2010年伯克希尔股东会问答：
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, I’m Steve Fulton (PH) from Louisville, Kentucky. Once again, I gave up a box seat to the Kentucky Derby to come ask you a question. (Laughter)
听众：你好，我是来自肯塔基州路易斯维尔的史蒂夫·富尔顿（Steve Fulton）。我又一次放弃了肯塔基德比的包厢座位，来向您提问。（笑声）
And I appreciate that opportunity.我很感谢这个机会。
My question’s focused on the shift, if you will, to investing in the capital-intensive businesses and the related impact on intrinsic value.我的问题主要是关于向资本密集型业务投资的转变，以及对内在价值的相关影响。
You again stated in the annual report that best businesses for owners are those that have high returns on capital and require little incremental capital.你在年度报告中再次指出，对所有者来说，最好的企业是那些资本回报率高、所需增量资本少的企业。
I realize this decision is somewhat driven by the substantial amounts of cash that the current operating companies are spinning off, but I would like you to contrast the requirement for this capital against the definition of intrinsic value, which is the discounted value of the cash that’s being taken out.我意识到这个决定在某种程度上是由当前运营公司产生的大量现金推动的，但我希望您能将对这笔资本的需求与内在价值的定义进行对比，内在价值是指被提取出来的现金的折现值。
And just for all of us to be aware, you’ve mentioned the fact that you think these businesses will require tens of billions of dollars over the few decades, and just the time value of that, I’d like to understand a little bit more of your insight into that.您提到，您认为这些企业在几十年内将需要数百亿美元的资金，我想了解一下您对此的见解。
WARREN BUFFETT: OK. Although it’s clear you understand the situation quite well, and it’s — as important a question as you could ask, virtually, I would say, at Berkshire.沃伦·巴菲特：好的。尽管很明显你对情况了解得相当透彻，而且可以说，这是一个在伯克希尔几乎你能问到的最重要的问题。
We are putting money into good — big money — into good businesses from an economic standpoint. But they are not as good as some we could buy when we were dealing with smaller amounts of money.我们正在将大量资金投入到从经济角度来看是好的企业中。但它们并不像我们处理较小金额资金时能够购买的一些企业那样好。
If you take See’s Candy, it has 40 million or so of required capital in the business, and, you know, it earns something well above that.就拿喜诗糖果来说，它的所需资本为 4000 万左右，而它的收入远远高于这个数字。
Now, if we could double the capital, if we could put another 40 million in at anything like the returns we receive on the first 40 million, I mean, we’d be down there this afternoon with the money.现在，如果我们能将资本翻倍，如果我们能在最初的4000万美元获得的回报基础上再投入4000万美元，我的意思是，我们今天下午就会带着钱去那里。
Unfortunately, the wonderful businesses don’t soak up capital. That’s one of the reasons they’re wonderful.不幸的是，那些出色的企业不需要吸收资本。这也是它们之所以出色的原因之一。
At the size we are, we earn operating earnings, $2.2 billion, or whatever it was in the first quarter, and we don’t pay it out, and our job is to put that out as intelligently as we can.以我们目前的规模，我们在第一季度赚取了22亿美元的营业收入，或者不管具体是多少，我们对这笔钱不分红，我们的工作就是尽可能明智地将这些资金投出去。
And we can’t find the See’s Candies that will sop up that kind of money. When we find them, we’ll buy them, but they will not sop up the kind of money we’ll generate.我们找不到像喜诗糖果那样能吸收那种规模资金的公司。当我们找到它们时，我们会购买它们，但它们吸收不了我们将要产生的资金规模。
And then the question is, can we put it to work intelligently, if not brilliantly? And so far, we think the answer to that is yes.然后问题就来了，我们能否明智地，如果不是出色地，将这些资金投入使用？到目前为止，我们认为答案是肯定的。
We think it makes sense to go into the capital-intensive businesses that we have. And incidentally, so far, it has made sense. I mean, it’s worked quite well. But it can’t work brilliantly.我们认为进入我们所拥有的资本密集型业务是有意义的。顺便说一句，到目前为止，这样做是有意义的。我的意思是，它运作得相当好。但它不能运作得非常出色。
The world is not set up so that you can reinvest tens of billions of dollars, and many, many tens over time, and get huge returns. It just doesn’t happen.世界并不是这样安排的，让你可以重新投资数十亿美元，而且随着时间的推移，是数百亿美元，并获得巨大的回报。这根本就是不可能的。
And we try to spell that out as carefully as we can so that the shareholders will understand our limitations.我们会尽可能仔细地说明这一点，让股东明白我们的局限性。
Now, you could say, “Well, then aren’t you better off paying it out?”现在，你可能会说，“那你们把钱分红不是更好吗？”
We’re not better off paying it out as long as we can translate, as you mentioned, the discounted value of future cash generation. If we can translate it into a little something more than a dollar of present value, we’ll keep looking for ways to do that.只要我们能够像你提到的那样，将未来现金生成的折现值转化为超过一美元的现值，我们就不必支付出去。如果我们能够将其转化为比一美元更多的现值，我们就会不断寻找这样做的方法。
In our judgment, we did that with BNSF, but the scorecard will be written on that in 10 or 20 years.根据我们的判断，我们在 BNSF 上做到了这一点，但记分卡将在10年或20年后书写。
We did it with MidAmerican Energy. We went into a business, very capital intensive, and so far, we’ve done very well, in terms of compounding equity.我们在中美能源公司也是这样做的。我们进入了一个资本非常密集的行业，到目前为止，我们在股权复利方面做得非常好。
But it can’t be a Coca-Cola, in terms of a basic business where you really don’t need very much capital, if any, hardly. And you can keep growing the business if you’re lucky, if you’ve got a growing business.但就基本业务而言，可口可乐不可能做到这一点，因为在这种业务中，你几乎不需要任何资本。如果你运气好，如果你的业务在增长，你就可以不断扩大业务。
See’s is not a growing business. It’s a wonderful business, but it doesn’t translate itself around the world like something like Coca-Cola would.喜诗的业务没有增长。它是一个很好的企业，但它并不像可口可乐那样能在全球范围内得到推广。
So I would say you’ve got your finger right on the right point. I think you understand it as well as we do. I hope we don’t disappoint you, in terms of putting money out to work at decent returns, good returns.所以我想说你确实抓住了关键点。我认为你对我们的理解就像我们自己一样深刻。我希望我们不会让你失望，在以合理的回报、良好的回报将资金投入工作方面。
But if anybody expects brilliant returns from this base in Berkshire, you know, we don’t know how to do it.但如果有人期望从伯克希尔这个基础上获得卓越的回报，你知道，我们不知道如何做到这一点。
查理？
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I’m just as good at not knowing as you are. (Laughter)查理·芒格：好吧，我和你一样不知道。（笑声）
优秀的企业不吸纳资本，这就是它优秀的原因。喜诗糖果是个典型，它可以源源不断地产出现金，但你无法通过投入更多资本来实现更高的回报，因为糖果的市场规模非常有限。
但这不影响巴菲特通过它来滚雪球，巴菲特可以将喜诗产生的现金拿来购买类似可口可乐这样的企业，然后将可口可乐的分红拿来投资其他的机会。产出现金——用现金投资其他机会——产出更多现金，这才是复利的真相，也是巴菲特小时候通过在零售店安装弹球机领悟的道理。另一方面，如果不考虑企业的经营，完全将希望寄托在股价的上涨上，这与复利毫无关系。如果企业能创造更多的现金，股价会自己照顾好自己。从巴菲特的回答中，不难看出庞大的资本规模限制了伯克希尔的投资机会和回报率，也许所有价值投资者最终的归宿都是这种“幸福的烦恼”。因此，对于资产规模并不庞大的个人投资者，如果想要滚雪球，最好的投资路径是：
1、将投资的主要目标设定为轻资产、高ROE的优秀企业；
2、上面所提到的优秀企业，如果无法有效地配置资产进行再投资，最好能大比例分红；
3、投资者所获得的分红，可以拿来投资下一个自己最看好的机会，这笔投资也应该能产生源源不断的现金，从而实现复利。当然，这并不是说重资产投入的企业不能投资，比如石油或煤炭等企业，主要的决定因素在于未来的现金流与当下的价格。声明: 本文不构成投资建议
![]()
延伸阅读：
戳![]()
关注，右上角菜单栏● ● ●键，设为星标
