|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2007-10-9 08:44
|
显示全部楼层
A conversation with Warren Buffett
NEW YORK (FORTUNE Magazine) - Coming from you, this plan is pretty startling. Up to now you haven't been famous for giving away money. In fact, you've been roundly criticized now and then for not giving it away. So let's cut to the obvious question: Are you ill?
No, absolutely not. I feel terrific, and when I had my last physical, in October, my doctor gave me a clean bill of health.
More from FORTUNE
A new spin on classic records
Why the iPod can be conquered
The hidden risks in bonds
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune
Warren Buffett gives it away
An interview with Buffett
How the giveaway will work
The force called the Gates Foundation
From the FORTUNE archives
Should you leave it all to the children?
If you do, you may not be doing them a favor. But if you want to, there are sensible ways of passing on what you have without depriving the kids of a feeling of achievement. (more)
Letters from Buffett
As part of his plan, Warren Buffett is sending letters to each of the five foundations that will be receiving his gifts. The letters may be found on Berkshire Hathaway's Web site. (See the letters)
Then what's going on here? Does your change in plans have something to do with Susie's death?
Yes, it does. Susie was two years younger than I, and women usually live longer than men. She and I always assumed that she would inherit my Berkshire stock and be the one who oversaw the distribution of our wealth to society, where both of us had always said it would go.
And Susie would have enjoyed overseeing the process. She was a little afraid of it, in terms of scaling up. But she would have liked doing it, and would have been very good at it. And she would really have stepped on the gas.
By that you mean that she always wanted to give away more money, faster, than you did?
Yes, she said that many times. As for me, I always had the idea that philanthropy was important today, but would be equally important in one year, ten years, 20 years, and the future generally.
And someone who was compounding money at a high rate, I thought, was the better party to be taking care of the philanthropy that was to be done 20 years out, while the people compounding at a lower rate should logically take care of the current philanthropy.
But that theory also happened to fit what you wanted to do, right?
(He laughs, hard.) And how! No question about that. I was having fun - and still am having fun - doing what I do. And for a while I also thought in terms of control of Berkshire.
I had bought effective control of Berkshire in the early 1970s, using $15 million I got when I disbanded Buffett Partnership. And I had very little money - considerably less than $1 million - outside of Berkshire. My salary was $50,000 a year.
So if I had engaged in significant philanthropy back then, I would have had to give away shares of Berkshire. I hadn't bought those to immediately give them away.
Even so, you and Susie set up the Buffett Foundation way back in the 1960s, which means you obviously expected to be giving away money sometime. What was your thinking back then?
Well, when we got married in 1952, I told Susie I was going to be rich. That wasn't going to be because of any special virtues of mine or even because of hard work, but simply because I was born with the right skills in the right place at the right time.
I was wired at birth to allocate capital and was lucky enough to have people around me early on - my parents and teachers and Susie - who helped me to make the most of that.
In any case, Susie didn't get very excited when I told her we were going to get rich. She either didn't care or didn't believe me - probably both, in fact. But to the extent we did amass wealth, we were totally in sync about what to do with it - and that was to give it back to society.
In that, we agreed with Andrew Carnegie, who said that huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society. In my case, the ability to allocate capital would have had little utility unless I lived in a rich, populous country in which enormous quantities of marketable securities were traded and were sometimes ridiculously mispriced. And fortunately for me, that describes the U.S. in the second half of the last century.
Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it's neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money.
In effect, they've had a gigantic headstart in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level.
From the fact that you've given your kids money before to set up foundations and are planning to give them more now, I gather you don't think that kind of flooding them with money is wrong.
No, I don't. What they're doing with their foundations is giving money back to society - just where Susie and I thought it should go. And they aren't just writing checks: They've put enormous thought and effort into the process.
I'm very proud of them for the way they've handled it all, and I have no doubt they're going to keep on the right track.
So what about the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and what all this means for it?
As you know, because as a director you've seen it close up, Allen Greenberg, the foundation's president, has done an excellent and thoughtful job of running it. His results-to-cost ratio is as good as I've ever seen. And he'll keep on that same path now, not just with Susie's money, but with mine too.
Actually, if I had died before Susie and she had begun to distribute our wealth, this is the foundation that would have scaled up to a much bigger size - right now it has only five employees - and become her main vehicle for giving. And the foundation anchored my plans too. Until I changed my thoughts about when to give, this was to be where my fortune would go also.
And what changed your mind?
The short answer is that I came to realize that there was a terrific foundation that was already scaled-up - that wouldn't have to go through the real grind of getting to a megasize like the Buffett Foundation would - and that could productively use my money now.
The longer answer is that over the years I had gotten to know Bill and Melinda Gates well, spent a lot of time with them having fun and, way beyond that, had grown to admire what they were doing with their foundation. I've seen them give presentations about its programs, and I'm always amazed at the enthusiasm and passion and energy they're pouring into their work. They've gone at it, you might say, with both head and heart.
Bill reads many thousands of pages annually keeping up with medical advances and means of delivering help. Melinda, often with Bill along, travels the world looking at how well good intentions are being converted into good results. Life has dealt a terrible hand to literally billions of people around the world, and Bill and Melinda are bent on reducing that inequity to the extent they possibly can.
If you think about it - if your goal is to return the money to society by attacking truly major problems that don't have a commensurate funding base - what could you find that's better than turning to a couple of people who are young, who are ungodly bright, whose ideas have been proven, who already have shown an ability to scale it up and do it right?
You don't get an opportunity like that ordinarily. I'm getting two people enormously successful at something, where I've had a chance to see what they've done, where I know they will keep doing it - where they've done it with their own money, so they're not living in some fantasy world - and where in general I agree with their reasoning. If I've found the right vehicle for my goal, there's no reason to wait.
Compare what I'm doing with them to my situation at Berkshire, where I have talented and proven people in charge of our businesses. They do a much better job than I could in running their operations.
What can be more logical, in whatever you want done, than finding someone better equipped than you are to do it? Who wouldn't select Tiger Woods to take his place in a high-stakes golf game? That's how I feel about this decision about my money.
People will be very curious, I think, as to how much your decision - and its announcement at this particular time - is connected to Bill Gates' announcement in mid-June that he would phase out of his operating responsibilities at Microsoft and begin to devote most of his time to the foundation. What's the story here?
I realize that the close timing of the two announcements will suggest they're related. But they aren't in the least. The timing is just happenstance. I would be disclosing my plans right now whether or not he had announced his move - and even, in fact, if he were indefinitely keeping on with all of his work at Microsoft.
On the other hand, I'm pleased that he's going to be devoting more time to the foundation. And I think he and Melinda are pleased to know they're going to be working with more resources.
Does it occur to you that it's somewhat ironic for the second-richest man in the world to be giving untold billions to the first-richest man?
When you put it that way, it sounds pretty funny. But in truth, I'm giving it through him - and, importantly, Melinda as well - not to him.
Some people say the Gates foundation is bureaucratic, and bureaucracy is just about your No. 1 dislike. So how do you react to that charge?
I would say that most large organizations - though Berkshire is a shining exception - are bureaucratic to some degree. Anyway, what some people really mean when they claim that the Gates foundation is bureaucratic is that big decisions don't get made by anybody except Bill and Melinda. That suits me fine. I want the two of them to make the big calls.
What is the significance of your going on the board of the Gates foundation?
Not much. The biggest reason for my doing that is if they were ever to go down on an airplane together. Beyond that, I hope to have a constructive thought now and then. But I don't think I'm as well cut out to be a philanthropist as Bill and Melinda are. The feedback on philanthropy is very slow, and that would bother me. I'd have to be too involved with a lot of people I wouldn't want to be involved with and have to listen to more opinions than I would enjoy.
In philanthropy also, you have to make some big mistakes. I know that. But it would bother me more to make the mistakes myself, rather than having someone else make them whom I trust overall to do a good job. In general, Bill and Melinda will have a better batting average than I would.
Did you talk this huge decision over with other people before deciding to go ahead with the plan?
Yes, I talked to my children and Allen Greenberg, and to four Berkshire directors, including my son Howard and Charlie Munger. I got lots of questions, and some people had qualms about the plan initially because it was such an abrupt change from what they had been anticipating.
But I'd say everybody, and that certainly includes Allen - who knows what a bear it would have been to scale up the Buffett Foundation - came around to seeing the logic of what I was proposing to do. Now all concerned can't wait to get started - particularly me.
And frankly, I have some small hopes that what I'm doing might encourage other very rich people thinking about philanthropy to decide they didn't necessarily have to set up their own foundations but could look around for the best of those that were up and running and available to handle their money.
People do that all the time with their investments. They put their money with people they think are going to do a better job than they could. There's some real merit to extending that thought to your wealth, rather than setting up something to be run after your death by a bunch of old business cronies or a staff that eventually comes to dictate the agenda.
Some version of this plan I've got is not a crazy thing for some of the next 20 people who are going to die with $1 billion or more to adopt themselves. One problem most rich people have is that they're old, with contemporaries who are not at their peak years and who don't have much time ahead of them. I'm lucky in that respect in that I can turn to younger people.
Okay, now what does that mean for Berkshire?
I'd say virtually nothing. Anybody who knows me also knows how I feel about making Berkshire as good as it can be, and that goal is still going to be there. I won't do anything differently, because I'm not capable of doing things differently. The name on the stock certificates will change, but nothing else will.
I've always made it clear to Berkshire's shareholders that my wealth from the company would go to philanthropy, so the fact that I'm starting the process is basically a nonevent for them. And, you know, though this may surprise some people, it's a nonevent for me too in some ways.
Ted Turner, whose philanthropic activities I admire enormously, once told me that his hands shook when he signed a $1 billion pledge. Well, I have zero of that. To me, there's just no emotional downside to this at all.
Won't the foundations that are getting your stock need to sell it?
Yes, in some cases. The Buffett Foundation and the kids' foundations will have to sell their stock relatively soon after they get it, because it will be their only asset - and they'll need to raise cash to give away.
The Gates foundation will have more options because it has lots of other assets, so it will have some flexibility to choose which it should turn into cash. Bill and Melinda will make the decisions about that. I'm going to totally insulate myself from any investment decisions their foundation makes, which leaves them free to do whatever they think makes sense.
Perhaps they will decide to sell bigger portions of other assets and hang on to some Berkshire. It's a great mix of businesses and wouldn't be an inappropriate asset for a foundation to own. But I won't tie the foundation up in any shape or form.
So it could be that all the shares you give annually will be sold in the market?
Yes, that may well happen. And naturally people are going to be interested in whether that selling could weigh down Berkshire's price. I don't think so in the least - and that's true even though the annual turnover ratio for Berkshire has been running only about 15% a year, which is extremely low for large-cap stocks.
Let's say the five foundations sell all the stock they get this year. If trading volume continues as it has, their selling will raise turnover to less than 17%. It would be ridiculous to think that much new selling could affect the price of the stock.
In fact, the added supply could even be beneficial in increasing the stock's liquidity and should make it more likely that Berkshire would eventually be included in the S&P 500.
I'd say this: I would not be making the gifts if they would in any way harm Berkshire's shareholders. And they won't.
This plan seems to settle the fate, over the long term, of all your Berkshire shares. Does that mean you're giving nothing to your family in straight-out gifts?
No, what I've always said is that my family won't receive huge amounts of my net worth. That doesn't mean they'll get nothing. My children have already received some money from me and Susie and will receive more.
I still believe in the philosophy - FORTUNE quoted me saying this 20 years ago - that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. [The FORTUNE article was "Should You Leave It All to the Children?" Sept. 29, 1986.]
Remember I said that way back when I was buying Berkshire, I had less than $1 million in outside cash? Well, I've made a few decent investments with that money in the years since - taking positions that were too small for Berkshire, doing some fixed-income arbitrage, and selling my interest in a bank that was split off from Berkshire.
So I'm glad to say I've got quite a bit of cash now. Overall I can - and will - use all my Berkshire shares for philanthropic purposes and will have plenty left over to provide well for all those close to me.
(巴菲特：我为什么慷慨解囊
问：这个计划出自你之口让人感到相当吃惊，在此之前，你并不以乐善好施而闻名，事实上，你偶尔还会因为没有捐款而受到各方批评。所以我先提一个最直截了当的问题：你是不是生病了？
巴菲特：没有，绝对没有。我的感觉好极了。最近的一次体检是去年10月，医生当时对我的诊断结果是非常健康。
问：现在发生的这一切究竟是怎么回事？你改变计划与苏茜过世有关吗？
巴菲特：是的，的确有关。苏茜比我小两岁，而女性的寿命通常要比男性长。我们以为，她会继承我在伯克夏公司的股票，我们的财富将在她的监督下捐赠给社会，这也是我们两人的共同愿望。而且，苏茜会乐于监督这个过程。鉴于分配的数额在逐渐提高，她会有一点点担心，但她仍然乐于做这件事，而且会做得非常好。实际上，她可能会加快分配的速度。
问：这就是说，她一直希望用比你更快的速度捐赠更多的善款？
巴菲特：是的，她生前曾多次表达过这个愿望。就我而言，我一直认为，当前的慈善事业固然重要，但1年以后、10年以后、20年以后乃至更远的将来，它依然同样重要。我认为，能够快速积累资金的人更适合管理20年后的慈善事业，而积累资金的速度相对较慢的人顺理成章应该照料当前的慈善事业。
问：这理论碰巧同样适用于你希望做的事，对吗？
巴菲特：（大笑）那还用说！这一点毫无疑问。我所做的事情让我乐在其中，而且现在仍然对它很感兴趣。有些时候，我觉得管理伯克夏公司也是件趣事。上世纪70年代初，我用解散巴菲特合伙公司（Buffett Partnership）后得到的1,500万美元买下了对伯克夏公司的有效控制权，除了伯克夏公司之外，我几乎没什么钱（远不到100万美元）。我年薪只有5万美元，因此，如果我当时就为慈善事业慷慨解囊，我就不得不拿出伯克夏的股票。我买那些股票，可不是为了立刻就送出去的。
问：虽然如此，你和苏茜在上世纪60年代就成立了巴菲特基金会，从中可以看出，你明显希望在某个时刻捐出你的财产。你当时的想法是什么？
巴菲特：嗯，我们1952年结婚，当时我就跟苏茜说我会发财。这并不是因为我有某种特殊的品质，也不是因为我辛勤地工作，而仅仅是因为我生在合适的时间、合适的地点，而且具备了合适的技能。我天生就与资本分配有着不解之缘，而且幸运的是，从一开始，我身边的人，比如我的父母、老师和苏茜，都在帮助我充分挖掘这一特长。
无论怎样，当我跟苏茜说我们会发财时，她并没有表现得非常兴奋。她要么是对此感到无所谓，要么就是还不相信我。事实上，也许两者皆有。但当我们真的积累了巨额财富时，我们在处置这笔财富的方式上完全达成了默契，那就是将它们返还给社会。在这一点上，我们同意安德鲁·卡耐基（Andrew Carnegie）的观点，卡耐基说，应该把大部分主要源自社会的巨额财富返还给社会。就我本人而言，我分配资本的能力原本不会有用武之地，幸亏我生活在一个人口众多的富裕国家，这个国家的市场上有数不胜数的可出售证券在交易，而且有时还会出现荒谬的错误定价。幸运的是，这正是美国上世纪后半叶的真实写照。
当然，苏茜和我从未想过应该把这么多钱留给子女，我们的孩子全都出类拔萃，但我觉得，从他们的成长经历以及他们得到的包括家庭教育在内的教育机会来看，他们已经占尽了优势，给他们无数金钱既不正确，也不理智。实际上，在精英至上的社会里，他们已经拥有了无可比拟的领先优势。我们应该努力维护竞争的公平性，而世代相承的巨额财富将进一步加剧不公平的竞争。
问：事实上，你之前就给过孩子成立基金会的钱，现在还计划给他们更多的钱。由此推断，你并不认为给孩子大量金钱是不对的。
巴菲特：是的，我不那么认为。他们在各自基金会的工作是把钱返还给社会，这也正是苏茜和我认为的金钱理所应当的归宿。他们的工作不仅仅是填写支票，还为这个过程付出了大量的心血和精力。我们对他们处理金钱的方式感到非常骄傲，而且我坚信他们会继续沿着正确的道路前进。
问：苏珊—汤普森—巴菲特基金会的情况如何？这一切对它来说意味着什么？
巴菲特：身为公司董事的你一直在认真观察基金会的工作，你也知道基金会总裁艾伦·格林伯格（Allen Greenberg）为管理基金会付出了大量的心血，而且成绩斐然。他采用的结果／成本比率是我所见过的最好的办法。现在，他将继续沿着同一条道路前进，他不仅要管理苏茜的钱，还要管理我的钱。事实上，如果我先苏茜而去，而她已经开始分配我们的财富，这家基金会的规模会变得比现在还要大（目前它只有5名员工），它将成为她慈善捐款的主要渠道。这个基金会也让我的计划变得更为稳健，在我改动捐献财富的时间表之前，它也是我的财富的归宿。
问：是什么促使你改变了主意？
巴菲特：简单地说，我逐渐意识到，有一个杰出的基金会已逐渐形成了规模，它不必再像巴菲特基金会那样，为了达到空前的规模而历尽千辛万苦，而且它现在能够富有成效地使用我的资金。具体地说就是，这些年来我逐渐了解了盖茨夫妇，我们在一起度过了许多美好的时光。不仅如此，我渐渐开始敬佩他们在其基金会所做的工作，我曾看过他们为基金会项目进行的演讲，他们为工作倾注的热情、激情和精力一直让我感到惊讶不已。可以说，他们两人齐心协力、全力以赴。比尔每年阅读几千页的文章，跟踪了解医学进展以及提供救助的手段。梅琳达经常与比尔一道周游世界，视察他们的善心是否结出了善果。命运的不公让全世界数十亿人口生活在水深火热之中，而比尔和梅琳达一心一意尽其所能改善这种不平等的状况。
想想看，如果你的目标是把金钱返还给社会，用以解决没有相应资金基础的真正的重大问题，你能找到什么比求助于一对天资聪颖的年轻夫妇更好的答案呢？而且，他们的思想已经得到检验，他们已经显露出发展和壮大这项事业并正确处理它的能力。这样的机会千载难逢。我认识了两位在某个领域取得巨大成功的人，而且我有幸看到了他们在这个领域里所做的一切。我知道他们会持之以恒（他们一直用自己的钱从事这项工作，这样他们就不会生活在幻想的世界里），而且我基本同意他们的理论。如果我已经找到了实现目标的合适工具，我就没必要再等下去了。
拿我和他们一起做的事情与我在伯克夏公司的工作作一番比较吧。在伯克夏，我请来有才华而且很可靠的人管理公司，他们在工作岗位上取得了显著的成绩，而且这个成绩是我无法企及的。无论你希望做什么，还有什么比知人善任更合理呢？在高额奖金的高尔夫球比赛中，谁不会选择泰格·伍兹（Tiger Woods）作为自己的代表呢？这就是我处置自己财富时的想法。
问：我想人们会非常好奇，你的决定以及你选择在这个特别的时刻宣布这一决定，与比尔·盖茨在6月中旬作出的决定有多大联系。他当时宣布将逐渐淡出微软公司的管理工作，开始把大部分精力投入他的基金会。这里有什么故事？
巴菲特：我知道，这两项决定所选择的时间如此接近，好像意味着它们之间有一定的联系。但这纯属巧合。无论盖茨是否宣布自己的行动，我都会立刻公布自己的计划。事实上，即使他永远保留他在微软公司的工作，我仍会作出这样的决定。另一方面，我很高兴他准备把更多的时间用于基金会的工作。我想，当他和梅琳达得知有更多资源可以利用时，他们会非常高兴。
问：你是否觉得全世界第二大富翁向第一大富翁赠送巨额钱财有些讽刺意味？
巴菲特：如果你从这个角度看的话，这听起来确实有些滑稽。但事实上，我是请他和梅琳达转交这笔钱，而不是把钱给他。
问：有些人说，盖茨夫妇基金会存在官僚主义作风，而你最不喜欢的就是官僚主义。你如何评价这种指责？
巴菲特：可以说，大多数大型组织多多少少存在一些官僚主义现象，但伯克夏公司是个杰出的例外。不管怎样，有些人在指责盖茨夫妇基金会存在官僚主义时，他们想表达的真正意思是，基金会的重大决策只掌握在比尔和梅琳达两个人的手中。对此，我很高兴。我希望由他们两人作出重要决定。
问：你加入盖茨夫妇基金会的董事会有何意义？
巴菲特：没什么太大的意义。我这样做的最主要原因是预防他们两人同时乘坐的飞机失事。除此之外，我希望不时为他们提供一些建设性的建议。但是，我觉得我不像比尔和梅琳达那样适合做慈善家。慈善事业的反馈非常慢，这让我很不耐烦，还不得不与许多我不想见的人频繁会面，聆听许多我不愿意听的观点。但是，我不愿意自己犯错误，我更希望让那些我完全相信能够出色完成工作的人替我犯错误。总而言之，比尔和梅琳达的平均成功率将远高于我。
问：在决定公布这一计划之前，你有没有和其他人讨论过这个重大的决定？
巴菲特：当然，我和我的孩子、艾伦·格林伯格以及包括我儿子霍华德和查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）在内的伯克夏公司的4位董事讨论过这件事。大家向我提出了许多问题，有些人起初对这个计划产生过疑虑，因为这使得他们的预想产生了突变。但我要说，所有的人（其中当然包括艾伦，他很清楚扩大巴菲特基金会将意味着什么）全都逐渐理解了我这么做的道理。现在，所有关心这一决定的人都迫不及待地希望开始实施这项计划，尤其是我。
坦率地说，我有一些小小的愿望，我希望我的行动能鼓励其他希望投身慈善事业的富人，让他们相信并不一定要成立自己的基金会，他们可以寻找已经成立而且能够处理好他们财富的基金会，然后择优而用。人们在投资时往往就采用这样的方法，他们把钱交给他们认为能够做得比自己更好的人去打理。把这种想法运用到你的财富上，同样能得到一些切实的好处。此举远胜于自己成立某个组织，并且在你过世后请一批多年的商业合作伙伴或员工负责管理，最终这些人将独断专行。还有20位身价至少为10亿美元的富翁已进入垂暮之年，他们中的一些人采纳我这个计划的部分环节也不为过。大部分富豪面临的难题是，他们年事已高，而他们同时代的人尚未进入巅峰期，而且未来也没有太多的时间。在这方面，我很幸运，可以向年轻人求助。
问：这一切对伯克夏公司来说又意味着什么呢？
巴菲特：实际上没有什么影响。任何了解我的人都会明白，我想让伯克夏公司尽可能地做到最好，这仍然是我的目标。我不会作出任何改变，因为我没有能力改变。股权证上的名字将改变，但仅此而已。
我一直在向伯克夏公司的股东明确表示，我从公司获得的财富将投向慈善事业，因此我真正开始着手实施这一计划，对他们而言只不过是煞有介事、摆摆样子而已。而且你也知道，尽管这个决定也许会让有些人感到吃惊，但从某种程度上说，我也不过是摆摆样子。我对泰德·特纳（Ted Turner，CNN创始人——译者注）的慈善行为钦佩有加，他曾告诉我，当他签下10亿美元的承诺时，他的手颤抖了。但我不会。对我而言，这个决定根本不会对情绪造成任何影响。
问：基金会收到你赠送的股票后是否会把它卖掉？
巴菲特：是的，在某些情况下的确会如此。巴菲特基金会和我的子女们的基金会在收到股票后必须尽快脱手，因为这将是他们唯一的资产，他们需要把股票兑换成现金，然后再赠送出去。盖茨夫妇基金会的选择余地要大得多，因为它名下有许多其他资产，因此它有一定的灵活性，可以选择该把哪一部分转变成现金，比尔和梅琳达将对此作出决定。我不会干预该基金会作出的任何投资决定，这样他们就能放手做他们认为是正确的事。也许他们会决定出售大部分其他资产，而保留部分伯克夏的股票，这是个绝佳的商业组合，它不会是不适合基金会拥有的资产。但是，我不会以任何形态或形式阻碍基金会的活动。
问：那么，你每年赠送出去的股票都有可能在市场上交易？
巴菲特：没错，这很有可能。人们自然会关心这种抛售行为是否会压低伯克夏公司的股价。我认为这根本不可能，即使伯克夏公司的年周转率一直保持在15%的水平上，也不会有影响，对于一只拥有庞大市值的股票来说，这一周转率是很低的。假设这5家基金会把今年获得的股票全部抛出，如果交易量与以往持平，它们的抛售行为最多把周转率提高到17%。认为大量新的抛售行为会影响伯克夏股价的想法是荒谬的，事实上，供应量的增加甚至有益于提高伯克夏股票的流动性，而且更有希望让伯克夏最终纳入标准普尔500指数。
我想告诉大家：如果我的捐赠行为会对伯克夏公司的股东造成伤害，那我就不会作出这项决定了，这一行为也不会伤害公司。
问：从长远来说，这个计划似乎将决定你持有的伯克夏所有股票的命运。这是否意味着你不会直接赠与你的家人任何财富？
巴菲特：不是这样的。我一直以来说的一句话是，我的家人不会从我的净财富中获得巨额馈赠。但这并不意味着他们什么也得不到。我的孩子已经从我和苏茜那里得到了部分钱财，而且他们还会得到更多。我仍然坚持这个观点（《财富》杂志在20年前就曾引用过我的这段话），富人留给孩子的财富应该足够他们做任何事情，而不是足够他们无所事事。
记得我前面说过在收购伯克夏公司的时候，我在公司以外的现金还远不足100万美元吗？而之后我就凭这些钱进行了一些回报丰厚的投资，我建立了一些对伯克夏公司来说微不足道的仓位，进行了一些收入固定的套利交易，并且抛售了手中持有的从伯克夏公司中拆分出去的一家银行的股份。所以，我很高兴地告诉你，我现在手头上有不少现金。总之，我能够而且会利用我在伯克夏公司持有的全部股票从事慈善事业，而且我手头还留有大量财产，以便送给所有亲近的人。)
[ 本帖最后由 酣睡者 于 2007-10-9 08:57 编辑 ] |
|
|
[复制链接]
发表于 2007-10-5 12:06
