以问问自己，假如这有个桶，里面装着 58 亿个球，代表全世界的所有人，你先把自己的球放进去，然后别人从里面随机拿出 100 个来，让你从中选择一个，你愿意把自己的球放回去吗？
　　在这 100 个球里，大概有 5 个是美国人，95 比 5。要是你还想做美国人，得选中那 5 个球中的一个。其中一半是男，一半是女，你愿意选什么？其中一半是智商低于平均水平，一半是智商高于平均水平。你想把自己的球放回去吗？你们大多数人应该都不愿意放回去，再从那 100 个里面再选一个。既然如此，在座的各位，你们相当于承认自己是全世界的所有人中最幸运的 1%。我自己就这么想的。能出生在美国，我觉得自己很幸运。当我出生的时候，出生在美国的几率是 50 比 1。我为我有好父母感到幸运，我为我的一切感到幸运。我感到幸运，我天生适合市场经济，我的才能在这里得到回报实在太高了。很多人和我一样是优秀的公民，他们有的带领童子军、有的在周末讲课，他们支撑着和睦幸福的家庭，但是他们的天赋和我的不一样。我运气实在太好了，我希望还能有这么好的运气。
　　既然我运气这么好，我就要把自己的天分发挥出来，一辈子都做自己喜欢的事，交自己喜欢的人。只和自己喜欢的人共事。要是有个人让我倒胃口，但是和他走到一起，我能赚 1 亿美元，我会断然拒绝，要不和为了钱结婚有什么两样？无论什么时候，都不能为了钱结婚，要是已经很有钱了，更不能这样了，你们说是不是？我不为了钱结婚。我还是会一如既往地生活，只是不想再买美国航空了！
　　谢谢。
　　（完）