本篇文章收錄2023年Berkshire Hathaway股東會下午場第6~10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。
6. ‘You should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it’
7. ‘Tough problem’ when family members are negative
8. Why are Garanimals only sold at Walmart?
9. Paramount Global faces tough competition in streaming
10. ‘Our record in wind and solar has not been topped by any utility’
 |
| 滾動你的SNOWBALL |
6. ‘You should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it’
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, station four?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good afternoon Mr. Buffett, Mr. Munger. My name is J.C. I am 15 years old and I’m from Ohio. This is my fourth in-person Berkshire meeting. I have a lot of passion learning from your speeches, interviews, and articles. Thank you for sharing your wisdom all the time.
Mr. Buffett, in your annual shareholder letter this year, you said that Berkshire’s journey consisted of “continuous savings, the power of commanding, the American tailwind, and avoidance of major mistakes”. You have humbly admitted in the past that you have made many mistakes.
But this is the first time that major mistakes stood out to me. Could you please advise us on what major mistakes we should avoid in both investing and in life? I would also like to have Mr. Munger’s thoughts too, please. Thank you very much.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, the main, (APPLAUSE) Charlie said the major mistake you could make, you know, you’re lucky if you’re in the United States. If you go around the world you don’t have a lot of choices in some places.
But you should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it.
And, you know, that’s something you get wiser on as you go along. The business mistakes, you just want to make sure you don’t make any mistakes that take you out of the game or come close to taking you out of your game. You should never have a night when you’re worried about investing, I mean, assuming you have any money to invest at all.
And you should just spend a little bit less than you earn. And you can spend a little bit more than you earn, and then you’ve got debt, and the chances are you’ll never get out of debt. I’ll make an exception in terms of a mortgage on your house.
But credit card debt, and we’re in the credit card business big time, and we’ll stay in the credit card business, but why get behind the game? And if you’re effectively paying 12% or 14% or whatever percent you’re paying on a credit card, you know, you’re saying, “I’m going to earn more than 12% or 14% of my money.”
And if you can do that, come to Berkshire Hathaway. So, it’s, I hate to say this when Charlie’s around me, but it’s straight out of Ben Franklin. I mean, (LAUGH) and it’s not that complicated. But you, well, I’ll give you a couple lessons.
You know, Tom Murphy, the first time I met him, said two things to me. He said, “You can always tell someone to go to hell tomorrow.” Well, that was great advice then. And think of what great advice it is when you can sit down at a computer and screw your life up forever by telling somebody to go to hell, or something else, in 30 seconds. And you can’t erase it.
And, you know, haven’t lost the option. And he said, you know, “Praise my name, criticize my category.” Well, what makes more sense than that? I mean, who do you like that criticizes you all the time? And you don’t need to vilify anybody to make your point on subjects of discussion.
And then the other general piece of advice, I’ve never known anybody that was basically kind that died without friends. And I’ve known plenty of people with money that have died without friends, including their family. But I’ve never known anybody, and you know, I’ve seen a few people, including Tom Murphy Sr. and maybe Jr., who’s here, (LAUGH) but certainly his dad, I never saw him, I watched him for 50 years, I never saw him do an unkind act.
I didn’t see him do very many stupid acts either. I mean, it wasn’t that he was non-discriminating, he just decided that there was no reason to do it. And wow, what a difference that makes in life. Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, it’s so simple to spend less than you earn, and invest shrewdly, and avoid toxic people and toxic activities, and try and keep learning all your life, et cetera, et cetera, and do a lot of deferred gratification because you prefer life that way.
And if you do all those things, you are almost certain to succeed. And if you don’t, you’re going to need a lot of luck. And you don’t want to need a lot of luck. You want to go into a game where you’re very likely to win without having any unusual luck.
WARREN BUFFETT: I’d add one more thought too, you need to know how people can manipulate other people, and you need to resist the temptation to do it yourself.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Oh yes, the toxic people who are trying to fool you or lie to you or aren’t reliable in meeting their commitments. A great lesson of life is get them the hell out of your life.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah.
CHARLIE MUNGER: And do it fast. (APPLAUSE) Do it fast.
WARREN BUFFETT: And I would add, Charlie would totally agree with me, do it tactfully, if possible, too. (LAUGH) But do get them out of your life.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yes. Yeah, I don’t mind a little tact. (LAUGHTER) Or even a little financial cost. But the question is getting them the hell out of your life.
Section 6 翻譯：
6. 你應該撰寫你的訃告，然後試著找出如何達到它所述的生活
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，第四站。
股東：下午好，巴菲特先生，蒙格先生。我叫J.C.，今年15歲，來自俄亥俄州。這是我第四次親身參加波克夏股東大會。我非常熱衷於從你們的演講、訪問和文章中學習。非常感謝你們一直分享智慧。
巴菲特先生，在你今年的年度股東信中，你提到波克夏的旅程包括「持續儲蓄、命令力、美國的順風和避免重大錯誤」。你過去謙虛地承認自己犯了許多錯誤。
但這是我第一次注意到重大錯誤。請問你能給我們一些建議，關於投資和生活中應該避免的重大錯誤？我也很想聽聽蒙格先生的想法。非常感謝。
巴菲特先生：好的，(掌聲) 蒙格先生說，你若在美國很幸運。如果你在世界各地旅行，你會發現在某些地方選擇不多。
但你應該寫下自己的遺囑，然後努力去實現它。
這是你隨著年齡增長而變得更加明智的事情。在業務上，你只需確保自己不犯任何將你淘汰出局或幾乎將你淘汰出局的錯誤。你不應該有一個晚上為了投資而擔心，當然前提是你有錢進行投資。
你只需花費少於你賺取的金額。你也可以花費多於你賺取的金額，但這樣你就會負債，而且很可能永遠無法還清債務。對於你的房屋按揭，我會做出例外。
但是信用卡債務，我們在信用卡業務中非常活躍，而且我們將繼續參與信用卡業務，但為什麼要落後於遊戲？如果你在信用卡上支付12%或14%的利率，你就等於說「我將賺取超過我錢的12%或14%」。
如果你能做到這一點，歡迎加入波克夏。所以，我不得不說，當蒙格先生在我身邊時，我不太情願這麼說，但這完全出自本·富蘭克林之口。我指的是，這並不復雜。但是，我給你幾個教訓。
你知道，湯姆·墨菲（Tom Murphy）第一次見我時對我說了兩件事。他說：「你總是可以告訴別人去死」。這是很好的建議。當你坐在電腦前，用30秒的時間對某人說「去死」或其他話，你就能毀了自己的一生，而且你無法撤銷。
你還保留了這個選擇。他還說，「讚美我的名字，批評我的分類」。這有什麼比這更有意義的呢？我指的是，你喜歡那些一直批評你的人嗎？你不需要貶低任何人來證明自己的觀點。
然後另一個一般性建議是，我從來沒有見過一個善良的人死後沒有朋友。而我見過許多有錢但沒有朋友的人，包括他們的家人在內。但我從未見過任何人，你知道，我見過一些人，包括這裡的湯姆·墨菲（Tom Murphy）二世，（笑聲）但當然是指他的父親，我觀察了他50年，我從未見過他做過任何不友善的行為。
我也很少見他做出愚蠢的舉動。這並不是說他沒有審慎的眼光，只是他認為沒有理由這樣做。哇，這在生活中有什麼巨大的不同。蒙格先生，你還有什麼想補充的嗎？
蒙格先生：嗯，要花費少於你賺取的金額，明智投資，遠離有毒的人和有毒的活動，並且一生都保持學習等等，都是非常簡單的。如果你做到所有這些，你幾乎肯定會成功。如果你不這麼做，你將需要很多運氣。而你不想依靠運氣。你要參加一個非常有可能在沒有特殊運氣的情況下取勝的遊戲。
巴菲特先生：我還想再補充一點，你需要知道人們如何操縱別人，你需要抵制自己操縱別人的誘惑。
蒙格先生：哦，對，還有那些試圖欺騙你、對你說謊或無法信守承諾的有毒人物。人生的一大教訓就是把他們從你的生活中趕走。
巴菲特先生：是的。
蒙格先生：趕得快點。(掌聲) 快點把他們趕走。
巴菲特先生：而且我要補充一點，蒙格先生完全同意我，如果可能的話，要用一種圓滑的方式。(笑) 但一定要把他們趕出你的生活。
蒙格先生：是的。是的，我不介意有點圓滑。(笑聲) 甚至付出一點財務代價也沒關係。問題是把他們趕出你的生活。
Section 6 摘要：
在第6部分的股東會議中，一位15歲的股東向巴菲特和蒙格提出了一個問題，詢問他們在投資和生活中應該避免的重大錯誤。巴菲特回答說，在生活中，一個人應該先撰寫自己的訃聞，然後努力達到這個標準。他強調了過度消費和負債的危害，並鼓勵節省並謹慎投資。
他提到了他與湯姆·墨菲的會面，湯姆·墨菲告訴他要避免說出對他人不友善的話語，並鼓勵表揚他人而不是批評他人。此外，巴菲特強調了善待他人和避免與有毒人物交往的重要性。
蒙格表示，在生活中成功的關鍵是花費少於所賺取的金額，明智地投資，遠離有毒的人和有毒的活動，並持續學習。他指出，如果做到這些，幾乎可以確保取得成功，而不需要依靠運氣。
總的來說，這部分的重點是要避免過度消費和負債，善待他人並遠離有毒人物，並通過節省和明智投資來取得成功。此外，股東也被鼓勵選擇一個明確的目標並努力實現它，並對他們的行為和言語負責。
Section 7 原文：
7. ‘Tough problem’ when family members are negative
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, Becky?
BECKY QUICK: All right, this comes from Roger Lee Tan. He says, “My name is Roger from Hong Kong, a long-term shareholder of Berkshire, admirer and follower of Mr. Buffett’s and Munger’s wisdom and principle. Both of you have said before that the most difficult problems in life are always people problems.
“And one of the key lessons you have learned to be able to live a happy life and a successful life is to stay away from negative people. My question is what to do if those negative people are your families, the people (LAUGHTER) whom you can’t simply stay away from?”
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. You minimize it. But you can’t, no, I mean, there’s no question about it. And Charlie gave an answer I thought was master of tact the other day when he says, “You always ought to interact with people who behave well.” He says, “Of course, you have to make some exceptions for your family.”
But (LAUGH) it’s true. And, you know, you really, I don’t know what it’s like to have, you know, a drunken, you know, bully-ish, probably father, but parent, just generally. I mean, you know, how do you handle it? It’s very interesting that the MacArthur family, the very famous John MacArthur, the man who set up the MacArthur Foundation, he had five kids.
And four of them turned out to be superstars of one sort or another, and then they had this crazy, itinerant, drunken father. But they all decided that the thing to do was to get the hell out of the house.
And so, he had this, the father of the — of the MacArthur Foundation that did that along with three of the siblings out of five.
So, you know, I was lucky, I mean, and Charlie was lucky that, you know, if you have, I mean, our fathers saw plenty of shortcomings in both of us, but, you know, they would still be there for us.
And if you have one that won’t be there for you, you know, it’s a very tough problem. And I think one way or another I probably would have gotten through with that, if I had that situation, but I think my life would’ve been a lot different. Charlie?
CHARLIE MUNGER: I have nothing to add.
Section 7 翻譯：
7. 當家庭成員負面時「難題」 華倫·巴菲特：好的，Becky？
BECKY QUICK：好的，這來自Roger Lee Tan的問題。他說，“我是來自香港的Roger，波克夏的長期股東，也是巴菲特先生和Munger先生智慧和原則的崇拜者和追隨者。你們兩位曾經說過，生活中最困難的問題總是人的問題。
“你們所學到的能夠過上快樂和成功生活的關鍵課程之一就是要遠離負面的人。我的問題是，如果那些負面的人是你的家人，那些你不能簡單地避開的人（笑聲），該怎麼辦呢？”
華倫·巴菲特：是的，你應該儘量降低它。但你不能，不，我是說，這是毫無疑問的。前些天Charlie給出了一個我認為非常巧妙的回答，他說，“你應該總是和行為良好的人進行互動。”他說，“當然，你必須對你的家人做出一些例外。”
但是（笑）這是真的。你知道，我不知道有一個醉酒的，大概是父親，但是，總的來說，是家長，我們應該如何處理呢？很有趣的是，MacArthur家族，非常著名的John MacArthur，設立了MacArthur基金會的人，他有五個孩子。
其中四個都是各種方式的超級明星，然後他們有一個瘋狂的，流浪的，醉酒的父親。但他們都決定要離家出走。
因此，他有這個，MacArthur基金會的父親做到了這一點，與五個兄弟姐妹中的三個一起。
你知道，我很幸運，我是說，Charlie很幸運，你知道，如果你有，我的意思是，我們的父親在我們兩人身上看到了很多短處，但是，你知道，他們仍然會在那裡支持我們。
如果你有一個不會在那裡支持你的人，你知道，這是一個非常困難的問題。我認為無論如何，如果我有這種情況，我可能還是會解決的，但我認為我的生活會有很大的不同。Charlie？
CHARLIE MUNGER：我沒有什麼要補充的。
Section 7 摘要：
在第七部分中，一位觀眾提出了關於與家人相處的問題，尤其是當家人帶有負面情緒時該如何應對。華倫·巴菲特表示，儘量減少與負面人士的接觸，但對於家人這種情況，他認為應該有所例外。他舉了一個例子，描述了約翰·麥克亞瑟家族的情況，其中有一位父親的行為非常不好，但其他四個孩子都決定離開家庭環境。巴菲特認為，這對於他們來說是正確的決定。
他提到他和查理·蒙格的父親都看到了他們的缺點，但仍然一直支持他們，並表示自己很幸運。然而，他也提到如果有家人不支持你，這將是一個非常困難的問題。
查理·蒙格在這個問題上沒有其他的補充。
因此，這一部分的重點是，雖然遇到負面的家庭成員是一個困難的問題，但巴菲特建議盡量減少接觸，同時也要意識到有時需要與家人做一些例外，尤其是在他們的支持和關愛對於個人成長很重要的情況下。
Section 8 原文：
8. Why are Garanimals only sold at Walmart?
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, station five?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hey Warren and Charlie, good afternoon. My name is Sudakaredi Anapredi. I am from Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart. I’m a shareholder since 2019, and my daughters are shareholders since 2020. My question is, this is my first time coming to shareholders, and my question is Walmart and Berkshire Hathaway has a very great relationship with BNSF, McLane, and consumer goods like Fruit of the Looms and Garanimals, and et cetera.
My question is Garanimals is exclusively sold at Walmart, and Fruit of the Loom is sold at many other retailers. How does Berkshire Hathaway decide some items are sold at some retailers exclusively, versus others are sold at many retailers?
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, that’s a good question. But obviously you’d love to control, if you have a product, you’d love to control the distribution. And you’re probably going to get better gross of margins if they ask for you by name. I mean, they just had an article about Bernard Arnault, who built LVMH, and you know, he’s got a blue box at Tiffany.
And the blue box itself means something. And Coca-Cola, the bottle meant something. In the 1920s, I think, there was a study that kind of (UNINTEL) bottle and blindfolded, and a very high percentage of the population could recognize it was Coca-Cola.
When they can recognize not only the product, but the container, you know, you’re going to have good gross margins. And if you’re just another cola, and there have been hundreds of them, and even if you have distribution through something like Walmart, who has Sam’s Cola, it just doesn’t, it’s not the same.
I mean, here I am, you know? And 1886 or so, John Pemberton in Atlanta created it, and they spent a very significant amount of money advertising. And on the other hand, Hershey’s didn’t spend any money on advertising. So, we have observed, Charlie and I both, have observed so many products, so many methods of retail.
And we really think we know quite a bit about them, and we also know how much we don’t know about it at the same time. And it doesn’t mean that we want to go into retailing ourselves, but it does mean we’ve learned, to some extent, what to avoid.
And we’ve learned when somebody really has something. And Garanimals has something. It’s just that there’s only been, you know, Walmart does a great job of distribution for us. And it’s a good product for Walmart, it’s a good product for us.
And on Fruit of the Loom, they can sell lots of types of underwear, and they can do a big volume, but we’re not going to make as much money, as well as I believe the capital employed or anything, with a product that has a whole bunch of competitors.
And if the kid wants a Garanimals, well, pajamas or something, it’s not the sort of product that causes people to drive 20 miles out of their way to buy it, or anything of the sort. But if you’re in the Walmart and you’re picking out pajamas or something for the kid, and he or she wants a particular product, and it’s reasonably priced and everything, and wears well and everything, you know, we’re happy to have it distributed through somebody with the distribution power of Walmart.
And they’re very happy to have the product. On balance it’s obviously better if you own See’s Candy than if you own the no-name candy company. You know, particularly when people buy it as gifts a couple times a year. I mean, they know that if they give their girlfriend, if they give somebody in the hospital, if they give a gift at Christmas or going to a dinner, they know if they hand the box of candy to somebody they don’t say at the same time, “Here, I got a wonderful deal on this candy.”
I mean, that just kills the moment, right? What they really want to see is a smile on the other person’s face that they’re receiving it, and they get it. So, knowing what customers, and See’s boxed chocolates, A, are not remotely the market that soft drinks are.
And the product does not travel particularly. Hershey’s chocolate didn’t travel. I mean, if you look at candy bars, what’s popular in the U.K. isn’t that popular in the U.S. and all kinds of things. Coca-Cola travels. There’s 200 countries, roughly, and probably 180 of them it’s the dominant product.
And how do you do it? Well, it helps if you started in 1886 (LAUGH) and go from that point forward. So, we’ve learned a lot. We got lots to learn. But we did learn that something like Garanimals we understood. When it came around nobody had ever heard of it and we bought it for a very low price, as it turned out.
And 20 years ago, and still nobody knows it, or that we own it, and that’s fine. But they know what Garanimals are, and it has legs. It just keeps going year after year. And some things are like pet rocks. And we’re learning all the time. Charlie? (LAUGHTER)
CHARLIE MUNGER: I have nothing to add.
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. You probably have never bought any Garanimals.
CHARLIE MUNGER: No. I never have. (LAUGH) I don’t even wear them. (LAUGHTER)
WARREN BUFFETT: You wouldn’t fit. (LAUGH)
Section 8 翻譯：
8. 為什麼Garanimals只在沃爾瑪銷售？
華倫·巴菲特：好的，第五個問題。
觀眾：嗨，華倫和查理，下午好。我叫Sudakaredi Anapredi，來自阿肯色州本頓維爾，沃爾瑪的故鄉。我自2019年以來就是一名股東，我女兒們自2020年以來也是股東。我的問題是沃爾瑪和波克夏與BNSF、麥克萊恩以及類似Fruit of the Looms和Garanimals等消費品方面有著良好的關係。
我的問題是Garanimals只在沃爾瑪獨家銷售，而Fruit of the Loom則在其他許多零售商銷售。波克夏是如何決定某些商品只在某些零售商獨家銷售，而其他商品則在多家零售商銷售？
華倫·巴菲特：這是個好問題。顯然，如果你有一個產品，你肯定希望能夠控制銷售管道。如果人們對你的產品能夠主動尋找你，你可能會獲得更好的毛利率。我們剛剛讀到一篇關於Bernard Arnault的文章，他建立了LVMH，而他在蒂芙尼有一個藍色的盒子，這個藍色的盒子本身就有特殊的意義。另外，可口可樂的瓶子也有其特殊意義。在20世紀20年代，有一項研究盲目地讓人們觸摸瓶子，結果很高的比例的人能夠辨識出是可口可樂。
當人們不僅能辨識產品，還能辨識容器時，你的毛利率就會很好。而如果你只是另一個可樂品牌，市場上已經有了數百個品牌，即使你通過沃爾瑪等途徑進行銷售，效果也不一樣。
這就是我們所在的位置，約在1886年，約翰·彭伯頓在亞特蘭大創造了可口可樂，當時他們花了大量的資金進行廣告宣傳。另一方面，赫歇公司不花錢做廣告。所以，我們觀察到了很多產品和零售方式，我們確實對它們有一定的瞭解，同時我們也知道自己對它們瞭解得還有很多需要學習的地方。這並不意味著我們想要自己進入零售業，但這確實意味著我們在某種程度上學會了一些要避免的事情。
對於像Garanimals這樣的品牌，我們瞭解它。當它出現時，沒有人聽說過它，我們以很低的價格買下了它，結果證明是個很好的買入。到現在為止，仍然沒有人知道它或者知道我們擁有它，但他們知道什麼是Garanimals，這個品牌一直以來都有市場需求。而有些產品則像寵物石一樣，過了一陣子就消失了。我們一直在不斷學習。查理，你有什麼要補充的嗎？（笑聲）
查理·蒙格：我沒有其他要補充的。
華倫·巴菲特：好的。你可能從來沒有買過Garanimals。
查理·蒙格：對，我從來沒有。（笑聲）我甚至不穿它們。（笑聲）
華倫·巴菲特：你也穿不進去。（笑聲）
Section 8 摘要：
在第8部分的股東會議上，一位股東問到為什麼Garanimals只在沃爾瑪銷售。華倫·巴菲特解釋了他們決定某些商品在某些零售商獨家銷售的原因。他提到，如果你能控制產品的分銷，你可能能獲得更好的毛利率。他舉了可口可樂和蒂芙尼的例子，說明瞭品牌的重要性。他還提到，Garanimals在沃爾瑪上銷售良好，而Fruit of the Loom則在多家零售商銷售。他解釋了在選擇分銷管道時考慮的因素，包括產品的知名度和競爭對手的數量。
此外，華倫·巴菲特和查理·蒙格提到了他們對零售業和產品的觀察和經驗。他們表示自己學到了很多，並且還有很多需要學習的地方。他們認為瞭解產品、瞭解顧客需求以及避免某些錯誤是重要的。他們對於Garanimals的成功例子進行了分享，並提到他們在選擇投資時會避免與競爭激烈的產品相關的項目。
總的來說，這一部分的重點是探討了品牌和產品分銷對於業務成功的重要性，以及如何在選擇分銷管道時考慮不同因素的重要性。同時，他們強調了對於產品和顧客的瞭解以及避免某些錯誤的重要性。
Section 9 原文：
9. Paramount Global faces tough competition in streaming
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, Becky?
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Barry Laffer in New York City. “Berkshire owns about 94 million shares of Paramount Global as of the last published data. This asset-rich company has disappointed on recent quarterly earnings reports, and just this week slashed its dividend by 80%.
“How do you see the streaming wars evolving? And do you still have conviction in your investment thesis? Is your investment thesis based on the company being an acquisition target, or based on its fundamentals?”
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. And how would you like to manage my money for nothing? (LAUGH) They, you know, we are not in the business of giving stock advice to people. And people who don’t know anything about stocks can make a lot of money doing that, and we don’t think it’s something we should give away.
But I will say this, it’s not good news when any company passes its dividend or cuts its dividend dramatically.
And the streaming business is extremely interesting to watch, because there’s, people love to use their iPhones, watching, being entertained on a screen in front of them, or a phone, or whatever it may be.
But there’s a lot of companies doing it. And you need fewer companies, or you need higher prices. And, well, you need higher prices, or it doesn’t work. And you don’t lock in people when you get them to join up for the streaming period when your serial runs.
I mean, you know, you keep them on for a while, but you get them for, like, a month. And we’ll see what happens. I mean, I had a gasoline station when I was 21 or 22, and it’s about three or four, four or five miles from here. And we had one competitor.
And he determined our profit, because we looked at his price every day. And if we cut the price he’d match it, and we couldn’t raise the price. And he did twice the gallonage, so he won. And there’s just basic business problems that you see with certain industries that you don’t see with the other.
Disney was unique in its animated — what it offered, you know — in the ’30s and ’40s. And they wrote the stuff off at the first showing, and then they rejuvenated Snow White and all these other people every seven years, and that was fine.
But this is a different world. And the eyeballs aren’t going to increase dramatically in the time they can spend is not going to increase dramatically. And you’ve got a bunch of companies that don’t want to quit. And who knows what pricing does under that. But anybody who tells you that they know what pricing will do in the future is kidding themselves.
Charlie? Charlie’s had a lot of experience, incidentally, with Hollywood. I mean, he used to, before I even met him —
CHARLIE MUNGER: I think the movie business is one tough business.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah.
CHARLIE MUNGER: That’s my view.
WARREN BUFFETT: The talent will make the money; the agents will make the money. And if you’ve got a theater, you know, the theaters are now doing 70% of the business that they did before the pandemic. And big hits, you know, have enormous grosses. But you can’t reduce the supply.
People have only got so many hours in the day. They’ve only got two eyeballs. And they’ve got more choice than ever before, and they’ve got stuff that’s cheaper that offers them the same experience. And some of them like the experience, you know, particularly with the big hits of going.
But it isn’t like you can double the number of people or double the eyeballs or anything like that. And you’ve got a lot of people. The talent will always get paid. And when you essentially are packaging that talent one way or another, and you need to get higher prices, and you’ve got a lot of strong companies who don’t want to quit, that’s an interesting equation.
CHARLIE MUNGER: And if you think the movies are tough, try to invest in a New York show on a conventional stage. There they think it’s a breach of faith in that business to let the person who put up the money to ever get any money back. (LAUGHTER)
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Yeah, well, Charlie saw a lot of that actually when —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yeah. I don’t like those businesses.
WARREN BUFFETT: Tell them what happened on “Cleopatra, Charlie.” (LAUGHTER)
It, no, it’s a business that everybody’s tempted. They love the idea of going in it, you know, and they get a certain amount of psychic income. But —
CHARLIE MUNGER: I never owned any racehorses, either.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, my father-in-law and I used to talk about claiming a horse at AK-SAR-BEN, but we never quite got around to it. And we had a lot of fun going to the track together. (LAUGH)
Section 9 翻譯：
9. Paramount Global在流媒體領域面臨激烈競爭
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，Becky？
BECKY QUICK: 這個問題來自紐約市的Barry Laffer。根據最新公佈的數據，「波克夏」擁有約9400萬股Paramount Global。這家資產豐富的公司在最近的季度盈利報告中令人失望，並且削減了80%的股息。
「您如何看待流媒體競爭的發展？您對投資論點仍然有信心嗎？您的投資論點是基於公司成為收購目標，還是基於其基本面？」
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。你想免費管理我的資金嗎？(笑聲) 我們不從事向人們提供股票建議的業務。不懂股票的人也可以賺很多錢，我們認為這不是我們應該提供的服務。
但我要說的是，當任何一家公司取消股息或大幅削減股息時，這並不是好消息。
流媒體業務非常有趣，因為人們喜歡使用iPhone，在螢幕前或手機上觀看娛樂節目。
但有很多公司在這個領域競爭。你需要更少的公司，或者需要更高的價格。而且，你需要更高的價格，否則這個業務無法運作。當你讓他們加入流媒體訂閱期間時，你並不能長期留住他們。
我們將看到發生什麼情況。我二十一、二十二歲時擁有一家汽油站，距離這裡大約三、四英里。我們有一個競爭對手。
他決定了我們的利潤，因為我們每天都關注他的價格。如果我們降價，他會匹配價格，我們無法提高價格。而他的加油量是我們的兩倍，所以他贏了。某些行業存在一些基本的商業問題，而其他行業則不存在。
迪士尼在30年代和40年代以其獨特的動畫作品而獨樹一幟。他們在首映時將作品的成本全部攤銷，然後每七年都會重新推出《白雪公主》和其他作品，這是可行的。
但現在是不同的世界。眼球的數量不會大幅增加，人們可以花在這方面的時間也不會大幅增加。而且你有很多公司不想退出。誰知道在這種情況下價格會怎麼樣。但是任何告訴你他們知道未來價格走勢的人都是在自欺欺人。
Charlie呢？Charlie對好萊塢有很多經驗，我們甚至在我認識他之前 —
CHARLIE MUNGER: 我認為電影業是一個艱難的行業。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 這是我的觀點。
WARREN BUFFETT: 人才可以賺錢，代理人可以賺錢。如果你有一個劇院，你知道，現在劇院的業務量是疫情前的70%。而且大熱門電影的票房收入巨大。但你不能減少供應。
人們每天只有那麼多時間。他們只有兩只眼睛。他們擁有比以往更多的選擇，而且他們有更便宜的選擇，可以提供相同的體驗。有些人喜歡這種體驗，尤其是大熱門電影。
但這不意味著你可以將人數翻倍或增加眼球數量。你有很多人才會得到報酬。當你基本上在包裝這些人才時，你需要提高價格，而且你有很多強大的公司不想退出，這是一個有趣的問題。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 如果你認為電影業艱難，那麼試試在紐約的一個常規舞臺上投資一個秀。在那裡，讓投資者獲得任何回報被認為是背信棄義的行為。(笑聲)
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。是的，沒錯，Charlie其實在「埃及艷後」上看到了很多這樣的情況。(笑聲)
這不是一個人人都想進入的行業，但每個人都會被這個想法所吸引，他們會得到一定的心理收益。但是 —
CHARLIE MUNGER: 我從來沒有擁有過任何賽馬。
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，我岳父和我曾經談過在AK-SAR-BEN買一匹馬，但我們沒有實現它。我們一起去賽馬場玩得很開心。(笑聲)
Section 9 摘要：
Paramount Global在流媒體領域面臨激烈競爭。一位股東詢問有關流媒體戰爭的發展以及對投資主題的堅持，是否基於該公司可能成為收購目標或基於其基本面。華倫·巴菲特表示，他們不提供股票建議，但指出任何公司停止支付股息或大幅削減股息都不是好消息。流媒體業務非常有趣，但存在著眾多競爭對手。他們需要減少競爭對手數量或提高價格才能維持業務運作。此外，他強調眼球數量和人們可以花在流媒體上的時間是有限的，這是該行業面臨的基本商業問題。巴菲特還提到好萊塢的困難，他和查理·蒙格都認為電影業是一個艱難的行業，並指出人才和劇院在此行業中獲得利益，但供應不會減少，而觀眾的選擇更多，有更便宜的選項可提供相同的體驗。最後，他們提到在一些業務中獲得回報的困難，如投資紐約的舞臺秀。
Section 10 原文：
10. ‘Our record in wind and solar has not been topped by any utility’
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, section six?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good afternoon. My name is Hannah Hayes and I’m a high schooler from Iowa. You said earlier today that transitioning to renewable energy has the people and capital to support it.
So, with enough investment in renewables, the development of energy storage technology to soon meet Iowa’s energy needs, and support from the government system through Inflation Reduction Act funding, why hasn’t Berkshire Hathaway Energy truly invested in the future by accelerating retirement plans for the coal plants, which have high operating costs and are currently Iowa’s biggest carbon polluter, and will continue to be until they’re finally retired in 2049, which is too late to be curbing emissions, according to the IPCC?
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. It’s very interesting. In Iowa, we have actually produced more wind energy than is the total amount of energy used by our customers. But it’s not producible 24 hours a day necessarily. So, there’s problems. And incidentally, in Iowa, a significant majority of counties welcome us when we come around and want to put in wind.
And some don’t want it. I mean, you know, there’s a not-in-my-backyard someplace. There’s other places where they love the money they get from a small plot of ground. And people like the taxes that are paid. But I would say that if there’s one state in the Union that stands out in the development, it’s Iowa. But what’s also interesting in Iowa is that we have one other major company.
There’s always loads of little co-ops and all kinds of things that sell electricity. But we have one major competitor. And our prices are significantly lower. And, as a matter of fact, we are now in the Omaha Public Power District. And three miles or four miles away, we’re selling the electricity in Iowa.
And we are selling it cheaper, even though public power was invented in Nebraska, and has been — I think it’s going on — George Norris did it back in the 1930s. And, you know, Nebraska’s resisted, to some extent wind power, more than Iowa. But like I said, our competitor — alternate source — hasn’t really pursued it the way we have.
But I would say that our record in wind and solar has not been topped by any utility in the United States. And, of course, it’s been aided by the fact that most utilities pay out 70% or 80% of earnings and dividends. And we haven’t taken a common dividend, you know, for 20 years. We reinvested I don’t know how many billion.
That’s the reason why the earnings have gone from $200,000,000 to $4 billion, but we’re not earning a higher rate of return on capital than we were when we started. We just put way more capital into the business as we went along, kept reinvesting the capital.
So, I wish Greg were here to tell you more details about it. But I would say that we’d really put up Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s record against any utility in the United States. Charlie, you’ve watched it.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I have. And I’m not personally at all sure how bad the global warming is going to be. I don’t think anybody knows for sure whether the seas are going to rise two inches or 20 feet. And so, I think there’s a lot of false claims here in a world where much is not known.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. (APPLAUSE) There is a lot of wind in Wyoming. And we are building transmission lines that extend out through the West. But it was World War II when they told us to do it. And we had a czar in Washington that could say, you know, “Just get it done,” like they said to said Henry Kaiser on building ships.
You know, you can’t believe how ahead we would be down from where we are. But we’ve got the money. We’ve got the know-how. This year our depreciation in our utility company is on the order of $4 billion. And we spend maybe $3 billion additional to that. So, maybe we spend $7 billion.
And there are very few companies in the utility industry that are spending, you know, that percentage of their depreciated money.
But we’d love to be spending more, but there are people all over that don’t want the pipeline to go through there. They don’t want the tower, whatever it may be.
And that is the problem of a democracy. And even, as I mentioned, within Iowa, you’ve got a great many counties that — majority, great majority of the counties I think would welcome the wind power.
And you’ve got some counties that don’t like it. And we’re obviously going to work with the ones that want to work with us. We do not have the ability to go in and tell anybody what do on that.
And there’s a public utility commission in every state that basically governs what we earn on it, what we do, and that’s the way the industry’s developed. And that’s not bad, unless you get into the things that in effect, you know, extend — they’re part of a country-wide system, rather than state-wide system.
CHARLIE MUNGER: I think also that even if we weren’t worried about global warming, it would make sense to —
WARREN BUFFETT: Sure.
CHARLIE MUNGER: — shift to renewables to conserve our hydrocarbons. There’re certain things hydrocarbons can do that nothing else can do. And there’s only so much of them there. Why not be cautious in conserving them?
WARREN BUFFETT: And the cost, they’ve gotten so much more efficient, too. I mean, the wind. I mean, if you look at what we’re doing now, those towers are way more efficient than —
But there’s a lot of people that are talking about things that can’t be done. And then there’s —
CHARLIE MUNGER: There’s a lot of nonsense in this field. If you like nonsense, this is the field for you. (LAUGHTER)
WARREN BUFFETT: But we’re in the field, so. (LAUGHTER)
CHARLIE MUNGER: I know. I know.
Section 10 翻譯：
10. 在風能和太陽能方面，我們的紀錄未被任何公用事業超越
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，第六區？
聽眾成員：下午好，我的名字是漢娜·海耶斯，我是來自愛荷華州的一名高中生。您今天早些時候提到，轉向可再生能源已獲得了人力和資本的支持。
因此，如果在可再生能源上進行足夠的投資，開發能源儲存技術以滿足愛荷華州的能源需求，並且通過通脹降低法案的資金支持獲得政府的支持，為什麼波克夏能源公司並未真正投資於未來，加速煤電廠的退役計劃？這些煤電廠運營成本高昂，目前是愛荷華州最大的碳排放源，直到2049年才會最終退役，這對於減少排放來說已經太晚，根據IPCC的說法。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，這非常有趣。在愛荷華州，我們實際上生產的風能超過了我們客戶所使用的總能量。但是，風能並不一定可以全天候生產電力，所以存在一些問題。此外，在愛荷華州，絕大多數縣市都歡迎我們的風能項目，但也有一些不接受的地方，就像是有人不願意在自己的後院興建風力發電場一樣。有些地方喜歡從一小塊土地上獲得的收入和稅收。但我可以說，如果在聯邦國家中有一個州在可再生能源發展方面脫穎而出，那就是愛荷華州。但同樣有趣的是，在愛荷華州，我們有另一家主要競爭對手。雖然有許多小型合作社和其他售電公司，但我們只有一家主要競爭對手。而我們的價格要低得多。事實上，我們現在正在為奧馬哈公共電力區提供服務。而在三英里或四英里外，我們正在愛荷華州銷售電力。我們的價格更低，儘管公共電力在兩位創辦人，喬治·諾裡斯在上世紀30年代創辦的時候，風電力量方面還居於領先地位。你知道，內布拉斯加州在某種程度上對風能發電的發展持保留態度，比愛荷華州更多。但正如我所說的，我們的競爭對手並沒有像我們一樣積極追求風能發展。但我可以說，在風能和太陽能方面，我們在美國的公用事業公司中的紀錄是無人能及的。當然，這也得益於大多數公用事業公司將收益的70%至80%作為股息分配給股東。而我們則已經20年沒有支付普通股息了，我們以不斷再投資的方式來推動業務發展。我不知道我們投資了多少十億美元。這就是為什麼我們的盈利從2億美元增加到40億美元，但我們的資本回報率並未提高。我們只是在業務發展過程中投入了更多資本，不斷再投資。所以，我希望葛列格在這裡告訴您更多細節。但我可以說，我們非常樂意拿波克夏能源公司的業績來與美國的任何公用事業公司進行比較。查理，你一直都在關注這個領域。
查理·蒙格：是的，我是。我個人並不確定全球變暖問題到底有多嚴重。沒有人確切知道海平面到底會上升兩英寸還是20英尺。所以，在這個充滿未知的世界中，有很多虛假的宣稱。
WARREN BUFFETT：是的。（掌聲）有很多風力資源在懷俄明州。我們正在建設貫穿西部的輸電線路。不過，要知道這個指示是在二戰期間發出的。當時華盛頓有一位特使可以說，“快點完成”，就像當年他們對亨利·凱撒在船舶建造方面的要求一樣。
你無法想像我們現在已經落後多少。但我們有資金，有專業知識。今年我們在公用事業公司的折舊額大約為40億美元。我們還額外花費了大約30億美元。所以，我們可能總共花費70億美元。
在公用事業行業中，很少有公司將這個比例的折舊資金投入到業務中。
但我們希望能投入更多資金，但遍地都是不希望輸電管道通過的人，也有人不希望塔樓建在自己的土地上。
這就是民主的問題所在。即使在愛荷華州內部，你會發現有很多縣市大多數（我認為）都歡迎風能發展。同時也有一些縣市不喜歡風能發展。我們當然會與那些願意與我們合作的人合作。我們沒有權力告訴任何人該怎麼做。
每個州都有一個公用事業委員會，基本上管理著我們的盈利和業務運作。這是行業的發展方式，這也不是壞事，除非你涉及那些與全國範圍內的系統有關的事情，而不是州級的系統。
查理·蒙格：我還認為，即使我們不擔心全球變暖，將能源轉向可再生能源也是有道理的，以保護我們的石化燃料。石化燃料能夠做到一些其他能源無法做到的事情，而且它們的供應是有限的。為什麼不謹慎地保存它們呢？
WARREN BUFFETT：而且成本效益也得到了很大的提升。我的意思是，看看我們現在所做的，這些風力發電塔比以前高效得多。
但是有很多人在談論那些根本無法實現的事情。還有一些——
查理·蒙格：在這個領域，有很多無稽之談。如果你喜歡無稽之談，那這就是你的領域。（笑聲）
WARREN BUFFETT：但我們就是在這個領域。（笑聲）
查理·蒙格：我知道。我知道。
Section 10 摘要：
在這個部分的會議中，觀眾提出了一個關於可再生能源和煤電廠問題的問題，特別是有關Berkshire Hathaway Energy是否加速退役計劃，以減少二氧化碳排放。華倫·巴菲特解釋了在愛荷華州的情況，指出他們在風能發電方面的成就以及在可再生能源方面的投資。查理·蒙格表示，即使不考慮全球變暖，也有理由轉向可再生能源以保護有限的石化燃料。
在愛荷華州，Berkshire Hathaway Energy已經在風能發電方面取得了巨大的成就，生產的風能超過了客戶所使用的總能量。然而，風能並不是24小時不間斷可生產的，仍存在一些問題。而愛荷華州在可再生能源發展方面表現突出，Berkshire Hathaway Energy的價格明顯更低，Berkshire Hathaway Energy在風能和太陽能方面的成就在美國公用事業中無與倫比。華倫·巴菲特強調了投資資金的再投資，而不是提高資本回報率。
波克夏能源公司（Berkshire Hathaway Energy）的可再生能源發展成果受到了肯定，並強調了可再生能源在減少環境污染和保護有限資源方面的重要性。同時，也提到了可再生能源發展所面臨的挑戰和社區對於發電設施建設的不同態度。
參考資料：
沒有留言:
張貼留言