按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
tead with the easy cases。 Why search for a needle buried in a haystack when one is sitting in plain sight？
当然有许多产业，连查理或是我可能都无法判断到底我们在玩的是宠物玩具或芭比娃娃，甚至在花了许多年时间努力的研究这些产业之后，我们还是无法解决这个问题，有时是因为我们本身智识上的缺陷，阻碍了我们对事情的了解，有时则是因为产业特性的关系，例如对于一家随时都比须面临快速变迁技术的公司来说，我们根本就无法对其长期的竞争力做出任何的评断，人类在三十年前，是否就能预知现在电视制造或计算机产业的演进，当然不能，就算是大部分钻研于这方面领域的投资人与企业经理人也没有办法，那么为什么查理跟我要觉得应该要有去预测其它产业快速变迁前景的能力呢？ 我们宁愿挑些简单一点的，一个人坐的舒舒服服就好了，为什么还要费事去挨稻草里的针呢？
Of course； some investment strategies … for instance； our efforts in arbitrage over the years … require wide diversification。 If significant risk exists in a single transaction； overall risk should be reduced by making that purchase one of many mutually…independent mitments。 Thus； you may consciously purchase a risky investment … one that indeed has a significant possibility of causing loss or injury … if you believe that your gain； weighted for probabilities； considerably exceeds your loss； parably weighted； and if you can mit to a number of similar； but unrelated opportunities。 Most venture capitalists employ this strategy。 Should you choose to pursue this course； you should adopt the outlook of the casino that owns a roulette wheel； which will want to see lots of action because it is favored by probabilities； but will refuse to accept a single； huge bet。
当然，有些投资策略，例如我们从事多年的套利活动，就必须将风险分散，若是单一交易的风险过高，就比须将资源分散到几个各自独立的个案之上，如此一来，虽然每个个案都有可能导致损失或伤害，但只要你确信每个独立的个案经过机率的加权平均能够让你获致满意的报酬就行了，许多创业投资者用的就是这种方法，若是你也打算这样做的话，记得采取与赌场老板搞轮盘游戏同样的心态，那就是鼓励大家持续不断的下注，因为长期而言，机率对庄家有利，但千万要拒绝单一一次的大赌注。
Another situation requiring wide diversification occurs when an investor who does not understand the economics of specific businesses nevertheless believes it in his interest to be a long…term owner of American industry。 That investor should both own a large number of equities and space out his purchases。 By periodically investing in an index fund； for example； the know…nothing investor can actually out…perform most investment professionals。 Paradoxically； when 〃dumb〃 money acknowledges its limitations； it ceases to be dumb。
另外一种需要分散风险的特殊情况是，当投资人并没有对任何单一产业有特别的熟悉，不过他却对美国整体产业前景有信心，则这类的投资人应该分散持有许多公司的股份，同时将投入的时点拉长，例如，透过定期投资指数基金，一个什么都不懂的投资人通常都能打败大部分的专业经理人，很奇怪的是，当愚昧的金钱了解到自己的极限之后，它就不再愚昧了。
On the other hand； if you are a know…something investor； able to understand business economics and to find five to ten sensibly…priced panies that possess important long…term petitive advantages； conventional diversification makes no sense for you。 It is apt simply to hurt your results and increase your risk。 I cannot understand why an investor of that sort elects to put money into a business that is his 20th favorite rather than simply adding that money to his top choices … the businesses he understands best and that present the least risk； along with the greatest profit potential。 In the words of the prophet Mae West： 〃Too much of a good thing can be wonderful。〃
另一方面，若是你是稍具常识的投资人，能够了解产业经济的话，应该就能够找出五到十家股价合理并享有长期竞争优势的公司，此时一般分散风险的理论对你来说就一点意义也没有，要是那样做反而会伤害到你的投资成果并增加你的风险，我实在不了解那些投资人为什么要把钱摆在他排名第20的股票上，而不是把钱集中在排名最前面，最熟悉了解同时风险最小，获利可能最大的投资之上，或许这就是先知梅西卫斯特所说的，「好事物越多，就越完美」。
Corporate Governance企业治理
At our annual meetings； someone usually asks 〃What happens to this place if you get hit by a truck？〃 I'm glad they are still asking the question in this form。 It won't be too long before the query bees： 〃What happens to this place if you don't get hit by a truck？〃
在年度的股东会上，有人常常会问︰「要是那天你不幸被车撞到，该怎么办？」我只能说很庆幸他们还是在问这样的问题，而不是「要是那天你不被车撞到，我们该怎么办？」。
Such questions； in any event； raise a reason for me to discuss corporate governance； a hot topic during the past year。 In general； I believe that directors have stiffened their spines recently and that shareholders are now being treated somewhat more like true owners than was the case not long ago。 mentators on corporate governance； however； seldom make any distinction among three fundamentally different manager/owner situations that exist in publicly…held panies。 Though the legal responsibility of directors is identical throughout； their ability to effect change differs in each of the cases。 Attention usually falls on the first case； because it prevails on the corporate scene。 Since Berkshire falls into the second category； however； and will someday fall into the third； we will discuss all three variations。
这样的问题让我有机会谈谈近年来相当热门的话题…公司治理，首先我相信最近许多公司的董事们已开始试着把他们的腰杆打直，而现在的投资人比起以前来说，也慢慢地被公司当作真正的拥有人来对待，但是评论专家并没有仔细地去区别目前公开上市公司三种截然不同的经营权与所有权形态，虽然在法律上，董事们应该承担的责任是责无旁贷的，但他们能发挥影响力进行改变的程度却有很大的不同，大家通常都把注意力摆在第一类的案例之上，因为这是目前一般企业的常态，但由于Berkshire本身是属于第二类，甚至有一天会变成第三类，所以在这里我们有必要讨论一下三者的不同。
The first； and by far most mon； board situation is one in which a corporation has no controlling shareholder。 In that case； I believe directors should behave as if there is a single absentee owner； whose long…term interest they should try to further in all proper ways。 Unfortunately； 〃long…term〃 gives directors a lot of wiggle room。 If they lack either integrity or the ability to think independently； directors can do great violence to shareholders while still claiming to be acting in their long…term interest。 But assume the board is functioning well and must deal with a management that is mediocre or worse。 Directors then have the responsibility for changing that management； just as an intelligent owner would do if he were present。 And if able but greedy managers over…reach and try to dip too deeply into the shareholders' pockets； directors must slap their hands。
首先是第一类，也是目前最普遍的一类，在公司的股权结构中，并没有一个具掌控能力的大股东，在这种情况下，我相信董事会的行为应该要像是公司有一个因事未出席的大股东一样，在各种情况下，都要能够确保这位虚拟大股东的长期利益不会受到损害，然而很不幸的是，所谓的长期利益，反而给了董事会很大的弹性操作空间，而假设董事会运作尚称顺畅，不过经营阶层却很平庸甚至差劲时，那么董事会就必须负起责任将经营阶层换掉，就好象一般公司老板会做的决定一样，另外要是经营阶层能力尚可，只不过过于贪心，不时地想要从股东的口袋里捞钱，那么董事会就必须适时地出手制止并给予警告。
In this plain…vanilla case； a director who sees something he doesn't like should attempt to pers