历年汇总：巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得

Do you invest based on trends or sectors?

您是根据潮流趋势进行投资，还是根据行业来投资？

We don’t play big trends like demographic trends. They just don’t mean that much. There’s too much money to be made year to year than worry about trends that take ten years to play out. I can’t think of one investment we’ve ever made based on a macro or demographic trend.

我们不会根据趋势进行投资，比如像人口趋势这样的，这些潮流趋势本身并没有太多意义。我们每年都需要对大量的资金进行投资，而为那些潜伏期长达数几年的潮流趋势担心是不值得的。我想不出来我们曾经有哪次是根据宏观、或者微观趋势进行投资的。

[CM: Not only that, but we’ve missed the biggest commodity boom in history – and we’ll continue to miss things like this!]

[查理芒格：不仅如此，我们的的确确还错过了历史上最大的商品大繁荣时期—将来我们还会继续跟这样的趋势无缘]

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2006 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2006

What do you think about the utility industry?

您怎么看待公用事业行业?

I have thought about that a lot because you can put big money in it. I have even thought of buying the entire businesses. But I don't quite understand the game in terms of how it is going to develop with deregulation. I can see how it destroys a lot of value through the high cost producer once they are not protected by a monopoly territory.

我对这个领域思考过很多，毕竟这是一个可以投很多钱的行业。我甚至想过要把整个行业都收入囊中。但是我对这个行业究竟要怎么玩还是不太清楚，不了解在管制放松的情况下这个行业会如何发展。我觉得，一旦备有了垄断领域的保护，该行业公司的价值很容易被高成本生产商摧毁。

I don't for sure see who benefits and how much. Obviously the guy with very low cost power or some guy has hydro-power at two cents a KwH has a huge advantage. But how much of that he gets to keep or how extensively he can send that outside his natural territory, I haven't been able to figure that out so I really don’t know what the Industry will look like in ten years. But it is something I think about and if I ever develop any insights that call for action, I will act on them. Because I think I can understand the attractiveness of the product. All the aspects of certainty of users need and the fact it is a bargain and all of that. I understand. I don't understand who is going to make the money in ten years. And that keeps me away.

我不确定这个行业里谁能获益，或是能获益多少。很显然的是，有低成本能源的公司或者是成本低到2美分一度电的混合动力源的公司有巨大的优势。但是我不清楚公司能把这个优势保存多久的，以及它们能否把这个优势延展到自己的自然资源之外，所以我无法看清在10年之后这类公司能发展成什么样子。但是我会一直关注这个行业，一旦有想法就会去付出行动。因为我觉得我能够理解这类行业的吸引点。确定的用户需求，相对便宜的股价，这些都是能够理解吸引点。但是我无法理解的是这个行业里的哪个企业能够在未来十年里赚钱。这个原因让我退避三舍。

· Source: Lecture at the University of Florida Business School

· URL:

· Time: October 15th 1998

What do you think of utilities?

您怎么看待公共事业？

The production of electricity is a huge business and it's not inconceivable that we'd invest heavily here.

发电行业是庞大的产业，所以毫无疑问我们会在这个领域重仓投资。

The Public Utilities Holding Company Act [PUCA], written in 1935, has a lot of rules about what the parent company of a utility can do. It was set up to check abuses that existed then, so it was appropriate at the time. But I don't think there's anything pro-social about limiting Berkshire Hathaway's ability to acquire utilities today. We might have done one or two acquisitions in past years but for PUCA.

1935年诞生的《公用事业控股公司法案》（PUCA）对公用事业的母公司的行为做出了大量规定。它的诞生是为了监控当时存在的违规行为，在当时看是合理的。但是我认为，时至今日，再限制伯克希尔哈撒韦收购公用事业公司跟社会道德准则是毫不相关的。由于PUCA法案，我们在过去几年本来要完成的一两项收购案也并没有完成。

[Regarding the Californian Power Crisis] With deregulation, the incentives [for power producers] were changed such that instead of wanting abundant supplies, they wanted tight supplies, which would result in higher prices.

（关于加利福尼亚电力公司危机）随着管制放松，对发电公司的激励变化导致他们希望供应紧张，而不是充足的供应，这最终导致价格提高。

You can't take utilities with a cost of X, invite new producers in with a cost of 3X, and expect prices to go down.

你不能消灭掉那些成本花费只有X倍的公司，然后替换成成本花费有3X的供应商，然后期待价格会降低。

The old system strikes me as better for society.

这套旧体系说是为社会服务，确实是雷到我了。

[CM: "The old system had the NIMBY [not in my back yard] problem. If you let unreasonable, self-centered people make decisions, you'll get into trouble. We may be making the same mistake today with oil refineries."]

[查理芒格：旧的体质面临的是“事不关己高高挂起”的问题。如果让不遵从逻辑、从自我出发的人来做决定，我们肯定会遇到麻烦。炼油厂这个行业现在可能也面临着同样的问题。]

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2001 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: April 2001

In the domestic soft drink model, is it winner take all, or is there room for three competitors?

在国内的软饮板块里，是一家独大，还是能容纳三家竞争？

Sure, there's room for more than one. I think Coke's market share will grow pretty much year after year. We're talking tenths of a percent, but tenths of a percent are important.

毫无疑问，这个市场肯定还是能够多容纳一家公司的。我觉得可口可乐的市场份额每年都会有大幅度增长。虽然我们现在说的是十分之一，但是十分之一也很重要。

The U.S. market is 10 billion cases, so one percent is 100 million cases. It's interesting how regional tastes can be: Dr. Pepper may have a far bigger market share in Texas than in Minnesota ... You can make money with a soft drink company that doesn't dominate the business. You can do a lot better with one that does dominate, but it's not winner take all. It's not like two newspapers in a town of 100,000 or 200,000. There are certain businesses that are winner takes all.

美国市场是100亿的大蛋糕，1%就是1亿。很有趣的一点是区域口味差异很大，在德克萨斯州，Dr. Pepper的市场份额比在明尼苏达州要多得多…即便一家公司不是行业老大，也是能够从它身上投资赚钱的。当然从一个有垄断优势的企业身上确实能赚得很多，但并不是只能一家独大。这不像那种在10万-20万的小镇上的报社，这种情况才会形成一家独大的垄断局面。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 1997

· URL:

· Time: May 1997

What do you think of the airline industry?

您怎么看待航空业？

"The big problem is not aggregate costs, but costs versus competitors." Buffett recalled US Air's difficulties competing against Southwest and concluded, "If your costs are out of line, you're going to get killed eventually."

[Munger: "Airline pilot unions are really tough. It's interesting to see people paid as well as airline pilots to have such a tough union. No airline can afford a shutdown very long."]

If you're in a business that cannot take a long strike, then you're playing a game of chicken with labor. Ironically, if you're weak, you're in a stronger negotiating position.

“累积成本不是主要问题，跟竞争对手对比成本才是”， 巴菲特回忆起美国空军在与西南航空公司的竞争中遇到的困难，并总结说：“如果成本远超预算，企业最终就会垮掉。

[芒格：“航空飞行员工会都十分难搞。很难想象那些跟飞行员拿着同样报酬的人会组织一个如此难搞定的工会。没有哪条航线能够受得起长期停运的。”]

如果你在一个无法经受长期罢工停业的行业里，你可能就像在玩老鹰捉小鸡的游戏一样。很讽刺的是如果处于弱势，你其实会有更强大的谈判地位。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2001 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: April 2001

What do you think of the banking business model?

您对于银行业怎么看？

· Banking is a good business - many banks earn high returns on tangible equity

· 银行业是个很好的行业 – 很多银行都有很高的有形资产回报率。

· “Charlie and I have been surprised at how much profitability banks have, given that it seems like a commodity business.”

· 查理和我都对银行的高收益感到惊讶，从这点来看银行业有点像零售行业。

· Underestimated how sticky customers are and how unaware they are of fees banks charge them

· 我们低估了银行客户的粘性，也低估他们对银行收费无意识的程度。

· If you have a well run bank, you don’t need to be the #1 bank in an area

· 如果你的有一家经营良好的银行，那么这家银行是不是龙头老大无所谓。

· Bank ROA is not highly correlated to size

· 银行的ROA（资产回报率）跟体量没有多大关系

· You may have to pay 3x tangible equity to buy a bank

· 要买下一家银行你可能得支付三倍有形资产的价格

· Only problem with banks is that sometimes they get crazy and do dumb things...’91 was a good example

· 银行存在的唯一问题是它们有时候会发展得特别疯狂，做出一下傻事。比如91事件。

· If a bank doesn’t do dumb things on the asset side, it will make good money

· 如果银行不在资产上做出傻事，它就稳打稳赚钱。

· Source: Buffett Vanderbilt Notes

· URL:

· Time: Jan 2005

We've been somewhat surprised at how well banks have done. Some have generated 20% or greater returns on tangible equity over many years, though this is in part due to increasing leverage.

我们一直对银行能经营得这么好感到惊奇，有的银行甚至在多年内维持了20%或以上的有形资产收益率，虽然其中有些得益于杠杆的增加。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2002 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2002

------------------------------------------------

Banking, if you can just stay away from following the fads and making bad loans, has been a remarkably good business. Since WW II, ROE for banks that have stayed out of trouble has been good. Some large well-run banks earn 20% ROE. I've been surprised that margins in banking haven't been competed away.

如果银行不跟随潮流，也不放坏账，那它就是一个非常好的行业。 自第二次世界大战以来，在困境之外的银行其ROE（净资产收益率）一直很好。 一些运营良好的大型银行ROE高达20％。 令我惊讶的是，银行业的利润并没有被挤掉。

It's pretty extraordinary that institutions competing against each other without real competitive advantages can all make high returns. Part of it is higher loan to value ratios than in past years. Some banks get into trouble making bad loans, but you don't have to.

令人诧异的是，这些没有真正竞争优势的银行互相竞争，却也还能拥有高回报率。部分原因是因为贷款比率比过去几年提高了。有的银行因为放坏账而陷入困境，但是这种问题是可以避免的。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2003

------------------------------------------------

Financial companies are more difficult to analyze than other companies. They can report whatever earnings they want – it’s an easy game to play. For banks, earnings depend on loans and the reserves set aside. It’s easy to change and manipulate the reserves.

金融类公司比其它类别的公司都要难研究。他们可以随便报一个自定的营收数字—这个游戏对他们来说很简单。对于银行来说，营收取决于贷款和存款准备金。而操控存款准备金的数额是很容易的。

With a company like WD-40 or a brick company, the financials are easy to analyze. But with financial [companies] it’s tough, especially when you throw in derivatives.

像WD-40（石油制剂品牌公司）或者制砖厂这些公司的财务报表就很容易分析。但是分析金融企业就很难，尤其是还要考虑金融衍生品的时候。

There were very high grade, financially sophisticated people who were on the boards of the GSEs [Government-Sponsored Enterprises, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] and they were not negligent, but it’s very tough [to detect the shenanigans that went on].

有很多担任ZF企业（比如房利美和房地美）董事会成员的人，他们有资深的财务知识，也很尽职尽责，但是对这些人来说要检查假账也是很难的。

Charlie and I were on the board of Salomon and Charlie was on the audit committee, and [it’s just impossible to evaluate thousands of transactions]. You’ll just have to accept that with insurance companies, banks and other financial companies – it’s just a more dangerous field to analyze.

我和查理之前是Salomon公司的董事会成员，查理在审计会员会任职，我们也觉得去评估成千上万的交易几乎是不可能的。你必须的承认这点，保险行业、银行、还有其它的金融公司比其它的公司研究起来要“危险”得多。

 [CM: Where you have complexity, by nature you can have fraud and mistakes. This will always be true of financial companies, including ones run by governments. If you want accurate numbers from financial companies, you’re in the wrong world.]

[查理芒格：一旦你有疑虑，本质上你面临的是欺骗和失误。对于金融类公司更是这样，即便是那些由ZF经营的也是如此，如果你想要找到上市公司精准无误的财报数字，那么你来错地方了。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2005 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2005

------------------------------------------------

[Q - Small regional banks - what would you look at before you buy?]

[问题-在买小的地方性银行之前，您会考虑哪些方面？]

WB: It is hard to make a categorical decision about regional banks. So much depends on the character of the institution. It will be a reflection of the CEO you have. A bank can mean anything. It can be an institution that is doing all sorts of crazy things. The Bank of Commonwealth was an example. We owned a bank in Rockford, Illinois, run by Dean Aback—he would always run a super, sound bank.

巴菲特：很难给地方性银行做出类别划分，这主要取决于银行的角色是什么，有可能跟CEO个人的特质有关。银行也有各种各样的。它可能是采取了各种疯狂举动的银行，比如联邦银行。也可能是一家经营十分平稳的银行，比如我们曾经持有过的在伊利诺伊州的Rockford银行，由Dean Aback经营。

You should know the culture of the management and the institution before making the decision to buy a bank. We own Wells Fargo and M&T, but it doesn’t mean they are immune. But likely they are immune from institutional stupidity. There was a wise man that said there are more banks than bankers. If you think about that a while, you will get my point.

你应该要了解管理层和企业的文化，然后再决定要不要买。我们持有富国银行和M&T银行，但是这并不代表它们就有免疫功能。只不过这两家公司不会做出一般机构会做的蠢事儿。曾经有个聪明人说了这样一句话：世界上的银行比银行家要多。如果你仔细想想这句话，你就能理解到我的意思。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2008 Boodell Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2008

You’ve recently invested in Goldman Sachs and GE. Is the financial sector a good buy right now?

你最近买了高盛和通用电气。现在是金融板块买入的好时机嘛？

No sector is a good buy unless you understand the business. However, I do believe that there is good value and great opportunity now in the financial sector because it is extremely unpopular. Sector’s themselves don’t make good buys, companies that are undervalued make good buys. You know how to value a business, you project the future cash flows discounted to present and buy with a margin of safety. The earnings prospects need to be greater than the current value. Anything that is unpopular is aways great to look at. If I was getting out of school right now, I would take a look.

除非你对这个行业很了解，否则没有哪个行业适合买入这一说法。但是我确实觉得现在对于金融行业来说存在巨大的价值和机会，因为这个行业现在极其的受欢迎。行业里面本身不会产生好的买入时机，是那些被低估的企业存在好的买入时机。你要知道如何对企业进行估值，然后将企业未来产生的现金流折现，在有安全边际的情况下再买入。企业未来的盈利状况要比当前的价值水平要好。任何目前不受欢迎的企业都十分值得去关注，如果我现在刚刚从学校出来，我就会去看这些行业。

· Source: Q&A with 6 Business Schools

· URL:

· Time: Feb 2009

Your opinion of the gambling industry?

您怎么看待博彩行业？

I don’t know about which stocks to recommend, but, as long as we’re talking about the legal ones, gambling companies will have a perfectly good future. The desire of people to gamble is very high, including in stocks. Day trading comes very close to gambling. People like to gamble. If there’s a football game, especially if it’s boring, you’ll enjoy it more if you bet a few bucks. The human propensity to gamble is huge.

我没有什么推荐的股票，但是如果单只那些合法的博彩公司的话，我觉得它们还是有很好的发展前景的。人们想去赌博的渴望很高，包括股票这个领域。股票日交易跟赌博很相似。人们喜欢赌博，如果现在有一场球赛，尤其是那种很无聊的球赛，你要是投了一点赌注肯定会看得更尽兴。人们倾向赌博的心是很强的。

When it was only legal in Nevada, you had to travel or break laws to gamble, but now states are legalizing it. The easier it is, the more people who will gamble.

以前只有内华达州赌博合法，所以人们要违法去到很远的地方赌博，但是现在ZF已经把赌博合法化了。赌博越容易，人们就越愿意去赌。

People will always want to gamble. I’m not a prude about it, but to quite an extent, gambling is a tax on ignorance. You just put it in and guys like me don’t pay the taxes – it relieves taxes on those who don’t gamble. I find it socially revolting when a government preys on its citizens rather than serving them.

人们总是愿意去赌博的。我不是说赌博不好，但是赌博从很大程度上来说就是对无知之人征收税务的一种行为。你把赌博的盒子放在那儿，很多像我一样的人不会去“交税”-对于不赌博的人来说这减轻了税务。我觉得ZF让公民牺牲在赌博上，而不是去为公民服务这个行为让人反感。

Munger: I would argue that casinos use clever psychological tricks [to get people to gamble], some of which are harmless, but a lot of grievous injury has been done. You won’t find a lot of gambling companies in Berkshire’s portfolio. [Applause]

查理芒格：我觉得赌场会用一些巧妙的心里技巧诱惑人们去赌博，其中有些是无大害的，但是也造成了很多严重的伤害。在伯克希尔哈撒韦的投资组合中你不会找到太多的博彩公司。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2007

Opinion on the healthcare industry and its costs?

您对医疗行业及其成本有什么看法？

We looked at healthcare costs, which were exploding a few years ago. Workman's Comp costs have risen dramatically, and are huge for us. $6,000-$7,000 per employee. That's in inflationary part of the US economy and we and our employees can't control it.

我们看过医疗行业的成本问题，几年前它们的成本非常高。Workman's Comp公司的成本急剧上升，对于我们来说成本很高，每名员工的薪水是6000-6000美金。美国经济这时候在经历通货膨胀，我们和员工都无法控制。

Health costs will keep growing and we don't have any answers. But Charlie runs a hospital, so maybe he'll have some insights.

医疗成本会持续攀升，我们也没有应对策略。但是查理经营过一家医院，所以他可能有写看法。

[CM: The quality of the medical care delivered, including the pharmaceutical industry, has improved a lot. I don't think it's crazy for a rich country like the US to spend 15% of   on healthcare, and if it rose to 16-17%, it's not a big worry.

医疗服务的治疗的质量，包括医药行业，都有很大提升。我觉得像美国这样的富裕过家话费15%的GDP在医疗领域不是什么很夸张的事情，即便是涨到了16%-17%都不足为奇。

But if other countries spend 7-8% [of GDP on healthcare] and have good systems, are we getting a good deal?

但是如果其它国家花费GDP的7%-8%，是不是我们会有好的机会呢？

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2003

[Re: The Pharmaceutical Industry]

回复：制药行业

That industry is in a state of flux right now. It’s historically earned very good returns on invested capital, but it could well be that the world will unfold differently in the future than in the past. I’m not sure I can give you a good answer on that.

制药行业现在很不稳定。它的历史投资回报率很高，但是未来的进展和过去的可能不尽相同。我没法在这个问题上给一个确切答案。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2003

--------------------------------------------------

[CM: A lot of people have made a lot of money selling health insurance. I’ve seen it at Chairman of a central-city hospital [the Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles]. You’re right that there have been a lot of bad ethics. A lot of good ethics, too.

查理芒格：很多人通过卖保险赚了很多钱。我在中央城市主席医院看到过。你说的没错，医疗行业有很多不太好的风气。当然也是有好的道德标准的。

Generally, [investing in the healthcare area] goes into the “too hard” pile – unless Warren’s been keeping something from me.]

总的来说，投资医疗行业对我们来说会被归为“太难”那一类——除非沃伦悄悄藏着一些不告诉我。

No, we’ve never done anything in healthcare.

是的，我们从来没有投资过医疗行业。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2006 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2006

--------------------------------------------------

[Re: fixing the U.S. Healthcare System]

回复：修正美国医疗体系

Munger: It’s too tough. We can’t solve that one. We try to look for easy problems. We don’t try tough things. Sometimes life hands you a very tough problem you have to wrestle with – not financial problems for us, but personal ones.

查理芒格：这太难了，我们无法解决这个问题，我们想去解决的是简单的问题，不是这种难搞定的问题。有时候生活递给你一个十分艰难的问题，你必须去搏斗——对于我们来说这类问题不是财务上的问题，而是个人的问题。

If we were looking at a private-sector solution, we’d look for low distribution costs. You don’t want a lot of revenue soaked up in frictional costs, but I don’t know how to do that. If we’re paying 15% of GDP [for healthcare], you’d think someone would figure it out. Maybe this will come up in the upcoming presidential campaign.

如果我们在寻找一个私营部门的解决方案，我们会寻找低的分销成本。你不会愿意看到大量的盈利磨灭在摩擦成本里面，但我也不清楚要怎么才能做到。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2007

--------------------------------------------------

[Re: Pharma? How do you value the pipeline of drug companies?]

回复：那制药行业呢？您怎么对制药公司正在研发的药品估值？

WB: Unlike many businesses, when we invest in pharma, we don’t know the answer on the pipeline, and it’ll be a different pipeline 5 years from now anyway. We don’t know whether Pfizer or Merck, etc, have a better chance, or which of those will come out with a blockbuster. But we do feel we have a group of companies bought at a fair price that, overall, will do well and should offer chances for decent profits. These companies are doing very important things. I could not tell you the potential in the pipeline. A group approach makes sense. It is not the way we would go at banks. If you buy pharma at a reasonable multiple, you will probably do okay 5-10 years from now.

沃伦：跟别的行业不一样，我们在投资制药行业时无法对其研发的药品下个结论，毕竟五年之后这个药品可能就大不相同了。我们也不知道Pfizer（瑞辉，美国制药公司）或者Merck(默克，美国制药公司)这些公司里面是不是存在更好的机会，还是这些企业会制作出下一个火爆市场的药品。不过我们能确定是，我们的的确确在合理的价格买入了一组制药公司，它们能够经营良好，并且提供了赚取良好回报的机会。这类公司做的业务都十分重要，我无法告诉你有潜力的药剂是什么。设置投资组合是有意义的，这跟我们对待银行也采取的方法不一样。如果你在合理的倍数下买入了制药公司，5-10年的收益率可能是很不错的。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2008 Boodell Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2008

Berkshire has invested in several insurance companies, would you go into the health insurance business?

伯克希尔投资了一些保险公司，您会投资一些医疗保险公司嘛？

No. Health insurance is so ingrained into national policy that it is a tough business. I’m not really that excited about it from a business perspective. I don’t want to write policies with high loan loss ratios. That being said, I would buy the stock of an undervalued healthcare insurer.

 不会。医疗保险跟国家政策相关性太强了，所以这个行业并不好做。从商业的角度来看，我对这个行业并不感兴趣。我不希望提出贷款损失率很高的的条款。话虽如此，我还是会买入被低估的医疗保险股。

· Source: Q&A with 6 Business Schools

· URL:

· Time: Feb 2009

What do you think of the telecoms industry?

您怎么看待通讯行业？

I don't have the faintest idea how to evaluate what telecom companies will look like down the road. I only understand a little of what they do. I suppose if you gave me some information, I could regurgitate it back to you but in terms of understanding their economic characteristics down the road, I don't know. Charlie, what do you know about the telecom business?

我对如何评估通讯公司将来会发展成什么样子一点想法也没有，我对它们知之甚少。如果你提供给我一些信息，我能提供一些反馈给你，但是就理解通信行业的本质来说我真的不了解。查理，你对通信行业有什么看法？

[CM: Less than you do.]

[查理慢歌：我知道还没有你多。]

I know people will be drinking Coke, using Gillette blades and eating Snickers bars in 10-20 years and have rough idea of how much profit they'll be making. But I don't know anything about telecom.

我知道人们可能在10-20年之后还会喝可口可乐，用吉列的剃须刀，吃士力架，我也大概知道这些能够的获利情况，但是对于通信行业我不太了解。

It doesn't bother me. Somebody will make money on cocoa beans, but not me. I don't worry about what I don't know -- I worry about being sure about what I do know.

我不为之困扰。总有些人能在咖啡豆上挣钱，只不过这个人不是我而已。我不担心自己对某些事情的无知——我担心的是对自己知道的东西都确信无疑。

[CM: Berkshire in its history has made money betting on sure things.]

[查理芒格：伯克希尔曾经就在自己确信的事情上赌了一把。]

We might buy some junk bonds in that business [telecom], and we have, but we expect losses in junk bonds -- though we expect a decent result -- because we're dealing with institutions that have demonstrated problems. In some cases -- not at all with Level 3 -- there are management issues. We expect to have significant losses, and we haven't seen our biggest loss yet, believe me. It's like being an insurer of substandard risks -- you'll have more accidents, but can charge a premium.

我们可能会在通信行业里买入一些垃圾债券，我们确实也买了一些。虽然我希望收益良好，但我们确实面临着损失，因为这个行业确实出现了一些问题。有些公司面临着管理问题——不仅仅是Level 3面临这样的问题（美国一家通信公司）。我们预计将来会面临严重损失，虽然目前还没有，但是肯定会的。就好像是为次标准风险承保一样——你会面临着更多的事故，但是可以溢价收费。

We don't buy businesses in which 15 will be train wrecks and 85 will work out OK.

那种15%是残骸，85%还过得去的公司，我们是不会投资的。

There are all kinds of businesses where you can't predict what they're going to earn, so we try to favor a few where we can.

有很多公司是能够预测出它们的盈利状况的，所以在可行的情况下我们会考虑这些公司。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2003

Your opinion on the auto industry?

您对汽车行业有什么看法？

[GM CEO] Rick Waggoner and [Ford Chairman] Bill Ford have both been handed, by past managers, extremely difficult hands to play. They’re not the consequences of their own doing, but they have inherited a legacy cost structure, with contracts put in place decades ago, that make it very difficult for them to be competitive in today’s world.

Rick Waggoner(通用汽车CEO)和Bill Ford（福特汽车CEO）都是从上任管理层那儿接手的公司，并且都是极其难管理的。他们接手的不是自己手把手管理的公司，而是继承了遗留下的成本结构，继承了几十年前签下的合同，对于公司而言很难在当今保持竞争力。

GM and Ford don’t sign long-term contracts to pay high amounts for steel, but that’s what they’ve done with annuity and healthcare payments to employees. The result is such expenses are far higher than that of competitors, so it’s not a fair fight.

通用汽车和福特汽车没有签下购买大量钢铁的长期合同，但是他们却为员工签下了长期支付年金和医疗费用的合同。这就导致了它们的费用比竞争对手高很多，这显然是不公平的。

GM once had 50% market share, and it’s fallen to 25%. Even if it was still 50%, they’d still be in trouble.

通用汽车曾经有50%的市场份额，现在落到了25%。即便现在它们的市场份额还是50%，企业还是深陷困境的。

I’m not sure what I’d do if I was elected CEO of GM. It reminds me of what Bill Buckley said when asked what he would do if he actually won his race for New York mayor back in 1965 and he said, “The first thing I’d do is ask for a recount.” (Laughter) Well, that’s what I’d do at GM.

如果我是通用电气的CEO，我也不知道要怎么做。这让我想起1965年时，Bill Buckley被问及如果赢了纽约市长的竞选他会怎么做，他曾经说“第一件事情就是要求重新计数”。我对通用汽车也是一样的。

The UAW says, “We have a contract and we have a deal.” GM has set aside $90 billion for pensions and another $20 billion or so for healthcare, yet has a market cap of only $14 billion. That’s not sustainable.... Something will have to give.

UAW（美国汽车飞机农业机械工人联合会）说到：“一份合同，一笔交易”。通用汽车留下了900亿美元的年金，还有200亿美元左右的医疗费用，然而它的市值只有140亿美金。这根本持续不下去……它是要做出牺牲的。

If a company had to pay an extra $2,000 per car more for steel, everyone would realize there was a crisis and demand a quick solution, but that’s not happening.

如果一家公司需要为每辆车的钢铁材料支付2000美金，那么所有人都会意识到公司存在厄待解决的危机，但是这种情况还没发生过。

Part of the problem arose because [the actions of previous managements] bore no accounting consequences. Back in the 1960s, companies didn’t have to account for pension costs on an accrual basis, and didn’t have to do so for healthcare costs until the late 80s or early 90s. But those costs are very real...

问题产生的部分原因是前管理层的管理根本没有考虑到会计结果。回到20世纪60年代，公司不需要根据发生制支付年金费用，医疗费用也是一样，知道80、90年代才如此。但是这些成本真的很高……

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2005 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2005

What are your views on the railroad industry?

您怎么看待铁路运输行业？

I don’t think the railroad industry will be a lot more exciting, but the competitive position of the railroads has improved somewhat since 20 years ago. There’s been progress on labor issues and an improved competitive position vis-a-vis truckers. Higher oil prices hurt railroads, but hurt truckers more . What was a terrible business 30 years ago, operating under heavy regulation, has become decent and could be better over time. But it will never be a fabulous business – it’s too capital intensive.

我觉得铁路行业不是说有多么的性感，但是铁路运输行业的优势地位早在20年前就已经提高了。劳工纠纷问题已经取得进展，火车司机的地位也已经提高。较高的石油价格损害了铁路行业，但是对司机的损害是更大的。30年前那些在严苛管制下经营的糟糕的行业现在已经发展得不错了，以后可能会更好。但是它永远不会成为一个极好的行业——因为它的资本太密集了。

· Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes

· URL:

· Time: 2007

What industry will be the next growth driver in the 21st century and what do you see that supports that?

21世纪里哪个行业会是领头羊，您认为支撑点在哪儿？

We don’t worry too much about that. If you’d look at the 1930s, nobody could have predicted how much the automobile and airplane would transform the world. There were 2000 car companies, but now only 3 left in the US and they are hanging on barely. It was tremendous for society, but horrible for investors. Investors would have had to not only identify the right companies, but also identify the right time. The net wealth creation in airlines since Orville Wright has been next to zero. Or look at TV manufacturers. There are hundreds of millions of TV’s, RCA & GE used to produce them, but now there are no American manufacturers left.

我们倒是没有过多考虑过这个。如果你回头看看20实际30年代，没人能够预测汽车行业和航空业能改变全世界。当时有2000家汽车公司，但是在美国现在只剩下3家了，并且它们都在垂死挣扎。对于社会来说这个巨大变化，对于投资者而言这简直是噩耗。投资者不仅仅需要去辨识对的公司，还要抓住对的时间。从莱特兄弟之后诞生的航空业，净财富的增长几乎为0。或者看看TV行业，曾经有数不清的电视台，RCA & GE曾经是它们的制造者，但是现在没有几个美国制造商剩下了。

If you want a great business, take Coca-Cola. The product is unchanged, they sell 1.5 billion 8 ounce servings per day 122 years later. They have a moat; if you have a castle, someone’s going to come after you.

如果你想投资一个伟大的行业，那就选可口可乐吧。可口可乐的产品从未改变过，122年后的现在它们每天卖出15亿8盎司的量。可口可乐还有护城河；如果你自己有一座城堡，你身后肯定有人是想冲进城堡的。

Gillette accounts for 70% of razor sales at 80% gross margins and it is the same over time. Men don’t change much. Shaving might be the only creative thing they do, like painting the Sistine Chapel.

吉列占了剃须刀市场70%的份额，毛利润率是80%，并且这个数字不会改变。男人们每天的生活也是一尘不变的，剃胡子可能是他们做过的最有创造力的事情，像画西斯廷礼拜堂一样。

Snickers has been the #1 candy bar for the past 40 years. If you gave me $1 billion to knock off Snickers, I can’t do it. That’s the test of a good business. You don’t knock off Coke or Gilette. Richard Branson is a marketing genius. He came in with Virgin Cola, we’re not sure what the name means, perhaps it turns you back into one, but he couldn’t knock off Coke. We look for wide moats around great economic castles. Growth is good too, but we prefer strong economics.

士力架居于糖果棒第一的位置已经40年了。如果你现在给我10亿美元去击败士力架，我是做不到的。这种行为是对一个好的行业进行公然挑战，你不可能打败可口可乐和吉列剃须刀。Richard Branson是一位市场销售天才，他当时创造了Virgin Cola（处女可乐），我不知道这个名字意味着什么，可能喝了这个可能能让人变成处子之身吧，但是即便这样他也没能打败掉可口可乐。我们寻找的是拥有很宽的护城河的伟大的企业城堡。增长当然很重要，但是我们还是更喜欢本身就很强大的企业。

· Source: Emory's Goizueta Business School and McCombs School of Business at UT Austin

· URL:

· Time: February 2008