这是巴菲特1961年写给股东的信，主要内容概要如下：
1960年股票市场总体情况：工业股票平均价格指数下跌了9.3%，只有不到10%的投资公司能跟上或高于道琼斯工业平均价格指数。
投资哲学：追求长期高于工业平均价格指数的收益率，相对工业平均价格指数的超额收益并不稳定，会在股票市场稳定下跌时获得高于平均水平的投资业绩，投资组合较为保守。
股票投资的经营结果：公司的合伙企业获得了22.8%的盈利，在股票行情有所下跌的情况下，经营结果相对更好，但每个合伙企业的经营结果都存在一些差异。
投资专家希望将合伙企业整合起来，减少太多的细节和费用。
公司的预付款利息率为6%，合伙人投资意愿存在。
附：中文版全文
1960年股票市场总体情况
一年前，我曾根据1959年从583点上升到679点，即上升了16.4%的道琼斯工业平均价格指数对有些不完善的市场形势做出了评论。尽管实际上所有的投资公司当年都有盈利，但其中不足10％的公司能够跟上或高于道琼斯工业平均价格指数。道琼斯公共事业平均指数甚至还有轻微下跌，下跌很大的是铁路行业平均价格指数。
1960年，经济形势倒转过来了。工业股票平均价格指数从679点下跌倒616点，下降了9.3％。算上拥有道琼斯工业股票所带来的股息，总损失为6.3％。另一方面，公共事业平均价格指数显示良好的获利纪录。尽管现在不能得到所有的结果，我估计大约90％投资公司的业绩要好于道琼斯工业平均价格指数。大多数投资公司大致看起来都在上升5％和下跌5％之间。在纽约股票交易所，653只股票亏损，只有404只股票盈利。
1960年的经营结果
我在管理合伙基金方面目标是：长期来看，收益率高于工业平均价格指数。经过这么多年的经营，我相信工业平均价格指数总是和最好的投资公司的收益率不相上下，如果我们不能达到高于工业平均价格指数的话，我们的合伙企业没有任何理由存在。
但是我还是要指出：我们可能达到的任何一个优秀纪录，其相对工业平均价格指数的超额收益都不太可能总是稳定的。如果这种纪录可能被实现，那么我们尽可能这样做：在股票市场稳定或是下跌的情况下，获得高于平均水平的投资业绩；而在股票市场上涨的情况下，获得与平均水平持平或者略低的投资业绩。
如果有一年我们下降了15％，而市场平均下降了30％，这与我们和市场都上升了20％相比，就算是业绩非常突出的一年。日子久了，我们总会碰到好时候和坏时候，投资并不因为好时候非常热情或者坏时候非常沮丧而有所得。就像打高尔夫球一样，重要的是以低于标准杆数的成绩去打赢某个球道。在一个标准杆数为3杆的球道上，如果你的成绩是4杆的话，那么，你的成绩就不如在标准杆数为5杆的球道上你用5杆击球入洞的成绩。假设我们把标准杆数是3和标准杆数是5的两个成绩平均起来是不现实的。以上是我的投资哲学，我把它再次告诉大家，是因为今年我们有许多新的股东成员，我想确保他们能明白我的奋斗目标、我的衡量标准以及我的认知极限。
了解这一点，就不难预料在1960年我们应当获得高于平均值的业绩。和工业平均价格指数6.3％的总损失率比起来，1960年我们七家整年运作的合伙企业平均盈利达到了22.8％。我们合伙企业整整四年的投资业绩如下：（该业绩扣除了营业费用，但未扣除应当支付给有限责任股东的红利，亦未扣除应当支付给一般合伙人的报酬）
合伙企业的运行状况
在此再次强调，这是合伙企业的最终结果。有限合伙人的最终结果将依据合伙企业的相关协议而定。
总的盈利或损失是以市场价格为根据计算出来的。考虑到增加投资或撤回投资的金额后，盈利结果略有不同。后一个结果是基于年末相对年初对合伙企业资产的清算来实现的。当然，这不同于纳税结果的计算，因为纳税结果可以从成本上对证券进行估价，只有当证券真正售出后才能知道是盈利还是亏损。
混合起来，累计结果如下：
虽然四年只是短短的一瞬间，不足以让我们得出某种推论，但是，从中我们还是可以看出，在股票行情有所下跌或是静态的市场状况下，我们的经营结果会相对好得多。在这个意义上，事实确实如此，这表明我们的投资组合相对于我们拥有“蓝筹股”的情况下可能要保守的多，尽管确实是不太符合常规。在蓝筹股急剧上涨的市场行情下，在赶上他们的业绩方面我们可能确实存在困难。
合伙企业的多样性
上面的图表显示我们的合伙企业在不断地壮大，和我们合伙企业群的平均值相比，还没有任何一家合伙企业的业绩一直高于或低于我们，虽然我们努力让所有的合伙企业在同一种股票上投资相同的数额，但是，每年的经营结果都存在着一些差异。当然，这种差异可以通过把现有的合伙企业并入到一家大的合伙企业的方式来消除。这样的措施同时还会消除太多细节性的东西以及相当一部分费用。
坦白地说，在未来的几年，我有意沿这个方向发展。问题是各位合伙人对合伙企业的运行方式各有所偏爱。没有合伙人的一致同意，什么事情也干不成。
预付款
好几位合伙人都曾问过是否能增加投资，虽然有此先例，但在经营过程中要想修正合伙企业的经营协议也是很难的一件事，尤其是当有限合伙人中不止一个家庭时更是如此。所以，在混合型的合伙企业中附加利息通常要等到年底才能拿到。我们确实在每年的经营过程中接受预付款，和合伙企业的利息，利息率是6%。当时，按照合伙人对经营协议的修正，预付款加上利息被添加到合伙企业的资本金上，此后，预付款放入公司的损益表中。
桑伯恩地图公司
去年，我曾提到一笔占我们净资产35%的重大投资，同时，我说希望这项投资能在1960年实现收益，今年这一目标达成了。可能你们会对这笔重要的投资感兴趣。
桑伯恩地图有限公司从事出版以及美国所有城市详细地图的修正工作。比如说，奥马哈的地图册就可能重达50磅，对每一处的建筑都做出了仔细而准确的说明。通过用糨糊粘住需要修改的地方对原地图进行修正，在涂过糨糊的地方标明新的建筑物的名称，业主的变换、新的消防设施的配置，建筑材料的变换，等等。这种变动几乎每年都要在地图上标出，当地图的修改不能进一步通过糨糊完成时，新的地图就要重新出版一次，地图每隔20年～30年就要更新一次。对于奥马哈的消费者来说，每年花在修正地图上的费用大约有100美元。
详细的信息表明街道下面总水管的直径，消防栓所在位置，屋顶的构成等，所有这些对火险公司至关重要。位于中央办公室的保险业的各个部门，可以通过遍及全国的代理人对企业进行价值的评定。其理论是“一图胜千言”，这种评定方法将决定风险是否得到正确的估价，这个地区大火灾发生的频率，合理的再保险程序等。尽管地图也出售给保险业以外的顾客，比如说像一些公用事业、抵押公司和评税权威人士，桑伯恩公司大部分的业务对象是大约30家保险公司。
75年来，桑伯恩公司一直以一种多少有些垄断的方式进行经营，每年实现的利润几乎全然不受经济衰退的影响，不需任何销售方面的努力就能达到。在公司的早期经营阶段，保险业担心桑伯恩公司如此高的利润，会使得许多保险公司的重要人物进入到桑伯恩公司的董事会，担当公司的监察人员。
20世纪50年代早期，保险业一种被称为“梳理”的竞争性方法对桑伯恩公司造成了巨大的冲击，使得地图业从20世纪30年代的后期年平均50多万美元的税后利润，下降到1958年和1959年的不足10万美元。考虑到这个阶段经济向上偏压的特点，这种竞争性方法使得这家规模大，且具有稳定赚钱能力的大商业几乎全军覆没。
然而，在20世纪30年代早期，桑伯恩公司开始建立投资组合。这对商业来讲没有资金要求，所以，任何未分配的利润都可以被用于这个计划。一段时间之后大约投资了2500万美元，一半投资于债券，另一半投资于股票。这样特别是在最近10年，在地图业经营不景气的时候，投资组合却盈利丰厚。
下面让我解释一下这两个因素间极端的分歧。1938年，道琼斯工业平均指数在100-120区间的时候，桑伯恩以每股110美元的价格卖出。1958年，当道琼斯工业指数在550左右时，桑伯恩公司每股45美元。然而，与此同时桑伯恩投资组合的价值从每股20美元左右增加到每股65美元。这实际上意味着，在商业和股票市场不景气的一年里，1938年桑伯恩股票的购买者对地图业务的估值为每股90美元(110美元减去与地图业务无关的20美元投资组合的价值)。在1958年经济极其活跃的环境下，同样的地图业务被评估为负20美元，股票的买家不愿为投资组合支付超过70美元，而地图业务则是白送。
这是怎么一回事儿呢?不论是1938年还是1958年，桑伯恩公司拥有很多对于保险业来讲有实际存在价值的信息。再现这么多年来他们收集的详尽信息，将花费他们上千万美元。尽管保险公司实行了“梳理”政策，5亿多美元的火灾保险费由“制图”公司承担。但是，出售、包装桑伯恩公司的产品、信息的手段多年来一直未变，最后这种惯性从收益中体现出来。
投资组合所做得非常好，使大多数董事将振兴地图业务的需求降到最低。桑伯恩公司每年的销售额大约在250万美元，同时还拥有价值700万美元的可销售债券。来自投资组合的收益是丰富的，公司没有任何经济上的后顾之忧，保险公司对地图的价格感到非常满意，股东们依然在分红。但是，这些股息在8年的时间里削减了5次，尽管我可能永远都不会找到任何适合削减员工工资和董事们以及委员会费用的建议记录。
在我进入到董事会以前，14位董事中有9位是保险业中身居要职的人，在10.5万股已公开发行的股票中他们只拥有46股。尽管他们在一些大公司里都担任重要职位，公司还是建议他们至少购买一定数量的股票，在这个群体中拥有股票最多的是10股。在几种情况下，与他们所拥有的投资组合相比，保险公司所拥有很少的股票数量仅仅是象征性的一点投资。在过去的10年中，保险公司在涉及桑伯恩股票的任何交易中都只是卖方。
第10位董事是公司的律师，他持有10股股票；第11位董事是一个银行家，他也拥有10股股票，他清楚地意识到公司所存在的问题并积极地把问题指出来，后来他又购买了一些股票。
接下来的两位董事是桑伯恩公司的高级职员，他们拥有大约300股股票，这两个高级职员有很强的工作能力，他们意识到了公司中存在的问题，但是，董事会只安排他们担任一些辅助性的工作。最后一名董事是桑伯恩公司故去的总裁的儿子，总裁的遗孀拥有15000股股票。
1958年后期，故去的那位总裁的儿子对公司的趋势感到不满意，要求担任公司的第一把手，在他的要求遭到拒绝后，他向公司递交了辞职书，公司准予了他的辞职。随后我们出价购买他母亲所拥有的股票，我们做成了这笔交易。当时另外还有两笔数量很大的股票，一笔大约有1万股，另一笔大约有8000股。这些人对当时的情况很不满意，他们希望把投资组合与地图业务分开，我们对此表示赞同。
最后，通过市场公开购买的方式，我们拥有的股票数量达到24000股，以三家为代表的总量上升到了46000股。我们希望能把这两种业务分开，实现有价证券的公允价值，努力重建地图业务的盈利能力。看起来这是一个真正的机会，我们可以通过利用桑伯恩公司丰富的资源，再加上利用电子技术把这个数据转换成顾客利用率最高的形式来增加地图的利润。
董事会中对于任何形式的变动，都会有很多人表示反对，尤其是当这种变动是由一个“局外人”发起的时候，情况更是如此，尽管公司的管理完全符合我们的计划，管理专家布斯、艾伦和汉密尔顿为我们推荐了一个类似的计划。为了避免代理人之间发生争论，以及由于桑伯恩公司大部分的资金都投入了蓝筹股而造成时间上的拖延，按照当时的价格，我们对蓝筹股并不看好，我们制定出这样一个计划，即所有想撤出的股东都按照公平的价格结清。证券交易委员会对这一计划的公正性表示赞同。桑伯恩公司大约70%的股票，其中涉及1600名股东的半数，都按照公平价格转换成了有价证券组合。最后，地图业只剩下125万美元的政府及市政公债作为准备金。公司潜在的100多万美元的资本利得税被免除。留给未走的股东们的资产名义价值也有所上升，每股股票的盈利额有大幅度提升，股息率也得到了提高。
上面的情节是对这种投资操作的一个非常简略的描述。然而，它确实指出了对我们的投资组合业务保密的必要性，以及在短时间内(如一年)衡量我们的结果是徒劳无益的。这种控股情况可能很少发生。我们的赖以生存的业务是购买被低估的证券，当低估被纠正时出售，同时加上在特殊情况下控股企业，即利润取决于公司利润而不是市场价格。在这个意义上，只要合伙企业资金总量继续增长，就有可能在“控股收购”中获得更多的机会。
大约在一周之内，审计师将把你的财务决算以及税款信息寄出去。如果你对他们的报告或是我的信有任何问题的话，一定要告诉我。
沃伦·巴菲特
1961年1月30日
附：英文版全文
1960 Letter WARREN E. BUFFETT
5202 Underwood Ave. Omaha, Nebraska
The General Stock Market in 1960:
A year ago, I commented on the somewhat faulty picture presented in 1959 by the Dow-Jones Industrial Average which had advanced from 583 to 679, or 16.4%. Although practically all investment companies showed gains for that year, less than 10% of them were able to match or better the record of the Industrial Average. The Dow-Jones Utility Average had a small decline and the Railroad Average recorded a substantial one.
In 1960, the picture was reversed. The Industrial Average declined from 679 to 616, or 9.3%. Adding back the dividends which would have been received through ownership of the Average still left it with an overall loss of 6.3%. On the other hand, the Utility Average showed a good gain and, while all the results are not now available, my guess is that about 90% of all investment companies outperformed the Industrial Average. The majority of investment companies appear to have ended the year with overall results in the range of plus or minus 5%. On the New York Stock Exchange, 653 common stocks registered losses for the year while 404 showed gains.
Results in 1960:
My continual objective in managing partnership funds is to achieve a long-term performance record superior to that of the Industrial Average. I believe this Average, over a period of years, will more or less parallel the results of leading investment companies. Unless we do achieve this superior performance there is no reason for existence of the partnerships.
However, I have pointed out that any superior record which we might accomplish should not be expected to be evidenced by a relatively constant advantage in performance compared to the Average. Rather it is likely that if such an advantage is achieved, it will be through better-than-average performance in stable or declining markets and average, or perhaps even poorer- than-average performance in rising markets.
I would consider a year in which we declined 15% and the Average 30% to be much superior to a year when both we and the Average advanced 20%. Over a period of time there are going to be good and bad years; there is nothing to be gained by getting enthused or depressed about the sequence in which they occur. The important thing is to be beating par; a four on a par three hole is not as good as a five on a par five hole and it is unrealistic to assume we are not going to have our share of both par three’s and par five’s.
The above dose of philosophy is being dispensed since we have a number of new partners this year and I want to make sure they understand my objectives, my measure of attainment of these objectives, and some of my known limitations.
With this background it is not unexpected that 1960 was a better-than-average year for us. As contrasted with an overall loss of 6.3% for the Industrial Average, we had a 22.8% gain for the seven partnerships operating throughout the year. Our results for the four complete years of partnership operation after expenses but before interest to limited partners or allocation to the general partner are:
Year
Partnerships
Operating
Partnership
Gain
Dow-Jones
Gain
1957
3
10.4%
-8.4%
1958
5
40.9%
38.5%
1959
6
25.9%
19.9%
1960
7
22.8%
-6.3%
It should be emphasized again that these are the net results to the partnership; the net results to the limited partners would depend on the partnership agreement that they had selected.
The overall gain or loss is computed on a market to market basis. After allowing for any money added or withdrawn, such a method gives results based upon what would have been realized upon liquidation of the partnership at the beginning, of the year and what would have been realized upon liquidation at year end and is different, of course, from our tax results, which value securities at cost and realize gains or losses only when securities are actually sold.
On a compounded basis, the cumulative results have been:
Year
Partnership Gain
Dow-Jones Gain
1957
10.4%
-8.4%
1958
55.6%
26.9%
1959
95.9%
52.2%
1960
140.6%
42.6%
Although four years is entirely too short a period from which to make deductions, what evidence there is points toward confirming the proposition that our results should be relatively better in moderately declining or static markets. To the extent that this is true, it indicates that our portfolio may be more conservatively, although decidedly less conventionally, invested than if we owned “blue-chip” securities. During a strongly rising market for the latter, we might have real difficulty in matching their performance.
Multiplicity of Partnerships:
A preceding table shows that the family is growing. There has been no partnership which has had a consistently superior or inferior record compared to our group average, but there has been some variance each year despite my efforts to “keep all partnerships invested in the same securities and in about the same proportions. This variation, of course, could be eliminated by combining the present partnerships into one large partnership. Such a move would also eliminate much detail and a moderate amount of expense.
Frankly, I am hopeful of doing something along this line in the next few years. The problem is that various partners have expressed preferences for varying partnership arrangements. Nothing will be done without unanimous consent of partners.
Advance Payments:
Several partners have inquired about adding money during the year to their partnership. Although an exception has been made, it is too difficult to amend partnership agreements during mid-year where we have more than one family represented among the limited partners. Therefore, in mixed partnerships an additional interest can only be acquired at the end of the year.
We do accept advance payments during the year toward a partnership interest and pay interest at 6% on this payment from the time received until the end of the year. At that time, subject to amendment of the agreement by the partners, the payment plus interest is added to the partnership capital and thereafter participates in profits and losses.
Sanborn Map:
Last year mention was made of an investment which accounted for a very high and unusual proportion (35%) of our net assets along with the comment that I had some hope this investment would be concluded in 1960. This hope materialized. The history of an investment of this magnitude may be of interest to you.
Sanborn Map Co. is engaged in the publication and continuous revision of extremely detailed maps of all cities of the United States. For example, the volumes mapping Omaha would weigh perhaps fifty pounds and provide minute details on each structure. The map would be revised by the paste-over method showing new construction, changed occupancy, new fire protection facilities, changed structural materials, etc. These revisions would be done approximately annually and a new map would be published every twenty or thirty years when further pasteovers became impractical. The cost of keeping the map revised to an Omaha customer would run around $100 per year.
This detailed information showing diameter of water mains underlying streets, location of fire hydrants, composition of roof, etc., was primarily of use to fire insurance companies. Their underwriting departments, located in a central office, could evaluate business by agents nationally. The theory was that a picture was worth a thousand words and such evaluation would decide whether the risk was properly rated, the degree of conflagration exposure in an area, advisable reinsurance procedure, etc. The bulk of Sanborn’s business was done with about thirty insurance companies although maps were also sold to customers outside the insurance industry such as public utilities, mortgage companies, and taxing authorities.
For seventy-five years the business operated in a more or less monopolistic manner, with profits realized in every year accompanied by almost complete immunity to recession and lack of need for any sales effort. In the earlier years of the business, the insurance industry became fearful that Sanborn’s profits would become too great and placed a number of prominent insurance men on Sanborn’s board of directors to act in a watch-dog capacity.
In the early 1950’s a competitive method of under-writing known as “carding” made inroads on Sanborn’s business and after-tax profits of the map business fell from an average annual level of over $500,000 in the late 1930’s to under $100,000 in 1958 and 1959. Considering the upward bias in the economy during this period, this amounted to an almost complete elimination of what had been sizable, stable earning power.
However, during the early 1930’s Sanborn had begun to accumulate an investment portfolio. There were no capital requirements to the business so that any retained earnings could be devoted to this project. Over a period of time, about $2.5 million was invested, roughly half in bonds and half in stocks. Thus, in the last decade particularly, the investment portfolio blossomed while the operating map business wilted.
Let me give you some idea of the extreme divergence of these two factors. In 1938 when the Dow-Jones Industrial Average was in the 100-120 range, Sanborn sold at $110 per share. In 1958 with the Average in the 550 area, Sanborn sold at $45 per share. Yet during that same period the value of the Sanborn investment portfolio increased from about $20 per share to $65 per share. This means, in effect, that the buyer of Sanborn stock in 1938 was placing a positive valuation of $90 per share on the map business ($110 less the $20 value of the investments unrelated to the map business) in a year of depressed business and stock market conditions. In the tremendously more vigorous climate of 1958 the same map business was evaluated at a minus $20 with the buyer of the stock unwilling to pay more than 70 cents on the dollar for the investment portfolio with the map business thrown in for nothing.
How could this come about? Sanborn in 1958 as well as 1938 possessed a wealth of information of substantial value to the insurance industry. To reproduce the detailed information they had gathered over the years would have cost tens of millions of dollars. Despite “carding” over $500 million of fire premiums were underwritten by “mapping” companies. However, the means of selling and packaging Sanborn’s product, information had remained unchanged throughout the year and finally this inertia was reflected in the earnings.
The very fact that the investment portfolio had done so well served to minimize in the eyes of most directors the need for rejuvenation of the map business. Sanborn had a sales volume of about $2 million per year and owned about $7 million worth of marketable securities. The income from the investment portfolio was substantial, the business had no possible financial worries, the insurance companies were satisfied with the price paid for maps, and the stockholders still received dividends. However, these dividends were cut five times in eight years although I could never find any record of suggestions pertaining to cutting salaries or director’s and committee fees.
Prior to my entry on the Board, of the fourteen directors, nine were prominent men from the insurance industry who combined held 46 shares of stock out of 105,000 shares outstanding. Despite their top positions with very large companies which would suggest the financial wherewithal to make at least a modest commitment, the largest holding in this group was ten shares. In several cases, the insurance companies these men ran owned small blocks of stock but these were token investments in relation to the portfolios in which they were held. For the past decade the insurance companies had been only sellers in any transactions involving Sanborn stock.
The tenth director was the company attorney, who held ten shares. The eleventh was a banker with ten shares who recognized the problems of the company, actively pointed them out, and later added to his holdings. The next two directors were the top officers of Sanborn who owned about 300 shares combined. The officers were capable, aware of the problems of the business, but kept in a subservient role by the Board of Directors. The final member of our cast was a son of a deceased president of Sanborn. The widow owned about 15,000 shares of stock.
In late 1958, the son, unhappy with the trend of the business, demanded the top position in the company, was turned down, and submitted his resignation, which was accepted. Shortly thereafter we made a bid to his mother for her block of stock, which was accepted. At the time there were two other large holdings, one of about 10,000 shares (dispersed among customers of a brokerage firm) and one of about 8,000. These people were quite unhappy with the situation and desired a separation of the investment portfolio from the map business, as did we.
Subsequently our holdings (including associates) were increased through open market purchases to about 24,000 shares and the total represented by the three groups increased to 46,000 shares. We hoped to separate the two businesses, realize the fair value of the investment portfolio and work to re-establish the earning power of the map business. There appeared to be a real opportunity to multiply map profits through utilization of Sanborn’s wealth of raw material in conjunction with electronic means of converting this data to the most usable form for the customer.
There was considerable opposition on the Board to change of any type, particularly when initiated by an outsider, although management was in complete accord with our plan and a similar plan had been recommended by Booz, Allen & Hamilton (Management Experts). To avoid a proxy fight (which very probably would not have been forthcoming and which we would have been certain of winning) and to avoid time delay with a large portion of Sanborn’s money tied up in blue-chip stocks which I didn’t care for at current prices, a plan was evolved taking out all stockholders at fair value who wanted out. The SEC ruled favorably on the fairness of the plan. About 72% of the Sanborn stock, involving 50% of the 1,600 stockholders, was exchanged for portfolio securities at fair value. The map business was left with over $l,25 million in government and municipal bonds as a reserve fund, and a potential corporate capital gains tax of over $1 million was eliminated. The remaining stockholders were left with a slightly improved asset value, substantially higher earnings per share, and an increased dividend rate.
Necessarily, the above little melodrama is a very abbreviated description of this investment operation. However, it does point up the necessity for secrecy regarding our portfolio operations as well as the futility of measuring
our results over a short span of time such as a year. Such control situations may occur very infrequently. Our bread-and-butter business is buying undervalued securities and selling when the undervaluation is corrected along with investment in special situations where the profit is dependent on corporate rather than market action. To the extent that partnership funds continue to grow, it is possible that more opportunities will be available in “control situations.”
The auditors should be mailing your financial statement and tax information within about a week. If you have any questions at all regarding either their report or this letter, be sure to let me know.
Warren E. Buffett 1-30-61
