本篇文章收錄2023年Berkshire Hathaway股東會上午場第16~20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。
16. Berkshire utilities focusing on clean energy but coordinated national effort is needed
17. Abel will decide on next generation of Berkshire managers
18. America has too much ‘tribalism’
19. No corporate raider will have enough money to target Berkshire after Buffett
20. Stories about finding Ajit Jain and Ben Rosner’s Chicago submarine
 |
| 滾動你的SNOWBALL |
Section 16 原文：
16. Berkshire utilities focusing on clean energy but coordinated national effort is needed
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, station five.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Mr. Warren and Mr. Munger. My name is Soo Jing Hua (PH) from China, (FOREIGN LANGUAGE) company. And first of all, I’m so excited and very honored to be here today. And my question is: With more and more people focusing now on environmental competition protection and the government supporting the new energy industry as well, so what are your thoughts on the continued development of new energy? How may the new energy firms achieve better developments in the future?
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, well, Greg I think, is the best to answer that because since we bought a company called MidAmerican but now called Berkshire Hathaway Energy. But he has been talking about it yearly, preparing reports hoping that we can help solve a number of the problems. And we probably spent more money than any utility, I would guess, in the United States.
GREG ABEL: Absolutely.
WARREN BUFFETT: And we’ve just scratched the surface. But it is not easy when you cross state lines. I mean, you’ve got different jurisdictions. And this country should be ahead of where it is in terms of transmission. We have been the biggest factor in helping that. But why don’t you tell them a little bit about it?
GREG ABEL: Sure, thanks, Warren. So, there’s no question there’s an energy transformation going on around the globe and as Warren touched on, in the U.S. And in some ways, I would hope here in the U.S. we’d at least have a clear plan across the nation as to how to approach that.
But the reality is it is state by state with some exceptions. So, as a result, when you think of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, we own three U.S. utilities there. And they all participate in multiple states. But they’re developing plans state by state and then trying to integrate them across the various states.
The opportunities are significant because there is a transformation going on. We’ve outlined our goal on where we’re going relative to carbon at BHE where they’ll by 2030 reduce their carbon footprint by 50% relative to 2005. So, that’s the Paris Accord and the standard they want to hold the utility industry or the utility companies to.
And we’re well on that path. But to achieve it is a true journey. I’ve often talked to Warren. When we bought Pacific back in the mid-2000s, we immediately recognized to build a lot of renewable energy like we’ve been doing in the Midwest and Iowa.
But that was basically in a single state. Now PacifiCorp, we’re in six states. We started that back in the mid-2000s. Here we are. And we laid out a great transmission plan. Here’s how we’re going to build it. Here’s how we’re going effectuate it, and all the benefits for our customers over that period of time.
Here we are in 2023, and we have a little more than a third of that. At the time it was a $6 billion transmission project. Today we have a little more than a third of it built. And we’ve spent probably closer to $7 billion. And it’s the right outcome.
It’s still a great outcome for our customers. But as part of the transformation, you absolutely have to build it to move all that renewable energy. And that’s sort of the complexity Warren was highlighting. You can’t just wake up one day and solve this problem.
You start with transmission, and then you build the resources. But at that same company, and if we look at what we’re doing across BHE Energy and that energy transformation, we have $70 billion of known projects that are really required to properly serve our customers and achieve that type of energy transformation across those utilities.
And that’s in the coming ten years. So, we have a team that’s absolutely up to the challenge. They’re delivering on their commitments. And it’s a very good business opportunity for each of our companies and for our shareholders. Because as we deploy that capital, we obviously earn a return on equity of it. But it will be a long journey. It’ll happen over an extended period of time. And the further you get out there, the more dependent upon the evolution of a variety of technologies that are progressing, but not there yet.
WARREN BUFFETT: You’ve raised a question. I want to just take an extra minute now because it’s so important. And I don’t really know whether our form of government is ideal at all in terms of solving the problem you describe. We have solved it one time. In World War II, we took a country that was semi-limping along.
And we found ourselves in a world war. And what we did in a world war is we brought a bunch of people to Washington at a $1 a year. I don’t know whether it was Sidney Weinberg or Goldman Sachs. You just name them. And we gave them enormous power to reorient the resources of the United States to face the problem that they faced, which was to create a war machine.
And what they did was they found Henry Kaiser, you know, and told him to build ships. And they went to the Ford Motor Company and said, “You build tanks and some airplanes.” And they reordered the industrial enterprise of the United States in a way that was unbelievable.
Because they had the power of the federal government. And they had the ingenuity of American business. And they had the facilities of American business. And it led to a very successful outcome. But can we do that in a peace time where you’ve got 50 states and you have to get them to cooperate?
And you can issue orders. But you can’t designate where the capital goes. It’s the other end. And, you know, we try and do it with tax incentives and all of that sort of thing. But we haven’t created the unity of purpose and the machinery that worked in World War II where essentially everybody felt their one job was to win the war.
And we figured out how to use our industrial capacity to in effect defeat the Axis powers. And how do you recreate that with, you know, the present democratic system? I’m not sure I know the answer. But I sure know the problem. And I think that if you’ve got an emergency on your hands, I mean, you really need to re-engineer the energy system of the United States.
I don’t think you can do it without something resembling the machinery, the urgency, whatever. The capital’s there. The people are there. The objective is obvious. And we just don’t seem to be able to do it in a peace time where we’re used to following a given set of procedures.
And, you know, China’s one country. And we’ve got 50 states. And we got a whole different system of government.
We should be up to the test, but so far it hasn’t worked. So, thank you for the question.
Section 16 翻譯：
16. 波克夏能源公司專注於清潔能源，但需要協調的全國性努力。
華倫·巴菲特：好的，第五個問題。
觀眾：您好，巴菲特先生和蒙格先生。我來自中國大陸的（無法識別的公司名稱），我非常興奮和榮幸能夠參加今天的活動。我的問題是：隨著越來越多的人關注環境保護和政府對新能源產業的支持，您對新能源的持續發展有什麼看法？未來新能源企業如何實現更好的發展？
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我認為葛列格是最適合回答這個問題的人，因為自從我們購買了一家名為MidAmerican但現在被稱為波克夏能源的公司以來，他一直在每年報告中談論這個問題，希望我們能夠幫助解決一些問題。我想我們在美國可能花的錢比任何一家公用事業還多。
葛列格·艾伯：確實如此。
華倫·巴菲特：而我們只是剛剛開始。但是，當您跨越州界時，情況就變得不容易了。我們有不同的管轄權。這個國家應該在輸電方面處於領先地位。在這方面，我們一直是推動者。但你可以稍微介紹一下。
葛列格·艾伯：當然，謝謝，華倫。毫無疑問，全球範圍內正在進行能源轉型，正如華倫所提到的，在美國也是如此。在某種程度上，我希望美國至少能夠制定一個明確的全國計劃來應對這個問題。
但實際情況是每個州都有自己的規劃，雖然也有一些例外情況。因此，當提到波克夏能源，我們在美國擁有三家公用事業，它們都在多個州進行運營。但它們是逐個州進行規劃，然後試圖在不同州之間進行整合。
這其中存在著巨大的機遇，因為正在進行一場變革。我們已經確定了在BHE（波克夏能源）方面的目標，到2030年將碳足跡相對於2005年減少50%。這符合巴黎協定，也是他們希望公用事業行業或公用事業公司遵守的標準。
我們已經在這條路上取得了良好的進展。但要實現這一目標是一個真正的旅程。我經常與華倫討論這個問題。在2000年代中期購買太平洋電力公司時，我們立即意識到需要大量建設可再生能源，就像我們在中西部和愛荷華州所做的那樣。
但那基本上只是一個州的範圍。現在，我們的PacifiCorp公用事業涉及六個州。我們從2000年代中期開始這一計劃。我們制定了一個出色的輸電計劃，解釋了我們的建設計劃，以及在此期間為我們的客戶帶來的所有好處。
到了2023年，我們已經完成了這個6億美元的輸電項目的三分之一多一點。我們花費的資金可能接近70億美元。這是正確的結果，對我們的客戶來說仍然是一個很好的結果。但在能源轉型中，你絕對需要建設輸電線路來傳輸所有這些可再生能源。這就是沃倫所強調的複雜性。你不能一夜之間解決這個問題。
你要從輸電開始，然後再建設能源資源。在那個公司裡，以及我們在BHE能源和能源轉型方面的工作中，我們有700億美元的已知項目，這些項目真正需要來正確地為客戶提供服務，實現這類能源轉型。
這是未來十年的計劃。所以，我們擁有一個完全勝任這個挑戰的團隊。他們在履行承諾方面表現出色。這對我們每一家公司和我們的股東來說都是一個非常好的商機。因為當我們投入資本時，我們當然會獲得股本回報。但這將是一個漫長的旅程。它將在一個很長的時間段內實現。隨著時間的推移，它將更加依賴於各種不斷進步但尚未達到的技術的發展。
華倫·巴菲特：你提出了一個問題。我現在想多花一點時間談談這個問題，因為這非常重要。我實際上不知道我們的政府形式是否在解決你所描述的問題上是理想的。我們曾經解決過這個問題。在二戰期間，我們將一個半殘疾的國家帶到了戰爭中。
在世界大戰期間，我們將一群人以每年1美元的薪水聚集到華盛頓。無論是西德尼·溫伯格還是高盛，你只需舉一個例子。我們給予他們巨大的權力，重新調整美國的資源來應對他們所面臨的問題，即建立一個戰爭機器。
他們找到了亨利·凱撒，告訴他要建造船隻。他們去了福特汽車公司，告訴他們要生產坦克和飛機。他們重新調整了美國的工業企業，這是難以置信的。
因為他們擁有聯邦政府的權力。他們擁有美國商業的創造力和設施。這導致了非常成功的結果。但是，在和平時期，我們能做到這一點嗎？你有50個州，你必須讓它們合作。
你可以下達命令，但你無法指定資本去向。這是另一個問題。我們試圖通過稅收激勵等方式來解決這個問題。但我們還沒有創造出像二戰時期那樣的目標統一和機制，那個時期幾乎每個人都覺得他們的工作就是為了贏得戰爭。
我們找到了如何利用我們的工業能力，事實上擊敗了軸心國。那麼，如何在現有的民主體制下重新創造這種情況呢？我不確定我知道答案。但我確定這是個問題。我認為如果你面臨緊急情況，我們確實需要重新改造美國的能源系統。
我認為如果沒有類似的機制和迫切性，是無法做到這一點的。資本存在，人才存在，目標明確。但在和平時期，我們似乎無法做到這一點，因為我們習慣按照既定的程式列事。
你知道，中國是一個國家，而我們有50個州，有一套完全不同的政府體制。
我們應該能夠應對這一挑戰，但到目前為止，這並沒有奏效。因此，感謝你的提問。
Section 16 會議摘要：
在第16段會議紀要中，一位來自中國大陸的參會者提問關於新能源發展的問題。他詢問了巴菲特對新能源持續發展的看法以及新能源企業如何實現更好的發展。巴菲特表示，對於這個問題，Greg Abel是最合適回答的人，因為波克夏已經購買了一家名為MidAmerican的能源公司（現在稱為Berkshire Hathaway Energy），而Greg Abel一直在關注和報告能源行業的問題。
Greg Abel解答道，全球正在發生能源轉型，美國也是如此。然而，美國的能源轉型在州與州之間進行，缺乏全國統一的計畫。Berkshire Hathaway Energy擁有三家在美國多個州運營的公用事業公司，它們在各個州分別制定能源發展計畫，並試圖將這些計畫整合在一起。公司的目標是到2030年將碳足跡減少50%。
然而，能源轉型是一個複雜的過程，需要建設跨州的輸電線路來支援可再生能源的傳輸。Greg Abel提到了Berkshire Hathaway Energy在輸電線路建設方面的經驗和挑戰。他指出，輸電線路建設是實現能源轉型的關鍵，但這需要時間和大量的投資。Berkshire Hathaway Energy計畫在未來十年內投資約700億美元來實施這些專案。
巴菲特補充道，能源轉型是一個重要問題，但美國的政府體系可能不適合解決這個問題。他提到了第二次世界大戰期間美國政府和商業界合作的案例，將美國的工業資源重新調配以應對戰爭的挑戰。然而，和平時期的能源轉型需要各個州的合作和協調，這在現有的民主制度下並不容易實現。巴菲特認為，如果面臨緊急情況，可能需要重新構建美國能源體系的機制和緊迫感，以實現能源轉型的目標。
總之，波克夏的公用事業部門已經意識到能源轉型的重要性，並採取了一系列措施來推動清潔能源的發展。然而，要實現全國範圍內的能源轉型仍面臨諸多挑戰，需要政府、企業和各個州的合作與協調。
Section 17 原文：
17. Abel will decide on next generation of Berkshire managers
WARREN BUFFETT: Becky.
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Chris Freed in Philadelphia. He says, “We know that Greg Abel and Ajit Jain are the next generation of Berkshire leaders. Who are currently behind Greg and Ajit in their respective roles?”
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, that will be the question. Well, Greg will be, absent some extraordinary circumstance, but he’s going to succeed me. And then he will be sitting in a position where he needs his equivalent or something closer to his equivalent, because he’s better at many things than I’ve been.
He will need that substitute. And when the question comes, we know Ajit’s opinion on that. But Greg will probably be the one that will make the final decision, I mean, being his responsibility. And Ajit will give him his best advice. And I think the odds are very, very, very high (Laugh) that Greg would follow it.
But those are not easy questions. Everybody talks about the executive bench and all of that sort of thing, which is baloney. I mean, you know, they don’t have that many people that can run five of the largest net worth companies and all kinds of diverse businesses.
But you don’t need five people either. And you need a lot of good operating managers. And you need somebody at the top that allocates capital and makes sure that you’ve got the right operating manager. And we’ve designed something where we separate the insurance and the rest of the business.
And I think it’s a very good design. But we wouldn’t be smart to name that decision now about the two different areas of the business because a lot can change between now and then. And the most likely (Laugh) change is that this job changes. Charlie.
CHARLIE MUNGER: I got nothing to add. We have a lot of good people that have risen in the Berkshire subsidiaries. And there’s a reason why our operations have by and large done better than other big conglomerate companies. And one of them is that we change managers way less frequently than other people do. And that’s helped us.
WARREN BUFFETT: When Paul Andrews died, we knew who he thought should take over there. But there wasn’t any reason to announce that. I mean, we should live to be 100. We had one of our managers die not long ago. And how old was he, at Garan?
GREG ABEL: Yeah, mid-90s, Seymour.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, Seymour Lichtenstein. And Seymour, I wrote him a letter when he was 80 and I said, you know, “I’m glad you’re 80. And I’ll write you again when you’re 90.” And (Laugh) I wrote him again when he was 90. And (Laugh) he didn’t make it to a hundred.
But he had a terrific fellow following him. And he really managed it jointly, to some extent, as the years went by. But it’s case by case. And the main thing to do is have the right person running the whole place.
Section 17 翻譯：
17. 對於波克夏的下一代管理層，這個決定最終由Greg Abel來做出。
WARREN BUFFETT: Becky.
BECKY QUICK: 這個問題來自費城的Chris Freed。他說：“我們知道Greg Abel和Ajit Jain是波克夏的下一代領導者。在Greg和Ajit的職位後面，目前有誰？”
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，這將是個問題。嗯，除非出現一些特殊情況，否則Greg將接替我。然後他將處於一個需要與他相當或更接近他的位置，因為他在許多方面比我更優秀。
他將需要那個替代者。當這個問題出現時，我們知道Ajit的意見。但最終的決策可能由Greg來做，因為這是他的責任。Ajit會給他最好的建議。我認為非常非常非常有可能（笑），Greg會聽從建議。
但這些問題並不容易。大家都在談論高層管理團隊之類的事情，但那都是胡扯。我們不需要太多人來管理五家最大的資產淨值公司和各種多樣的業務。
但你也不需要五個人。你需要很多優秀的經營管理者。你需要一個能夠配置資金並確保你有正確的經營管理者的領導人。我們設計了一個將保險業務和其他業務分開的結構。
我認為這是一個非常好的設計。但我們現在不聰明地對這兩個業務領域做出決策，因為現在和那時之間會有很多變化。最有可能的（笑）變化是這份工作發生變化。Charlie。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 我沒什麼可補充的。我們有很多在Berkshire子公司崛起的優秀人才。這就是為什麼我們的業務整體上表現比其他大型企業集團更好的原因之一。我們更換經理的頻率遠低於其他人，這對我們很有幫助。
WARREN BUFFETT: 當Paul Andrews去世時，我們知道他認為誰應該接手那個職位。但沒有必要宣佈。我的意思是，我們應該活到100歲。不久前，我們的一個經理去世了。Garan，他多大了？
GREG ABEL: 是的，九十幾歲，Seymour。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，Seymour Lichtenstein。他80歲時，我給他寫了一封信，說，“我很高興你80歲了。當你90歲時，我會再給你寫信。”（笑）他90歲時，我又給他寫了一封信。（笑）但他沒有活到100歲。
但他有一位了不起的接班人。隨著年歲的增長，他真的是在某種程度上共同管理。但每個案例都是不同的。最重要的是要有合適的人來管理整個公司。
Section 17 會議摘要：
在第17段會議紀要中，有關Berkshire的下一代管理層的問題。提問者問到Greg Abel和Ajit Jain是Berkshire下一代領導人，那麼他們背後目前有哪些人在擔任各自的角色。
巴菲特回答說，Greg Abel在沒有出現特殊情況的情況下將接替他的位置，他需要一個類似的人來擔任他的替補，因為他在許多方面比他自己都更出色。至於誰將成為這個替補，最終決策權在於Greg Abel，他會諮詢Ajit Jain的意見，而Greg很可能會聽從他的建議。
然而，這些問題並不容易解決。人們常常談論公司的高層管理團隊，但這是錯誤的觀點。他們並沒有那麼多人能夠管理五個淨資產最大的公司以及各種多元化業務。
巴菲特進一步解釋說，公司需要很多優秀的運營經理，並且需要一個頂層管理者來配置資本並確保擁有正確的運營經理。Berkshire已經設計了一種分離保險業務和其他業務的模式，巴菲特認為這是一個很好的設計。
至於誰將成為繼任者，巴菲特認為現在宣佈並不明智，因為從現在到未來還有很多變數。而最有可能的變化是他自己的職位變化。
查理·蒙格補充說，Berkshire有許多優秀的人才在子公司中崛起，這也是為什麼Berkshire的運營業績大多優於其他大型企業集團的原因之一。他們更少更換管理者，這對公司發展很有幫助。
總的來說，Berkshire正在積極培養下一代領導層，並強調公司的成功不僅取決於高層管理團隊，還需要合適的人才管理整個公司。具體的人事決策將會根據具體情況進行，而最重要的是確保公司有正確的領導人。
Section 18 原文：
18. America has too much ‘tribalism’
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Station six.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good morning, my name is Hatch Okamamti (PH) from Miyazaki, Japan. Mr. Buffett, I was one of the 8,000 employees at Salomon Brothers that you saved. I was younger back then. I was working at 7 World Trade Center. I’ve always, always wanted to thank you in person for saving that company, its employees, including myself and my family. So, thank you, Mr. Buffett. (Applause)
WARREN BUFFETT: Thank you. (Applause) And thank Deryck Maughan who actually had been over in Japan before that and who I met for the first time the day before I put him in. And it wouldn’t have worked if Deryck hadn’t come. So, whatever you taught him in Japan, (Laugh) thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, sir. Now, my question time to time you have reminded us to not bet against America. What do you think are the most important things for you guys to remain strong? On the risk side, if the strength of the country’s undermined, what could be the reasons?
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, we’ve had (Applause) a lot of tests. I mean, we’re such a young country. You know, when you think about Japan and you think about the United States, it’s just incredible how new we are to the block. I mean, you know, what are we? 234 years old since we started.
That’s nothing. I mean, you know, Charlie and I combined, we’ve lived two thirds the life of the country. (Laughter) I mean, we’ve been tested at 46 national elections. And we made some bad choices. And we’ve had a civil war. I mean, so the country has had enormous advantages though in some way.
Because we started with one half of 1% of the world’s population in 1790. And we now have something close to 25% of the world’s GDP. And it wasn’t because we had some incredible advantage in terms of the land. It was nice to have two oceans on each side back when people tried to rule the world by ruling the waves.
You know, and we’ve had good neighbors in Canada and Mexico. But it’s a miracle. And you say, “How do we keep the good parts of the system?” Well, culling out our obvious defects. And we do it in a very herky-jerky manner. But net, the United States is a better place to live than it was when I was born by a huge factor.
I mean, I just got a root canal a week ago. And I was just thinking, “I don’t know who invented Novocain, but I’m for him.” You know, I mean, (Laugh) but in a million ways. I mean, you can romanticize about the past. But forget it. It is work. But now we do have an atom bomb and we wish nuclear power.
You know, we wish the atom had never been split. But it has been. And you can’t put it back in the bottle. So, the challenges are huge. You know, my dad was in Congress back in the 1940s. And it looked like a mess then. Although it was unified by the war to some degree.
But it was still very partisan. Now the problem we have, I think, is that partisanship, it seems to me, has moved toward tribalism. And tribalism just doesn’t work as well. I mean, when it gets to tribalism, you don’t even hear the other side. And tribalism can lead to mobs.
I mean, it just flows. I mean, you’ve seen it (UNINTEL). We’ve seen it to a degree here. So, we have to refine in a certain way our democracy as we go along. We deal with the world we live in. But if I still had a choice of any place to be born in the world, I’d want to be born in the United States.
And I’d want to be born today. I mean, it is a better world than we have ever had. And with present-day communications, we can also see much more how terrible it is in many ways. And it’s got problems. When I was born in 1930, there were 2 billion in the world.
And now there’s maybe 7.7 billion and growing. And we went millennia with really no change in population. And of course, we’ve introduced energy in an incredible way into something where we now have 7.7 billion people using way more energy than they did when I was born when there were 2 billion people.
So, it’s an exciting world. It’s a challenging world. And, you know, I don’t know the solutions on things. I do think that we do need to think about different solutions in terms of how we get important problems solves and that we don’t kid ourselves that something magic will happen or that everybody will get together and we’ll all just cheer, and it’ll go away by 2050.
And how well we adapt to that, we will see. I would say so far it doesn’t look very promising. But then I’m sure that when Lincoln looked out at what was going on in the Civil War it didn’t look very promising either. So, I think that the U.S. is capable of doing remarkable things. And I think it wouldn’t surprise me if they do it again. Charlie may —
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I’m slightly less optimistic than Warren is. (Laughter) I think the best road ahead to human happiness is to expect less. I think it’s going to get tougher. And I think the solution of having a huge proportion of the young and brilliant people all go into wealth management is a crazy development in terms of its natural consequences for American civilianization. We don’t need as many wealth managers as we have.
WARREN BUFFETT: But Charlie was born on January 1st, 1924. And you’d hate to go back to that, wouldn’t you, Charlie? (Laugh)
CHARLIE MUNGER: Yes, I would. And I like more wealth managers who are just merely reflecting the fact there’s more wealth. But I don’t like everybody going into wealth management. Better go to MIT or something. I think the world’s a little crazy now.
WARREN BUFFETT: Take your choice. (Laugh)
Section 18 翻譯：
18. 美國存在著太多的「部落主義」
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的。第六個問題。
觀眾成員：早上好，我叫Hatch Okamamti，來自日本宮崎。Buffett先生，我曾是Salomon Brothers的8,000名員工之一，您曾拯救了這家公司，也拯救了我和我的家人。多年來，我一直都希望能親自感謝您，感謝您拯救了這家公司及其員工，包括我自己。所以，非常感謝您，Buffett先生。（掌聲）
WARREN BUFFETT: 謝謝你。（掌聲）同時也要感謝Deryck Maughan，他在那之前曾在日本，我在他加入之前的一天第一次見到他。如果不是Deryck的加入，這一切都不會成功。所以，不論你在日本教授了他什麼，謝謝你。
觀眾成員：謝謝您，先生。現在輪到我的問題了。您多次提醒我們不要賭對美國，我想知道您認為維持國家強大的最重要因素是什麼？在風險方面，如果國家的實力受到損害，可能的原因有哪些？
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，我們經歷過很多考驗。（掌聲）我們是一個非常年輕的國家。你知道，當你想到日本和美國，我們對這個世界來說是多麼新的存在。我們多大了？自從我們開始以來已經234年了。
那算不了什麼。我是說，你知道，我和查理加起來，我們已經活過了國家三分之二的歷史。（笑聲）我是說，我們經歷了46次國家選舉。我們做過一些錯誤的選擇。我們還經歷過內戰。這個國家在某種程度上取得了巨大的優勢。
因為我們從1790年起就只占世界人口的百分之零點五。而現在我們的國內生產總值接近世界總量的25%。這並不是因為我們在土地方面有什麼特殊優勢。過去人們試圖通過控制海洋來統治世界，我們兩邊有兩片大洋確實是不錯。
你知道，我們在加拿大和墨西哥有好鄰居。但這是個奇跡。你會說：“我們如何保留制度的優點？”好吧，在淘汰明顯缺陷的同時保留優點。我們以一種非常斷斷續續的方式做到這一點。但總的來說，美國比我出生時要好得多，差距非常大。
我的意思是，就在一周前，我剛剛做了根管治療。我當時在想，“我不知道是誰發明了諾卡因，但我是支持他的。”你知道，我是說，（笑聲）從各個方面來說。我是說，你可以對過去產生浪漫的幻想，但忘了吧。這是個需要努力的過程。但是現在我們有了原子彈，我們希望有核能。
你知道，我們希望原子從未被分裂過。但它已經被分裂了。你無法把它放回瓶子裡。所以，挑戰是巨大的。我父親在上世紀40年代曾在國會任職。當時看起來一團糟，儘管在某種程度上由戰爭統一了起來。
但它仍然非常黨派化。現在我們面臨的問題是，我認為，黨派之爭已經向部落主義轉變。而部落主義並不像黨派之爭那樣有效。我是說，當黨派之爭演變成部落主義時，你甚至聽不到另一方的聲音。而部落主義可能導致暴亂。
我的意思是，它只是順其自然地發展。你也見過它（不明確）。我們在某種程度上也見證了這一點。因此，我們必須在前進的過程中以某種方式完善我們的民主制度。我們要處理我們所處的世界。但如果我仍然有機會選擇在世界上的任何地方出生，我希望出生在美國。
而且我希望出生在今天。我的意思是，這是一個比我們以往任何時候都更好的世界。而且在現今的通訊技術下，我們也能更清楚地看到在許多方面它有多麼糟糕。它存在問題。當我在1930年出生時，世界上有20億人口。
現在可能有77億人口，並且還在不斷增長。幾千年來，人口幾乎沒有變化。當然，我們以一種令人難以置信的方式引入了能源，現在有77億人口比我出生時的20億人口使用更多的能源。
所以，這是一個充滿挑戰的世界，也是一個令人興奮的世界。你知道的，對於一些問題，我不知道解決方案。我確實認為我們需要考慮不同的解決方案，以解決重要的問題，並且我們不要自欺欺人地認為會有什麼魔法發生，或者每個人都會團結一致，我們都會歡呼，然後到2050年問題就會消失。
我們將看到我們如何適應這一點。我會說到目前為止，前景看起來並不是很樂觀。但我相信，當林肯看著內戰局勢時，也不是很樂觀。所以，我認為美國有能力做出令人驚訝的事情。如果他們再次這樣做，我也不會感到驚訝。Charlie可能會有一些看法。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 嗯，我比Warren稍微不那麼樂觀。（笑聲）我認為通往人類幸福的最佳道路是期望較少。我認為事情會變得更加困難。我認為讓大部分年輕有才華的人都從事財富管理是對美國文明化自然後果的瘋狂發展。我們不需要像現在這麼多的財富管理人員。
WARREN BUFFETT: 但Charlie是1924年1月1日出生的。你肯定不想回到那個時代，對吧，Charlie？（笑聲）
CHARLIE MUNGER: 是的，我不想。我喜歡更多的財富管理人員，他們只是反映了財富增加的事實。但我不喜歡每個人都從事財富管理。最好去麻省理工學院之類的地方。我認為現在的世界有點瘋狂。
WARREN BUFFETT: 選擇吧。（笑聲）
Section 18 會議摘要：
美國存在過多的“部落主義”
在這個問題中，一個員工表達了對巴菲特拯救了所羅門兄弟公司的感激之情。巴菲特談到了美國的優勢，包括國土遼闊、擁有兩個大洋作為天然屏障以及與加拿大和墨西哥的友好鄰邦關係。他提到美國作為一個年輕國家，經歷了多次考驗，包括46次全國選舉和內戰。然而，美國也面臨巨大挑戰，其中一個問題是從黨派鬥爭轉向了部落主義。部落主義使得人們不再傾聽他人的觀點，並可能導致暴民行為。
巴菲特認為美國需要在民主制度中進行改進，以適應現實世界。他坦言自己不知道所有問題的解決方案，但認為我們需要思考不同的解決方案，解決重要的問題，並且不能自欺欺人地認為問題會在2050年之前通過某種魔法或人人團結起來而迎刃而解。巴菲特相信美國有能力做出非凡的事情，並表示如果美國再次做到這一點，他不會感到驚訝。
然而，查理·蒙格對此持稍微較少的樂觀態度。他認為邁向人類幸福的最佳道路是對期望的降低，而且形勢將變得更加艱難。蒙格認為目前存在的問題之一是大量年輕而聰明的人都從事財富管理，這對於美國的文明化發展來說是一種瘋狂的發展。他認為我們不需要如此之多的財富管理人員，而是應該去麻省理工學院等地。巴菲特則認為這是個人的選擇。
整體而言，討論圍繞美國的優勢、挑戰以及對國家未來的展望展開。他們認為美國是一個值得驕傲的國家，但也面臨著許多複雜的問題。
Seciont 19 原文：
19. No corporate raider will have enough money to target Berkshire after Buffett
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, Becky. (Laughter)
BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Dennis DeJaniero. As Warren stated in the 2022 annual report, Berkshire will always hold a boat load of cash in U.S. Treasury bills. It will also avoid behavior that could result in any uncomfortable cash needs at inconvenient times, including financial panics and unprecedented insurance losses.
After Warren passes away, his A shares will be converted into B shares and distributed to various foundations. These foundations will then sell the shares to fund their causes. Warren estimates it will take 12-15 years for all his shares to be sold.
I worry that a corporate raider like Carl Icahn or a group will buy up enough of these shares to take control of Berkshire and completely disregard Warren’s philosophy of holding a lot of cash and U.S. Treasury bills, and instead be greedy, reckless, and highly speculative and ruin Berkshire’s position as a rock-solid financial fortress. I also worry that changes might be made in how Berkshire’s subsidiaries are run. Do Warren and Charlie worry that these things could happen?
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I think it’s fair to say we think about it plenty. But I don’t worry enormously. It is true that Greg and the directors will have a honeymoon period for a long time simply because other votes that will still remain. But it’s true that eventually they will get judged based on how well our operation fares versus others.
Now if we don’t pay any dividends in 12 or 15 years, you’re talking a trillion and a half that it would take to take over. And I think that limits the group. They like to think about how much they can borrow against it. (Laugh) It doesn’t work.
And there’s nobody that can come close to doing it themselves. And I think that the important thing is that Berkshire be regarded as a national asset rather than a national liability. We’ve got to be a plus to the country with our form of operation. And we certainly have got a record which will then be 12 or 15 years longer, done with much more capital, more companies.
More things will have happened where our hundreds of billions can work its way into the economy in terms of lots of jobs, lots of products, lots of behavior. And it can be compared with other things. So, I think we win out if we deserve to win out. And I think the odds of that happening are very, very, very high. Charlie.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I don’t spend much time worrying about something that happened 50 years ago after I’m dead. I think if you sort of take care. Each day’s responsibility is pretty low. And think ahead as well as you can. Then you just take the results as they fall. So, I’m philosophical. But I’m not — I think he’s fretting unnecessarily.
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Neither one of us are worried, basically. (Laughter) But we plan. We do plan. And, you know, I’ve got a model in my mind of what Berkshire has been the model. It’s been modified plenty of times over 58 years. The one thing I knew initially or very quickly was it shouldn’t be a textile company.
(Laugh) That was an important decision. (Laughter) And, I mean, we’ve just played the hand as it came along. And we made a few really good decisions. We’ll never make a decision that kills us. Only things that are a threat to the planet, we don’t have any answer for those.
But we keep ourselves in better shape than anybody else. And we just aren’t going to have big maturities of debt that come along. We aren’t going to have insurance policies that can be cashed in en masse. And we will sit with what looks a huge amount of capital.
And it is a huge amount of capital. But there’s a huge amount of earning power. There’s a huge amount of diversity, everything. So, our business model will be graded, and it’ll be graded against a lot of people that we like to be graded against. So, I think we’re handing something very secure over to the future.
And I think we’ve got a shareholder base like nobody has. I mean, there isn’t anybody in the country that I know of unless they’ve had a employee-owned company prior to going public or something of the sort. But this is the product of, you know, 58 years of regarding the shareholder as the owner of the company.
But what does that mean? That means having happy customers. It means being (Applause) welcomed by your community rather than having them turn you away. It means that the government feels better with you if there’s a financial crisis. Because you can provide something that actually the country can’t under some circumstances.
And you’ll be there. And at the same time, it’ll be good for the business. And we will have crises of one sort or another. But if they aren’t challenging the planet, which worries you in terms of some of the threats that we have, we’ll be a plus to the United States. And if we’re a plus to the United States, we’ll survive.
Section 19 翻譯：
19. 沒有企業掠奪者會有足夠的資金來針對巴菲特之後的伯克希爾公司。
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，Becky。（笑聲）
BECKY QUICK：這個問題來自Dennis DeJaniero。正如華倫在2022年的年度報告中所述，波克夏將永遠持有大量的美國國債現金。它還將避免任何可能在不便時期產生不舒適的現金需求的行為，包括金融恐慌和前所未有的保險損失。
在華倫過世後，他的A股將轉換為B股並分發給各個基金會。這些基金會將出售股票以資助他們的事業。華倫估計需要12至15年時間才能出售他所有的股份。
我擔心像卡爾·伊坎（Carl Icahn）或其他團體這樣的企業掠奪者將收購足夠數量的這些股票，以控制波克夏，完全無視華倫持有大量現金和美國國債的理念，而變得貪婪、魯莽和高度投機，從而破壞伯克希爾作為一個堅實的金融堡壘的地位。我也擔心波克夏的子公司的運營可能會發生變化。華倫和查理是否擔心這些事情可能發生？
WARREN BUFFETT: 嗯，我認為可以說我們對此想得很多。但我並不極度擔心。確實，葛列格和董事們會有很長的蜜月期，因為其他股東仍然保留投票權。但是，最終他們將根據我們的業務運營表現與其他公司相比進行評估。
如果在12或15年內我們不支付任何股息，那麼要佔領波克夏需要花費1.5萬億美元。我認為這限制了那些企圖佔領波克夏的人。他們喜歡想像可以借多少錢來進行收購（笑）。這是行不通的。
沒有人能接近單獨完成這樣的收購。我認為重要的是將波克夏視為國家資產，而不是國家負擔。我們必須以我們的運營方式對國家做出貢獻。我們確實擁有一個長達12或15年的記錄，利用更多的資本和更多的公司進行運營。
更多事情將發生，我們的數千億資本將通過許多就業機會、產品和行為方式融入經濟中。它可以與其他事物進行比較。所以，我認為如果我們應該獲得勝利，我們就能獲勝。而且我認為這種情況發生的機會非常非常非常高。查理。
CHARLIE MUNGER: 嗯，我不會花太多時間擔心自己死後50年前發生的事情。我認為如果你稍微小心，每天的責任相對較低，並且盡量提前思考，然後就接受結果。所以，我是富有哲學思想的。但我認為他（指問題提出者）擔憂得過多了。
WARREN BUFFETT: 好吧，基本上我們都不太擔心。（笑聲）但我們有計劃，確實有計劃。你知道，我心中有一個模型，該模型描述了波克夏一直以來的模式。在58年的時間裡，它已經多次進行了修改。最初我知道的一件事，或者說非常快就明白的一件事是，它不應該成為一家紡織公司。
（笑聲）這是一個重要的決定。（笑聲）而且，我們只是按照手中的牌來打，我們做出了一些非常好的決策。我們永遠不會做出讓我們崩潰的決定。只有那些對地球構成威脅的事情，我們無法提供答案。
但我們使自己保持在比其他人更好的狀態。我們不會有大量的到期債務。我們也不會有大量可以大量兌現的保險政策。我們將擁有看起來巨大的資本。
而這是一筆巨額的資本。但同時也有巨大的盈利能力，有著極大的多樣性，所有的一切。所以，我們的商業模式將會接受評估，並與我們喜歡的許多人進行比較。因此，我認為我們正在將非常穩健的事業傳承給未來。
我認為我們擁有一個無人能及的股東基礎。我指的是在美國，除非他們之前擁有一家員工所有的公司或類似的情況，否則我不知道有人能比得上我們。但這是58年來將股東視為公司所有者的結果。
但這意味著什麼？這意味著擁有滿意的客戶。這意味著被社區歡迎，而不是被他們拒之門外。這意味著如果發生金融危機，政府會對你感到更加安心。因為在某些情況下，你能夠提供一些實際上國家無法提供的東西。
而你將會在那裡。與此同時，這也對業務有益。我們將會遇到各種危機。但如果這些危機沒有對地球構成挑戰，也就是讓你擔心的一些威脅，我們將成為美國的加分項目。如果我們對美國有益，我們就能生存下來。
Section 19 會議摘要：
在第19段會議紀要中，Dennis DeJaniero提問關於華倫·巴菲特和查理·蒙格是否擔心在巴菲特離世後，有企業掠奪者購買足夠的股份以掌控波克夏，並完全無視巴菲特持有大量現金和美國國債的理念，而變得貪婪、魯莽和高度投機，從而破壞波克夏作為堅如磐石的金融堡壘的地位。此外，提問者還擔心波克夏的子公司可能發生變動。華倫·巴菲特和查理·蒙格是否擔心這些情況可能發生？
在回答中，華倫·巴菲特表示他們確實有考慮這個問題，但並不是非常擔心。他指出，葛列格（波克夏的執行副主席）和董事們在相當長的時間內將享受蜜月期，因為其他股東的投票仍然存在。但最終，他們將根據波克夏的運營績效與其他公司進行評估。巴菲特提到，如果在12或15年內不支付股息，想要收購波克夏需要1.5萬億美元，這限制了潛在收購者的群體。此外，巴菲特強調波克夏應被視為一個國家資產，而不是一個國家的負擔。他們希望以他們的營運方式對國家有益，並指出波克夏在過去58年中建立了與股東之間的特殊關係。他們相信，通過持續的經營和更多的資本和公司，波克夏將能夠在未來繼續繁榮發展。
查理·蒙格表示，他並不花太多時間擔心自己去世後50年的事情。他認為重要的是每天承擔責任，並盡力預先思考，然後接受結果。他表示自己是一個哲學家，但他認為巴菲特對此過於憂慮。
整體而言，巴菲特和蒙格並不過分擔心提問者所提到的問題，並強調他們對波克夏的未來有明確的計劃。他們相信波克夏的商業模式是穩健的，並且在與其他公司的比較中表現出色。他們強調波克夏將以股東為公司的所有者，並通過滿足客戶需求、受到社區的歡迎、在金融危機中為政府提供支援等方式，對美國產生積極影響。儘管可能會面臨各種危機，但只要這些危機不對地球構成挑戰，他們相信波克夏將能夠在美國繼續存在。
Section 20 原文：
20. Stories about finding Ajit Jain and Ben Rosner’s Chicago submarine
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. (Applause) Station seven.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger, thank you for having us this weekend. My name is Beau Clayton (PH), and I’m from Durham, North Carolina.
One of the reasons that we are all here is that you’re great storytellers. And we carry those stories back home with us.
Can you please share a couple stories that maybe we haven’t heard before (Laughter) about Mr. Abel and Mr. Jain that capture their character and their caliber as leaders? (Applause)
WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I’ll start out with Ajit. (Laugh) He walked into the office in 1986, and I’d gotten the bright idea of going into the reinsurance business I think in maybe 1969. So, I’d stumbled along for 17 years. And I had a wonderful guy that ran it.
But he also liked certain brokers. I mean, he was running it the traditional way. Top quality and everything else, but he didn’t try and change the system. He tried to improve the system to some degree. And we went nowhere. Seventeen years wandering around in the wilderness.
And I thought we could have something good. And then Ajit came in on a Saturday and Mike Goldberg (PH) had steered him in, I think. And Mike deserves to be enshrined (Laugh) in perpetuity for that act. And I talked with him a while. I think maybe I was opening the mail on Saturday while I talked with him.
And he had absolutely zero experience with insurance. But he’d actually seen a good bit about how corporate America operated, because he’d been in management consulting. And after talking with him, I knew I’d struck gold. And so, I hired him and gave him the backing of some money.
And we hit a very good period in the market almost right away for him to act. And Ajit, you know, if I had the top pick of ten insurance managers in the world, I could take all ten and you can’t replace Ajit. And we still enjoy talking.
We don’t talk as frequently as we used to, but we used to talk about every day. But he’s one of a kind. And, you know, if you’re going to stick around long enough, you only need one of a kind. (Laugh)
Paul Andrews (PH) stuck around at TTI, had all the money in the world.
Every time I talked to him about getting a raise or something of the sort, he said, “We’ll talk about that next year.” He was not what you get when you get the top draft picks from the leading business schools. And I will say this, I have never looked at where anybody went to school in terms of hiring.
I mean, somebody mails me a resume or something, I don’t care where they went to school. And it just so happens that Ajit went to some pretty good schools. But he isn’t Ajit because he went to those schools. And Charlie, you can tell a story or two. How’d you find Louis Vincenti? (Laugh)
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, he was there. But you’ve got to recognize him. I asked Louis once how he managed to play first-string football at, I think, Stanford when he only weighed 155 pounds. And he said, “Well,” he said, “I was pretty quick.” And he was pretty quick. But (Laugh) we have found a lot of people within our companies who are pretty quick.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, we had one guy that quit at fourth grade, didn’t we? Ben Rosner. Am I wrong?
CHARLIE MUNGER: Oh yeah. Totally self-educated. Ben Rosner knew more about retailing in those old neighborhoods than anybody. And he watched everything in his business like a hawk, and he was amazing. Now there was an example. We never found anybody who could do what — when Ben died, that ability left us.
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, and you want a story that’s kind of interesting, because Ben Rosner had a partner, Leo Simon. And Leo Simon was Mo Annenberg’s son-in-law. And Leo, therefore, was very, very, very wealthy. And Ben started with nothing. But they liked each other.
And one time well before they got involved in the business we bought, they got the idea of buying a submarine from World War I and taking it to the Century of Progress, which was the World’s Fair, in effect, in Chicago I think in 1933. So, they bought the submarine for practically nothing.
And they figured the average guy from Omaha who’s going to his first World’s Fair could get a submarine for a quarter or something, that they’d pay it. So, they hauled it from Florida, wherever they got it, hauled it to Chicago. And then they got into Chicago, and they were hauling a submarine down the streets of Chicago. (Laugh)
And, you know, it was creating traffic problems like nobody could imagine. So, a cop came over and he said to Ben, he says, “Where do you think you guys are going with that submarine?” (Laugh) And Ben says, “You’ll have to talk to my partner, Mr. Capone.” (Laugh)
And the cop says, “You’re on. You know, just keep going.” And (Laughter) that was Ben Rosner. And then Leo Simon died, and when he died in 1967 or so, Ben Rosner kept delivering half the profits to his widow, who was incredibly rich, of course, being Mo Annenberg’s first-born daughter.
I think Mo had nine girls in a row before Walter came along, the tenth. I may be off by one. But anyway, I went to his fancy apartment. And anyway, Ben kept her in for half the deal. And he had her sign the rent checks just so she would look like she was doing something in this business.
And she didn’t need the money, obviously, but he just felt he was obligated once his partner, Leo, died. And then she started criticizing him. And at that point, Ben went to his lawyer, who was her lawyer, actually, Will Salsteiner (PH). I don’t know whatever happened to Will.
But he gave me a call because Ben wanted to call me because he wanted me to buy it. And he wanted me, if I bought it, he’d be rid of the ex-partner’s wife. And he had Charlie and me come back, and we went to Will Salsteiner’s office. And Ben says, “I’ll work until the end of the year, and that’s all. But I’ll sell you this thing for $6 million bucks.”
And I had $2 million in cash, and a couple of million in real estate, and a couple million of operating earnings. It was just crazy. But he felt if he was getting a lousy price, she was taking a half of the lousy price for half the money. So, he looked at me at some point. Charlie, you describe the rest of it. (Laugh)
CHARLIE MUNGER: He said, “I hear you’re the fastest draw in the West.” He says, “Draw.” (Laughter)
WARREN BUFFETT: We’re in a New York lawyer’s office. (Laugh) And this guy is selling his baby. And he told us he’s leaving. I got Charlie on the side, I said, “If this guy leaves at the end of the year, you can throw away every psychology book that’s ever been written. I mean, it isn’t going to happen.”
And so, we bought it and we lived happily ever after with Ben. And one time he was taking me over to see a property we had in Brooklyn. And along the way I said, “Ben, you know, I promised you I wouldn’t interfere in the business when we started.” And he knew a “but” was coming. And he just said, “Thank you, Warren,” and then he shut me up. (Laughter)
He was a lot of fun. We have so many Ben Rosner stories, but now you’ve heard one that hasn’t been published before.
Section 20 翻譯：
20. 關於找到Ajit Jain和Ben Rosner的芝加哥潛艇的故事
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的。(掌聲) 第七號站。
觀眾成員: 巴菲特先生和蒙格先生，謝謝你們這個週末邀請我們。我叫Beau Clayton（PH），來自北卡羅來納州的Durham。
我們都來這裡的其中一個原因是因為你們是偉大的說故事者。我們將這些故事帶回家。
你能否分享一些也許我們之前沒聽過的關於Abel先生和Jain先生的故事，以展現他們的品格和領導能力？(掌聲)
WARREN BUFFETT: 好的，我先講Ajit的故事。(笑聲) 他在1986年走進我的辦公室，而我在大概1969年時，萌生了進入再保險業的聰明想法。所以，我在這個領域摸索了17年。我有一位很出色的經理。
但他也喜歡特定的經紀人。我的意思是，他以傳統方式經營。品質優秀等等，但他並沒有試圖改變體系。他試圖在某種程度上改進體系。但我們一直處於原地。17年的徬徨。
我認為我們可以做出一些好事情。然後Ajit在一個星期六走進來，我想是Mike Goldberg（PH）推薦他的。Mike為此行為（笑聲）而永遠被列入史冊。我和他聊了一陣子。我想可能是在我一邊打開信件的時候和他交談。
他對保險一點經驗也沒有。但他確實對企業美國的運作有一定的瞭解，因為他在管理諮詢領域工作過。在和他交談之後，我知道我找到了寶藏。所以，我聘請了他，給了他一些資金支持。
我們幾乎立刻就遇到了市場上的一個非常好的時期，他可以進行操作。你知道，如果我在全球十位保險經理中有機會挑選，我可以挑選全部十位，但你無法取代Ajit。我們仍然喜歡聊天。
我們不像以前那樣頻繁地交談，但我們曾經每天交談。但他是獨一無二的。你知道，如果你能夠堅持足夠長的時間，你只需要一位獨一無二的人。(笑聲)
Paul Andrews（PH）在TTI堅守崗位，擁有所有的財富。
每次我和他談到加薪或其他類似的事情時，他都說：“我們明年再談。”他不是你從頂尖商學院中招募到的頂尖選秀人才。我可以這樣說，我從來沒有看過任何人的學歷，對於招聘來說。
我的意思是，有人給我寄來一份簡歷或其他東西，我不在乎他們畢業於哪個學校。碰巧Ajit畢業於一些非常好的學校，但他之所以成為Ajit，不是因為他畢業於這些學校。而且Charlie，你可以講一兩個故事。你是怎麼找到Louis Vincenti的？(笑聲)
CHARLIE MUNGER: 他就在那裡。但你必須認出他來。我問過Louis，他是如何在斯坦福大學打先發足球的，我想他只有155磅重。他說：“嗯，”他說，“我跑得很快。”他確實跑得很快。(笑聲) 但我們在我們的公司找到了很多非常聰明的人。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，我們還有一個在四年級就退學的傢伙，對吧？Ben Rosner。我記錯了嗎？
CHARLIE MUNGER: 是的，他完全是靠自學的。Ben Rosner對那些舊社區的零售業知識比任何人都多。他像鷹一樣監控著他的業務，他太令人驚奇了。這是一個例子。當Ben去世時，我們再也找不到任何人能做到他的那一套了。
WARREN BUFFETT: 是的，你們可能會感興趣一個有趣的故事，因為Ben Rosner有一個合作夥伴，Leo Simon。Leo Simon是Mo Annenberg的女婿。所以，Leo非常非常非常有錢。而Ben從零開始。但他們喜歡彼此。
在他們涉足我們所購買的業務之前的某個時候，他們想到了買一艘一戰時期的潛艇，然後將它帶到芝加哥的Century of Progress，這在1933年我想是世界博覽會的效應。所以，他們幾乎沒花錢就買下了那艘潛艇。
他們認為，從奧馬哈前往他們的第一個世界博覽會的普通人可以花一刻鐘的價格買到一艘潛艇。所以，他們將潛艇從佛羅裡達運到了芝加哥。然後他們進入芝加哥，正好在街上拖著一艘潛艇。(笑聲)
你知道，這引起了前所未有的交通問題。所以，一名員警走過來對Ben說：“你們這些人打算把那艘潛艇帶到哪裡？”(笑聲) Ben說：“你得找我的合作夥伴，卡波尼先生。”(笑聲)
員警說：“好吧，你們走吧。”(笑聲) 這就是Ben Rosner。然後Leo Simon去世了，在1967年左右，當他去世時，Ben Rosner繼續將一半的利潤交給他的寡婦，她非常富有，當然，因為她是Mo Annenberg的長女。
我想Mo在Walter誕生之前連續生了九個女兒，第十個才是Walter。或許我數錯了一個。但無論如何，我去了他的豪華公寓。無論如何，Ben一直把她列入一半的交易。他讓她在支票上簽名，這樣她看起來像是在這個生意中做了些什麼。
顯然她不需要這筆錢，但他只是覺得一旦他的合作夥伴Leo去世，他有責任。然後她開始批評他。在那時，Ben去找了他的律師，實際上是她的律師，Will Salsteiner（PH）。我不知道Will後來怎麼樣了。
但他給我打了個電話，因為Ben想打給我，因為他希望我買下這個生意。他希望如果我買下它，他就能擺脫前合作夥伴的妻子。他讓Charlie和我回去，我們去了Will Salsteiner的辦公室。Ben說：“我會工作到年底，然後就完全退休了。但我可以以600萬美元賣給你這個生意。”
當時我手上有200萬現金，還有幾百萬的房地產和幾百萬的營業收入。這太瘋狂了。但他覺得如果他以低價賣出，她會拿一半的低價作為一半的資金。所以，他在某個時候看著我。Charlie，你來描述後面的部分。(笑聲)
CHARLIE MUNGER: 他說：“我聽說你是西部最快的槍手。”他說：“拔槍。”(笑聲)
WARREN BUFFETT: 我們當時在紐約的一個律師辦公室。(笑聲) 這傢伙在賣掉他的心血。他告訴我他要離開。我拉著Charlie說：“如果這個傢伙在年底離開，你可以扔掉所有心理學的書。這是絕不可能的。”
所以，我們買下了它，並且與Ben過上了幸福快樂的生活。有一次，他帶我去看我們在布魯克林的一個物業。在途中，我對他說：“Ben，你知道，我答應過你，我不會在我們開始的時候干涉業務。”他知道後面有個“但是”。然後他只說：“謝謝你，Warren。”然後讓我閉嘴。(笑聲)
他很有趣。我們有很多關於Ben Rosner的故事，但現在你聽到了一個之前沒有發表過的故事。
Section 20 會議摘要：
在第20段會議紀要中，一位觀眾向巴菲特和蒙格提出了一個關於Ajat Jain和Ben Rosner的問題，希望分享一些關於他們作為領導者的故事。
巴菲特首先分享了關於Ajat Jain的故事。他描述了在1986年，巴菲特有了進入再保險業的想法，但在過去的17年間沒有取得成功。然後Ajat Jain來到了巴菲特的辦公室，儘管他對保險業一無所知，但巴菲特被他的才華所吸引，因此聘請了他。巴菲特稱讚Ajat Jain是世界上最頂尖的十位保險經理之一，並表示他們依然保持著良好的聯繫。
接著，蒙格分享了關於Louis Vincenti的故事，描述了他如何以155磅的體重成為斯坦福大學一流的足球隊員，並強調他們在公司內找到了許多聰明的人才。
然後，巴菲特回憶起Ben Rosner的故事。他描述了Ben Rosner與Leo Simon合作的情況，以及他們一起購買一艘第一次世界大戰的潛艇，並將其運往芝加哥的世紀進步博覽會。他們曾在芝加哥的街道上拖著潛艇行駛，甚至與員警交涉。此外，巴菲特還分享了購買Ben Rosner的業務的故事，以及與他的交流和合作的趣事。
巴菲特和蒙格表示他們有許多關於Ben Rosner的故事，但這是第一次公開分享的一個例子。
參考資料：
沒有留言:
張貼留言