巴菲特致合伙人的信（1962年半年度）②上半年情况③资产价值

The First Half of 1962:

Between yearend 1961 and June 30, 1962 the Dow declined from 731.14 to 561.28. If one had owned the Dow during this period, dividends of approximately $11.00 would have been received so that overall a loss of 21.7% would have been the result of investing in the Dow. For the statistical minded, Appendix A gives the results of the Dow by years since formation of the predecessor partnerships.

1962年上半年：

从1961年末到1962年6月30日，道指从731.14下跌到561.28，期间股息约为11个点，投资道指的整体收益率为亏损21.7%。附录A列出了合伙基金成立以来道指每年的收益率，喜欢研究数字的可以看一下。

As stated above, a declining Dow gives us our chance to shine and pile up the percentage advantages which, coupled with only an average performance during advancing markets, will give us quite satisfactory long-term results. Our target is an approximately 1/2% decline for each 1% decline in the Dow and if achieved, means we have a considerably more conservative vehicle for investment in stocks than practically any alternative.

如上所述，道指下跌的时候，正是我们显身手的时候，我们可以在此时与道指拉开差距，多赢几个百分点。等到市场上涨的时候，只要能跟上，最后我们就能取得非常令人满意的长期收益率。我们的目标是道指每跌1%，我们只跌0.5%。这样的表现能说明，与任何其他投资股票的途径相比，我们做的都是非常保守的。

As outlined in Appendix B, showing combined predecessor partnership results, during the first half of 1962 we had one of the best periods in our history, achieving a minus 7.5% result before payments to partners, compared to the minus 21.7% overall result on the Dow. This 14.2 percentage points advantage can be expected to widen during the second half if the decline in the general market continues, but will probably narrow should the market turn upward. Please keep in mind my continuing admonition that six-months' or even one-year's results are not to be taken too seriously. Short periods of measurement exaggerate chance fluctuations in performance. While circumstances contributed to an unusually good first half, there are bound to be periods when we do relatively poorly. The figures for our performance involve no change in the valuation of our controlling interest in Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company, although developments in recent months point toward a probable higher realization.

附录B列出了合伙基金前几年的业绩。自成立以来，1962年上半年是合伙基金业绩最好的一段时期，道指整体下跌21.7％，而我们分成之前的收益率是负7.5％。1962年下半年，如果市场继续下跌，我们这14.2个百分点的领先优势可能扩大；如果市场好转，则可能缩小。我嘱咐大家很多遍了，六个月或一年的业绩，别看得太重。用短期表现衡量表现，只能放大偶然的业绩波动。虽说机缘巧合，上半年我们的表现异常出色，但相对表现较差的时候，我们一定会有。我们持有登普斯特风车制造公司（Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company）的控股权益。这部分控股权益的估值，在计算业绩时我们没调整，但最近几个月已经有了进展，我们可能会实现更高的价值。

Investment Companies during the First Half:

Past letters have stressed our belief that the Dow is no pushover as a yardstick for investment performance. To the extent that funds are invested in common stocks, whether the manner of investment be through investment companies, investment counselors, bank trust departments, or do-it-yourself, our belief is that the overwhelming majority will achieve results roughly comparable to the Dow. Our opinion is that the deviations from the Dow are much more likely to be toward a poorer performance than a superior one.

基金公司上半年的表现：

我们在往年的信里多次强调，我们相信，作为衡量投资业绩标准的道指不是那么容易战胜的。只要资金是投资股票，无论是什么形式，基金公司、投资顾问、银行信托还是自己打理，我们认为，绝大部分人的业绩也就是和道指不相上下。那些业绩偏离道指的，大幅跑输的多，大幅跑赢的少。

To illustrate this point, we have continually measured the Dow and limited partners' results against the two largest open-end investment companies (mutual funds) following a program of common stock investment and the two largest closed-end investment companies. The tabulation in Appendix C shows the five -years' results, and you will note the figures are extraordinarily close to those of the Dow. These companies have total assets of about $3.5 billion.

为此，我们一直都拿最大的两只开放式股票型基金和最大的两只封闭式股票型基金的业绩，与道指和合伙基金的收益率做对比。从附录C中这四家基金公司五年的业绩可以看出来，它们的收益率和道指非常接近。它们管理的资产规模合计约35亿美元。

In the interest of getting this letter out promptly, we are mailing it before results are available for the closed-end companies. However, the two mutual funds both did poorer than the Dow, with Massachusetts Investors Trust having a minus 23% overall performance, and Investors Stock Fund realizing a minus 25.4%. This is not unusual as witness the lead article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL of June 13, 1962 headed "Funds vs. Market.” Of the 17 large common stock funds studied, everyone had a record poorer than the Dow from the peak on the Dow of 734, to the date of the article, although in some cases the margin of inferiority was minor.

为了让大家尽快看到这封信，我们邮寄出去的时候两家封闭式基金的业绩还没出来。两只开放式基金的业绩都不如道指，Massachusetts Investors Trust 亏损23％，Investors Stock Fund亏损25.4％。这个现象很正常。1962年6月13日，《华尔街日报》在头版刊发了一篇文章“基金vs市场”（Funds vs Market）。文章研究了17只股票基金，从道指734点起到撰文时止，它们全军覆没，都输给了道指，差别就是输多输少而已。

Particularly hard hit in the first half were the so-called “growth” funds which, almost without exception, were down considerably more than the Dow. The three large "growth" (the quotation marks are more applicable now) funds with the best record in the preceding few years, Fidelity Capital Fund, Putnam Growth Fund, and Wellington Equity Fund averaged an overall minus 32.3% for the first half. It is only fair to point out that because of their excellent records in 1959-61, their overall performance to date is still better than average, as it may well be in the future. Ironically, however, this earlier superior performance had caused such a rush of new investors to come to them that the poor performance this year was experienced by very many more holders than enjoyed the excellent performance of earlier years. This experience tends to confirm my hypothesis that investment performance must be judged over a period of time with such a period including both advancing and declining markets. There will continue to be both; a point perhaps better understood now than six months ago.

上半年，最受伤的是所谓的“成长”基金，它们比道指跌得惨多了，几乎无一幸免。前几年业绩最好的三只“成长”（这里真该用引号）基金，Fidelity Capital Fund、Putnam Growth Fund和Wellington Equity Fund，上半年平均下跌32.3％。说句公道话，这些成长基金在1959-61年业绩亮丽，到现在为止，它们的总业绩还是比指数高，将来也可能领先指数。令人匪夷所思的是，许多人被这几只基金前几年傲人的业绩吸引，争先恐后地买入，正好赶上了今年的业绩大跌，那些能享受到前几年优异业绩的人肯定是少数。这恰好证明了我的观点：评判投资业绩必须看经过一个牛熊周期的长期表现。股市总有牛熊，和六个月前相比，可能大家现在更能明白这个道理。

In outlining the results of investment companies, I do so not because we operate in a manner comparable to them or because our investments are similar to theirs. It is done because such funds represent a public batting average of professional, highly-paid investment management handling a very significant $20 billion of securities. Such management, I believe, is typical of management handling even larger sums. As an alternative to an interest in the partnership, I believe it reasonable to assume that many partners would have investments managed similarly.

之所以列出基金公司的业绩，不是因为我们的投资方法和它们的一样，也不是因为我们投资的股票和它们一样，而是因为它们代表了管理200亿美元证券的高薪职业基金经理人的打击率（batting average）。我认为，它们的表现也能代表管理更大资产规模的投资机构。如果合伙人没选择我们的合伙基金，很多合伙人选择的就是类似的投资管理方式。