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。
Do you invest based on trends or sectors?
您是根据潮流趋势进行投资,还是根据行业来投资?
We don’t play big trends like demographic trends. They just don’t mean that much. There’s too much money to be made year to year than worry about trends that take ten years to play out. I can’t think of one investment we’ve ever made based on a macro or demographic trend.
我们不会根据趋势进行投资,比如像人口趋势这样的,这些潮流趋势本身并没有太多意义。我们每年都需要对大量的资金进行投资,而为那些潜伏期长达数几年的潮流趋势担心是不值得的。我想不出来我们曾经有哪次是根据宏观、或者微观趋势进行投资的。
[CM: Not only that, but we’ve missed the biggest commodity boom in history – and we’ll continue to miss things like this!]
[查理芒格:不仅如此,我们的的确确还错过了历史上最大的商品大繁荣时期—将来我们还会继续跟这样的趋势无缘]
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2006 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2006
What do you think about the utility industry?
您怎么看待公用事业行业?
I have thought about that a lot because you can put big money in it. I have even thought of buying the entire businesses. But I don't quite understand the game in terms of how it is going to develop with deregulation. I can see how it destroys a lot of value through the high cost producer once they are not protected by a monopoly territory.
我对这个领域思考过很多,毕竟这是一个可以投很多钱的行业。我甚至想过要把整个行业都收入囊中。但是我对这个行业究竟要怎么玩还是不太清楚,不了解在管制放松的情况下这个行业会如何发展。我觉得,一旦备有了垄断领域的保护,该行业公司的价值很容易被高成本生产商摧毁。
I don't for sure see who benefits and how much. Obviously the guy with very low cost power or some guy has hydro-power at two cents a KwH has a huge advantage. But how much of that he gets to keep or how extensively he can send that outside his natural territory, I haven't been able to figure that out so I really don’t know what the Industry will look like in ten years. But it is something I think about and if I ever develop any insights that call for action, I will act on them. Because I think I can understand the attractiveness of the product. All the aspects of certainty of users need and the fact it is a bargain and all of that. I understand. I don't understand who is going to make the money in ten years. And that keeps me away.
我不确定这个行业里谁能获益,或是能获益多少。很显然的是,有低成本能源的公司或者是成本低到2美分一度电的混合动力源的公司有巨大的优势。但是我不清楚公司能把这个优势保存多久的,以及它们能否把这个优势延展到自己的自然资源之外,所以我无法看清在10年之后这类公司能发展成什么样子。但是我会一直关注这个行业,一旦有想法就会去付出行动。因为我觉得我能够理解这类行业的吸引点。确定的用户需求,相对便宜的股价,这些都是能够理解吸引点。但是我无法理解的是这个行业里的哪个企业能够在未来十年里赚钱。这个原因让我退避三舍。
• Source: Lecture at the University of Florida Business School
• URL:
• Time: October 15th 1998
What do you think of utilities?
您怎么看待公共事业?
The production of electricity is a huge business and it's not inconceivable that we'd invest heavily here.
发电行业是庞大的产业,所以毫无疑问我们会在这个领域重仓投资。
The Public Utilities Holding Company Act [PUCA], written in 1935, has a lot of rules about what the parent company of a utility can do. It was set up to check abuses that existed then, so it was appropriate at the time. But I don't think there's anything pro-social about limiting Berkshire Hathaway's ability to acquire utilities today. We might have done one or two acquisitions in past years but for PUCA.
1935年诞生的《公用事业控股公司法案》(PUCA)对公用事业的母公司的行为做出了大量规定。它的诞生是为了监控当时存在的违规行为,在当时看是合理的。但是我认为,时至今日,再限制伯克希尔哈撒韦收购公用事业公司跟社会道德准则是毫不相关的。由于PUCA法案,我们在过去几年本来要完成的一两项收购案也并没有完成。
[Regarding the Californian Power Crisis] With deregulation, the incentives [for power producers] were changed such that instead of wanting abundant supplies, they wanted tight supplies, which would result in higher prices.
(关于加利福尼亚电力公司危机)随着管制放松,对发电公司的激励变化导致他们希望供应紧张,而不是充足的供应,这最终导致价格提高。
You can't take utilities with a cost of X, invite new producers in with a cost of 3X, and expect prices to go down.
你不能消灭掉那些成本花费只有X倍的公司,然后替换成成本花费有3X的供应商,然后期待价格会降低。
The old system strikes me as better for society.
这套旧体系说是为社会服务,确实是雷到我了。
[CM: "The old system had the NIMBY [not in my back yard] problem. If you let unreasonable, self-centered people make decisions, you'll get into trouble. We may be making the same mistake today with oil refineries."]
[查理芒格:旧的体质面临的是“事不关己高高挂起”的问题。如果让不遵从逻辑、从自我出发的人来做决定,我们肯定会遇到麻烦。炼油厂这个行业现在可能也面临着同样的问题。]
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2001 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: April 2001
In the domestic soft drink model, is it winner take all, or is there room for three competitors?
在国内的软饮板块里,是一家独大,还是能容纳三家竞争?
Sure, there's room for more than one. I think Coke's market share will grow pretty much year after year. We're talking tenths of a percent, but tenths of a percent are important.
毫无疑问,这个市场肯定还是能够多容纳一家公司的。我觉得可口可乐的市场份额每年都会有大幅度增长。虽然我们现在说的是十分之一,但是十分之一也很重要。
The U.S. market is 10 billion cases, so one percent is 100 million cases. It's interesting how regional tastes can be: Dr. Pepper may have a far bigger market share in Texas than in Minnesota ... You can make money with a soft drink company that doesn't dominate the business. You can do a lot better with one that does dominate, but it's not winner take all. It's not like two newspapers in a town of 100,000 or 200,000. There are certain businesses that are winner takes all.
美国市场是100亿的大蛋糕,1%就是1亿。很有趣的一点是区域口味差异很大,在德克萨斯州,Dr. Pepper的市场份额比在明尼苏达州要多得多…即便一家公司不是行业老大,也是能够从它身上投资赚钱的。当然从一个有垄断优势的企业身上确实能赚得很多,但并不是只能一家独大。这不像那种在10万-20万的小镇上的报社,这种情况才会形成一家独大的垄断局面。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 1997
• URL:
• Time: May 1997
What do you think of the airline industry?
您怎么看待航空业?
"The big problem is not aggregate costs, but costs versus competitors." Buffett recalled US Air's difficulties competing against Southwest and concluded, "If your costs are out of line, you're going to get killed eventually."
[Munger: "Airline pilot unions are really tough. It's interesting to see people paid as well as airline pilots to have such a tough union. No airline can afford a shutdown very long."]
If you're in a business that cannot take a long strike, then you're playing a game of chicken with labor. Ironically, if you're weak, you're in a stronger negotiating position.
“累积成本不是主要问题,跟竞争对手对比成本才是”, 巴菲特回忆起美国空军在与西南航空公司的竞争中遇到的困难,并总结说:“如果成本远超预算,企业最终就会垮掉。
[芒格:“航空飞行员工会都十分难搞。很难想象那些跟飞行员拿着同样报酬的人会组织一个如此难搞定的工会。没有哪条航线能够受得起长期停运的。”]
如果你在一个无法经受长期罢工停业的行业里,你可能就像在玩老鹰捉小鸡的游戏一样。很讽刺的是如果处于弱势,你其实会有更强大的谈判地位。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2001 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: April 2001
What do you think of the banking business model?
您对于银行业怎么看?
• Banking is a good business - many banks earn high returns on tangible equity
• 银行业是个很好的行业 – 很多银行都有很高的有形资产回报率。
• “Charlie and I have been surprised at how much profitability banks have, given that it seems like a commodity business.”
• 查理和我都对银行的高收益感到惊讶,从这点来看银行业有点像零售行业。
• Underestimated how sticky customers are and how unaware they are of fees banks charge them
• 我们低估了银行客户的粘性,也低估他们对银行收费无意识的程度。
• If you have a well run bank, you don’t need to be the #1 bank in an area
• 如果你的有一家经营良好的银行,那么这家银行是不是龙头老大无所谓。
• Bank ROA is not highly correlated to size
• 银行的ROA(资产回报率)跟体量没有多大关系
• You may have to pay 3x tangible equity to buy a bank
• 要买下一家银行你可能得支付三倍有形资产的价格
• Only problem with banks is that sometimes they get crazy and do dumb things...’91 was a good example
• 银行存在的唯一问题是它们有时候会发展得特别疯狂,做出一下傻事。比如91事件。
• If a bank doesn’t do dumb things on the asset side, it will make good money
• 如果银行不在资产上做出傻事,它就稳打稳赚钱。
• Source: Buffett Vanderbilt Notes
• URL:
• Time: Jan 2005
We've been somewhat surprised at how well banks have done. Some have generated 20% or greater returns on tangible equity over many years, though this is in part due to increasing leverage.
我们一直对银行能经营得这么好感到惊奇,有的银行甚至在多年内维持了20%或以上的有形资产收益率,虽然其中有些得益于杠杆的增加。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2002 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2002
Banking, if you can just stay away from following the fads and making bad loans, has been a remarkably good business. Since WW II, ROE for banks that have stayed out of trouble has been good. Some large well-run banks earn 20% ROE. I've been surprised that margins in banking haven't been competed away.
如果银行不跟随潮流,也不放坏账,那它就是一个非常好的行业。 自第二次世界大战以来,在困境之外的银行其ROE(净资产收益率)一直很好。 一些运营良好的大型银行ROE高达20%。 令我惊讶的是,银行业的利润并没有被挤掉。
It's pretty extraordinary that institutions competing against each other without real competitive advantages can all make high returns. Part of it is higher loan to value ratios than in past years. Some banks get into trouble making bad loans, but you don't have to.
令人诧异的是,这些没有真正竞争优势的银行互相竞争,却也还能拥有高回报率。部分原因是因为贷款比率比过去几年提高了。有的银行因为放坏账而陷入困境,但是这种问题是可以避免的。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2003
Financial companies are more difficult to analyze than other companies. They can report whatever earnings they want – it’s an easy game to play. For banks, earnings depend on loans and the reserves set aside. It’s easy to change and manipulate the reserves.
金融类公司比其它类别的公司都要难研究。他们可以随便报一个自定的营收数字—这个游戏对他们来说很简单。对于银行来说,营收取决于贷款和存款准备金。而操控存款准备金的数额是很容易的。
With a company like WD-40 or a brick company, the financials are easy to analyze. But with financial [companies] it’s tough, especially when you throw in derivatives.
像WD-40(石油制剂品牌公司)或者制砖厂这些公司的财务报表就很容易分析。但是分析金融企业就很难,尤其是还要考虑金融衍生品的时候。
There were very high grade, financially sophisticated people who were on the boards of the GSEs [Government-Sponsored Enterprises, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] and they were not negligent, but it’s very tough [to detect the shenanigans that went on].
有很多担任政府企业(比如房利美和房地美)董事会成员的人,他们有资深的财务知识,也很尽职尽责,但是对这些人来说要检查假账也是很难的。
Charlie and I were on the board of Salomon and Charlie was on the audit committee, and [it’s just impossible to evaluate thousands of transactions]. You’ll just have to accept that with insurance companies, banks and other financial companies – it’s just a more dangerous field to analyze.
我和查理之前是Salomon公司的董事会成员,查理在审计会员会任职,我们也觉得去评估成千上万的交易几乎是不可能的。你必须的承认这点,保险行业、银行、还有其它的金融公司比其它的公司研究起来要“危险”得多。
[CM: Where you have complexity, by nature you can have fraud and mistakes. This will always be true of financial companies, including ones run by governments. If you want accurate numbers from financial companies, you’re in the wrong world.]
[查理芒格:一旦你有疑虑,本质上你面临的是欺骗和失误。对于金融类公司更是这样,即便是那些由政府经营的也是如此,如果你想要找到上市公司精准无误的财报数字,那么你来错地方了。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2005 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2005
[Q - Small regional banks - what would you look at before you buy?]
[问题-在买小的地方性银行之前,您会考虑哪些方面?]
WB: It is hard to make a categorical decision about regional banks. So much depends on the character of the institution. It will be a reflection of the CEO you have. A bank can mean anything. It can be an institution that is doing all sorts of crazy things. The Bank of Commonwealth was an example. We owned a bank in Rockford, Illinois, run by Dean Aback—he would always run a super, sound bank.
巴菲特:很难给地方性银行做出类别划分,这主要取决于银行的角色是什么,有可能跟CEO个人的特质有关。银行也有各种各样的。它可能是采取了各种疯狂举动的银行,比如联邦银行。也可能是一家经营十分平稳的银行,比如我们曾经持有过的在伊利诺伊州的Rockford银行,由Dean Aback经营。
You should know the culture of the management and the institution before making the decision to buy a bank. We own Wells Fargo and M&T, but it doesn’t mean they are immune. But likely they are immune from institutional stupidity. There was a wise man that said there are more banks than bankers. If you think about that a while, you will get my point.
你应该要了解管理层和企业的文化,然后再决定要不要买。我们持有富国银行和M&T银行,但是这并不代表它们就有免疫功能。只不过这两家公司不会做出一般机构会做的蠢事儿。曾经有个聪明人说了这样一句话:世界上的银行比银行家要多。如果你仔细想想这句话,你就能理解到我的意思。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2008 Boodell Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2008
You’ve recently invested in Goldman Sachs and GE. Is the financial sector a good buy right now?
你最近买了高盛和通用电气。现在是金融板块买入的好时机嘛?
No sector is a good buy unless you understand the business. However, I do believe that there is good value and great opportunity now in the financial sector because it is extremely unpopular. Sector’s themselves don’t make good buys, companies that are undervalued make good buys. You know how to value a business, you project the future cash flows discounted to present and buy with a margin of safety. The earnings prospects need to be greater than the current value. Anything that is unpopular is aways great to look at. If I was getting out of school right now, I would take a look.
除非你对这个行业很了解,否则没有哪个行业适合买入这一说法。但是我确实觉得现在对于金融行业来说存在巨大的价值和机会,因为这个行业现在极其的受欢迎。行业里面本身不会产生好的买入时机,是那些被低估的企业存在好的买入时机。你要知道如何对企业进行估值,然后将企业未来产生的现金流折现,在有安全边际的情况下再买入。企业未来的盈利状况要比当前的价值水平要好。任何目前不受欢迎的企业都十分值得去关注,如果我现在刚刚从学校出来,我就会去看这些行业。
• Source: Q&A with 6 Business Schools
• URL:
• Time: Feb 2009
Your opinion of the gambling industry?
您怎么看待博彩行业?
I don’t know about which stocks to recommend, but, as long as we’re talking about the legal ones, gambling companies will have a perfectly good future. The desire of people to gamble is very high, including in stocks. Day trading comes very close to gambling. People like to gamble. If there’s a football game, especially if it’s boring, you’ll enjoy it more if you bet a few bucks. The human propensity to gamble is huge.
我没有什么推荐的股票,但是如果单只那些合法的博彩公司的话,我觉得它们还是有很好的发展前景的。人们想去赌博的渴望很高,包括股票这个领域。股票日交易跟赌博很相似。人们喜欢赌博,如果现在有一场球赛,尤其是那种很无聊的球赛,你要是投了一点赌注肯定会看得更尽兴。人们倾向赌博的心是很强的。
When it was only legal in Nevada, you had to travel or break laws to gamble, but now states are legalizing it. The easier it is, the more people who will gamble.
以前只有内华达州赌博合法,所以人们要违法去到很远的地方赌博,但是现在政府已经把赌博合法化了。赌博越容易,人们就越愿意去赌。
People will always want to gamble. I’m not a prude about it, but to quite an extent, gambling is a tax on ignorance. You just put it in and guys like me don’t pay the taxes – it relieves taxes on those who don’t gamble. I find it socially revolting when a government preys on its citizens rather than serving them.
人们总是愿意去赌博的。我不是说赌博不好,但是赌博从很大程度上来说就是对无知之人征收税务的一种行为。你把赌博的盒子放在那儿,很多像我一样的人不会去“交税”-对于不赌博的人来说这减轻了税务。我觉得政府让公民牺牲在赌博上,而不是去为公民服务这个行为让人反感。
Munger: I would argue that casinos use clever psychological tricks [to get people to gamble], some of which are harmless, but a lot of grievous injury has been done. You won’t find a lot of gambling companies in Berkshire’s portfolio. [Applause]
查理芒格:我觉得赌场会用一些巧妙的心里技巧诱惑人们去赌博,其中有些是无大害的,但是也造成了很多严重的伤害。在伯克希尔哈撒韦的投资组合中你不会找到太多的博彩公司。
• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes
• URL:
• Time: 2007
利益声明:本文内容和意见仅代表作者个人观点,作者未持有该公司股票,作者提供的信息和分析仅供投资者参考,据此入市,风险自担!
·END·