巴菲特致合伙人的信（1961年）②衡量标准

A Word About Par

The outstanding item of importance in my selection of partners, as well as in my subsequent relations with them, has been the determination that we use the same yardstick. If my performance is poor, I expect partners to withdraw, and indeed, I should look for a new source of investment for my own funds. If performance is good, I am assured of doing splendidly, a state of affairs to which I am sure I can adjust.

关于衡量标准

我在最初选择合伙人，以及随后处理与合伙人的关系时，最看重的就是我们要达成一致，使用同样的衡量标准。如果我的业绩差，合伙人就该撤资，我自己也不会继续在股市投资了。如果业绩好，我明确知道自己表现出色，我可以很坦然。

The rub, then, is in being sure that we all have the same ideas of what is good and what is poor. I believe in establishing yardsticks prior to the act; retrospectively, almost anything can be made to look good in relation to something or other.

问题在于，什么是好，什么是差，我们一定要达成一致。衡量标准应该事先定好。事后再找参照标准，无论业绩如何，总能找到更差的。

I have continuously used the Dow-Jones Industrial Average as our measure of par. It is my feeling that three years is a very minimal test of performance, and the best test consists of a period at least that long where the terminal level of the Dow is reasonably close to the initial level.

我一直把道指作为我们的衡量标准。我的个人观点是要检验投资表现，至少要看三年时间，最能检验出真实水平的是期末道指点位与期初很接近，看在此期间投资表现如何。

While the Dow is not perfect (nor is anything else) as a measure of performance, it has the advantage of being widely known, has a long period of continuity, and reflects with reasonable accuracy the experience of investors generally with the market. I have no objection to any other method of measurement of general market performance being used, such as other stock market averages, leading diversified mutual stock funds, bank common trust funds, etc.

什么衡量标准都不十全十美，道指也如此，但是参照道指的好处是，它众所周知、历史悠久，可以相当准确地反映一般投资者的表现。我不反对使用其他标准来衡量股市表现，例如，可以用其他的指数、大型基金、银行共同信托基金等。

You may feel I have established an unduly short yardstick in that it perhaps appears quite simple to do better than an unmanaged index of 30 leading common stocks. Actually, this index has generally proven to be a reasonably tough competitor. Arthur Wiesenberger’s classic book on investment companies lists performance for the 15 years 1946-60, for all leading mutual funds. There is presently over $20 billion invested in mutual funds, so the experience of these funds represents, collectively, the experience of many million investors. My own belief, though the figures are not obtainable, is that portfolios of most leading investment counsel organizations and bank trust departments have achieved results similar to these mutual funds.

你可能认为，道指不就是无人管理的30只蓝筹股吗，跑赢道指应该很容易，我选的参照标准是不是太低了。道指其实是很难战胜的。亚瑟·威辛保(Arthur Wiesenberger)写过一本很有名的书，是关于基金公司的，其中列出了所有大型基金从1946到1960这15年里的业绩。目前，美国基金掌管的资产规模是200亿美元，基金的整体表现可以反映几千万投资者的收益率。我没有相关数据，但我认为大多数投资咨询机构和银行信托的收益率和这些基金不相上下。

Wiesenberger lists 70 funds in his “Charts & Statistics” with continuous records since 1946. I have excluded 32 of these funds for various reasons since they were balanced funds (therefore not participating fully in the general market rise), specialized industry funds, etc. Of the 32 excluded because I felt a comparison would not be fair, 31 did poorer than the Dow, so they were certainly not excluded to slant the conclusions below.

在《Charts & Statistics》中，威辛保统计了1946年以来有持续业绩记录的70只基金。我把其中32只基金剔除了，它们有些是平衡型基金（因此没充分参与股市上涨），有些是专门投资某个行业的基金。我觉得用这32只基金进行比较不合适。这32只基金里，有31只跑输道指，排除它们不会影响我们得出的结论。

Of the remaining 38 mutual funds whose method of operation I felt was such as to make a comparison with the Dow reasonable, 32 did poorer than the Dow, and 6 did better. The 6 doing better at the end of 1960 had assets of about $1 billion, and the 32 doing poorer had assets of about $6-1/2 billion. None of the six that were superior beat the Dow by more than a few percentage points a year.

剩下的38只基金与道指更有可比性，其中32只跑输道指，6只跑赢。1960年末，跑赢道指的6只基金资产规模约为10亿美元，跑输的32只基金资产规模约为65亿美元。跑赢的这6只基金，每年领先幅度也不到几个百分点。

Below I present the year-by-year results for our period of operation (excluding 1961 for which I don't have exact data, although rough figures indicate no variance from the 1957-60 figures) for the two largest common stock open-end investment companies (mutual funds) and the two largest closed-end investment companies:

以下是我们这几年的业绩与最大的两只开放式股票基金与最大的两只封闭基金的对比情况（没有1961年的对比，因为我没有这年的准确数据，粗略估算应该和1957-60差不多）：

Massachusetts Investors Trust has net assets of about $1.8 billion; Investors Stock Fund about $1 billion; Tri-Continental Corporation about $ .5 billion; and Lehman Corporation about $350 million; or a total of over $3.5 billion.

Massachusetts Investors Trust的净资产有18亿美元左右；Investors Stock Fund约有10亿美元；Tri-Continental Corporation约5亿美元；Lehman Corporation约3.5亿美元。它们的净资产总和是35亿美元以上。

I do not present the above tabulations and information with the idea of indicting investment companies. My own record of investing such huge sums of money, with restrictions on the degree of activity I might take in companies where we had investments, would be no better, if as good. I present this data to indicate the Dow as an investment competitor is no pushover, and the great bulk of investment funds in the country are going to have difficulty in bettering, or perhaps even matching, its performance.

我整理上述表格和信息，目的不是批评基金公司。让我管这么多钱，受到种种限制，不能像管理我们的合伙基金这样投资，我的业绩也不会比它们强多少。我是想用上述数据说明战胜道指没那么容易，别说跑赢，美国大多数基金连跟上道指都很难。

Our portfolio is very different from that of the Dow. Our method of operation is substantially different from that of mutual funds. However, most partners, as all alternative to their investment in the partnership, would probably have their funds invested in a media producing results comparable to the Dow, therefore, I feel it is a fair test of performance.

我们的投资组合和道指的成分股完全不同。我们的投资方法和基金的投资方法差别很大。我们的大多数合伙人，如果不把资金投到我们的合伙账户中，可供选择的投资方式可能就是买基金，获得与道指类似的收益率，因此，我认为把道指作为我们的业绩衡量标准很合理。