以下是節錄自2000年巴菲特在"巴菲特致股東的信"中對投資的一些見解.Warren Buffett's Letters
To Berkshire Shareholders 2000
---
Leaving aside tax factors, the formula we use for evaluating stock sand businesses is identical. Indeed, the formula for valuing all assets that are purchased for financial gain has been unchanged since it was first laid out by a very smart man in about 600 B.C. (though he wasn’t smart enough to know it was 600 B.C.).
扣除稅負因素不計，我們分析評估股票與事業的公式並無二致，事實上亙古至今，這個評估所有金融資產投資的公式從來就未曾改變，遠從公元前600年某位先知頭一次揭示就是如此，(雖然他可能也沒有能力預知當時是公元前600年)。
The oracle was Aesop and his enduring, though somewhat incomplete, investment insight was "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." To flesh out this principle, you must answer only three questions. How certain are you that there are indeed birds in the bush? When will they emerge and how many will there be? What is the risk-free interest rate (which we consider to be the yield on long-term U.S. bonds)? If you can answer these three questions, you will know the maximum value of the bush - and the maximum number of the birds you now possess that should be offered for it. And, of course, don’t literally think birds. Think dollars.奇蹟之一就是在伊索寓言裡，那歷久彌新但不太完整的投資觀念，也就是「二鳥在林，不如一鳥在手」，要進一步詮釋這項原則，你必須再回答三個問題，你如何確定樹叢裡有鳥兒? 牠們何時會出現，同時數量有多少? 無風險的資金成本是多少?(這裡我們假定以美國長期公債的利率為準) 如果你能回答以上三個問題，那麼你將知道這個樹叢最高的價值有多少，以及你可能可以擁有多少鳥兒，當然小鳥只是比喻，真正實際的標的還是金錢。
Aesop’s investment axiom, thus expanded and converted into dollars, is immutable. It applies to outlays for farms, oil royalties, bonds, stocks, lottery tickets, and manufacturing plants. And neither the advent of the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity nor the creation of the automobile changed the formula one iota - nor will the Internet. Just insert the correct numbers, and you can rank the attractiveness of all possible uses of capital throughout the universe.
伊索的投資寓言除了可以進一步擴大解釋成資金，也一樣可以適用在農業、油田、債券、股票、樂透彩券以及工廠等，就算是蒸汽引擎的發明、電力設備的引用或汽車的問世一點都不會改變這樣的定律，就連網際網路也一樣，只能輸入正確的數字，你就可以輕輕鬆鬆地選擇出世上資金運用的最佳去處。
Common yardsticks such as dividend yield, the ratio of price to earnings or to book value, and even growth rates have nothing to do with valuation except to the extent they provide clues to the amount and timing of cash flows into and from the business. Indeed, growth can destroy value if it requires cash inputs in the early years of a project or enterprise that exceed the discounted value of the cash that those assets will generate in later years. Market commentators and investment managers who glibly refer to "growth" and "value" styles as contrasting approaches to investment are displaying their ignorance, not their sophistication. Growth is simply a component - usually a plus, sometimes a minus - in the value equation.
一般的準則，諸如股利報酬率、本益比甚至是成長率，除非他們能夠提供一家企業未來現金流入流出的任何線索，否則與價值評估沒有一點關聯，有時成長甚至對價值有損，要是這項投資計畫早期的現金流出大於之後的現金流入折現值，有些市場的分析師與基金經理人信誓旦旦地將"成長型"與"價值型"列為兩種截然不同的投資典型，可以說是是無知，那絕不是真知灼見。成長只是一個要素之一，在評估價值時，可能是正面，也有可能是負面。
Alas, though Aesop’s proposition and the third variable - that is, interest rates - are simple, plugging in numbers for the other two variables is a difficult task. Using precise numbers is, in fact, foolish; working with a range of possibilities is the better approach.
可惜的是，雖然伊索寓言的公式與第三個變數-也就是資金成本相當簡單易懂，但要弄清楚另外兩個變數卻有相當的困難，想要明確算出這兩個變數根本就不可能，求出兩者可能的範圍倒是可行的辦法。
Usually, the range must be so wide that no useful conclusion can be reached. Occasionally, though, even very conservative estimates about the future emergence of birds reveal that the price quoted is startlingly low in relation to value. (Let’s call this phenomenon the IBT - Inefficient Bush Theory.) To be sure, an investor needs some general understanding of business economics as well as the ability to think independently to reach a well-founded positive conclusion. But the investor does not need brilliance nor blinding insights.
只不過範圍過大通常會導致結論模擬兩可，而且估計越保守所得出的價格相較於價值較越低，也就是樹叢最終出現鳥兒的數量，(我們姑且把這個現象稱之為IBT-樹叢無效率理論)，可以確定的是，投資人除了必須對於一家企業的經營有一定的了解外，並且要有能力獨立思考以獲致立論堅實的肯定結論，除此之外，投資人不須其他什麼大道理或歪理論。
At the other extreme, there are many times when the most brilliant of investors can’t muster a conviction about the birds to emerge, not even when a very broad range of estimates is imployed. This kind of uncertainty frequently occurs when new businesses and rapidly changing industries are under examination. In cases of this sort, any capital commitment must be labeled speculative.
另一個極端，有很多時候，即使是最聰明的投資人都沒有辦法提出小鳥確實會出現的證據，即使是在最寬鬆的假設下仍是如此，這種不確定性在檢驗新事業或是快速變化的產業尤其明顯，在這種狀況下，任何資金的投入都難脫投機的嫌疑。
Now, speculation - in which the focus is not on what an asset will produce but rather on what the next fellow will pay for it - is neither illegal, immoral nor un-American. But it is not a game in which Charlie and I wish to play. We bring nothing to the party, so why should we expect to take anything home?
如今投機主義-亦即不管資產真實的價值，只看下一個人會用多少價格買進的觀念-事實上，這不但不違法、也不算不道德，甚至不能說是非美國式，但也絕非查理跟我願意玩的遊戲，既然我們兩手空空參加派對，那麼我們又如何期望能從派對中滿載而歸呢?
The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities - that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future - will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.
投資與投機之間永遠是一線之隔，尤其是當所有市場的參與者都沈浸在歡愉的氣氛當中時更是如此，再也沒有比大筆不勞而獲的金錢更讓人失去理性，在經歷過這類經驗之後，再正常的人也會像參加舞會的灰姑娘一樣被沖昏了頭，他們明知在舞會中多待一會-也就是繼續將大筆的資金投入到投機的活動之上，南瓜馬車與老鼠駕駛現出原形的機率就越高，但他們還是捨不得錯過這場盛大舞會的任何一分鐘，所有人都打算繼續待到最後一刻才離開，但問題是這場舞會中的時鐘根
本就沒有指針!
Last year, we commented on the exuberance - and, yes, it was irrational - that prevailed, noting that investor expectations had grown to be several multiples of probable returns. One piece of evidence came from a Paine Webber-Gallup survey of investors conducted in December 1999, in which the participants were asked their opinion about the annual returns investors could expect to realize over the decade ahead. Their answers averaged 19%. That, for sure, was an irrational expectation: For American business as a whole, there couldn’t possibly be enough birds in the 2009 bush to deliver such a return.
去年我們對於這種失序的狀態大加批評，這實在是太不合理了，我們赫然發現投資人的預期得到超過數倍他們可能得到的報酬，一份潘偉伯證券公司在1999年進行的調查報告顯示，當投資人被問到自己預期未來十年內的年平均投資報酬有多少，答案平均是19%，這很明顯的是不當的預期，對整個美國樹叢來說，到2009年為止，根本就不可能藏有這麼多鳥兒。
Far more irrational still were the huge valuations that market participants were then putting on businesses almost certain to end up being of modest or no value. Yet investors, mesmerized by soaring stock prices and ignoring all else, piled into these enterprises. It was as if some virus, racing wildly among investment professionals as well as amateurs, induced hallucinations in which the values of stocks in certain sectors became decoupled from the values of the businesses that underlay them.
更誇張的是，目前市場參與者對於一些長期而言明顯不可能產生太高價值或甚至根本就沒有任何價值的公司，給予極高的市值評價，然而投資人依然被持續飆漲的股價所迷惑，不顧一切地將資金蜂擁投入到這類企業，這情形就好像是病毒一樣，在專業法人與散戶間廣為散播，引發不合理的股價預期而與其本身應有的價值明顯脫鉤。
This surreal scene was accompanied by much loose talk about "value creation." We readily acknowledge that there has been a huge amount of true value created in the past decade by new or young businesses, and that there is much more to come. But value is destroyed, not created, by any business that loses money over its lifetime, no matter how high its interim valuation may get.
伴隨著這種不切實際的景況而來的，還有一種荒唐的說法叫做「價值創造」，我們承諾過去數十年來，許多新創事業確實為這個世界創造出許多價值，而且這種情況還會繼續發生，但我們打死都不相信，那些終其一生不賺錢，甚至是虧錢的企業能夠創造出什麼價值，他們根本是摧毀價值，不管在這期間他們的市值曾經有多高都一樣。
What actually occurs in these cases is wealth transfer, often on a massive scale. By shamelessly merchandising birdless bushes, promoters have in recent years moved billions of dollars from the pockets of the public to their own purses (and to those of their friends and associates). The fact is that a bubble market has allowed the creation of bubble companies, entities designed more with an eye to making money off investors rather than for them. Too often, an IPO, not profits, was the primary goal of a company’s promoters. At bottom, the "business model" for these companies has been the old-fashioned chain letter, for which many fee-hungry investment bankers acted as eager postmen.
在這些案例中，真正產生的只是財富移轉的效應，而且通常都是大規模的，部份可恥的不肖商人利用根本就沒有半隻鳥的樹叢，從社會大眾的口袋中騙走大筆的金錢，(這其中也包含他們自己的朋友與親人)，事實證明泡沫市場創造出泡沫公司，這是一種賺走投資人手中的錢而不是幫投資人賺錢的幌子，通常這些幕後推手的最終目標不是讓公司賺錢，而是讓公司上市掛牌，說穿了這只不過老式連鎖信騙局的現代版，而靠手續費維生的證券商就成了專門送信的郵差幫兇。
But a pin lies in wait for every bubble. And when the two eventually meet, a new wave of investors learns some very old lessons: First, many in Wall Street - a community in which quality control is not prized - will sell investors anything they will buy. Second, speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest.
然而任何的泡沫都經不起針刺，當泡沫破滅，不可避免的會有一大票菜鳥學到教訓，第一課，不論是什麼東西，只要有人要買，華爾街那幫人都會想辦法弄來賣給你，第二課，投機這玩意兒看似簡單，其實岸潮洶湧。
At Berkshire, we make no attempt to pick the few winners that will emerge from an ocean of unproven enterprises. We’re not smart enough to do that, and we know it. Instead, we try to apply Aesop’s 2,600-year-old equation to opportunities in which we have reasonable confidence as to how many birds are in the bush and when they will emerge (a formulation that my grandsons would probably update to "A girl in a convertible is worth five in the phonebook."). Obviously, we can never precisely predict the timing of cash flows in and out of a business or their exact amount. We try, therefore, to keep our estimates conservative and to focus on industries where business surprises are unlikely to wreak havoc on owners. Even so, we make many mistakes: I’m the fellow, remember, who thought he understood the future economics of trading stamps, textiles, shoes and second-tier department stores.
在Berkshire，我們從來沒有妄想要從一堆不成氣候的公司中，挑出幸運兒，我們自認沒有這種超能力，這點我們絕對有自知之明，相反的我們試著遵循2,600年來既有的古老伊索寓言，耐心研究某些樹叢裡到底有多少鳥兒，以及他們出現的時機，(或許以後我的孫子可能會把它改為五個電話簿上的女孩，不如一個敞篷車上的女孩)，當然我們永遠沒有辦法精準地預估一家公司每年現金流入與流出的狀況，所以我們試著用比較保守的角度去估算，同時將重心鎖定在那些比較不會讓股東錯估情勢的公司上頭，即便是如此，我們還是常常犯錯，大家可能還記得我本人就曾經自稱是相當熟悉集郵、紡織、製鞋以及二流百貨公司等產業的人士。
Lately, the most promising "bushes" have been negotiated transactions for entire businesses, and that pleases us. You should clearly understand, however, that these acquisitions will at best provide us only reasonable returns. Really juicy results from negotiated deals can be anticipated only when capital markets are severely constrained and the whole business world is pessimistic. We are 180 degrees from that point.
近來，我們最看好的樹叢要算是經由協議買下整家公司，這種方法確實讓我們感到相當滿意，不過大家要記住，這類的購併交易頂多讓我們有一個合理的回報，想要有超額的報酬一定要等到資本市場非常慘淡，整個企業界普遍感到悲觀之時，機會才會出現，目前我們離那種狀況還很遠。
---
另外 ...... 我明白到我在工作時間睇 "Warren Buffett's Letters" 同寫Blog, 真的有點不道德 XD
461.67 (2.13%)
