本篇文章收錄2023年Berkshire Hathaway股東會下午場第21~25節原文(下午場總共25小節)、繁體中文翻譯、會議摘要，除了OT供自己學習外，也分享給有興趣的朋友們。波克夏2023年股東會的整理也在此告一段落，謝謝各位閱讀。
21. Auto industry is fascinating but hard to predict
22. Buffett isn’t worried about the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet
23. We need to take care of people displaced by capitalism
24. When it comes to accounting, ‘We’ll consistently do what is legal, and we’ll consistently say what we think is right’
25. Munger: I’m ‘philosophical about my grandchildren not thinking exactly the way I do’
 |
| 滾動你的SNOWBALL |
Section 21 原文：
21. Auto industry is fascinating but hard to predict
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. We will go to section 11.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello. My name is Humphrey Liu, I’m from Charlottesville, Virginia.
WARREN BUFFETT: Ah!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: First, I wanted to add my thanks to you and Mr. Munger and Mr. Buffett, and all of Berkshire, for throwing this grand event each year.
Looking at the global trends, it increasingly does seem that zero-emission vehicles may have finally reached the cusp of mass adoption. Do you see any opportunities in this space, either in specific vehicle manufacturers or in related technologies?
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I would say that Charlie and I, we long have felt that the auto industry is just too tough. You know, the Ford Motor Company, I mean, Henry Ford, looked like he owned the world with the Model T. And he brought down the price dramatically, he took up wages dramatically. He might have been, with a different personality, or some different views, elected President of the United States.
I mean, there’s a good book that came out on that recently that told about the story — it tells a little about Nebraska in terms of it, but Henry Ford and Thomas Edison joining up, maybe a year or two it was. If you’re interested in autos, you ought to read that book.
But Henry Ford did that, you know, and 20 years later they were losing money. And the other guy, with a gun in his pocket, I think Harry Bennett, you know, was running the Ford Motor Company. It was on its way to the junk heap when the whiz kids came in.
And Henry Ford II, “Hank the Deuce,” as they called him, brought in Tex Thornton, and my friend RJ Miller, and a few people. I was reading the other day, actually, the 1932 Annual Report of General Motors. And it’s one of the best annual reports I’ve read. It’s a totally honest, you know, assessment of exactly where they were: They had 19,000 dealers then, and the population, as I mentioned earlier, was about 120 million or so.
And now, with 330 million people, all brands in the United States have, like, 18,000 dealers or something. It’s just a business where you’ve got a lot of worldwide competitors, they’re not going to go away. And it looks like there are winners in any given time, but it doesn’t get you a permanent place. Although, as I mentioned, I would say Ferrari is in a special place.
But they only sell 11,000 or 12,000 cars a year. In the U.S. last year, I think there were 14 million-something. And it’s not a business where we find it fascinating to be in. We like our dealership operation, but I don’t think I can tell you what the auto industry will look like five or ten years from now.
I do think that you’re right that, you know, you will see a change in the vehicles. But you won’t see anybody that owns the market because they changed the vehicle. Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, the electric vehicle is coming big time, and that’s a very interesting development. At the moment, it’s imposing huge capital costs and huge risks. And I don’t like huge capital costs and huge risks.
WARREN BUFFETT: And we’re subsidizing it in the United States, and we’re actually doing it — tried putting in a pro-labor-type — I mean, it is subject to politics like you can’t believe, too. But it’s going to be with us, we’re not going to quit driving cars, and — the American public has love affair with them.
But I think I know where Apple’s going to be in five or ten years, and I don’t know where the car companies are going to be in five or ten years. And I may be wrong. But Charlie and I follow the auto business with intense interest. Charlie’s firm was the specialist at General Motors on the Pacific Coast Stock Exchange, and that was a franchise, wasn’t it, Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah. By working very hard, we could make a minor amount of money.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Yeah. Wasn’t “minor” at the time, though. Come on — (LAUGH) but —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah, it was. It was —
WARREN BUFFETT: Was it?
CHARLIE MUNGER: — pretty minor at the time even.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah? Well, it was pretty minor.
Section 21 翻譯：
21. 汽車產業令人著迷，但難以預測
WARREN BUFFETT：好的，我們將前往第11區。
觀眾成員：你好。我叫Humphrey Liu，我來自弗吉尼亞州的Charlottesville。
WARREN BUFFETT：啊！
觀眾成員：首先，我想向您和Munger先生，以及巴菲特先生，還有整個Berkshire表示感謝，每年都能舉辦這樣的盛大活動。
看全球趨勢，零排放汽車似乎確實已經接近大規模採用的轉折點。您在這個領域看到任何機會嗎，無論是特定的汽車製造商還是相關技術？
WARREN BUFFETT：嗯，我會說，我和Charlie很久以前就覺得汽車行業太艱難了。你知道，福特汽車公司，我是說，亨利·福特，看起來他用Model T擁有了世界。他大幅降低了價格，大幅提高了工資。他可能是，如果有不同的個性或一些不同的觀點，就會當選美國總統。
我是說，最近出版的一本很好的書講述了這個故事——它稍微提到了內布拉斯加州的情況，但亨利·福特和湯瑪斯·愛迪生可能結伴一兩年。如果你對汽車感興趣，你應該讀那本書。
但亨利·福特做到了這一點，你知道，20年後他們就開始虧錢了。那個男人，口袋裡有把槍，我想是Harry Bennett，你知道，他在經營福特汽車公司。當精明小子們進來的時候，它已經在通往垃圾堆的路上了。
亨利·福特二世，他們叫他"Hank the Deuce"，他帶來了Tex Thornton，我的朋友RJ Miller，和一些人。事實上，我前幾天在讀1932年通用汽車的年度報告。這是我讀過的最好的年度報告之一。這是完全誠實的，你知道，對他們當時的情況進行了確切的評估：他們當時有19,000個經銷商，而我前面提到的人口大約是120萬左右。
現在，人口為3300萬的美國，所有品牌都有像18,000個經銷商或者是類似的。這只是一個業務，你有很多全球競爭者，他們不會消失。看起來任何時候都有贏家，但它不會讓你有一個永久的位置。儘管如我所說，我會說法拉利處於一個特殊的地方。
但他們每年只賣11,000或12,000輛車。去年在美國，我想有1400萬左右。這不是我們覺得有趣的一個業務。我們喜歡我們的經銷商業務，但我不認為我能告訴你五年或十年後汽車行業會是什麼樣子。
我確實認為你是對的，你知道，你將會看到汽車的變化。但你不會看到任何人因為改變了汽車而擁有市場。Charlie？
CHARLIE MUNGER：嗯，電動車正在大規模來臨，這是一個非常有趣的發展。目前，它帶來了巨大的資本成本和巨大的風險。而我不喜歡巨大的資本成本和巨大的風險。
WARREN BUFFETT：而且我們在美國進行補貼，我們實際上正在做的是——試圖加入親工人型——我的意思是，它像你不能相信的那樣受到政治影響。但它將與我們同在，我們不會停止駕駛汽車，和——美國公眾對它們有著熱戀。
但我認為我知道蘋果在五年或十年後將會在哪裡，而我不知道汽車公司在五年或十年後會在哪裡。而且我可能是錯的。但我和Charlie非常關注汽車業務。Charlie的公司是太平洋證券交易所的通用汽車專家，那是一個特許權，不是吧，Charlie？
CHARLIE MUNGER：是的。努力工作，我們可以賺一點錢。
WARREN BUFFETT：是的。是的。當時並不“微不足道”。來吧——（笑）但——
CHARLIE MUNGER：是的，那時候就很微不足道。
WARREN BUFFETT：是嗎？
CHARLIE MUNGER：——那時候就很微不足道。
WARREN BUFFETT：是的？嗯，那時候很微不足道。
本節中，巴菲特和蒙格談論了汽車行業，特別是零排放車輛的興起，並討論了他們對該行業的看法。巴菲特和蒙格認為汽車行業很困難，無法預測；他們引用了亨利·福特和福特汽車公司的歷史來說明，即使在看似極具競爭力的情況下，該行業的變化和競爭也可能使公司陷入困境。
巴菲特認為電動車的推出是必然的，但不認為任何一家公司能因此主宰市場。他認為，即使汽車改變了，市場的所有者也不會因此而改變。蒙格認為電動車的大規模推出非常有趣，但他也指出，這帶來了巨大的資本成本和風險，這是他不喜歡的事情。巴菲特表示，他們喜歡自己的經銷商業務，但他不確定汽車行業在未來五到十年內會是什麼樣子。
這裡點到了巴菲特和蒙格的投資哲學，即他們傾向於投資他們能理解並能預測未來的公司。他們的看法反映了他們對行業的理解和評價，以及他們如何將這種理解和評價轉化為投資決策。他們強調了對公司的長期前景的理解和預測的重要性，這一點在他們的投資哲學中占據了重要位置。
Section 22 原文：
22. Buffett isn’t worried about the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Becky?
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Lindsay Peter Schumacher in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
“Does the current size of the Federal Reserve balance sheet concern you? In particular, the result of quantitative easing — the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet out of nothing. The net effect in essence is a form of single-entry accounting creating something of value out of nothing other than a series of book entries. And wondering what Mr. Munger thinks about this as well.”
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I don’t think the Federal Reserve is the problem, and I think they can’t solve the fiscal problem. I do not worry about the Federal Reserve. I think it’s fulfilling the functions for which it was established. They have two objectives, and I would not have been one probably that would have changed the inflation objective: to 2% a year from 0.
You know, I think that if you tell people that you’re shooting to depreciate your currency at 2% a year, that has a lot of implications. Although it feels good to a (LAUGH) lot of people. A lot of people want a little inflation, but nobody wants a lot of inflation except somebody’s that got a lot of debts.
And I do not worry about the Federal Reserve balance sheet. I enjoy looking at it, and the numbers are big — I always like big numbers. But it’s interesting: One of the most interesting figures, to me, is currency in circulation. I mean, it has gone — they were saying, “Cash is trash,” back in 2007 and ’08, “and all that cash is going to disappear.”
Well, if you look at the Federal Reserve balance sheet, it’s gone from $800 billion to $2.2 trillion, and most of that’s in hundred-dollar bills, overwhelmingly. And I figured out I think there’s about 50 $100 bills per person — babies, everybody, in the United States, and I would really like to know where all of that is.
I mean, nobody’s hoarding eurodollars, you know, in South America, or Africa, or wherever. And the demand for currency now — you know, some of it may be subtle drug dealers’ activities and of that. But anybody who thinks “cash is trash” ought to look at the Federal Reserve balance sheet. And, actually, you can look at how many $5 bills and $2 bills, and ones and all that, and the action has been in $100 bills.
I mean, it is just astounding the way that hundred-dollar bills have spread. And, of course, I don’t know where they are, and I don’t think the Fed can know exactly, but they’d probably make a lot better guess than I could. But I do it’s happened, and you can watch it every week, and you’ll watch currency in circulation probably grow a little bit. And, believe me, “cash” is not trash. Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I don’t know where we’re headed with all of this. It’s been very extreme. I think you could be pretty extreme in fighting it: depressions and so forth, if you reverted afterwards to a period of some discipline. But if you just —
But if you’re going to just keep printing money and spending it, I think eventually it causes bad trouble. And you can see it Latin America. Latin America let its currency get out of control all the time, and, of course, it lagged the United States in economic achievement greatly. So, I think we pay a price if we ever give up our old ways entirely and go into a new world where we just try and print money, just make it easier to get through the year.
WARREN BUFFETT: We paid a price in World War II, I mean, everybody: school kids and everybody else, myself included. And we bought what were originally called “War Bonds,” and “Defense Bonds,” and “Savings Bonds,” and all that. But from 1942 to 1944 or ’45, you paid out $18.75 and you got $25.00 back, and every kid saved savings stamps and all that.
But when you got all through, you know, you had 120% of GDP in the national debt instead of 30% or 40%. And we had a lot of inflation subsequently, a lot. So, the people that really bought those bonds and supported the war had a portion of their purchasing power taken away from them.
Well, there wasn’t anything wrong with that, particularly. But when the country gets in the habit of doing that, I think it’s tough to figure out where the breaking point is with society. But I don’t think you want to come anywhere close to it.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah, but it’s also tough to have a mass of people unemployed. That’s the tension.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yep. Well, that’s why the Fed has two objectives, in terms of employment and inflation. But they are not the ones that could create the deficits. And so far, the system has worked pretty well, although, like I say, it’s been —
CHARLIE MUNGER: So, far, the man who just jumped off a tall building —
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, right.
CHARLIE MUNGER: — is all right until he hits the ground.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. (LAUGHTER) Well, but there could be ways we can stop now at the third floor, or the sixth floor. We don’t know what floor it is, but we know it hasn’t hit the ground. But, you know, politically it’s very, very, very tempting to vote appropriations, and it’s not fun to vote taxes.
And Russell Long, head of the Senate Finance Committee, they’ve got a building named after him now, he said, “You know, don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.” And (LAUGH) basically that is the attitude — I mean, it’s the reality of what is useful in politics.
And so far, this country’s managed to work very well with lot of things that could theoretically cause a lot of problems. But it doesn’t guarantee us the future on it and being the reserve currency lets us do a lot of things, but it also creates a lot of consequences if we screw it up. Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, we’re beating a subject to death, but it is a problem. I wish we had a solution.
Section 22 翻譯：
22. 巴菲特對聯邦儲備的資產負債表並不擔心
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，Becky？
BECKY QUICK: 這個問題來自於愛荷華州西達拉皮茲的Lindsay Peter Schumacher。
“現在聯邦儲備的資產負債表規模讓你擔憂嗎？特別是量化寬鬆政策的結果 — 聯邦儲備將其資產負債表無中生有地擴大。本質上，其網效應就像是一種單獨的會計手法，憑藉一系列的賬目記錄創造出有價值的東西。我很好奇蒙格先生對此有什麼看法。”
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，我不認為聯邦儲備是問題，我認為他們無法解決財政問題。我不擔心聯邦儲備。我認為它正履行其設立時的職責。他們有兩個目標，我可能不會是那種會將通脹目標從0%改變為每年2%的人。
你知道，我認為如果你告訴人們你的目標是每年讓你的貨幣貶值2%，那將會有很多含義。雖然這對很多人來說感覺很好。很多人都希望有點通脹，但沒有人希望通脹過多，除了那些負債累累的人。
我不擔心聯邦儲備的資產負債表。我喜歡看它，這些數字很大 — 我總是喜歡大的數字。但有趣的是：對我來說，其中最有趣的數字之一是貨幣在流通。我是說，它已經 — 他們在2007年和2008年就說，“現金是垃圾”，“所有的現金都將消失”。
然而，如果你看聯邦儲備的資產負債表，它從8000億美元增加到了2.2萬億美元，而且絕大部分都是百元鈔票。我算出來我認為大概每個人 — 包括嬰兒，每個人，在美國有大約50張100美元的鈔票，我真的很想知道那些鈔票都在哪裡。
我是說，沒有人在南美，非洲，或者其他地方囤積歐元，你知道。而現在對貨幣的需求 — 你知道，其中一些可能是微妙的毒品交易者的活動和這類。但任何認為“現金是垃圾”的人都應該看看聯邦儲備的資產負債表。而實際上，你可以看看有多少5美元鈔票和2美元鈔票，以及一美元鈔票等等，真正的行動都在100美元鈔票上。
我的意思是，百元鈔票的流通情況讓人感到驚訝。而且，我不知道它們在哪裡，我不認為聯邦儲備能確切知道，但他們可能比我能猜得更準。但我確實看到它的發生，你可以每週看到它，你會看到貨幣在流通可能會稍微增長一點。相信我，“現金”並非垃圾。Charlie？
CHARLIE MUNGER: 嗯，我不知道我們將會朝哪個方向前進。這一切都非常極端。我認為你可以在抵制它：蕭條和這類事情上變得非常極端，如果你在之後回歸到一些自律的時期。但如果你只是 —
但如果你只是繼續印鈔並花費，我認為最終它會導致嚴重的麻煩。你可以在拉丁美洲看到這一點。拉丁美洲經常讓其貨幣失去控制，當然，它在經濟成就上遠遠落後於美國。所以，我認為如果我們放棄我們過去的方式並進入一個新的世界，我們只是試圖印鈔，讓年度更輕鬆度過，我們將會付出代價。
WARREN BUFFETT: 我們在第二次世界大戰中付出了代價，我是說，每個人：學生和其他所有人，包括我自己。我們購買了最初被稱為“戰爭債券”、“國防債券”、“儲蓄債券”等等。但從1942年到1944年或45年，你支付了18.75美元，然後拿回了25.00美元，每個孩子都存儲了儲蓄郵票等等。
但當你結束後，你知道，你有國債佔國內生產總值的120%，而不是30%或40%。然後我們後來有了很多的通脹，很多。所以，真正購買那些債券並支持戰爭的人失去了他們的一部分購買力。
嗯，這並不特別錯誤。但是當國家習慣於這樣做時，我認為很難確定社會的破裂點在哪裡。但我認為你不希望接近它。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 是的，但讓一群人失業也很難受。那就是緊張的地方。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。這就是為什麼聯邦儲備有兩個目標，就就業和通脹而言。但他們並不是可以創造赤字的人。而到目前為止，該系統運作得相當好，儘管，像我說的，它已經 —
CHARLIE MUNGER: 到目前為止，剛剛從高樓跳下來的人 —
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，對。
CHARLIE MUNGER: — 在他撞到地面之前都還好。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。 (笑聲) 嗯，但我們可能有辦法在第三樓或者第六樓停下來。我們不知道是哪一層，但我們知道它還沒有撞到地面。但你知道，在政治上，投票贊成撥款是非常誘人的，投票贊成稅收就不那麼有趣了。
而參議院財務委員會的主席Russell Long，他們現在有一棟大樓以他的名字命名，他說，“你知道，不對你徵稅，不對我徵稅，對那個樹後面的傢伙徵稅。”而 (笑聲) 而這在某種程度上成為了我們的國家政策。
Section 22 摘要：
本節中巴菲特和蒙格討論了聯邦儲備（Fed）的資產負債表以及與量化寬鬆相關的問題，巴菲特並不擔心聯邦儲備的資產負債表。他認為聯邦儲備在履行其設立時的職能，並且不能解決財政問題。對於購買力貶值2%的政策巴菲特表示懷疑，他認為告訴人們你的貨幣每年會貶值2%，會帶來許多影響。巴菲特和蒙格也討論了美元的流通和大眾對現金的需求。儘管有些人認為“現金是垃圾”，但實際上，現金的需求正在增長，特別是對於100美元的鈔票。
對於量化寬鬆的後果蒙格表達了擔憂，他認為如果我們繼續印刷和花費錢，最終可能會導致麻煩。他提到拉丁美洲的案例，那裡的貨幣經常失控，導致經濟成就大幅落後於美國。兩位在最後提到了過度的財政赤字和投票對稅收的反感可能會對未來產生影響。他們認為美元作為儲備貨幣使我們可以做很多事情，但如果我們搞砸了，也會帶來很多後果。
巴菲特和蒙格的投資哲學核心在於價值投資，即在買入價格低於其內在價值的公司，並長期持有。他們的投資策略偏向於長期穩健的增長，而非短期的投機行為。
在這一部分中，他們對經濟體製錶達了擔憂，這反映出他們對長期穩定環境的重視。過度的量化寬鬆和赤字可能會引起通脹和經濟泡沫，這將對長期價值投資者產生負面影響。他們的觀點體現了他們對經濟穩定和財政紀律的重視，這是他們的投資哲學的重要部分。
此外，巴菲特和蒙格也強調了對現金的價值。他們認為現金並非垃圾，而是資產。這與他們的投資哲學相符，即現金可以在市場下跌時提供保護，或者在出現良好投資機會時提供購買能力。
23. We need to take care of people displaced by capitalism
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. With that we’ll go to station one and see if we —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger. My name’s Connor, I’m an economics student at the University of Nottingham.
My question for you today is during the pandemic we witnessed supply chain shortages, especially from Asia. As a result, companies have chosen, with political intentions, to move production away.
Should companies make these decisions? And should the government support them?
WARREN BUFFETT: Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, that’s a good question.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yep.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Obviously, it’s logical — if you’re in business and you can make the thing in Mexico way cheaper, it’s natural to open a factory in Mexico and get your parts cheaper. And a lot of the auto manufacturers have done exactly that.
On the other hand, nobody wants to hollow out the whole country, so all the manufacturing jobs are elsewhere and we’re all living like a bunch of farmers: You know, like English colonies in 1820 or something. And these ideas are, of course, in big tension. We don’t have that much foreign production, right, Warren?
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Well, but we’ve lost — well, originally Berkshire Hathaway, as a textile manufacturer, lost because the South became feasible versus the North. And, of course, then eventually —
CHARLIE MUNGER: The South got expensive —
WARREN BUFFETT: South got —
CHARLIE MUNGER: — and moved to China.
WARREN BUFFETT: Sure. And society benefits and some people get killed in that sort of a situation. And a rich society should take care, one way or another, of people that worked in our shoe factories, people who worked in our textile companies. I mean, if you worked in our textile operation, in 1964 when we took it over, half our workers only spoke Portuguese.
And, you know, they weren’t getting great wages at all. But now you could do it in the South, and we were doomed to go out of business. And it wasn’t the fault of the worker in any way, shape, or form. It wasn’t our fault: We kept trying to compete.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, TVA had cheap power down there.
WARREN BUFFETT: Sure.
CHARLIE MUNGER: And tax dollars really can yield power.
WARREN BUFFETT: And air conditioning changed everything because the heat in those damn places was impossible. And so, a lot of things. But then it moves offshore in many ways, and net the country is better off because of it.
But it displaces a lot of people who really can’t do something else in life. You can’t talk about “retraining” somebody that’s 55 or 60, and speaks only Portuguese, and really tell them they’re going to have “a great future” in New Bedford, Mass.
You know, and so you don’t want to be glib about it. And we can afford to take care of those people. And we’ve got some systems that work reasonably well, but there’s a tension between — you know, what about the person that doesn’t do anything and all that kind of stuff. So, these are not easy problems to solve.
But I would say that, by and large, we want the whole world to prosper, we do not want the United States to be a country of extraordinary prosperity, and have the rest of the world —
CHARLIE MUNGER: — starving.
WARREN BUFFETT: No. It isn’t going to work. And it particularly isn’t going to work in a nuclear world. So — and you can have your own feelings about it as a humane person, but it can be done better. And we’ve got the resources to do it. I mean, the output of this country, one, can be done with a lot fewer people, and doing more specialized things.
And, of course, it has been. The workweek in the United States, you know, in my lifetime, has dropped dramatically. And people still feel busy. And it will be the human lot to say, you know, “How can I get all these things done?” But my mother didn’t drive three kids anyplace, I mean, if you wanted to go anyplace, if you were lucky and you got old enough, you had a bicycle.
And the world just keeps looking at everything moving up as becoming sort of a base that leaves them somewhat dissatisfied. And with our prosperity, we can do a lot of things we couldn’t do in 1930, including taking care of people that got displaced by the fact that somebody else can do that work and improve their lot in life.
And we’ve got to make sure that we have the best system that takes care of the people who get displaced by that. But doing that in the political system we have and everything, we’ll make a lot of mistakes along the way. But we’ve got to keep moving in that direction. And I’d say —
CHARLIE MUNGER: The really interesting thing about it is that Adam Smith was right: that free market capitalism automatically leaves a property in private hands. And free trade and all that automatically creates GDP per capita that grows and helps everybody, including the people at the bottom: helps everybody a lot.
But inherent in the process, there’s a lot of pain in that free market capitalism: for instance, for the Portuguese workers in a textile company in New Bedford. And nobody’s ever figured out how to take all the pain out of it. We do have government safety nets that take some of the pain out, and we make those safety nets a little bigger as time goes by.
But, apart from that, if you try and take all the pain out, you’ll also take all the gains out of it. We won’t have a growing GDP per capita. You’ll have an economy like Russia’s, which has been characterized as saying: “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” (LAUGHTER)
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. The other systems haven’t worked better, but it also produces more and more disparities in wealth. And people that do nothing but get assets under management without actually performing anything extra make fortunes. And, I mean, it’s a job of government to keep the best aspects of capitalism, while not causing people that only speak Portuguese to suffer in the process.
I mean, the two aren’t compatible politically over time. And we stumble along making progress on things like Social Security and all that. And we are a lot better off than we are when I was born.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Net, the United States has done a very good job of this tension between capitalistic growth and a growing social safety net. We can be pretty proud of our country, looking backward.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. That may be why we have 25% of the world’s GDP starting with a half-a-percent of the population and did it in a few centuries. I mean, it’s a miracle. And it wasn’t because we’re smarter, but we’ve got to say there must be something to the system that’s worked pretty well even though it’s produced a civil war and all kinds of things, you know?
And women, you know, not getting a shot at anything, you know, even after they passed the 19th Amendment. But it’s a work in progress. I think actually there’s been progress, but it’s mankind’s nature to see the things wrong with it if you —
CHARLIE MUNGER: It’s even worse: It’s man’s nature to take the progress as a right. Not something to be earned or strive for, but something that should automatically just flow in over the transom. And that attitude is poison. It doesn’t do anybody any good.
Section 23 翻譯：
23. 我們需要照顧被資本主義遺棄的人
華倫·巴菲特：好的。有關這個我們先轉到第一站看看我們是否 —
觀眾成員：您好，巴菲特先生和蒙格先生。我叫康納，我是諾丁漢大學的經濟學學生。
我今天想問的是，在疫情期間，我們目睹了供應鏈短缺，尤其是來自亞洲的供應鏈。結果，公司選擇了帶有政治意圖的生產轉移。
公司應該做出這些決定嗎？政府應該支持他們嗎？
華倫·巴菲特：查理？
查理·蒙格：嗯，這是一個好問題。
華倫·巴菲特：是的。
查理·蒙格：顯然，這是合理的 — 如果你在經商，你可以在墨西哥以更便宜的價格製造產品，那麼在墨西哥開設工廠並以更便宜的價格獲取零件是理所當然的。許多汽車製造商都正是這樣做的。
另一方面，沒有人希望全國都變得空空如也，所有的製造業工作都在其他地方，而我們都像一群農民一樣生活：你知道，像1820年的英國殖民地一樣。當然，這些想法是有很大的張力。我們並沒有那麼多的外國生產，對吧，華倫？
華倫·巴菲特：是的。但是，我們已經失去了 — 最初，波克夏作為一家紡織製造商，因為南方比北方更有可能，所以我們失去了。然後，當然，最終 —
查理·蒙格：南方變得昂貴 —
華倫·巴菲特：南方變得 —
查理·蒙格： — 並移向中國。
華倫·巴菲特：當然。社會受益，而有些人在這種情況下被剷平。一個富裕的社會應該以某種方式照顧我們的鞋廠工人，我們的紡織公司的工人。我的意思是，如果你在1964年我們接手時在我們的紡織行業工作，我們一半的工人只會說葡萄牙語。
而且，你知道，他們的工資並不高。但是現在你可以在南方做這個，我們註定要倒閉。這並不是工人的錯，也不是我們的錯：我們一直在努力競爭。
查理·蒙格：嗯，田納西河流域開發局在那裡有便宜的電力。
華倫·巴菲特：當然。
查理·蒙格：而且稅收實際上可以產生力量。
華倫·巴菲特：而且空調改變了一切，因為那些該死的地方的熱度無法忍受。因此，很多事情。但然後它在很多方面都移到海外，並且因此整個國家的狀況更好。
但是它取代了許多真的無法在生活中做其他事情的人。你不能談論“重新培訓”一個55歲或60歲的人，只會說葡萄牙語，然後真的告訴他們他們將在新貝德福德，馬薩諸塞州有“偉大的未來”。
你知道，所以你不想過於輕率地談論這個。我們有能力照顧這些人。我們有一些工作得相當好的系統，但是在 — 你知道，那些什麼都不做的人怎麼辦，那種事。所以，這些不是容易解決的問題。
但是我想說的是，大體上，我們希望全世界繁榮，我們不希望美國是一個非常繁榮的國家，讓其他世界的人 —
查理·蒙格： — 飢餓。
華倫·巴菲特：不。這不會有用。尤其是在一個核時代，這種做法是行不通的。所以 — 你可以作為一個人道的人對此有自己的感覺，但是我們可以做得更好。我們有資源去做。我的意思是，這個國家的產值，一部分可以用更少的人做，做更專業的事情。
而且，當然，它已經是這樣。美國的工作週，在我有生之年，已經大幅度縮短。人們仍然感覺忙碌。並且人們會總是問，“我怎麼才能完成所有這些事情？”但我的母親沒有開車載三個孩子去任何地方，我的意思是，如果你想去任何地方，如果你幸運且年齡足夠，你有一輛自行車。
世界只是不斷地看著一切向上移動，變得好像是一種讓他們有些不滿的基礎。有了我們的繁榮，我們可以做很多我們在1930年無法做到的事情，包括照顧那些因為有人能夠做那項工作並改善他們的生活條件而失去工作的人。
我們必須確保我們有最好的系統來照顧那些因此而失去工作的人。但在我們現有的政治系統和其他一切中做到這一點，我們會在途中犯很多錯誤。但我們必須繼續向那個方向前進。我會說 —
查理·蒙格：關於這一點真正有趣的是，亞當·斯密是對的：自由市場資本主義會自動使財產成為私人所有。自由貿易等等都會自動創造人均GDP的增長，並幫助所有人，包括底層的人：幫助所有人很多。
但在這個過程中，自由市場資本主義確實帶來了很多痛苦：例如，對於在新貝德福的紡織公司工作的葡萄牙工人。沒有人能找出如何消除所有的痛苦。我們確實有政府的安全網可以消除一些痛苦，隨著時間的推移，我們讓這些安全網變得更大。
但是，除此之外，如果你試圖消除所有的痛苦，你也將消除所有的收益。我們將不會有增長的人均GDP。所以，這是我們必須管理的一個真正困難的矛盾：我們必須處理這個痛苦，並且不能完全擺脫它。
Section 23 摘要：
本節討論主要集中在資本主義所導致的工作人員流失問題上，特別是在供應鏈短缺和公司選擇轉移生產基地的情況下。巴菲特和蒙格認為，這是一個困難的問題，需要在維護經濟效率和照顧受影響工人之間找到平衡。
當全球供應鏈短缺以及政治因素促使許多公司轉移生產基地，這在商業邏輯上有道理，但也可能導致原生產國的工人失業。巴菲特舉出了波克夏公司早期作為紡織製造商的例子，當時公司因為生產基地轉移而面臨困境，使得許多工人（包括只會葡萄牙語的工人）失去了工作。
巴菲特與蒙格認為，一個富裕的社會應該以某種方式照顧那些因工作轉移而失業的人。重新訓練並非所有人都適合，特別是對於年齡較大、語言能力有限的工人來說。雖然資本主義系統有其問題，如財富差距的擴大，但相比其他經濟體制，其總體表現仍然更好。然而，他們也強調了政府在保護社會弱勢群體和保持資本主義效率之間的角色。
這與巴菲特和蒙格的投資哲學有關，因為他們認識到商業活動的影響遠超出單純的經濟效益。他們明白企業有責任照顧其僱員，並認識到企業活動（包括投資決策）對社會的影響。此外，他們強調了政府在平衡資本主義效率和社會責任之間的重要角色，這也反映在他們對投資決策的謹慎和長期觀察。
24. When it comes to accounting, ‘We’ll consistently do what is legal, and we’ll consistently say what we think is right’
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Now ask us an easy question, Becky. (LAUGH) (APPLAUSE)
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Doug DeShiel (PH). “Since the accounting rules changed requiring Berkshire to report the change in fair value of its equity investments through the income statement, Mr. Buffett has repeatedly told shareholders to ignore those changes as they’re not reflective of the long-term returns that those investments will produce.
“Recently, Mr. Buffett has argued that hold-to-maturity accounting used by the banks to avoid reflecting the changes in fair value of bank investment portfolios in the income statement and the shareholder equity account do a disservice to its various stakeholders. Can Mr. Buffett elaborate on why he views mark-to-market accounting differently for banks in comparison to Berkshire?”
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I believe, in both cases, in doing it on the balance sheet and not in the income statement. And it’s a very tough problem the auditors face is that obviously the income statement feeds into the balance sheet. But the balance sheet tells you whether deposits can be paid, it tells you a lot of things.
And we show it on our balance sheet. We believe in showing market values on our balance sheet. We just don’t believe in running it through the income account. And in getting there we would put in “other comprehensive income,” like it was for a long time.
So, I sympathize, to some extent — a far extent, with the audit group. But they have to really decide whether they want the balance sheet to represent values — except it doesn’t reflect them on the upside if we buy a See’s Candy and it’s worth way more money, so it’s conservative in that sense; or whether they want to have an income account that becomes meaningless to people. Because it really changes every five seconds, you know?
I mean — well, the market’s closed today, but, you know, I guess Apple was up, what, seven or eight points or something on Friday. I mean, that’s $7 billion: I mean, that’s a crazy income account. It is a reflection of where we stand at that point.
And, of course, if you’re a bank, where you’re putting out money really at things — mortgages, I mean, primarily, that are terrible instruments for a bank to own, but a great instrument for a consumer to buy; and built-in to the whole society now in a way that is entirely different than in the past, you’ve got to pay attention to whether they’ve gotten out of whack in terms of the value of what they own and what can be demanded of them tomorrow morning. (LAUGH)
And if we had all of our money that could be demanded from us tomorrow morning, we’d have to behave a lot differently than Berkshire does. So, I really think the way to do it is the way we recommend doing. Which is exactly what was being done until a few years ago. I recommend the shareholders look at it that way, but we’re going to follow the rules, obviously that the SEC, you know, the state authorities and everybody require of us.
But I’ll still explain to the shareholders exactly what I would explain to my sister about what really counts at Berkshire. And I think every management actually has an obligation to that, and instead of it, they go in the other direction and give them a lot of figures that are total nonsense.
You can’t imagine some of the — you know, EBITDA, I thought, was about as bad as you could get. But they’ve kept going. You know, earnings before everything: EBE. (LAUGHTER) But that doesn’t change what I would tell my sister, who’s here in the audience, I hope. And I should tell this to all the shareholders: “We’ll consistently do what is legal, and we’ll consistently say what we think is right.” Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah. (APPLAUSE)
WARREN BUFFETT: We want owners who understand what they own. You know? That doesn’t mean they have to understand the detail of it. But that’s why we have people that have been around 50 or 60 years. That doesn’t mean that they read the 10-Qs or anything like that. But they feel we’re telling it to them like, you know, they lived next door to us.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah, I don’t know what the accountants were thinking when they made that change. It strikes me as bonkers, absolutely bonkers. I don’t see how anybody who understands how businesses really operated, and should be operated by owning managers, would have made that accounting change. The accountants did it just because they had a wild moment.
WARREN BUFFETT: Twenty-five years ago, I suggested to the audit profession that the audit committee ask auditors four questions, and the shareholders would know a lot more about the company if those questions were asked. But it wasn’t good for the auditors to be asked those questions because it might increase their liability if they answered them. And the client didn’t want them to answer them because the management didn’t want them to.
CHARLIE MUNGER: No, they want a system where, if they follow certain rules, they’re safe. And that’s understandable. But I don’t think the past year, this rule requiring changes in marketable securities to go through the income account quarterly, they didn’t do that to protect themselves from —
WARREN BUFFETT: No.
CHARLIE MUNGER: — liability. They just did that for some crazy reason of their own.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah.
CHARLIE MUNGER: You get a bunch of people who will all be drawing a lot of pay out of a big, complicated system, and rising in it like so many of our officers in the Army, God knows what they’ll do if you put them in a little room by themselves and tell them to invent new accounting standards.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, to our auditor, remember that’s Charlie talking, and he doesn’t really — (LAUGHTER)
But I agree with him, (LAUGH) 100%. He’s 99, he can get away with more than I can get away with. (LAUGHTER)
OK. Station two —
But what he said is enormously important. I mean, you’ve got to have some insights into what the hell really goes on.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Even if you’re (inaudible) accountant.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah.
Section 24 翻譯：
24. 在會計方面，「我們將始終做合法的事情，並始終說出我們認為正確的事情」
華倫·巴菲特：好的，現在問我們一個簡單的問題，Becky。(笑聲)(掌聲)
BECKY QUICK：這個問題來自Doug DeShiel (PH)。“自從會計規則變更要求波克夏在收益表中報告其股權投資的公允價值變動以來，巴菲特先生一再告訴股東要忽略這些變動，因為它們並不能反映這些投資將產生的長期回報。
“最近，巴菲特先生爭辯說，銀行使用的持有至到期的會計方式避免了在收益表和股東權益賬戶中反映銀行投資組合的公允價值變動，對其各種利益相關者不公。巴菲特先生能否詳細說明他為什麼對銀行和波克夏的按市價賬面會計方式看法不同？”
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我認為，在兩種情況下，都應在資產負債表上做，而不是在收益表上。而審計師面臨的一個非常棘手的問題是，顯然收益表會影響資產負債表。但資產負債表告訴你是否可以支付存款，它告訴你很多事情。
我們在我們的資產負債表上顯示它。我們認為在我們的資產負債表上顯示市場價值是正確的。我們只是不認為應該將它列入收益賬戶。並在此過程中，我們將其放入“其他全面收益”，就像很長一段時間以來一樣。
所以，我在很大程度上同情審計組。但他們必須真正決定他們是否希望資產負債表代表價值-除了我們購買See's Candy，它值得更多的錢，所以在這種意義上它保守；或者他們是否希望有一個對人們來說毫無意義的收益賬戶。因為它實際上每五秒就變化一次，你知道嗎？
我想說的是-嗯，市場今天關閉，但我想，蘋果公司上週五上漲了七或八點。我是說，這是70億美元：這是一個瘋狂的收益賬戶。這反映了我們在那個時點的情況。
當然，如果你是一家銀行，你真的在將錢投入-主要是對於銀行來說是可怕的樂器，但對消費者來說是偉大的樂器的抵押貸款；並在整個社會中建立，與過去完全不同，你必須注意他們是否在他們擁有的價值和明天早上可以向他們索取的價值方面偏離了正常範圍。(笑聲)
如果我們所有的錢都可能在明天早上向我們索取，我們就必須以與波克夏不同的方式行事。所以，我真的認為應該按我們推薦的方式來做。這與幾年前正在做的完全一樣。我建議股東以這種方式來看待它，但我們顯然要遵從SEC，你知道，各州當局和所有人要求我們的規則。
但我仍然會向股東解釋我會向我姐姐解釋的關於波克夏真正重要的事情。而我認為每一個管理層實際上都有這樣的義務，但他們卻走向另一個方向，給他們大量的數字，這些數字完全是胡說八道。
你不能想像一些-你知道，我以為EBITDA是最糟糕的。但他們一直在做下去。你知道，盈利在一切之前：EBE。(笑聲)但這並不能改變我對我在現場的姐姐所說的，我希望。我應該告訴所有的股東：“我們將始終做合法的事情，並始終說出我們認為正確的事情。”Charlie？
CHARLIE MUNGER：是的。(掌聲)
華倫·巴菲特：我們希望擁有人能瞭解他們擁有的東西。你知道？這並不意味著他們必須瞭解細節。但這就是我們為什麼有人在這裡待了50或60年。這並不意味著他們讀了10-Q報告或其他什麼。但他們覺得我們就像他們住在我們旁邊一樣告訴他們。
CHARLIE MUNGER：是的，我不知道會計師在做出這種變化時在想什麼。我覺得這是絕對瘋狂的。我不明白任何理解業務如何真正運作，並且應該由擁有經理人操作的人會做出那種會計變更。會計師之所以這麼做，只是因為他們有一個狂野的時刻。
華倫·巴菲特：25年前，我建議審計行業讓審計委員會向審計師提問四個問題，如果問了這些問題，股東就會對公司有更多的瞭解。但是審計師被問這些問題並不好，因為如果他們回答了這些問題，可能會增加他們的責任。而且客戶也不希望他們回答，因為管理層不希望他們回答。
CHARLIE MUNGER：不，他們想要一個系統，只要他們遵守某些規則，他們就是安全的。這是可以理解的。但我不認為過去一年，這個規則要求將市場證券的變動每季度通過收益賬戶，他們並不是為了保護自己免於-
華倫·巴菲特：沒錯。
CHARLIE MUNGER：-責任。他們只是出於他們自己的一些瘋狂原因而做出這種事。
華倫·巴菲特：是的。
CHARLIE MUNGER：你讓一群人從一個大而複雜的系統中賺取大量的工資，並像我們軍隊的許多軍官那樣在其中崛起，天知道他們會做出什麼瘋狂的決定。
華倫·巴菲特：那是悲劇。我會向那些提問的股東解釋，我們從未將蘋果視為短期股票。我們將它視為我們的業務份額。我們看看業務，並評估業務。我們需要在資產負債表上列出我們的市場價值，因為它反映了我們的業務價值，但這不代表我們認為我們的業務的值會因市場價值的波動而波動。業務價值的確可能會波動，但這與我們股票的市場價值無關。我們更關心的是我們的業務價值，而不是我們的市場價值。
Section 24 摘要：
在本節中巴菲特和蒙格談論了會計政策，特別是如何在資產負債表和損益表上反映市場價值的變化。他們指出，雖然他們支持在資產負債表上顯示市場價值，但他們不贊成將其流通到損益表中，因為這可能會導致損益表失去其真正的意義，因為市場價值會不斷變化。他們建議將市場價值變動列入“其他綜合收益”，就像很長一段時間以來的做法一樣。
巴菲特和蒙格的投資哲學很重要的是長期以來一直專注於長期價值，而非短期市場波動。巴菲特常常提到他們的投資哲學，即他們將股票視為實質業務的一部分，而不僅僅是可買賣的證券。在他們看來，市場價值的波動並不代表業務價值的變化。
他們還批評了新的會計標準，認為它們並不真實反映企業的實際狀況。蒙格甚至將這種改變形容為“絕對瘋狂”，並認為只有不理解業務如何真正運作的人才會做出這種變更。
此外，巴菲特在回答問題時表示，他將始終堅持做合法的事情，並堅持說出他認為是對的事情，這也是他一貫的投資原則和哲學。他們的這種觀點與他們長期以來一直堅持的價值投資理念是一致的，即集中於基本面分析，著眼於長期的經濟實體價值，而不是短期的市場價值變化。
Section 25 原文：
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, Station two.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Dear Warren, dear Charlie. My name is Victoria Winthrop, I am 22 years old, and I study in Munich at the CDTM, the Center of Digital Technology and Management.
As your grandchildren are more in my age group, let me ask you: How do you transfer your wisdom to your grandchildren and heirs? How do you lead them to investing? Do you see value in investing as a family, or individually? Thank you.
WARREN BUFFETT: I’m going to let Charlie do the answer now. He’s got more —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I have more grandchildren. But (LAUGH) I am quite philosophical about my grandchildren not thinking exactly the way I do.
It seems to me that’s almost the natural course of life. And I just live my life my own way, and they can observe it as an example if they want to. And if they don’t, they can try some other way.
I don’t like it when they try some other way. (LAUGHTER)
And I have to pretend that I like some of the boyfriends and girlfriends I don’t like, (LAUGHTER) but I just struggle through like everybody else. (LAUGHTER)
And usually, I just bite my tongue and keep silent. That’s my way of handling it.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I would say that I think, in my case, my three children have grown a lot smarter in the last 30 years, and I think I’ve grown smarter. (LAUGH) And —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I know, but you needed a lot of help.
WARREN BUFFETT: That is for sure — (LAUGHTER) no, I would totally acknowledge that. That’s why I have the room to grow. I mean, I have plenty of room for improvement. But —
CHARLIE MUNGER: We all had a lot to grow. I worked a year for US Steel, which was in their fabrication department in Los Angeles, a big operation. The thing was utterly doomed, and three years later it went back to greenfields. The whole thing was razed to the ground.
I did not see it coming. Now, to be that ignorant as I was at that age, it was a sin. And my professors by and large were even more ignorant than I was. Nobody had observed the basic economics of business in a scientific way at all when I was young.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, if we’re getting into confession time, I have to tell you: It’s 3:30. So, (LAUGH) we don’t want to keep going on: Who knows what we’ll be saying in another half-hour. So, (LAUGHTER) I thank you all very much for coming. At 4:30 we will have the shareholders meeting here.
Section 25 翻譯：
25. 蒙格：我「對孫子們不完全按照我的方式思考感到釋然」
華倫·巴菲特：好的，第二站。
觀眾成員：親愛的華倫，親愛的查理。我叫Victoria Winthrop，我22歲，我在慕尼克的數字技術和管理中心（CDTM）學習。
因為你們的孫子們更接近我的年齡群，讓我問你們：你們如何將你們的智慧傳授給你們的孫子們和繼承人？你們如何引導他們投資？你們認為作為一個家庭或個人投資有價值嗎？謝謝。
華倫·巴菲特：我現在讓查理回答。他有更多的——
查理·蒙格：嗯，我有更多的孫子。但是（笑）我對我的孫子們不完全按照我的方式思考感到很釋然。
在我看來，這幾乎是生活的自然過程。我就是以我自己的方式過我的生活，如果他們想要，他們可以把它作為一個例子來觀察。如果他們不想，他們可以嘗試其他的方式。
我不喜歡他們嘗試其他的方式。（笑聲）
我不得不假裝我喜歡一些我不喜歡的男朋友和女朋友，（笑聲）但我就像每個人一樣努力地應對。（笑聲）
通常，我就是咬住舌頭保持沉默。這就是我處理它的方式。
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我想我可以說，我認為在我這裡，我三個孩子在過去30年裡變得更聰明瞭，我也覺得我變得更聰明瞭。（笑）和——
查理·蒙格：嗯，我知道，但你需要很多幫助。
華倫·巴菲特：這是確定的——（笑）不，我完全承認這一點。這就是我有成長的空間。我的意思是，我有很多改善的空間。但是——
查理·蒙格：我們都有很多成長的空間。我在洛杉磯的美國鋼鐵公司（US Steel）的製造部門工作了一年，那是一個大型的運營。事情完全註定了，三年後它又回到了綠色田野。整個事情都被夷為平地。
我並沒有看到這一切。現在，我在那個年紀那麼無知，這是一種罪。而我的教授們大體上比我更無知。當我年輕的時候，沒有人以科學的方式觀察過商業的基本經濟學。
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，如果我們要開始告解，我必須告訴你：現在是3點半。所以，（笑）我們不想繼續下去：誰知道我們在半個小時後會說什麼。所以，（笑聲）我非常感謝你們的到來。在4點半，我們將在這裡進行股東大會。
Section 25 摘要：
本節主題主要在於蒙格和巴菲特如何將他們的智慧和投資哲學傳授給他們的孫子和繼承人。查理·蒙格表示他對於孫子們不完全按照他的思考方式感到釋然，他認為這是生活的自然過程。他過他自己的生活，他的孫子們可以選擇要不要以他為榜樣。無論是家庭投資還是個人投資，他們都尊重孫子們的選擇，即使他們可能選擇其他的方式。他們都坦然接受自己還有很多可以學習和成長的地方。蒙格指出，他曾經在年輕時因為對商業基本經濟學的無知而失敗，這是他的教訓。
巴菲特和蒙格認為投資不只是財務數據的問題，也包含了生活哲學和價值觀。他們鼓勵獨立思考和持續學習，這也是他們過去的投資經驗教會他們的。而他們對於自己和他們的孫子們仍有成長空間的認知，也反映了他們的謙虛與持續學習的態度。
參考資料：
沒有留言:
張貼留言