Wesco金融2007年股东大会——查理·芒格发言纪要
惠特尼·蒂尔森的 2007 年西科金融股东大会笔记
2007 年 5 月 9 日
本文为预印本,仅供第三届纽约价值投资年会注册参会者使用。如需注册,请访问 www.ValueInvestingCongress.com
注:方括号[ ]内的文字是我的评论、编辑,或在我遗漏某些内容时,对原话的最佳推测。
关于我对往届伯克希尔和西科股东大会的专栏文章及笔记,请点击此处。
Whitney Tilson’s 2007 Wesco Annual Meeting Notes May 9, 2007 This is an advance copy intended only for those who have registered for the 3rd Annual New York Value Investing Congress. To register, please go to www.ValueInvestingCongress.com Note: Words in [brackets] are my comments, edits or, when I missed something, my best guess of what was said. For my columns and notes on previous Berkshire and Wesco meetings, click here.
开场致辞
我注意到今年我们是在帐篷里开会。帐篷能做得这么好用,真是了不起。这体现了我们文明的成就。要是我们的祖先住帐篷,可不会像这样有空调之类的设施。
你们这么多人赶来参加,实在让人惊叹。说实话,我这辈子可没想过要当什么邪教的副领袖。[笑声] 俗话说得好,经验就是你寻找别的东西时遇到的东西。
这么多年了,你们中有很多人开完伯克希尔股东大会之后还来参加这个会,真是神奇。就像天主教堂里不想改变教理问答的那种人一样。
显而易见,大家在某种程度上是希望离开时能比来时多一分智慧。光听别人讲话是很难做到的。所以大多数教学方式都很生动。比如,二战时训练士兵,会朝他们头顶射真子弹,这真的教会了他们紧贴地面。
这就是为什么很多人通过惨痛的经历、用艰难的方式学到教训。马克·吐温曾说,拽着猫尾巴提起来比任何其他方式都能让人学得更好。但这种学习方式太可怕了。另一个笑话说,人应该通过别人的经验学习:你没必要亲自去试,才知道不要往通电的围栏上撒尿。[笑声]
把一个脑子里的想法装进另一个脑子里,真的很难。所以教育机构才那么挑剔。
我想做一件以前没做过的事。我觉得有这个义务,因为你们这么多人远道而来。所以我要讲一个我选中的问题,一个你们应该感兴趣的问题:为什么沃伦·巴菲特和他的造物——伯克希尔·哈撒韦——能如此非凡地成功?如果说这种投资上的成功不是投资界历史上最了不起的,那也肯定排在前五名。这简直是一个“盖茨比”式的奇迹。
为什么一个白手起家、毫无信用评级的人,最后能积攒起这样一堆荒谬的资产:1200 亿美元现金和有价证券,而这一切都来自沃伦接手时仅有的 1000 万美元,流通股数还差不多一样。这是一个非常极端的成就。
如果你读过《穷查理宝典》,就能得到一些线索。那本书是我朋友彼得·考夫曼做的,几乎违背我的意愿——我不在的时候,他让我在他的办公室里爬来爬去找材料。他说这本书能赚很多钱,于是自己垫了 75 万美元,并承诺所有超出这部分利润都捐给亨廷顿图书馆(芒格最爱的慈善机构之一)。你瞧,这真的实现了。他拿回了自己的本金,而受捐机构得到了大笔利润。有些人就是这么特别,而我们往往会把这种人聚拢过来。
多种因素朝同一方向汇聚,促成了沃伦的成功。一个“盖茨比”效应很难由其他东西产生。那么,让我们来看看促成这一结果的因素:
第一个因素是智力天赋。沃伦绝对聪明。不过,他也不能蒙着眼下国际象棋击败所有对手。他的成就超过了智力天赋所能预示的。
还有他从十岁起就干这行带来的好处。除非你对自己强烈感兴趣的事情迈出第一步,否则很难成功。强烈的兴趣无可替代,他起步又非常早。
这一点至关重要:沃伦是地球上最优秀的学习机器之一。那些跑赢兔子的乌龟都是学习机器。在这个世界上,如果你停止学习,世界就会从你身边呼啸而过。沃伦很幸运,即便到了退休年龄,他依然能高效学习,不断积累技能。沃伦 65 岁以后,他的投资技能显著提高了。我全程见证了沃伦的成长过程,可以这样说:如果他只停留在早先所知道的东西上,那他的业绩纪录会相形见绌得多。
这项事业高度集中于一颗大脑。当然,别人也有过贡献,但伯克希尔极大地反映了一位伟大头脑的贡献。投资界——或者物理学界——很难想象委员会能取得巨大成功。很多人忽略了这一点。看看约翰·伍登,史上最伟大的篮球教练:他晚年成绩提高,是因为他获得了一个了不起的想法——少些平均主义。在他球队的 12 名球员中,最差的那五个根本不打比赛——他们只是陪练。相反,他把经验集中在最好的球员身上。伯克希尔也正是这样——集中了经验和上场时间。
这不是我们通常的生活方式:在民主制度下,人人轮流上场。但如果你真的想要很多智慧,最好把决策和过程集中在一个人身上。
OPENING REMARKS I note that this year we’re in a tent. It’s amazing that a tent can be made to work so well. It’s a tribute to our civilization. If our ancestors had been in a tent, it would not be like this one, with air conditioning and so forth. It’s amazing that all you people come. You know, I didn’t set out in life to become the assistant leader of a cult. [Laughter] As they say, experience is what happens when you’re looking for something else. It’s amazing that many of you come to this meeting after the Berkshire meeting for so many years. It’s like the person at the Catholic church who doesn’t want the catechism changed. People are obviously here to some extent to leave a little wiser than when they came. It’s very hard to do this by merely hearing someone else talk. That’s why most teaching is vivid. For example, when they trained soldiers for World War II, they shot real bullets above them, which really taught them to hug the ground. That’s why so many learn lessons the hard way, through terrible experience. Mark Twain once said that picking up a cat by its tail yielded better learning than was available in any other fashion. But that’s a terrible way to learn things. Another comic thought man ought to learn vicariously: you shouldn’t have to try it to learn not to pee on an electrified fence. [Laughter] It’s really hard to get ideas from one mind into another. That’s why learning institutions are so selective. I want to do something I haven’t done before. I feel obligated because so many of you came from such great distances, so I’ll talk about a question I’ve chosen, one that ought to interest you: Why were Warren Buffett and his creation, Berkshire Hathaway, so unusually successful? If that success in investment isn’t the best in the history of the investment world, it’s certainly in the top five. It’s a lollapalooza. Why did one man, starting with nothing, no credit rating, end up with this ridiculous collection of assets: $120 billion of cash and marketable securities, all from $10 million when Warren took over, with about the same number of shares outstanding. It’s a very extreme result. You’ll get some hints if you read Poor Charlie’s Almanack, which was created by my friend Peter Kaufman, almost against my will – I let him crawl around my office when I wasn’t there. He said it would make a lot of money, so he put up $750,000 and promised that all profits above this would go to the Huntington Library [one of Munger’s favorite charities]. Lo and behold, that’s happened. He got his money back, and the donee’s receiving a large profit. Some people are very peculiar, and we tend to collect them. A confluence of factors in the same direction caused Warren’s success. It’s very unlikely that a lollapalooza effect can come from anything else. So let’s look at the factors that contributed to this result: The first factor is the mental aptitude. Warren is seriously smart. On the other hand, he can’t beat all comers in chess blindfolded. He’s out-achieved his mental aptitude. Then there’s the good effect caused by his doing this since he was 10 years old. It’s very hard to succeed until you take the first step in what you’re strongly interested in. There’s no substitute for strong interest and he got a very early start. This is really crucial: Warren is one of the best learning machines on this earth. The turtles who outrun the hares are learning machines. If you stop learning in this world, the world rushes right by you. Warren was lucky that he could still learn effectively and build his skills, even after he reached retirement age. Warren’s investing skills have markedly increased since he turned 65. Having watched the whole process with Warren, I can report that if he had stopped with what he knew at earlier points, the record would be a pale shadow of what it is. The work has been heavily concentrated in one mind. Sure, others have had input, but Berkshire enormously reflects the contributions of one great single mind. It’s hard to think of great success by committees in the investment world – or in physics. Many people miss this. Look at John Wooden, the greatest basketball coach ever: his record improved later in life when he got a great idea: be less egalitarian. Of 12 players on his team, the bottom five didn’t play – they were just sparring partners. Instead, he concentrated experience in his top players. That happened at Berkshire – there was concentrated experience and playing time. This is not how we normally live: in a democracy, everyone takes turns. But if you really want a lot of wisdom, it’s better to concentrate decisions and process in one person.
-2-275-
-2-275-
新加坡从起点算起,取得的成就远超美国,这绝非偶然。在那里,权力集中在一位才华极其出众的人物——李光耀手中,他堪称新加坡的沃伦·巴菲特。
许多人通过考试、做快速计算时显得非常非常聪明,但他们却接二连三地做出愚蠢的决定,因为他们身上有很糟糕的疯狂特质。就像尼采曾说的:“一个人腿瘸了,还为此感到骄傲。”如果你有缺陷却试图放大它,那你正走向浅薄。嫉妒、极度自怜、极端意识形态、对某种身份认同的强烈忠诚——你这是在拿起锤子猛捶自己的大脑。你会发现沃伦非常客观。
当人们得到心理学家所说的“强化”时,所有人都能表现得更好。如果你持续获得奖赏,即使你是沃伦·巴菲特,也会作出回应——而很少有事情能像做一位杰出投资者那样带来这么多奖赏。金钱源源而来,人们仰视你,甚至可能有人嫉妒你。如果你收购了大量经营企业,它们赢得了很多赞赏,那就会得到很多强化。从中学习,并找到通过强化身边人来让自己成功的方法。如果你想在婚姻中幸福,那就努力把自己改进成更好的配偶,而不是改变你的配偶。沃伦从小就明白这一点,这对他帮助很大。
阿尔弗雷德·诺思·怀特黑德指出,当人类发明了“发明的方法”后,文明本身按人均 GDP 计算就快速进步了。这见解非常深刻。当人类变得善于学习时,其进步方式就和个人一样了。教育机构的主要任务是教给学生学习的方法,但它们做得并不好。相反,它们给学生填鸭式灌输知识,教他们如何在考试中取得好成绩。相比之下,那些真正善于学习的人能够进入一个新领域,并超越这个领域原有的从业者——至少在有些情况下是这样。不过,我不推荐这样做。通常的结果是失败。然而,在我一生中,至少有三次,我进入了一个新领域并取得了成功。
莫扎特是生活被疯狂毁掉的好例子。他的成就并未因此而减损——他可能拥有有史以来最出色的音乐天赋——但从那起点开始,他的人生相当悲惨。他一生都入不敷出——这会让你痛苦。(这个房间里坐着的大多是相反类型的人,也就是节俭的人。)他充满嫉妒,嫉妒那些他觉得受到不应有更好待遇的人,而且他满腹自怜。没有比这更愚蠢的事了。即使你的孩子死于癌症,你也不该自怜。总的来说,认为世界不公平是毫无益处的。[罗马皇帝] 马可·奥勒留有一个观念:每一次艰难处境都是一次机会——学习的机会、展现男子气概的机会,等等。对他而言,经历艰难处境就像呼吸一样自然。沃伦从不花时间在自怜、嫉妒等事情上。
至于报复,那完全是疯狂之举。狠狠打击某人以阻止他们伤害你,或以此为例警示他人,这没问题——但除此之外……你看看中东就知道了。
It’s no accident that Singapore has a much better record, given where it started, than the United States. There, power was concentrated in one enormously talented person, Lee Kuan Yew, who was the Warren Buffett of Singapore. Lots of people are very, very smart in terms of passing tests and making rapid calculations, but they just make one asinine decision after another because they have terrible streaks of nuttiness. Like Nietzsche once said: “The man had a lame leg and he’s proud of it.” If you have a defect you try to increase, you’re on your way to the shallows. Envy, huge self-pity, extreme ideology, intense loyalty to a particular identity – you’ve just taken your brain and started to pound on it with a hammer. You’ll find that Warren is very objective. All human beings work better when they get what psychologists call reinforcement. If you get constant rewards, even if you’re Warren Buffett, you’ll respond – and few things give more rewards than being a great investor. The money comes in, people look up to you and maybe some even envy you. And if you buy a whole lot of operating businesses and they win a lot of admiration, there’s a lot of reinforcement. Learn from this and find out how to prosper by reinforcing the people who are close to you. If you want to be happy in marriage, try to improve yourself as a spouse, not change your spouse. Warren has known this from an early age and it’s helped him a lot. Alfred North Whitehead pointed out that civilization itself progressed rapidly in terms of GDP per capita when mankind invented the method of invention. This is very insightful. When mankind got good at learning, it progressed in the same way individuals do. The main thing at institutions of learning is to teach students the method of learning, but they don’t do a good job. Instead, they spoon feed students and teach them to do well on tests. In contrast, those who are genuine learners can go into a new field and outperform incumbents, at least on some occasions. I don’t recommend this, however. The ordinary result is failure. Yet, at least three times in my life, I’ve gone into some new field and succeeded. Mozart is a good example of a life ruined by nuttiness. His achievement wasn’t diminished – he may well have had the best innate musical talent ever – but from that start, he was pretty miserable. He overspent his income his entire life – that will make you miserable. (This room is filled with the opposite [i.e., frugal people].) He was consumed with envy and jealousy of other people who were treated better than he felt they deserved, and he was filled with self-pity. Nothing could be stupider. Even if your child is dying of cancer, it’s not OK to feel self pity. In general, it’s totally nonproductive to get the idea that the world is unfair. [Roman emperor] Marcus Aurelius had the notion that every tough stretch was an opportunity – to learn, to display manhood, you name it. To him, it was as natural as breathing to have tough stretches. Warren doesn’t spend any time on self-pity, envy, etc. As for revenge, it’s totally insane. It’s OK to clobber someone to prevent them from hurting you or to set an example, but otherwise – well, look at the Middle East. It
-3-276- 让我想起一个关于爱尔兰阿尔茨海默症的笑话:你什么都忘了,唯独记得怨恨。
因此,这对你来说是一个可以借鉴的经验——我认为几乎任何人都能从沃伦在伯克希尔的成就中吸取这些教训。有趣的是,你就算去顶尖商学院,也没有人在研究和教授沃伦所做到的事情。硬科学里没什么疯狂的东西,但一旦进入软科学和人文学科,就有很多荒谬之处,甚至包括经济学这样的领域。疯狂的人会挑选像自己一样的人来做教授同事。这又回到了阿尔弗雷德·诺思·怀特海所说的:学科之间致命的彼此隔绝。当人们试图为他们的学科招募博士生时——结果往往很糟糕。
另一方面,如果你足够明智,能成为一个心智成熟的人,你就能轻松超越比你聪明的人。只需从所有学科中汲取关键思想,而不仅仅是少数几门,你就会比他们明智得多。不过,这并非什么巨大的社交优势,正如我可以从早期查理·芒格的经历告诉你的那样。遇见某个领域的伟大专家却把他看成畸形儿,并不是一种成功的社交技巧。我年轻时挨过不少教训。你可以说我是被迫进入投资领域的。这个世界通常不会因为你在别人的专业领域纠正他们而奖励你。
会计是一门崇高的职业。它起源于意大利北部,从威尼斯向外传播,并成为标准会计教科书的一部分。那些在会计领域高举火炬的人从事着崇高的职业,然而这些人也给我们带来了安然。你可以走进一家疯人院,那都比安然要好,但会计师们却给安然开了绿灯。所以,这其中存在缺陷。我和会计领域的一位领军人物交谈过,我说让公司按照自己的模型来标记奇怪的东西是没有道理的——这会导致灾难。她像看疯子一样看着我,问道:“难道你不是支持会计中最新的数据吗?我的系统更新,因此应该更好。”这种思维在智商测试中会得高分,但几乎无法剔除垃圾信息。
有两个因素在相互作用:a)你需要及时性;b)你需要建立一个体系,在这个体系中,人类即便有作假的动机,也很难作弊或自欺欺人。如果你不能完美地权衡这两件事的相对重要性,那你就是个笨蛋,根本不配制定会计准则。
如果你进入人文学科,你会发现教育并没有达到应有的水平。我希望我能再活两三辈子,其中一辈子可以用来改革大学。大学有很多好的方面,但也有许多极其糟糕的地方,而且在我离开大学后的 65 年里,这些糟糕之处只有微小的改善。
你可以说,别人的功能紊乱对我而言是一种优势。事情就是这样。这其实也是你们所有人来这里的原因。你们都希望通过理性,从生活中得到比应得的更多——谁不想呢?
-3-276- reminds me of the joke about Irish Alzheimer’s: when you’ve forgotten everything but the grudges. So this is a lesson for you to draw on – and I think almost anybody can draw those lessons from Warren’s achievement at Berkshire. The interesting thing is you could go to the top business schools and none are studying and teaching what Warren has done. There’s nothing nutty in the hard sciences, but if you get into the soft sciences and the liberal arts, there’s a lot of nuttiness, even in things like economics. Nutty people pick people like themselves to be fellow professors. It gets back to what Alfred North Whitehead talked about: the fatal unconnectedness of academic disciplines. When people are trying to recruit people to be PhDs in their subjects – the results are often poor. On the other hand, if you have enough sense to become a mental adult yourself, you can run rings around people smarter than you. Just pick up key ideas from all the disciplines, not just a few, and you’re immensely wiser than they are. This is not a great social advantage, however, as I can tell you from experience of the early Charlie Munger. To meet a great expert in a field and regard him as a malformed child is not a winning social grace. I got a lot of hard knocks when I was young. You could say I was forced into investing. The world will not ordinarily reward you for correcting other people in their area of expertise. Accounting is a noble profession. It came out of Northern Italy, Venice, spread, and became part of standard accounting textbooks. The people who carry the torch in accounting are in a noble profession, yet these people also gave us Enron. You could have walked into an insane asylum, which was better than Enron, and yet accountants blessed it. So there are defects. I talked to a leading person in the accounting field and said it didn’t make sense to let companies mark weird stuff to their own models – that it would lead to disaster. She looked at me like I was out of my mind and asked, “Aren’t you for the most current data in accounting? My system is more current and therefore should be better.” This mind would score highly on an IQ test, but is scarcely able to throw out the garbage. There are two factors in interplay a) you need currency and b) you need to set up a system in which it’s not easy for human beings to cheat or delude themselves, despite the presence of incentives to do so. If you can’t perfectly weigh the relative importance of these two things in contrast, you’re a horse’s patoot and not qualified to set accounting standards. If you go into liberal arts, you’ll find that education isn’t as good as it should be. I wish I had two or three more lives to live, one of which I could devote to fixing colleges. There is much that is good, but much that is utterly awful and only slightly improved in the 65 years since I left it. You could say that the dysfunction of others has been an advantage to me. That’s the way it is. That’s really why you’re all here. You all want to get more than you deserve out of life by being rational – who doesn’t?
-4-277-
-4-277-
此外,人生中一大乐事就是被他人充分信任。我的一个孩子是个电脑迷,学校让他可以访问整个学校的电脑系统,这种极度的信任让他欣喜若狂。如果你的朋友愿意在身后把孩子托付给你,说明你做对了。被人信任的感觉妙不可言。有些人认为,只要我们有更多的合规检查和流程,美德就能最大化。在伯克希尔,我们的流程远低于正常水平。我们努力在一种无缝的信任网络、值得拥有的信任中运营,并且谨慎选择我们接纳的人。梅奥诊所就是这么做的。想象一下如果他们不这样,大多数病人都会死掉。
好了,我已经尽可能满足了自己做一番即兴发言的兴致。
Also, an enormous pleasure in life is to be rightly trusted. One of my kids was a computer nerd and his school gave him access to the entire school computer system. He was exultant by the extreme trust. If your friends are asking you to raise their children if they die, you’re doing something right. It’s wonderful to be trusted. Some think if we just had more compliance checks and process, virtue would be maximized. At Berkshire, we have subnormal process. We try to operate in a web of seamless trust, deserved trust, and try to be careful whom we let in. They act like this at the Mayo Clinic. Imagine if they didn’t. Most patients would die. Well, I’ve fulfilled as much as I have a stomach for in making some unscripted comments.
-5-278-
-5-278-
问答环节
[以下笔记按主题整理,并非按提问顺序排列]
关于伯克希尔·哈撒韦和西科金融的评论
对伯克希尔的评论
芒格家族在伯克希尔有接近 20 亿美元的投资,所以有人想过这是否是个好主意。答案是,我非常愿意持有这个头寸,并希望我的家人在很长一段时间内持有其中绝大部分。他们不会像我那样,从很小的起点把这笔头寸做到现在的规模,但他们也不需要我当年取得的那种结果。
伯克希尔是一家声誉极好的公司,充满了价值观正确的人。如果你的期望适中,又喜欢晚上睡得安稳,相比其他股票,把钱放在这里也不算差。如果你需要未来很多年每年 30% 的复利增长,那我们的股票不适合你。相比你能买到的其他股票,它还不错,并且在沃伦和我离开很久之后也会一直不错。
我刚和乔·布兰登吃了早饭。通用再保险真是个很棒的地方。乔对我说,凭借 110 亿美元的净资产和伯克希尔的名声与声誉,他们有很多好选择。只要坚守信念,他们应该能做得不错。
我们应该没问题。伯克希尔到处都是有可能做得不错的地方。
就像我之前说过的那样,如果你得到了沃伦·巴菲特 40 年,然后那家伙终于死了,你其实没资格抱怨。[笑声]
伯克希尔 vs. 西科股票
这让我处境很尴尬。事实是,伯克希尔的业务运作要好得多。首先,那家伙[巴菲特] 76 岁了。势头要好得多。伯克希尔的这种优势还在扩大。要不是因为有你们这样的人,我们早就避免这种重复了。你们把西科的股价炒得那么高,以至于如果我们把西科并入伯克希尔,我们付出的会比得到的更多。所以是你们这样的人要负责。
但我喜欢你们这些人。这是一种后天习得的品位。[笑声]
你更倾向于买入伯克希尔还是西科的股票?
伯克希尔买入的速度稍微快一些。这两家公司从未走过同一条路。它们有不同的报告要求。我们一公布,像你们这样的人就会跟着进来。有时候[是伯克希尔还是西科在买入]是碰巧发生的
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD [My notes here are organized by topic, not the order in which the questions were asked.] COMMENTS RELATED TO BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY AND WESCO Comments on Berkshire The Munger family has the better part of $2 billion in Berkshire, so there has been some thought as to whether this is a good idea. The answer is that I’m quite content to hold that position and I hope my family members will hold an overwhelming amount of that for a long time. They won’t have the same kind of results that I have had getting the position to its present size from small beginnings, but they don’t need the kind of results I got. Berkshire’s a very reputable place, full of the right kind of people with the right kind of values. If your expectations are moderate and you like to sleep well at night, it’s not a bad place to have your money compared to other stocks. If what you need is 30% compounded for years into the future, our stock is not for you. Compared to the other stocks available to you, it’s OK and will stay OK long after Warren and I are gone. I just had breakfast with Joe Brandon. Gen Re is a hell of a good place. Joe said to me that with $11 billion of net worth and Berkshire’s name and reputation, they have lots of desirable options. They ought to do all right if they keep the faith. We ought to be alright. Berkshire is full of places that are likely to be alright. As I said on an earlier occasion, if you get Warren Buffett for 40 years and the bastard finally dies on you, you don’t really have a right to complain. [Laughter] Berkshire vs. Wesco stock It’s been very awkward in my position. The truth of the matter is that Berkshire is a better business operation by far. First of all, the guy there [Buffett] is 76. The momentums are way better. That advantage of Berkshire has increased. We would have long ago avoided this duplication except for people like you. You bid Wesco so high that we’d be giving more than we’d be getting if we merged Wesco into Berkshire. So people like you are responsible. But I like you guys. It’s an acquired taste. [Laughter] Do you prefer to buy equities in Berkshire or Wesco? Berkshire has bought somewhat faster. The two companies have never followed the same path. They have different reporting requirements. As soon as we announce, people like you follow us in. Sometimes it [whether Berkshire or Wesco buys] happens by
我们对此类兼并活动基本不感兴趣。
一般来说,近年我们对股票的态度并不十分热情。但我们认为优质股票比债券更有吸引力。在这两家公司里,我们都在继续增持股票。
伯克希尔体量带来的约束
我们受到了极大的制约。即便是在一家大型公司的主要市场中,也很难大规模买入股票。这是(我们的)财富带来的难题。我希望这个问题越来越严重。(笑声)我们无法摆脱这个困境。沃伦偶尔会购买衍生品。我不喜欢某些衍生品的会计处理方式,但这并不代表我们不会持有它们。有时它们会被错误定价。
看看我们最近买的 15 笔资产——它们表现不错,但我们的规模太大,以至于没能花掉我们想花的钱。这不会让人流泪。真正可能让人流泪的是,我们不得不接受比过去更低的投资回报预期。沃伦说过,伯克希尔的投资组合每年会比市场平均水平高出约两个百分点。但这并不意味着我们除了购买大量证券之外就找不到其他事情可做。
我始终看好前景。伯克希尔是一个了不起的地方。
伯克希尔会不会有一天派发多余资本?
伯克希尔极不可能大规模分配你们所说的“多余资本”,不过如果我们对用每 1 美元留存收益为股东创造超过 1 美元市值这件事失去信心,我们会开始考虑这类措施。
真正应该考虑这件事的实体是西科金融。它拥有大量资本,资本利得税处于历史低位,而且我们的前景不如伯克希尔。但你们这些“粉丝团”成员让这件事变得很难做,因为你们不断把它的股价抬升至内在价值之上。任何想退出的人都可以在内在价值之上卖出。你们这些持股的人希望我们能(用每 1 美元留存收益)创造超过 1 美元的价值,我也希望我们能做到这一点,尽管我们不会像伯克希尔做得那么好。
如果我们认为大多数股东希望西科金融分配资本,我们会以快得让你头晕的速度去做。请告诉我们。我认为大多数股东并不希望我们这样做,因为他们是“粉丝团”成员。除非出现某些非常不寻常的情况,否则我认为我们不会这样做。
能告诉我们您希望谁来担任伯克希尔的 CIO 吗?
我们不想要那些想向我们学习的人——不是说这种事还没发生过。我们想要一个足够年轻、能长期任职的人——如果跟着沃伦能成功,为什么不试着再找一个人来延续这种长期成功呢?我们处于非常有利的位置,可以安排一些人来做这件事,并观察他们几年。在沃伦之前,我们从未考虑过这样做。
-6-279- accident. Generally, we haven’t been terribly enthusiastic about equities in recent periods. But we like the best equities better than we like bonds. In both companies we’re buying more equities. Constraints of Berkshire’s size We’re horribly constrained. It’s hard to buy in quantity, even in a large company in a major market. It’s a problem of [our] wealth. I hope that problem gets worse and worse. [Laughter] We don’t have a way out of this problem. Warren occasionally buys derivatives. Just because I don’t like the accounting for some of them doesn’t mean we won’t own them. Sometimes they’re mispriced. Look at the last 15 things we’ve bought – they’ve worked out well, but we have so much size that we haven’t spent what we wanted. This won’t bring tears. What may bring tears is that we’re settling for lesser prospects than we did. Warren said Berkshire’s portfolio will outperform the markets by about two percentage points per annum. That doesn’t mean we don’t find other things to do other than buy a big portfolio of securities. I’m continuously bullish. Berkshire is a great place. Will Berkshire ever pay out its excess capital? It’s very unlikely that Berkshire will be making large distributions of what you call excess capital, though we would start thinking about such things if we ever got discouraged at turning each retained dollar into more than one dollar of market value for shareholders. The entity that should be thinking about this is Wesco. It has a lot of capital, capital gains taxes are at all-time low, and we don’t have the same prospects as Berkshire, but you cult members make that hard to do because you keep bidding up its shares above intrinsic value. Anyone who wants to leave can sell above intrinsic value. Those of you holding the stock hope we can create more than $1 of value [with each dollar of our retained earnings], and I’m hopeful we can do this, though we won’t do as well as Berkshire. If we thought most shareholders wanted Wesco to distribute capital, we’d do it so fast it would make your head spin. Let us know. I don’t think most shareholders want us to do it because they’re members of the cult. I don’t think we will unless there’s some very unusual development. Can you tell us about the person you want for Berkshire’s CIO? We don’t want people who want to learn from us – not that that hasn’t already happened. We want someone young enough to have a long run – if it worked with Warren, why not try to get another long run going? We are perfectly positioned to set up some people doing this and watch them for a few years. We never considered doing this until Warren
-7-280- 是 75 岁,但现在他年纪大了,我们确实考虑了。我们喜欢一种非常独特的思维方式。被选中的人不会看起来像标准人选。显然,我们希望能找到那种让我们想起沃伦的人。
[针对同一个话题的第二个提问]
我们正在寻找几个人,让他们管理几年资金,希望其中一两个能成长为下一个沃伦。他们可以是独立管理自己资金的基金经理。卢·辛普森 为我们管理几十亿美元,他可以在任何他想住的地方生活,按自己的方式操作。再多几个卢·辛普森 式的人物,是很有道理的。
收购整个公司的决策由谁来做?
(伯克希尔的)独立子公司可以收购适合它们的公司。收购规模较大的时候,他们通常会跟沃伦 沟通,但很多时候他们不沟通,沃伦也从不否决。
我们现在没有首席投资官。收购整个企业的问题,可能更多由首席执行官承担,而不是由管理股票组合和有价证券的经理承担。只要是伯克希尔有可用人才的地方,我们就会用。我们没有那种军事化的死板。
巴菲特越老越出色
沃伦 实际上还在进步。我知道这很难相信,但他处在一个在他这个年纪依然能够进步的领域。
你能想象早年的沃伦 敢在外汇交易中押注几十亿美元,并赚回几十亿吗?他还做了几笔衍生品交易。沃伦 一直在学习。总有一天会到顶峰,但我认为顶峰还在前面,不在后面。
董事会在伯克希尔扮演什么角色?
董事会是一个安全阀,以防我完全疯掉而沃伦 又不管不问。(笑声)他们都是杰出人士。我们按规定必须有一个由独立董事组成的董事会,既然我们必须有一个这样的董事会,那我们觉得不如把它弄好。
(他在这里停顿了一下,显然在犹豫要不要接着往下说:)如果我们被允许不设董事会,我们会设吗?不,我们不会设董事会。(笑声)
你卖出白银仓位,是因为所罗门危机而卖得太早了吗?
我们买入(白银仓位)太早,卖出也太早,不过除此之外,这是一笔完美的投资。这完全是自愿行为,跟所罗门毫无关系。
对所罗门危机的评论
-7-280- was 75, but now that he’s older, we have. We like a very peculiar mindset. People chosen won’t look like standard people. Obviously, we’d like to try to get somebody that reminds us of Warren. [In response to a second question on this topic] We’re looking for a few people to manage money for a few years, hoping that one or more of them turn into the next Warren. They can be independent money managers doing their own thing. Lou Simpson manages a few billion for us and he can live wherever he wants and operates as he chooses. It makes sense to have a few more Lou Simpsons. Who will make the decisions on buying entire companies? The independent subsidiaries [of Berkshire] can acquire companies that fit. They usually check with Warren on the big ones, but they often don’t and he never says no. We have no CIO now. The question of who would acquire whole businesses might fall more to CEO than to the manager of a portfolio and marketable securities. Wherever Berkshire has useful talent, it will use it. We don’t have any military-type rigidity. Buffett’s getting better with age Warren is actually still improving. I know it’s hard to believe, but he’s in a field where one can actually improve at Warren’s age. Can you imagine the early Warren risking billions in a currency trade and making a couple of billion? He has also made a couple of derivative trades. Warren keeps learning. There has to be a crest to this someday, but I think it’s ahead, not behind. What role does the board of directors play at Berkshire? The board is a safety valve in case I go completely crazy and Warren doesn’t do anything about it. [Laughter] They are eminent people. We’re required to have a board with independent directors and since we’re required to have such a board, we figured we might as well have a good one. [He paused here, apparently debating whether to add the following:] Would we have had a board if we were allowed not to have one? No, we wouldn’t have a board. [Laughter] Did you sell your silver position too early because of the Salomon crisis? We bought it [our silver position] too soon and sold it too soon, but other than that it was the perfect investment. It was all totally voluntary and had nothing to do with Salomon. Comments on the Salomon crisis
-8-281-
-8-281-
那天真正耐人寻味的一幕在于——要不是财政部长 尼克·布雷迪 推翻了政府暂停所罗门参与国债拍卖的决定,这件事引发的连锁反应,会让长期资本管理公司的崩盘都显得不值一提。尼克·布雷迪的家族原本是伯克希尔的最早股东之一,但在沃伦接手前就卖光了。尼克敏锐地意识到新英格兰纺织业必死无疑,卖掉了家族所有的伯克希尔股票。而他的一位表亲一直持有到沃伦接手之后。正是因为这步正确的决策,家族的一支从此享受了“合奏效应”的丰硕果实。
正因如此,尼克对沃伦知根知底,我觉得他是信任沃伦的。在那个决定命运的星期天下午的电话里,沃伦的声音里有一丝哽咽。面对一个如果判断错误就会带来灾难性后果的决定,当尼克听到沃伦声音里的哽咽时,他明白了沃伦有多担忧,于是当沃伦说他需要政府收回已公布的拍卖决定时,尼克选择相信他。
人生在世,拥有一个好名声能带来超乎寻常的好结果,这不单单对沃伦如此。如果所罗门垮了,对伯克希尔来说还不算大麻烦,但对整个国家、对沃伦本人,那将是灭顶之灾。
关于保险业务和道德底线的看法
我不认为保险业务对大多数人来说会有多好。我们的表现会远超同行,因为我们有优秀的人才。我年轻的时候,可能根本就不会尝试进入这个行业。这就像一个玩牛奶瓶的杂耍演员,最后要同时抛接十个瓶子。不知不觉间,伯克希尔就拥有了十家保险企业。芒格请通用再保险 CEO 乔·布兰登 发言,他说:“我们拥有全世界最好的保险业务组合。”芒格接着说:这个说法可能绝对正确。我们是逐渐摸索才走到这一步的,不是一夜之间就成的。如果你不是一台学习机器,这种事就不会发生。
我父亲有个朋友过去常说,人随着岁月流逝,其实还是那个人,只是更变本加厉了。某种程度上,我们也是这样。我们年轻时学到了很好的教训,所以变得越来越挑剔。我觉得我们从未因为拒绝赚那些容易钱——那些我们觉得有损身份的钱——而后悔过。
沃伦讲过一个收购 康伍德 公司的机会,它是嚼烟行业的第二名。我从来没见过比这更好的交易了,而且嚼烟不像吸烟那样带来同样的健康风险。所有管理层都嚼烟——他们能做到“吃自己的菜”,这很令人敬佩。我和沃伦坐下来商量,我们说这辈子不会再见到比这更好的交易了;产品是合法的;价格也极好;但我们不做这生意。
What was interesting about that day was that it would have had reverberations that would have made the Long Term Capital Management blow-up look like nothing if the Secretary of the Treasury, Nick Brady, hadn’t reversed the government’s decision to suspend Salomon from participating in government Treasury auctions. Nick Brady’s family was one of the original shareholders of Berkshire but sold out before Warren came on. Nick correctly recognized that the New England textile industry was doomed and sold all of the family’s Berkshire stock. His cousin held on until Warren came on and even after. By making this correct decision, one branch of the family benefited from lollapalooza effects. Because of this, Nick Brady knew all about Warren, and I think he trusted Warren. [During their phone call on that fateful Sunday afternoon,] there was a catch in Warren’s voice. Faced with a decision that would have had catastrophic impact had they made the wrong decision, but when Nick heard the catch in Warren’s voice, he realized how concerned Warren was and trusted him when he said he needed some reversal of an announced Treasury decision. Getting a good reputation in life can have remarkably favorable outcomes, and not just for Warren. If Salomon had gone under, it wouldn’t have been trouble for Berkshire but would have been terrible for the country and Warren. Views on the insurance business and ethical limits I don’t think the insurance business will be that great for most people in it. I think we will do way better. We have great people. When I was younger, I probably wouldn’t have even tried to get into the game. It’s like a juggler with milk bottles who ends up juggling ten. Before we knew it, Berkshire had 10 insurance businesses. [Munger asked Gen Re CEO Joe Brandon to comment and he said, “We have the best collection in the world.” Munger continued:] That may be an absolutely correct statement. We gradually learned our way into that position. It didn’t happen overnight. If you’re not a learning machine, it won’t happen. My father had a friend who used to say everyone’s the same over the years, only more so. To some extent we’re more so. We learned good lessons when we were young. We’ve been more selective. I don’t think we’ve ever regretted not making a lot of easy money when we decided it was beneath us. Warren told the story of the opportunity to buy Conwood, the #2 maker of chewing tobacco. I never saw a better deal, and chewing tobacco doesn’t create the same health risks as smoking. All of the managers chewed tobacco – it was admirable of them to eat their own cooking. Warren and I sat down, said we’re never going to see a better deal; it’s a legal product; and we can buy it at a wonderful price; but we’re not going to do it.
-9-282-
-9-282-
还有一个人,他用扫一眼就读懂了这个机会,轻轻松松赚了二十多亿美元。但我没有一丁点儿的遗憾。我认为有些事情你就是不该去做,因为那有失身份。
关于通用再保险的评论
乔·布兰登接手了一份不好干的差事。问题一大堆,他不得不做那些残酷、不讨喜的活儿,很多人都抗拒。但现在通用再保险已经大为改观了——事实上,我认为它现在的价值已经抵得上我们当初换购它时付出的伯克希尔股票。有一段时间我们可没这么确定——在乔做那些工作之前,有一段时期我们对此的信心远不如现在。
关于伊斯卡公司(ISCAR)的评论
这不是一只本杰明·格雷厄姆风格的股票——事实上,它堪称最“非本杰明·格雷厄姆”的股票。它位于以色列,离黎巴嫩边境只有几英里。公司的净资产收益率(ROE)很高,业务遍布全球,用一项专门技术生产硬质合金刀具。我之所以这么快就对它如此着迷,是因为那里的人实在太出色了。一想到能和他们一起共事,我就觉得值得为此竭尽全力。我们年轻时不知道哪些东西值得奋力追求,但等到我们接触伊斯卡时——我们年轻时绝不会买这样的公司——我们就知道该为正确的人去奋力争取了。这是一家了不起的企业。一切优势都摆在那里。我们能不断学习,这不是很好吗?迟做总比不做好。
伯克希尔对铁路的投资
铁路——这可是个我们改变想法的例子。沃伦和我这辈子一直都讨厌铁路行业。它们是资本密集型、工会势力强大、存在很多造工作量的僵化规则、受严格监管,而且长期在与卡车运输业的竞争中处于比较劣势——卡车运输业有非常高效的驱动方式(柴油引擎),还能免费使用公共道路。铁路长期以来一直是一桩糟糕的生意,对投资者来说也很差劲。
我们最终还是改变了想法并进行了投资。我们推翻了旧有的思维模式,但做得太晚了。我们本应两年前就这么做,但我们太蠢了,没在最理想的时机下手。有一句德国谚语说:人老得太快,聪明得太迟。我们就是聪明得太迟了。我们终于认识到,如今的铁路已经拥有了巨大的竞争优势:双层集装箱列车、计算机调度、从中国运来越来越多的产品等等。在很大一类业务领域里,铁路相比卡车拥有巨大优势。
比尔·盖茨比我们早好多年就看透了这一点——他投资了一家加拿大铁路公司,赚了 800%。也许应该让盖茨来管理伯克希尔的资金。(笑声)这是个很好的例子,说明改变一个人的想法和根深蒂固的思维有多难,但我们最终还是改变了。
世界变了,而我们——尽管慢得离谱——最终还是认识到了这一点。
Another fellow did and made a couple of billion easy dollars. But I don’t have an ounce of regret. I think there are a lot of things you shouldn’t do because it’s beneath you. Comments on Gen Re Joe Brandon has had a job with many unpleasant aspects. There were a lot of problems, he had to do brutal, unpleasant work, and many people resisted. But now Gen Re is enormously improved – in fact, I think it’s now worth the stock we gave to get it. There was a time we weren’t so sure – there was a time before Joe did his work where we weren’t as confident of that as we are now. Comments on Iscar It’s not a Ben Graham stock – in fact, it would be the ultimate non-Ben Graham stock. It’s located a few miles from the Lebanese border in Israel. It has a high ROE, doing business all over the earth, using a certain technology to produce carbide cutting tools. The reason I got so high on it so fast was that the people are so outstandingly talented. The idea of being in business with them just struck me worth straining for. We didn’t know when we were young which things to stretch for, but by the time we reached Iscar, which we never would have bought when we were young, we knew to stretch for the right people. It’s a hell of a business. Everything is right there. Isn’t it good that we keep learning? Better late than never. Berkshire’s investment in railroads Railroads – now that’s an example of changing our minds. Warren and I have hated railroads our entire life. They’re capital-intensive, heavily unionized, with some makework rules, heavily regulated, and long competed with a comparative disadvantage vs. the trucking industry, which has a very efficient method of propulsion (diesel engines) and uses free public roads. Railroads have long been a terrible business and have been lousy for investors. We did finally change our minds and invested. We threw out our paradigms, but did it too late. We should have done it two years ago, but we were too stupid to do it at the most ideal time. There’s a German saying: Man is too soon old and too late smart. We were too late smart. We finally realized that railroads now have a huge competitive advantage, with double stacked railcars, guided by computers, moving more and more production from China, etc. They have a big advantage over truckers in huge classes of business. Bill Gates figured this out years before us – he invested in a Canadian railroad and made eight hundred percent. Maybe Gates should manage Berkshire’s money. [Laughter] This is a good example of how hard it is to change one’s mind and change entrenched thinking, but at last we did change. The world changed and, way too slowly, we recognized this.
-10-283-
-10-283-
伯克希尔对浦项制铁(POSCO)的投资
我得说,浦项制铁做的根本不是普通商品生意——那是高科技生意。他们从新日铁(Nippon Steel)那里学来了技术,现在甚至更先进。我认为,如果你拥有全球技术最先进的钢铁公司,生产的是特殊、[非大宗商品] 的产品,那么这门生意可以长期保持相当可观的吸引力。
USG [伯克希尔持股公司] 是否应该发行股票来为最近的一笔收购融资?
我犹豫了一下,因为我在想是回避这个问题,还是给出正确回答。[笑声]
那是一件蠢事,但他们也没办法:有些人上过商学院。[笑声和掌声]
你为什么不出售精密钢铁公司(Precision Steel)?
我们有这样的性格特点:不会因为生意稍微难做就卖掉它。至于精密钢铁,它甚至可能还算体面的生意。我们的信条是:不和自己的公司玩金拉米纸牌游戏(gin rummy)。平均来看,这条信条让股东受益,因为人们愿意放心地把企业托付给我们,知道我们不会卖掉。精密钢铁有几个不错的小众市场。留着它,不构成什么大事。
你为什么买入特易购(Tesco)和强生(J&J)的股票?
通常我们不会说明买入原因。显然,我们认为它们是非常值得尊重的企业。一家是英国占主导地位的杂货零售商,强生在其领域拥有长期优异纪录之一。
这些只是组合中的证券。我们期望通过这些证券获得略微优于市场的表现。
西科金融的保证保险子公司
西科金融的保证保险子公司 [堪萨斯银行家保证保险公司(Kansas Bankers Surety)] 为小型银行提供保险。这是一项精彩的生意,因为它知道自己知道什么,也知道自己不知道什么。通过专注于特定领域,它做得很好。就像一个生态系统里的专家:占据一个微小但合适的生态位,并且做得很好。你只需要看看数字——年复一年的承保利润——就知道这是非常好的生意。我们有能力做出这些判断。
Berkshire’s investment in POSCO I would argue that what POSCO does is not a commodity business at all – it’s a high-tech business. They learned from Nippon Steel and they’re now even more advanced. I’d argue that if you have the most technologically advanced steel company in the world making unusual, [non-commodity] stuff, then business can be quite attractive for a long time. Should USG [a Berkshire holding] have issued stock to fund a recent acquisition? I’m hesitating because I’m trying to decide whether to duck that question or give the correct answer. [Laughter] That was a foolish thing to do, but they can’t help it: some of them went to business school. [Laughter and applause] Why don’t you sell Precision Steel? We have this personality that we don’t sell businesses because they’re a bit on the difficult side. As for Precision Steel, it might even be a decent business. It’s our catechism that we don’t play gin rummy with our businesses. And, averaged out, the catechism has benefited shareholders because people are willing to entrust us with their businesses that we won’t sell. At Precision Steel, there are a couple of good niche businesses. Holding on is a nonevent. Why did you buy stock in Tesco and J&J? Ordinarily we don’t go into reasons for buying things. Obviously, we think they’re very respectable enterprises. One is the dominant grocery retailer in England and J&J has one of the great long-term records in its field. These are just portfolio securities. We expect to moderately outperform the market with these securities. Wesco’s surety insurance subsidiary Wesco’s surety insurance subsidiary [Kansas Bankers Surety] insures small banks. That is a wonderful business because it knows what it knows and knows what it doesn’t know. By specializing in a particular area, it does well. It’s like a specialist in an ecosystem: it occupies a tiny niche and does it well. You just have to look at the numbers – underwriting profits year after year – to know it’s a very good business. We’re capable of making those decisions.
关于投资的建议
ADVICE ON INVESTING
-11-284-
-11-284-
价值投资正在变得更为广泛接受吗?
我认为我们的思维方式会越来越受欢迎。事实上,它现在已经比几十年前流行得多。当年我环顾这个会场,只有 20 个人。投资风格的日益流行并不会让你们所有人都更容易赚大钱。这么多聪明人相互竞争,会让赚钱更难,但这也不全是坏事:也许你们中有些人不得不换个方式赚钱,不再像我们这样,而更多像工程师那样。
有效市场
如果市场是有效的,这个帐篷就不会这么满。有些商学院教得不错,但世界是在另一种风气中成长起来的,那得到了当时学术界的鼓励。我们相信的东西很简单,很多人正因为其简单而回避它。他们想当专家。如果事情很简单,你怎么能当专家呢?
再说,执行起来很难——人们不喜欢失败。
整个机构奖励体系鼓励不同的行为和思考方式。如果你去一家大公司工作,你会一步一步往上爬。这是一个等级体系。没人关心怎么把事情做得更好。等你干了 10 到 15 年,你也会按他们的方式思考。沃伦就逃过了这种命运。
(西科金融董事会成员)彼得·考夫曼进入了一家企业(格莱奈尔公司),三十岁出头就当上了首席执行官,所以他当首席执行官已经很久了。那家公司的规模扩大了二十倍不止。这是一种伯克希尔式的经历,但这并不正常。正常的官僚体制不会奖励我们这种态度。
哪里有市场无效?
两个市场是无效的:非常小的市场(对拥有 1200 亿美元的伯克希尔来说用处不大),以及那些有疯狂的人在干疯狂事的市场,尤其是当他们卖东西的时候。时不时地,大型市场中也会出现一些定价疯狂错乱的证券。但毫无疑问,在小市场中有大量机会发现定价偏差。
中国股市是泡沫吗?
中国市场分为两部分:上海和香港。上海市场显示出一些严重过热的迹象,以目前的价格来看,我对那里交易的东西毫无兴趣。但中国市场的其他部分至少还值得关注。出于显而易见的原因,我们不评论个股。
对安迪·基尔帕特里克的评论
Is value investing becoming more widespread? I think our way of looking at things will become more popular. In fact, it already is a lot more popular than it was decades ago. I used to look out at this group and it was 20 people. The increased popularity of the investment style will not make it easier for all of you to make a lot of money. All these smart people competing will make it harder, but that’s not all a bad thing: maybe some of you will have to make money less the way we did and more the way some engineer does. Efficient markets If markets were efficient, this tent wouldn’t be so full. Some business schools are teaching properly, but the world grew up amidst a different fashion, encouraged by academics of the era. What we believe is simple, and many avoid it because of that simplicity. They want to be experts. And how can you be an expert if it’s simple? Also, execution is difficult – and people don’t like to fail. The whole institutional reward system encourages different behavior and thought. If you went to work at a big firm, you’d grind your way up. It’s a hierarchy. Nobody cares about how to do it better. And by the time you’d been there 10-15 years, you’d be thinking their way. This didn’t happen to Warren. [Wesco board member] Peter Kaufman came into a business [Glenair] and became the CEO in his early 30s, so he’s been the CEO a long time. The whole place is twenty or more times bigger. That’s a Berkshire experience, but that’s not normal. Normal bureaucracy doesn’t reward an attitude like ours. Where are there market inefficiencies? Two markets are inefficient: very small ones (which are not much use to Berkshire, with its $120 billion), and ones where crazy people are doing crazy things, especially if they’re selling. From time to time, the big markets have some crazily mispriced securities in them. But there’s no question that in small markets there’s a lot of opportunity to find mispricings. Is the Chinese stock market a bubble? The Chinese market is divided into two parts: Shanghai and Hong Kong. The Shanghai market shows some signs of gross excess and I have no interest in what’s traded there given prices at present. But there are other parts of the Chinese market that are at least interesting. We don’t comment on individual securities for obvious reasons. Comments on Andy Kilpatrick
-12-285-
-12-285-
我觉得他不是沃伦·巴菲特最狂热的粉丝,但他是最坚定的。安迪是通过《华盛顿邮报》的关系认识沃伦的,而且安迪的经历跟圣保罗在大马士革路上的遭遇如出一辙。安迪果断,他用保证金买进了所有能买到的伯克希尔股票,股价涨了,他又加仓,股价跌了,他就卖出刚好够用的部分。到最后,他变得相当富有。这一切只凭一个决策就做到了。
不仅彼得·考夫曼(《穷查理宝典》的作者),安迪也自费出版了他的书(《永恒价值:沃伦·巴菲特的故事》)。
还有很多人见过沃伦后说:“这土老帽儿到底是谁?”现在他们却不得不假装自己早就买了伯克希尔。
I don’t think he’s the greatest Warren Buffett fan, but he’s the most resolute. Andy met Warren through the Washington Post connection and Andy had the same experience that St. Paul had on the road to Damascus. Andy was decisive, he bought all the Berkshire stock he could on margin, it went up, he bought more, it went down and he sold just enough. In due course, became quite rich. He did this by making one decision. Not only Peter Kaufman [Poor Charlie’s Almanack], but Andy self-published his book [Of Permanent Value: The Story of Warren Buffett]. A lot of other people met Warren and said, “Who in the hell is this bumpkin?” Now they’ve had to pretend they bought Berkshire.
关于商业与经济话题的评论
对冲基金税率与财富集中
如果你在管理一家对冲基金,你交的税最低,比大学教授或出租车司机还低。这在某种程度上简直疯了。如果这种情况在不久的将来改变,我不会感到惊讶。
巨额财富集中在那些不创造、不发明任何东西的人手里。如果我们优秀的青年才俊放弃工程学去从事衍生品交易,制造这种新式英雄对我们的体制没有好处。这是税法中的怪诞现象在奖励这种行为,不过它很可能会改变。
如果你有一幅贾斯珀·约翰斯的画,这个世界就是为你准备的。这些对冲基金的人似乎都喜欢贾斯珀·约翰斯的画,如果你去年赚了 17 亿美元,花 1.2 亿美元又算什么呢?这就是我们生活的世界,你不得不承认它非常有趣。
次贷与评级机构
评级机构赚得盆满钵满,而最可能让它们难堪的就是次贷证券。总体而言,它们做得不错,而且事后诸葛亮总能发现遗漏之处。我不认为它们会遭遇巨大困境。如果你想找些东西来指责,评级机构远不是首先该被指责的对象。
你可能会指责许多次贷贷款的发起人。他们是我们这个社会所能制造出的最令人厌恶的一类人,其中很多人该下地狱的最底层。总会有这种人,靠误导别人来赚钱。你总能碰到抵押贷款经纪行业里那些最恶劣的佣金销售员。但这并不是真正的悲剧。
COMMENTS ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC MATTERS Tax rate for hedge funds and the concentration of wealth If you’re running a hedge fund, you’re paying the lowest taxes, lower than a college professor or a taxi driver. This is madness of a sort. It would not surprise me if this changed in the near future. There’s an enormous concentration of wealth in people who don’t make or invent anything. It can’t be good for our system to create this new kind of hero if our graduating brilliant young give up engineering to go into trading derivatives. This is rewarded by a peculiarity in the tax code, but it’ll probably change. If you have a Jasper Johns painting, this is the world for you. These hedge fund guys seem to like Jasper Johns paintings and what’s $120 million if you made $1.7 billion last year? That’s the world that we live in and you gotta admit it’s very interesting. Subprime and the rating agencies The rating agencies have prospered mightily, and their most likely source of embarrassment is subprime paper. Overall, they do a good job, and you always miss things with the benefit of hindsight. I would not predict they encounter great distress. If you want to pick things to disapprove of, the rating agencies would be far down on the list. You might pick many originators of the subprime mortgages. They are some of the most disgusting people we’ve been able to produce, and many of them belong in the lowest circle of hell. There will always be such people, making money by misleading people. You’ll always get people like the worst commissioned salespeople in the mortgage brokerage business. This isn’t the real tragedy.
-13-286-
-13-286-
真正的悲剧在于华尔街金融机构的高层,他们只问自己能不能卖,从不管该不该卖。他们既违背了工程原则,也践踏了道德准则。
给值得帮助的穷人发放贷款本身没错。有人工作努力等等,哪怕你给他 90% 甚至 100% 的贷款,他也会还。发放这样的贷款行之有效,对国家和我们都有好处。
可如果你去找那些不值得帮、不诚实、贪婪成性、对自己应得权利抱着愚蠢看法的人——如果你给他们虚假的贷款,让他们能多喝酒、多赌博——那就等于在地板上倒汽油,再划一根火柴扔上去。我要说,在美国非常高的位置上,光说这是愚蠢还不够。这叫罪恶般的愚蠢。
这么多恶劣行为涌现出来,真是悲哀,都源于自私的偏见。因为他们做这些事来钱容易,就给自己找到了合理的借口。
密歇根大学音乐学院的迪安·肯德尔院长讲过这么一个故事:“我小时候,负责经营一家小零售店,店里卖糖果。我父亲看到我拿了一块糖果吃。我说,‘别担心,我会补回去的。’父亲说,‘这种想法会毁了你。你不如索性想拿多少就拿多少,每次拿的时候管自己叫贼。’”
这是个好故事,美国商界高层需要更多像迪安·肯德尔这样的人。贪婪和嫉妒造成了太多麻烦。你在次级贷款领域看到的那些滥用行为,多半都源于此。
我们曾经知道该怎么做。针对值得帮助的穷人的次级贷款曾经很管用,但平均主义和各种偏见导致了一团糟。
美元持续贬值为什么没有引发通胀加剧?
美元贬值得一塌糊涂,可 Costco(芒格是董事会成员)的商品价格很多很多年都没有通胀迹象。这是个好问题。很多经济学教授会说这不可能发生,但它确实发生了。这很重要。现在出现了一系列不同寻常的情况。我很容易告诉你这事很重要。但究竟如何重要——如果我能讲清楚,我就不配坐在这里了。答案是,我不知道。
私募股权行业是不是有一种趋势?
当然有趋势。杠杆收购基金越来越大,收购的企业也越来越大,所以这是一个巨大的趋势。
这和伯克希尔的生活方式不同。我们几乎从不卖出——我们不想那样做。我们不想跟朋友玩金拉米牌,扔掉五家企业再买进五家新的。我们买来不是为了转卖。
The real tragedy is the people higher up at the Wall Street banks who only asked if they could sell it, not if they should do it. They violated engineering principles and ethical principles. There’s nothing wrong with giving a mortgage to the deserving poor. Here’s a guy who’s working hard, etc., and even if you give him a 90% or 100% mortgage, he’ll pay it. Making such loans worked and was good for us and the nation. But if you look for the undeserving, dishonorable, addicted people with silly views on their own entitlement – if you start giving them phony mortgages so they can drink more, gamble more – it’s like pouring gasoline on the floor and throwing a match. I would argue that in very high places in America, it’s not enough to call it folly. It’s sin-folly. It’s sad that that much terrible behavior came in, due to the self-serving bias. Because they made easy money doing it, they rationalized it. Dean Kendall of the University of Michigan music school once told a story: “When I was a little boy, I was put in charge of a little retail operation that included candy. My father saw me take a piece of candy and eat it. I said, “Don’t worry. I intend to replace it.” My father said, “That sort of thinking will ruin your mind. It will be much better for you if you take all you want and call yourself a thief every time you do it.” It’s a good story and we need more Dean Kendalls in the high reaches of American business. This and envy cause so much trouble. They account for so much of what you see in the abuses of the subprime field. We knew how to do it once. The subprime for the deserving poor worked, but egalitarianism and biases led to a big mess. Why hasn’t the declining dollar led to increased inflation? The dollar’s been going down like crazy, but the prices at Costco [Munger’s on the board] have shown no inflation for many, many, many years. It’s a good question. A lot of economics professors would say it couldn’t happen, but it did. It’s very important. There’s been an unusual set of circumstances. It’s easy for me to tell you it matters. But how it matters – if I were able to do that, I wouldn’t be qualified to sit here. The answer is, I don’t know. Is there a trend in the private equity business? Of course there’s a trend. The LBO funds get larger and larger and buy larger and larger businesses, so it’s a huge trend. It’s a different lifestyle than Berkshire’s. We almost never sell – we don’t want to do that. We don’t want to play gin rummy with our friends, dumping five businesses and getting five new ones. We aren’t buying to resell.
-14-287-
-14-287-
加杠杆的股权投资者群体正变得越来越庞大。问题在于,捐赠基金和养老金计划开始相信童话故事里的牙仙。随着资产价格被抬高,它们从股票和债券等常规投资中获得的回报已经不够了。这时候,花言巧语的人出现了,说你们不必忍受低回报。把钱交给我们,我们会加杠杆,付给我们丰厚的报酬,然后给你们 15% 的回报,而不是 5%。这确实有效——虽然没有声称的那么好;统计数据的使用也值得怀疑——但对那些做得好的人来说,是有效的。
接着,嫉妒情绪蔓延整个行业。耶鲁无法忍受哈佛赚得更多。嫉妒是一个巨大的驱动力,尽管很少有人承认。在我一生中,从没听人说过,“查理,我这么做是出于嫉妒。”
在风投领域,除了顶层的少数几家公司,回报都很糟糕。这种情况最终也会发生在杠杆收购(LBO)公司身上。上帝并没有决定,任何想要 15% 回报率的人就一定能得到。
你作为主席的这家医院是如何管理投资的?
我担任主席的这家非营利医院真的是非营利性的。它在好年份亏损得厉害,已经够尴尬了,坏年份更糟。鉴于我们运营的现实条件,我们把所有资金都放在短期工具里。我们的全部资产都需要保持流动性储备。
我倒是希望有一家医院,我最大的问题是如何处理盈余,但这并非我的命数。
我不认为医院的投资需求与其他机构有什么不同。投资流程也不应有什么区别。
请评论联合健康集团(UnitedHealth)、其首席执行官以及期权回溯丑闻。
除了说那是非常令人遗憾的行为,很难再说什么。那个人丢了工作,他活该。
对律师的看法
律师的标准思维方式是权衡双方。这有强制性的客观性,也有程序性体系。这是巨大的优势。所以,如果你说的法律实务是指这个,那是好事,但也有很多不好的地方,很多已经偏离了正道。账单费用在开庭前就耗尽争议金额的情况一点也不罕见。如果你作为律师这样做,那真是一片道德雷区。
法律行业吸引了大量聪明、善于用语言和数据表达自己的人。许多好人从法学院走出来,因为很多好人走进去。但法学院教的很多东西纯属笑话。
The leveraged equity crowd is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. What’s happened is endowments and pension plans are believing in the tooth fairy. With assets being bid up, they’re not getting enough return from ordinary investments from stocks and bonds. Then silver-tongued people came along and said you don’t have to suffer low returns. Give us the money, we’ll lever up, pay us a lot of compensation and we will give you 15% not 5%. It’s worked – not as well as claimed; there’s dubious use of statistics – but for good shops, it works. Then, a lot of envy sweeps the field. Yale can’t stand Harvard making more. Envy is a huge motivator, though it’s seldom admitted. In my whole life, I’ve never had someone say, “Charlie, I’m doing this out of envy.” In venture capital, except for a handful of firms at the top, the returns are lousy. This will eventually happen to the LBO firms as well. God has not decided that anyone who wants 15% can get it. How do you invest the funds of the hospital you’re chairman of? The nonprofit hospital of which I am the chair is really nonprofit. It loses so much money in a good year it’s awkward and a bad year is something awful. Given the conditions under which we labor, we leave all money in short-term instruments. We need all our assets in a liquid reserve. I’d like to have a hospital where my biggest problem is what to do with the surplus, but that has not been my lot in life. I don’t think hospitals have different investment needs than other places. I don’t think the investment process would be any different. Comment on UnitedHealth, its CEO and the options backdating scandal there It’s hard to say anything but that that was very regrettable behavior. The man lost his job and he deserved to. View of lawyers The standard way lawyers think is to weigh both sides. There’s forced objectivity and a procedural system. That’s a huge plus. So if that’s what you’re talking about regarding law practice, that’s good, but there’s a lot that’s not good, a lot that’s drifted away. It’s not at all uncommon that billing rates will exhaust the amount in dispute before you get to trial. If you’re doing this as a lawyer, that’s a moral minefield. The legal profession attracts a lot of smart people who can express themselves well in words and numbers. There are many good people coming out because many good people are going in. Yet much of what law schools do is a joke.
-15-288-
-15-288-
对投资银行家的看法
在所罗门公司,我们曾问过:“你们那份列着‘因为掉价所以不做’的清单在哪?”我们从没见过。嫉妒和贪婪会让人几乎什么都干得出来,只要看起来有利可图,而且不需要动用机枪。我年轻的时候,投资银行家的水准更高。他们过去很在意交易的质量——非常在意。道德水准衰减得很厉害。这可不是好事。
这种堕落会成为社会科学一个有趣的研究课题。你得懂心理学——对个人来说,很难去研究。为什么说正道是投资银行业的最佳路径?因为那条路上不太拥挤。(笑声)
保护主义可能抬头
很难预测会不会出现大量保护主义。目前,一波又一波的进口正在改变世界。一些普通人日子变得更艰难,觉得中国在压迫他们。
View of investment bankers At Salomon we asked, “Where is the list of things you won’t do because they’re beneath you?” We never saw it. Envy and greed lead people to doing almost anything that looks profitable and does not require use of a machine gun. Investment bankers were better when I was young. They used to care about the quality of deals – they cared a lot. Ethics attenuated a lot. This was not good. The deterioration would be an interesting subject for social science. You’d have to understand psychology – it would be very difficult for somebody to do it. Why is the high road the best way in investment banking? It’s not very crowded. [Laughter] The possible rise of protectionism It’s hard to predict if there will be a lot of protectionism. At the current time, a flood of imports is changing the world. Some ordinary guys are having a tougher time and feel that China is oppressing them.
思维模型
使用检查清单
我坚信要用检查清单来解决难题。你得把所有可能和不太可能的答案都摆在面前,否则很容易遗漏重要的事情。
用更优的思维脱颖而出
[提到芒格在开场白中说的“我这辈子至少有三次跨进了别的领域,并且成功了”。我问是哪三次,他回答说:]
前两次容易说:房地产开发和资金管理。第三次我没法说把当地玩家打得落花流水,所以不想谈。[笑声]
能举一个放弃根深蒂固的想法的例子吗?
尽管我痴迷于抛弃错误观念、抓住成功思路,但让我举近期的例子却很难。当然,我对某些人的失望感不断加深,这种事似乎一直在发生。从这个意义上说,我好像一直在学很多东西。很多想法我早就丢弃了,所以剩下没多少了。
MENTAL MODELS Using mental checklists I’m a great believer in solving hard problems by using a checklist. You need to get all the likely and unlikely answers before you; otherwise it’s easy to miss something important. Using superior thinking to get ahead [Referring to his opening remarks in which Munger said “At least three times in my life, I’ve gone into the other field and succeeded.” I asked what those three times were. He replied:] The first two are easy: real estate development and managing money. I can’t claim to have clobbered the locals in the third, so I don’t want to talk about it. [Laughter] Can you give an example of giving up a closely held idea? Even as fanatical as I am about throwing away a wrong idea and grasping a successful one, I have a hard time coming up with a recent example. Certainly I’ve become way more disenchanted with certain people and that seems to happen all the time. In that sense, I seem to keep learning a lot. I’ve discarded so many ideas long ago that I don’t have many left.
-16-289-
-16-289-
当你勉强躲过一劫——要是没躲开就会惹上大麻烦——这种时候,你就是在用清单,哪怕自己没意识到。
我在回答自己能答的问题,不是你问的那个。
我反过来想:我试着找出自己不喜欢什么,然后避开它。这对我有奇效。
你最喜欢的人类误判是什么?
我最喜欢的人类误判是利己偏好:大脑会下意识地认为,对自己有利的,对别人也有利。如果小小的我想要什么,为什么小小的我不能拥有?很多人一辈子就这样过。
我这辈子一直低估了这个现象。人们为了自己的利益简直是疯了。那是一片认知错乱的海洋。写法律的人、治疗病人的人、拿老鼠做实验的人,都深受这种偏见的毒害。
对法律研究而言,心理学研究几乎是最重要的,但却是个禁忌。你会看到许多法学院全优生,在应对利己偏好时却搞得一团糟。
我想说,现在世界银行的行长[保罗·沃尔福威茨]面临过一个基本问题:作为行长,很多人讨厌你,那你得多聪明才能跟同居女友大幅加薪这件事撇清关系?他把这事交给了律师,律师们支支吾吾,他就失了分寸。连小孩都不该犯这种明显的错误。同样,我猜克林顿总统如果在某些问题上更有洞察力,他的政绩会更好。注意,我特意从两党各挑了一个人。[笑声]
世间的荒谬
有一次我问一个医生,既然有了更好的新手术方法,为什么他还在做落后的白内障手术。他说:“因为教起来太棒了!”他只在病人用脚投票时才会改变。而这是在一所顶尖的医学院!
认知错乱实在太多。如果你能避开所有大的蠢事,你会惊讶自己做得有多好。世间充满了荒谬。谁会放弃自己擅长又喜欢做的手术?执着于自己最熟练的事情,这是人之常情。这种事连物理学界都有。很多人抱住坏主意不放。如果世界上最聪明的人都这么做,那其他人可想而知。
如果你能训练自己不做这种事,你就会远远领先。如果你从新德里大老远跑到帕萨迪纳来听一个快 84 岁的人说这么显而易见的话,不是所有人都觉得这是明智之举。[笑声]
Anytime you catch something just barely, where if you hadn’t caught it you’d be in terrible trouble, you’re using a checklist, even if not consciously. I’m answering the question I’m capable of answering, instead of the one you asked. I invert: I try to figure out what I don’t like and try to avoid it. It’s worked wonders for me. What is your favorite human misjudgment? My favorite human misjudgment is self-serving bias: how the brain subconsciously will decide that what’s good for the holder of the brain is good for everyone else. If the little me wants it, why shouldn’t the little me have it? People go through life like this. I’ve underestimated this phenomenon all my life. People go bonkers taking care of their own self-interest. It’s a sea of miscognition. People who write the laws, people who treat patients, who experiment with rats, all suffer horribly from this bias. Hardly anything could be more important to the study of law than the study of psychology, but there’s a taboo against it. You see many people who’ve gotten straight A’s at law school, but they screw up in dealing with self-serving bias. I would say that the current head of the World Bank [Paul Wolfowitz] had an elementary question: as head of the Bank, a lot of people hate you, so how bright do you have to be to distance yourself from a question of a large raise from your live-in girlfriend? He sent it to the lawyers, they hemmed and hawed, and he lost his moorings. Even a child shouldn’t make his obvious mistake. Similarly, I’d guess President Clinton would have had a better record if he’d had better insight on certain subjects. Note that I carefully picked one from each party. [Laughter] Nuttiness in the world I once asked a doctor why he was still doing an obsolete cataract operation when a new, better one had been developed. He said, “Because it’s so wonderful to teach!” He only changed when patients voted with their feet. And this was at one of the best medical schools! There’s a lot of miscognition. If you can just tune out all of the big folly, you’d be surprised how well you can do. There’s a lot of nuttiness. Who gives up an operation he likes doing and is really good at? It’s a really human thing to cling to things most practiced. This happens even in physics. A lot of people cling to bad ideas. If the brightest people in the world do this, imagine everyone else. If you can train yourself not to do this, you’ll be way ahead. If you come all the way to Pasadena from New Delhi to hear a guy well into his 84th year say something so obvious, not everyone would agree this is wise. [Laughter]
-17-290-
-17-290-
机会成本
我只是想用自己拥有的才能、时间和资源,尽可能做到最好。那时如此,现在亦然。一切都建立在机会成本之上。学术界在这方面做得糟糕透顶:他们在经济学入门课程里用一句话带过机会成本,然后就没了。现实生活中,如果机会 A 比 B 好,而你只有一个选择,你就选 A。没有放之四海而皆准的标准。如果你真有智慧又有运气,也许能像伯克希尔那样。我们有很高的机会成本。我们总有自己喜欢且能继续买入的东西,所以一切决策都与它比较。
你们每个人都在做同一件事——用现有的筹码,基于自己的机会成本去改善它。想想看,如果用这样的方式看待生活,事情会变得多么简单。
Opportunity costs I just wanted to do the best I could reasonably do with the talent, time and resources I had available. That’s what I was doing then and now. Everything is based on opportunity costs. Academia has done a terrible disservice: they teach in one sentence in first-year economics about opportunity costs, but that’s it. In life, if opportunity A is better than B, and you have only one opportunity, you do A. There’s no one-size-fits-all. If you’re really wise and fortunate, you get to be like Berkshire. We have high opportunity costs. We always have something we like and can buy more of, so that’s what we compare everything to. All of you are in the game of taking the lot you have right now and improving it based on your opportunity costs. Think of how life is simplified if you approach it this way.
关于人生建议及其他评论
[在他话筒临时失灵后:] 我耗尽了听众的耐心,但以前从没把话筒用坏过。[笑声]
芒格对“光辉的独立”的渴望
苏格兰伟大诗人罗伯特·彭斯有一首诗,号召苏格兰人努力工作,甚至耍点小聪明,去赢得一份光辉的独立。你听我说话不用太久,就会知道我的看法并非处处受欢迎,所以我认定自己也需要光辉的独立,这就要求我必须成为一个经济独立的人。我直到 60 岁左右才买第一辆新车,而在这之前很久我就已经非常富有了。我想要独立,理由和萧伯纳打发他妈妈出去工作一样——我想让自己在精神上成为一个顶天立地的人。沃伦常拿这件事打趣我。
我说过,我会把一天中最好的那一小时留给自己,用于自我提升。只有完成这件事之后,我才会把剩余的时间卖给客户。当然,遇到客户要求特别迫切的情况,我也会破例。想在智力上修炼成一个顶天立地的人,你非下功夫不可。我甚至觉得,就连著名的数学家约翰·冯·诺伊曼也不是天生就行的。
对许多人来说,忙得不可开交反而是件好事。他们不擅长独立思考,所以只要让他们不停干活,反而产出更多。但如果你是一个认知能力不错的人,只要用心,就能学到多得多的东西。我认为,没有什么可以替代静坐思考。
先天与后天
在先天与后天的较量中,先天因素比人们通常认为的要重要得多。这并不是说人不能改善,但地球上没有任何东西能让我在音乐或篮球上取得成功。你需要认清先天在哪些方面眷顾了你,然后去玩一个你天生就有优势的游戏——把自己放在任何其他游戏里,你都很
可能输得很难看。命运给我们发牌,我们只能尽力打好。如果你发现自己的牌太差,那就别玩了。
是的。
ADVICE ON LIFE AND OTHER COMMENTS [After his microphone stopped working temporarily:] I’ve worn out the patience of my listeners, but I’ve never worn out a microphone before. [Laughter] Munger’s need for “glorious independence” There’s a poem by Burns, the great Scottish poet, where he urges Scots to work hard, even connive, to get a glorious independence. You don’t have to listen to me very long to know my views wouldn’t be welcome everywhere, so I decided I needed glorious independence, which required that I be a man of independent means. I didn’t buy a new car until I was about 60 and I was very rich before then. I wanted independence for the same reason George Bernard Shaw sent his mom out to work: I wanted to make a mental man of myself. Warren kids me about this. I said I would sell the best hour of the day to myself in order to improve myself. Only then would I sell the rest of my time to my clients. Of course, when I was in a demanding situation, I’d make an exception. To make a man of yourself intellectually, you need to work at it. I don’t think even [famed mathematician] Johnny von Neumann did it naturally. For many people it’s good that they’re extra busy. They’re not good thinkers, so you get more out of them if they just keep doing what they’re doing. But if you’re a person of good cognition, you can learn a lot more if you put your mind to it. I don’t think there’s any substitute for just sitting and thinking. Nature vs. nurture In nature vs. nurture, nature is way more important than people give it credit for. That’s not to say people can’t improve, but nothing on earth could make me succeed in music or basketball. You need to recognize where nature has been kind and play a game where
-18-291- 大自然赋予了你最伟大的天赋。人是他天赋的囚徒。恐怕我们拿到手里的牌就是这样的。如果你身高只有 5 英尺 2 英寸,我觉得你最好别去打篮球。
那些为文明增光添彩的人
我对全食超市或谷歌了解不多。我倾向于认为,关于有机产品的各种宣称中,有相当一部分是吹嘘。不过我在《哈佛杂志》上读到一篇非常有趣的文章,讲的是现代奶牛通过人工授精,一年中有 300 天都处于怀孕状态,它们体内的激素会进入牛奶。这是问题吗?这是个有趣的问题。哈佛能发表这篇文章,值得称赞。脱脂牛奶里不存在这个问题。写那篇文章的那种人,是为文明增光添彩的。
几个月前,我去了密歇根大学,参观了生物系,包括医学院和医院。他们决定完全自保。如果他们犯了错误,他们会承认——不隐瞒任何东西。他们会走到病床边承认错误。他们做了可能从一开始就该做的事。现在他们的医疗事故成本降低了。管这事儿的那个人是为文明增光添彩的。在我担任主席的那家医院里,这是不存在的。以我们目前的状态,我做不到那样,但我希望如此。
像这样的人还有很多。我住在一个州,他们通过操纵选区划分,以至于基本上只有公认的疯子才能赢得初选,而且一旦当选,就无法被投票罢免。这个系统有多糟糕?我希望世界上有更多像那家(密歇根大学)医院里的那种人。
全球变暖
沃伦从未接受过任何科学训练,他回避这些问题,因为他说:“我没有这方面的特殊才能,我不会让自己出丑。”我几乎和沃伦一样无知,但我是一名加州理工学院培养的气象学家,尽管那是很久以前的事了,当时这门学科还是非常经验性的。
我个人的看法是,二氧化碳浓度增加极有可能导致了某种程度的变暖。对于阿尔·戈尔来说,一旦他有了这种认识,他就认为我们应该马上采取很多措施,尽管他自己有一栋 20 个房间的房子。
对我而言,我们现在该对此采取什么措施是一个非常复杂的问题。中国和印度有很多很多人想过我们这样的生活,预测他们的二氧化碳排放量会下降——概率为零。在我们收手之前,我怀疑我们会改变地球的反射率,并耍很多其他花招。但没有简单的答案,比如仅仅与那些将大幅增加自身排放量的国家签署条约。
这是一个我本人无需亲自处理的问题。我会把它留给后人。这事非常重要,但就算地球变暖几度,也不是世界末日。如果一些
-18-291- nature has given you the greatest talent. Man is the prisoner of his talents. I’m afraid that’s the hand we’re given to play in life. If you’re 5’ 2”, I don’t think you want to play basketball. People who are a credit to our civilization I don’t know much about Whole Foods or Google. I tend to think there’s a fair amount of puffery when it comes to organic claims. Yet I read a very interesting article in Harvard Magazine about how modern cows, with artificial insemination, are kept pregnant 300 days a year and their hormones go into the milk. Is this a problem? That’s an interesting question. It’s a credit to Harvard to publish it. It’s not a problem with skim milk. The kind of person writing that article is a credit to the civilization. I went to the University of Michigan a few months ago and went to the Biology Department, including the medical school and hospital. They decided they’d go totally self-insured. If they made a mistake, they’d admit it – no hiding stuff. They’d go to the bedside and admit it. They did what they probably should have done from the beginning. Now their malpractice costs are lower. The guy who runs this is a credit to the civilization. This is not present in the hospital of which I’m chair. I can’t get there from where we are, but I’d like to. There are lots of people like this. I live in a state where they gerrymandered districts so that, mostly, only certified nuts can win the primary, and once they’re elected, can’t be voted out. How bad is this system? I’d like a world with more people like those in the [University of Michigan] hospital. Global warming Warren has never had any scientific training and he avoids these questions because he says, “I have no specific aptitude and I won’t make a fool of myself.” I’m almost as ignorant as Warren, but I am a Cal Tech-trained meteorologist, though it was a long time ago and this subject was then a very empirical activity. My own view is that it’s overwhelmingly likely that increased concentration of CO2 is leading to some warming. For Al Gore, once he has this insight, he thinks we should do a lot about it right now, even though he has a house with 20 rooms. For me, what we should do about it right now is a very complicated question. The prognosis for a decline in CO2 emissions from China and India – which have many, many people who want to live more like we do – is zero. Before we are done, I suspect we’ll change the reflectivity of the earth and play a lot of other tricks. But there’s no simple answer like just sign treaties with people who are going to hugely multiply their own emissions. It’s a problem I’m not going to have to deal with personally. I’ll bequeath it. It’s very important, but it’s not the end of the world if the world warms a few degrees. If some
-19-292-岛屿必须疏散人口,如果这个过程持续 100 年,每年人口增长 1% 到 2%,那就可以应对。正如我在伯克希尔股东大会上所说,只要有足够的时间,这些事情都是可以适应的。我不认为这会对人类造成彻底灾难。这是我们可以应对的事情。
书籍推荐
《寻找智慧》的作者彼得·贝弗林在这里,他送给我一本《科学火星人》。这是一本非常棒的书,讲的是五位匈牙利物理学家,被希特勒驱逐到美国,为这里的科学做出了巨大贡献。我强烈推荐这本书。
我读了艾萨克森写的爱因斯坦新传记《爱因斯坦:他的生活和宇宙》。我读过所有爱因斯坦的传记,这是迄今为止最好的一本——非常有趣的书。
你认为本·富兰克林最大的遗憾是什么?
嗯,他错误的医疗决定害死了他唯一的儿子。但除此之外,他几乎不允许自己后悔。富兰克林结了一门非常不明智的婚姻。他娶了一个不适合他最终过的那种生活的人。这一点极为重要。所有正直的人都会在自己做出的选择里尽力而为。富兰克林做到了,并且不允许自己感到后悔。总的来说,他度过了一段极好的人生。
对自己高龄的看法
我在变老这件事上越来越有经验了。我就像那个从摩天大楼跳下来的人,在下落过程中落到第 5 层时说:“到目前为止,这趟旅程还不赖。”(笑声)随着年龄增长,我反而越来越好了。我不会抱怨年龄,因为如果没有它,我就死了。
能谈谈你最糟糕的经历以及你是如何应对的吗?
我不打算回答这个问题。
职业建议
(提问者向芒格请教职业选择的问题——我忘了具体是哪两个选择了。)
很多走这两条路的人都会发现非常困难。你是个年轻人。你没办法给出一个一刀切的答案。这取决于你的才能。这个决定可能会被迫落到你头上。如果能够和你真正钦佩的人、榜样一起工作,那你就应该去那里。
-19-292- islands have to be depopulated, and if it happens over 100 years, with population growth of 1-2% per annum, it can be dealt with. As I said at the Berkshire meeting, with enough time, these things can be adjusted to. I don’t think this is likely to be an utter calamity for mankind. It is something that we can deal with. Book recommendations Peter Bevelin, the author of Seeking Wisdom, is here and he sent me the book The Martians of Science. It’s a hell of a book about five Hungarian physicists, driven to the United States by Hitler, who contributed much to science here. I can’t recommend it enough. I read the new biography of Einstein by Isaacson [Einstein: His Life and Universe]. I’ve read all the Einstein biographies, and this is by far the best – a very interesting book. What do you think Ben Franklin’s greatest regret was? Well, his wrong medical decision killed his only son. But, mostly, he didn’t allow himself much regret. Franklin made a very ill-advised marriage. He married someone who wasn’t suited to the life he ended up living. That’s hugely important. All honorable people will do the best they can with the bed they’ve made. Franklin did that and did not allow himself to feel regret. All in all, he had a fabulous life. Thoughts on his advancing age I’m getting more experienced at aging. I’m like the man who jumped off the skyscraper and at the 5th floor on the way down says, “So far this is not a bad ride.” [Laughter] I’m getting better with aging. I’m not going to complain about age because if I didn’t have it, I’d be dead. Can you tell us about your worst experience and how you dealt with it? I’m not going to answer that. Career advice [The questioner asked Munger for advice on which of two career choices he should pursue – I forget what they were.] A lot of people who follow either of the courses will find it very difficult. You’re a young person. You can’t give that kind of answer in a one-size-fits-all way. It depends on your talents. The decision may be forced on you. If you can work with people you really admire, role models, then that’s where you should go.
-20-293-
-20-293-
理想情况下,你现在就该已经明白了。如果你在商学院读了好一阵子才问出这个问题,那你的商学院大概跟我想的差不多没用。(笑声)
阅读的重要性
这是个好问题,引出了一个非常有趣的事实。伯克希尔的成绩是怎么来的?如果你是个旁观者,你会看到沃伦大部分时间就是坐在那里阅读。如果你想在成就上出类拔萃,那就一辈子大部分时间坐着读书就对了。但他们会因此解雇你!
看看这一代人,人人都有电子设备,都在多任务处理。我敢很有把握地预测,他们的成就会不如沃伦——他就专注于阅读。如果你想获得智慧,那就坐着读书吧。智慧就是这么来的。
配得上你想要的东西
我年轻时得到过最好的一次法律经验教训。我问父亲,为什么他为一个夸夸其谈、得寸进尺的混账做了那么多工作,却不帮他的好朋友格兰特·麦克法登。他说:“你叫混账的那个人,是一座行走的法律麻烦金矿;而格兰特·麦克法登呢,他遇到问题马上解决,为人又好,几乎不产生任何法律工作。”我父亲给我上了一课,这一课很管用。按规模来说,伯克希尔雇用的律师比我能想到的任何公司都少。我们像格兰特·麦克法登——开拓性的奥马哈福特经销商那样闯荡世界。
想清楚你不想要什么并避开它,你就会得到你想要的。沃伦和我的直觉相同。我们没有遇到那些让人失望、愤怒、毁掉很多人生活的人。人很容易陷入那种处境。问这个问题:你怎么才能最好地得到你想要的东西?答案是:配得上你想要的东西!还能有其他办法吗?
对社会保险的看法
在美国,我认为我们能解决社会保险问题。只要我们能保持人均 GDP 每年增长,比如说 2%,我认为我们就能通过从不断变大的蛋糕中多分一小块来解决这个问题。在这一点上,我与大多数共和党朋友看法不同。
在新西兰,他们经历了一场反叛和一场反反叛。现在新西兰发展得很好。我不认为我们会遇到大问题。
美国在世界上的角色
Ideally, you would have figured it out by now. If you’re only now asking that question well along in your business school career, then your business school is about as effective as I would have guessed. [Laughter] The importance of reading It’s a good question, which brings up a very interesting fact. How did Berkshire’s track record happen? If you were an observer, you’d see that Warren did most of it sitting on his ass and reading. If you want to be an outlier in achievement, just sit on your ass and read most of your life. But they fire you for that! Look at this generation, with all of its electronic devices and multi-tasking. I will confidently predict less success than Warren, who just focused on reading. If you want wisdom, you’ll get it sitting on your ass. That’s the way it comes. Deserve what you want The best legal experience I ever got when I was very young. I asked my father why he did so much work for a big blowhard, an overreaching jerk, rather than for his best friend Grant McFaden. He said, “That man you call a blowhard is a walking bonanza of legal troubles, whereas Grant McFaden, who fixes problems promptly and is nice, hardly generates any legal work at all.” My dad was teaching me a lesson and it worked. Considering its size, Berkshire has supported fewer lawyers than any company I can think of. We’ve gone through the world like Grant McFaden, the pioneering Omaha Ford dealer. Figure out what you don’t want and avoid it and you’ll get what you do want. Warren had the same instincts I had. We haven’t had our share of disappointed, angry people that ruin so many lives. It’s easy to get into that position. Ask the question: How can you best get what you want? The answer: Deserve what you want! How can it be any other way? Views on Social Security In the U.S., I think we’ll meet the Social Security problem. As long we can keep GDP per person growing at, say, two percent per annum, I think we can meet this problem by allocating a little bit bigger slice of a growing pie. I differ with most of my Republican friends on this. In New Zealand, they had a rebellion and a counter-rebellion. And New Zealand’s working. I don’t think we’ll have a big problem. The U.S. role in the world
-21-294-
-21-294-
我们习惯了自认为是世界上最重要的地方。之前每一个处于这位置的国家,最后都失去了这一地位。我们也会一样。为什么不呢?没错,世界的领导权终将改变。
世界面临的最大危险是什么?
最大的问题显然是某种核战争或病原体战争。那个问题实在太难了,以至于大多数人把它抛到一边,指望它能自行解决。
我会说,人类人口从现有水平翻一番可能不是什么好主意。我读过一篇文章,对这事不会成为问题表达了很大信心,但把我算作持怀疑态度的人。而所有非发达地区的人口都达到我们的生活水准,将带来各种各样的环境后果。
我认为,有些文明可能会退化到极其糟糕的状态,那时政府是盗贼统治——一个可怕、腐败、残酷、愚蠢的体制,充满了内部的仇恨。我们的第三个问题是,这种情况会越来越多。看看中东的疯狂。很多人不只是意识形态上的,还有宗教上的。那里有大量年轻男人,没什么希望,没什么未来,也没什么可做。这非常具有爆炸性和危险性,而解决这个问题的成功案例并不多见。也许土耳其是个例外?
但这个世界一直都有这类缺陷。这让我们更加珍惜我们所拥有的一切。这个屋子里坐满了极其幸运的人。如果你觉得自己生活艰难,那你上错了星球。
更多关于恐怖主义的看法
我认为我们非常幸运,美国的恐怖主义活动一直如此之低,而未来可能会更糟。中东有很多恐怖主义。这是一个非常严重的问题,我不认为它会消失。你无法解决的事,就必须与之共存。我们正在尽最大努力去解决,不过我质疑的是,[在机场安检时]一位带着孩子的老太太被搜身,而一个留着浓密胡须、口音很重的人却能顺利通过,但以往那种按逻辑给予特别关注的方式,如今在政治上却不正确了。
We’re used to being the most important place in the world. Every previous country in this position lost it. We’ll be the same. Why not? Sure, the leadership of the world will eventually change. What are the world’s greatest dangers? The biggest problem is obviously some sort of war that goes nuclear or pathogenic. That problem is so hard that most people shove it to the side and hope it works out. I would argue it’s probably not a good idea for the human population to double from here. I read some paper that expressed a lot of confidence that this won’t be a problem, but put me down as dubious. And having all of the nondeveloped populations grow to our living standard will have all sorts of environmental consequences. I think you can get civilizations that can deteriorate into god-awful conditions, where you have a government of kleptocracy, an awful, corrupt, brutal, stupid system, full of intramural hatreds. Our third problem is that we get a lot more of that. Look at the craziness in the Middle East. A lot of people are not just ideological, but religious. There are a whole lot of young men with not much hope, future or much to do. This is very explosive and dangerous and there are not many examples where this is getting fixed. Maybe Turkey? But the world has always had these sorts of defects. It makes us treasure what we have. This room is full of extraordinarily fortunate people. If you think you’re having a hard life, you got on the wrong planet. More on terrorism I think we’ve been very lucky that the terrorism is the U.S. has been as low as it’s been, and the future probably will be worse. There’s a lot of terrorism in the Middle East. It’s a very serious problem, and I don’t think it’ll go away. What you can’t fix you have to live with. We’re trying to fix it as best we can, though I question when [at airport security] an old lady with her kids gets frisked and a guy with a bushy beard and a thick accent goes right through, but it’s politically incorrect to give special attention in a logical fashion.
-22-295-
-22-295-