中文版全文
我们在1961年的表现
我不断地告知各位合伙人,我们的预期,或者仅仅是愿望(通常我们很难将这两者进行准确的区分),是我们将在下降或持平的市场中有着较好的表现,而不是在上涨的市场。而在强劲上升的市场情况下，我预计届时我们将很难超越市场的平均水平。虽然1961年毫无疑问地是一个市场表现很好的年份，而我们的绝对和相对收益也都有着很好的表现，但是我上述的预期仍然保持不变。
1961年，包括分红，道琼斯指数上升了22.2%，而我们的收益率是45.9%。我们近五年的收益情况如下：
累计收益率如下：
注：该结果与合伙人的实际所得有所区别。
合伙人所得：
累计合伙人所得：
对于优秀合伙人的选择和我与他们的良好关系将有助于确保我们使用同样的价值/业绩衡量标准。如果我的表现糟糕，我希望合伙人退出，而我也将寻找一个更适合的地方投放我自己的钱。如果表现良好，则我会努力表现得更好。
问题的关键在于，我们要确定所有的合伙人对于什么是好什么是坏的都具有相同的理念。我相信如果在行动之前就先确定评判的标准，将有助于所有的事业最终取得一个较好的结局。
我一直以来都使用道琼斯指数作为我们业绩的评判标准。我个人认为3年是最最起码的可以对于业绩的做出评判的时间段。而最好的业绩评判周期应该要经历一个完整的市场周期，比如从业绩评判当时的道琼斯指数水平开始，直到该指数最终回到几乎同样的水平为止。
战胜市场的平均水平并不是一件容易的工作。实际上，光是长期跟上市场的平均水平就已经是一件十分困难的工作。虽然没有确切的数据，但我认为即便是目前最好的几家投资咨询公司也只取得了与市场水平相近的回报。
Wiesenberger收集了70只共同基金自1946年以来的表现。其中有32只平衡型的基金，由于它们没有将全部资金投入股市，并且它们的表现也不如股票市场的平均水平，因此我将他们剔除。在剩余的38只基金中，只有6只长期而言超越了市场的平均水平。而且它们中没有任何一只的年均复合增长率能够哪怕是超过道琼斯指数几个百分点。
下面是近五年来四家有代表性的大型投资基金和道琼斯指数以及我们的投资业绩的比较：
累计收益率
我展示上述结果的目的并不是要控诉这些投资基金。由于资金总量较为庞大，而且受到各种条款的限制，即便由我个人来管理这些基金也不见得会取得更好的结果(如果不是更坏的话)。我只是想要说明：道琼斯指数做为投资业绩的衡量标准，是很多共同基金很难超越甚至哪怕是接近的。
我们的业绩表现则跟道琼斯指数和其他共同基金的表现有很大的区别，其主要原因是我们的投资方法也同样跟大多数共同基金有着很大的区别。
我们的投资运作方法
我的投资组合主要由三部分构成。每一部分的投资方式都各有不同，因而我们资金在这三部分中的分配比例将会对我们的投资业绩有很大的影响。对于资金在各部分中的分配比例，我们有着一个大概的计划，但同时也由于时机的不同而有所变化。
第一部分主要由价值被低估的证券组成。对于这一部分证券我们既不能影响公司的政策也无法推进公司做出某种决策的时间表。这是我们投资组合中最大的一部分。通常我们对于持有量最大的5-6只证券会分别投入占我们总资产5-10%的资金。而对于其他持有量较小的10-15只证券则会投入占我们总资产更小的比例的资金。
有时价值的修正将会非常快，但大多数时候需要一年甚至数年的时间来实现。我们在买入时往往很难确切的知道为何某只股票将会在现有价格水平上增值。但也正是因为市场上缺乏对于该问题的解答而导致我们有机会买入价格大大低于其价值的股票。无论如何，基于证券固有价值并且以低于该价值的价格进行买入的行为是具有令人感到舒适的安全边际的。在具有相当的安全边际的前提下买入的股票将具有较大的升值潜力。长期以来，我们对于买入时机的选择都要优于我们对于卖出时机的选择。我们并不指望能够赚到可能赚到的每一分钱，我们将十分满足于以很低的价格买入，然后在该证券的价格能够大概正确地反映其价值时(意味着这对于一个私人持有人将是一个较为合理的价格)将他卖出。
我们持有的这些股票虽然便宜，但是一件东西的价格便宜并不意味着它的价格就不会继续下降。当市场下跌时，我们的这一部分也同样将下跌。1961年的市场表现很好，因而我们的这一部分投资是在三个组成中表现最好的。但是如果市场下跌，那么这一部分投资也将很可能会是表现最差的。
我们投资组成的第二部分是WORK OUT. 他们是那些涨跌结果取决与公司的特定行为而非市场对于该证券的供求关系的股票。这些证券具有我们可以预期的时间表(当然也可能会有意外出现)。诸如合并、清算、重组、分拆等公司事件将会构成WORK OUT。最近几年石油生产商将自己出售给主要的一体化石油企业是WORK OUT的一项重要来源。
这一部分将会构成年复一年的较为稳定的利润，且很大程度上与道琼斯指数的表现无关。如果我们将大部分资产投入这个部分，而刚好当年的市场情况不佳时，显然我们将会有非常好的表现，反之亦然。在任一时期，我们都可能会有10到15项这样的投资，有的所对应的事项才刚开始，有的则是已经进入了快要结束的阶段。由于这一部分的投资相对而言较为安全，我相信可以利用借来的资金作为这一部分投资的一种补充。这一部分的投资收益率(不包括因借贷而产生的杠杆作用)一般在10%到20%之间。我个人设定的借款上限是不可以超过我们净资产的25%。多数时候我们没有借款，如果我们有，则只是将其作为WORK OUT投资的一种补充资金来使用。
第三种情况则是获得目标公司的控制权或者通过持有其较大比例的股权对该公司的政策产生影响。这种行为肯定将需要一年以上或数年时间才会见到成效。在某一年中，这种投资可能对我们的利润没有任何的贡献。而这种投资也跟道琼斯指数的表现没有什么关联。
有些时候，当我们买入一只价值被低估的股票时，我们可能从长期而言计划对其拥有控制权。当然当它的价格上涨时我们可能将其抛售，否则我们可能在一个较长的时间里不断增持其股票，直到拥有该公司的控制权。
我们目前正在进行对于Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company的控制。我们第一次买入这家公司是在五年前，作为价值被低估的股票买入的。之后我在4年前得以成为该公司的董事。在1961年八月，我们取得了主要控制权。这可以说明我们的大多数投资并不是“一夜情”式的投资。
目前我们拥有其70%的股份。其10%的股份被一些合伙人持有，另外的股票持有人则只有大约150人，因此该股票在市场上的交易额几乎是零了。因此我们在市场上的行为将会大大影响该股票的开价。
因此，我将很有必要估计一下我们所拥有的该股票的价值。因为新的合伙人将以此价格买入该股，而原有的持有人将以此价格卖出手中的部分股票。所估算出的价格不应该是我们所期望的价格，或者是在一个热切的买入者看来值得的价格，而是如果我们在一个合理的较短的时间段卖出我们持有的股份所能获得的价格。我们所努力达成的正是去尽量实现在这种情况下的一个较高的价格，而我们对能实现此目的的前景表示乐观。
Dempster是一个农业器具和灌溉系统的生产商。其在1961年的销售收入为9百万美元。该公司的运作只产生了名义上的利润(跟其每年的新增资本投入相比)。这反映了公司所处行业的困境和公司本身的管理不良。目前公司的资产净值约为4.5百万美元，约75美元一股。全部的流动资本约为50美元一股。在年末我们将每股的价格评估为35美元一股。我感觉这是一个对于新旧持有人而言同样公平的价值。当然如果温和的利润能够被取得，则公司的价值应该有所提高。我们持股的成本约在28美元左右，如果按照35元的价格计算，则该公司的股票价格约在我们净资产的的21%左右。
当然,我们这一部分资产绝不会仅仅因为General Motors 或者是 U.S.Steel 之类的公司在以一个相对更高的价格卖出而增值。在牛市中，通过拥有控制权而实现公司的价值来赚钱要比直接买入市场的指数基金赚钱来得困难。但我同时也充分认识到在这样的市场环境中，风险比机遇要大。而上述控制公司的行为则可以在这种环境中减少我们面临的市场风险。
关于保守的问题
从上述的评论你们应该可以看出我们的投资组合是多么的保守。很多人认为购买中长期国债或者类似的产品才算保守,但是这种投资最终可能导致投资组合的实际购买力下降。也有许多人认为购买所谓的蓝筹股是一种保守的投资，好像只要买的是蓝筹股，就可以不用仔细考虑其市盈率或者分红的情况。我认为这种行为充满了危险。
仅仅因为很多人在一段时间内与你的看法相同，或者因为某些重要人物赞同你的观点，并不意味着你的观点就是正确的。
如果你的假设是正确的，你掌握的事实是正确的，你的推论是正确的，那么经过许多次的交易后，你将最终是正确的。
因此，通过对比我们的投资组合和市场的所谓保守的投资组合并不能够判断出我们的投资组合是否保守。判断一个投资组合是否保守只能通过对其投资方法和结果的检验来进行。
关于规模的问题
除了被问到我死了以后我们的合伙企业怎么办，我最多被问到的一个问题就是资金规模的快速增长对我们的业绩表现会有怎样的影响。
对于一些我们投资的证券而言，买入一万股比买入一百股要困难得多，有时甚至是不可能的。因此增加的资金规模绝对不利于我们的投资结果。这种情况包括我们的WORKOUT和一般性的投资。
然而对于以取得控制权为目的的投资而言，资金增加的影响将会是正面的。我认为随着资金的增加，我们能够把握的这类投资机会也会增多。因为一般被投资公司的规模增大，那么关注于控制它的竞争者将会大大减少。
那么总体而言到底资金的增加是好是坏呢?这个问题的答案取决于我们在特定时间段内的投资模式。而我可以确定的是，即使在1960年和1961年我们只有相等于1957年那样的资金规模，我们的投资业绩也不会变的更好。
一个预测
一般的读者将会认为我这种做预测行为肯定是很有问题的。因为我一直避免去预测。我的确对于未来一两年间市场的情况一无所知。
我认为我们可以确定将来十年间市场会有在一年中上升20%或者25%的时候，也会有下降同样幅度的时候。当然更多的时候市场的波动会小于这个幅度。而对于长期投资者而言，上述的情况都是没有太大意义的。
对于任何一个较长的历史时期而言，我认为道琼斯指数应该会取得一个总体在5%到7%的年复合增长率(包括上市公司的分红)。对任何一个报有超出该幅度的希望的人而言，他都会面临失望。
我们的目标是在一个较长的历史时期取得超过道琼斯年均复合增长率的回报，而不关心我们是否在某一年中超越了或者低于道琼斯的表现。许多合伙人对此表现出了程度不同的赞同。然而我希望大家能够真正的明白这一点，你们对此所表现出的赞同和理解应当不仅仅是表现在我们的表现超越市场的时候，更要在我们的表现低于市场的时候。
如果我们的表现能在长期而言战胜道琼斯指数十个百分点，我将会感到满意。如果未来市场在一年中下跌35%或者40%(我个人认为这种情况是很可能在未来的十年中的某一年出现的，当然我不知道具体是哪一年),我希望我们的投资只下跌15%或者20%.如果市场保持不变,我希望我们的投资能赚10%左右。如果市场上升20%以上,我们将挣扎着达到市场的平均水平.在预期道琼斯的长期年均复合增长率在5%-7%之间的话，我希望我们的增长率将会在15%-17%之间。
上述的预期可能有些草率，而且在将来也有可能被证明是错误的。然而我认为合伙人有权利知道我的想法的预期。1961年的情况就显然跟我预期有着很大的出入。幸好这种差异偏向于好的一面。然而，这种差异不会总是向好的一面倾斜!
沃伦·巴菲特
1962年1月24日
附：英文版全文
Our Performance in 1961
I have consistently told partners that it is my expectation and hope (it's always hard to tell which is which) that we will do relatively well compared to the general market in down or static markets, but that we may not look so good in advancing markets. In strongly advancing markets I expect to have real difficulty keeping up with the general market.
Although 1961 was certainly a good year for the general market, and in addition, a very good year for us on both an absolute and relative basis, the expectations in the previous paragraph remain unchanged.
During 1961, the general market as measured by the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (hereinafter called the “Dow”) showed an over-allgain of 22.2% including dividends received through ownership of the Dow. The gain for all partnerships operating throughout the entire year, after all expenses of operation, but before payments to limited partners or accrual to the general partner, averaged 45.9%. The details of this gain by partnership are shown in the appendix along with results for the partnerships started during the year.
We have now completed five full years of partnership operation, and the results of these five years are shown below on a year-by-year basis and also on a cumulative or compounded basis. These results are stated on the basis described in the preceding paragraph; after expenses,but before division of gains among partners or payments to partners.
* Including dividends received through ownership ofthe Dow.
On a compounded basis, the cumulative results havebeen:
These results do not measure the gain to the limited partner, which of course, is the figure in which you are most interested.Because of the varying partnership arrangements that have existed in the past,I have used the over-all net gain (based on market values at the beginning andend of the year) to the partnership as being the fairest measure of over-all performance.
On a pro-forma basis adjusted to the division of gain sentailed in our present Buffett Partnership, Ltd. agreement, the results would have been:
A Word About Par
The outstanding item of importance in my selection of partners, as well as in my subsequent relations with them, has been the determination that we use the same yardstick. If my performance is poor, I expect partners to withdraw, and indeed, I should look for a new source of investment for my own funds. If performance is good, I am assured of doing splendidly, a state of affairs to which I am sure I can adjust.
The rub, then, is in being sure that we all have the same ideas of what is good and what is poor. I believe in establishing yardsticks prior to the act; retrospectively, almost anything can be made to look good in relation to something or other.
I have continuously used the Dow-Jones Industrial Average as our measure of par. It is my feeling that three years is a very minimal test of performance, and the best test consists of a period at least that long where the terminal level of the Dow is reasonably close to the initial level.
While the Dow is not perfect (nor is anything else) as a measure of performance, it has the advantage of being widely known, has a long period of continuity, and reflects with reasonable accuracy the experience of investors generally with the market. I have no objection to any other method of measurement of generalmarket performance being used, such as other stock market averages, leading diversified mutual stock funds, bank common trust funds, etc.
You may feel I have established an unduly short yardstick in that it perhaps appears quite simple to do better than an unmanaged index of 30 leading common stocks. Actually,this index has generally proven to be a reasonably tough competitor. Arthur Wiesenberger's classic book on investment companies lists performance for the15 years 1946-60, for all leading mutual funds. There is presently over $20 billion invested in mutual funds, so the experience of these funds represents,collectively, the experience of many million investors. My own belief, thoughthe figures are not obtainable, is that portfolios of most leading investment counsel organizations and bank trust departments have achieved results similar to these mutual funds.
Wiesenberger lists 70 funds in his “Charts & Statistics” with continuous records since1946. I have excluded 32 of these funds for various reasons since they were balanced funds (therefore not participating fully in the general market rise),specialized industry funds, etc. Of the 32 excluded because I felt a comparison would not be fair, 31 did poorer than the Dow, so they were certainly not excluded to slant the conclusions below.
Of there maining 38 mutual funds whose method of operation I felt was such as to make a comparison with the Dow reasonable, 32 did poorer than the Dow, and 6 did better. The 6 doing better at the end of 1960 had assets of about $1 billion,and the 32 doing poorer had assets of about $6-1/2 billion. None of the six that were superior beat the Dow by more than a few percentage points a year.
Below I present the year-by-year results for our period of operation (excluding 1961for which I don't have exact data, although rough figures indicate no variance from the 1957-60 figures) for the two largest common stock open-end investment companies (mutual funds) and the two largest closed-end investment companies:
Massachusetts Investors Trust has net assets of about $1.8 billion; Investors Stock Fundabout $1 billion; Tri -Continental Corporation about $ .5 billion; and Lehman Corporation about $350 million; or a total of over $3.5 billion.
I do not present the above tabulations and information with the idea of indicting investment companies. My own record of investing such huge sums of money, with restrictions on the degree of activity I might take in companies where we had investments, would be no better, if as good. I present this data to indicatethe Dow as an investment competitor is no pushover, and the great bulk of investment funds in the country are going to have difficulty in bettering, or perhaps even matching, its performance.
Our portfolio is very different from that of the Dow. Our method of operation is substantially different from that of mutual funds.
However, most partners, as all alternative to their investment in the partnership, would probably have their funds invested in a media producing results comparable to the Dow, therefore, I feel it is a fair test of performance.
Our Methodof Operation
Our avenues of investment break down into three categories. These categories have different behavior characteristics, and the way our money is divided among them will have an important effect on our results, relative to the Dow in any given year. The actual percentage division among categories is to some degree planned, but to agreat extent, accidental, based upon availability factors.
The first section consists of generally undervalued securities
(hereinafter called"generals") where we have nothing to say about corporate policies and no time table as to when the undervaluation may correct itself. Over the years,this has been our largest category of investment, and more money has been made here than in either of the other categories. We usually have fairly large positions (5% to 10% of our total assets) in each of five or six generals, with smaller positions in another ten or fifteen.
Sometimes these work out very fast; many times they take years. It is difficult at the time of purchase to know any specific reason why they should appreciate in price. However, because of this lack of glamour or anything pending which might create immediate favorable market action, they are available at very cheap prices.
A lot of value can be obtained for the price paid.
This substantial excess of value creates a comfortable margin of safety in each transaction.This individual margin of safety, coupled with a diversity of commitment screates a most attractive package of safety and appreciation potential. Over the years our timing of purchases has been considerably better than our timing of sales. We do not go into these generals with the idea of getting the last nickel, but are usually quite content selling out at some intermediate level between our purchase price and what we regard as fair value to a private owner.
The generals tend to behave market-wise very much in sympathy with the Dow. Just because something is cheap does not mean it is not going to go down. During abrupt downward movements in the market, this segment may very well go down percentage-wise just as much as the Dow. Over a period of years, I believe the generals will outperform the Dow, and during sharply advancing years like 1961,this is the section of our portfolio that turns in the best results. It is, ofcourse, also the most vulnerable in a declining market.
Our second category consists of “work-outs.”
These are securities whose financial results depend on corporate action rather than supply and demand factors created by buyers and sellers of securities. In other words, they are securities with atimetable where we can predict, within reasonable error limits, when we will get how much and what might upset the applecart. Corporate events such as mergers, liquidations, reorganizations, spin-offs, etc., lead to work-outs. An important source in recent years has been sell-outs by oil producers to major integrated oil companies.
This category will produce reasonably stable earnings from year to year, to a large extent irrespective of the course of the Dow. Obviously, if we operate throughout a year with a large portion of our portfolio in work-outs, we will look extremely good if it turns out to be a declining year for the Dow or quite bad if it is a strongly advancing year. Over the years, work-outs have provided our second largest category. At any given time, we may be in ten to fifteen of these; some just beginning and others in the late stage of their development. I believe in using borrowed money to offset a portion of our work-out portfolio since there is a high degree of safety in this category in terms of botheventual results and intermediate market behavior. Results, excluding the benefits derived from the use of borrowed money, usually fall in the 10% to 20% range. My self-imposed limit regarding borrowing is 25% of partnership net worth. Oftentimes we owe no money and when we do borrow, it is only as an offset against work-outs.
The final category is "control" situations where we either control the company or take a very large position and attempt to influence policies of the company.Such operations should definitely be measured on the basis of several years. In a given year, they may produce nothing as it is usually to our advantage to have the stock be stagnant market-wise for a long period while we are acquiring it. These situations, too, have relatively little in common with the behavior of the Dow. Sometimes, of course, we buy into a general with the thought in mind that it might develop into a control situation. If the price remains low enough for a long period, this might very well happen. If it moves up before we have a substantial percentage of the company's stock, we sell at higher levels and complete a successful general operation. We are presently acquiring stock in what may turn out to be control situations several years hence.
Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company
We are presently involved in the control of Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company of Beatrice,Nebraska. Our first stock was purchased as a generally undervalued security five years ago. A block later became available, and I went on the Board about four years ago. In August 1961, we obtained majority control, which is indicative of the fact that many of our operations are not exactly of the"overnight" variety.
Presently we own 70% of the stock of Dempster with another 10% held by a few associates. With only 150 or so other stockholders, a market on the stock is virtually non-existent,and in any case, would have no meaning for a controlling block. Our own actionsin such a market could drastically affect the quoted price.
Therefore,it is necessary for me to estimate the value at yearend of our controlling interest. This is of particular importance since, in effect, new partners are buying in based upon this price, and old partners are selling a portion of their interest based upon the same price. The estimated value should not be what we hope it would be worth, or what it might be worth to an eager buyer,etc., but what I would estimate our interest would bring if sold under current conditions in a reasonably short period of time. Our efforts will be devoted toward increasing this value, and we feel there are decent prospects of doing this.
Dempster is a manufacturer of farm implements and water systems with sales in 1961 of about $9 million. Operations have produced only nominal profits in relation to invested capital during recent years. This reflected a poor management situation, along with a fairly tough industry situation. Presently, consolidated net worth (book value) is about $4.5 million, or $75 per share, consolidated working capital about $50 per share, and at yearend we valued our interest at$35 per share. While I claim no oracular vision in a matter such as this, Ifeel this is a fair valuation to both new and old partners. Certainly, if even moderate earning power can be restored, a higher valuation will be justified,and even if it cannot, Dempster should work out at a higher figure. Our controlling interest was acquired at an average price of about $28, and this holding currently represents 21% of partnership net assets based on the $35 value.
Of course,this section of our portfolio is not going to be worth more money merely because General Motors, U.S. Steel, etc., sell higher. In a raging bull market,operations in control situations will seem like a very difficult way to makemoney, compared to just buying the general market. However, I am more consciousof the dangers presented at current market levels than the opportunities.Control situations, along with work-outs, provide a means of insulating aportion of our portfolio from these dangers.
