巴菲特致合伙人的信（1964年）⑦税项

Taxes

We have had a chorus of groans this year regarding partners' tax liabilities. Of course, we also might have had a few if the tax sheet had gone out blank.

税项

今年，有不少合伙人齐声抱怨交的税太多。要是税单一片空白，可能也会有不少人抱怨。

More investment sins are probably committed by otherwise quite intelligent people because of "tax considerations" than from any other cause. One of my friends - a noted West Coast philosopher maintains that a majority of life's errors are caused by forgetting what one is really trying to do. This is certainly the case when an emotionally supercharged element like taxes enters the picture (I have another friend -a noted East Coast philosopher who says it isn't the lack of representation he minds -it's the taxation).

很多人本来脑子很清楚，一到要交税的时候就糊涂了。我有个朋友是西海岸有名的哲人，他说，人生中的绝大多数错误是因为忘了初心。当人们面对税收，被情绪冲昏了头脑而犯错，就属于这个情况。我还有个朋友是东海岸有名的哲人，他说，他不在乎有没有人代表他的权益，只在乎要交多少税。（译注：这句话源于“无代表，不纳税”(No Taxation Without Representation），是 18 世纪 60 年代英属北美殖民地反抗英国统治的一句口号。）

Let's get back to the West Coast. What is one really trying to do in the investment world? Not pay the least taxes, although that may be a factor to be considered in achieving the end. Means and end should not be confused, however, and the end is to come away with the largest after-tax rate of compound. Quite obviously if two courses of action promise equal rates of pre-tax compound and one involves incurring taxes and the other doesn't the latter course is superior. However, we find this is rarely the case.

还是回到西海岸哲人说的那句话。我们投资到底追求的是什么？在投资过程中，虽然我们要考虑税收因素，但投资肯定不是为了交最少的税。我们追求的是最高的税后复合收益率，不能舍本逐末。要是有两种情况，税前复合收益率相同，一种情况要交税，另一种情况不需要交税，无疑后者更合适。现实中很少有这种情况。

It is extremely improbable that 20 stocks selected from, say, 3000 choices are going to prove to be the optimum portfolio both now and a year from now at the entirely different prices (both for the selections and the alternatives) prevailing at that later date. If our objective is to produce the maximum after-tax compound rate, we simply have to own the most attractive securities obtainable at current prices, And, with 3,000 rather rapidly shifting variables, this must mean change (hopefully “tax-generating” change).

现在，从 3000 只股票中选出 20 只来构建一个最佳投资组合。一年后，所有股票的价格都截然不同（无论是组合里的，还是组合外的），这时候，这 20 只股票能仍然是最佳组合吗？不可能。既然我们的目标是实现税后复合收益率最大化，我们就必须持有按当前价格计算最有价值的股票。3000 多只股票，每一只都无时无刻不在变化，所以我们必然要对投资组合进行调整。我们当然希望调整投资组合时，卖出去的是赚钱的，这时候就要交税。

It is obvious that the performance of a stock last year or last month is no reason, per se, to either own it or to not own it now. It is obvious that an inability to "get even" in a security that has declined is of no importance. It is obvious that the inner warm glow that results from having held a winner last year is of no importance in making a decision as to whether it belongs in an optimum portfolio this year.

现在是否要持有一只股票，它去年或上个月表现如何，不重要。一只股票下跌了，没办法回本，不重要。去年一只股票赚了大钱，你很欣喜，可是在考虑它是否能纳入今年的最佳投资组合里时，你因为它赚了大钱而对它的喜爱，也不重要。

If gains are involved, changing portfolios involves paying taxes. Except in very unusual cases (I will readily admit there are some cases), the amount of the tax is of minor importance if the difference in expectable performance is significant. I have never been able to understand why the tax comes as such a body blow to many people since the rate on long-term capital gain is lower than on most lines of endeavor (tax policy indicates digging ditches is regarded as socially less desirable than shuffling stock certificates).

只要是取得了收益，调整投资组合时就要交税。除了极其特殊的情况（确实有这样的情况），只要预期收益很高，交的那点税根本不算什么。我总是搞不懂，为什么那么多投资股票的人对交税如此深恶痛绝。其实，长期资本利得税比大多数行业的税率都低（从税收政策的规定来看，做苦力的对社会的贡献不如炒股票的）。

I have a large percentage of pragmatists in the audience so I had better get off that idealistic kick. There are only three ways to avoid ultimately paying the tax: (1) die with the asset - and that's a little too ultimate for me even the zealots would have to view this "cure" with mixed emotions; (2) give the asset away - you certainly don't pay any taxes this way, but of course you don't pay for any groceries, rent, etc., either; and (3) lose back the gain if your mouth waters at this tax-saver, I have to admire you -you certainly have the courage of your convictions.

我知道合伙人里有不少是特别务实的，所以我还是说点有用的吧。要彻底避免交税，只有三个办法：(1)把资产留到死——我觉得这个办法太终极了，就算狂热的避税分子对这个办法也一定很纠结；(2)将资产赠予他人——这样你就不必交税了，可我们买东西、交房租，也不交税啊；(3)把赚来的钱亏回去——要是你听到这个避税办法眼前一亮，那我很佩服你，你真有坚持信念的勇气。

So it is going to continue to be the policy of BPL to try to maximize investment gains, not minimize taxes. We will do our level best to create the maximum revenue for the Treasury -at the lowest rates the rules will allow.

综上所述，我们的合伙基金将一如既往地追求实现投资收益最大化，而不是把税款降到最低限度。我们愿意尽全力为国库创收，但也会尽全力按税法规定的最低税率纳税。

An interesting sidelight on this whole business of taxes, vis-à-vis investment management, has appeared in the last few years. This has arisen through the creation of so-called "swap funds" which are investment companies created by the exchange of the investment company's shares for general market securities held by potential investors. The dominant sales argument has been the deferment (deferment, when pronounced by an enthusiastic salesman, sometimes comes very close phonetically to elimination) of capital gains taxes while trading a single security for a diversified portfolio. The tax will only finally be paid when the swap fund's shares are redeemed. For the lucky ones, it will be avoided entirely when any of those delightful alternatives mentioned two paragraphs earlier eventuates.

提到投资管理中的税收问题，前几年有这么个趣事。有些基金公司推出了“互换基金” (swap funds)，投资者可以用自己手里的股票交换基金的份额。销售员在推销这种基金时力推的卖点是，用一只股票交换一个分散的投资组合可以延期缴纳资本利得税（销售员在说延期缴税时，说的好像不用交一样）。只有赎回互换基金份额时才需要交税。要是有人走运，实现了上面提到的三种可以避免交税的情况，那就真不用交税了。

The reasoning implicit in the swapee's action is rather interesting. He obviously doesn't really want to hold what he is holding or he wouldn't jump at the chance to swap it (and pay a fairly healthy commission - usually up to $100,000) for a grab-bag of similar hot potatoes held by other tax-numbed investors. In all fairness, I should point out that after all offerees have submitted their securities for exchange and had a chance to review the proposed portfolio they have a chance to back out but I understand a relatively small proportion do so.

这些互换基金投资者的逻辑真是有意思。他们显然不喜欢自己手里的股票，要不也不会拿出去换（更别说要交数额不小的手续费，通常是 4%，最高可达 100,000 美元）。他换到手里的同样是一袋子烫手的山芋，是其他不愿意交税的投资者丢掉的。说实在的，这些互换基金的投资者要是看看换来的是些什么股票，他们很可能不会买，我知道真能看的人没几个。

There have been twelve such funds (that I know of) established since origination of the idea in 1960, and several more are currently in the works. The idea is not without appeal since sales totaled well over $600 million. All of the funds retain an investment manager to whom they usually pay 1/2 of 1% of asset value. This investment manager faces an interesting problem; he is paid to manage the fund intelligently (in each of the five largest funds this fee currently ranges from $250,000 to $700,000 per year), but because of the low tax basis inherited from the contributors of securities, virtually his every move creates capital gains tax liabilities. And, of course, he knows that if he incurs such liabilities, he is doing so for people who are probably quite sensitive to taxes or they wouldn't own shares in the swap fund in the first place.

自从第一只互换基金 1960 年成立以来，一共出现了 12 只互换基金，现在有几只新成立的正处于募集期。它们的总销售额超过了 6 亿美元，还是很有市场的。这些基金都聘请基金经理，收取资产的 0.5%作为管理费。互换基金的基金经理面对的问题很有意思：投资者付给他们薪水，要他们管理好基金（五只规模最大的基金，每年的费用在 250,000 美元到 700,000 美元之间），但是因为投资者提供了股票，基金的课税基础很低，基金经理无论怎么操作，都会产生资本利得税。基金经理也清楚，他们的操作会产生税项，尽管基金的投资者都是非常不愿意交税的，要不他们根本就不会买互换基金。

I am putting all of this a bit strongly, and I am sure there are some cases where a swap fund may be the best answer to an individual's combined tax and investment problems. Nevertheless, I feel they offer a very interesting test-tube to measure the ability of some of the most respected investment advisors when they are trying to manage money without paying (significant) taxes.

上面的话，我说得有些重了，在有些情况下，有的投资者在处理纳税和投资问题时，或许互换基金是最佳解决方案。不过，我觉得这对那些受人尊敬的投资顾问是个挑战，他们怎么才能既少交税，又管好钱呢？

The three largest swap funds were all organized in 1961, and combined have assets now of about $300 million. One of these, Diversification Fund, reports on a fiscal year basis which makes extraction of relevant data quite difficult for calendar year comparisons. The other two, Federal Street Fund and Westminster Fund (respectively first and third largest in the group) are managed by investment advisors who oversee at least $2 billion of institutional money.

三只规模最大的互换基金都是 1961 年成立的，现在管理的总资产规模是 3 亿美元左右。其中有一只是 Diversification Fund，它的财年和日历年不一致，很难进行对比。另两只是 Federal Street Fund 和 Westminster Fund（分别是规模第一大和第三大的），它们由专业投资顾问管理，这些投资顾问还为机构投资者管理 20 多亿美元的资金。

Here's how they shape up for all full years of existence:

下面是它们的历年业绩：

This is strictly the management record. No allowance has been made for the commission in entering and any taxes paid by the fund on behalf of the shareholders have been added back to performance.

Anyone for taxes?

这单纯是管理业绩，其中没扣除手续费，包含基金替投资者交纳的税金。

找谁能少交税呢？

TaxesWe have had a chorus of groans this year regarding partners' tax liabilities. Of course, we also might have had a few if the tax sheet had gone out blank.

So it is going to continue to be the policy of BPL to try to maximize investment gains, not minimize taxes. We will do our level best to create the maximum revenue for the Treasury -at the lowest rates the rules will allow.

Here's how they shape up for all full years of existence:

This is strictly the management record. No allowance has been made for the commission in entering and any taxes paid by the fund on behalf of the shareholders have been added back to performance. Anyone for taxes?

Taxes

We have had a chorus of groans this year regarding partners' tax liabilities. Of course, we also might have had a few if the tax sheet had gone out blank.

This is strictly the management record. No allowance has been made for the commission in entering and any taxes paid by the fund on behalf of the shareholders have been added back to performance.

Anyone for taxes?