(Notes taken by Professor David Kass, Department of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland and Rahul Shah, MBA student)
Warren Buffett (WB) met with 20 MBA students from each of eight universities, including the University of Maryland, on November 15, 2013. The MBA students asked 16 questions in the following order:
(以下為巴菲特對MBA大學生的分享)
(以下為巴菲特對MBA大學生的分享)
(1) Has Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) lowered its hurdle rate as it grew larger?
WB: BRK does not have a hurdle rate. The added capital makes it harder to achieve superior returns. If I manage $1 million I will get better returns than managing $210 billion (BRK’s net worth). Size is the enemy of performance. I would still rather manage $210 billion than $1 million.
(2) In the past you said you attribute 85% of your investing to Benjamin Graham and 15% to Philip Fisher. Has that percentage changed?
WB: I developed my investment strategy under Graham. I went to Columbia and learned from Graham. With Graham’s approach, you cannot lose money over time. It’s very quantitative in nature, and you have to do reasonably well. On the other hand, it has less and less application as you get into bigger and bigger companies with larger sums of money. It’s better to buy wonderful businesses at fair prices than so-so businesses at low prices.
With the “cigar approach”, you can find a nasty cigar on the ground, with one puff left, can pick it up, light it and you get a free puff. You can keep doing this and get many free puffs. That’s one approach, that’s what I did. I looked for very cheap stocks quantitatively. After exposure to Fisher and Charlie, I started looking for better companies. Previously I was doing both. Now we are looking for good companies, not just cheap companies. Railroads are huge, and they will be good in 10 years, and 100 years from now. Burlington Northern is now earning $6 billion pre-tax, as compared to $3 billion a few years ago before we bought it. Moving much towards Fisher now and less Ben Graham because we are working with larger sums. With smaller sums, we would be looking at better margins/cheaper stocks.
When I got out of school, I went through Moody’s manual page by page. Got to page 1433 and learned the good ones were in the back. Western insurance company in 1951 was earning $29.09 a share, the year before $21.66. The price of the stock had traded between 3 and 13 the previous 12 months. The price was at 16 when I saw it, less than 1 x earnings. A few years ago, in 2004, someone told me I should look at Korea. I got a book from Citigroup which had 1 stock to a page. Describes all the publicly traded companies in Korea. Went through it and found about 20 companies (ex. Day-Han flower mills) it had book value, eps, and securities. Didn’t tell you anything about the share until you look at the price. Found about 20 like that in an afternoon and bought some of all of them, but didn’t know enough about all of them to load up on them. If you buy 20 stocks selling at 2 times earnings, you’re going to make money. That’s Ben Graham and you can make money doing this. If you’re working with bigger money, you have to do Fisher/Charlie style and buy big businesses. Berkshire now looks for large, very strong companies. Like Nebraska Furniture Mart – bought in 1983 and it’s probably earning 20 times as much now. Charlie told me – “You’re never going to disagree with me because you’re smart and I’m always right”.
(3) What is the process you follow in writing the annual shareholders letter? How do you decide what you’re going to write about?
WB: I finished the 2013 letter already, but I will send it out on Feb 28. I already know what I’m going to say, just have to fill in some numbers and send it off.
I try to think of my shareholders as my partners. I try to think of the information I would want them to send me if they were running the place, and I was the shareholder. What would I want to know? This is what I tell them. In my first draft, I address it to my sisters who don’t know a lot about finance. “Dear sisters”- I explain to them what they would want to know in their position. I also like to write one section that is a general teaching lesson that doesn’t directly apply to Berkshire. This year 2600 words (out of 11,500) are thoughts about investing. I’m talking to all people thinking about investing and how they should go about it. I take one subject and just write a chapter on this, annually. Some people are interested, some are not. If they’re going to have most of their money with me, I like to talk to them as if they are in the room with me — economic principles of BRK – so people know what we are all about.
In 1956 I bought a ledger for $0.49, two pieces of paper for a partnership document but didn’t worry about the partnership agreement. I just explained the ground rules in about half a page: This is what I can do, this is what I can’t do, this is how I intend to go about it, and this is how I measure my success. If this looks good to you, then buy in. If you don’t want to buy in, then don’t – we can still be friends. These ground rules are in the back of the Berkshire Hathaway report tailored to investors. In our ground rules, though our management is corporate our attitude is partnership. We consider you as partners. You need to have common ground, just like a marriage. It would be crazy to get married when you differ on important points. The annual shareholders report is ready now. BRK has unusual shareholders, many of whom have 80% of their net worth in BRK. I have almost 100% of my net worth in BRK. But if the market goes down 50% we might rewrite it (laughter).
I try to think of my shareholders as my partners. I try to think of the information I would want them to send me if they were running the place, and I was the shareholder. What would I want to know? This is what I tell them. In my first draft, I address it to my sisters who don’t know a lot about finance. “Dear sisters”- I explain to them what they would want to know in their position. I also like to write one section that is a general teaching lesson that doesn’t directly apply to Berkshire. This year 2600 words (out of 11,500) are thoughts about investing. I’m talking to all people thinking about investing and how they should go about it. I take one subject and just write a chapter on this, annually. Some people are interested, some are not. If they’re going to have most of their money with me, I like to talk to them as if they are in the room with me — economic principles of BRK – so people know what we are all about.
In 1956 I bought a ledger for $0.49, two pieces of paper for a partnership document but didn’t worry about the partnership agreement. I just explained the ground rules in about half a page: This is what I can do, this is what I can’t do, this is how I intend to go about it, and this is how I measure my success. If this looks good to you, then buy in. If you don’t want to buy in, then don’t – we can still be friends. These ground rules are in the back of the Berkshire Hathaway report tailored to investors. In our ground rules, though our management is corporate our attitude is partnership. We consider you as partners. You need to have common ground, just like a marriage. It would be crazy to get married when you differ on important points. The annual shareholders report is ready now. BRK has unusual shareholders, many of whom have 80% of their net worth in BRK. I have almost 100% of my net worth in BRK. But if the market goes down 50% we might rewrite it (laughter).
(4) Why did you convert Goldman Sachs warrants into a smaller stake in the company?
WB: Goldman Sachs and GE, we helped finance them in 2008 which I never dreamt would happen (Imagine GE calling you, telling you they need your financing assistance). BRK received warrants with preferred stocks, expiring in 5 years (Sept 2013). Warrants to buy $5 billion Goldman Sachs common stock and $3 billion GE common stock. If we exercised, we would have had to invest an additional $8 billion. These two companies didn’t want to issue all of those new shares. Earlier this year we decided, they didn’t want to issue all of those shares, we didn’t want to spend $8 billion. Let’s do a settlement, both wanted to. We didn’t have to lay out cash and they didn’t need to issue all of those shares. BRK ended up with Goldman Sachs shares valued close to $2 billion without any outlay of BRK’s cash. GE was only $200 million. BRK has only one big warrant issue remaining, with Bank of America. We have warrants that entitle us to buy 700 million shares at $7.14 a share ($5 billion) through August 2021. We’ll hold the warrants until the dividend becomes high or we’ll hold until right before the expiration. Goldman Sachs and GE deals are interesting – who would have guessed those 5 years ago. The money market failed because of Lehman. Money market funds held a lot of Lehman paper. It happened overnight, 30+ million Americans who believed money markets were safe, and then Lehman fails. This caused a major money market fund to “break the buck” and lose value. It became a great silent electronic run on money markets. There was $3 1/2 trillion in money market funds and $175 billion of funds flowed out in the first three days after Lehman failed. All money market funds held commercial paper. Companies like GE had a lot of commercial paper. After this, American industry literally stopped. George Bush said, “If money doesn’t loosen up, this sucker will go down” – I believe this was the greatest economic statement of all time. This is why he backed up Paulson and Bernanke. Companies were counting on the commercial paper market. In September 2008, we came right to the abyss. If Paulson and Bernanke had not intervened, in two more days it would have been all over. BRK always has $20 billion or more in cash. It sounds crazy, never need anything like it, but some day in the next 100 years when the world stops again, we will be ready. There will be some incident, it could be tomorrow. At that time, you need cash. Cash at that time is like oxygen. When you don’t need it, you don’t notice it. When you do need it, it’s the only thing you need. We operate from a level of liquidity that no one else does. We don’t want to operate on bank lines. There is no authority for the US Treasury to guarantee money market funds. Their power comes from Congress. Paulson set up an exchange stabilization fund in September 2008 to guarantee money market funds. This stopped the run of money market funds and it was all over. Something like that will happen maybe a couple of times in your lifetime. Two things when it happens again – don’t let it ruin you, and if you have money/guts, you’ll have an opportunity to buy things at prices that don’t make sense. Fear spreads fast, it is contagious. Doesn’t have anything to do with IQ. Confidence only comes back one at a time, not en masse. There are periods when fear paralyzes the investment world. You don’t want to owe money at that time, and if you have money then you want to buy at those times. “Be greedy when others are fearful, and fearful when others are greedy”.
(5) How has your understanding of markets contributed towards your political views?
WB: I wouldn’t say knowledge of markets has. My political views were formed by this process. Just imagine that it is 24 hours before you are born. A genie comes and says to you in the womb, “You look like an extraordinarily responsible, intelligent, potential human being. Going to emerge in 24 hours and it is an enormous responsibility I am going to assign to you – determination of the political, economic and social system into which you are going to emerge. You set the rules, any political system, democracy, parliamentary, anything you wish, can set the economic structure, communistic, capitalistic, set anything in motion and I guarantee you that when you emerge this world will exist for you, your children and grandchildren. What’s the catch? One catch – just before you emerge you have to go through a huge bucket with 7 billion slips, one for each human. Dip your hand in and that is what you get – you could be born intelligent or not intelligent, born healthy or disabled, born black or white, born in the US or in Bangladesh, etc. You have no idea which slip you will get. Not knowing which slip you are going to get, how would you design the world? Do you want men to push around females? It’s a 50/50 chance you get female. If you think about the political world, you want a system that gets what people want. You want more and more output because you’ll have more wealth to share around. The US is a great system, turns out $50,000 GDP per capita, 6 times the amount when I was born in just one lifetime. But not knowing what slip you get, you want a system that once it produces output, you don’t want anyone to be left behind. You want to incentivize the top performers, don’t want equality in results, but do want something that those who get the bad tickets still have a decent life. You also don’t want fear in people’s minds – fear of lack of money in old age, fear of cost of health care. I call this the “Ovarian Lottery”. My sisters didn’t get the same ticket. Expectations for them were that they would marry well, or if they work, would work as a nurse, teacher, etc. If you are designing the world knowing 50/50 male or female, you don’t want this type of world for women – you could get female. Design your world this way; this should be your philosophy. I look at Forbes 400, look at their figures and see how it’s gone up in the last 30 years. Americans at the bottom are also improving, and that is great, but we don’t want that degree of inequality. Only governments can correct that. Right way to look at it is the standpoint of how you would view the world if you didn’t know who you would be. If you’re not willing to gamble with your slip out of 100 random slips, you are lucky! The top 1% of 7 billion people. Everyone is wired differently. You can’t say you do everything yourself. We all have teachers, and people before us who led us to where we are. We can’t let people fall too far behind. You all definitely got good slips.
WB: I wouldn’t say knowledge of markets has. My political views were formed by this process. Just imagine that it is 24 hours before you are born. A genie comes and says to you in the womb, “You look like an extraordinarily responsible, intelligent, potential human being. Going to emerge in 24 hours and it is an enormous responsibility I am going to assign to you – determination of the political, economic and social system into which you are going to emerge. You set the rules, any political system, democracy, parliamentary, anything you wish, can set the economic structure, communistic, capitalistic, set anything in motion and I guarantee you that when you emerge this world will exist for you, your children and grandchildren. What’s the catch? One catch – just before you emerge you have to go through a huge bucket with 7 billion slips, one for each human. Dip your hand in and that is what you get – you could be born intelligent or not intelligent, born healthy or disabled, born black or white, born in the US or in Bangladesh, etc. You have no idea which slip you will get. Not knowing which slip you are going to get, how would you design the world? Do you want men to push around females? It’s a 50/50 chance you get female. If you think about the political world, you want a system that gets what people want. You want more and more output because you’ll have more wealth to share around. The US is a great system, turns out $50,000 GDP per capita, 6 times the amount when I was born in just one lifetime. But not knowing what slip you get, you want a system that once it produces output, you don’t want anyone to be left behind. You want to incentivize the top performers, don’t want equality in results, but do want something that those who get the bad tickets still have a decent life. You also don’t want fear in people’s minds – fear of lack of money in old age, fear of cost of health care. I call this the “Ovarian Lottery”. My sisters didn’t get the same ticket. Expectations for them were that they would marry well, or if they work, would work as a nurse, teacher, etc. If you are designing the world knowing 50/50 male or female, you don’t want this type of world for women – you could get female. Design your world this way; this should be your philosophy. I look at Forbes 400, look at their figures and see how it’s gone up in the last 30 years. Americans at the bottom are also improving, and that is great, but we don’t want that degree of inequality. Only governments can correct that. Right way to look at it is the standpoint of how you would view the world if you didn’t know who you would be. If you’re not willing to gamble with your slip out of 100 random slips, you are lucky! The top 1% of 7 billion people. Everyone is wired differently. You can’t say you do everything yourself. We all have teachers, and people before us who led us to where we are. We can’t let people fall too far behind. You all definitely got good slips.
(6) You are one of the few male CEO’s who champions women in the workplace. Can you talk about your reasoning and how we can contribute our intelligence to the workplace? (from a woman speaker)
WB: We wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776 – “All men are created equal” etc. In 1789 we wrote a Constitution – on second thoughts… blacks are only 3/5 of a person. They slipped up. They wrote in such a way that they didn’t have to use gender pronouns. They gave themselves away in presidency, they said “He”. Pretty soon all men are created equal became all males are created equal. Move forward to the Gettysburg address, Lincoln repeated the line about All men are created equal. Slipped over the fact that women couldn’t vote, couldn’t even inherit money in some states. Finally, in 1920, 131 years into this new venture of governance, “Oh yea, women should have a fair stake in vote.” After this, many justices were appointed before O’Connor was. Everyone had expectations of me as a child, but my sisters who were just as smart, were delegated to something different. Here is this country, think about how far we came from using half our talent. Now we are beginning to unleash the potential of the other half. If we only allow people to be CEO’s, accountants or lawyers if they are above 5’10″, and people under 5’10″ must become nurses, etc. that would be crazy, we could not unleash potential. Same thing was the case for women. No one realized it, my dad didn’t, and my teachers didn’t. Women are obviously just as smart and work just as hard. No one is better at running our annual meetings than Carrie. I think its nuts for a CEO to pass up the most talented person based on their gender. But we are going in the right direction. We’re moving towards the ideals we set, but these ideals set by Jefferson weren’t practiced until much later.
WB: We wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776 – “All men are created equal” etc. In 1789 we wrote a Constitution – on second thoughts… blacks are only 3/5 of a person. They slipped up. They wrote in such a way that they didn’t have to use gender pronouns. They gave themselves away in presidency, they said “He”. Pretty soon all men are created equal became all males are created equal. Move forward to the Gettysburg address, Lincoln repeated the line about All men are created equal. Slipped over the fact that women couldn’t vote, couldn’t even inherit money in some states. Finally, in 1920, 131 years into this new venture of governance, “Oh yea, women should have a fair stake in vote.” After this, many justices were appointed before O’Connor was. Everyone had expectations of me as a child, but my sisters who were just as smart, were delegated to something different. Here is this country, think about how far we came from using half our talent. Now we are beginning to unleash the potential of the other half. If we only allow people to be CEO’s, accountants or lawyers if they are above 5’10″, and people under 5’10″ must become nurses, etc. that would be crazy, we could not unleash potential. Same thing was the case for women. No one realized it, my dad didn’t, and my teachers didn’t. Women are obviously just as smart and work just as hard. No one is better at running our annual meetings than Carrie. I think its nuts for a CEO to pass up the most talented person based on their gender. But we are going in the right direction. We’re moving towards the ideals we set, but these ideals set by Jefferson weren’t practiced until much later.
(7) How do you assess management when acquiring a company?
I handed Mrs. B (Nebraska Furniture Mart) a big check, and none of them (managers of acquired firms) had to work anymore. But will they behave the same after they get the money and I get the stock certificate? Will they work just as hard when they’re putting money in their own pocket?
3/4 of our managers are independently wealthy. These people don’t need to go to work, but they are putting the work in. If I give him 4 billion dollars, will it be the same results next month? Next year? I don’t deal with contracts; I have to size up whether management is going to continue working that same way. Generally, I’ve been right in my assessments and I’ve gotten better. They don’t need me, I need them.
Why do I come to work? I can do anything I want to do, and yet I come out every morning and can’t wait to get into work. I enjoy working Saturdays, talking to students. Why do I do it? I get to paint my own painting. Berkshire Hathaway is my painting. People love creating things. I think I’m Michelangelo, painting the Sistine Chapel but it could look like a blob to someone else. Second thing – I want applause. I like it when people appreciate my painting. If others have their own paintings, then who am I to tell them how to paint it? (Just like management) I appreciate what they do. I know the game, so when I praise them, they know they’re getting approval from a critic they like. I have their stock certificate, but it’s still their business. It’s a good culture when managers really care about the business.
(8) Now information is everywhere. If you were born in Peru today, could you have thrived in the same manner?
WB: Yes, I do. Things are changing around the world. People are able to move within and up through socio-economic classes. America didn’t work harder when increasing GDP more than other countries, we allowed for equal opportunity. Didn’t even work smarter, just unleashed greater potential. The world is allowing for opportunities for all.
(9) What career path would you advise someone who wants to go into investing today?
(9) What career path would you advise someone who wants to go into investing today?
WB: You just want to learn everything about it. There’s so much to learn. Learning what works and what doesn’t work, where value resides and where value doesn’t reside. Got my feet wet, at 11 years old (1942) I bought 3 shares of Cities Service Preferred at $38 1/4. At the same time, my older sister Doris bought also bought 3 shares and my dad bought 4 shares, so we had a round lot of 10 shares. My sister Doris complained about the price of the stock every day when going to school. So I sold it at $42. Two years later the shares sold for $200.
I would try to manage money with an audited record so that it would attract more people when doing well. I like running businesses better than investing. It is more fun building businesses than moving money around.
Todd Combs and Ted Weschler are each managing $6 1/2 billion. They each are earning less money than they would if they were running their own hedge funds. But they like being at Berkshire. They have enough money. They have the character that I admire.
(10) Question seeking advice for women.
(10) Question seeking advice for women.
WB: I recommend reading Personal History by Katherine Graham. Presidents came to see her. She overcame the handicap that her mother and husband told her she was nothing. Many women are succeeding today as CEO’s. Susan Jacques, CEO of Borsheim’s, is leaving to head the Worldwide Gem Association.
(11) You were the first person to use the term “moats” as competitive advantage. Morningstar has built on this. What do you think about Morningstar’s work on moats?
WB: I think they’re doing a great job. I came up with this term 40+ years ago because in capitalism, you have these economic castles. Apple, Microsoft, etc. Some have smaller castles. If you have a castle in capitalism, people are going to try to capture it. You need 2 things – a moat around the castle, and you need a knight in the castle who is trying to widen the moat around the castle. How did Coca-Cola build their moat? They deepened the thought in people’s minds that Coca-Cola is where happiness is. The moat is what’s in your mind. Railroad moats are barriers to entry. Geico’s moat is low prices. Every day we try to widen the moat. See’s Candies creates a moat in the minds of consumers. It is a more effective gift on Valentine’s Day than Russell Stover. See’s Candies has raised its price every year on December 26 for 41 years. BRK bought See’s Candies for $25 million in 1972. Today it earns $80 million. Richard Branson failed 10 years ago with Virgin Cola. Snickers has been the number one candy bar for 40 years.
(12) How do you balance work/family life and what advice do you have for a young professional?
WB: I think they’re doing a great job. I came up with this term 40+ years ago because in capitalism, you have these economic castles. Apple, Microsoft, etc. Some have smaller castles. If you have a castle in capitalism, people are going to try to capture it. You need 2 things – a moat around the castle, and you need a knight in the castle who is trying to widen the moat around the castle. How did Coca-Cola build their moat? They deepened the thought in people’s minds that Coca-Cola is where happiness is. The moat is what’s in your mind. Railroad moats are barriers to entry. Geico’s moat is low prices. Every day we try to widen the moat. See’s Candies creates a moat in the minds of consumers. It is a more effective gift on Valentine’s Day than Russell Stover. See’s Candies has raised its price every year on December 26 for 41 years. BRK bought See’s Candies for $25 million in 1972. Today it earns $80 million. Richard Branson failed 10 years ago with Virgin Cola. Snickers has been the number one candy bar for 40 years.
(12) How do you balance work/family life and what advice do you have for a young professional?
WB: The most important decision you’re going make is who you’re going to marry. What’s important is that what your thoughts are on big things, must make sure that your spouse has the same thoughts on the same big things. Don’t marry someone to change them. Marry someone who is a better person than you are. Always associate yourself with people who are better than you.
(13) Do you have a goal of beating the Dow Jones Industrials by 10 percentage points each year?
WB: Years ago, I was trying to beat the Dow (would be the S&P today). Goal was to beat the Dow by 10 points this year. If the Dow was down 20% and we were down 10%, that would be fine. We don’t have some number we expect to make from some business or security. We do what we can that we think is the best at the time. Is this the most intelligent thing we can do, within our circle of competence, that doesn’t strain our resources? Hopefully we say yes. We generally think the value of a company is the PV of cash flows until judgment day.
If you really get back to investments – 2600 year ago the expression was “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. But you need to question it – How sure are you that there are two in the bush? How far is the bush? What is the interest rate? (laughter)
If you really get back to investments – 2600 year ago the expression was “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. But you need to question it – How sure are you that there are two in the bush? How far is the bush? What is the interest rate? (laughter)
In investments, you lay out money now and get more money later on. Berkshire is putting more birds in the bush all the time.
If you are managing only $1 million, then you should be able to beat the S&P 500 by 10 percentage points with no risk or leverage.
(14) What was the most difficult negotiation you were ever involved in? How did you develop your strategy going in?
(14) What was the most difficult negotiation you were ever involved in? How did you develop your strategy going in?
WB: Only really learned negotiations from my dad. People have different styles of negotiation. I don’t want to be in a negotiation where it “has to end” at some point. Don’t want them to have me by the throat while I have them by the throat. Either we give up or one strangles the other. My style is different from most peoples, just say what I do. If you do that throughout your life then stick to it. I can walk away from anything. I say I’ll pay $X, and normally this is the best deal. I don’t want to lowball, then you counter, and get to $X anyway. You spend time and money doing that. I just say what I’ll pay, and that works fine once you establish a reputation. You don’t want to get in a negotiation that you can’t afford to walk away from. Bargaining with people you love is a terrible mistake. It’s destructive. The most powerful force in the world is unconditional love.
(15) What has been your biggest investment mistake and how did you learn from it?
WB: It is better to learn from other peoples mistakes rather than your own. Look at all kinds of business failures. I don’t believe in beating yourself over it, you’re going to make mistakes. My biggest mistake was buying Berkshire Hathaway and trying to make it better. We had all of our money in a bad business, had a drag on all of this capital for 20 years. Even after acquiring National Indemnity. BRK to be the base of what we wanted to grow, this was a mistake. You cannot play the game without making mistakes. We bought Dexter Shoe for $400 million in BRK stock which is now worth $5 – $6 billion. Dexter Shoe went bankrupt as a result of foreign competition. We lost $2 billion in Energy Future Holding bonds which KKR had invested in. KKR lost $8 billion.
(16) When managing other peoples money and making mistakes, how do you deal with the responsibility/burden?
WB: I tell them I’m going to make mistakes, but the goal is to do this and this and this. I might make mistakes in order to do this, but I will still probably achieve this goal. I try to operate in a way where I can’t lose significant sums over time. I might not make the most money this way, but I will minimize the risk of permanent loss. If there’s 1 in 1000 chance that an investment decision can threaten permanent loss to other people, I just won’t do it.
出處
http://blogs.rhsmith.umd.edu/davidkass/uncategorized/warren-buffetts-meeting-with-university-of-maryland-mbams-students-november-15-2013/
以下為中文版
出處
http://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/usstock/c/20131217/183117663049.shtml
以下為中文版
2013年11月15日，沃伦·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)与来自八所大学(包括马里兰大学)的160名商学院MBA学员会面交谈，每所大学派出20名学员参加。这些MBA学员按照以下顺序提出了16个问题：
(1)伯克希尔哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway，以下简称BRK)是否因规模越来越大而下调了最低预期回报率？
巴菲特：BRK并没有最低预期回报率。日益增加的资金使得BRK愈加难以实现卓越回报。如果我管理的资金只有100万美元的话，那么我会获得比管理2,100亿美元(BRK的资产净值)更好的投资回报。规模是业绩的敌人。但我还是宁愿管理2,100亿美元，而不是100万美元。
(2)在过去，你曾说你的投资理念有85%来自于本杰明·格雷厄姆(Benjamin Graham)，15%来自于菲利普·菲舍(Philip Fisher)。这个比例改变了吗？
巴菲特：我在格雷厄姆的影响下形成了自己的投资策略。我前往哥伦比亚大学就读商学院，拜在格雷厄姆门下。如果你采用格雷厄姆的投资方法，那么随着时间的推移你不会亏钱。从本质上讲，他的投资方法是非常量化的，而你必须做得相当不错。在另一方面，随着你的公司规模越来越大，拥有的资金越来越多，运用这种方法的空间就会越来越小。这时以合理的价格买入卓越的公司就要好于以低廉的价格买入平庸的公司了。
采用“捡烟屁股”的办法，你可以在地上找到还能吸一口的烟屁股，把它捡起来，点上后就可以免费吸一口。你可以一直这样做，免费吸到许多口香烟。这是一种方法，以前我就是这么做的。我通过量化分析，寻找估值非常便宜的股票。在接触到菲舍和查理之后，我开始寻找更出色的公司。以前我寻找的是估值非常便宜而且较为出色的公司。现在，我们寻找的是优秀的公司，而不是只图便宜。铁路运输行业的前途远大，未来10年乃至100年都会表现良好。伯灵顿北方圣菲铁路公司(Burlington Northern)现在税前盈利60亿美元，而几年前我们收购它之前才30亿美元。我们现在更加趋向于采用菲舍的投资理念，而减少对格雷厄姆投资理念的依赖，那是因为我们管理的资金规模更大了。如果资金规模较小的话，那么我们会考虑安全边际较高/估值较便宜的股票。
在毕业之后，我逐页通读了穆迪指南，翻到第1433页，我明白好的公司都在后面。西部保险公司在1951年的每股收益为29.09美元，一年前为21.66美元，而其股价在过去12个月内一直处于3美元至13美元的区间内。当我看到该股的时候，其股价为16美元，市盈率不到1倍。几年前，也就是在2004年，有人告诉我，我应该看看韩国。我得到花旗集团出版的一本书，书中每页介绍一只股票。这本书介绍了所有在韩国公开上市的公司。翻阅之后，我发现了约20家公司(比如大韩面粉加工有限公司)，上面列出了这些公司的账面价值、每股收益和证券种类。但在你看到股价之前，这些信息并不能告诉你这只股票是否值得买入。我在一个下午挑选出了大约20只这样的股票，买入这20只股票的部分股份，但我对这批股票没有足够的了解，因此也没有大量买入。如果你买入20只市盈率只有2倍的股票的话，那么你将会赚钱。这是本·格雷厄姆的投资理念，你可以通过这样做来盈利。如果你管理更多资金的话，那么你就必须采用菲舍/查理的投资风格，收购大公司。伯克希尔现在考虑投资的目标是规模大而且非常强的公司。比如我在1983年收购的内布拉斯加家具店(Nebraska Furniture Mart)，现在很可能已经获得20倍之多的投资回报。查理曾经跟我说：“你永远不会与我意见不合，因为你很聪明，而我总是对的。”
(3)你每年写给股东的信，遵循的是什么思路？你如何决定自己会写些什么？
巴菲特：我已经写好了2013年致股东信，但我会在2月28日发出。我早就知道自己会在信中说些什么，只需要填写一些数字，然后发出去即可。
我设法把公司股东看成是合伙人。而我也设法从身份互换的角度来把握信中要告诉他们的信息。假如我是股东而他们负责运营公司的话，我会希望他们告诉我什么？还有我会想知道什么？而这就是我会告诉股东的信息。我生平的第一封致股东信，是写给没有多少财务知识的两位姐姐。“亲爱的姐姐”——我站在她们的立场上向她们解释她们想要知道的信息。我还喜欢写一段用于一般性投资理念普及的章节，这部分与伯克希尔并没有直接的关系。今年这部分内容有2,600个字(此信总共有11,500个字)，是关于投资的一些想法。我向所有考虑投资的人讲述这部分内容，告诉他们应如何投资。我每年都选一个主题，然后只在信中就这个主题写一个章节。可能有些人感兴趣，有些人不感兴趣。但如果他们打算把自己的大部分资金投资给我的话，那么我会像是和他们共处一室面谈那样，在信中和他们交谈(BRK的经济原则)，这样人们就会知道关于我们的所有信息。
1956年，我花0.49美元买了一本账簿，用两页纸撰写了给我合伙人的文件，至于有没有人入伙，我并不担心。我用半页纸的篇幅解释了基本规则：这些是我能做到的，这些我不能做到的，这些是我打算如何去做的，这些是我衡量成功与否的标准。如果你觉得这些看起来不错的话，那么就入伙；如果你不想入伙，那就算了(但我们还是朋友)。这些基本规则现在写在伯克希尔哈撒韦公司向投资者提供的报告的后面。在我们的基本规则中，虽然我们的管理体制是企业制，但我们秉持的态度则是合伙制的。我们把你视为合伙人，你需要拥有共同的理念，就像婚姻一样。如果男女双方在重要观念方面存在分歧的时候，那么他俩结婚就不理智了。现在年度股东报告已经准备好了。BRK拥有与众不同的股东，他们中许多人将自己80%的净资产投给了BRK。我差不多把自己100%的资产净值投在了BRK上。但如果股市暴跌50%的话，那么我们我们可以改写这个数字(与会者发出笑声)。
(4)你为什么把高盛(175.16, 0.39, 0.22%)认股权证转换成股份缩减的公司股票？
巴菲特：2008年，我们帮了高盛和通用电气(27.36, 0.04, 0.15%)一把，提供了融资，这我做梦也没想到(想象一下， 通用电气打电话给你，说他们需要你提供融资援助)。BRK获得了优先股外加期限为五年(2013年9月份到期)的认股权证。这些权证可以购买价值50亿美元的高盛普通股和价值30亿美元的通用电气普通股。如果我们行权的话，那么我们将不得不额外投资80亿美元。但这两家公司又不想发行这些新股。今年早些时候我们做了决定，既然他们不想发行所有这些新股，我们也不想再投入80亿美元。那么让我们达成一个双方都接受的结算协议。我们不必再多掏钱，而他们不必发行所有这些新股。BRK最终获得价值近20亿美元的高盛股票，而没有多花一分钱。在通用电气的认股权证上也只花费了2亿美元。BRK手里只剩下一批数额较大的认股权证——来自美国银行(15.6, -0.15, -0.95%)。这批权证让我们有权在2021年8月份之前的任何时候以每股7.14美元的价格买入7亿股美国银行股票(总计50亿美元)。我们将持有这些权证，直至美国银行提高股息，否则我们把这些权证一直持有到临近到期时。
高盛和通用电气的这两宗权证交易很有意思——五年前谁会料到有如此结果呢。货币市场因雷曼而陷于崩溃。货币市场基金持有大量的雷曼票据。一夜之间，雷曼倒闭，3,000多万原以为货币市场十分安全的美国投资者损失惨重。这导致一只主力货币市场基金的净值跌破1美元，变得不值一钱。货币市场顿时出现一轮无声的电子化“挤兑”热潮。当时货币市场基金的总规模为3.5万亿美元，而在雷曼倒闭后的头三天，就有1,750亿美元资金出逃。所有货币市场基金都持有商业票据。诸如通用电气等公司发行了许多商业票据。此后，美国工业差不多陷于停滞。布什说：“如果不放松货币的话，那么这个‘傻X’经济就没救了。”——我认为这是经济史上最有智慧的一句话。这就是他为什么支持鲍尔森和伯南克的原因所在。当时各大企业都在依靠商业票据市场。2008年9月份，我们直接坠入深渊。如果鲍尔森和伯南克没有出手干预的话，那么两天之内一切都将完蛋。
BRK始终持有200亿美元或更多的现金，这听起来很愚蠢，一点必要都没有，但在未来100年里，有一天当世界再次停止正常运转时，我们将会做好准备。这个世界总会发生某些变故，或许就在明天。到那个时候，你就需要现金。那时现金就像是氧气！当你不需要它的时候，你不会注意到它。而当你真的需要它的时候，它是你唯一需要的东西。我们运营的流动性水平无人可比。我们不想依靠银行授信额度进行运营。美国财政部没有权力担保货币市场基金。他们的权力来自于国会。鲍尔森在2008年9月份设立了一个外汇平准基金，为货币市场基金提供担保。这促使货币市场基金的“挤兑”热潮得以停止，一切都结束了。在你有生之年，这样的事情可能会发生数次。当类似事情再次发生时，请记住两点：1. 不要让它毁了你；2. 如果你有资金或者胆量的话，那么你将有机会以低得离谱的价格买到投资标的。
恐惧蔓延的速度很快，它具有传染性。这与智商没有什么关系。信心只能逐渐恢复，而不是全体投资者同时恢复。有时候恐惧会让投资界趋于瘫痪。这时候你不应该欠钱，而且如果有钱的话，你应该在这个时候逢低买入。“在别人恐惧时贪婪，在别人贪婪时恐惧。”
(5)你对市场的理解对你的政治观点产生了那些促进影响？
巴菲特：我不会说对市场的理解影响到我政治观点的形成。我的政治观点的形成过程是这样的：试想，在你出生之前的24小时，有个精灵来了，对在妈妈肚子里面的你说：“你看起来像是一个极其负责、聪明、有潜力的人。你将在24小时之后出生，我将分派给你一个艰巨的任务：决定你即将降生的这个国家的政治、经济和社会制度。你负责设定规则，包括所有政治制度、民主、议会等等你希望涉及到的方方面面；你可以设定经济结构——无论是共产主义还是资本主义。启动一切事项，我向你保证，当你出生时，这个世界将会为你以及你的子子孙孙而存在着。”
有什么附加条件吗？有一个附加条件：就是在你出生之前，你必须经过一个放有70亿张签条(世界上每人一张)的巨大容器。把手伸进去抽签，你可能得到的选择如下：你可以生来就聪明或不聪明，健康或残疾，黑人或白人，生于美国或孟加拉国，等等。
你根本不知道自己将会抽到哪张签。由于你不知道自己会得到哪张签，那么你怎么设计这个世界呢？你希望男性使唤女性吗？可你成为女性的概率是50%。如果你考虑政治的话，你希望建立一个人人所期望的制度。你期望经济产出越来越多，因为这样你将拥有更多的财富让人们共享。美国拥有一个伟大的制度，人均国内生产总值(GDP)达到5万美元，是我出生时的6倍。
但由于你不知道自己将会抽中哪张签，你就会期望建立这样一个制度：一旦它产生产出之后，你不希望任何人落在后面。你希望激励优秀的人，不希望搞大锅饭，但又确实想让那些抽到下下签的人仍然能够过上体面的生活。你也不希望人们满怀担忧：担心老来缺钱，担心医疗开支。我把这称作为“娘胎乐透”。我的两个姐姐并没有抽到和我同样的签。她们被寄予的期望是：她们会嫁得很好，或者如果她们工作的话，会当护士、教师等。
如果你正在设计这个世界，而且知道你身为男性或女性的概率各为50%的话，那么你不会希望女性生活在这样一个世界里，因为你也有可能是女性。这样设计你的世界——这应该是你的生活信条。我查阅福布斯美国400富豪榜，看看他们的财富数据，看着这些财富在过去30年里是如何增长的。底层的美国人也在不断得到改善，这很好。但我们不希望看到如此巨大的贫富差距。只有政府才能纠正这种差距。正确看待这个问题，是你在不知道自己会抽到哪个签的情况下看待这个世界的立足点。如果你不愿意从100张随机的签条中冒险抽签的话，那么你就是幸运儿！是70亿人中站在财富金字塔最顶尖的那1%！每个人生来就是千差万别。不可能说所有的事情都由自己来做。我们每个人都有老师，都有在我们面前引导我们获得目前成就的人。我们不能让别人落在太后面！你们每个人肯定都抽到了好签。
(6)您是在职场上支持女性的为数不多的男性首席执行官(CEO)之一。你能谈谈你的理由吗？还有，我们女性如何才能在职场上贡献我们的智慧？(一位女学生提出的问题)
巴菲特：1776年我们在《独立宣言》上写到“人人生而平等”等等。在1789年，我们颁布了宪法，再三考虑后……黑人变成只算五分之三个人。他们疏忽了。他们用了一种不必使用性别代词的表述。他们在自己的总统任期内出卖了自己，他们只说 “He(他)。”很快，“人人生而平等”变成了“所有男性生而平等”。历史前进到葛底斯堡演说，林肯反复强调“人人生而平等”这句话。但忽略了如下事实：女性不能投票，甚至在一些州不能继承财产。最后，在1920年，也就是美国建国131年之后，“哦，是啊，女性应该有公平的投票权。”后来呢，美国最高法院新人来旧人往，可直到奥康纳(O’Connor)才有了第一位女性大法官。在我还是小孩时，人人都对我报以期望，但和我一样聪明的两位姐姐却被寄予不同的期望。
这就是我们这个国家，想想我们仅仅是靠男性这半边天就已取得了如此成就。现在我们正开始释放女性这半边天的潜能。如果我们只让身高超过5英尺10英寸的人担任公司CEO、会计师或者律师，而身高不到5英尺10英寸的人必须当护士等的话，这是多么离谱的事情，那些潜能也不会释放出来。这就是女性所面临的情况。没有人意识到这个问题，我的父亲没有，我的老师们也没有。女性显然是和男性一样聪明，一样工作努力。没有人能够比嘉莉(Carrie)更加出色地筹办我们的年度股东大会。我认为，一家公司的CEO因性别歧视而放弃任用最有才华的人是多么愚蠢的行为啊。但是，我们正在朝着正确的方向迈进。我们正在朝着我们设定的理念前进。但杰佛逊早就定下这些理念直至很久以后才得以实践。
(7)在收购一家公司时，你如何评估管理层？
巴菲特：我交给B女士(内布拉斯加家具店的创始人)一张大额支票，他们所有人(被收购企业的管理层)都可以不用再工作了。但是在他们得到钱而我得到股票凭证之后，他们会像以前那样工作吗？当他们把钱放进口袋里之后，他们是否会像以前那样卖力工作吗？
我们旗下四分之三的企业经理本身就是有钱人。这些人并不需要工作，但是他们都在工作。如果我给他40亿美元的话，那么他下个月的工作成绩会一样吗？明年呢？我不在合同上做文章；我必须判断管理层是否会继续以相同的方式工作。通常我的评估是正确的，而且得到更好的结果。他们不需要我，而是我需要他们。
为什么我来上班呢？我可以做我想做的任何事情。然而每天早晨出门时，我都迫不及待地想投入到工作中。我喜欢周六工作，喜欢与学生们交流。我为什么这样做呢？我得完成自己的作品。伯克希尔哈撒韦公司就是我作品。人们喜欢创造东西。我设想自己是米开朗基罗，正在西斯廷教堂里作画，但在别人看来可能只是涂鸦。第二件事情是，我希望得到别人的喝彩。如果有人欣赏的我作品，那么我很是欢喜。如果别人也有他们自己的作品，我又有什么资格去指点他们如何创作呢？(就像管理层)我欣赏他们所做的成绩。我有的是经验，所以当我称赞他们的时候，他们知道他们得到了自己所喜欢的点评者的赞许。我拥有他们公司的股票凭证，但公司仍然是由他们负责经营。当管理层真正关心公司运营状况的时候，那就是一种很好的企业文化。
(8)现在信息无处不在。如果你今天出生在秘鲁的话，你还能不能用同样的方式取得成功？
巴菲特：是的，我能。整个世界都在变化着。人们能够在社会各经济阶层内部流动，甚至晋升至更高的阶层。美国在提升GDP方面之所以走在其他国家前面，并不是因为比其他国家的人工作更努力，甚至也不是更精明，而只是释放了更大的潜能，因为我们允许机会均等。这个世界正在给所有人提供机会。
(9)对于如今想从事投资行业的人，你会向他们建议怎样的职业道路？
巴菲特：那么你就应该学习一切有关投资的知识。有太多的东西要去学习。学习哪些方法管用，哪些方法不管用；哪些地方有价值，哪些地方没有价值。我11岁(1942年)时就开始练手——以38.25美元的价格买入3股城市服务石油公司(Cities Service)优先股。同时，我大姐多丽丝也买入3股，我父亲买入4股，所以我们总共持有整整一手10股的股票(多数情况下一手是指100股股票，但对于有些交易清淡的股票，一手可以是10股股票——译注)。每天上学的时候，多丽丝就抱怨股票价格。所以我在42美元的时候就卖掉了股票。两年后，它涨到了200美元。
我会借助审计记录来管理资金，这样当投资业绩很好的时候，就会吸引到更多的人。与投资相比，我更加喜欢经营公司。打造公司要比把钱投来投去更加令人快乐。
托德·康姆斯(Todd Combs)和泰德·韦斯勒(Ted Weschler)每人管理着65亿元的资产。如果他们运营自己的对冲基金的话，那么他们每人都可以赚到比现在更多的收入。但他们喜欢在伯克希尔工作。他们已经拥有足够的钱。他们身上具有我所欣赏的那种性格。
(10)为女性征求建议的问题。
巴菲特：我建议你阅读凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆(Katherine Graham)撰写的自传《个人历史》(Personal History)。许多美国总统都到她家里看望她。她克服了她的母亲和丈夫认为她一无是处的障碍。如今许多女性都在成为成功的CEO。博希姆珠宝公司(Borsheim)CEO苏珊·雅克(Susan Jacques)即将离职，出任世界宝石协会(Worldwide Gem Association)会长。
(11)你是第一个使用“护城河”这个字眼来形容竞争优势的人。晨星公司(Morningstar)也借用了这个概念来开展研究。你认为晨星在“护城河”方面的工作做得怎样？
巴菲特：我认为他们做得很好。我在40多年前提出“护城河”这个概念。因为在资本主义制度里，存在大大小小的经济城堡。有苹果(549.02, 4.56, 0.84%)、微软[微博](36.8, 0.55, 1.52%)这类庞然大物，也有些堡垒较小的公司。如果你在资本主义制度里拥有一座经济城堡的话，那么人们就会设法占领它，这时你就需要两件东西：1.在城堡周围建立护城河；2.在城堡里有能够设法加宽周围护城河的骑士。可口可乐(40.04, 0.18, 0.45%)是如何建立自己的护城河的呢？他们加深了人们在心目中认为可口可乐就是幸福所在的看法。护城河就是人们心里形成的观念。铁路运输行业的护城河就是进入门槛。盖可汽车保险公司(Geico)的护城河就是低价。我们每天都在设法加宽护城河。喜诗糖果公司(See’s Candies)在消费者心中建立了一条护城河。在情人节，送喜诗糖果比送拉塞尔斯托福(Russell Stover)糖果更能博得女孩的欢心。喜诗糖果过去41年以来每年都在12月26日上调价格。BRK在1972年以2,500万美元的价格收购该公司。如今，该公司每年盈利8,000万美元。10年前理查德·布兰森(Richard Branson)推出的维珍可乐(Virgin Cola)惨遭失败。士力架(Snicker)已经连续40年成为销售收入排名第一的糖果棒。
(12)你如何平衡工作与家庭生活？对于年轻的职场专业人士你有什么建议吗？
巴菲特：你要做的最重要的决定，就是你打算和谁结婚。重要的是，你对重大事情的看法，必须确保你跟配偶在同一件重大事情上的看法一致。不要和你希望去改变其想法的人结婚。要和比你优秀的人结婚；始终与比自己优秀的人交往。
(13)你有没有定下年投资回报率要超出道指10个百分点的目标？
巴菲特：早几年，我确实想要跑赢道指(现在则是标普500指数)。我的目标是每年的投资回报率超过道指10个百分点。如果道指下跌了20%，而我们亏损了10%，那没问题。我们并没有设定预期从某家企业或者某只证券那里赚取多少回报的具体数字。我们尽我们所能做我们认为当时最合适的事情。这是不是我们在自己的能力范围之内可以做到的最为明智而且不会让我们的资源紧张的事情呢？希望答案是肯定的。一般来说，我们认为一家公司的价值等于其未来永续现金流的现值。
如果你真的回到投资这个话题上来的话，那么2600年前人类持有的态度是“一鸟在手胜于二鸟在林。”但你需要质疑这种说法：你有多大把握认为林里有两只鸟？这片林子有多远？利率是多少？(笑声)
在投资中，你现在投出钱来，是为了以后能够获得更多的钱。伯克希尔一直在让林中有更多的鸟。
如果你正在管理的资金规模只有100万美元，那么你应该在没有风险而且不使用融资杠杆的情况下让投资回报率超出标普500指数10个百分点。
(14)你曾经参与的最困难的谈判是什么？你的谈判策略是如何形成的？
巴菲特：我只是从我父亲那里真正学会了谈判。不同的人有不同的谈判风格。我不想参与那种在某个时点必须结束的谈判，不想参与互掐脖子的谈判。这种情况下，要么我们双方都放弃，要么就是一方掐死另一方。我的风格与大多数人不同，只说我会做什么。如果你在一生当中都这样做的话，那么就坚持这种做法。我可以放弃任何谈判。我说我会出这个价，这通常就是我愿意支付的最高价格。我不想虚报低价，然后你还价，最终还是以这个价格成交。这样做就要花费时间和金钱。我只说我会付的价，而一旦建立了信誉，这种做法就很管用。你不应该参与自己无法放弃的谈判。与你爱的人讨价还价是一个可怕的错误，这个错误会造成伤害。在这个世界上，最强大的力量就是无条件的爱。
(15)你最大的投资错误是什么？你是如何从中吸取教训的？
巴菲特：与其从自己身上吸取教训，不如从其他人的错误中吸取教训。看看各种企业倒闭的案例。我不信谁能永远避免犯错，人都有犯错的时候。我最大的错误就是收购伯克希尔哈撒韦公司，并且试图改善它本来的业务。我们把我们所有的钱都投放在一个糟糕的行业里，从而对所有这些资金造成了长达20年的拖累，即使在收购了国民保险公司(National Indemnity)之后也是如此。让BRK成为我们想要发展的公司基础，这曾是一个错误。不犯错误你就无法从事投资这一行。我们以价值4亿美元的BRK股票收购了德克斯特鞋业(Dexter Shoe)公司，原先价值4亿美元的那批BRK股票现在值50亿到60亿美元之间。而由于外国企业的竞争，德克斯特鞋业公司已经破产倒闭了。我们在电力公司Energy Future Holding的债券上亏了20亿美元，私募股权投资公司KKR也投了资，他们亏了80亿美元。
(16)当你在管理别人的资金并且出错的时候，你如何处理责任问题？
巴菲特：我告诉他们，我会出错，但我们的目标是要做到这个、这个和这个。为了达到这个目标，我可能会出错，但我仍然很可能会实现这个目标。我设法以随着时间的推移不会亏损大量资金的方式进行操作。这样我可能不会赚到最多的钱，但我会将遭受永久性损失的风险降到最低。如果一项投资有千分之一的概率会让别人的钱承受永久性损失的话，那么我就不会出手。
出處
http://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/usstock/c/20131217/183117663049.shtml
1 則留言:
借用一下
張貼留言