2005 年 5 月 6 日巴菲特与堪萨斯大学学生问答实录

admin

Q：1999 年，您在接受《商业周刊》采访时说“资金量小是一种得天独厚的优势。要是我手里只有 100 万，每年差不多能赚 50%。不是差不多，是肯定能，我敢保证。”有两个问题请教：第一，今天您还会这么说吗？第二，从您的回答来看，您会投资小公司，除了投资小盘股，与管理大资金相比，您的投资方法还会有什么别的不一样的地方？
　　A：没错，我今天也还会这么说。其实，我们现在也有一些小规模的投资，收益率就是这个水平。20 世纪 50 年代是我收益率最高的十年，当时我资金规模小，收益率在 50% 以上。今天，给我小资金，我还是能做到这个收益率。或许在今天的环境里赚这么多钱反而更容易，因为现在获取信息也更容易。
　　你得挖地三尺，才能把那些小规模的异常找出来。你得找那些被抛弃、被冷落、被严重忽略的公司。你可能会找到一些根本没有任何问题的区域性公司。例如，我当年找到的一家是西部保险证券 (Western Insurance Securities)，它股价是 3 美元，净利润却是每股 20 美元！当时我想把它的股票全买了。这样的公司，没人会告诉你，你就得自己去找。
　　再举几个例子：杰纳西谷燃气 (Genesee Valley Gas)，市盈率 2 倍的公共事业公司；政府雇员保险公司 (GEICO)；新贝德福德联合街铁路 (Union Street Railway of New Bedford)，股价 30 美元，账上躺着的现金就有每股 100 美元；2002 年的高收益债券。这些赚钱的机会，没人会告诉你，你就得自己去找。
　　我的回答是肯定的，今天，小资金仍然可以赚到高收益。例如，如果我是小资金，我何必一只接一只的买不同的高收益债券。伯克希尔的资金规模太大，没办法，那些吸引力不太大的也得买。要是资金量小，我完全可以把所有资金都投到最赚钱的品种上，狠狠地赚一把。
　　今天，我对商业和投资了解得更多了，但是 50 年代以后，我的收益率就一直在下降。资金规模拖了业绩的后腿。以伯克希尔这么大的规模，如果我们做的是基金或其他形式的投资生意，全世界我们能投的股票不会超过 200 只。
　　Q：本•格雷厄姆已经不在世了，在当今的投资行业，您看好谁？当今有谁比得上本•格雷厄姆吗？
　　A：我们不需要另一个本•格雷厄姆。我们不需要另一个摩西。上帝只传给了摩西十条戒律，没有第十一条。格雷厄姆的投资理念仍然在指导我们，格雷厄姆桃李满天下，但是我们这些学生都是像鹦鹉学舌一样模仿他。我后来确实读过费雪的书，费雪更强调对商业的定性。买股票就是买公司，你要让市场服务你，不能让它指挥你。你经常能找到一些低估的公司。找到了，就赚了。大多数人认为，股价每天的变化包含什么信息，其实那里面没什么信息。股票不只是股价的上蹿下跳。股市是全世界最好玩的地方。你可以赚那些不知道好赖的人的钱。一年之内的最高价和最低价之间相差一倍是常有的事，公司的价值变化哪有这么大。这简直就是神经病。股市的波动经常走极端。市场先生天天喊报价。你就等着，等到他发疯，等到他悲观过头了，或是乐观过头了。把安全边际考虑在内。别开着 9800 磅重的车过最大承重 10,000 磅的桥。做投资，起决定作用的不是智商，是悟性。
　　不是说，有 10,000 家公司，你就得投 10,000 家公司，找到一个估值错误的就行。市场先生是为你服务的。市场先生是你的合伙人，他每天都想把生意卖给你。有时候，他很乐观，要价很高；有时候，他很悲观，要价很低。你一定要利用市场先生的这个弱点。股市是全世界最好玩的地方。还有什么别的地方能像股市这样，动不动就远远脱离现实。例如，土地的价格波动在 15% 以内，经过谈判达成的交易价格波动范围更小。这东西，有人懂，有人不懂。长点脑子，别犯傻，你就能在股市赚大钱。
　　Q：现在股票比债券的收益率高 6.5%，您认为这种现象会持续下去吗？
　　A：我觉得将来股票的收益率不会比债券高 6.5%。一般来说，股票的收益率高一些，但这不是一成不变的。每隔一段时间，股票就会变得很便宜，但这东西也不是上天注定的。风险溢价基本就是胡说八道，人们才不会算什么风险溢价。
　　在格雷厄姆之前，关于股市最好的一本书是埃德加•劳伦斯•史密斯 (Edgar Lawrence Smith) 在 1924 年写的，书名是《Common Stocks as Long Term Investments》。这本书比较了此前几十年债券与股票的表现。那时候上市公司不多。最初，埃德加觉得自己知道会得出什么样的结论。他以为他会发现在通货紧缩的时候，债券跑赢股票；在通货膨胀的时候，股票跑赢债券。结果他发现的是，几乎在所有情况中，股票都跑赢了债券。后来，约翰•梅纳德•凯恩斯 (John M. Keynes) 解释了出现这种现象的几个原因。凯恩斯说，随着时间推移，给股东赚钱的资本越来越多，股息也越来越高。这种观点在当时还很新颖，人们听到这种说法头脑就发热了，为了多赚钱，都去买股票。发展到后来，人们就发疯了，根本不按书里说的合理的投资方法来，书里的理论也就不成立了。就算你因为一个正确的理由买入，也要谨慎，要当心这个理由是否仍然正确。
　　假如你要买通用汽车，你就把股价和对应的市值写下来，然后再把自己买入这家公司的理由写下来。要是写不出来，就别买。
　　本•格雷厄姆有句话说得好：“对你危害更大的，不是错误的前提，而是正确的前提，因为你能立刻否决错误的前提。”
　　Q：您犯过的最大错误是什么？
　　A：首先，学格雷厄姆，你就差不了。
　　在做与不做的两难选择中，我犯了不少严重错误。当初的伯克希尔•哈撒韦就是个严重错误。有时候，把钱放在不该放的地方（例如，纺织这个烂生意）导致的机会成本会拖累伯克希尔的收益。当年，我们没从之前的错误中吸取教训，在收购伯克希尔•哈撒韦六七年后，又买了另一家纺织厂 （Womback 纺织厂）。那时候，新贝德福德的这家纺织厂都已经把我搞得焦头烂额了。
　　当年，我的朋友汤姆•墨菲 (Tom Murphy) 收购了沃思堡市的报业集团。NBC 是这家报业集团旗下的一项资产，墨菲想把 NBC 这家子公司剥离出去，当时售价 3000 万美元，NBC 今年的净利润都 7500 万美元了。那时候 NBC 也是个好公司，但墨菲打定主意要卖。后来我再想买，也没有了。经营有线电视台根本不用什么脑子。没买 NBC，我们得少赚多少钱？
　　除了 911 事件后保险赔款亏了不少，我们很少亏大钱。我们不做那种能亏大钱的事，只是我们可能也抓不住“最”赚钱的机会。
　　别担心犯错，你肯定会犯错。知错就改。另外，还要从别人的错误中学习。最好还是少犯错。
　　旁注：有一次沃伦问比尔•盖茨：“要是只能从一个地方招人，你会从哪招？”盖茨的回答是印度理工学院 (Indian Institute of Technology)。
　　Q：能透露一下您的现金仓位吗？
　　A：我们持有约 210 亿美元的 11 种外币。我们持有 600-700 亿以美元计价的现金和现金等价物。我们还是偏爱美国。要是火星人拿着外汇兑换券来到地球，他们肯定会把 80% 都换成美元。
　　我们现在采取这样的策略，我很怀疑美元不会走下坡路。这个季度，我们亏了 3.07 亿美元。自从我们 2002 年开始持有外汇以来，我们的净收益是 21 亿美元。我们必须按照逐日盯市方法计算这些期货合约。如果我们持有的不是纯粹的远期合约，而是债券，不会有这么大的波动。
　　泡沫很容易就能看出来，就是不知道泡沫会吹得多大，也不知道泡沫什么时候会破。你不知道什么时候午夜会到来，但是只要午夜一到，马车就会变成南瓜和老鼠。知道市场将来会怎样很简单，难的是知道什么时候会这样。有些人就是恋恋不舍，非要跳到最后一支舞，他们总以为明天一早一定会出现更傻的蠢货。
　　我们当初买那些垃圾债券的时候，我不知道我们在这么短的时间里就能赚 40 亿美元。要是没这么快就更好了，我们就能买到更多货了。
　　Q：您什么时候觉得自己是有钱人了？
　　A：我有 10,000 美元的时候，我就觉得我是有钱人了。我很早就想明白了，我一定要做自己喜欢的事，和自己喜欢的人做自己喜欢的事。1958 年，我让我父亲不要留遗产给我，因为我知道我早晚会有钱的。我让父亲把所有遗产都留给我的两个姐妹。
　　我敢说我们在座各位的生活水平都差不多。我们吃一样的食物，住一样的房子。我们都一辆车开 10 年左右。这些方面，我们大家之间没任何差别。你在大电视上看橄榄球超级杯大赛，我也在大电视上看。我们的生活都差不多。我有两个地方比较奢侈：一是我每天都可以做自己喜欢的事情，二是我的交通工具比你们快。
　　你们应该做自己喜欢的工作，无论有没有工资都做。就做你们喜欢的工作。知道赚钱是早晚的事。在长途旅行方面，你们不如我，我有私人飞机，我们之间几乎只有这么一个最大的差别。
　　我去格雷厄姆的公司工作时，我连工资都没问，拿到第一份工资单，我才知道。做你喜欢的事，钱连想都别想。保罗•艾伦 (Paul Allen) 请我去他的 4 亿美元的游艇章鱼号 (Octopus) 上游览，但是我自己不想要这样的游艇。这样一艘游艇需要 60 个船员打理，他们可能偷鸡摸狗，也可能互相乱搞。职业球队也是个累赘，特别是你很有钱的话。球队一打败仗，球迷就指责你抠门。
　　只要有个地方冬暖夏凉，能做自己喜欢的事，你就能生活得很好。能和自己喜欢的人一起工作，你就很富有。只要你积极向上、头脑理智，你就能赚钱。在我们这个社会，只要有头脑、有上进心，就能赢得富足的生活。你也不例外。
　　Q：您认为凯马特 (Kmart) 与西尔斯 (Sears) 合并的前景如何？爱德华•兰伯特 (Eddie Lambert) 能否成功将这两家公司融合？
　　A：这个谁都不知道。爱德华是个精明人，但是把凯马特和西尔斯合二为一，这是根硬骨头。想要扭转局面，把已经长期走下坡路的零售商盘活，实在太难了。你说哪个零售商成功扭转败局了？广播电视行业有多容易，零售业就有多难。要是你 50 年前拥有一家广播电视公司，这么多年，你根本不用搞什么创新，也不用有多高超的营销手段。广播电视公司给你送钱，汽车经销商给你送钱，你这么就赚钱了。
　　零售业则不同，你得比沃尔玛还聪明。零售商每天都伤透了脑筋，琢磨今天怎么才能比昨天做得更好。
　　经营零售业就像打移动靶。过去，人们不愿意乘坐公交车去很远的地方买东西，都在附近的零售店购物。1966 年，我们收购了巴尔的摩市的霍柴德•孔恩百货公司 (Hochschild Kohn)。我们很快就明白了，长期来看，这家公司肯定不行。顾客要配送服务，我们就提供配送服务。该做的，我们都做了：电梯也装了、给顾客的优惠也多、公司的经营者也很称职。可是呢，我们还是不赚钱。就这样，1970 年左右，我们把它卖了。这家百货公司现在已经消失了。就算有聪明能干的人经营，也不行。
　　凯马特和西尔斯的后续发展值得关注。这两家公司有大量物业，而且已经裁掉了西尔斯的不少管理人员（500 人）。它们已经节约不少成本了。
　　我们还是更愿意找轻松点的事做。从 1869 年创办起，巴菲特百货店经营了 100 年，期间有两家竞争对手。1950 年，一家竞争对手破产了。1960 年，另一家关门了。当地就我们一家百货店了，可还是不赚钱。
　　跌到了能再爬起来的零售商有几家？不多，我一个都想不起来。别和最强的对着干。好市多 (Costco) 现在维持 10-11% 的毛利率，比沃尔玛和山姆会员店还低。对比一下，百货商店的毛利率是 35%。要和给顾客最大优惠的对手竞争，太难了。百货商店会留住那些习惯在商场购物的老顾客，但是无法吸引到新顾客。沃尔玛也是个难缠的对手，别的零售商的毛利率和它比都不行。沃尔玛效率非常高。
　　要是爱德华觉得办不到，他也不会眼看着效率越来越低。或许他可以通过整合提高效率，但是好市多那么低的毛利率，他肯定竞争不过。
　　Q：您年轻时就有明确的价值观和目标，是受了什么影响？
　　A：我很幸运，因为我很小的时候就知道自己喜欢什么。我一生下来就有了这样的头脑，我运气很好，很小的时候就在图书馆里读了一些书。1930 年，我赢了一张“卵巢彩票”。要是我早出生 2000 年，我可能已经被吃掉了。我跑得不快，别的方面也不行。
　　我很幸运。我生下来就有好父母。我的父亲给了我巨大的激励。做父母的要教育子女。身教胜于言教。子女在父母身边，父母的一言一行，他们都在模仿。这些东西没法重来。要是你的父母言行一致，他们教给你道理，也身体力行，你就很幸运。我父母教我的和我看到的是一样的。这很重要。如果你总讥讽别人，教孩子的时候也讥讽孩子，这种讥讽，孩子永远抹不掉。小孩子那么大的年纪是最容易受影响的。
　　Q：能否谈谈您对留遗产给子女的看法，您会如何把您的财富分配给子女？
　　A：我对一个富裕的社会该有什么制度有自己的理解，我的这种理解决定了自己对这个问题的看法。要不是这个社会，我不会这么有钱。不全是我自己努力的结果。假设你出生的时候是双胞胎之一，一个精灵让你们竞价选择自己出生的地方。你出多少钱就得愿意回馈给社会多少，出价最高的会生在美国，另一个生在孟加拉国。你肯定会出价很高。出生在美国有巨大的优势。
　　人不应该一生出来就坐享其成。要是我给我的子女很多钱，他们不会游手好闲、无所事事，如果他们真这样了，那就是害了他们。美国政府能收到的遗产税是 300 亿美元，这些钱会用于支付伊拉克战争等国家开支。除了遗产税，国家的其余开销肯定是从别的地方来的。除了来自遗产税的部分，其余的钱肯定是从更穷的人那里来的。在留下遗产的人中，每年缴纳遗产税的只有 2%。就算缴纳了遗产税，他们还是会平均留下 5000 万美元。我觉得那些中了彩票的人最应该拿出钱来，支持社会的公共事业。我相信财富应该广泛地重新分配。财富是一大把支票，我可以换成豪宅什么的。把这些支票留给下一代是错的。有些人觉得我是在宣扬国家要为公民提供高福利，这些人可以想想，如果生下来就是富二代会怎样。你刚一出生就得到了一大笔股票，这样的话，你不是一生下来就靠有钱的父母提供高福利吗？这有什么两样？
　　我每年花 10 万美元，可以请 10 个人给我画像，然后我从中选一个最满意的。这个钱我有。但这是浪费，那些人给我画像有什么用，他们可以做更有意义的事。我觉得我的子女和其他继承人也是一样。他们应该做对社会有用的人。
　　Q：请问人口结构变化（例如，婴儿潮）对美国有什么影响？
　　A：我们不太关注人口结构趋势。这种信息很难转化成赚钱的决策。研究宏观趋势，很难判断将来什么生意会成功。喜诗 (See's candy) 生产人人爱吃的糖果，鲜果布衣 (Fruit of the Loom) 生产人们每天都穿的内衣。我们找的是现在就能赚钱的，不是将来可能赚钱的。我想沃尔玛不会花很多功夫研究人口结构。他们琢磨的是新店如何选址，采购哪些商品。我始终觉得那种数据没用。6 年前，人们都兴奋地进入股市，但这和人口结构趋势没关系。
　　（沃伦接着提到了杰里米•西格尔 (Jeremy Siegel) 最近在《华尔街日报》上发表的一篇文章，西格尔说婴儿潮出生的那一代人会把投资的钱拿出来养老，这会导致资金流出股市。沃伦说他很敬重西格尔，但是沃伦觉得资金流动数据没什么用。）
　　Q：要是您没遇到查理•芒格 (Charlie Munger)，伯克希尔会怎样？
　　A：会非常不一样，不过，很多人都对我有很大影响。我有很多榜样（至少有 10 个人），其中包括我的父母。虽然查理家和我家的距离就半个街区，但我们 1959 年才认识。当时，查理 35 岁，我 29 岁，我们从那时起一直合作到现在。他很倔，但是这么多年，我俩从没争吵过。查理没让我失望过一次。要是你的榜样让你失望了，那该多难受。
　　永远要交那些比你强的人。近朱者赤，近墨者黑。和比你强的人交往，你也会变得更优秀。找对象要找比你优秀的。与你成婚的这个人是对你影响最大的。几十年下来，在这样的婚姻中，你肯定会越来越好。
　　Q：与十年前相比，现在的投资者是更聪明了，还是更傻了？
　　A：毫无疑问，现在投资这行里专业人士比以前多多了，高智商的人比以前多多了，从前投资这行可不像今天这样炙手可热。今天，人们获取投资数据更方便、更快捷。尽管如此，投资者的行为不会比过去更理智。人们该怎么做还会怎么做，他们与生俱来的心理永远不会变。你要让自己的思想和大众一刀两断。智商再高，一被从众心理左右，就傻了。很多高智商的人参与了投资，但是我不认为投资者的行为更理智了。聪明人也有不理智的时候。要做一个成功的投资者，无论多难，你都必须远离别人的贪婪和恐惧。
　　你别说庞氏骗局疯狂，6 年前的科技和电信狂潮，造就了有史以来最大的一场癫狂，它不就发生在我们眼前吗。在资本管理方面学富五车也没用。
　　你看长期资本管理公司 (Long Term Capital Management)。他们自己也投了几亿美元，也都是老手。这些人里还有拿过诺贝尔奖的。从全美国，再也找不出比他们智商更高的团队了，可他们还是爆仓了。短短几天时间，就一切归零。他们都很有钱了，不需要钱了，怎么还能做这样的蠢事？
　　Q：机构大量持股对股价波动性有什么影响？
　　A：这么少的人管理这么多钱，这些人还这么看重未来会发生什么，这是一种前所未有的现象。在投资界，太多的人就想着战胜指数，他们每天都忙得不可开交，每天都精力充沛地决定这决定那。过去不是这样。这种现象导致了一种“一触即发”效应。87 年的黑色星期一就是个典型，程序化交易和止损单导致了当天的暴跌。
　　Q：哪些行业萎靡了？是不是熊市要来了？
　　A：人们与生俱来的心理没有变，机会总会出现。太多人都还是那么不理智。他们受贪婪和恐惧驱使。我做投资，从来没怕过。要是市场上的每股股价只是整体出售公司价格的四分之一，董事们还不回购，是在想什么？他们的脑子有时候就是不理智。我就没这个毛病。
　　当年，伯克希尔买了《华盛顿邮报》、美国广播公司电视网 (ABC network) 和《新闻周刊》(Newsweek)。按照股价计算，市值是 1 亿美元。没负债。公开竞拍的话，把这些公司分别卖出去，一共能卖 5 亿美元，但当时它们的总市值才 1 亿美元。换句话说，有人愿意以 0.25 美元的价格把 1 美元的钱卖给我们。有效市场理论说，与 37 美元时相比，20 美元时的股票贝塔系数更高。这是神经病。我们当时花 900 万美元买的股票，现在已经值 17 亿美元了。
　　Q：有些大集团的子公司有囤积资本的行为，您怎么看？
　　A：伯克希尔希望资本能分配到最合理的地方。按照伯克希尔的组织架构，我们在不同业务之间分配资金可以减轻股东的税务负担，而且我们可以把资本分配到有用的地方。在我们下属的大多数公司中，管理层自己都很有钱了。他们工作是因为喜欢，不是为了钱。他们不会把不需要的资金囤积在手里。
　　Q：您如何看待当前的房地产投资环境？
　　A：要是买房自住，没问题。不是自住的话，我觉得已经出现泡沫了。我们对房地产不太看好，因为按现在的价格基本没多少回报。
　　

admin

No. of Recommendations: 288
　　I took a bunch of students to Omaha for a Q&A with Warren recently, and I thought you might be interested in the back and forth.
　　Berkshire Hathaway
　　Warren Buffett Q&A
　　May 6, 2005
　　Question: According to a business week report published in 1999, you were quoted as saying “it's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that.” First, would you say the same thing today? Second, since that statement infers that you would invest in smaller companies, other than investing in small-caps, what else would you do differently?
　　Yes, I would still say the same thing today. In fact, we are still earning those types of returns on some of our smaller investments. The best decade was the 1950s; I was earning 50% plus returns with small amounts of capital. I could do the same thing today with smaller amounts. It would perhaps even be easier to make that much money in today's environment because information is easier to access.
　　You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find those little anomalies. You have to find the companies that are off the map - way off the map. You may find local companies that have nothing wrong with them at all. A company that I found, Western Insurance Securities, was trading for $3/share when it was earning $20/share!! I tried to buy up as much of it as possible. No one will tell you about these businesses. You have to find them.
　　Other examples: Genesee Valley Gas, public utility trading at a P/E of 2, GEICO, Union Street Railway of New Bedford selling at $30 when $100/share is sitting in cash, high yield position in 2002. No one will tell you about these ideas, you have to find them.
　　The answer is still yes today that you can still earn extraordinary returns on smaller amounts of capital. For example, I wouldn't have had to buy issue after issue of different high yield bonds. Having a lot of money to invest forced Berkshire to buy those that were less attractive. With less capital, I could have put all my money into the most attractive issues and really creamed it.
　　I know more about business and investing today, but my returns have continued to decline since the 50's. Money gets to be an anchor on performance. At Berkshire's size, there would be no more than 200 common stocks in the world that we could invest in if we were running a mutual fund or some other kind of investment business.
　　Q: Since Ben Graham isn't around anymore, what money managers do you respect today? Is there a Ben Graham today?
　　You don't need another Ben Graham. You don't need another Moses. There were only Ten Commandments; we're still waiting for the eleventh (j/k). His investing philosophy is still alive and well. There are disciples of him around, but all we are doing is parroting. I did read Phil Fisher later on, which showed the more qualitative aspects of businesses. Common stocks are part of a business. Markets are there to serve you, not to instruct you. You can often find a couple of companies that are out of line. Find one; get rich. Most people think that what the stock does from day to day contains information, but it doesn't. It isn't just something that wiggles around. The stock market is the best game in the world. You can take advantage of people who have no morals. High prices inside of a year will typically be 100% of the low price. Businesses don't change in value that much. That is simply crazy. There are extreme degrees of fluctuation, and Mr. Market will call out the prices. Wait until he is nutty in one direction or the other. Put in a margin of safety. Don't find a bridge that says no more than 10,000 pounds when you have a 9800 pound vehicle. It isn't a function of IQ, but receptivity of the mind.
　　When investing you don't have to invest in all 10,000 companies available, you just have to find the one that is out of line. Mr. Market is your servant. Mr. Market is your partner and wants to sell the business to you everyday. Some days he is very optimistic and wants a high price, others he is pessimistic and will sell at a low price. You have to use this to your advantage. The market is the greatest game in the world. There is nothing else that can, at times, get this far out of line with reality. For example, land usually only fluctuates within a 15% band. Negotiated transactions are less volatile. Some get this; others don't. Just keep your wits about you and you can make a lot of money in the market.
　　Q: Do you expect the stock market premium to continue to be 6.5% over bonds?
　　I don't think that the stock market will return 6.5% over bonds in the future. Stocks usually yield a little more, but that isn't ordained. Every once in a while, stocks will get very cheap, but it isn't ordained in scripture that this is so. Risk premiums are mostly nonsense. The world isn't calculating risk premiums.
　　Best book prior to Graham was written by Edgar Lawrence Smith in 1924 called Common Stocks as Long Term Investments. It was a study that evaluated how bonds compared to stocks in various decades of the past. There weren't a whole lot of publicly traded companies back then. He thought he knew what he was going to find. He thought that he'd find that bonds outperformed stocks during periods of deflation, and stocks outperformed during inflationary times. But what he found was that stocks outperformed the bonds in nearly all cases. John M. Keynes then enumerated the reasons that this was so. He said that over time you have more capital working for you, and thus dividends would grow higher. This was novel information back then and investors then went crazy and started buying stocks for these higher returns. But then they started to get crazy, and no longer really applied the sound tactics that made the reasons given in the book true. Be careful that when you buy something for a sound reason, make sure that the reason stays sound.
　　If you buy GM, you need to write the price and the respective market valuation. Then write down why you are buying the business. If you can't, then you have no business doing it.
　　Quote from Ben Graham: “You can get in more trouble with a sound premise than an unsound premise because you'll just throw out the unsound premise”.
　　Q: What was your biggest mistake?
　　First off, follow Graham and you'll be fine.
　　My biggest mistakes were errors of omission vs. commission. Berkshire Hathaway was also a big mistake. Sometimes the opportunity costs of keeping money in something (like a lousy textile business) can be a drag on Berkshire's performance. We didn't learn from the previous mistake and bought another textile mill (Womback Mills) 6-7 years after buying Berkshire Hathaway. Meanwhile, I couldn't run the one in New Bedford.
　　Tom Murphy, my friend, bought the newspaper in Fort Worth. The previous ownership of these entities owned NBC as well, but he wanted to divest the NBC affiliate - $30 million to buy, doing $75 million in earnings. It was really a pretty good company, but he wanted to sell it anyway. There wouldn't be many more of it. Network television stations don't require excessive brains to run. They add a lot of money to our bottom lines.
　　We have never lost lots of money in things, except in insurance after 9/11. We don't do the kinds of things that lose you a lot of money. We just might not be finding the “best” opportunities.
　　Don't worry about mistakes. You'll make mistakes. Get over it. At the same time, it's important to learn from someone else's mistakes. You don't want to make too many mistakes.
　　Side note: Warren once asked Bill Gates, “If you could only hire from one place, where would it be?” Gate's reply was Indian Institute of Technology.
　　Q: Could you comment on your currency position?
　　We have about $21 billion in about 11 foreign currencies. We have $60-70 billion in things that are denominated in US Dollars. We still have a huge US bias. If Martians came down with currency certificates and could choose any currency on earth, I doubt it would be 80% in US Dollars.
　　We are following policies that make me doubt that our currency will not follow a downward spin. We lost $307 million this quarter. The net gain since we started holding foreign currencies in 2002 is $2.1 billion. We have to mark these future contracts to market daily. If we owned bonds instead of sterling forward contracts, it wouldn't fluctuate around so much.
　　Identifying bubbles is fairly easy. You don't know how big they will get and you don't know when they will pop. You don't know when midnight will hit, but when it does, it turns carriages to pumpkins and mice. What markets will do is pretty easy. When they will do it is more difficult. Some people want to stick around for the last dance, and they thought that a bigger fool would be just around the corner tomorrow.
　　When we bought those junk bonds, I didn't know we would make $4 billion in such a short time. It would have been better if it wouldn't have happened so quickly, as we would have gotten a bigger position.
　　Q: When did you know you were rich?
　　I really knew I was rich when I had $10,000. I knew along time ago that I was going to be doing something I loved doing with people that I loved doing it with. In 1958, I had my dad take me out of the will, as I knew I would be rich anyway. I let my two sisters have all the estate.
　　I bet we all in this room live about the same. We eat about the same and sleep about the same. We pretty much drive a car for 10 years. All this stuff doesn't make it any different. I will watch the Super Bowl on a big screen television just like you. We are living the same life. I have two luxuries: I get to do what I want to do every day and I get to travel a lot faster than you.
　　You should do the job you love whether or not you are getting paid for it. Do the job you love. Know that the money you will follow. I travel distances better than you do. The plane is nicer. But that is about the only thing that I do a whole lot different.
　　I didn't know my salary when I went to work for Graham until I got his first paycheck. Do what you love and don't even think about the money. I will take a trip on Paul Allen's Octopus ($400M yacht), but wouldn't want one for myself. A 60 man crew is needed. They could be stealing, sleeping with each other, etc. Professional sports teams are a hassle, especially when you have as much money as him. Fans would complain that you aren't spending enough when the team loses.
　　If there is a place that is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and you do what you love doing, you will do fine. You're rich if you are working around people you like. You will make money if you are energetic and intelligent. This society lets smart people with drive earn a very good living. You will be no exception.
　　Q: What is your opinion of the prospects for the Kmart/Sears merger? How will Eddie Lambert do at bringing Kmart and Sears together?
　　Nobody knows. Eddie is a very smart guy but putting Kmart and Sears together is a tough hand. Turning around a retailer that has been slipping for a long time would be very difficult. Can you think of an example of a retailer that was successfully turned around? Broadcasting is easy; retailing is the other extreme. If you had a network television station 50 years ago, you didn't really have to invent or being a good salesman. The network paid you; car dealers paid you, and you made money.
　　But in retail you have to be smarter than Wal-Mart. Every day retailers are constantly thinking about ways to get ahead of what they were doing the previous day.
　　Retailing is like shooting at a moving target. In the past, people didn't like to go excessive distances from the street cars to buy things. People would flock to those retailers that were near by. In 1996 we bought the Hochschild Kohn department store in Baltimore. We learned quickly that it wasn't going to be a winner, long-term, in a very short period of time. We had an antiquated distribution system. We did everything else right. We put in escalators. We gave people more credit. We had a great guy running it, and we still couldn't win. So we sold it around 1970. That store isn't there anymore. It isn't good enough that there were smart people running it.
　　It will be interesting to see how Kmart and Sears play out. They already have a lot of real estate, and have let go of a bunch of Sears' management (500 people). They've captured some savings already.
　　We would rather look for easier things to do. The Buffett grocery stores started in Omaha in 1869 and lasted for 100 years. There were two competitors. In 1950, one competitor went out of business. In 1960 the other closed. We had the whole town to ourselves and still didn't make any money.
　　How many retailers have really sunk, and then come back? Not many. I can't think of any. Don't bet against the best. Costco is working on a 10-11% gross margin that is better than the Wal-Mart's and Sams'. In comparison, department stores have 35% gross margins. It's tough to compete against the best deal for customers. Department stores will keep their old customers that have a habit of shopping there, but they won't pick up new ones. Wal-Mart is also a tough competitor because others can't compete at their margins. It's very efficient.
　　If Eddie sees it as impossible, he won't watch it evaporate. Maybe he can combine certain things and increase efficiencies, but he won't be able to compete against Costco's margins.
　　Q: What led you to develop your values and goals at an early age?
　　I was lucky because I knew what I loved at an early age. I was wired in a certain way when I was born, and I was lucky enough to stumble upon some books at a library at a very early age. In 1930, I won the ovarian lottery. If I had been born 2000 years ago, I'd have been somebody's lunch. I couldn't run fast, etc.
　　I was lucky. I had a terrific set of parents. My father was an enormous inspiration for me. The job when you are a parent is to teach them. Be a natural hero. They are learning from you every moment you are around. There is no rewind button. If your parents do what they say and their values match what they teach you, you are lucky. What I observed in the world was consistent with what my parents taught me. That was important. If you are sarcastic, and use it as a teaching tool to kids, they'll never learn to get over it. Those first few years they are very impressionable.
　　Q: Could you discuss your views on estate planning and how you will allocate your wealth to your children?
　　It really reflects my views on how a rich society should behave. If it weren't for this society, I wouldn't be rich. It wasn't all me. Imagine if you were one of a pair of identical twins and a genie came along and allowed you to bid on where you could be born. The money that you bid is how much you had to agree to give back to society, and the one who bids the most gets to be born in the US and the other in Bangladesh. You would bid a lot. It is a huge advantage to be born here.
　　There should be no divine right of the womb. My kids wouldn't go off and do nothing if I give them a lot of money, but if they did, that would be a tragedy. $30 billion will be generated from estate taxes, which will go to help pay for the war in Iraq and other things. If you take away the estate tax, that money will have to come from somewhere else. If not from estate taxes then you inherently get it from poorer citizens. Less than 2% of estates will pay the estate tax. They would still have $50 million left over on average. I think those that get the lucky tickets should pay the most to the common causes of society. I believe in a big redistribution. Wealth is a bunch of claim checks that I can turn in for houses, etc. To pass those claim checks down to the next generation is the wrong approach. But for those that think I am perpetuating the welfare state, consider if you are born to a rich parent. You get a whole bunch of stocks right at the beginning of your life, and thus you are sort of on a welfare state of support from your rich parents from the beginning. What's the difference?
　　At $100,000 a year, I can find 10 people to paint my portraits to find the perfect one. I have that kind of money. But that is a waste, as those people could be doing something useful. I feel the same way about my kids and other heirs. They should be doing things that help to contribute to society.
　　Q: What kind of impact will the demographic shift (i.e. baby boomers) have on the United States?
　　We aren't big on demographic trends. It's difficult to translate that information into profitable decisions. It is hard to figure out what businesses will prosper in the future, based on macro trends. See's candy is for anyone and Fruit of the Loom is for people who need underwear today. We want to be right on something that will work right now, not something that might work in the future. I doubt that Wal-Mart spends a lot of time on demographics. They instead focus on where to put the store and what to put on the shelves. I've never found those kinds of stats useful. People were all excited to go into stocks 6 years ago, but it wasn't because of demographic trends.
　　Warren then referred to a recent WSJ article written by Jeremy Siegel that discussed funds flowing out of investments because baby boomers will need to cash in their investments during retirement. He said he respected Siegel, but he doesn't find fund flows data useful.
　　Q: What would Berkshire be like if you hadn't met Charlie Munger?
　　It would be very different, but I could say the same thing about a lot of other people, too. I've had a lot (at least a dozen) of heroes, including my parents. Charlie and I didn't meet until 1959, although he grew up a half a block from where I lived. Charlie was 35 and I was 29. We've been partners ever since. He is very strong-minded, but we've never had an argument that whole time. I've never been let down once. It must be a terrible feeling to be let down by a hero.
　　Hang around people who are better than you all the time. You do pick up the behavior of people who are around you. It will make you a better person. Marry upward. That is the person who is going to have the biggest effect on you. A relationship like that over the decades will do nothing but good.
　　Q: Are investors more or less knowledgeable today compared to ten years ago?
　　There is no doubt that there are far more “investment professionals” and way more IQ in the field, as it didn't use to look that promising. Investment data are available more conveniently and faster today. But the behavior of investors will not be more intelligent than in the past, despite all this. How people react will not change – their psychological makeup stays constant. You need to divorce your mind from the crowd. The herd mentality causes all these IQ's to become paralyzed. I don't think investors are now acting more intelligently, despite the intelligence. Smart doesn't always equal rational. To be a successful investor you must divorce yourself from the fears and greed of the people around you, although it is almost impossible.
　　Do you think Ponzi was crazy? The tech and telecom madness that existed just 6 years ago is right up there with the craziest mania's that have ever happened. Huge training in capital management didn't help.
　　Take Long Term Capital Management. They had 100's of millions of their own money, and had all of that experience. The list included Nobel Prize winners. They probably had the highest IQ of any 100 people working together in the country, yet the place still blew up. It went to zero in a matter of days. How can people who are rich and no longer need more money do such foolish things?
　　Q: What effect does large institutional ownership have on stock price volatility?
　　Never has so much been managed by so few that care so much about what happens tomorrow. So much of the world of investing is people who are trying to beat indexes, and they have a willingness and eagerness to make decisions in the next 24 hours. This condition didn't exist years ago. It has created a “hair trigger” effect. An example of this hair trigger effect was Black Monday in '87. The cause was program trading and stop loss orders.
　　Q: What sectors are hurting? Is there a bear market coming?
　　Humans are still made up of the same psychological makeup, and opportunities will always present themselves. All these people have not gotten more rational. They are moved by fear and greed. But I'm never afraid of what I am doing. What are directors thinking [by not repurchasing shares] if the business is selling on a per share basis for one-fourth of what the whole business would sell for? They don't always think rational. I simply don't have that problem.
　　Berkshire owned the Washington Post, the ABC network and Newsweek. It was selling for $100 million based on the stock price. No debt. You could have held an auction, and sold off the companies individually for $500M total, but $100M was the price. In other words they were willing to sell us money that was worth $1 for $0.25. According to efficient markets, the beta was higher when the stock was at $20 than at $37. This is insanity. We bought what was then worth $9 million that is now worth $1.7 billion.
　　Q: How do you feel about divisions of conglomerates trying to horde capital?
　　Berkshire wants the capital in the most logical place. Berkshire is a tax efficient way to move money from business to business, and we can redeploy capital in places that need them. Most of the managers of companies we own are already independently rich. They want to work, but don't have to. They don't horde capital they don't need.
　　Q: How do you feel about the current real estate environment?
　　If you are buying to own a home, that is fine. Otherwise, it seems to be getting into bubble territory. We're not excited about real estate because generally there is not enough return at current prices.
　　Mark
　　s：https://boards.fool.com/buffettj ... 469.aspx?sort=whole