巴菲特致股东的信（1981年）⑤股票增值

Equity Value-Added

An additional factor should further subdue any residual enthusiasm you may retain regarding our long-term rate of return. The economic case justifying equity investment is that, in aggregate, additional earnings above passive investment returns - interest on fixed-income securities - will be derived through the employment of managerial and entrepreneurial skills in conjunction with that equity capital. Furthermore, the case says that since the equity capital position is associated with greater risk than passive forms of investment, it is “entitled” to higher returns. A “value-added” bonus from equity capital seems natural and certain. But is it? Several decades back, a return on equity of as little as 10% enabled a corporation to be classified as a “good” business - i.e., one in which a dollar reinvested in the business logically could be expected to be valued by the market at more than one hundred cents. For, with long-term taxable bonds yielding 5% and long-term tax-exempt bonds 3%, a business operation that could utilize equity capital at 10% clearly was worth some premium to investors over the equity capital employed. That was true even though a combination of taxes on dividends and on capital gains would reduce the 10% earned by the corporation to perhaps 6%-8% in the hands of the individual investor.

股票增值

另外一项因素可能会对公司报酬率的热情再浇上一盆冷水，人们为什么要投资公司股权而非固定收益债券的理由，系在于公司经营阶层可运用这笔资金来创造比固定利息收入更高的盈余，故人们会愿意承担万一发生损失的风险，所以额外的风险贴水是理所当然的。但事实真是如此吗？过去数十年来，一家公司的股东权益报酬率只要超过10%，便能被归类为一家优良企业，所以当我们把一块钱投入到这家公司，其将来能产生的经济效益将会大于一块钱，(考量到当时长期债券殖利率约为5%，而免税公债则约3%)，即使加计税负的话，实际到投资人手中仍能有6%-8%。

Investment markets recognized this truth. During that earlier period, American business earned an average of 11% or so on equity capital employed and stocks, in aggregate, sold at valuations far above that equity capital (book value), averaging over 150 cents on the dollar. Most businesses were “good” businesses because they earned far more than their keep (the return on long-term passive money). The value-added produced by equity investment, in aggregate, was substantial.

股票市场认同这种道理，在过去的一段时间，一家股东权益报酬率达到11%的公司，其市价可以涨到约净值的一点五倍，而这些公司所产生的附加价值相当可观。

That day is gone. But the lessons learned during its existence are difficult to discard. While investors and managers must place their feet in the future, their memories and nervous systems often remain plugged into the past. It is much easier for investors to utilize historic p/e ratios or for managers to utilize historic business valuation yardsticks than it is for either group to rethink their premises daily. When change is slow, constant rethinking is actually undesirable; it achieves little and slows response time. But when change is great, yesterday’s assumptions can be retained only at great cost. And the pace of economic change has become breathtaking.

那一切已成过去，但过去所得到的经验法则却很难拋弃，“当投资大众与经营阶层一脚踏进未来，他们的脑子与神经系统却还深陷于过去。”投资大众惯于利用历史的本益比而经营阶层则习惯用传统企业评价标准，但却不去深思其前提是否早已改变，若改变是缓慢的，那么持续的再思考便变得必要，若变化很大，则关于昨日的假设可能会付出极大的代价，而经济步调的变动是会令人窒息的。

During the past year, long-term taxable bond yields exceeded 16% and long-term tax-exempts 14%. The total return achieved from such tax-exempts, of course, goes directly into the pocket of the individual owner. Meanwhile, American business is producing earnings of only about 14% on equity. And this 14% will be substantially reduced by taxation before it can be banked by the individual owner. The extent of such shrinkage depends upon the dividend policy of the corporation and the tax rates applicable to the investor.

去年，长期债券殖利率超过16%，而免税公债则约为14%，而这些收入直接落入投资人的口袋，在此同时，美国企业的股东权益报酬率约为14%，而且尚未考量落入投资人口袋前所须支付的税负(视被投资公司的股利政策与投资人适用的所得税率而定)。

Thus, with interest rates on passive investments at late 1981 levels, a typical American business is no longer worth one hundred cents on the dollar to owners who are individuals. (If the business is owned by pension funds or other tax-exempt investors, the arithmetic, although still unenticing, changes substantially for the better.) Assume an investor in a 50% tax bracket; if our typical company pays out all earnings, the income return to the investor will be equivalent to that from a 7% tax-exempt bond. And, if conditions persist - if all earnings are paid out and return on equity stays at 14% - the 7% tax-exempt equivalent to the higher-bracket individual investor is just as frozen as is the coupon on a tax-exempt bond. Such a perpetual 7% tax-exempt bond might be worth fifty cents on the dollar as this is written.

因此以1981年的标准而言，投资一家美国公司一块钱所产生的经济价值还低于一块钱，(当然若投资人是免税的慈善机构，则情况可能会好一点)，假设投资人系适用于50%税率，而公司把所有盈余皆发放出来，则股东的投资报酬率约略等于投资7%的免税债券，而这种情况若一直持续下去，等于是套牢于一长期7%的免税债券一样，而它真正的价值可能连其原始投资额的一半还不到。

If, on the other hand, all earnings of our typical American business are retained and return on equity again remains constant, earnings will grow at 14% per year. If the p/e ratio remains constant, the price of our typical stock will also grow at 14% per year. But that 14% is not yet in the pocket of the shareholder. Putting it there will require the payment of a capital gains tax, presently assessed at a maximum rate of 20%. This net return, of course, works out to a poorer rate of return than the currently available passive after-tax rate.

但如果把所有盈余都保留起来，而报酬率维持不变，则盈余每年会以14%的速度增加，又假设本益比不动，则公司的股价每年也会以14%的比例增加，但增加的部份不算是已落入股东的口袋，因为收回去的话需要付最高约20%的资本利得税，所以不管怎么说，还是比最基本的免税公债14%低。

Unless passive rates fall, companies achieving 14% per year gains in earnings per share while paying no cash dividend are an economic failure for their individual shareholders. The returns from passive capital outstrip the returns from active capital. This is an unpleasant fact for both investors and corporate managers and, therefore, one they may wish to ignore. But facts do not cease to exist, either because they are unpleasant or because they are ignored.

除非基本报酬率降低，即使公司盈余每年以14%成长，却从未能收到半毛钱股利，对投资人而言，等于是一无所获，这对股东与经营阶层都是不怎么愉快的经验，而更是后者希望掩饰过去的，但不论如何，事实就是事实。

Most American businesses pay out a significant portion of their earnings and thus fall between the two examples. And most American businesses are currently “bad” businesses economically - producing less for their individual investors after-tax than the tax-exempt passive rate of return on money. Of course, some high-return businesses still remain attractive, even under present conditions. But American equity capital, in aggregate, produces no value-added for individual investors. It should be stressed that this depressing situation does not occur because corporations are jumping, economically, less high than previously. In fact, they are jumping somewhat higher: return on equity has improved a few points in the past decade. But the crossbar of passive return has been elevated much faster. Unhappily, most companies can do little but hope that the bar will be lowered significantly; there are few industries in which the prospects seem bright for substantial gains in return on equity.

大部份的美国公司把大部份的盈余分配出去，所以算是介于两个极端的例子之间。大多数美国企业目前在经济上都是“糟糕的”企业——为个人投资者创造的税后收益低于免税的被动资金回报率。当然，即使在目前的情况下，一些高回报的业务仍然具有吸引力。但总的来说，美国的股权资本并没有给个人投资者带来任何增值。但要强调的是，我并不是说所有的美国公司表现的比以往差，事实上，反而是比以前还好一点，只是最低门槛比以前提高了许多。不幸的是，大多数公司无能为力，只能寄希望于门槛大幅降低；很少有行业的资本回报率有望大幅增长。

Inflationary experience and expectations will be major (but not the only) factors affecting the height of the crossbar in future years. If the causes of long-term inflation can be tempered, passive returns are likely to fall and the intrinsic position of American equity capital should significantly improve. Many businesses that now must be classified as economically “bad” would be restored to the “good” category under such circumstances.

通胀经验和预期将是未来几年影响门槛高度的主要(但不是唯一)因素。如果长期通货膨胀的原因能够得到缓和，被动回报可能会下降，美国股权资本的内在地位应该会显著改善。在这种情况下，许多现在必须被列为经济“不好”的企业将恢复到“好”类别。

A further, particularly ironic, punishment is inflicted by an inflationary environment upon the owners of the “bad” business. To continue operating in its present mode, such a low-return business usually must retain much of its earnings - no matter what penalty such a policy produces for shareholders.

另外，特别具有讽刺意味的是，通胀环境对“坏”企业的所有者造成了惩罚。为了继续以目前的模式运营，这种低回报的企业通常必须保留大部分收益——不管这种政策会给股东带来什么样的不利后果。

Reason, of course, would prescribe just the opposite policy. An individual, stuck with a 5% bond with many years to run before maturity, does not take the coupons from that bond and pay one hundred cents on the dollar for more 5% bonds while similar bonds are available at, say, forty cents on the dollar. Instead, he takes those coupons from his low-return bond and - if inclined to reinvest - looks for the highest return with safety currently available. Good money is not thrown after bad.

当然，理性会给出相反的对策。如果一个人持有的是5%的债券，而且还有很多年才到期，那么他不会为了从该债券中获得票面利率，而支付100%的票面利率购买更多5%的债券，而类似的债券只需要40%的票面利率。相反，他从低回报债券中获得这些息票，如果倾向于再投资，他会寻找目前可获得的最高回报和安全性。好钱不丢在坏钱后面。

What makes sense for the bondholder makes sense for the shareholder. Logically, a company with historic and prospective high returns on equity should retain much or all of its earnings so that shareholders can earn premium returns on enhanced capital. Conversely, low returns on corporate equity would suggest a very high dividend payout so that owners could direct capital toward more attractive areas. (The Scriptures concur. In the parable of the talents, the two high-earning servants are rewarded with 100% retention of earnings and encouraged to expand their operations. However, the non-earning third servant is not only chastised - “wicked and slothful” - but also is required to redirect all of his capital to the top performer. Matthew 25: 14-30)

对债券持有人是这样，对股东也一样。从逻辑上讲，一家拥有历史和未来高资本回报率的公司应该保留大部分或全部收益，这样股东就可以从增加的资本中获得溢价回报。相反，公司资本回报率低则建议进行高分红，这样所有者就可以将资金投向更具吸引力的领域。（圣经也同意这一点。在人才的寓言中，两个高收入的仆人获得了100%的收入留存奖励，并鼓励他们扩大业务。然而，不赚钱的第三个仆人不仅受到惩罚——“又坏又懒”——而且还被要求将他所有的资本重新分配给表现最好的人。马太福音25:14 -30）

But inflation takes us through the looking glass into the upside-down world of Alice in Wonderland. When prices continuously rise, the “bad” business must retain every nickel that it can. Not because it is attractive as a repository for equity capital, but precisely because it is so unattractive, the low-return business must follow a high retention policy. If it wishes to continue operating in the future as it has in the past - and most entities, including businesses, do - it simply has no choice.

但通膨就像叫我们透过窥镜看爱丽丝梦游仙境一样，当通膨肆虐时，不良的企业被迫保留它所有的每一分钱，才能辛苦地维持它过去拥有的生产能力，实在是情非得已。

For inflation acts as a gigantic corporate tapeworm. That tapeworm preemptively consumes its requisite daily diet of investment dollars regardless of the health of the host organism. Whatever the level of reported profits (even if nil), more dollars for receivables, inventory and fixed assets are continuously required by the business in order to merely match the unit volume of the previous year. The less prosperous the enterprise, the greater the proportion of available sustenance claimed by the tapeworm.

通膨就像是寄生在企业体内的巨大条虫，不管被它寄生的主人身体状况如何，它还是拼命的从他身上吸取养份，所以不管公司的获利到底有多少(就算没有也一样)，帐上总是会有越来越多的应收帐款、存货与固定资产以维持以往的生意规模，主人的身体越差，就表示有越多比例的养份被寄生虫吸走。

Under present conditions, a business earning 8% or 10% on equity often has no leftovers for expansion, debt reduction or “real” dividends. The tapeworm of inflation simply cleans the plate. (The low-return company’s inability to pay dividends, understandably, is often disguised. Corporate America increasingly is turning to dividend reinvestment plans, sometimes even embodying a discount arrangement that all but forces shareholders to reinvest. Other companies sell newly issued shares to Peter in order to pay dividends to Paul. Beware of “dividends” that can be paid out only if someone promises to replace the capital distributed.)

以目前的情况来讲，一家公司若只赚到8%或10%的话，根本不够拿来用于扩张、还债或发放实在的股利，通膨这条寄生虫早就把盘子清光光了，(而事实上，企业通常利用许多方法将无法发放股利的窘境掩饰住，例如常常提出盈余转投资计划，强迫股东再投资，或是发行新股，拿张三的钱发放给李四，要小心这种必须要另外找到金主才能发放的股利)。

Berkshire continues to retain its earnings for offensive, not defensive or obligatory, reasons. But in no way are we immune from the pressures that escalating passive returns exert on equity capital. We continue to clear the crossbar of after-tax passive return - but barely. Our historic 21% return - not at all assured for the future - still provides, after the current capital gain tax rate (which we expect to rise considerably in future years), a modest margin over current after-tax rates on passive money. It would be a bit humiliating to have our corporate value-added turn negative. But it can happen here as it has elsewhere, either from events outside anyone’s control or from poor relative adaptation on our part.

伯克希尔通常会因积极而非被动的理由而保流盈余再投资，当然我们也不能免除前述通膨的威胁，我们历史累计的报酬率21%扣除潜在的资本利得税后，持续地跨过那最低的门槛，但只能算是低空掠过，而只要在出一些差错，便可能使我们面临无法跨过门槛的窘境。