|
|
|
格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们
THE SUPERINVESTORS OF GRAHAM-AND-DODDSVILLE
－巴菲特1984年在哥伦比亚大学的著名演讲（上）
blogbuffett 编辑
１９８４年在庆祝格雷罕姆与多德合著的《证券分析》发行５０周年大会上，巴菲特－这位格雷厄姆在哥伦比亚大学的投资课上唯一给了“A＋”的最优秀的学生进行了一次题为“格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们” (The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville)”的演讲，在他演讲中回顾了50年来格雷厄姆的追随者们采用价值投资策略持续战胜市场的无可争议的事实，总结归纳出价值投资策略的精髓，在投资界具有非常大的影响力。
THE SUPERINVESTORS OF GRAHAM-AND-DODDSVILLE
Tilsonfunds EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is an edited transcript of a talk given at Columbia University in 1984 commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Security Analysis , written by Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd. This specialized volume first introduced the ideas later popularized in The Intelligent Investor . Buffett's essay offers a fascinating study of how Graham's disciples have used Graham's value investing approach to realize phenomenal success in the stock market.
Is the Graham and Dodd "look for values with a significant margin of safety relative to prices" approach to security analysis out of date? Many of the professors who write textbooks today say yes. They argue that the stock market is efficient; that is, that stock prices reflect everything that is known about a company's prospects and about the state of the economy. There are no undervalued stocks, these theorists argue, because there are smart security analysts who utilize all available information to ensure unfailingly appropriate prices. Investors who seem to beat the market year after year are just lucky. "If prices fully reflect available information, this sort of investment adeptness is ruled out," writes one of today's textbook authors.
格雷厄姆与多德追求“价值远超过价格的安全保障”，这种证券分析方法是否已经过时?目前许多撰写教科书的教授认为如此。他们认为，股票市场是有效率的市场；换言之，股票价格已经充分反应了公司一切己知的事实以及整体经济情况：这些理论家认为，市场上没有价格偏低的股票，因为聪明的证券分析师将运用全部的既有资讯，以确保适当的价格。投资者能经年累月地击败市场，纯粹是运气使然。“如果价格完全反应既有的资讯，则这类的投资技巧将不存在。”一位现今教科书的作者如此与写道。
Well, maybe. But I want to present to you a group of investors who have, year in and year out, beaten the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index. The hypothesis that they do this by pure chance is at least worth examining. Crucial to this examination is the fact that these winners were all well known to me and pre-identified as superior investors, the most recent identification occurring over fifteen years ago. Absent this condition - that is, if I had just recently searched among thousands of records to select a few names for you this morning -- I would advise you to stop reading right here. I should add that all of these records have been audited. And I should further add that I have known many of those who have invested with these managers, and the checks received by those participants over the years have matched the stated records.
或许如此！但是，我要提供一组投资者的绩效供各位参考，他们长期的表现总是超越史坦普500种股价指数。他们的绩效即使纯属巧合，这项假说至少也值得我们加以审查。审查的关键事实是，我早就熟识这些赢家，而且长年以来便视他们为超级投资者，最近的认知也有十五年之久。缺少这项条件——换言之，如果我最近才从成千上万的记录中挑选几个名字，并且在今天早上提供给各位——我建议各位立即停止阅读本文。我必须说明，所有的这些记录都经过稽核。我必须再说明，我认识许多上述经理人的客户，他们长年以来所收取的支票确实符合既有的记录。
Before we begin this examination, I would like you to imagine a national coin-flipping contest. Let's assume we get 225 million Americans up tomorrow morning and we ask them all to wager a dollar. They go out in the morning at sunrise, and they all call the flip of a coin. If they call correctly, they win a dollar from those who called wrong. Each day the losers drop out, and on the subsequent day the stakes build as all previous winnings are put on the line. After ten flips on ten mornings, there will be approximately 220,000 people in the United States who have correctly called ten flips in a row. They each will have won a little over $1,000.
在进行审查之前，我要各位设想—场全国性的掷铜板大赛。让我们假定，全美国2．25亿的人口在明天早晨起床时都掷出一枚一美元的铜板。早晨太阳升起时，他们都走到门外掷铜板，并猜铜板出现的正面或反面。如果猜对了，他们将从猜错者的手中赢得一美元。每大都有输家遭到淘汰，奖金则不断地累积。经过十个早晨的十次投掷之后，全美国约有2．2万人连续十次猜对掷铜板的结果。每人所赢得的资金约超过1000美元。
Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this, human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest, but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is, and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.
现在，这群人可能会开始炫耀自己的战绩，此乃人的天性使然。他们可能保持谦虚的态度，但在鸡尾酒宴会中，他们偶尔会以此技巧吸引异性的注意，并炫耀其投掷铜板的奇异洞察力。
Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers, in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who, by this exercise, each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost, $225 million would have been won.
假定赢家都可以从输家手中得到适当的奖金，再经过十天，约有215个人连续二十次猜对掷铜板的结果，每个人并赢得大约100万美元的奖金。输家总共付出2．25亿美元，赢家则得到2．25亿美元。
By then, this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on "How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning." Worse yet, they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with, " If it can't be done, why are there 215 of us?"
这时候，这群人可能完全沉迷在自己的成就中：他们可能开始著书立说：“我如何每天早晨工作30秒，而在二十天之内将—美元变成100万美元。”更糟的是，他们会在全国各地参加讲习会，宣扬如何有效地投掷铜板，并且反驳持怀疑态度的教授说，“如果这是不可能的事，为什么会有我们这215个人呢?”
By then some business school professor will probably be rude enough to bring up the fact that if 225 million orangutans had engaged in a similar exercise, the results would be much the same - 215 egotistical orangutans with 20 straight winning flips.
但是，某商学院的教授可能会粗鲁地提出—项事实，如果2．25亿只猩猩参加这场大赛，结果大致上也是如此——有215只自大的猩猩将连续赢得20次的投掷。
I would argue, however, that there are some important differences in the examples I am going to present. For one thing, if (a) you had taken 225 million orangutans distributed roughly as the U.S. population is; if (b) 215 winners were left after 20 days; and if (c) you found that 40 came from a particular zoo in Omaha, you would be pretty sure you were on to something. So you would probably go out and ask the zookeeper about what he's feeding them, whether they had special exercises, what books they read, and who knows what else. That is, if you found any really extraordinary concentrations of success, you might want to see if you could identify concentrations of unusual characteristics that might be causal factors.
然而，我必须说明，前述事例和我即将提出的案例，两者之间存在着若干重大差异。旨先，如果(a)你所选择的2．25亿只猩猩的分布状况大致上和美国的人口分布相同；如果(b)经过20天的竞赛，只剩下215只赢家；如果(c)你发现其中有40只猩猩来自于奥玛哈的某个动物园，则其中必有蹊跷。于是，你会询问猩猩管理员各种问题，它们吃什么饲料、是否做特殊的运动、阅读什么书籍……换言之，如果你发现成功案例有非比寻常的集中现象，则你希望判定此异常的特色是否是成功的原因。
Scientific inquiry naturally follows such a pattern. If you were trying to analyze possible causes of a rare type of cancer -- with, say, 1,500 cases a year in the United States -- and you found that 400 of them occurred in some little mining town in Montana, you would get very interested in the water there, or the occupation of those afflicted, or other variables. You know it's not random chance that 400 come from a small area. You would not necessarily know the causal factors, but you would know where to search.
科学的调查也遵循此一形态。如果你试图分析某种罕见的癌症原因——例如，美国每年只有1500个病例——而你发现蒙大拿州的某个矿区小镇便产生400个病例，则你必然对当地的饮水、病患的职业或其他种种变数产生兴趣。你知道，在—个小镇中发生400个病例，绝不是随机因素所造成。虽然你未必了解病因，但你知道从哪里着手调查。
I submit to you that there are ways of defining an origin other than geography. In addition to geographical origins, there can be what I call an intellectual origin. I think you will find that a disproportionate number of successful coin-flippers in the investment world came from a very small intellectual village that could be called Graham-and-Doddsville. A concentration of winners that simply cannot be explained by chance can be traced to this particular intellectual village.
除了地理国家，还有其他方式可以界定起源。除了地理的起源，还有我所谓“智力的起源”。我认为各位将在投资领域发现，不成比例的铜板投掷赢家来自于一个极小的智力村庄．它可以称为“格雷厄姆一多德都市”。这个特殊智力村存在着许多赢家．这种集中现象绝非巧合所能够解释。
Conditions could exist that would make even that concentration unimportant. Perhaps 100 people were simply imitating the coin-flipping call of some terribly persuasive personality. When he called heads, 100 followers automatically called that coin the same way. If the leader was part of the 215 left at the end, the fact that 100 came from the same intellectual origin would mean nothing. You would simply be identifying one case as a hundred cases. Similarly, let's assume that you lived in a strongly patriarchal society and every family in the United States conveniently consisted of ten members. Further assume that the patriarchal culture was so strong that, when the 225 million people went out the first day, every member of the family identified with the father's call. Now, at the end of the 20-day period, you would have 215 winners, and you would find that they came from only 21.5 families. Some naive types might say that this indicates an enormous hereditary factor as an explanation of successful coin-flipping. But, of course, it would have no significance at all because it would simply mean that you didn't have 215 individual winners, but rather 21.5 randomly distributed families who were winners.
在某些情况下，即使非比寻常的集中现象也可能不重要。或许有100个只是模仿某一位极具说服力的领导者，而依其主张来猜测铜板的投掷结果。当他猜正面，100个追随者也会自动地做相同的猜测。如果这一位领导者是属于最后215位赢家之一，则这100也便属于同一个智力起源，这项事实便不具有任何意义，因为100个案例实际上只代表一个案例。同理，假定你生活在一个父权结构极为严密的社会，而美国每一个家庭都恰好以父亲马首是瞻。20天之后，你将发现215位赢家是来自于21．5个家庭。若干天真的分析师可能因此而认为，成功地猜测钢板投掷的结果，其中具有高度的遗传因素。当然，这实际上不具有任何意义，因为你所拥有的不是215位个别赢家，而只是21．5个随机分布的家庭。
In this group of successful investors that I want to consider, there has been a common intellectual patriarch, Ben Graham. But the children who left the house of this intellectual patriarch have called their "flips" in very different ways. They have gone to different places and bought and sold different stocks and companies, yet they have had a combined record that simply cannot be explained by the fact that they are all calling flips identically because a leader is signaling the calls for them to make. The patriarch has merely set forth the intellectual theory for making coin-calling decisions, but each student has decided on his own manner of applying the theory.
我所要考虑的这一群成功投资者，共有一位共同的智力族长—— 本杰明·格雷厄姆。但是，这些离开此智力家族的孩童，都是依据非常不同的方法猜测他们自己的“铜板”。他们各自前往不同的地方，买卖不同的股票和企业，但他们的综合绩效绝对无法用随机因素加以解释。他们做相同的猜测，并不是因为领导者下达某一项指令，因此也无法用这种方式解释他们的表现。族知只提供了猜测铜板的智力理论，每位学生都必须自行决定如何运用这项理论。
The common intellectual theme of the investors from Graham-and-Doddsville is this: they search for discrepancies between the value of a business and the price of small pieces of that business in the market. Essentially, they exploit those discrepancies without the efficient market theorist's concern as to whether the stocks are bought on Monday or Thursday, or whether it is January or July, etc. Incidentally, when businessmen buy businesses, which is just what our Graham & Dodd investors are doing through the purchase of marketable stocks -- I doubt that many are cranking into their purchase decision the day of the week or the month in which the transaction is going to occur. If it doesn't make any difference whether all of a business is being bought on a Monday or a Friday, I am baffled why academicians invest extensive time and effort to see whether it makes a difference when buying small pieces of those same businesses. Our Graham & Dodd investors, needless to say, do not discuss beta, the capital asset pricing model, or covariance in returns among securities. These are not subjects of any interest to them. In fact, most of them would have difficulty defining those terms. The investors simply focus on two variables: price and value.
来自“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资者所具备的共同智力结构是：他们探索企业的价值与该企业市场价格之间的差异。事实上，他们利用其间的差异，却不在意效率市场理论家所关心的问题：股票究竟在星期一或星期—：买进，或是在一月份或七月份买进……。当企业家买进某家公司时——这正是格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者透过上市股票所从事的行为——我怀疑有多少人会在意交易必须发生于某个月份或某个星期的第一天。如果企业的买进交易发生在星期一或星期五没有任何差别，则我无法了解学术界人士为何要花费大量的时间和精力，探讨代表该企业部分股权的交易发生时的差异。毋庸多说，格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者并不探讨bate、资本资产定价模型、证券投资报酬本的变异数。这些都不足他们所关心的议题。事实上，他们大多数难以界定上述学术名词。他们只在乎两项实数：价格与价值。
I always find it extraordinary that so many studies are made of price and volume behavior, the stuff of chartists. Can you imagine buying an entire business simply because the price of the business had been marked up substantially last week and the week before? Of course, the reason a lot of studies are made of these price and volume variables is that now, in the age of computers, there are almost endless data available about them. It isn't necessarily because such studies have any utility; it's simply that the data are there and academicians have [worked] hard to learn the mathematical skills needed to manipulate them. Once these skills are acquired, it seems sinful not to use them, even if the usage has no utility or negative utility. As a friend said, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
面对图形分析师所研究的价量行为，我始终感觉惊讶。你是否会仅仅因为某家公司的市场价格在本周或前一周剧扬．便决定购买该企业呢?在日前电脑化的时代，人们之所以会大量研究价格与成交量的行为，理由是这两项变数拥有了无数的资料。研究未必是因为其具任何功用；而只是因为资料既然存在，学术界人士便必须努力学习操作这些资料所需要的数学技巧。—旦拥有这些技巧，不去运用它们便会带来罪恶感，即使这些技巧的运用没有任何功用，或只会带来负面功用．也在所不惜。如同一位朋友所说的，对一位持铁锤的人来说，每—样事看起来都像是钉子。
I think the group that we have identified by a common intellectual home is worthy of study. Incidentally, despite all the academic studies of the influence of such variables as price, volume, seasonality, capitalization size, etc., upon stock performance, no interest has been evidenced in studying the methods of this unusual concentration of value-oriented winners.
我认为，这一群具有共同智力起源的投资者非常值得我们研究。虽然学术界不断地对价格、成交量、季节性、资本规模以及其他变数，研究它们对股票绩效的影响，但这群以价值为导向赢家的方法却毫不受人关心。
I begin this study of results by going back to a group of four of us who worked at Graham-Newman Corporation from 1954 through 1956. There were only four -- I have not selected these names from among thousands. I offered to go to work at Graham-Newman for nothing after I took Ben Graham's class, but he turned me down as overvalued. He took this value stuff very seriously! After much pestering he finally hired me. There were three partners and four of us as the "peasant" level. All four left between 1955 and 1957 when the firm was wound up, and it's possible to trace the record of three.
关于这一项绩效的研究，我首先要追溯到从1954年到1956年间，工作于Greham—Newman公司的四位伙伴。我们总共四个人——我并不是从数以千计的对象中挑选这四个人。在我选修本杰明·格雷厄姆的课程之后，我要求进人Graham—Newman公司担任无给职的工作，但格雷厄姆却以价值高估而拒绝了我的要求。他对价值看得非常严重！经我不断地恳求，他最后答应雇我。当时公司有三位合伙股东，以及我们四位“学徒”。公司结束经营之后，我们四个人陆续在1955年到1957年间离开公司，目前只能够追踪其中三个人的投资记录。
The first example (see Table 1*正文不附表格，可参考查询文末所附的英文PDF文件) is that of Walter Schloss. Walter never went to college, but took a course from Ben Graham at night at the New York Institute of Finance. Walter left Graham-Newman in 1955 and achieved the record shown here over 28 years. Here is what "Adam Smith" -- after I told him about Walter -- wrote about him in Supermoney (1972):
第一个案例（*正文不附表格，可参考查询文末所附的英文PDF文件）是华特·史洛斯。华特从来没有念过大学，但他在纽约金融协会参加了本杰明·葛雷厄姆的夜间课程。华特在1955年离开Greham—Newman公司。以下是“亚当·史密斯”——在我和他谈论有关华特的事迹之后——在《超级金钱》(Supermoney，1972年) 一书中对他所做的描述：
He has no connections or access to useful information. Practically no one in Wall Street knows him and he is not fed any ideas. He looks up the numbers in the manuals and sends for the annual reports, and that's about it.
他从来不运用或接触有用的资讯。在华尔街几乎没有人认识他，所以没有人提供他有关投资的观念。他只参考手册上的数字，并要求企业寄年报给他，情况便是如此。
In introducing me to (Schloss) Warren had also, to my mind, described himself. "He never forgets that he is handling other people's money, and this reinforces his normal strong aversion to loss." He has total integrity and a realistic picture of himself. Money is real to him and stocks are real -- and from this flows an attraction to the "margin of safety" principle.
当华特介绍我们认识时，他曾经描述“他从来没有忘记自己是在管理别人的资金，这进一步强化了他对于风险的厌恶。”他有高尚的品格．并以务实的态度自持。对他来说．金钱是真实的，股票也真实的——并从此而接受了“安全边际”的原则。
Walter has diversified enormously, owning well over 100 stocks currently. He knows how to identify securities that sell at considerably less than their value to a private owner. And that's all he does. He doesn't worry about whether it it's January, he doesn't worry about whether it's Monday, he doesn't worry about whether it's an election year. He simply says, if a business is worth a dollar and I can buy it for 40 cents, something good may happen to me. And he does it over and over and over again. He owns many more stocks than I do -- and is far less interested in the underlying nature of the business; I don't seem to have very much influence on Walter. That's one of his strengths; no one has much influence on him.
华特的投资组合极为分散，目前拥有的股票远越过100支。他了解如何选股，将价格远低于其价值者出售给私人投资者。这便是他所做的一切。他不担心目前是不是一月份，不在乎今天是不是星期一，也不关心今年是不是大选年。他的想法非常单纯，如果某家公司值一美元，若我能够以40美分买进，我迟早会获利。他便是如此不断地行动：他所持有的股票种类远比我的多——而且比我更不关心企业的本质；我对华特似乎没有太大的影响力。这是他的长处之—，没有人能够对他产生足够的影响力。
The second case is Tom Knapp, who also worked at Graham-Newman with me. Tom was a chemistry major at Princeton before the war; when he came back from the war, he was a beach bum. And then one day he read that Dave Dodd was giving a night course in investments at Columbia. Tom took it on a noncredit basis, and he got so interested in the subject from taking that course that he came up and enrolled at Columbia Business School, where he got the MBA degree. He took Dodd's course again, and took Ben Graham's course. Incidentally, 35 years later I called Tom to ascertain some of the facts involved here and I found him on the beach again. The only difference is that now he owns the beach!
第二个案例是汤姆·科纳普，他曾经和我一起在Greham—Newman公司工作。汤姆于大战之前曾在普林斯顿大学主修化学，大战结束之后，他经常在海滩游荡。某一天，他得知大卫·多德将在可伦比亚大学开夜间投资课程。汤姆以旁听方式选修该课程，之后他对投资学科产生了浓厚的兴趣，于是正式注册进入哥伦比亚大学商学院，并且获得了MBA学位。35年之后，我拨电话给汤姆，确定某些有关此一主题的事，我发现他仍然在海滩游荡。惟—的差别是．他目前拥有一片海滩！
In 1968, Tom Knapp and Ed Anderson, also a Graham disciple, along with one or two other fellows of similar persuasion, formed Tweedy, Browne Partners, and their investment results appear in Table 2. Tweedy, Browne built that record with very wide diversification. They occasionally bought control of businesses, but the record of the passive investments is equal to the record of the control investments.
在1968年，汤姆与艾德·安德生——也是葛拉汉的信徒——以及其他一、两位有共同信念的人，组成了帝地布朗合伙公司。帝地布朗合伙公司的投资高度分散。他们偶尔会从事控制股权的投资，但其被动式的投资绩效约略等于控权式投资的表现。
Table 3 describes the third member of the group who formed Buffett Partnership in 1957. The best thing he did was to quit in 1969. Since then, in a sense, Berkshire Hathaway has been a continuation of the partnership in some respects. There is no single index I can give you that I would feel would be a fair test of investment management at Berkshire. But I think that any way you figure it, it has been satisfactory.
表3是格雷厄姆－纽曼公司第三位员工的投资业绩记录。他在1957年成立巴菲特合伙公司。他做出的最明智的决策是在1969年结束合伙公司。从此之后，伯克夏.哈撒韦公司在某种程度上成为合伙公司的延续。我无法给各位单一的指数，用以合理地测试伯克夏公司的投资管理。但是，我认为各位不论如何考验它，它的表现一直都令人满意。
Table 4 shows the record of the Sequoia Fund, which is managed by a man whom I met in 1951 in Ben Graham's class, Bill Ruane. After getting out of Harvard Business School, he went to Wall Street. Then he realized that he needed to get a real business education so he came up to take Ben's course at Columbia, where we met in early 1951. Bill's record from 1951 to 1970, working with relatively small sums, was far better than average. When I wound up Buffett Partnership I asked Bill if he would set up a fund to handle all our partners, so he set up the Sequoia Fund. He set it up at a terrible time, just when I was quitting. He went right into the two-tier market and all the difficulties that made for comparative performance for value-oriented investors. I am happy to say that my partners, to an amazing degree, not only stayed with him but added money, with the happy result shown here.
表四是红杉基金经理人比尔·卢昂的投资业绩记录，我在1951年格雷厄姆的讲座中认识他。哈佛商学院毕业之后，他进入华尔街。稍后，他发觉需要接受真正的商业教育，于是参加了格雷厄姆在哥伦比亚大学开办的讲座，我们便相逢于1951年初。从1951年到1970年间。比尔所管理的资金规模相当小，绩效却远比大盘来得好。当我结束巴菲特合伙公司的业务时，我要求比尔成立—个基金公司，来管理我们合伙股东的资金，他于是成立了红杉基金。他成立基金的时机非常不利。他面临两个层次的市场，以及以价值为导向的投资者相当难以运作的情况。我十分乐于提及一点．我的合伙股东不仅继续委托他管理，还投入更多的资金，而且对他的表现十分赞赏。
There's no hindsight involved here. Bill was the only person I recommended to my partners, and I said at the time that if he achieved a four-point-per-annum advantage over the Standard & Poor's, that would be solid performance. Bill has achieved well over that, working with progressively larger sums of money. That makes things much more difficult. Size is the anchor of performance. There is no question about it. It doesn't mean you can't do better than average when you get larger, but the margin shrinks. And if you ever get so you're managing two trillion dollars, and that happens to be the amount of the total equity valuation in the economy, don't think that you'll do better than average!
其中并不涉及后见之明。比尔是我推荐给合伙股东的惟一人选，我当时就表示，如果他的绩效能够高出史坦普指数四个百分点，这便是非常稳固的表现。比尔的绩效远甚于此，而且所管理的资金规模不断地扩大。这使得管理愈来愈困难。资金规模是绩效的拖累，这是毫无疑问的。这并不意味当资金规模扩大，你的表现便无法超越平均水准，只是超越的幅度会缩小。如果你所管理的资金是2兆美元，则你的表现必然无法超越平均水准，因为你的资金规模便是整个股票市场的总市值。
格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们
THE SUPERINVESTORS OF GRAHAM-AND-DODDSVILLE
－巴菲特1984年在哥伦比亚大学的著名演讲（下）
blogbuffett 编辑
I should add that in the records we've looked at so far, throughout this whole period there was practically no duplication in these portfolios. These are men who select securities based on discrepancies between price and value, but they make their selections very differently. Walter's largest holdings have been such stalwarts as Hudson Pulp & Paper and Jeddo Highland Coal and New York Trap Rock Company and all those other names that come instantly to mind to even a casual reader of the business pages. Tweedy Browne's selections have sunk even well below that level in terms of name recognition. On the other hand, Bill has worked with big companies. The overlap among these portfolios has been very, very low. These records do not reflect one guy calling the flip and fifty people yelling out the same thing after him.
我必须补充说明一下，截至目前我们所观察的记录，投资组合在整段期间都几乎没有重叠。他们都是根据价格与价值间的差异来选股，选择的标的也截然不同。华特的最重要持股都是扎实的企业，如Hudson Pulp&Paper、Jeddo HighHand Coal、New York Trap Rock Company，即使是偶尔阅读金融版新闻的人，对这些企业的名称也耳熟能详。帝地布朗公司所选择的标的则更是名不见经传的企业。另一方面，比尔的选择标的则是大型企业。这些投资组合极少出现重叠现象。他们的记录并非由某人主导的猜测铜板，其他人则只听命附和。
Table 5 is the record of a friend of mine who is a Harvard Law graduate, who set up a major law firm. I ran into him in about 1960 and told him that law was fine as a hobby but he could do better. He set up a partnership quite the opposite of Walter's. His portfolio was concentrated in very few securities and therefore his record was much more volatile but it was based on the same discount-from-value approach. He was willing to accept greater peaks and valleys of performance, and he happens to be a fellow whose whole psyche goes toward concentration, with the results shown. Incidentally, this record belongs to Charlie Munger, my partner for a long time in the operation of Berkshire Hathaway. When he ran his partnership, however, his portfolio holdings were almost completely different from mine and the other fellows mentioned earlier.
表5的投资业绩来自于我的—位朋友，他毕业于哈佛法学院，并且成立了一家主要的法律事务所。我大约在1960年认识他，并且建议说，法律作为嗜好是件好事，但是他应该做得更好。于是，他成立了一家合伙公司，他的操作方式和华特迥异，他的投资组合集中在极少数的证券，因此绩效的变动比较激烈，但他仍然依据相同的价值折价法从事投资。他愿意接受绩效的上下震荡，而他恰好是一位精神极度集中的人。他的名字是查理·蒙格，他是我在柏克夏公司从事操作的长期合伙股东。当他自己经营合伙事业时，他的投资组合和我或任何先前所提到的人完全都不同。
Table 6 is the record of a fellow who was a pal of Charlie Munger's -- another non-business school type -- who was a math major at USC. He went to work for IBM after graduation and was an IBM salesman for a while. After I got to Charlie, Charlie got to him. This happens to be the record of Rick Guerin. Rick, from 1965 to 1983, against a compounded gain of 316 percent for the S&P, came off with 22,200 percent, which probably because he lacks a business school education, he regards as statistically significant.
表6的投资业绩属于查理的一位好朋友——另一位非商学系出身的人——他毕业于南加州大学的数学系。毕业之后，他进入IBM，曾经担任推销员的工作。在我网罗查理之后，查理又网罗他。他的名字是瑞克·吉林。从1965年到]983年，史坦普指数的复利成长率为316％，而瑞克的绩效为22200％，这或许是因为他缺乏商学教育背景，他可以视为具有统计上的显著性。
One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing.
在此撇开主题：以40美分的价格买进一美元的纸钞，人若不能够立即接受这项概念，就永远不会接受它。它就像注射药剂。如果它无法立即抓住这个人，则我认为即使你长期地说服他，并且展示各种记录，你也无法让他接受。这是很单纯的概念，但他们就是无法领悟。类似瑞克这样的人，他完全没有正式商学教育的背景，却可以立即领会价值投资法，并且在五分钟之后便加以利用。我从来不曾见过任何人，会在10年之后才逐渐地皈依这种方法。它似乎和智商或学术训练无关。它是顿悟，否则就是拒绝。
Table 7 is the record of Stan Perlmeter. Stan was a liberal arts major at the University of Michigan who was a partner in the advertising agency of Bozell & Jacobs. We happened to be in the same building in Omaha. In 1965 he figured out I had a better business than he did, so he left advertising. Again, it took five minutes for Stan to embrace the value approach.
表7是史坦.波尔米塔（Stan Perlmeter）的投资业绩。他毕业于密西根大学艺术系，是Bozell＆Jacobs广告公司的合伙股东之—。我们的办公室恰好于奥玛哈市的同一幢大楼。1965年，他认为我所经营的事业比他的行业要好，于是他离开广告业。再—次地，史坦于五分钟之内就接受了价值投资法。
Perlmeter does not own what Walter Schloss owns. He does not own what Bill Ruane owns. These are records made independently . But every time Perlmeter buys a stock it's because he's getting more for his money than he's paying. That's the only thing he's thinking about. He's not looking at quarterly earnings projections, he's not looking at next year's earnings, he's not thinking about what day of the week it is, he doesn't care what investment research from any place says, he's not interested in price momentum, volume, or anything. He's simply asking: what is the business worth?
史坦所持有的股票与华特的不同。他所持有的股票也和比尔不同。他们都是独立的记录。但是，史坦买进每—支股票时，都是因为他所获得的价值高于他所支付的价格。这是他惟一的考虑。他既不参考每一季的盈余预估值，也不参考明年的盈余项估值，他不在乎当时是星期几，也不关心任何的投资研究报告，他无视价格动能、成交量与其他类似的变数。他只提出一个问题：该企业值多少钱?
Table 8 and Table 9 are the records of two pension funds I've been involved in. They are not selected from dozens of pension funds with which I have had involvement; they are the only two I have influenced. In both cases I have steered them toward value-oriented managers. Very, very few pension funds are managed from a value standpoint. Table 8 is the Washington Post Company's Pension Fund. It was with a large bank some years ago, and I suggested that they would do well to select managers who had a value orientation.
表8 与表9的投资业绩记录分别属于我参与的两家退休基金，它们并非是从我所参与的十几种退休基金中选择出来的，他是唯一两家我能够影响其投资决策的退休基金。在这两家基金中，我引导他们转变为价值导向的投资管理人，只胡非常少数的基金是基于价值进行投资管理的。表8是华盛顿邮报公司退休基金（the Washington Post Company's Pension Fund）的投资业绩记录。几年之前，他们委托一家大型银行管理基金，后来，我建议他们聘请以价值为导向的基金经理，这样能够使投资业绩更好。*本段采用刘建位的翻译
As you can see, overall they have been in the top percentile ever since they made the change. The Post told the managers to keep at least 25 percent of these funds in bonds, which would not have been necessarily the choice of these managers. So I've included the bond performance simply to illustrate that this group has no particular expertise about bonds. They wouldn't have said they did. Even with this drag of 25 percent of their fund in an area that was not their game, they were in the top percentile of fund management. The Washington Post experience does not cover a terribly long period but it does represent many investment decisions by three managers who were not identified retroactively.
正如你在投资记录中所看到的那样，从他们更换基金经理之后，其整体投资业绩在所有基金中一直名列前茅。华盛顿邮报公司要求基金经理人至少保持25 %的资金投资于债券，而债券未必是基金经理人的投资选择。因此，我在表中也将其债券投资业绩包括在内，而这些数据表明他们其实并没有什么特别的债券专业技巧，他们也从未这样吹嘘进自己，虽然有25%的资金投资于他们并不擅长的债券领域，从而拖累了他们的投资业绩，但其基金管理业绩水平仍然名列前一百名之内。华盛顿邮报公司退休基金的投资尽管并没有经过一个很长的市场低迷时期的考验，但仍然足以证明三位基金经理的许多投资决策并非后见之明。*本段为编辑增加，采用刘建位的翻译
Table 9 is the record of the FMC Corporation fund. I don't manage a dime of it myself but I did, in 1974, influence their decision to select value-oriented managers. Prior to that time they had selected managers much the same way as most larger companies. They now rank number one in the Becker survey of pension funds for their size over the period of time subsequent to this "conversion" to the value approach. Last year they had eight equity managers of any duration beyond a year. Seven of them had a cumulative record better than the S&P. The net difference now between a median performance and the actual performance of the FMC fund over this period is $243 million. FMC attributes this to the mindset given to them about the selection of managers. Those managers are not the managers I would necessarily select but they have the common denominators of selecting securities based on value.
表9 的投资业绩属于FMC公司退休基金，我本人没有管理过这家基金的一分钱，但我的确在1974年影响了他们的决策，说服他们选择以价值为导向的基金经理。在此之前，他们采取与其他大型企业相同的方式来选择基金经理。在他们转向价值投资策略之后，其投资业绩目前在贝克退休基金调查报告（the Becker survey of pension funds）中超越其他同等规模基金而名列第一。1983年时，该基金共有8位任职1年以上的基金经理，其中7位累积投资业绩超过标准普尔指数。在此期间，FMC基金的实际业绩表现与基金平均业绩表现的净回报差额是2.43亿美元，FMC将此归功于他们与众不同的基金经理选择倾向，这些基金经理未必会是我个人中意的选择，但他们都具有一个共同的特点，即基于价值来选择股票。*本段采用刘建位的翻译
So these are nine records of "coin-flippers" from Graham-and-Doddsville. I haven't selected them with hindsight from among thousands. It's not like I am reciting to you the names of a bunch of lottery winners -- people I had never heard of before they won the lottery. I selected these men years ago based upon their framework for investment decision-making. I knew what they had been taught and additionally I had some personal knowledge of their intellect, character, and temperament. It's very important to understand that this group has assumed far less risk than average; note their record in years when the general market was weak. While they differ greatly in style, these investors are, mentally, always buying the business, not buying the stock . A few of them sometimes buy whole businesses. Far more often they simply buy small pieces of businesses. Their attitude, whether buying all or a tiny piece of a business, is the same. Some of them hold portfolios with dozens of stocks; others concentrate on a handful. But all exploit the difference between the market price of a business and its intrinsic value.
以上这9 项投资业绩记录都来自于“格雷厄姆一多德都市” 的“铜板投掷者”，是我根据他们的投资决策架构，在多年前便选定了他们。我了解他们所接受过的训练，而且知道他们的智慧、个性和脾气。我们务必了解，这群人只承担了一般水准以下的风险；留意他们在股市疲弱期间的记录。他们的投资风格虽然大不相同，但心态上始终恪守：买进的标的是企业，而非企业的股票。他们当中有些人偶尔会买下整个企业，但是他们经常只是购买企业的—小部分。不论买进整体或一部分的企业，他们所秉持的态度完全相同。在投资组合，有些人持有几十种的股票；有些人则集中少数几支股票。但是，每个人都受惠于企业市场价格与其内含价值之间的差值。
I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a "herd" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical.
我相信市场上存在着许多没有效率的现象。这些来自于“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资人成功地掌握了价格与价值之间的缺口。华尔街的“群众”可以影响股票价格，当最情绪化的人、最贪婪的或最沮丧的人肆意驱动股价时，我们很难辩称市场价格是理性的产物。事实上，市场经常是不合理的。
I would like to say one important thing about risk and reward. Sometimes risk and reward are correlated in a positive fashion. If someone were to say to me, "I have here a six-shooter and I have slipped one cartridge into it. Why don't you just spin it and pull it once? If you survive, I will give you $1 million." I would decline -- perhaps stating that $1 million is not enough. Then he might offer me $5 million to pull the trigger twice -- now that would be a positive correlation between risk and reward!
我想提出有关报酬与风险之间的重要关系。在某些情况下，报酬与风险之间存在着正向关系。如果有人告诉我“我有一支六发弹装的左轮枪，并且填装一发子弹。你可以任意地拨动转轮，然后朝自己扣一次扳机。如果你能够逃过一功，我就赏你100万美元。”我将会拒绝这项提议——或许我的理由是100万美元太少了。然后，他可能建议将奖金提高为500万美元，但必须扣两次扳机——这便是报酬与风险之间的正向关系!
The exact opposite is true with value investing. If you buy a dollar bill for 60 cents, it's riskier than if you buy a dollar bill for 40 cents, but the expectation of reward is greater in the latter case. The greater the potential for reward in the value portfolio, the less risk there is.
在价值投资法当中，情况恰巧相反。如果你以60美分买进一美元的纸钞，其风险大于以40美分买进一美元的纸钞，但后者报酬的期望值却比较高。以价值为导向的投资组合，其报酬的潜力愈高，风险愈低。
One quick example: The Washington Post Company in 1973 was selling for $80 million in the market. At the time, that day, you could have sold the assets to any one of ten buyers for not less than $400 million, probably appreciably more. The company owned the Post , Newsweek , plus several television stations in major markets. Those same properties are worth $2 billion now, so the person who would have paid $400 million would not have been crazy.
我可以举一个简单的例子：在1973年，华盛顿邮报公司的总市值为8千万美元。在这一天，你可以将其资产卖给十位买家之一，而且价格不低于4亿美元，甚至还能更高。该公司拥有华盛顿邮报、商业周刊以及数家重要的电视台。这些资产目前的价值为4亿美元，因此愿意支付4亿美元的买家并非疯子。
Now, if the stock had declined even further to a price that made the valuation $40 million instead of $80 million, its beta would have been greater. And to people that think beta measures risk, the cheaper price would have made it look riskier. This is truly Alice in Wonderland. I have never been able to figure out why it's riskier to buy $400 million worth of properties for $40 million than $80 million. And, as a matter of fact, if you buy a group of such securities and you know anything at all about business valuation, there is essentially no risk in buying $400 million for $80 million, particularly if you do it by buying ten $40 million piles of $8 million each. Since you don't have your hands on the $400 million, you want to be sure you are in with honest and reasonably competent people, but that's not a difficult job.
现在，如果股价继续下跌，该企业的市值从8千万美元跌到4千万美元，其bate值也上升。对于用bate值衡量风险的人来说，更低的价格使它受得更有风险。这真是仙境中的爱丽丝。我永远无法了解，用4千万美元，而非8千万美元购买价值4亿美元的资产，其风险竟然更高。事实上，如果你买进一堆这样的证券，而且稍微了解所谓的企业评价，则用8千万美元的价格买进4亿美元的资产，这笔交易基本上没有风险，尤其是分别以800万美元的价格买进10种价值4000万美元的资产，其风险更低。因为你不拥有4亿美元，所以你希望能够确实找到诚实而有能力的人，这并不困难。
You also have to have the knowledge to enable you to make a very general estimate about the value of the underlying businesses. But you do not cut it close. That is what Ben Graham meant by having a margin of safety. You don't try and buy businesses worth $83 million for $80 million. You leave yourself an enormous margin. When you build a bridge, you insist it can carry 30,000 pounds, but you only drive 10,000 pound trucks across it. And that same principle works in investing.
另外，你必须有知识，而且能够粗略地估计企业的价值。但是，你不需要精密的评价知识。这便是本杰明·葛拉厄姆所谓的安全边际。你不必试图以8000万美元的价格购买价值8300万美元的企业。你必须让自己保有相当的缓冲。架设桥梁时，你坚持载重量为3万磅，但你只准许1万磅的卡车穿梭其间。相同的原则也适用于投资领域。
In conclusion, some of the more commercially minded among you may wonder why I am writing this article. Adding many converts to the value approach will perforce narrow the spreads between price and value. I can only tell you that the secret has been out for 50 years, ever since Ben Graham and Dave Dodd wrote Security Analysis , yet I have seen no trend toward value investing in the 35 years that I've practiced it. There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult. The academic world, if anything, has actually backed away from the teaching of value investing over the last 30 years. It's likely to continue that way. Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish. There will continue to be wide discrepancies between price and value in the marketplace, and those who read their Graham & Dodd will continue to prosper.
有些具备商业头脑的人可能会怀疑我撰写本文的动机：更多人皈依价值投资法，将会缩小价值与价格之间的差距。我只能够如此告诉各位，自从本杰明·格雷厄姆与大卫·多德出版《证券分析》，这个秘密已经流传了50年，在我奉行这项投资理论的35年中，我不曾目睹价值投资法蔚然成风。人的天性中似乎存在着偏执的特色，喜欢把简单的事情弄得更复杂。最近30年来，学术界如果有任何作为的话，乃完全背离了价值投资的教训。它很可能继续如此。船只将环绕地球而行。但地平之说仍会畅行无阻。在市场上，价格与价值之间还会存在着宽广的差值，而奉行格雷厄姆与多德理论的人也会繁荣不绝。 |
|
|
[复制链接]
发表于 2006-3-31 23:34