写作之乐——书籍、思想、倡导与理想主义

2006 · 演讲 · 原文约 4747 词
译文与英文原文逐段对齐可在本页展开英文,也可打开发布者原址核对上下文。
打开来源正文

写作的愉悦——书籍、思想、倡议与理想主义

在约翰·C·博格尔《资本主义灵魂之战》新书发布会上的致辞

先锋集团创始人兼前首席执行官

国家宪法中心主席

费城自由图书馆

宾夕法尼亚州费城

2006 年 11 月 20 日

就在几周前,我像往常一样完成《纽约时报杂志》上的周日填字游戏后,又接着挑战了紧挨其下的藏头诗谜题。(藏头诗难度更大,所以我很少碰它。)这次我运气不错,解了出来,并在答案中发现了一句引文,恰好为今晚的致辞开了个好头。

这句引文出自翁贝托·艾柯的《玫瑰之名》,内容如下:“书籍是脆弱的造物。它承受时间的磨损,惧怕啮齿动物、自然风雨和笨拙的双手。因此,图书管理员守护书籍对抗自然,终其一生投入这场与遗忘力量的战争。”

The Joy of Writing— Books, Ideas, Advocacy, and Idealism Remarks on “The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism” by John C. Bogle Founder and former chief executive The Vanguard Group Chairman of the National Constitution Center The Free Library of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA November 20, 2006 Only a few weeks ago, following my regular completion of the Sunday crossword puzzle in The New York Times Magazine, I worked my way through the acrostic puzzle immediately below it. (The acrostic is a tougher challenge, so I rarely take it on.) I got lucky, completed it, and found in the solution a quotation that provides a nice way to introduce my remarks this evening. 1 The quotation is from Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose. Here’s how it read: “A book is a fragile creature. It suffers the wear of time. It fears rodents, the elements, and clumsy hands. So the librarian protects the books against nature and devotes his life to this war with the forces of oblivion.”

这段话用在我自己的书上似乎格外贴切。因为这些书不仅是我想与遗忘势力抗争的方式,更进一步说,是为了改变投资者对我们金融体系的思考方式。因此,我非常荣幸能够来到费城自由图书馆,谈谈我为何热爱写作,重点围绕我的新书《资本主义灵魂之战》。

This quotation seemed particularly appropriate for my own books. For they are not only my way of fighting a war against the forces of oblivion but even more, to change the way that investors think about our financial system. So, I’m deeply honored to be here at the Free Library of Philadelphia to talk about why I love to write, with the focus on my latest book, The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism.

我还学了一个新词。这个词的定义是“便携手册,源自希腊语”。你们大概早就知道了,这个词就是“enchiridion”。别忘记这个词;稍后你们还会再听到它。注:本演讲所表达的观点,不一定代表先锋基金现任管理层的看法。

I also learned one new word. The definition of “handy manual, from the Greek.” As you all probably already know, it’s “enchiridion.” Don’t forget that word; you’ll hear it again later on. Note: The opinions expressed in this speech do not necessarily represent the views of Vanguard’s present management.

我上次在 2000 年 3 月来这里演讲时,谈到了我的第二本书——《共同基金常识:聪明投资者的新准则》——该书于六个月前出版。我对《常识》一书寄予的厚望,其实现程度远远超出了预期。令我惊讶的是,这本 475 页的书竟成为畅销书(迄今已售出约 16 万册,仅次于我的《博格尔论共同基金:聪明投资者的新视角》,后者售出约 22 万册)。更重要的是,《常识》被证明拥有书商们所说的“长尾效应”,在亚马逊网站的排行榜上始终稳居前列。我上周查看时,它在目前列出的 400 万册图书中排名第 3213 位……对于一本问世已七年的书来说,这个成绩可不算差。

When I last spoke here in March 2000, I discussed my second book—Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor—which had been published six months earlier. The high hopes that I had for Common Sense have been more than realized. To my astonishment, this 475-page-book became a best-seller (about 160,000 copies to date, second only to my Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor, with some 220,000 copies purchased). What is more, Common Sense has proved to have what the booksellers call “legs,” steadfastly remaining near the top of the rankings on Amazon.com. When I checked last week, it ranked #3,213 among the four million volumes now listed there . . . not too shabby for a book now seven years old.

在那次早先的讲话中,我提到自己刚刚受邀为麦格劳-希尔出版公司写一本书,作为其“金融界伟大思想”系列的第一本。这本书于 2001 年出版,书名为《约翰·博格论投资:最初 50 年》,收录了我最喜欢的部分演讲,分为投资策略(包括“百吉饼与甜甜圈”)、共同基金行业(“基金的沉默”)、经济与理想主义(“在历史的正确一边”)、个人视角(“刺猬与狐狸”“衡量一个人生命的标尺”)等章节——我就是喜欢给它们起些另类的标题!这本书还收录了我早在 1951 年完成的普林斯顿大学本科毕业论文,内容是关于共同基金行业的。如果有人有耐心等上 50 年,也许任何东西都能挤进图书馆。

In those earlier remarks, I reported that I’d just been invited to write a book for McGraw-Hill Publishing, to be the first in their series “Great Ideas in Finance.” It was published in 2001 under the title John Bogle on Investing: The First 50 Years, a collection of some of my favorite speeches, with sections on Investment Strategy (including “The Bagel and the Doughnut”), the Mutual Fund Industry (“The Silence of the Funds”), Economics and Idealism (“On the Right Side of History”), and Personal Perspectives (“The Hedgehog and the Fox,” “The Things by Which One Measures One’s Life”)—I love to provide offbeat titles! The book also included my Princeton senior thesis on the mutual fund industry, completed way back in 1951. If one has the patience to wait 50 years, perhaps anything can find its way into the library.

继《第一个 50 年》之后,2002 年出版的《品格至上》是我的第四本书。该书收录了我在公司成立头三十年间向先锋团队(Vanguard crew)发表的演讲,并加入了一些解释性说明。我的初衷是如实记录事件的原貌——不仅是为了防止历史被他人改写,也为了防止被我本人改写。这些演讲原封不动地呈现,瑕瑜互见,未经任何编辑,因此构成了一部没有事后诸葛亮色彩的、某种意义上的口述历史。

The First 50 Years was followed in 2002 by Character Counts, my fourth book, a collection of the speeches I had given to our Vanguard crew over the first three decades of our firm’s history, with some explanatory text added. My idea was to set down the truth about events as they actually happened, not only so that our history wouldn’t be rewritten by others, but so it wouldn’t be rewritten by me. I presented these speeches, warts and all, without editing, so they compose a sort of oral history, without the benefit of hindsight.

资本主义的灵魂之争

这就说到了我的第五本书,《资本主义的灵魂之争》。2004 年初,我完全没有计划——一点也没有,根本没有——再写一本书。但就在那时,我收到了一封来自耶鲁大学出版社商业与经济高级编辑迈克尔·奥马利的信,信中写道:“我觉得你的下一本书会是你最好的一本。随着你的想法逐渐成形,我想知道我们是否可以讨论一下由耶鲁来出版你的作品。”

The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism That brings me to my fifth book, The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism. As 2004 began, I had absolutely no plans—none, nada—for writing another book. But only until I received a letter from Michael O’Malley, senior editor of business and economics for the Yale University Press, who wrote: “I think that your next book will be your best. As your ideas begin to take shape, I was wondering if we might discuss Yale as the publisher of your work.”

嗯,我立刻就着迷了。不只是因为我虚荣心作祟,对大学出版社——而且是一流大学出版社——的标识印象深刻。更是因为在写了四本主要聚焦于共同基金投资和个人理想主义的书之后(想想看,这俩话题可真有点风马牛不相及……我当时没意识到,现在也不觉得),我想“展翅高飞”,深入探讨一些我担心正在侵蚀我们这个伟大国家根基的深层社会力量。

Well, I was hooked immediately. Not only because I was egotistical enough to be impressed with the idea of a university press imprint, and from a top university publisher at that. But even more, after four books focused largely on mutual fund investing and personal idealism (sort of strange bedfellows, when you think about it . . . which I didn’t, and I don’t), I wanted to “spread my wings” and plunge into some of the deep societal forces that, I feared, were undermining the foundations of our great nation.

一段有趣的闲笔。在商界和金融界,写书的人寥寥无几。(而那些书得以出版的人当中,很多甚至并非自己动笔——商业领域简直是代笔作家的天堂!)迈克尔·刘易斯自然是出类拔萃的一位。紧随其后的,我会排上彼得·伯恩斯坦(著有《与天为敌》《黄金之权》)和詹姆斯·格兰特(著有《金钱之心》),两人都是才华横溢的作家,也是我的朋友。就在我与耶鲁签约后不久,他俩各自推出了新书,让我的“展翅高飞”显得——怎么说呢——有点可怜。伯恩斯坦写了《水之婚约》,一部伊利运河的历史;格兰特写了《独行一党》,约翰·亚当斯的传记。这可真是把我膨胀的自我拉回了地面!

An amusing sidelight. There are very few people in the world of commerce and finance who write books. (And many of those whose books are published didn’t even write them. Business is a ghost writer’s paradise!) Michael Lewis, of course, is a real standout. And right next to him I’d put Peter Bernstein (Against the Gods, The Power of Gold) and James Grant (Money of the Mind), both enormously gifted writers and friends of mine. Soon after I signed up with Yale, both had produced new books that were to make my “wing spreading” seem sort of, well, pathetic. Bernstein wrote The Wedding of the Waters, a history of the Erie Canal, and Grant wrote Party of One, a biography of John Adams. Talk about bringing my inflated ego down to earth!

收到耶鲁的来信时,我已在公开抨击美国企业领袖、金融界和共同基金行业的种种弊端。这三个相互关联的话题,后来成为我这本书的三大主题:美国企业、美国投资和美国共同基金。每个主题又各自分为三个部分——哪里出了问题、为什么出问题,以及如何解决问题。

When I received the Yale letter, I had already been speaking out on the shortcomings of our business leaders, our financial community, and our mutual fund industry. These three interlinked subjects would become the three main sections of my book: corporate America, investment America, and mutual fund America. Each subject was in turn organized into three sections—what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how to fix it.

组织这本新书算是容易的部分。但我还想提供三个特别的视角。第一个,当然来自于我作为商界与金融界参与者和近距离观察者超过半个世纪的亲身经历;第二个,是汲取我们这个时代最优秀、最聪明的投资思想家的智慧;第三个,是强调我们可以从历史中学到的教训,以及我们可以在美国社会的传统价值观中获得的强化。

Organizing the new book was the easy part. But I also wanted to provide three special perspectives. The first, of course, was borne of my own first-hand experience as a participant in and close observer of business and finance for more than a half century; second, to draw on the wisdom of the best and brightest investment thinkers of our age; and third, to emphasize the lessons we might learn from history, and the reinforcement we might find in the traditional values of American society.

理想主义的大写意 《鏖战》堪称一本理想主义之作!单看开篇的献词——致我的十二个孙辈以及他们这一代所有优秀的年轻公民:“我这一代给美国留下了太多亟待纠正的问题;你们拥有千载难逢的机遇,去修复那些已经破损的东西。高举你们的理想主义与价值观吧。永远记住,哪怕是一个人,也能带来改变。”

Idealism Writ Large The Battle is one idealistic book! Just consider its first words, with the dedication to my twelve grandchildren and the other fine young citizens of their generation: “My generation has left America with much to be set right; you have the opportunity of a lifetime to fix what has been broken. Hold high your idealism and your values. Remember always that even one person can make a difference.

那就尽你的一份力,“让世界重新开始吧。”

And do your part ‘to begin the world anew.’”

一翻页就是五句题记(数数看,五句!),第一句出自圣保罗:“若号角声吹得含混不清,谁能预备作战呢?”而在我致谢部分的第一段,我开门见山:“资本主义正走在错误的方向上。”

One turn of the page takes you to five epigraphs (count ‘em, five!), the first of which comes from St. Paul: “if the sound of the trumpet shall be uncertain, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” And in my acknowledgments, I get right to the point in the very first paragraph: “Capitalism has been moving in the wrong direction.”

接下来的引言没有半点松懈。我以吉本的《罗马帝国衰亡史》经典第一段为蓝本,做了异常轻松的改写,使之适用于当今时代。比较一下两个首句。吉本:“在基督教纪元第二个世纪,罗马帝国囊括了地球上最美好的部分和人类中最文明的部分。”巴特尔:“当基督教纪元第二十个世纪结束时,美利坚合众国囊括了地球上最强大的位置和人类中最富有的部分。”

The introduction that follows doesn’t let up. I start off with a remarkably light revision of the classic first paragraph of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, adapted to the present era. Compare the two first sentences. Gibbon: “In the second century of the Christian Era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth and the most civilized portion of mankind.” Battle: “As the twentieth century of the Christian era ended, the United States of America comprehended the most powerful position on earth and the wealthiest portion of mankind.”

所以,当我把吉本的结论加上去——“(然而)罗马帝国终将衰亡覆灭,这场变革将被永远铭记,地球上的各国至今仍能感受到它的影响”——有思考力的读者很少会不明白其中的寓意。但我当然还是要把这点说透:“吉本的历史告诉我们,没有一个国家能把自己的伟大视为理所当然。没有例外。”《纽约时报》在评论《资本主义灵魂之争》的两篇书评——两篇都非常慷慨——其中一篇指出:“博格尔先生确实不够含蓄。”

So when I add Gibbon’s conclusion—“(Yet) the Roman Empire would decline and fall, a revolution which will be ever remembered and is still felt by the nations of the earth”—few thoughtful readers will miss the point. But of course I hammer it home anyway: “Gibbon’s history reminds us that no nation can take its greatness for granted. There are no exceptions.” As one of two reviews of The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism—both very generous—that appeared in The New York Times noted, “Subtle Mr. Bogle is not.”

不,我并没有对美国失去信心。但我的确凿号角正在发出警告:我们必须整顿好自己的家业。“罗马帝国衰落的例子,应该给所有那些与我一样,对资本主义在促使美国走向伟大过程中所扮演的关键角色怀有尊重与钦佩的人,敲响一记响亮的警钟。得益于我们卓越的经济体系——它以生产资料的私有制、自由市场决定的价格以及个人自由为基础——我们是历史上最繁荣的社会,是全球最强大的国家,而最重要的是,我们是那些迟早会被所有国家的人类所共享的价值观的最高典范:生命权、自由权和追求幸福的不可剥夺的权利。”

No, I’m not writing off America. But my certain trumpet is warning that we must put our house in order. “The example of the fall of the Roman Empire ought to be a strong wake-up call to all of those who share my respect and admiration for the vital role that capitalism has played in America’s call to greatness. Thanks to our marvelous economic system, based on private ownership of productive facilities, on prices set in free markets, and on personal freedom, we are the most prosperous society in history, the most powerful nation on the face of the globe, and, most important of all, the highest exemplar of the values that, sooner or later, are shared by the human beings of all nations: the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

但问题出现了。“到了二十世纪后期,我们的商业价值观已经大幅退化”——贪婪、利己主义、物质主义、铺张浪费,这些在当今资本主义体系中几乎无处不在;我们国家“富人与穷人”之间巨大且不断扩大的鸿沟;贫困与教育匮乏;我们对全球自然资源的滥用;企业资金对政治体制的腐蚀——所有这些都是一个运转失常的体系的体现。

Something Went Wrong But something went wrong. “By the later years of the twentieth century, our business values had eroded to a remarkable extent”—the greed, egoism, materialism and waste that seems almost endemic in today’s version of capitalism; the huge and growing disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots” of our nation; poverty and lack of education; our misuse of the world’s natural resources; the corruption of our political system by corporate money—all are manifestations of a system gone awry.

这就是资本主义灵魂所在的地方。书中写道:“托马斯·阿奎那将人类灵魂定义为‘肉体的形式,是从受孕那一刻起就赋予个体活力、渗透并塑造个体、将所有生命能量汇聚为统一整体的生命力。’在我们现世中,资本主义的灵魂就是那股曾赋予我们经济体系活力、渗透并塑造它、将其所有能量汇聚为统一整体的生命力。从这个意义上说,用以下话语来描述我们必须做出的努力——让这一体系回归其自豪根基——绝非夸大其词:恢复资本主义灵魂的战斗。(一位评论者认为这个书名,嗯,有点‘夸张’,但总体还是喜欢这本书。)”

And here’s where the soul of capitalism comes in. The book reads, “The human soul, as Thomas Aquinas defined it, is the ‘form of the body, the vital power animating, pervading, and shaping an individual from the moment of conception, drawing all the energies of life into a unity.’ In our temporal world, the soul of capitalism is the vital power that has animated, pervaded, and shaped our economic system, drawing all of its energies into a unity. In this sense, it is no overstatement to describe the effort we must make to return the system to its proud roots with these words: the battle to restore the soul of capitalism. (One reviewer thought that the title was, well, “inflated,” but liked the book anyway.)

这种理想主义在书中一以贯之。读者还没读完第一章(《美国企业出了什么错?》)的第一页,就读到了这样一段话:“问题的根源,从最广泛的意义上说,是一场社会变迁。教师约瑟夫·坎贝尔的话恰如其分地描述了这种变迁:‘中世纪时,当你靠近城市,映入眼帘的是大教堂。今天,你看到的是商业大楼。是生意,生意,生意。’我们变成了坎贝尔所说的‘唯底线社会’。但我们的社会衡量的却是错误的底线:形式重于实质,声望重于美德,金钱重于成就,魅力重于品格,短暂重于持久,甚至财神重于上帝。”

This idealism doesn’t let up. The reader doesn’t even finish the first page of Chapter I (What Went Wrong in Corporate America?) before reading: “At the root of the problem, in the broadest sense, was a societal change aptly described by these words from the teacher Joseph Campbell: ‘In medieval times, as you approached the city, your eye was taken by the Cathedral. Today, it’s the towers of commerce. It’s business, business, business.’ We had become what Campbell called a ‘bottom-line society.’ But our society came to measure the wrong bottom line: form over substance, prestige over virtue, money over achievement, charisma over character, the ephemeral over the enduring, even mammon over God.”

这次出问题的是什么?用《国际先驱论坛报》专栏作家威廉·普拉夫的话来说,是“资本主义的一场病态变异”。经典体系——所有者资本主义——一直建立在服务公司所有者利益的基础上,追求他们投入的资本和承担的风险实现最大回报。但一种新体系已经形成——管理者资本主义——普拉夫写道,在这种体系下,“公司逐渐变成为管理者的利润而运行,与会计师和其他公司的管理者之间即便不是共谋,也是串通一气。”为什么会这样?“因为市场已经把公司所有权分散到如此程度,以至于不复存在负责任的所有者。这在道义上不可接受,而且本身就是对资本主义的腐蚀。”

What went wrong this time, as International Herald Tribune columnist William Pfaff described it, was “a pathological mutation in capitalism.” The classic system—owners’ capitalism—had been based on serving the interests of the corporation’s owners, maximizing the return on the capital they had invested and the risk they had assumed. But a new system had developed—managers’ capitalism—in which, Pfaff wrote, “the corporation came to be run to profit its managers, in complicity if not conspiracy with accountants and the managers of other corporations.” Why did it happen? “Because the markets had so diffused corporate ownership that no responsible owner exists. This is morally unacceptable, but also a corruption of capitalism itself.”

导致这一有害变化的原因有两个:第一,“股东社会”——即我们公司的股票几乎全部由直接持股股东持有——逐渐失去了它的分量和效力。如今它已不复存在,而且不会再回来。自 1950 年以来,美国股票由个人投资者直接持有的比例从 92% 骤降至 32%,而由机构投资者间接持有的比例则从 8% 飙升至 68%。在旧的股东社会被取代后,一个新的“代理社会”已形成,在这个社会中,金融中介机构如今掌控着美国企业。

There were two major reasons for this baneful change: First, the “ownership society”—in which the shares of our corporations were held almost entirely by direct stockholders—gradually lost its heft and its effectiveness. It is now gone, and it is not going to return. Since 1950, direct ownership of U.S. stocks by individual investors has plummeted from 92 percent to 32 percent, while indirect ownership by institutional investors has soared from 8 percent to 68 percent. Instead of the old ownership society, a new “agency society” has developed, in which financial intermediaries now control American business.

代理人与委托人

但这些新代理人并未像所有者那样行事。我们的企业、养老金管理公司和共同基金管理公司,往往将自己的财务利益置于委托人——即作为共同基金所有者和养老金计划受益人的 1 亿个家庭——的利益之上。正如亚当·斯密 200 多年前睿智指出的那样:“管理他人钱财的人,(极少)会像对待自己的钱财那样……以同样焦虑的警觉去照看……他们很容易给自己找借口。疏忽和挥霍必然会盛行。”在当今的美国,情况正是如此。

Agents vs. Principals But these new agents haven’t behaved as owners should. Our corporations, pension managers, and mutual fund managers have too often put their own financial interests ahead of the interests of their principals, those 100 million families who are the owners of our mutual funds and the beneficiaries of our pension plans. As Adam Smith wisely put it 200-plus years ago, “managers of other people’s money (rarely) watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which . . . they watch over their own . . . they very easily give themselves a dispensation. Negligence and profusion must always prevail.” And so they have, in present day America.

第二个原因是,我们这些新型的“投资人/代理人”不仅似乎忽视了委托人的利益,似乎也忘记了自己的投资原则。二十世纪后期,机构投资策略的重心从长期投资的智慧转向了短期投机的愚蠢。在近些年,我们进入了预期投资时代,企业盈利的增长——尤其是盈利指引及其后续达成情况——成了投资者的口头禅,全然不顾报告出来的盈利往往只是金融工程的产物,而这一工程似乎同时符合企业高管和华尔街证券分析师的利益。

The second reason is that our new investor/agents not only seemed to ignore the interests of their principals, but also seemed to forget their own investment principles. In the latter part of the twentieth century, the predominant focus of institutional investment strategy turned from the wisdom of long-term investing to the folly of short-term speculation. During the recent era, we entered the age of expectations investing, where growth in corporate earnings—especially earnings guidance and its subsequent achievement—became the watchword of investors, never mind that the reported earnings were too often a product of financial engineering that seemed in the interest of both corporate managers and Wall Street security analysts.

当长期的企业所有者沦为股票的短期租赁者,当股票价格的瞬间精确性凌驾于企业内在价值的永恒模糊性之上,最先被牺牲的就是对公司治理的关注。企业董事最重要的一项职责,是确保管理层为股东创造价值;然而,投资者似乎对此毫不在意。如果美国企业的所有者自己都不在乎公司治理,我倒要问问,这世上还有谁该在乎?

When long-term owners of stocks become short-term renters of stocks, and when the momentary precision of the price of the stock takes precedence over the eternal vagueness of the intrinsic value of the corporation, concern about corporate governance is the first casualty. The single most important job of the corporate director is to assure that management is creating value for shareholders; yet investors seemed not to care. If the owners of corporate America don’t give a damn about corporate governance, I ask you, who on earth should?

于是,在美国企业界,我们看到了高管薪酬的惊人增长,而公司业绩却无法为这种增长提供正当理由;与普通工人实际薪酬(经通胀调整后)那少得可怜的微薄增长相比,这种增长显得极不相称且扭曲。我们还看到了金融工程,它玷污了财务报表完整性的理念;此外,我们赖以监督公司管理层传统“守门人”——我们的审计师、监管者、立法者和董事——也集体失职了。

And so in corporate America we have the staggering increases in executive compensation, unjustified by corporate performance and grotesquely disproportionate to the pathetically small increase in real (inflation-adjusted) compensation of the average worker; financial engineering that dishonors the idea of financial statement integrity, and the failure of the traditional gatekeepers we rely on to oversee corporate management—our auditors, our regulators, our legislators, our directors.

在投资美国,控制权已沦落到新一代机构所有者手中。仅 25 家最大的机构投资者就持有近 40% 的股票,然而,面对企业不法行为,这些代理人所有者却集体噤声。他们不仅更倾向于做短期投机者而非长期投资者,而且由于管理着其所持股票公司的养老金和储蓄计划,在涉及有争议的代理投票议题时,面临着严重的利益冲突。正如一位基金经理所说:“我们不想得罪的客户只有两种:现有的和潜在的。”

In investment America, control has devolved to a new class of institutional owners. The 25 largest institutional investors alone hold nearly 40 percent of all stocks, yet all we hear from these agent-owners on corporate malfeasance is the sound of silence. Not only are they more likely to be short-term speculators than long-term investors, but because they are managing the pension and thrift plans of the corporations whose stocks they hold, they are faced with a serious conflict of interest where controversial proxy issues are concerned. As one manager has said: “There are only two types of clients we don’t want to offend: actual and potential.”

而在共同基金这片美国土地上,一个行业迷失了方向。它曾经是一门兼具商业属性的专业,如今却变成了一个只带些许专业色彩的生意——连这点专业色彩也所剩无几。过去,这个行业由投资专业人士经营的小型私人组织主导,但现在,它被那些一心追求公司资本回报、而非基金股东投入资本回报的商人所掌控的巨型上市金融集团主宰。结果是:过去二十年里,普通基金投资者获得的复合收益,仅占通过持有简单标普 500 指数基金(我指的当然是先锋 500 指数基金)就能轻松到手股票回报的约 20%。

And in mutual fund America, an industry lost its way. Once a profession with elements of a business, mutual funds became a business with elements of a profession—and too few elements at that. Once dominated by small, privately-held organizations run by investment professionals, the mutual fund industry is now dominated by giant, publicly-held financial conglomerates run by businessmen hell-bent on earning a return on the firm’s capital, not the return on the capital invested by the fund shareholders. Result: over the past twenty years, the typical fund investor has captured only about 20 percent of the compound return on stocks there for the taking by holding a simple S&P 500 index fund. (I’m speaking, of course, about the Vanguard 500 Index Fund.)

正视现实

在资本主义不断变化的世界中,迫切需要正视这些以及其他失效现象,这应当不言自明。然而,尽管我刚才描述的议题充满争议——从广义上看,它们反映了美国商业与金融界寡头的强大经济利益对我们国家最后防线投资者的利益取得了胜利——但令人瞩目的是,相关的公共讨论却少之又少。在投资界,我没有看到任何人为共同基金向投资者提供的低劣回报辩护,也没有人质疑该行业真正怪异且适得其反的所有权结构;没有任何机构试图解释为何那些本应隐含在持有股票中的所有权权利基本未被行使;对一度传统且普遍存在的、依赖长期投资智慧的策略转向日益依赖短期投机愚蠢的策略——这种几乎未被意识到的背离——没有严肃的批评;而且,直到最近几个月,对我们公共和私人退休计划资金体系面临的巨额赤字几乎没有任何讨论。如果我的书有助于为我们的企业和金融领袖打开那扇早该进行的反思之门,并继而带来纠正性行动,或许所需的变革会加速到来。

Facing Up to the Reality It must seem obvious that there is an urgent need to face up to these and other failures in the changing world of capitalism. But despite the contentious nature of the issues I’ve just described—broadly reflecting the triumph of the powerful economic interests of the oligarchs of American business and finance over the interests of our nation’s last line investors—it is remarkable that so little public discourse has been in evidence. In the investment community, I have seen no defense of the inadequate returns delivered by mutual funds to investors, nor of the industry’s truly bizarre, counterproductive ownership structure; no attempt by institutions to explain why the rights of ownership that one would think are implicit in holding shares of stock remain largely unexercised; no serious criticism of the virtually unrecognized turn away from the once-conventional and pervasive investment strategies that relied on the wisdom of long-term investing, toward strategies that increasingly rely on the folly of short-term speculation; and, until recent months, almost no discussion of the huge deficits that we are facing in our public and private systems of retirement plan funding. If my book helps to open the door to the introspection by our corporate and financial leaders that is so long overdue, and then corrective action, perhaps the needed changes will be hastened.

我断定,这个过程必须始于回归资本主义的原始价值观,回归那条由诚信构成的良性循环——“信任与被信任”。当道德价值观被弃之不顾,当我们本应服务之人的利益被自我服务所取代时,那种曾推动我们社会创造丰裕的资本主义理念便变了味。在未来时代,值得信赖的商人、审慎的受托人以及诚实的管家,必须再次成为我们美国伟大企业的典范。我知道这并非易事,但如果我们所有人都为此付出足够长久和足够艰苦的努力,就能在我们那早已消逝的所有者社会和业已失败的代理人社会的基础上,构建一个新的“受托人社会”——在这个社会中,美国的公民投资者们将最终从我们的企业、我们的投资体系以及我们的共同基金行业那里,获得他们一直理应得到的公平待遇。

This process, I conclude, must begin with a return to the original values of capitalism, to that virtuous circle of integrity—“trusting and being trusted”. When ethical values go out the window and service to those whom we are duty-bound to serve is superseded by service to self, the whole idea of the capitalism that has been a moving force in the creation of our society’s abundance is soured. In the era that lies ahead, the trusted businessman, the prudent fiduciary, and the honest steward must again be the paradigms of our great American enterprises. I know it won’t be easy, but if we all work long enough and hard enough at the task, we can build, out of our long-gone ownership society and our failed agency society, a new “fiduciary society,” one in which the citizen-investors of America will at last receive the fair shake they have always deserved from our corporations, our investment system, and our mutual fund industry.

来自过去与当下的支撑 这就是《大博弈》的实质内容,接下来做一点背景介绍。正如今晚开场时我提到的那样,我书中的许多观点与一些最优秀、最聪明的经济学家的想法是一致的。例如,我对于投资管理的核心批评是:金融体系每年消耗的 4000 亿美元中,有很大一部分是对投资者作为一个整体所获回报的净拖累。毕竟,当我们从股票市场产生的总回报中扣除支付给投资中介的费用后,投资者实际到手的只剩剩余部分。事实上,我们投资者处于金融食物链的底层。这道理相当简单,也无可辩驳。

Support from the Present and the Past That’s the substance of The Battle, so now for a little background. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks this evening, many of the ideas in my book are consistent with the ideas of some of our best and brightest economic thinkers. My central criticism about investment management, for example, is that a huge portion of the $400 billion that our financial system consumes each year is a dead-weight drag on the returns earned by investors as a group. After all, when we deduct from the gross returns produced in the stock market, the costs that we pay to our investment intermediaries, we investors actually receive only what remains. We investors dine, in fact, at the bottom of the financial food chain. It’s pretty simple, and it’s incontrovertible.

为了说明这一点,我搬出大法官路易斯·布兰代斯(Louis D. Brandeis)作为制胜一击,他在 1914 年的著作《他人的金钱》(Other People’s Money)中给了我们那句精彩的短语——“谦逊算术的无情法则”。《大博弈》里你还会看到经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)、保罗·萨缪尔森(Paul Samuelson)和艾伦·格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan),功成名就的资金管理人沃伦·巴菲特,以及名气较小但同样成功的戴维·斯文森(David Swensen)和杰克·迈耶(Jack Meyer),他们两人把耶鲁和哈佛的捐赠基金推向令人难以置信的高度。他们与我有同样的担忧,而且用语相当尖锐。斯文森把共同基金行业形容为“一场大规模的市场失灵”,迈耶则把投资行业描述为“一场巨大的骗局”。

To make this point, I rely on the words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis for the knockout punch, the wonderful phrase he gave us in his 1914 book Other People’s Money—“the relentless rules of humble arithmetic.” In The Battle, you’ll also find economists John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, and Alan Greenspan, and illustrious money manager Warren Buffett, along with the lesser-known but equally successful David Swensen and Jack Meyer, who have carried the Yale and Harvard endowment funds to such incredible heights. They share my concerns, and in pretty pungent language at that. Swensen describes the mutual fund industry as “a massive market failure,” and Meyer describes the investment business as “a giant scam.”

但我绝不把目光局限在当今最优秀的投资者身上。写作《圣战》一书时,我最大的乐趣之一就是将一些美国历史融入叙事。你会在书中读到我们的《独立宣言》和《宪法》,还有杰斐逊、麦迪逊、华盛顿、西奥多·罗斯福和伍德罗·威尔逊,他们都代表着诚信至上的政治领导风范。通过把他们写进去,我希望激励人们回归我们过去那些崇高的价值观。这本书以我最喜欢的开国元勋之一亚历山大·汉密尔顿的一句精彩引语作为结尾:“难道现在还不是时候,从金色时代的虚幻美梦中醒来,将‘我们距离完美智慧与完美美德的幸福帝国仍很遥远’这一观点作为指导我们行为的实用准则吗?”是的,是时候醒来了,是时候“重建世界”了。

But I don’t stop with today’s finest investors. One of my greatest joys in writing The Battle was incorporating some American history into my narrative. There you’ll find our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, along with Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, all of whom represent the epitome of integrity-laden political leadership. By including them, I hope to inspire a return to the noble values of our past. The book closes with a wonderful quote from my favorite among our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton: “Is it not time to awaken from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our conduct that we are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?” Yes, it is time to awaken, and “to build the world anew.”

写作的乐趣 最后,让我谈谈写作的乐趣。写作的乐趣很多……即便不为世界,也肯定为自己。哪怕你的心智离天才的范畴差着十万八千里,而且杂乱无章、注意力不集中——就像我这样,活跃但不守纪律,稍有一点打扰就严重得患上注意力缺陷障碍(ADD)——写作也能从混乱中理出秩序。毕竟,说明性写作就是讲故事;传递信息并说服他人接受它;甚至呈现事实、数据和逻辑来提升讨论的水平。

The Joy of Writing Let me conclude with some reflections on the joy of writing. There are many delights in writing . . . if not for the world, surely for oneself. Even if your mind is light years from the genius category and sort of chaotic and unfocused, as mine is, active but undisciplined, and with the slightest interruption giving one a severe case of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), writing can bring order out of the chaos. After all, expository writing is about telling a story; about sending a message and persuading others to accept it; and even about presenting facts and figures and logic to elevate the level of discourse.

对我来说,写作中最难的部分就是开头。所以我拿出带横线的黄色法律便笺簿,动笔写下来。如果我能做到,你也能做到。把你的想法组织好,一章一章来。在每一章里,试着找一个有趣的开头,也许是一句熟悉的引语,或者一句不那么熟悉但切合主题的引语。然后确保句子 A 自然而然地引出句子 B,段落 1 自然地引出段落 2,依此类推。一章接一章地遵循这个过程,当你把信息传达清楚之后,嗯,写个结论。遵循那句老话:“告诉他们你告诉过他们什么。”我碰巧喜欢理想主义的、甚至精神上能鼓舞人心的结论,这就是为什么我厚颜无耻地召唤历史上的伟大人物——尤其是美国历史上的——来把一切串联起来,就像我在《圣战》里做的那样。

For me, the hardest job in writing is to begin. So I get out the lined yellow legal pad, and put pen to paper. If I can do it, you can do it too. Organize your thoughts, chapter by chapter. In each chapter, try and have an interesting beginning, perhaps a familiar quotation, or a quotation not so familiar but perfect for the theme. Then make sure that sentence A leads to sentence B, that paragraph 1 leads to paragraph 2, and so on. Follow that process chapter after chapter, and when you’ve gotten your message across, well, write a conclusion. Follow the old saw and “tell them what you told them.” I happen to favor idealistic, even spiritually uplifting conclusions, which is why I shamelessly call on the great figures of history—especially American history—to pull it all together, just as I did in The Battle.

当然,当你的书出版时,没有什么比手里捧着第一本样书更让人兴奋的了。这是一本书,我写的!然后,如果你运气好,就会收到评论。我一直很幸运。但你必须脸皮厚,因为有好评也有差评。差评会让人难受一会儿;我承认这一点。但就那么一会儿。大多数时候,这更像雨点打在鸭子背上弹开,但确实可能不好受。《纽约时报》对《品格至上:先锋集团的创建与发展》一书的一条评论是这样的:“关于先锋集团的创立和演变,有一段引人入胜的历史有待书写:可惜,博格先生的最新著作并不是它……(这本书)感觉像是这位投资界伟大创新者档案里的边角料。”

Of course, when your book is published, there’s no thrill quite like holding that first copy in your hand. It’s a book, and I wrote it! Then, if you’re lucky, come the reviews. I’ve been lucky. But one must have a thick skin, for there are both good and bad reviews. The bad stings for a moment; I’ll confess that. But only for a moment. Mostly it’s more like rain bouncing off a duck’s back, but it can be tough. Here’s a review from The New York Times of Character Counts: The Creating and Building of the Vanguard Group. “There is a compelling history to be written about the founding and evolution of the Vanguard Group: Unfortunately, Mr. Bogle’s latest book isn’t it…. (the book) feels like the leftovers from the files of one of investing’s great innovators.”

虽然亚马逊网站上对《博格谈共同基金》的 28 条读者评论也几乎全是五星,唯一一条低分(三星)评论把它描述为“有有用的想法但结论很差。和大多数 MBA 一样,(博格)不知道如何使用数学或经验性结论。”(郑重声明,我连 MBA 学位都没有。)《巴伦周刊》也毫不客气:“我最喜欢这本书,但很勉强。勉强是因为从沃伦·巴菲特到《金钱》杂志,人人都喜欢它,而戳穿伪善者的气焰比鼓励他们更有意思。”

While the 28 reader reviews of Bogle on Mutual Funds were also almost uniformly five-star on Amazon.com, the sole poor rating (three-stars) described it as having “useful ideas but poor conclusions. Like most MBAs, (Bogle) does not know how to use mathematics or empirical conclusions.” (For the record, I don’t even have an MBA.) Barron’s was also tough: “I liked this book the best, but reluctantly. Reluctantly because everyone from Warren Buffett to Money magazine loves it and it’s more fun to deflate the self-righteous than to encourage them.”

尽管亚马逊网站上对《共同基金常识》的 61 条读者评论中绝大多数也是五星,但这并不妨碍一位读者写道“优秀但无聊”;另一位写道“博格大错特错”;还有一位写道“省点钱,别买这本书”。

And while the lion’s share of the 61 reader reviews on Amazon.com about Common Sense on Mutual Funds were also five-star, that didn’t keep one reader from writing “excellent but boring;” another, “Bogle is dead wrong;” and yet another, “save some cash and skip this book.”

《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》的评论家对《资本的灵魂之战》一书颇为慷慨,尽管往往对作者本人比对书中的信息更为客气。在亚马逊网站上,唯一一条差评将其描述为“为担心无聊问题的死脑筋商人(或女商人)写的流行资本主义……也就是说,它根本就不是关于资本主义的东西。”接招吧,你这笨蛋作者!但总体而言,这本书收到的评论反响极好——大量评论,绝大多数都是正面的。

The critics for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal were quite generous to The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism, albeit often kinder to the author than to the message. On Amazon, the sole poor review described it as “pop capitalism for bone-headed businessmen (or women) worried about nonsense . . . i.e., it is not about capitalism at all.” Take that, you dumb author! But overall, the book’s critical reception was terrific—lots of reviews, all largely positive.

好的压倒坏的 我提这些差评,是为了有理由提一些好评。而那好的一面——哇!——已经远远超过了坏的一面。普利策奖得主约翰·麦克菲(他自己写了区区 30 本书!)的这条评语如何?“你在《博格谈共同基金》里说的话,就像每一个不自欺欺人的、满手油墨的可怜虫所说的话。爬上一英里高的杆子,都比完成一篇写作要容易,至少看起来是这样。不过,你做到了。”

The Good Overwhelms the Bad I acknowledge these pans to justify mentioning some of the pats. And the good— wow!—has vastly outweighed the bad. How about this note from Pulitzer-Prize-winning author John McPhee (who’s penned a mere 30 books himself!)? “Your words in Bogle on Mutual Funds are spoken like every ink-stained wretch who is not self-deluded. It is easier to shinny up a mile-high pole than to complete a piece of writing, or so it seems. You got there, though.”

再想想,如果你在一周前收到一位年轻大学教授发来的这样一条消息,你会是什么感觉。(他碰巧是普林斯顿大学校友,1991 届毕业生。)“在佩珀代因大学我的‘艺术创业与技术’课上,您的经典著作《资本的灵魂之战》是与荷马的《奥德赛》并列的必读书目……两部都是关于长期投资的好书——关于抵制短期诱惑……当奥德修斯回到家时,他必须从那群在他为国征战期间靠他产业过活的冒名顶替者手中夺回自己的家园。所以这是一个关于产权、关于冒险者获得应得回报、关于重视更高理想而非底线、关于信仰和家庭以及服务客户和员工的故事。”(用我先锋的词汇说是“客户”和“员工”。谁说我们找不到更好的词来表达我们的真实意思呢?)

And consider for a moment how you would feel if you got a note like this one just a week ago from a young college professor. (He happens to be a Princeton alumnus, class of 1991.) “In my Artistic Entrepreneurship and Technology Class at Pepperdine University your classic book The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism is required reading along with Homer’s The Odyssey . . . Both are great books about long-term investing—about forgoing short-term temptations . . . When Odysseus gets on home, he has to reclaim it from all the imposters who have been living off his estate while he was off fighting for his country. So it’s a story about property rights, about the risk takers getting their just reward, about valuing the higher ideals over the bottom line, about faith and family, and serving one’s customers and employees.” (“Clients” and “crew” in my Vanguard lexicon. Who says we can’t always find better words to convey our true meaning?)

这位教授补充说:“(我的)学生们刚刚开始一段伟大的旅程,永恒的准则将在他们所有的智识和创业努力中造福他们……我们必须召唤缪斯,帮助我们找到正确的词语去激励(他们),我很感激荷马和博格做得如此出色,他们将在这趟远航中成为出色的同伴,在这个‘谦卑英雄团契’中,学生们受邀与这两位永恒的领袖同行,他们在更高理想面前以谦卑来提升一切。”也许这有点言过其实,但确实令人愉快!

“(My) students” the professor adds, “are just beginning a great journey, and eternity’s principles will serve them well in all their intellectual and entrepreneurial endeavors . . . we must call on the muse to help us find the right words to inspire (and) I’m grateful that Homer and Bogle did such a great job, as they’ll be great companions on this voyage on out, during this Fellowship of Humble Heroes, where the students are invited to journey alongside those two everlasting leaders who exalted all in their humility before higher ideals.” Maybe that’s a bit over the top, but it’s surely nice!

我一直以来最喜欢的一条评论来自《第一个 50 年》的一位读者:“考虑到金融媒体的一片嘈杂喧嚣,把老博格比作在雷鸣、闪电和密云中从西奈山带来律法的摩西,并不过分……我相信博格是个很难共事的人。那样的人一向如此。我知道,我们家就有一位,他去世 53 年了,但影响力丝毫未减……但这样的人能引起公众的共鸣,因为他们渴望善良、纯粹和真实。”是的,在整个职业生涯中,我始终以给予他们这些东西为目标。

My all-time favorite review is this one, from a reader of The First 50 Years: “Given the din and cacophony of the financial press, it is not ludicrous to liken old Bogle to Moses bringing the law down off Sinai amidst thunder, lightning, and a thick cloud . . . I’m sure Bogle is a hard man to work for. People like that always are. I know, we have one in our family and the fact that he’s been dead for 53 years hasn’t lessened his influence much . . . But people like this strike a chord in the public because they are starved for something good and pure and true.” And, yes, it remains my career-long goal to give it to them.

这些正面评论给了我每个作家都必须有的东西——坚持下去的力量。我作为活跃商人、首席执行官、企业家和创新者近 50 年的职业生涯,现在看来已是遥远的过去。近年来,我怀着极大的喜悦,一寸一寸、一步一步地追求成为所谓的作家。正如我那位真正的作家朋友彼得·伯恩斯坦开玩笑说的,他无法停止写作,“这是一种病。”对我来说也是如此。

These positive comments give me something that every writer must need—the strength to carry on. My near-50-year career as an active businessman, CEO, entrepreneur, and innovator now seems a long time ago. In recent years, I’ve had the great joy of the quest to become, inch by inch, step by step, what passes for a writer. As my real writer friend Peter Bernstein jokes of his inability to stop writing, “it’s a disease.” And so it is for me.

需要证据吗?我刚刚完成了第六本书的手稿。《投资常识小书》将于 2007 年 2 月由约翰·威利父子出版公司出版。它将有力地传达其副标题的核心信息:“保证你公平分享股票市场回报的唯一途径”。回到我开头引用的那句话:这本新书将是,嗯,一本指南手册,一本指数投资的实用手册。就像我的其他书一样,它被设计成受我们的图书馆员和我们的图书馆——包括这个图书馆——保护,代代相传,永远免受鼠患、自然因素和笨拙双手的破坏,以及抵抗大自然的力量,与遗忘的力量作战。

Need proof? I’ve just completed the manuscript for my sixth book. The Little Book of Common Sense Investing will be published by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. It will drive home the powerful message of its subtitle, The Only Way to Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns. Harking back to the quotation that I cited at the outset: the new book will be, well, an enchiridion, a handy manual for index investing. Like my other books, it’s designed to be protected by our librarians and by our libraries—including this one—for generations, protected always against rodents, the elements, and clumsy hands, and against nature, and fighting a war against the forces of oblivion.