巴菲特致股东的信（1980年）⑤盖可保险公司

GEICO Corp.

Our largest non-controlled holding is 7.2 million shares of GEICO Corp., equal to about a 33% equity interest. Normally, an interest of this magnitude (over 20%) would qualify as an “investee” holding and would require us to reflect a proportionate share of GEICO’s earnings in our own. However, we purchased our GEICO stock pursuant to special orders of the District of Columbia and New York Insurance Departments, which required that the right to vote the stock be placed with an independent party. Absent the vote, our 33% interest does not qualify for investee treatment. (Pinkerton’s is a similar situation.)

盖可保险公司

目前我们不具控制权的股权投资最大的部位就是持有33%股权，约720万股的盖可保险，通常若持有一家公司股权达到这样的比例(超过20%)，便必须采用权益法每年依比例认列其投资损益，但由于伯克希尔当初系依照政府部门一特别命令购买该公司股份，其中规定须将此投票权交由一公正第三人管理，所有失去投票权，意味伯克希尔对盖可保险不具实质控制权。(Pinkerton也有类似的状况)。

Of course, whether or not the undistributed earnings of GEICO are picked up annually in our operating earnings figure has nothing to do with their economic value to us, or to you as owners of Berkshire. The value of these retained earnings will be determined by the skill with which they are put to use by GEICO management.

当然认不认列损益对伯克希尔及其股东而言，并不影响其实质的经济利益，这些盈余的实际价值将取决于运用它们的盖可保险经营阶层能力的高低。

On this score, we simply couldn’t feel better. GEICO represents the best of all investment worlds - the coupling of a very important and very hard to duplicate business advantage with an extraordinary management whose skills in operations are matched by skills in capital allocation.

关于这一点，我们再满意不过了，盖可保险可说是投资业界的最佳典范，它具有难以模仿的产业优势，同时加上高超的资金管理技巧。

As you can see, our holdings cost us $47 million, with about half of this amount invested in 1976 and most of the remainder invested in 1980. At the present dividend rate, our reported earnings from GEICO amount to a little over $3 million annually. But we estimate our share of its earning power is on the order of $20 million annually. Thus, undistributed earnings applicable to this holding alone may amount to 40% of total reported operating earnings of Berkshire.

如你所见到的，我们的持股成本约4,700万美元，分别是在1976年与1980年分两次投入，依实际配息情况，我们每年约从盖可保险认列300万元的利益，但实际上每年可分得的盈余却高达2,000万元，换言之，我们光是在该公司未分配的盈余就达伯克希尔帐面盈余的四成左右。

We should emphasize that we feel as comfortable with GEICO management retaining an estimated $17 million of earnings applicable to our ownership as we would if that sum were in our own hands. In just the last two years GEICO, through repurchases of its own stock, has reduced the share equivalents it has outstanding from 34.2 million to 21.6 million, dramatically enhancing the interests of shareholders in a business that simply can’t be replicated. The owners could not have been better served.

另外我们必须强调的是我们完全赞同盖可保险经营阶层将剩下属于我们的1,700万保留起来未予分配的作法，因为在此同时，盖可保险于近两年内陆续买回自家股票，使得该公司流通在外的股份由3,400万股缩减至2,100万股，大大增进了原有股东的权益，如此对待股东的方式实在是无话可说。

We have written in past reports about the disappointments that usually result from purchase and operation of “turnaround” businesses. Literally hundreds of turnaround possibilities in dozens of industries have been described to us over the years and, either as participants or as observers, we have tracked performance against expectations. Our conclusion is that, with few exceptions, when a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.

过去几年我们一再提到买进那些具有转机题材的产业令人大失所望的结果，这些年我们大约接触了数百家这样的公司，最后不管是真正投入与否，我们都持续追踪其后续发展，在比较过预期以及实际的表现后，我们的结论是，除了少数的例外，当一个赫赫有名的经营者遇到一个逐渐没落的夕阳产业时，往往是后者占了上风。

GEICO may appear to be an exception, having been turned around from the very edge of bankruptcy in 1976. It certainly is true that managerial brilliance was needed for its resuscitation, and that Jack Byrne, upon arrival in that year, supplied that ingredient in abundance.

盖可保险或许是一个例外，自1976年几乎破产的边缘东山再起，从经营阶层Jack Byrne上任的第一天起优异的表现，正是它能获得重生的最大因素。

But it also is true that the fundamental business advantage that GEICO had enjoyed - an advantage that previously had produced staggering success - was still intact within the company, although submerged in a sea of financial and operating troubles.

当然即使身陷于财务与经营危机当中，盖可保险仍享有其最重要的产业竞争优势也是重要关键。

GEICO was designed to be the low-cost operation in an enormous marketplace (auto insurance) populated largely by companies whose marketing structures restricted adaptation. Run as designed, it could offer unusual value to its customers while earning unusual returns for itself. For decades it had been run in just this manner. Its troubles in the mid-70s were not produced by any diminution or disappearance of this essential economic advantage.

身处于广大市场中(汽车保险)，不同于大部份行销组织僵化的同业，一直以来盖可保险将自己定位为低营运成本的公司，所以能够在为客户创造价值的同时，也为自己赚进大把钞票，几十年来都是如此，而即使它在70年代中期发生危机，也从未减损其在此方面的经济竞争优势。

GEICO’s problems at that time put it in a position analogous to that of American Express in 1964 following the salad oil scandal. Both were one-of-a-kind companies, temporarily reeling from the effects of a fiscal blow that did not destroy their exceptional underlying economics. The GEICO and American Express situations, extraordinary business franchises with a localized excisable cancer (needing, to be sure, a skilled surgeon), should be distinguished from the true “turnaround” situation in which the managers expect - and need - to pull off a corporate Pygmalion.

盖可保险的问题与1964年美国运通所爆发的色拉油丑闻事件类似，两家公司皆为一时之选，一时的打击并未毁掉其原本的经济基础，就像是一个身体健壮的人得到局部可切除的肿瘤，只要遇到一位经验丰富的医生，就能化险为夷。

Whatever the appellation, we are delighted with our GEICO holding which, as noted, cost us $47 million. To buy a similar $20 million of earning power in a business with first-class economic characteristics and bright prospects would cost a minimum of $200 million (much more in some industries) if it had to be accomplished through negotiated purchase of an entire company. A 100% interest of that kind gives the owner the options of leveraging the purchase, changing managements, directing cash flow, and selling the business. It may also provide some excitement around corporate headquarters (less frequently mentioned).

不论怎么说，我们还是很高兴能够以4,700万美元的代价买到盖可保险的持股，因为透过谈判购并方式想要买下一家类似具经济特质与光明前景，且每年可创造2,000万盈余的公司，至少得花上2亿美金(有些产业的要价可能还更高)，虽然100%的持股更可使所有权人得以掌握公司的生杀大权，同时也会给企业总部带来一些乐趣(这点通常比较少人会提到)。

We find it perfectly satisfying that the nature of our insurance business dictates we buy many minority portions of already well-run businesses (at prices far below our share of the total value of the entire business) that do not need management change, re-direction of cash flow, or sale. There aren’t many Jack Byrnes in the managerial world, or GEICOs in the business world. What could be better than buying into a partnership with both of them?

对于保险业规定，我们只能取得绩优企业的部份少数股权(以远低于买下整家企业的价格投资)，(这代表我们不能更换经营阶层、无法对资金做重新配置甚至处份公司)，我们从来就不会感到任何不妥，在企业经营的世界里，Jack Byrnes或盖可保险都算是少数，能够以伙伴的关系与它们共同合作有何不可呢?