本篇文章收錄2023年Berkshire Hathaway股東會上午場第11~15節原文(上半場總共32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。
11. Munger: Commercial real estate downturn will be ‘quite significant and quite unpleasant’
12. ′ What gives you opportunities is other people doing dumb things’
13. AIG liability assumption deal is turning out to be ‘good but not great’
14. Never write a will without input from your children
15. BNSF takes derailments ‘incredibly seriously’
 |
| 滾動你的SNOWBALL |
Section 11 原文：
11. Munger: Commercial real estate downturn will be ‘quite significant and quite unpleasant’
WARREN BUFFETT: Becky?
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Tom Seymour. He says, “The first sentence of a recent Financial Times article read, ‘Charlie Munger has warned of a brewing storm in the U.S. commercial property market with American banks full of what he said were bad loans as property prices fall.’
“Please elaborate on what’s going on in commercial real estate. How bad will the losses be, and what sectors or geographies look particularly bad?”
I’ll just add an addendum from another viewer who wrote in and wanted to know if Berkshire would be more active in commercial real estate as a result.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, Berkshire’s never been very active in commercial real estate. It works better for taxable investors than it does for corporations to act the way that Berkshire is. So, I don’t anticipate huge effects on Berkshire. But I do think that the hollowing out of the downtowns in the United States and elsewhere in the world is going to be quite significant and quite unpleasant.
I think the country will get through it all right, but as they say, it will often involve a different set of owners.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, and the buildings don’t go away, but —
CHARLIE MUNGER: The owners do.
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, (Laughter) but most people like to buy with non-recourse in real estate. And one time I asked Charlie, there was some real estate guy, we were talking to him, you know, “How do they decide how much a building like this is worth?” And the answer is, “It’s whatever they can borrow without signing their name.”
And if you look at real estate generally, you’ll understand the phenomenon that’s happening if you remind yourself that that’s the attitude of most people that have become big in the real estate business. And it does mean that the lenders are the ones that get the property.
And of course, they don’t want the property usually, so the real estate operator counts on negotiating with them, and the banks tend to, you know, extend and pretend. And there’s all kinds of activities that (UNINTEL) about us out of commercial real estate development, which occurs on a big scale.
But it all has consequences, and I think we’re starting to see the consequences of people who could borrow at 2.5%, and find out it doesn’t work at current rates, and they hand it back to somebody that gave them all the money they needed to build it. Charlie’s had more experience. Charlie got his start in real estate, though.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yes, it’s difficult. I like what we do better. (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, as Charlie once said to me when I was leaving his house a few months ago — I was visiting him, we talked for a couple of hours. And as I left, there wasn’t anybody else in the house except one daughter. I said, “Charlie, I’ll just keep doing what we’ve been doing.” And Charlie, without looking up or pausing a second, said, “That’s all you know how to do, Warren.” (Laughter) He was right too.
Section 11 翻譯：
11. 蒙格：商業房地產的下滑將是“相當重大且相當不愉快的”。
WARREN BUFFETT: 貝琪？
貝琪·奎克：這個問題來自湯姆·西摩。他說，“最近一篇《金融時報》文章的第一句話寫道，'查理·蒙格警告說，美國商業房地產市場正在醞釀一場風暴，隨著房價下跌，美國銀行滿是糟糕的貸款。'
“請詳細說明商業房地產的情況。損失有多嚴重，哪些行業或地區看起來尤其糟糕？”
我再補充一個觀眾的問題，他想知道由於這種情況，波克夏是否會在商業房地產方面更加積極。
查理·蒙格：嗯，波克夏從來沒有在商業房地產上非常積極。對於像波克夏這樣的公司來說，這種做法對納稅人來說比對企業來說更有效。所以，我不預計波克夏會受到巨大影響。但我確實認為，美國和世界其他地方的市中心的荒廢將會非常顯著和令人不快。
我認為這個國家會度過這一切，但正如他們所說，這通常會涉及到一組不同的業主。
華倫·巴菲特：是的，建築物不會消失，但——
查理·蒙格：業主會。
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，（笑聲）但大多數人喜歡在房地產中使用無追索權的方式進行購買。有一次我問查理，我們正在和一個房地產人談話，你知道，"他們是如何決定這樣一座建築物的價值的呢？"答案是，"就是他們能夠在不簽名的情況下借到多少錢。"
如果你看一下整個房地產市場，你就會明白正在發生的現象，只要提醒自己這是大多數在房地產業取得巨大成功的人的態度。這意味著貸款人才是獲得該物業的人。
當然，他們通常不希望擁有該物業，所以房地產運營商依賴與他們進行談判，銀行也傾向於虛假地延長期限。商業房地產開發在很大程度上就是這種活動。
但這一切都有後果，我認為我們正在開始看到那些能以2.5%的利率借貸的人發現在目前利率下無法運作，然後將物業交還給給予他們建造所需資金的人的後果。查理在這方面有更多的經驗。不過，查理起步是從房地產開始的。
查理·蒙格：是的，這很困難。我更喜歡我們現在所做的事情。（笑聲）
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，就像幾個月前我離開他家時，查理對我說的那樣——我去拜訪他，我們聊了幾個小時。當我離開時，屋裡只剩下他的一個女兒。我說："查理，我們繼續做我們一直在做的事情就好了。"然後查理沒有抬頭，也沒有停頓一秒，他說："那是你唯一會做的事情，華倫。"（笑聲）他說得對。
Section 11 會議摘要：
在第11段會議紀要中，有一個觀眾提問關於美國商業房地產市場的情況。Charlie Munger表示，他認為美國商業地產市場存在問題，許多美國銀行持有大量壞貸款，而房地產價格正在下跌。他認為市中心地區的空心化現象將是相當嚴重和令人不快的。他認為國家會度過這個問題，但也可能涉及到不同的業主。
Warren Buffett補充說，波克夏從未在商業房地產方面非常活躍，對波克夏的影響不會很大。他提到了在房地產業中通常採用的非追索權（non-recourse）融資的情況，這意味著大多數人在房地產業務中傾向於通過借款來購買物業，而不用親自簽署貸款檔。他指出，許多人在低利率時期貸款建設，但當利率上升時可能無法承受，因此不得不將物業交還給貸款人。他還提到了銀行通常會選擇"伸縮延期"的做法。最後，Warren Buffett引用了Charlie Munger曾經對他說過的一句話，即"你只會繼續做我們一直在做的事情"，並表示Charlie是對的。
總的來說，這段會議紀要討論了商業房地產市場的問題，以及對市中心地區和業主的影響。Charlie Munger和Warren Buffett對商業房地產的發展和金融的作用發表了他們的看法。
Section 12 原文：
12. ′ What gives you opportunities is other people doing dumb things’
WARREN BUFFETT: Station three, is it?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. My name is (UNINTEL PHRASE), I’m from Santa Clara, California. And my question is to Charlie and Warren. Given the rise of disruptive technologies that can improve productivity significantly, and AI being one of them, how do you envision the future of value investing in this new era? And what adaptations or new principles do you think investors should adopt? And any recommendations for investors to remain successful in this rapid changing landscape? Thank you.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I’m glad to take that one. I think value investors are going to have a harder time now that there’s so many of them competing for a diminished bunch of opportunities. So, my advice to value investors is to get used to making less.
WARREN BUFFETT: And Charlie has been telling me the same thing the whole time we’ve known each other. I mean, we get along wonderfully because —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, we are making less.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Well, but that mostly I think is (Laughter) (UNINTEL PHRASE) —
CHARLIE MUNGER: We did that when we were younger.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, we never thought we could manage $508 billion.
CHARLIE MUNGER: No, we never did.
WARREN BUFFETT: You know, but I would argue that there are going to be plenty of opportunities. And part of the reason there are going to be plenty of opportunities, the tech doesn’t make any difference for any of that. I mean, if you look at how the world’s changed in the years since 1942 when I started, you’d say, “Well, how does a kid that doesn’t know anything about airplanes, that doesn’t know anything about engines and cars, and doesn’t know anything about electricity and all that?” But new things coming along don’t take away the opportunities.
What gives you opportunities is other people doing dumb things. (Laughter) (Applause) Well, the 58 years we’ve been running Berkshire, I would say there’s been a great increase in the number of people doing dumb things. And they do big, dumb things, and the reason they do it to some extent is because they can get money from other people so much easier than when we started.
So, you could start ten or 15 dumb insurance companies in the last ten years, and you could become rich if you were adroit at it, whether the business succeeded or not, and the underwriters got paid, and the lawyers got paid. And if that’s done on a large scale — which it couldn’t be done 58 years ago.
You couldn’t get the money to do some of the dumb things that we wanted to do, (Laugh) fortunately. And so, I think that investing has disappeared so much from this huge capitalistic market that anybody can play in, but that the big money is in selling other people ideas.
It isn’t outperforming. And I think if you don’t run too much money, which we do — but if you’re running small amounts of money, I think the opportunities will be greater. But then Charlie and I always differed on this subject. He likes to tell me how gloomy the world is, and I like to tell him, “We’ll find something.” And so far, we’ve both be kind of right. (Laugh) Charlie, would you budge an inch on that, or not? (Laughter)
CHARLIE MUNGER: There is so much money now in the hands of so many smart people, all trying to outsmart one another and out-promote one another, getting more money out of other people. And it’s a radically different world from the world we started in. And I suppose it will have its opportunities, but it’s also going to have some unpleasant episodes.
WARREN BUFFETT: But they’re trying to outsmart each other in arenas that you don’t have to play. I mean, if you look at that government bond market, at the Treasury bill market, I mean, you have this one bill that’s out of line with the others, and went (UNINTEL PHRASE) $3 billion of it the other day.
But the world is overwhelmingly short-term focused. And if you go to an investor relations call, they’re all trying to figure out how to fill out a sheet to show the earnings for the year. And the management is interested in feeding them expectations, so we’ll slightly be beaten.
I mean, that is a world that’s made to order for anybody that’s trying to think about what you do that should work over five, or ten, or 20 years. And I just think that I would love to be born today, and go out with not too much money, and hopefully turn it into a lot of money. And Charlie would too, actually. (Laugh)
He would find something to do, I will just guarantee you. And it wouldn’t be exactly the same as before, but he would have a big, big, big pile.
CHARLIE MUNGER: I would not like the thrill of losing my big pile into a small pile. (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: But we might —
CHARLIE MUNGER: I like my big pile just the way it is. (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: We agree on that, incidentally.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yes, we do. (Laughter) You’re one of the most extreme lovers of the big pile. (Laughter)
Section 12 翻譯：
12. "給你機會的是其他人做蠢事"
WARREN BUFFETT: 第三站，對吧？
聽眾：嗨，我的名字是（無法辨識的片語），我來自加利福尼亞州聖克拉拉。我的問題是關於查理和華倫。鑒於崛起的能夠顯著提高生產力的破壞性技術，其中包括人工智慧，你們如何設想價值投資在這個新時代的未來？你認為投資者應該採取哪些適應或新原則？對於在這個快速變化的環境中保持成功的投資者有什麼建議？謝謝。
查理·蒙格：我很樂意回答這個問題。我認為價值投資者現在會更難，因為有這麼多人在競爭有限的機會。所以，我對價值投資者的建議是要習慣賺得更少。
華倫·巴菲特：查理一直以來都對我說同樣的話。我們相處得很好，因為...
查理·蒙格：我們確實賺得更少了。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的。嗯，但那主要是因為（笑聲）（無法辨識的片語）——
查理·蒙格：我們在年輕時就這樣做了。
華倫·巴菲特：是的，我們從來沒想過能管理5080億美元。
查理·蒙格：不，我們從來沒有。
華倫·巴菲特：你知道，但我會說機會還是很多的。其中一個原因是，科技對這一切並沒有什麼影響。如果你看看自從我1942年開始以來世界的變化，你會說：“一個對飛機一無所知、對引擎和汽車一無所知、對電力等一切一無所知的孩子，他如何找到機會？”但新事物的出現並不會帶走機會。
讓你有機會的是其他人做蠢事。（笑聲）（掌聲）嗯，在我們經營波克夏的58年中，我可以說做蠢事的人數大幅增加。他們做一些蠢事，而他們之所以能這樣做，在某種程度上是因為他們可以輕易地從他人那裡獲得資金，而這在我們剛開始的時候並不容易。
所以，在過去的十年中，你可以開設十家或十五家蠢蠢的保險公司，如果你擅長這樣做，無論業務是否成功，你都可以變得富有，承保人得到報酬，律師得到報酬。而如果這種情況在大規模上發生——這在58年前是不可能的。
你無法獲得資金來做一些我們想做的蠢事，（笑）幸運的是。所以，我認為投資在這個巨大的資本市場中已經消失了，任何人都可以參與，但真正的大錢是通過向他人推銷點子來賺取的。
這並不是表現優異。我認為，如果你不管理太多資金——我們管理了很多資金——但如果你管理的資金較少，我認為機會會更多。但在這個問題上，我和查理一直持不同意見。他喜歡告訴我世界有多麼陰暗，而我喜歡告訴他：“我們會找到機會的。”到目前為止，我們兩個都有些對。查理，你對這個問題能有一點讓步嗎，還是不行？（笑聲）
查理·蒙格：現在有這麼多聰明人手中有這麼多錢，他們都在互相智取、互相推銷，從他人手中獲得更多的錢。這是與我們起步時完全不同的世界。我想這個世界會有機會，但也會有一些不愉快的時刻。
華倫·巴菲特：但他們在你不必參與的領域互相競爭。我的意思是，如果你看看政府債券市場，國庫券市場，你會發現有一張債券與其他債券不符，幾天前有人買下了30億美元的這張債券。
但這個世界極度偏向短期。如果你參加一場投資者關係電話會議，所有人都在試圖填寫一份表格來展示當年的盈利。管理層有興趣提供預期，以便稍微超越這些預期。
我的意思是，這個世界對於那些試圖思考在五年、十年或二十年內應該有效的方法的人來說，真是恰到好處。我只是認為，如果我今天能夠重生，帶著不太多的錢出發，希望能把它變成很多錢。實際上，查理也是這樣的。（笑聲）
我可以保證，他會找到事情做，也許不完全與以前相同，但他會有一大筆財富。
查理·蒙格：我不想把我的大筆財富變成小筆財富的刺激感。（笑聲）
華倫·巴菲特：但我們可能會...
查理·蒙格：我喜歡我的大筆財富現狀，就這樣。（笑聲）
華倫·巴菲特：順便說一下，我們在這一點上是一致的。
查理·蒙格：是的，我們是（笑聲）。你是最極端愛好大筆財富的人之一。（笑聲）
Section 12 會議摘要：
在第12段會議紀要中，一個觀眾詢問了關於價值投資在新時代的未來以及投資者應採取的適應或新原則的問題。Charlie Munger表示，價值投資者將面臨更大的困難，因為有很多價值投資者爭奪有限的機會。他建議價值投資者適應並接受收益減少的情況。
Warren Buffett補充說，儘管技術的發展會改變世界，但並不會消除投資機會。他認為給你機會的是其他人做愚蠢事情。他指出，過去的58年中，做愚蠢事情的人數量有很大增加。人們會做出大而愚蠢的決策，部分原因是因為他們能夠輕鬆從其他人那裡獲得資金。他認為投資界已經遠離了實際的超越表現，而轉向了出售想法和行銷。他還表示，對於小額投資者來說，機會會更多。
Charlie Munger認為，現在有太多聰明人手裡擁有太多的資金，他們互相競爭、互相推銷，從其他人那裡獲得更多資金。他認為這個世界與我們剛開始的時候完全不同，雖然會有機會，但也會有一些不愉快的時刻。
總的來說，這段會議紀要討論了在新時代中進行價值投資的挑戰和調整。Charlie Munger和Warren Buffett分享了他們對當前投資環境的看法，並表示仍然存在投資機會，尤其是在長期持有和超越短期關注的領域。
Section 13 原文：
13. AIG liability assumption deal is turning out to be ‘good but not great’
WARREN BUFFETT: Becky?
BECKY QUICK: This question is for both Warren and Ajit. Comes from Jason Plonner (PH) in Livingston, New Jersey.
He says, “In 2016, you entered into a very unique transition with AIG where you assumed up to $20 billion of liabilities in exchange for about $10 billion upfront. Can you please provide us with an update on this transition in light of the increase in interest rates?
And then in Tokyo just a few weeks ago, you talked about the risks of banks with assets that were susceptible to rising interest rates. Any insight as to how Berkshire liabilities are susceptible to duration would be appreciated.”
WARREN BUFFETT: Is that directed to Ajit, or me, or what?
BECKY QUICK: Both.
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Let me introduce my one thing, but Ajit is the key to this. He’s the one that put the deal together. But we got handed $10 billion, we’ll say. But we weren’t restricted to putting that into bonds. So, interest rates affect us to some degree maybe, in terms of the deal we did with AIG, or anybody we would do a similar deal with like that.
But we don’t have to put it in matching bonds or anything of the sort. It goes into a general pool of assets, which we manage, and the liquid assets now are $130 plus. But it is not set aside in some little compartment like people like to think.
Now, no other insurance company could do it. But they can’t think that way. They aren’t even used to thinking that way. But they can’t think that way because they don’t have our balance sheet. We account for 26% or something like that of the net worth of all property casualty companies in the United States.
So far, the payments that we have had to make have run modestly. And Ajit will correct me on this if I’m wrong, because he paid attention. The amount we have had to pay has run slightly below the amount we anticipated having to pay in terms of our share of the losses.
But it served AIG’s purposes. It came to us where we are in a unique position. There’s nobody else that was able to write that, just like when we took on Lloyd’s. I mean, Lloyd’s said there was no choice other than Berkshire Hathaway when they essentially resuscitated their market by laying off a lot of liabilities on Berkshire Hathaway.
So, we won’t see those deals very often. If they’re for $500 million or something like that, somebody else will go in there and offer more money. And everybody’s looking for money on Wall Street. But if they start talking with the deal like the AIG deal, there isn’t any other stop now. Correct me on all my numbers there, Ajit. (Laughter)
AJIT JAIN: No. One way to look at how the deal is performing since we did the deal is at the point in time when we did the deal, we had made certain projections of how much we will pay out each year. And what we do is monitor what the action payments are since the inception of the deal, and how does that compare with what we expected to pay out.
As Warren mentioned, these two numbers are very close to each other. More specifically, the actual payouts are 96% of what we had projected to pay out at this point in time, which is good but not great. We are still ahead of the curve. If we do end up paying out less than what we projected, not only would we have borrowed money at a very attractive rate, meaning significantly less than 4%, in addition to that we would have made a fee, which in 2015 dollars would be $1 million.
So, we would’ve borrowed money at less than 4% and we would’ve made $1 million fee, which is slightly more than what we were expecting to do. So, net/net, we’re very happy with the deal, we’re happy we did it. But the game is not over. There are tort liabilities that are coming down the pike every second day. So, I’m cautiously optimistic that the deal will work out better than how we expected it to work out.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, the really interesting thing is that within Berkshire, the casualty insurance companies have four times as much stockholder capital behind each dollar of premium value. Four times normal. And of course, we see the big deals. Who would you trust if you had a big liability you wanted to dump on somebody?
WARREN BUFFETT: And we have $25 billion or more coming in from things other than insurance, uncorrelated to insurance, every year with no obligations. We don’t pay dividends. If we pay dividends, you know, and you cut your dividend, try going around trying to write insurance the next day.
I mean, and it’s a business where people are counting on you to pay. And when we take that $10 billion, we don’t agree to put it in five-year bonds and ten-year bonds. We don’t even think that way. And the people that do business with us know that they have somebody like nobody else on those that’s going to be able to pay $10 billion no matter what happens to the economy.
So, it’s not only the presence of enormous strength in the insurance companies, it’s the fact we have all these earnings that essentially come in every month, we don’t have a lot of debt. I mean, we have debt at the railroad and the energy level. But in terms of the rest of the operation — And we don’t guarantee that debt, but it’s (UNINTEL).
And there just isn’t another Berkshire, and Ajit recognizes that when he’s negotiating. So does the other party if the sums are big enough. There’s all kinds of people that love to get $500 million or $300 million, and they may think in terms of lending it out because that’s what their insurance companies can do at a somewhere higher rate. But that is not a game we play, and we don’t have any interest in playing in.
Section 13 翻譯：
13. AIG的負債承擔交易正在變得「不錯但不是很好」。
BECKY QUICK: 這個問題是給 Warren 和 Ajit 兩位的。來自新澤西州利文斯頓的 Jason Plonner (PH) 提出的。
他說：“在2016年，你們與AIG進行了一個非常獨特的轉讓交易，你們承擔了高達200億美元的負債，以換取約100億美元的前期支付。鑑於利率上升，請問你們能否提供有關這個轉讓交易的最新情況？
還有，就在幾個星期前在東京，你們談到了銀行面臨利率上升的風險，是否能就伯克希爾的負債對於期限的敏感性提供一些見解？”
WARREN BUFFETT: 這個問題是問 Ajit 還是問我，還是怎麼樣？
BECKY QUICK: 兩位都可以回答。
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的。讓我介紹一下這個情況，但Ajit是關鍵人物。他是這筆交易的主要推手。我們拿到了100億美元，我們就這麼說吧。但我們並不受限於把這筆錢投資於債券。所以，利率對我們可能有一定程度的影響，就我們與AIG達成的這筆交易，或者與類似的交易相關，這點或許會有所影響。
但我們不必把它投資於相應的債券或任何類似的資產。它進入我們管理的一個總體資產池中，目前的流動資產超過130億美元。但它並沒有被放在一個人們喜歡想像的小隔間中。
現在，其他保險公司做不到這一點。但他們無法以這種方式思考。他們甚至沒有習慣這種思維。他們無法這樣思考，因為他們沒有我們的資產負債表。在美國的所有財產意外保險公司中，我們占據了約26％的淨值。
到目前為止，我們需要支付的款項相對較少。如果我有錯誤，Ajit會糾正我，因為他一直關注這個。我們需要支付的款項略低於我們預期需要支付的損失份額。
但這筆交易對AIG來說是有利的。它讓我們處於一個獨特的位置。沒有其他人能夠承擔這筆交易，就像我們接手Lloyd's時一樣。我們接手Lloyd's時，Lloyd's表示除了Berkshire Hathaway，沒有其他選擇，他們通過將許多負債轉嫁給Berkshire Hathaway來振興市場。
所以，這種交易我們不會經常看到。如果是500億美元之類的交易，其他人會進去出更高價。而華爾街上每個人都在尋找資金。但如果他們開始談論像AIG這樣的交易，現在已經沒有其他選擇了。對我所有的數字進行更正，Ajit。（笑聲）
AJIT JAIN: 沒有。從我們進行交易的那一刻起，評估交易的表現的一種方法是比較我們當初對每年支付的預測與實際支付的數字。我們監控自從交易開始以來的實際支付情況，並將其與我們預計支付的金額進行比較。
正如Warren提到的，這兩個數字非常接近。具體而言，實際支付的金額是我們當初預測支付金額的96%，這是不錯但不是很好。我們仍然領先。如果我們最終支付的金額少於我們預測的金額，不僅我們將以非常有吸引力的利率借錢，即明顯低於4%，此外，我們還將獲得一筆費用，以2015年的美元計算為100萬美元。
所以，我們將以低於4%的利率借錢，並且我們將獲得100萬美元的費用，這略高於我們的預期。所以，總而言之，我們對這筆交易非常滿意，我們很高興我們進行了這筆交易。但遊戲還沒有結束。每隔幾秒鐘就會有侵權負債出現。所以，我謹慎樂觀地認為這筆交易的結果將比我們預期的要好。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 值得注意的是，在Berkshire內部，財產保險公司對每一美元的保費價值背後有四倍的股東資本。比正常情況多出四倍。當然，我們看到了大筆交易。如果你有一筆巨額負債想要轉嫁給某人，你會信任誰？
WARREN BUFFETT: 我們每年從與保險無關的其他方面獲得250億美元或更多的收入，並且沒有負債。我們不支付股息。如果我們支付股息，你知道，如果你削減了股息，試著在隔天四處尋找保險業務吧。
我的意思是，在這個業務中，人們指望你支付款項。當我們接收這100億美元時，我們並不同意將其投資於五年期或十年期債券。我們甚至不這樣思考。與我們做生意的人知道，他們有一個像別人一樣的人，無論經濟發生什麼變化，都能支付100億美元。
因此，這不僅僅是保險公司的巨大實力，而且我們每個月都有大量收入，我們沒有太多債務。我的意思是，我們的鐵路和能源業務有債務。但就其他業務而言——我們並不對這些債務提供擔保，但這是（無法理解的）。
世上沒有另外一個波克夏，而Ajit在談判時也意識到這一點。如果數額足夠大，對方也是如此。有很多人喜歡獲得5億美元或3億美元，他們可能會考慮將這筆款項出借，因為他們的保險公司可以以較高的利率進行貸款。但這不是我們玩的遊戲，我們對這方面毫無興趣。
Section 13 會議摘要：
在第13段會議紀要中，一位觀眾提問關於2016年與AIG的交易，Berkshire Hathaway承擔了高達200億美元的責任，以換取約100億美元的前期款項，並詢問這筆交易在利率上升的情況下的最新進展以及Berkshire的負債對於債務期限的敏感性。
Warren Buffett回答稱，交易中的關鍵人物是Ajit，他是該交易的策劃者。交易中Berkshire Hathaway獲得了100億美元，但並不限制將其投入債券等相應資產中。這筆款項被投入到一個由Berkshire Hathaway管理的資產總池中，並非設立為一個獨立的小帳戶。
Warren Buffett進一步解釋說，其他保險公司無法做類似的交易，因為他們沒有Berkshire Hathaway這樣的資產負債表。Berkshire Hathaway佔據了美國財產險公司淨資產的26%左右。到目前為止，Berkshire Hathaway所支付的金額略低於預期的損失份額。
Ajit Jain補充說，截至目前，實際賠付金額相對于預期賠付金額為96%，表現良好但不算完美。他表示對這筆交易感到滿意，但需要謹慎樂觀，因為每天都會湧現出新的侵權責任。交易的最終結果有待觀察。
Charlie Munger指出，在Berkshire Hathaway內部，財產險公司的股東資本相對于保費價值是正常水準的四倍。他強調，Berkshire Hathaway擁有巨大的實力，其他人會信任將大型責任轉嫁給他們。
總的來說，這段會議紀要介紹了Berkshire Hathaway與AIG之間的交易，並討論了Berkshire Hathaway在負債方面的優勢和特點。該交易被認為是成功的，因為Berkshire Hathaway擁有獨特的財務實力和能力，能夠處理大規模的交易並承擔責任。
Section 14 原文：
14. Never write a will without input from your children
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, station four?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello. I’m Marvin Blum, an estate planning lawyer from Fort Worth, Texas, home to many of your companies. In fact, Warren, I met you at the memorial for our beloved Paul Andrews, who was manager of TTI. I’d like to get your thoughts on a widespread problem in the world of estate planning.
And that’s the failure of most parents to prepare the next generation for the inheritance coming their way. In particular, if the estate includes a family business, most parents fail to do business succession planning to plan for who’ll run the business on the day when, not if, the founder is no longer there to run it.
The kids aren’t prepared, unlike the other King Charles, not King Charlie Munger, (Laughter) who has been preparing for his job as King of England now for more than 70 years. I sometimes describe the situation like this: Picture a football game. At one end of the field is a quarterback.
He has great skills; he throws a beautiful pass to the other end of the field. And at the other end of the field are the receivers. They’ve never been to a practice, they don’t know the rules of the game, they don’t know how to work together as a team. They’re clueless. So, the quarterback is the patriarch and the matriarch. The football is the inheritance or the family business, and the receivers are the kids. So, what are the odds that they’re going to catch the football and go score a touchdown? Probably only around 10%.
WARREN BUFFETT: I have the picture. (Laughter) (Applause) Just because of my age, and to some extent because of things like the giving pledges, I probably observed as many particularly wealthy families, the problems, and they all are very particular to the family.
And in my family, I do not sign a will until my three children have read it, understand it, and made suggestions. Now, my children are in their 60s and that would not have been a great success if I’d done the same thing in their 20s. It depends on the family; it depends on how the kids feel about each other.
There’s all kinds of things. Depends on the kind of business you have. So, there’s a thousand variables. But I do think that if the children are grown, and when the will is read to them, it’s the first they’ve heard about what the deceased thought about things, the parents have made a terrible mistake.
And I’ve run into all kinds of situations, and some people don’t tell their children anything, and some of them try and get them to bend to their will by using their own personal will. They make a million mistakes. And that’s one you don’t get to correct. Well, Charlie’s had a lot of experience too with the —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, at Berkshire we have a simple problem of estate planning. Just hold the goddamn stock. (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, (Applause) but that doesn’t fit everybody, Charlie.
CHARLIE MUNGER: No, it only fits 95%. (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: I don’t know necessarily whether if you have billions of dollars, you want to leave it to all of your children. I mean, that’s something —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, that’s another question. But if you’re going to place it somewhere, I’d just as soon have Berkshire stock.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, oh, you’re solving the investment problems one. But you have the personal problem of the fact that when they were four, one of the kids pulled the other kid’s cat’s tail or something like that. I mean, you’re dealing with human beings.
And the biggest thing you want is you want your children to get along. And you want that all through your life, and the estate isn’t the only place where you can mess that up. But I mean, I know a number of cases where the people did not know what was in the will where there were huge sums involved.
And you know, within about 15 minutes each one of them had a lawyer, and you know, they don’t get along since. It’s important to handle it target. And if you want your kids to have certain values, it’s important that you live those values. It’s important that you talk about it to them. (Laugh)
They’re learning from you from the day they’re born, what you’re really like. And don’t think that a cleverly drawn will substitute for your own behavior in teaching your kids the values you hope that they will have. And then your will should be in conjunction with that.
And they grow older, and then they learn to pass along their values in connection with the size of the estate. If there’s family farms it’s one thing, if it’s a bunch of marketable securities it’s something else.
But I know one instance by a particularly rich fellow that once a year he’d get his kids together, and have a dinner, and do all kinds of things to get them to sign their income tax returns in blank, because he didn’t want them to know how much money they had and everything.
Well, that isn’t going to work. I mean, I don’t know necessarily what would’ve worked with him. But Charlie and I have said, if you want to figure out how you want to live your life, you write your obituary and reverse engineer it. You know, and Paul Andrews incidentally, who you mentioned at TTI, lived as great a life as anybody I’ve known.
And he thought about these problems, and he came to me. He was 61, I think, had all the money way beyond what he needed. He liked to give it to people. He had all kinds of good things he wanted to do. And he said, “For a year I’ve been worried about my business, TTI.”
And he said, “I have all the money I need. The family has all the money they need. But what do I do with the business? These people have helped me throughout my life.” And he said, “I can sell it to a competitor. And if I sold it to a competitor, they’d fire my people and keep their people when they put it together.
“And if I sell it to a private equity firm or something, they’ll be figuring out their exit strategy as they sign the papers.” And he said, “It isn’t that you’re such a great guy, it’s just that you’re the only one left.” (Laughter)
And we bought it, and we lived happily ever after. And that was a man that knew the life was about.
Section 14 翻譯：
14. 在撰寫遺囑時，絕不要忽略你的子女的意見。
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，第四個問題站？
觀眾成員：大家好。我是Marvin Blum，來自德克薩斯州沃斯堡的資產規劃律師，我們這裡有很多你們公司的總部。實際上，Warren，我在為我們敬愛的Paul Andrews舉行的追悼會上見過你，他是TTI的經理。我想聽聽你對資產規劃領域一個普遍存在的問題的看法。
問題在於大多數父母沒有為下一代接收遺產做好準備。特別是，如果遺產中包含家族企業，大多數父母未能進行企業繼承規劃，即在創辦人無法再經營企業的那一天，計劃由誰接手經營。
孩子們沒有做好準備，不像另一位查爾斯國王，不是查理·蒙格國王（笑聲），他已經為他作為英格蘭國王的工作做了70多年的準備。我有時這樣描述這種情況：想像一場足球比賽。在場地的一端是一名四分衛。
他技巧高超，他向場地的另一端傳出一個漂亮的傳球。而在場地的另一端是接球手們。他們從未參加過練習，他們不瞭解比賽的規則，不知道如何作為一個團隊協同工作。他們一無所知。所以，四分衛就是家族的族長和族母。足球代表遺產或家族企業，接球手們就是孩子們。那麼他們能否接到足球並完成一次進球？可能只有10%左右的機會。
WARREN BUFFETT: 我有這個畫面。（笑聲）（掌聲）基於我的年齡和像是承諾捐贈等事情，我可能觀察過許多尤其富裕家族的問題，而這些問題都與家庭息息相關。
在我的家庭中，除非我的三個孩子已經閱讀並理解我的遺囑，並提出建議，否則我不會簽署遺囑。現在，我的孩子們都已經六十多歲了，如果在他們二十多歲時我也這麼做的話，那就不會取得太大的成功。這取決於家庭的情況，取決於孩子們彼此的感受。
有各種各樣的因素。還取決於你經營的業務的性質。因此，有著千變萬化的變數。但我確實認為，如果孩子們已經長大，當遺囑向他們宣讀時，這是他們第一次聽到逝者對事物的看法，那麼父母犯了一個可怕的錯誤。
我遇到過各種情況，有些人不告訴他們的孩子任何事情，有些人則試圖通過使用他們自己的個人意願來使孩子們屈服。他們犯了很多錯誤。而這是你無法糾正的錯誤。嗯，查理對此也有很多經驗——
CHARLIE MUNGER: 嗯，在Berkshire，我們的資產規劃問題很簡單。就是持有這些該死的股票。(笑聲)
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，(掌聲) 但那並不適用於每個人，查理。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 不，這只適用於95%的人。(笑聲)
WARREN BUFFETT: 我並不確定如果你有數十億美元，你是否想把它留給你所有的孩子。我的意思是，這是一個問題——
CHARLIE MUNGER: 嗯，那是另一個問題。但如果你要把它放在某個地方，我寧願持有Berkshire的股票。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，噢，你解決了投資問題。但你還面臨著個人問題，就是他們四歲的時候，其中一個孩子拉了另一個孩子的貓尾巴之類的事情。我的意思是，你在處理人類。
你最想要的是你的孩子們和睦相處。這一點在你的一生中都很重要，遺產並不是唯一可能破壞這一點的地方。但我的意思是，我知道有些案例，其中人們不知道遺囑中涉及的巨額財產。然後大約15分鐘之內，每個人都找了一位律師，你知道，自那時起他們就不再和睦相處。明確處理這個問題很重要。
如果你希望你的孩子們擁有某些價值觀，重要的是你要實踐這些價值觀。重要的是你要和他們談論這些價值觀。(笑聲) 他們從他們出生的那一天起就在從你身上學到你真正是什麼樣的人。不要認為一份巧妙繪製的遺囑能夠代替你的行為，教導你的孩子們擁有你希望他們擁有的價值觀。然後，你的遺囑應該與之相一致。
他們長大了，然後他們學會了將自己的價值觀與遺產的大小聯繫在一起傳承下去。如果是家族農場，這是一回事；如果是一堆可轉讓證券，那就是另一回事了。
但我知道一個例子，一位特別富有的人每年都會讓他的孩子們聚在一起，共進晚餐，做各種事情讓他們在空白的收入稅申報表上簽字，因為他不想讓他們知道他們有多少錢等等。
嗯，那是行不通的。我並不確定什麼方法可以奏效。但是我和查理曾經說過，如果你想弄清楚自己想如何度過人生，就先寫下自己的訃聞，然後再逆向推算。順帶一提，保羅·安德魯斯，你在TTI提到的那位，度過了和我所認識的任何人一樣精彩的人生。
他思考著這些問題，然後來找我。他大概61歲，擁有的錢遠超過他所需。他喜歡把錢給別人，有許多好事他想要去做。他對我說：“一年來，我一直在擔心我的企業TTI。”
他說：“我有足夠的錢，家人也有足夠的錢。但我該怎麼處理這個企業呢？這些人在我一生中幫助過我。”他說：“我可以把它賣給競爭對手。如果我把它賣給競爭對手，他們會解雇我的員工，保留他們自己的人，把這些企業合併起來。
“如果我把它賣給私募股權公司之類的，他們在簽署合同時就會考慮他們的退出策略。”他說：“並不是因為你是一個多麼偉大的人，而是因為只有你還在。”（笑聲）
於是我們買下了它，並過上了幸福的生活。這個人知道生活的真諦。
Section 14 會議摘要：
在這段會議中，一位律師提問關於遺產規劃中一個普遍問題，即大多數父母未能為下一代做好準備。特別是如果遺產包括家族企業，大多數父母未能進行業務繼承計劃，以確定在創辦人無法再管理企業時，由誰接手經營。
巴菲特表示，在他的家庭中，他不會簽署遺囑，直到他的三個孩子讀過並理解遺囑內容並提出建議。他指出這取決於家庭和孩子之間的關係，以及企業的性質等各種因素。他強調，如果孩子長大後才首次聽到遺囑內容，那麼父母就犯了一個嚴重的錯誤。
他舉例說明了一些父母在遺囑撰寫中可能犯的錯誤，並提到了自己與孩子們保持溝通和互相理解的重要性。此外，巴菲特和蒙格還討論了遺產規劃中的財務和家庭價值觀等問題。
他們強調家庭成員之間的良好關係至關重要，並提到要將自己的價值觀傳遞給子女。他們認為，遺囑應該與這些價值觀相一致。巴菲特還提到了一位朋友遇到的問題，他在考慮業務繼承問題時尋求了巴菲特的幫助，最終他將業務賣給了波克夏。
總體而言，這段會議紀要的重點是強調家族企業的業務繼承問題以及父母應該與子女共同參與遺產規劃和溝通。
Section 15 原文：
15. BNSF takes derailments ‘incredibly seriously’
WARREN BUFFETT: So, with that, let’s go onto Becky. (Applause)
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Don Glickstein in Seattle. He says, “Warren has criticized Norfolk Southern’s handling of its train derailment, yet has been silent about BNSF’s conduct. A federal judge ruled in March that BNSF intentionally and illegally violated an easement agreement on tribal land in Washington State by transporting long trains of crude oil.
“The same money the judge made his ruling a BNSF train derailed on tribal land, spilling oil in an environmentally sensitive area” What is Warren doing to ensure that BNSF and the Berkshire subsidiaries fulfill their ethical responsibilities? He says he’s been a Berkshire owner for more than two decades and he’s concerned that Berkshire has no systems to identify and address what he calls reprehensible behavior at BNSF and other subsidiaries?
WARREN BUFFETT: Greg?
GREG ABEL: Sure. It is a valid issue that our team obviously has been dealing with at BNSF. We did move crude across that tribal land. We had an agreement that allowed us to move X number of units per day. And we did breach it. We went over it. There were some fundamental breakdowns there that our team didn’t understand the number of trains that they could move.
We have had significant discussions with the tribe looking to resolve the issues, recognizing we obviously benefited from moving those trains. And those type discussions will continue. I would say there’s lessons learned there that we have to, when we make a commitment, understand what that commitment is and live by it.
Or don’t assume we can just move our trains as we wish or the cargo as we wish. We have to respect those agreements. There’s been a moment learned there. But at the same time, we’ve taken it very seriously and attempted to reach a resolution. And at some point, I hope we do come to a true resolution that’s fair both to the tribe and to BNSF.
On the derailment side, we did have an issue around the track derailed. We worked very closely with the tribe to mitigate that issue instantly or at least over a very reasonable period of time. They were very responsive. Our team was very responsive. And there were really no long-term environmental impacts to that spill.
And as our teams highlighted in other comments, obviously derailments do occur in the industry. We take them incredibly seriously. They’re not all hazardous, but irrespective of that, we’re constantly looking at how do we prevent them. How do we detect them when we potentially have one that’s going to occur? And what do we do with our trains? And then ultimately it comes down responding properly. Because they will occur. And I think we have an incredibly dedicated team that’s always ready to respond to the communities they’re impacting.
WARREN BUFFETT: There are derailments. How many a year?
GREG ABEL: Yeah, well, there’s a thousand-plus in the industry.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, yeah. You know, you start hauling freight, and we’re a common carrier. And we take very heavy freight. And we take them in 100° weather. And we take it at 0° and we go around curves. And we have grades. (Laugh) And even a 1% grade, if you’re going down a hill with, I don’t know how much weight behind you, I mean, railroading is not an easy business.
And of course, the systems were designed, you know, basically in the late 1800s, amid the late 1800s. And we have 22,000, I think it is, miles of track. And that doesn’t count sidings and some other things. It is not an easy business. We’ll make mistakes.
We’re not making a mistake because we have a derailment. We will have derailments ten, 20 years, or 30 years from now. And we have to carry certain products we wish we didn’t have to carry. We’re a common carrier. Do we like carrying chlorine and ammonia and all? No.
But they’re going to move from one place to another in this society. And we are a common carrier. And we load them if they select our railroad.
But we are better than we used to be. But we’ve got a long way to go. Is that a fair enough statement?
GREG ABEL: Absolutely.
Section 15 翻譯：
15. BNSF非常重視脫軌事故。
WARREN BUFFETT: 因此，讓我們來回答Becky的問題。
BECKY QUICK: 這個問題來自西雅圖的唐·格利克斯坦。他說，“華倫批評諾福克南方公司處理火車出軌事故的方式，但對BNSF的行為保持沉默。一位聯邦法官在三月份裁定BNSF故意且非法違反華盛頓州土著土地上的地契協議，運輸長列的原油。
“正是在法官作出裁決的同一天，一列BNSF列車在原住民土地上脫軌，導致原油洩漏在環境敏感區域。” 唐問華倫在做些什麼來確保BNSF和Berkshire子公司履行其道德責任？他說他擁有Berkshire的股份已經二十多年，他擔心Berkshire沒有體系來辨識和解決他所稱的BNSF和其他子公司的可恥行為？
WARREN BUFFETT: Greg？
GREG ABEL: 當然。這是一個合理的問題，我們的團隊當然一直在處理BNSF的問題。我們確實在原住民土地上運輸原油。我們有一項允許我們每天運輸X輛列車的協議。但我們超過了限制。我們團隊對於能夠運輸的列車數量有一些基本的誤解。
我們與部落進行了重要的討論，以解決這些問題，我們承認我們當然從運輸這些列車中受益。這類討論將繼續進行。我可以說，在這個過程中我們吸取了教訓，我們必須在承諾時明確瞭解該承諾的內容，並遵守它。
不要認為我們可以任意運送列車或貨物，我們必須尊重這些協議。我們在這方面有所反省。同時，我們非常認真地對待這個問題，並試圖達成解決。希望在某個時候，我們能夠達成對部落和BNSF都公平的真正解決方案。
至於脫軌事故，軌道脫軌是一個問題。我們與部落密切合作，立即或至少在一個非常合理的時間範圍內解決了這個問題。他們反應很迅速，我們的團隊也很積極。那次洩漏事件並沒有對環境產生長期影響。
我們的團隊在其他評論中已經提到，顯然脫軌是行業中時有發生的事情。我們對此非常重視。它們並非都具有危險性，但不論如何，我們一直在不斷探索如何預防脫軌事件。如何在可能發生脫軌時及時檢測到？以及我們應該如何處理我們的列車？最終，這取決於我們如何適當地應對。因為脫軌事件總是會發生。我們擁有一支非常專注的團隊，隨時準備應對受影響的社區。
WARREN BUFFETT: 脫軌事件有多少次一年？
GREG ABEL: 是的，行業中有1000多起。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，是的。你知道，我們開始運輸貨物，我們是一個普通的運輸業者。我們運輸非常重的貨物。我們在攝氏100度的高溫下運輸，也在攝氏0度的低溫下運輸。我們通過彎道，經過坡道。(笑)即使是1%的坡度，如果你帶著我不知道多重的貨物在坡上下坡，鐵路運輸可不是一門簡單的生意。
當然，這些系統基本上是在19世紀末設計的，大約在19世紀末。我們擁有22,000英里的軌道，我想是這個數字，這還不包括側軌和其他一些設施。這並不是一門簡單的生意。我們會犯錯誤。
我們犯錯誤並不是因為我們發生了脫軌事故。未來10年、20年或30年，我們還會有脫軌事故。我們必須運輸某些我們希望不必運輸的產品。我們是一家運輸業者。我們喜歡運輸氯和氨等嗎？不是的。
但是這些產品在社會中需要從一個地方運輸到另一個地方。我們是一家運輸業者。如果他們選擇我們的鐵路，我們就會負責裝載。
但是我們比以前做得更好了。但我們還有很長的路要走。這個說法是否合理？
GREG ABEL: 絕對合理。
Section 15 會議摘要：
在第15段會議紀要中，有人向巴菲特提出了關於BNSF（伯克希爾的鐵路子公司）的問題。問題涉及到BNSF在華盛頓州部落土地上運輸原油時違反了協議，並導致列車出軌事故造成油品洩漏。該人擔心波克夏沒有制定系統來識別和解決BNSF和其他子公司所謂的可恥行為，他對此感到擔憂。
Greg Abel作為BNSF的負責人回答了這個問題。他承認BNSF確實違反了原住民部落土地上的協議，並超過了規定的運輸列車數量。他表示BNSF與該部落進行了積極的對話，希望能夠達成公平的解決方案。他還強調了BNSF在事故發生後與該部落的緊密合作，並表示沒有長期的環境影響。
巴菲特在回答中指出，鐵路行業中發生事故是常有的事情。鐵路運輸是一項艱難的業務，由於各種因素，包括惡劣的天氣和地形條件，事故難以避免。他表示BNSF正在努力預防和檢測可能發生的事故，並對影響社區的事故做出適當的回應。
巴菲特還強調鐵路運輸業務的複雜性，並表示該行業在運輸某些產品時面臨困難。儘管BNSF努力改進，但仍然會犯錯誤，並且今後仍可能發生事故。他表示BNSF正在努力提高運輸安全性，並強調他們不喜歡運輸危險品，但作為一家公共承運人，他們需要承擔這樣的責任。
總的來說，BNSF和波克夏對於鐵路事故和環境影響問題持非常認真的態度，並致力於改進安全性和應急回應能力。他們承認問題存在，並承諾繼續努力解決和改善。
沒有留言:
張貼留言