巴菲特致合伙人的信（1962年）⑥关于保守

The Question of Conservatism

Because I believe it may be even more meaningful after the events of 1962 I would like to repeat this section from last year’s letter:

关于保守

我觉得经过了 1962 年，大家可能会对保守更有体会，因此我要在这里重复一遍去年信中关于保守的内容：

"The above description of our various areas of operation may provide some clues as to how conservatively our portfolio is invested. Many people some years back thought they were behaving in the most conservative manner by purchasing medium or long-term municipal or government bonds. This policy has produced substantial market depreciation in many cases, and most certainly has failed to maintain or increase real buying power.

“从上述三类投资中，大家可以对我们投资组合的保守程度有个大概了解。很多年前，许多人买了中期或长期市政债券或国债，以为自己很保守。这些债券的市值多次大跌，这些人很多肯定也没做到资产保值或提升实际购买力。

"Conscious, perhaps overly conscious, of inflation, many people now feel that they are behaving in a conservative manner by buying blue chip securities almost regardless of price-earnings ratios, dividend yields, etc. Without the benefit of hindsight as in the bond example, I feel this course of action is fraught with danger. There is nothing at all conservative, in my opinion, about speculating as to just how high a multiplier a greedy and capricious public will put on earnings.

现在，很多人意识到通货膨胀的问题了，但可能又担心过头了，他们几乎不看市盈率或股息率就买入蓝筹股，以为自己很保守。那些以为买债券就是保守的人，我们看到他们后来的结果了，现在以为买蓝筹股就是保守的人，结果如何还不得而知，但我认为这么投资风险很大。猜测贪婪善变的大众会给出多高的市盈率，毫无保守可言。

You will not be right simply because a large number of people momentarily agree with you. You will not be right simply because important people agree with you. In many quarters the simultaneous occurrence of the two above factors is enough to make a course of action meet the test of conservatism.

不是因为很多人暂时和你意见一致，你就是对的。不是因为重要人物和你意见一致，你就是对的。当所有人都意见一致时，正是考验你的行为是否保守的时候。

“You will be right, over the course of many transactions, if your hypotheses are correct, your facts are correct, and your reasoning is correct. True conservatism is only possible through knowledge and reason.

在很多笔投资的过程中，只要你的前提正确、事实正确、逻辑正确，你最后就是对的。只有凭借知识和理智，才能实现真正的保守。

I might add that in no way does the fact that our portfolio is not conventional prove that we are more conservative or less conservative than standard methods of investing. This can only be determined by examining the methods or examining the results.

我们的投资组合和一般人的不一样，完全不能证明我们是否比一般人更保守。是否保守，必须看投资方法如何，投资业绩如何。

I feel the most objective test as to just how conservative our manner of investing is arises through evaluation of performance in down markets. Preferably these should involve a substantial decline in the Dow. Our performance in the rather mild declines of 1957 and 1960 would confirm my hypothesis that we invest in an extremely conservative manner. I would welcome any partner's suggesting objective tests as to conservatism to see how we stack up. We have never suffered a realized loss of more than ½ of 1% of total net assets and our ratio of total dollars of realized gains to total realized losses is something like 100 to 1. Of course, this reflects the fact that on balance we have been operating in an up market. However there have been many opportunities for loss transactions even in markets such as these (you may have found out about a few of these yourselves) so I think the above facts have some significance.

我认为，要客观评判我们投资的保守程度，就应该看我们在市场下跌时业绩如何，最好是看我们在市场大跌时的表现。1957 年和 1960 年，市场温和下跌，从我们的业绩可以看出来，我说的没错，我们的投资方法确实极为保守。我欢迎任何合伙人提出客观评判保守程度的方法，看一下我们做的如何。我们实现的亏损从来没超过净资产总额的 0.5%或 1%，我们实现的收益总额与亏损总额之比约为 100：1。这表明我们一直处在上行的市场中，但是，在这样的市场里，一样可能出现很多亏钱的交易（你自己就能找到一些例子），所以我觉得这个比例还是能说明一些问题的。

In 1962, we did realize a loss on one commitment or 1.0% and our ratio or realized gains to losses was only slightly over 3 to 1. However, compared to more conventional (often termed conservative which is not synonymous) methods of common stock investing, it would appear that our method involved considerably less risk. Our advantage over the Dow was all achieved when the market was going down; we lost a bit of this edge on the way up.

1962 年，我们确实在一笔投资中出现了 1.0%的亏损，我们实现的收益与亏损之比仅略高于 3:1。但是，对比一下常见（常见不等于保守）的股票投资方法，你会发现我们的投资方法风险要低得多。去年，我们相对道指的优势都是在市场下跌时取得的，市场上涨后，我们的领先优势则略微缩小。

The Question of Conservatism Because I believe it may be even more meaningful after the events of 1962 I would like to repeat this section from last year’s letter:

You will not be right simply because a large number of people momentarily agree with you. You will not be right simply because important people agree with you. In many quarters the simultaneous occurrence of the two above factors is enough to make a course of action meet the test of conservatism.

“You will be right, over the course of many transactions, if your hypotheses are correct, your facts are correct, and your reasoning is correct. True conservatism is only possible through knowledge and reason.

I might add that in no way does the fact that our portfolio is not conventional prove that we are more conservative or less conservative than standard methods of investing. This can only be determined by examining the methods or examining the results.

The Question of Conservatism

Because I believe it may be even more meaningful after the events of 1962 I would like to repeat this section from last year’s letter: