【中英对照】历年汇总:巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得(下)

巴菲特 行业 投资 公司 查理 美国 各行各业 心得

03-10 20:48 港股那点事 (hkstocks) 财富

【中英对照】历年汇总:巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得(下)_港股那点事_读一读网站 【中英对照】历年汇总:巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得(下),读一读网站提供港股那点事热门推荐内容等信息。

编者按:

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.


那种15%是残骸,85%还过得去的公司,我们是不会投资的。


There are all kinds of businesses where you can't predict what they're going to earn, so we try to favor a few where we can.


有很多公司是能够预测出它们的盈利状况的,所以在可行的情况下我们会考虑这些公司。


• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2003 Tilson Notes

• URL:

• Time: 2003



Your opinion on the auto industry?

您对汽车行业有什么看法?


[GM CEO] Rick Waggoner and [Ford Chairman] Bill Ford have both been handed, by past managers, extremely difficult hands to play. They're not the consequences of their own doing, but they have inherited a legacy cost structure, with contracts put in place decades ago, that make it very difficult for them to be competitive in today's world.


Rick Waggoner(通用汽车CEO)和Bill Ford(福特汽车CEO)都是从上任管理层那儿接手的公司,并且都是极其难管理的。他们接手的不是自己手把手管理的公司,而是继承了遗留下的成本结构,继承了几十年前签下的合同,对于公司而言很难在当今保持竞争力。


GM and Ford don't sign long-term contracts to pay high amounts for steel, but that's what they've done with annuity and healthcare payments to employees. The result is such expenses are far higher than that of competitors, so it's not a fair fight.


通用汽车和福特汽车没有签下购买大量钢铁的长期合同,但是他们却为员工签下了长期支付年金和医疗费用的合同。这就导致了它们的费用比竞争对手高很多,这显然是不公平的。


GM once had 50% market share, and it's fallen to 25%. Even if it was still 50%, they'd still be in trouble.


通用汽车曾经有50%的市场份额,现在落到了25%。即便现在它们的市场份额还是50%,企业还是深陷困境的。


I'm not sure what I'd do if I was elected CEO of GM. It reminds me of what Bill Buckley said when asked what he would do if he actually won his race for New York mayor back in 1965 and he said, "The first thing I'd do is ask for a recount." (Laughter) Well, that's what I'd do at GM.


如果我是通用电气的CEO,我也不知道要怎么做。这让我想起1965年时,Bill Buckley被问及如果赢了纽约市长的竞选他会怎么做,他曾经说"第一件事情就是要求重新计数"。我对通用汽车也是一样的。


The UAW says, "We have a contract and we have a deal." GM has set aside $90 billion for pensions and another $20 billion or so for healthcare, yet has a market cap of only $14 billion. That's not sustainable.... Something will have to give.


UAW(美国汽车飞机农业机械工人联合会)说到:"一份合同,一笔交易"。通用汽车留下了900亿美元的年金,还有200亿美元左右的医疗费用,然而它的市值只有140亿美金。这根本持续不下去……它是要做出牺牲的。


If a company had to pay an extra $2,000 per car more for steel, everyone would realize there was a crisis and demand a quick solution, but that's not happening.


如果一家公司需要为每辆车的钢铁材料支付2000美金,那么所有人都会意识到公司存在厄待解决的危机,但是这种情况还没发生过。


Part of the problem arose because [the actions of previous managements] bore no accounting consequences. Back in the 1960s, companies didn't have to account for pension costs on an accrual basis, and didn't have to do so for healthcare costs until the late 80s or early 90s. But those costs are very real...


问题产生的部分原因是前管理层的管理根本没有考虑到会计结果。回到20世纪60年代,公司不需要根据发生制支付年金费用,医疗费用也是一样,知道80、90年代才如此。但是这些成本真的很高……


• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2005 Tilson Notes

• URL:

• Time: 2005



What are your views on the railroad industry?

您怎么看待铁路运输行业?


I don't think the railroad industry will be a lot more exciting, but the competitive position of the railroads has improved somewhat since 20 years ago. There's been progress on labor issues and an improved competitive position vis-a-vis truckers. Higher oil prices hurt railroads, but hurt truckers more . What was a terrible business 30 years ago, operating under heavy regulation, has become decent and could be better over time. But it will never be a fabulous business - it's too capital intensive.


我觉得铁路行业不是说有多么的性感,但是铁路运输行业的优势地位早在20年前就已经提高了。劳工纠纷问题已经取得进展,火车司机的地位也已经提高。较高的石油价格损害了铁路行业,但是对司机的损害是更大的。30年前那些在严苛管制下经营的糟糕的行业现在已经发展得不错了,以后可能会更好。但是它永远不会成为一个极好的行业--因为它的资本太密集了。


• Source: BRK Annual Meeting 2007 Tilson Notes

• URL:

• Time: 2007



What industry will be the next growth driver in the 21st century and what do you see that supports that?

21世纪里那个行业会是领头羊,您认为支撑点在哪儿?


We don't worry too much about that. If you'd look at the 1930s, nobody could have predicted how much the automobile and airplane would transform the world. There were 2000 car companies, but now only 3 left in the US and they are hanging on barely. It was tremendous for society, but horrible for investors. Investors would have had to not only identify the right companies, but also identify the right time. The net wealth creation in airlines since Orville Wright has been next to zero. Or look at TV manufacturers. There are hundreds of millions of TV's, RCA & GE used to produce them, but now there are no American manufacturers left.


我们倒是没有过多考虑过这个。如果你回头看看20实际30年代,没人能够预测汽车行业和航空业能改变全世界。当时有2000家汽车公司,但是在美国现在只剩下3家了,并且它们都在垂死挣扎。对于社会来说这个巨大变化,对于投资者而言这简直是噩耗。投资者不仅仅需要去辨识对的公司,还要抓住对的时间。从莱特兄弟之后诞生的航空业,净财富的增长几乎为0。或者看看TV行业,曾经有数不清的电视台,RCA & GE曾经是它们的制造者,但是现在没有几个美国制造商剩下了。


If you want a great business, take Coca-Cola. The product is unchanged, they sell 1.5 billion 8 ounce servings per day 122 years later. They have a moat; if you have a castle, someone's going to come after you.


如果你想投资一个伟大的行业,那就选可口可乐吧。可口可乐的产品从未改变过,122年后的现在它们每天卖出15亿8盎司的量。可口可乐还有护城河;如果你自己有一座城堡,你身后肯定有人是想冲进城堡的。


Gillette accounts for 70% of razor sales at 80% gross margins and it is the same over time. Men don't change much. Shaving might be the only creative thing they do, like painting the Sistine Chapel.


吉列占了剃须刀市场70%的份额,毛利润率是80%,并且这个数字不会改变。男人们每天的生活也是一尘不变的,剃胡子可能是他们做过的最有创造力的事情,像画西斯廷礼拜堂一样。


Snickers has been the #1 candy bar for the past 40 years. If you gave me $1 billion to knock off Snickers, I can't do it. That's the test of a good business. You don't knock off Coke or Gilette. Richard Branson is a marketing genius. He came in with Virgin Cola, we're not sure what the name means, perhaps it turns you back into one, but he couldn't knock off Coke. We look for wide moats around great economic castles. Growth is good too, but we prefer strong economics.


士力架居于糖果棒第一的位置已经40年了。如果你现在给我10亿美元去击败士力架,我是做不到的。这种行为是对一个好的行业进行公然挑战,你不可能打败可口可乐和吉列剃须刀。Richard Branson是一位市场销售天才,他当时创造了Virgin Cola(处女可乐),我不知道这个名字意味着什么,可能喝了这个可能能让人变成处子之身吧,但是即便这样他也没能打败掉可口可乐。我们寻找的是拥有很宽的护城河的伟大的企业城堡。增长当然很重要,但是我们还是更喜欢本身就很强大的企业。


• Source: Emory's Goizueta Business School and McCombs School of Business at UT Austin

• URL:

• Time: February 2008



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!


【作者简介】

谷闷恒 | 格隆汇·专栏作者

美股研究员

关注TMT行业、注重公司成长性


【精华推荐】

【中英对照】历年汇总:巴菲特探讨各行各业投资心得(上)

光鲜亮丽的维密为何难掩股价大跌的事实

美股医药连锁店巨头合并下的一个年化收益28%~50%的套利机会

错过了Facebook,别错过Snapchat --2012年Facebook上市之后美国最高估值科技公司


·END·


更多阅读

读一读网站 www.duyidu.com 备案号: 闽ICP备12001821号-1    免责声明  提交公众号   商务合作QQ: