巴菲特致股东的信（1983年）⑨拆股和股票交易

Stock Splits and Stock Activity

We often are asked why Berkshire does not split its stock. The assumption behind this question usually appears to be that a split would be a pro-shareholder action. We disagree. Let me tell you why.

拆股和股票交易

有人常问为什么伯克希尔不分割它的股票，而这个问题通常是建立在这个动作将会对股东有利的假设基础之上，不过我们并不认同这点，让我告诉你为什么。

One of our goals is to have Berkshire Hathaway stock sell at a price rationally related to its intrinsic business value. (But note “rationally related”, not “identical”: if well-regarded companies are generally selling in the market at large discounts from value, Berkshire might well be priced similarly.) The key to a rational stock price is rational shareholders, both current and prospective.

我们有一个目标是希望伯克希尔的股价能与其本身拥有的内含价值成正相关(请注意是合理的正相关而非完全一致，因为如果一般绩优公司的股价远低于其真正价值的话，伯克希尔也很难免除在外)，而一个公司要维持合理的股价跟其背后的股东有很大关系。

If the holders of a company’s stock and/or the prospective buyers attracted to it are prone to make irrational or emotion-based decisions, some pretty silly stock prices are going to appear periodically. Manic-depressive personalities produce manic-depressive valuations. Such aberrations may help us in buying and selling the stocks of other companies. But we think it is in both your interest and ours to minimize their occurrence in the market for Berkshire.

若公司的股东与潜在的买家主要都是基于非理性或情绪性的投资该公司股票，则公司股票便会不时出现很离谱的价格，躁郁的人格会导致躁郁的价格，这种性格虽然有助于我们买卖其它公司的股票，但我们尽量避免这种情况跟伯克希尔沾上边，这样将会对身为股东的你我有利。

To obtain only high quality shareholders is no cinch. Mrs. Astor could select her 400, but anyone can buy any stock. Entering members of a shareholder “club” cannot be screened for intellectual capacity, emotional stability, moral sensitivity or acceptable dress. Shareholder eugenics, therefore, might appear to be a hopeless undertaking.

很难确保公司股东皆维持高水平，A太太可依自己喜好选择其个人的投资组合，任何人都可买任何股票，没有任何公司可依智力、情绪稳定度、道德感或衣着品味来筛选股东，所以股东优生学基本上是一项不可能的任务。

In large part, however, we feel that high quality ownership can be attracted and maintained if we consistently communicate our business and ownership philosophy - along with no other conflicting messages - and then let self selection follow its course. For example, self selection will draw a far different crowd to a musical event advertised as an opera than one advertised as a rock concert even though anyone can buy a ticket to either.

但大致而言，我们觉得可透过不断地沟通公司经营哲学以吸引并维持优质的股东群，以达到自我筛选的目的。例如一场标榜为歌剧的音乐会，跟另一场以摇滚乐为号召的演唱会，铁定会吸引不同的观众群来欣赏，虽然任何人皆可自由买票进场。

Through our policies and communications - our “advertisements” - we try to attract investors who will understand our operations, attitudes and expectations. (And, fully as important, we try to dissuade those who won’t.) We want those who think of themselves as business owners and invest in companies with the intention of staying a long time. And, we want those who keep their eyes focused on business results, not market prices.

通过不断地宣传与沟通，我们希望能够吸引到认同我们经营理念与期望的股东(一样重要的是说服那些不认同的远离我们)，我们希望那些倾向长期投资且把公司当成是自己事业一样看待的股东加入我们，大家重视的是公司的经营成果而非短期的股价波动。

Investors possessing those characteristics are in a small minority, but we have an exceptional collection of them. I believe well over 90% - probably over 95% - of our shares are held by those who were shareholders of Berkshire or Blue Chip five years ago. And I would guess that over 95% of our shares are held by investors for whom the holding is at least double the size of their next largest. Among companies with at least several thousand public shareholders and more than $1 billion of market value, we are almost certainly the leader in the degree to which our shareholders think and act like owners. Upgrading a shareholder group that possesses these characteristics is not easy.

具有这项特质的投资人属于极少数，但我们却拥有不少，我相信大概有90%(甚至可能超过95%)的股东已投资伯克希尔或蓝筹印花达五年以上，另外95%的股东，其持有的伯克希尔股票价值比起其本身第二大持股超过两倍以上，在股东上千人，市值超过十亿的公司中，我敢保证伯克希尔的股东与经营者的想法是最能契合的，我们很难再将我们股东的素质再加以提升。

Were we to split the stock or take other actions focusing on stock price rather than business value, we would attract an entering class of buyers inferior to the exiting class of sellers. At $1300, there are very few investors who can’t afford a Berkshire share. Would a potential one-share purchaser be better off if we split 100 for 1 so he could buy 100 shares? Those who think so and who would buy the stock because of the split or in anticipation of one would definitely downgrade the quality of our present shareholder group. (Could we really improve our shareholder group by trading some of our present clear-thinking members for impressionable new ones who, preferring paper to value, feel wealthier with nine $10 bills than with one $100 bill?) People who buy for non-value reasons are likely to sell for non-value reasons. Their presence in the picture will accentuate erratic price swings unrelated to underlying business developments.

如果我们将公司的股票分割，同时采行一些注重公司股价而非企业价值的动作，我们吸引到的新进股东其素质可能要比离开的股东差得多，当伯克希尔的股价为1,300元时，很少有人负担得起，对于买得起一股的人来说，将股票分割为一百股对他来说并无任何影响，而那些认为有差别且真的因为我们股票分割而买进的人肯定会将我们现有的股东水准往下拉(难到我们牺牲掉那些原有思想透澈的股东，而换来一堆认为九张十元钞要比一张百元钞好的蛋头真得能够提升整个股东团队的素质吗？)。人们若非基于价值而买进股票早晚也会基于相同原因卖掉股票，他们的加入只会使公司的股价偏离价值面而作不合理的波动。

We will try to avoid policies that attract buyers with a short-term focus on our stock price and try to follow policies that attract informed long-term investors focusing on business values. just as you purchased your Berkshire shares in a market populated by rational informed investors, you deserve a chance to sell - should you ever want to - in the same kind of market. We will work to keep it in existence.

所以我们尽量避免那些会招来短期投机客的举动，而采取那些会吸引长线价值型投资者的政策，就像你在布满这类型投资者的股票市场中买进伯克希尔的股票，你也可以在相同的市场中卖出，我们尽量维持这种理想的状态。

One of the ironies of the stock market is the emphasis on activity. Brokers, using terms such as “marketability” and “liquidity”, sing the praises of companies with high share turnover (those who cannot fill your pocket will confidently fill your ear). But investors should understand that what is good for the croupier is not good for the customer. A hyperactive stock market is the pickpocket of enterprise.

股票市场上讽刺的一点是太过于重视变动性，经纪商称之为流动性与变现性，对那些高周转率的公司大加赞扬(那些无法让你口袋麦可麦可的人，一定会让你的耳朵不得闲)。但投资人必须有所认知，那就是凡事对庄家有利的一定对赌客不利，而过热的股市跟赌场没有两样。

For example, consider a typical company earning, say, 12% on equity. Assume a very high turnover rate in its shares of 100% per year. If a purchase and sale of the stock each extract commissions of 1% (the rate may be much higher on low-priced stocks) and if the stock trades at book value, the owners of our hypothetical company will pay, in aggregate, 2% of the company’s net worth annually for the privilege of transferring ownership. This activity does nothing for the earnings of the business, and means that 1/6 of them are lost to the owners through the “frictional” cost of transfer. (And this calculation does not count option trading, which would increase frictional costs still further.)

假设一家公司的股东权益报酬率为12%，而其股票年周转率为百分之百，又若买卖股票须抽1%的手续费(低价股的费率可能还更高)，而公司股票以帐面净值进行交易，这样算下来光是每年股权移转的交易成本便占去净值的百分之二，且对公司的获利一点帮助都没有(这还不包括选择权交易，后者将会使这项摩擦成本更上一层楼。)

All that makes for a rather expensive game of musical chairs. Can you imagine the agonized cry that would arise if a governmental unit were to impose a new 16 2/3% tax on earnings of corporations or investors? By market activity, investors can impose upon themselves the equivalent of such a tax.

玩这种大风吹的游戏实在是有点划不来，若是政府突然宣布调高企业或个人所得税16%时，相信大家一定都会跳起来，但过度重视变动性的结果便是要付出这样的代价。

Days when the market trades 100 million shares (and that kind of volume, when over-the-counter trading is included, is today abnormally low) are a curse for owners, not a blessing - for they mean that owners are paying twice as much to change chairs as they are on a 50-million-share day. If 100 million-share days persist for a year and the average cost on each purchase and sale is 15 cents a share, the chair-changing tax for investors in aggregate would total about $7.5 billion - an amount roughly equal to the combined 1982 profits of Exxon, General Motors, Mobil and Texaco, the four largest companies in the Fortune 500.

过去在每天交易量约一亿股的年代(以今日的水准算是相当低的了)，对所有权人来说绝对是祸不是福，因为那代表大家要付出二倍于五千万股交易量的成本，又假设每买卖一股的交易成本为十五分钱，则一年累积下来约要花费75亿美金的代价，这相当于爱克森石油、通用动力、通用汽车与太古石油这四家全美最大企业的年度盈余加总。

These companies had a combined net worth of $75 billion at yearend 1982 and accounted for over 12% of both net worth and net income of the entire Fortune 500 list. Under our assumption investors, in aggregate, every year forfeit all earnings from this staggering sum of capital merely to satisfy their penchant for “financial flip-flopping”. In addition, investment management fees of over $2 billion annually - sums paid for chair-changing advice - require the forfeiture by investors of all earnings of the five largest banking organizations (Citicorp, Bank America, Chase Manhattan, Manufacturers Hanover and J. P. Morgan). These expensive activities may decide who eats the pie, but they don’t enlarge it.

这些公司以1982年底计有750亿美元净值，约占财富杂志五百大企业净值与获利的12%，换句话说投资人只因为手痒而将手中股票换来换去的代价等于是耗去这些大企业辛苦一年的所得，若再加计约20亿投资管理费的话，更相当于全美前五大金融机构(花旗、美国银行、大通银行、汉华银行与摩根银行)获利的总和，这昂贵的游戏只是用来决定谁能吃这块饼，但没有一点办法让饼变得更大。

(We are aware of the pie-expanding argument that says that such activities improve the rationality of the capital allocation process. We think that this argument is specious and that, on balance, hyperactive equity markets subvert rational capital allocation and act as pie shrinkers. Adam Smith felt that all noncollusive acts in a free market were guided by an invisible hand that led an economy to maximum progress; our view is that casino-type markets and hair-trigger investment management act as an invisible foot that trips up and slows down a forward-moving economy.)

（我知道有一种论点说这过程能使资金作更有效的配置，但我们却怀疑其可信度，相反的过热的股市反而妨碍的资金合理的配置，反而使饼变得更小。亚当史密斯说:自由市场中有一只看不见的大手能导引经济社会使其利益极大化，我们的看法是-赌场般的股市与神经质的投资行为仿佛是一只看不见的大脚碍手碍脚地拖累了经济社会向前发展。）

Contrast the hyperactive stock with Berkshire. The bid-and-ask spread in our stock currently is about 30 points, or a little over 2%. Depending on the size of the transaction, the difference between proceeds received by the seller of Berkshire and cost to the buyer may range downward from 4% (in trading involving only a few shares) to perhaps 1 1/2% (in large trades where negotiation can reduce both the market-maker’s spread and the broker’s commission). Because most Berkshire shares are traded in fairly large transactions, the spread on all trading probably does not average more than 2%.

与那些过热的股票相比，伯克希尔目前的买卖价差约为30点，或大约2%，依据交易量大小的不同，买卖双方所需支付的成本约略从4%(只买卖几股)递减至1.5%(若量大的话可以议价方式降低差价与手续费)，而伯克希尔的股票交易单量通常较大，故平均成本不超过2%。

Meanwhile, true turnover in Berkshire stock (excluding inter-dealer transactions, gifts and bequests) probably runs 3% per year. Thus our owners, in aggregate, are paying perhaps 6/100 of 1% of Berkshire’s market value annually for transfer privileges. By this very rough estimate, that’s $900,000 - not a small cost, but far less than average. Splitting the stock would increase that cost, downgrade the quality of our shareholder population, and encourage a market price less consistently related to intrinsic business value. We see no offsetting advantages.

同时伯克希尔股票的周转率(扣除盘商间交易与亲属赠与)每年约仅3%，也就是说总的而言，伯克希尔股东每年所付出的交易成本约占其市值的万分之六，粗估约为90万美金(这笔金额不少，但远低于市场平均)，股票分割会增加交易成本，降低股东素质并鼓励公司股价与其内含价值悖离，我们想不到有任何一点好处。

Stock Splits and Stock Activity We often are asked why Berkshire does not split its stock. The assumption behind this question usually appears to be that a split would be a pro-shareholder action. We disagree. Let me tell you why.

All that makes for a rather expensive game of musical chairs. Can you imagine the agonized cry that would arise if a governmental unit were to impose a new 16 2/3% tax on earnings of corporations or investors? By market activity, investors can impose upon themselves the equivalent of such a tax.

Stock Splits and Stock Activity

We often are asked why Berkshire does not split its stock. The assumption behind this question usually appears to be that a split would be a pro-shareholder action. We disagree. Let me tell you why.