巴菲特致合伙人的信（1965年）②基金公司

Investment Companies

We regularly compare our results with the two largest open-end investment companies (mutual funds) that follow a policy of being typically 95% - 100% invested in common stocks, and the two largest diversified closed-end investment companies. These four companies, Massachusetts Investors Trust, Investors Stock Fund, Tri-Continental Corp., and Lehman Corp. manage over $5 billion, are owned by about 600,000 shareholders, and are probably typical of most of the $35 billion investment company industry. My opinion is that their results roughly parallel those of the overwhelming majority of other investment advisory organizations which handle, in aggregate, vastly greater sums.

基金公司

我们一直拿最大的两只开放式股票型基金（股票占 95-100%）和最大的两只分散投资的封闭式股票型基金的业绩，与合伙基金的收益率做对比。它们是 Massachusetts Investors Trust、Investors Stock Fund,Tri-Continental Corp.。这四家公司为大约 60 万投资人管理着 50 多亿的资金。基金行业管理的总资产是 350 亿美元，它们应该能代表大多数的基金公司。有些投资顾问机构管理的资产规模更大，它们绝大多数的业绩应该和这四家基金公司不相上下。

The purpose of this tabulation is to illustrate that the Dow is no pushover as an index of investment achievement. The advisory talent managing just the four companies shown commands annual fees of about $10 million and this represents a very small fraction of the professional investment management industry. The public batting average of this highly paid and widely respected talent indicates performance a shade below that of the Dow, an unmanaged index.

我想用下面的表格说明，作为衡量投资业绩的指数，道指不是那么容易战胜的。上述四家基金由能力出众的经理人管理，它们每年收取的管理费是 1000 多万美元，整个基金行业收取的管理费数额就更庞大了。从这些高薪经理人的打击率(batting average)来看，他们的业绩和道指相比稍逊一筹。

(1) Computed from changes in asset value plus any distributions to holders of record during year.
(2) From 1965 Moody's Bank & Finance Manual for 1957-64. Estimated for 1965.

(1) 计算包括资产价值变化以及当年持有人获得的分红。
(2)来源：1965 Moody's Bank&Finance Manual for 1957-64。1965 年数据为估算值。

A number of the largest investment advisory operations (managing, in some cases, well into the billions of dollars) also manage investment companies partly as a convenience for smaller clients and partly as a public showcase. The results of these funds roughly parallel those of the four funds on which we report.

有不少规模很大的投资顾问公司，管理着数十亿美元的资产，它们也管理小型基金，有时候是为了照顾规模较小的客户，有时候是为了向公众展示业绩。它们管理的基金，业绩和上述四只基金不相上下。

I strongly believe in measurement. The investment managers mentioned above utilize measurement constantly in their activities. They constantly study changes in market shares, profit margins, return on capital, etc. Their entire decision-making process is geared to measurement - of managements, industries, comparative yields, etc. I am sure they keep score on their new business efforts as well as the profitability of their advisory operation. What then can be more fundamental than the measurement, in turn, of investment ideas and decisions? I certainly do not believe the standards I utilize (and wish my partners to utilize) in measuring my performance are the applicable ones for all money managers. But I certainly do believe anyone engaged in the management of money should have a standard of measurement, and that both he and the party whose money is managed should have a clear understanding why it is the appropriate standard, what time period should be utilized, etc.

衡量绝对是投资中的关键一环。在上述基金经理的日常活动中，他们总是在衡量。他们总是在研究市场份额、利润率、资本回报率等因素的变化。他们在整个决策过程中都在衡量，衡量管理层、行业、相对收益率等等。我相信他们也会衡量新增业务量以及投资顾问业务的利润率。说到底，在各种各样的衡量中，哪一项能比投资机会和投资决策的衡量更重要？我在衡量自己的业绩时有自己的一套标准（也希望我的合伙人使用同样的标准），我的这套标准肯定不适用于所有基金经理。但是，无论是谁，只要做资产管理工作，就应该有一套衡量标准，资产管理人和投资者都要清楚为什么这套标准合适，要选取多长时间衡量。

Frank Block put it very well in the November-December 1965 issue of the Financial Analysts Journal. Speaking of measurement of investment performance he said," ...However, the fact is that literature suffers a yawning hiatus in this subject. If investment management organizations sought always the best performance, there would be nothing unique in careful measurement of investment results. It does not matter that the customer has failed to ask for a formal presentation of the results. Pride alone should be sufficient to demand that each or us determine objectively the quality of his recommendations. This can hardly be done without precise knowledge of the outcome. Once this knowledge is in hand, it should be possible to extend the analysis to some point at which patterns of weakness and strength begin to assert themselves. We criticize a corporate management for failure to use the best of tools to keep it aware of the progress of a complicated industrial organization. We can hardly be excused for failure to provide ourselves with equal tools to show the efficiency of our own efforts to handle other people’s money. ...Thus, it is our dreary duty to report that systems of performance measurement are not automatically included in the data processing programs of most investment management organizations. The sad fact is that some seem to prefer not to know how well or poorly they are doing.

弗兰克·布洛克(Frank Block)在1965年《财务分析师期刊》(Financial Analysts Journal)11月-12月刊中说得很好。在讲到投资业绩的衡量时，他说：“……关于投资业绩衡量的内容是一片巨大的空白。如果投资管理机构都把目标定为追求最佳业绩，那么所有关于投资业绩的分析，再怎么仔细，也都是千篇一律。虽说客户没给要求我们严肃认真地分析业绩，但出于职业投资者的尊严，我们每位职业资产管理人也应该客观地评估自己的表现。对业绩没有明确的理解，又怎么能客观评估？对业绩有了明确的了解，才能着手进行分析，才看得出强弱优劣。公司的管理层缺乏合适的工具和方法，掌握不了复杂的企业组织的动态变化，我们会批评这样的管理层。我们同样缺乏合适的工具和方法，为别人管理资产，却不知道自己的表现如何，我们的过失同样不可原谅。……我们很遗憾，在大多数投资管理机构处理的众多数据中，缺失了衡量业绩的体系。很悲哀，有些人宁愿糊涂，不想自己的表现如何。”

Frankly, I have several selfish reasons for insisting that we apply a yardstick and that we both utilize the same yardstick. Naturally, I get a kick out of beating par - in the lyrical words of Casey Stengel, "Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser.” More importantly, I insure that I will not get blamed for the wrong reason
(having losing years) but only for the right reason (doing poorer than the Dow). Knowing partners will grade me on the right basis helps me do a better job. Finally, setting up the relevant yardsticks ahead of time insures that we will all get out of this business if the results become mediocre (or worse). It means that past successes cannot cloud judgment of current results. It should reduce the chance of ingenious rationalizations of inept performance. (Bad lighting has been bothering me at the bridge table lately.) While this masochistic approach to measurement may not sound like much of an advantage, I can assure you from my observations of business entities that such evaluation would have accomplished a great deal in many investment and industrial organizations.

坦白说，我坚持我们一定要有个标准，而且我们都使用同样的标准，也是有些私心。我就喜欢把指数甩在后面。凯西·斯坦戈（译注：Casey Stengel，美国职业棒球大联盟著名球员和教练）说得好：“甘心服输的都是卢瑟”(Show me a good loser,and I’ll show you a loser.)。更重要的是，有了标准，合伙人批评我的话，一定也是因为我真的表现不好（不如道指），而不会因为某年出现亏损而错怪我。知道了合伙人能合理地给我打分，我能更专注地工作。最后，事先就把衡量标准定好，将来如果业绩不行了，我们可以解散。无论过去收益率多高，都不会影响对当前业绩的判断。表现拙劣就是拙劣，找各种借口也没用。（我最近桥牌打得不好，因为光线太暗了。）表面看，这样衡量业绩是自讨苦吃，哪有什么好处。我观察过许多企业，可以肯定地告诉大家，若是能制定正确的评估方法，许多投资机构和实业公司会取得了不起的成绩。

So if you are evaluating others (or yourself!) in the investment field, think out some standards - apply them - interpret them. If you do not feel our standard (a minimum of a three-year test versus the Dow) is an applicable one, you should not be in the Partnership. If you do feel it is applicable, you should be able to take the minus years with equanimity in the visceral regions as well as the cerebral regions -as long as we are surpassing the results of the Dow.

如果你要评估别人（或你自己！）在投资活动中的表现，最好确定具体的标准，按照标准评估和解读。要是你觉得我们的标准（检验三年以上与道指的相对业绩）不合适，请不要投资合伙基金。如果你认为我们的标准很合适，当出现亏损的年份时，只要我们的整体业绩领先道指，你就应当保持平静，不但头脑要平静，内心也要平静。

(1) Computed from changes in asset value plus any distributions to holders of record during year. (2) From 1965 Moody's Bank & Finance Manual for 1957-64. Estimated for 1965.

(1) Computed from changes in asset value plus any distributions to holders of record during year.
(2) From 1965 Moody's Bank & Finance Manual for 1957-64. Estimated for 1965.