许多投资者都跟格隆汇平台反映希望能多看到价值投资的内容，为此我们特意组织力量汇总并翻译了巴菲特对各行业投资心得，
《
历年汇总：巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得》
。您即将看到的可能是史上最全股神对行业投资的心得整理，希望对您有所帮助。
Opinion on the healthcare industry and its costs?
您对医疗行业及其成本有什么看法？
We looked at healthcare costs, which were exploding a few years ago. Workman's Comp costs have risen dramatically, and are huge for us. $6,000-$7,000 per employee. That's in inflationary part of the US economy and we and our employees can't control it.
我们看过医疗行业的成本问题，几年前它们的成本非常高。Workman's Comp公司的成本急剧上升，对于我们来说成本很高，每名员工的薪水是6000-6000美金。美国经济这时候在经历通货膨胀，我们和员工都无法控制。
Health costs will keep growing and we don't have any answers. But Charlie runs a hospital, so maybe he'll have some insights.
医疗成本会持续攀升，我们也没有应对策略。但是查理经营过一家医院，所以他可能有写看法。
[CM: The quality of the medical care delivered, including the pharmaceutical industry, has improved a lot. I don't think it's crazy for a rich country like the US to spend 15% of on healthcare, and if it rose to 16-17%, it's not a big worry.
医疗服务的治疗的质量，包括医药行业，都有很大提升。我觉得像美国这样的富裕过家话费15%的GDP在医疗领域不是什么很夸张的事情，即便是涨到了16%-17%都不足为奇。
But if other countries spend 7-8% [of GDP on healthcare] and have good systems, are we getting a good deal?
但是如果其它国家花费GDP的7%-8%，是不是我们会有好的机会呢？
•
Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes
•
URL:
•
Time: 2003
[Re: The Pharmaceutical Industry]
回复：制药行业
That industry is in a state of flux right now. It’s historically earned very good returns on invested capital, but it could well be that the world will unfold differently in the future than in the past. I’m not sure I can give you a good answer on that.
制药行业现在很不稳定。它的历史投资回报率很高，但是未来的进展和过去的可能不尽相同。我没法在这个问题上给一个确切答案。
•
Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes
•
URL:
•
Time: 2003
[CM: A lot of people have made a lot of money selling health insurance. I’ve seen it at Chairman of a central-city hospital [the Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles]. You’re right that there have been a lot of bad ethics. A lot of good ethics, too.
查理芒格：很多人通过卖保险赚了很多钱。我在中央城市主席医院看到过。你说的没错，医疗行业有很多不太好的风气。当然也是有好的道德标准的。
Generally, [investing in the healthcare area] goes into the “too hard” pile – unless Warren’s been keeping something from me.]
总的来说，投资医疗行业对我们来说会被归为“太难”那一类——除非沃伦悄悄藏着一些不告诉我。
No, we’ve never done anything in healthcare.
是的，我们从来没有投资过医疗行业。
•
Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2006 Tilson Notes
•
URL:
•
Time: 2006
[Re: fixing the U.S. Healthcare System]
回复：修正美国医疗体系
Munger: It’s too tough. We can’t solve that one. We try to look for easy problems. We don’t try tough things. Sometimes life hands you a very tough problem you have to wrestle with – not financial problems for us, but personal ones.
查理芒格：这太难了，我们无法解决这个问题，我们想去解决的是简单的问题，不是这种难搞定的问题。有时候生活递给你一个十分艰难的问题，你必须去搏斗——对于我们来说这类问题不是财务上的问题，而是个人的问题。
If we were looking at a private-sector solution, we’d look for low distribution costs. You don’t want a lot of revenue soaked up in frictional costs, but I don’t know how to do that. If we’re paying 15% of GDP [for healthcare], you’d think someone would figure it out. Maybe this will come up in the upcoming presidential campaign.
如果我们在寻找一个私营部门的解决方案，我们会寻找低的分销成本。你不会愿意看到大量的盈利磨灭在摩擦成本里面，但我也不清楚要怎么才能做到。
•
Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes
•
URL:
•
Time: 2007
[Re: Pharma? How do you value the pipeline of drug companies?]
回复：那制药行业呢？您怎么对制药公司正在研发的药品估值？
WB: Unlike many businesses, when we invest in pharma, we don’t know the answer on the pipeline, and it’ll be a different pipeline 5 years from now anyway. We don’t know whether Pfizer or Merck, etc, have a better chance, or which of those will come out with a blockbuster. But we do feel we have a group of companies bought at a fair price that, overall, will do well and should offer chances for decent profits. These companies are doing very important things. I could not tell you the potential in the pipeline. A group approach makes sense. It is not the way we would go at banks. If you buy pharma at a reasonable multiple, you will probably do okay 5-10 years from now.
沃伦：跟别的行业不一样，我们在投资制药行业时无法对其研发的药品下个结论，毕竟五年之后这个药品可能就大不相同了。我们也不知道Pfizer（瑞辉，美国制药公司）或者Merck(默克，美国制药公司)这些公司里面是不是存在更好的机会，还是这些企业会制作出下一个火爆市场的药品。不过我们能确定是，我们的的确确在合理的价格买入了一组制药公司，它们能够经营良好，并且提供了赚取良好回报的机会。这类公司做的业务都十分重要，我无法告诉你有潜力的药剂是什么。设置投资组合是有意义的，这跟我们对待银行也采取的方法不一样。如果你在合理的倍数下买入了制药公司，5-10年的收益率可能是很不错的。
•
Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2008 Boodell Notes
•
URL:
•
Time: 2008
Berkshire has invested in several insurance companies, would you go into the health insurance business?
伯克希尔投资了一些保险公司，您会投资一些医疗保险公司嘛？
No. Health insurance is so ingrained into national policy that it is a tough business. I’m not really that excited about it from a business perspective. I don’t want to write policies with high loan loss ratios. That being said, I would buy the stock of an undervalued healthcare insurer.
不会。医疗保险跟国家政策相关性太强了，所以这个行业并不好做。从商业的角度来看，我对这个行业并不感兴趣。我不希望提出贷款损失率很高的的条款。话虽如此，我还是会买入被低估的医疗保险股。
•
Source: Q&A with 6 Business Schools
•
URL:
•
Time: Feb 2009
What do you think of the telecoms industry?
您怎么看待通讯行业？
I don't have the faintest idea how to evaluate what telecom companies will look like down the road. I only understand a little of what they do. I suppose if you gave me some information, I could regurgitate it back to you but in terms of understanding their economic characteristics down the road, I don't know. Charlie, what do you know about the telecom business?
我对如何评估通讯公司将来会发展成什么样子一点想法也没有，我对它们知之甚少。如果你提供给我一些信息，我能提供一些反馈给你，但是就理解通信行业的本质来说我真的不了解。查理，你对通信行业有什么看法？
[CM: Less than you do.]
[查理慢歌：我知道还没有你多。]
I know people will be drinking Coke, using Gillette blades and eating Snickers bars in 10-20 years and have rough idea of how much profit they'll be making. But I don't know anything about telecom.
我知道人们可能在10-20年之后还会喝可口可乐，用吉列的剃须刀，吃士力架，我也大概知道这些能够的获利情况，但是对于通信行业我不太了解。
It doesn't bother me. Somebody will make money on cocoa beans, but not me. I don't worry about what I don't know -- I worry about being sure about what I do know.
我不为之困扰。总有些人能在咖啡豆上挣钱，只不过这个人不是我而已。我不担心自己对某些事情的无知——我担心的是对自己知道的东西都确信无疑。
[CM: Berkshire in its history has made money betting on sure things.]
[查理芒格：伯克希尔曾经就在自己确信的事情上赌了一把。]
We might buy some junk bonds in that business [telecom], and we have, but we expect losses in junk bonds -- though we expect a decent result -- because we're dealing with institutions that have demonstrated problems. In some cases -- not at all with Level 3 -- there are management issues. We expect to have significant losses, and we haven't seen our biggest loss yet, believe me. It's like being an insurer of substandard risks -- you'll have more accidents, but can charge a premium.
我们可能会在通信行业里买入一些垃圾债券，我们确实也买了一些。虽然我希望收益良好，但我们确实面临着损失，因为这个行业确实出现了一些问题。有些公司面临着管理问题——不仅仅是Level 3面临这样的问题（美国一家通信公司）。我们预计将来会面临严重损失，虽然目前还没有，但是肯定会的。就好像是为次标准风险承保一样——你会面临着更多的事故，但是可以溢价收费。
We don't buy businesses in which 15 will be train wrecks and 85 will work out OK.
