巴菲特致合伙人的信（1964年）③关于保守

The Question of Conservatism

In looking at the table of investment company performance, the question might be asked: “Yes, but aren't those companies run more conservatively than the Partnership?" If you asked that question of the investment company managements, they, in absolute honesty, would say they were more conservative. If you asked the first hundred security analysts you met, I am sure that a very large majority of them also would answer for the investment companies. I would disagree. I have over 90% of my net worth in BPL, and most of my family have percentages in that area, but of course, that only demonstrates the sincerity of my view - not the validity of it.

关于保守

看到上述大基金的业绩，有人可能会问：“这些大基金的业绩是差一些，但是它们的投资是不是比我们更保守？”要是你这么问基金经理，他们会绝对坦诚地告诉你，他们更保守。要是你这么问 100 位分析师，我相信他们大部分人也会说基金公司更保守。我不同意。我 90%的净资产都在巴菲特合伙基金里，我的很多亲戚都在合伙基金里有投资，当然了，这只能说明我的诚意，证明不了我的投资更保守。

It is unquestionably true that the investment companies have their money more conventionally invested than we do. To many people conventionality is indistinguishable from conservatism. In my view, this represents erroneous thinking. Neither a conventional nor an unconventional approach, per se, is conservative.

没错，与我们相比，大基金的投资方式更符合常规。很多人以为符合常规就是保守。我觉得这种想法错了。一种投资方法是否保守，不在于是否符合常规。

Truly conservative actions arise from intelligent hypotheses, correct facts and sound reasoning. These qualities may lead to conventional acts, but there have been many times when they have led to unorthodoxy. In some corner of the world they are probably still holding regular meetings of the Flat Earth Society.

真正的保守投资源于正确的前提、正确的事实、正确的逻辑。按照这三点做出的投资，有与常规相符的时候，但更多时候是与常规背道而驰。在世界的某个角落，平坦地球协会 (Flat Earth Society)或许还在定期开会呢。

We derive no comfort because important people, vocal people, or great numbers of people agree with us. Nor do we derive comfort if they don't. A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought. When we really sit back with a smile on our face is when we run into a situation we can understand, where the facts are ascertainable and clear, and the course of action obvious. In that case - whether other conventional or unconventional - whether others agree or disagree - we feel - we are progressing in a conservative manner.

我们不因为重要的人、善辩的人或大多数人赞同我们，而感到踏实。我们也不因为他们不赞同我们，而感到踏实。民意调查替代不了独立思考。有时候我们会释然一笑，这是因为我们找到了一个投资机会，我们能看懂、事实清楚明了、一眼就能看出来该怎么做。遇到这种情况，不管是常规，还是非常规，不管其他人同意，还是不同意，我们都觉得自己是在保守地投资。

The above may seem highly subjective. It is. You should prefer an objective approach to the question. I do. My suggestion as to one rational way to evaluate the conservativeness of past policies is to study performance in declining markets. We have only three years of declining markets in our table and unfortunately (for purposes of this test only) they were all moderate declines. In all three of these years we achieved appreciably better investment results than any of the more conventional portfolios.

上面的论述有很强的主观色彩。没错。大家应该要求我进行客观分析。我也愿意进行客观分析。如何合理地评估既往投资策略是否保守？我的建议是研究市场下跌时的业绩表现。表格中市场下跌的年份只有三年，而且都是温和下跌，不足以用于此项检验。在这三年里，我们的投资业绩都明显优于更常规的投资组合。

Specifically, if those three years had occurred in sequence, the cumulative results would have been:

如果我们把这三年连在一起，则累计业绩如下所示：

We don’t think this comparison is all important, but we do think it has some relevance. We certainly think it makes more sense than saying “We own (regardless of price) A.T. &T., General Electric, IBM and General Motors and are therefore conservative.” In any event, evaluation of the conservatism of any investment program or management (including self-management) should be based upon rational objective standards, and I suggest performance in declining markets to be at least one meaningful test.

这个比较算不上多重要，但是可以说明一些问题。不谈价格，只说“我们拥有美国电话电报公司(AT&T)、通用电气(General Electric)、IBM 和通用汽车(General Motors)，所以很保守”，这样的观点，我们不敢苟同。总之，评估投资方式或资产管理人（包括自己管理）是否保守，要以合理的客观标准为依据，衡量下跌行情中的业绩表现是一种行之有效的检验方法。