Berkshire’s 2024 annual shareholder meeting

波克夏 2024 年度股東大會

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Don’t wear out all your clapping on Charlie. I mean, we’ve got, in addition, well, we have, first of all, Greg Abel, a director, and Ajit Jain. Then, in the back of this first section…
華倫·巴菲特：沒錯。別把掌聲都獻給查理。我是說，我們還有，嗯，首先有董事葛瑞格·阿貝爾和阿吉特·賈恩。然後，在第一區的後排...

(Introduces the directors: Howard Buffet, Susan Buffett, Steve Burke, Ken Chenault, Chris Davis, Sue Decker, Charlotte Guyman, Tom Murphy Jr., Ron Olson, Wally Weitz, and Merrill Whitmer.)
（介紹董事會成員：霍華德·巴菲特、蘇珊·巴菲特、史蒂夫·伯克、肯·陳納德、克里斯·戴維斯、蘇·德克爾、夏洛特·蓋曼、小湯姆·墨菲、羅恩·奧爾森、沃利·韋茨和梅里爾·惠特默。）

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay, there are two people I would like to thank, and then we’ll get on to a brief description of the results of the first quarter.
華倫·巴菲特：好的，有兩個人我想特別感謝，接著我們會簡短說明第一季的業績表現。

First of all, I’d like to thank Melissa Shapiro, who put this whole event together. You can’t imagine the work that goes into it.
首先，我要感謝 Melissa Shapiro，她籌辦了整個活動。你無法想像這背後需要付出多少工作量。

She just reported to me that we set a new record for See’s Candy. I think they brought along six tons, and they will sell out. And one thing I do want to mention, we have only one book at the bookstore of The Bookworm this year. Normally we have about 25, but we have Poor Charlie’s Almanack, fourth edition, and I think we sold about 2,400 of them yesterday. And that will be the only book next year.
她剛剛向我報告，我們在 See’s Candy 的銷售創下了新紀錄。我想他們帶來了六噸的糖果，而且會全部賣完。有一件事我想特別提到，今年我們在書蟲書店只有一本書。通常我們會有約 25 本，但今年我們有《窮查理的普通常識》第四版，我想昨天我們賣出了約 2400 本。明年這將是唯一的一本書。

We’ll go back to having our usual selection, but we thought we would just turn it over to Charlie this year. And then I would like to introduce one further person, and that’s the person who put that movie together. And you can’t imagine the amount of work it is because, for example, on those scenes that we’ve used from the past, if they involve Hollywood stars or various people, we needed to get permission all over again to show it because we told them originally we would only show it within the confines of our auditorium here. And, of course, it went out on CNBC. And you just can’t imagine how much effort.
我們會恢復往常的書籍選擇，但今年我們想將焦點完全放在查理身上。接著，我想介紹另一位人士，就是那位負責製作那部電影的人。你無法想像這需要多少工作，因為舉例來說，那些我們使用的過往片段，如果涉及好萊塢明星或其他各種人物，我們需要重新獲得許可才能播放，因為我們最初告訴他們這些片段僅限於我們這裡的禮堂內播放。當然，現在它通過 CNBC 播出了。你根本無法想像這背後的努力有多大。

But also, the great cooperation we got from all those Desperate Housewives and Jamie Lee Curtis. And with the Desperate Housewives, we had to get Disney’s okay, and that was easy to get. But running down five Desperate Housewives, that one came in toward the end. But the job of putting this together has been handled by the same fellow that handles us. Been doing these for years and years and years and years.
同時，我們也獲得了所有《慾望主婦》演員和潔美·李·寇蒂斯的大力配合。至於《慾望主婦》的部分，我們需要取得迪士尼的同意，這很容易就搞定了。但要湊齊五位主婦演員，這項工作在後期才完成。整個企劃的統籌工作多年來一直由同一位夥伴負責，他處理這類事務已有數十年經驗。

And I just would appreciate it if you could just put the spotlight on Brad Underwood for just a minute.
我想請大家給布萊德·安德伍德一分鐘的關注時間。

(Spotlight on Brad Underwood.)
（聚光燈打在布萊德·安德伍德身上。）

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay. We put out some results for the first quarter this morning at 7:00 our time. And some few sharp-eyed analysts and press people already picked up one or two items from it, which I’m sure we’ll get some questions on later. But if we could start out with slide number one, which should be showing now, you’ll see that in the first quarter…
華倫·巴菲特：好的。我們今早七點（本地時間）發布了第一季的財報。一些眼尖的分析師和記者已經從中挑出一兩點，相信稍後會有人提問。現在我們先來看第一張投影片，目前應該已經顯示在螢幕上，各位可以看到第一季...

(Continues to discuss the first quarter results.)
（繼續討論第一季度的業績。）

(Becky Quick takes over for Q&A.)
（貝基·奎克接棒進行問答環節。）

BECKY QUICK: Thanks, Warren. Let’s start. Just given what you mentioned, there was some news that came out in the 10-Q this morning.
貝基·奎克：謝謝，華倫。我們開始吧。根據你剛才提到的，今早的 10-Q 文件中有些新聞。

It shows that Berkshire sold another 115 million shares of Apple in this last quarter. That’s Berkshire’s largest holding. And I think in that vein, we’ll start with a question from Sherman Lamb. He is a 27-year-old Berkshire Hathaway Class B shareholder from Malaysia. And he asks, last year you mentioned Coca-Cola and American Express being Berkshire’s two long-duration partial ownership positions, and you spent some time talking about the virtues of both these wonderful businesses.
文件顯示，波克夏在上個季度又賣出了 1.15 億股蘋果股票。這是波克夏最大的持股。我想順著這個話題，我們先來回答謝爾曼·蘭姆的問題。他是來自馬來西亞的 27 歲波克夏海瑟威 B 股股東。他問道，去年你提到可口可樂和美國運通是波克夏的兩項長期部分持股，並且你花了一些時間談論這兩家優秀企業的優點。

And your recent shareholder letter, I noticed that you have excluded Apple from this group of businesses. Have you or your investment managers’ views of the economics of Apple’s business or its attractiveness as an investment changed since Berkshire first invested in 2016?
而在您最近的股東信中，我注意到您已將蘋果排除在這組企業之外。自波克夏於 2016 年首次投資以來，您或您的投資經理對蘋果業務經濟學或其作為投資吸引力的看法是否有所改變？

WARREN BUFFETT: No, I would… But we have sold shares, and I would say that at the end of the year, I would think it extremely likely that Apple is the largest common stock holding we have now. One interesting thing is that Charlie and I look at common stocks or marketable equities as businesses.
華倫·巴菲特：不，我會...但我們已經賣出了部分股份，而且我要說的是，到年底時，我認為蘋果極有可能仍是我們目前最大的普通股持倉。有趣的是，查理和我將普通股或可流通股票視為企業。

And so when we own a Dairy Queen or we own whatever it may be, we look at that as a business. And when we own Coca-Cola or American Express, we look at that as a business. Now, we can buy really wonderful companies in the market as businesses. We can’t buy all of them, I mean, all of their shares. We can’t buy 90% or 80% or anything like that. But when we look at Coca-Cola and American Express and Apple, we look at them as businesses.
因此，當我們擁有冰雪皇后（Dairy Queen）或其他任何企業時，我們將其視為一項業務。同樣地，當我們持有可口可樂或美國運通的股票時，我們也將其視為業務。現在，我們可以在市場上以企業的角度買入真正優秀的公司。我們無法買下它們的全部股份，我的意思是，無法買下 90%、80%或類似比例的股份。但當我們審視可口可樂、美國運通和蘋果時，我們是將它們作為企業來看待的。

Now, there are differences in taxes, factors, there’s a difference in managerial responsibility, a whole bunch of things. But in terms of deploying your money, we always look at every stock as a business, and we don’t… We have no way, no attempt is made to predict markets. We have no attempt made to pick stocks. I went through many, many years doing the wrong thing. I got interested in stocks very early, and I was fascinated by them.
現在，稅收、因素存在差異，管理責任也有所不同，還有許多其他方面。但在資金配置上，我們始終將每一支股票視為一項業務，我們不會……我們沒有辦法，也不嘗試預測市場。我們不試圖挑選股票。我花了許多年時間在做錯誤的事情。我很早就對股票產生了興趣，並對它們著迷。

I wasn’t wasting my time, because I was reading every book possible and everything else. But finally, I picked up a copy of The Intelligent Investor in Lincoln, and there were a few sentences in there that said, much more eloquently than I can say it, if you look at stocks as a business and treat the market as something that doesn’t tell you, isn’t there to instruct you, but it’s there to serve you, you’ll do a lot better over time than if you try to take charts and listen to people talk about moving averages and look at the pronouncements and all of that sort of thing. And so that made a lot of sense to me then, the way I’ve been allowed to deploy it. Charlie and I talked about this, of course, constantly.
我並沒有浪費時間，因為我閱讀了所有可能的書籍和其他一切。但最終，我在林肯買了一本《智慧型投資者》，裡面有幾句話說得比我所能表達的更為優雅：如果你將股票視為一項業務，並將市場視為不是來告訴你、指導你的東西，而是為你服務的，那麼長期來看，你會比試圖看圖表、聽人們談論移動平均線、看各種預測之類的做法要好得多。這對我來說非常有道理，這也是我後來得以運用的方式。當然，查理和我經常討論這一點。

It’s changed over the years, the amount of capital we have has changed and all that. But the basic principle was laid out by Ben Graham in that book, which I picked up for a couple of dollars, and which basically said to me, “You’ve been wasting your time now, but maybe you can use what you’ve learned or been reading about and put it to better use.” And then Charlie came along and told me how to put it to even better use. And that’s sort of the story of why we own American Express, which is a wonderful business. We own Coca-Cola, which is a wonderful business, and we own Apple, which is an even better business.
這些年來情況有所改變，我們擁有的資金規模也變了，諸如此類。但基本原則是由班·葛拉漢在那本書中奠定的，我只花了幾塊錢買到那本書，它基本上告訴我：「你之前一直在浪費時間，但或許你能運用所學或讀到的東西，讓它發揮更好的用途。」接著查理出現了，他告訴我如何更有效地運用這些知識。這就是為什麼我們持有美國運通這家優秀企業的原因，我們也持有可口可樂這家出色的企業，還有蘋果這家更棒的企業。

And we will own, unless something really extraordinary happens, we will own Apple and American Express and Coca-Cola when Greg takes over this place. And it’s such a simple approach that it’s almost deceptive. Most things, if you keep working harder and harder at it, you learn a little more math or you learn a little more physics, but investments, you don’t really have to do that. You really have to have your mindset properly. So, we will end up, if something dramatically happens that really changes our capital allocation strategy, we will have Apple as our largest investment, but I don’t mind at all, under current conditions, building the cash position. I think when I look at the alternative of what’s available, the equity markets, and I look at the composition of what’s going on in the world, we find it quite attractive.
除非發生真正非同尋常的事情，否則當格雷格接管這裡時，我們將繼續持有蘋果、美國運通和可口可樂。這種方法如此簡單，幾乎具有欺騙性。大多數事情，如果你越來越努力地工作，你會學到更多數學或物理知識，但投資則不然。你真正需要的是正確的心態。因此，除非發生戲劇性事件真正改變我們的資本配置策略，否則我們最終將把蘋果作為我們最大的投資，但在當前條件下，我完全不介意增加現金部位。當我審視現有替代方案、股票市場以及世界上正在發生的情況時，我認為這相當具有吸引力。

And one thing that may surprise you, but we… Almost everybody I know pays a lot more attention to not paying taxes, and I think they should. We don’t mind paying taxes at Berkshire, and we are paying a 21% federal rate on the gains we’re taking in Apple. And that rate was 35% not that long ago, and it’s been 52% in the past when I’ve been operating. And the government owns… The federal government owns a part of the earnings of the business we make. They don’t own the assets, but they own a percentage of the earnings, and they can change that percentage any year.
有一件事可能會讓你感到驚訝，但我們……幾乎我認識的每個人都更注重不繳稅，我認為他們應該這樣做。在波克夏，我們並不介意繳稅，我們為在蘋果獲得的收益支付 21%的聯邦稅率。這個稅率不久前還是 35%，在我過去經營時甚至曾高達 52%。政府擁有……聯邦政府擁有我們企業所賺取收益的一部分。他們不擁有資產，但擁有收益的一定比例，而且他們每年都可以改變這個比例。

And the percentage that they’ve decreed currently is 21%. And I would say, with the present fiscal policies, I think that something has to give, and I think that higher taxes are quite likely, and if the government wants to take a greater share of your income, or mine or Berkshire’s, they can do it. And they may decide that someday they don’t want the fiscal deficit to be this large, because that has some important consequences, and they may not want to decrease spending a lot, and they may decide they’ll take a larger percentage of what we earn, and we’ll pay it.
而他們目前規定的稅率是 21%。我要說的是，在當前的財政政策下，我認為有些事情必須改變，而且我認為提高稅收是非常可能的。如果政府想要從你、我或波克夏的收入中拿走更大一部分，他們是可以做到的。他們可能會有一天決定不希望財政赤字這麼大，因為這會帶來一些重要後果，他們可能不想大幅削減支出，於是決定從我們賺的錢中拿走更大比例，而我們會支付。

We always hope, at Berkshire, to pay substantial federal income taxes. We think it’s appropriate that a company, a country that’s been as generous to our owners… It’s been the place… I was lucky. Berkshire was lucky, was here. And if we… If we send in a check like we did last year, we sent in over $5 billion to the US federal government. And if 800 other companies had done the same thing, no other person in the United States would have had to pay a dime of federal taxes, whether income taxes, no Social Security taxes, no estate taxes. It’s open down the line now. That’s…
在波克夏，我們總是希望能繳納可觀的聯邦所得稅。我們認為，對於一個對我們的股東如此慷慨的國家來說，這是合適的。這個國家是...我很幸運。波克夏很幸運能在這裡。如果我們...如果我們像去年那樣寄出一張支票，我們向美國聯邦政府繳納了超過 50 億美元。如果有其他 800 家公司也這樣做，美國的其他任何人就都不需要支付一分錢的聯邦稅，無論是所得稅、社會安全稅還是遺產稅。現在這條線已經打開了。這...

I would like to… I hope things develop well enough with Berkshire that we say we’re in the 800 club and maybe even move up a few notches. It doesn’t bother me in the least to write that check. I would really hope, with all America has done for all of you, it shouldn’t bother you that we do it. And if I’m doing it at 21% this year and we’re doing it at a higher percentage later on, I don’t think you’ll actually mind the fact that we sold a little Apple this year.
我希望伯克希爾的發展能順利到讓我們躋身 800 俱樂部，甚至再往上攀升幾個名次。開出那張支票對我來說一點也不困擾。我真的希望，考慮到美國為你們所有人所做的一切，我們這樣做不應該讓你們感到困擾。而且如果我今年以 21%的稅率這樣做，未來我們以更高的稅率這樣做時，我想你們實際上不會介意我們今年賣掉了一些蘋果股票。

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay, let’s go to section one.
華倫·巴菲特：好的，我們開始第一部分的問答。

MATTHEW LAI: Hi, Mr. Buffett, this is Matthew Lai from China, Hong Kong. I’m running my listed company called FW, and we are so grateful to have learned from you, and you really inspire us. My question is, besides the electric car company, BYD, under what circumstances would you reinvest or reconsider investing in a Hong Kong or China company? Thank you.
黎嘉恩：您好，巴菲特先生，我是來自中國香港的黎嘉恩。我經營一家上市公司 FW，我們非常感激能向您學習，您真的激勵了我們。我的問題是，除了電動車公司比亞迪之外，在什麼情況下您會重新投資或考慮投資香港或中國的公司？謝謝。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, our primary investments will always be in the United States. We do think it… The companies we invest in the United States, American Express does business around the world. And no company hardly does business around the world like Coca-Cola. I mean, they are the preferred soft drink. You know, something like maybe 170 or 180 out of 200 countries. Those are rough approximations from a few years back, probably, but that degree of acceptance worldwide is, I think, almost unmatched.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我們的主要投資始終會在美國。我們確實認為...我們在美國投資的公司，例如美國運通，業務遍及全球。而幾乎沒有公司能像可口可樂那樣在全球開展業務。我的意思是，它們是首選的軟飲料。大約在 200 個國家中的 170 或 180 個國家，這是幾年前的粗略估計，但這種全球範圍的接受度，我認為幾乎是無與倫比的。

I can’t really think of any company that has it. American Express has a position in the credit card deal, which I think is extremely strong. And part of the reason for that is one of the directors we introduced a few minutes ago, Ken Chenault. But it has strengthened dramatically over the last 20 years for a lot of reasons. So we will…
我實在想不出有哪家公司擁有這樣的地位。美國運通在信用卡業務中佔有一席之地，我認為這地位極其穩固。而這部分原因要歸功於我們幾分鐘前提到的董事之一——肯·陳納德。但過去 20 年來，由於諸多因素，其地位已大幅強化。所以我們將會...

The BYD investment was a… Well, we made the commitment in Japan, which I did five years ago, and that was just overwhelmingly, it was compelling. It was extraordinarily compelling. And we bought it as fast as we could, and we spent a year, and we got a few percent of our assets in five very big companies. But that’s the problem of being our size. But you won’t find us making a lot of investments outside the United States, although we’re participating through these other companies in the world economy.
比亞迪的投資是...嗯，我們五年前在日本做出這項承諾，當時情況壓倒性地具有吸引力，極具說服力。我們以最快速度買進，花了一年時間，將資產的幾個百分點投入五家大型企業。但這就是我們規模帶來的問題。不過你不會看到我們在美國境外進行大量投資，儘管我們正透過這些其他公司參與全球經濟。

But I understand the United States’ rules, weaknesses, strengths, whatever it may be. I don’t have the same feeling for economies generally around the world. I don’t pick up on other cultures extremely well. And the lucky thing is, I don’t have to, because I don’t live in some tiny little country that just doesn’t have a big economy. I’m in an economy already that is, after starting out with half a percent of the world’s population, has ended up with well over 20% of the world’s output in an amazingly short period of time. So we will be American-oriented.
但我了解美國的規則、弱點、優勢，無論是什麼。我對全球其他經濟體並沒有同樣的感覺。我不太能很好地理解其他文化。幸運的是，我不需要這樣做，因為我並不是生活在一個經濟規模很小的國家。我所處的經濟體，從僅佔世界人口的 0.5%開始，在極短的時間內已經成長到佔全球產出的 20%以上。因此，我們將以美國為導向。

I mean, if we do something really big, it’s extremely likely to be in the United States. Charlie, in all those years, there are only two times he’s told me that this one is really… He would always go along with me and say, well, when I was suggesting something, he’d say, well, this is really not that great, but it’s probably the best you’ll come up with. So I’ll go along with the idea. But Charlie twice pounded the table with me and just said, you know, “Buy, buy, buy.” And BYD was one of them, and Costco was the other. And we bought a certain amount of Costco, and we bought quite a bit of BYD.
我的意思是，如果我們要做一些真正大的事情，極有可能是在美國。查理在這些年裡，只有兩次他告訴我這個真的……他通常會支持我，當我提出建議時，他會說，嗯，這個可能不是那麼好，但可能是你能想到的最好的了。所以我會支持這個想法。但查理有兩次對我拍桌子，直接說：「買，買，買。」其中一次是比亞迪，另一次是好事多。我們買了一定數量的好事多，也買了不少比亞迪。

But looking back, he already was aggressive. But I should have been more aggressive in Costco. It wasn’t fatal that we weren’t. But he was right big time on both companies.
但回顧起來，他當時就已經很激進了。不過我應該在好市多上更積極一些。我們沒有這樣做並不致命。但他對這兩家公司的判斷都非常正確。

WARREN BUFFETT: I’m aware of what goes on in most markets, but I think it’s unlikely that we’ll make any large commitments in almost any country you can name, although we don’t rule it out entirely. And I feel extremely good about our Japanese position, and we’ll have that… I don’t know how many years. Greg will be sitting with that at some point, and we couldn’t be happier with that. But you really have to… We really have a different outlook in looking at… Well, we look at your money, which we couldn’t bear to lose, and we feel that we’re far less likely to make any truly major mistakes in the United States than in many other countries.
華倫·巴菲特：我對大多數市場的動態都有所了解，但我認為我們不太可能對幾乎任何你能說出的國家做出重大承諾，儘管我們並不完全排除這種可能性。我對我們在日本的情況感到非常滿意，我們將持有那些……我不知道會是多少年。格雷格將來會接手這部分，我們對此再滿意不過了。但你必須……我們在看待……時確實有不同的觀點。我們看待你們的錢，這些錢我們無法承受損失，我們認為在美國比在許多其他國家犯下真正重大錯誤的可能性要小得多。

Okay, Becky, this next question comes from Stanley Holmes, who is a Berkshire shareholder from Salt Lake City. He asks: In his 2024 annual letter to shareholders, Chairman Buffett noted the severe earnings disappointment experienced at Berkshire Hathaway Energy last year and expressed concern about earnings and asset values in the utility industry. Recognizing that investors are worried about climate-change-related expenses and that new uncertainties cloud the regulatory environment, the chairman suggested that some jurisdictions may adopt the public power model. There are now signs that policymakers in Utah, citing state sovereignty, may already be poised to move in that direction.
好的，貝琪，下一個問題來自鹽湖城的波克夏股東史丹利·霍姆斯。他問：董事長巴菲特在 2024 年致股東年度信中提到，波克夏海瑟威能源去年經歷了嚴重的獲利失望，並對公用事業行業的盈利能力和資產價值表示擔憂。考慮到投資者對氣候變遷相關支出的憂慮，以及監管環境中出現的新不確定性，董事長暗示某些司法管轄區可能會採用公共電力模式。現在有跡象顯示，猶他州的政策制定者以州主權為由，可能已經準備朝這個方向發展。

The Utah legislature recently mandated the state’s right to serve as the sole purchaser of energy from an in-state power plant and, under some circumstances, purchase the power plant before it can be retired. The state utility regulator will be legally bound to prioritize public purchases of power and facilities that could include assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s specific utility, Rocky Mountain Power. Will Berkshire, through BHE, continue to invest resources in jurisdictions where corporate assets may be subject to confiscatory state policies and actions? And how is Berkshire Energy working with officials in Utah to minimize potential corporate losses if and when state control is asserted over its electrical utility sector?
猶他州立法機構最近通過一項法令，授權州政府有權作為州內發電廠能源的唯一採購方，並在某些情況下可在電廠退役前收購該設施。州公用事業監管機構將依法優先考慮公共採購電力及相關設施，其中可能包含波克夏海瑟威能源旗下特定公用事業公司「洛磯山電力」所擁有的資產。波克夏是否會透過 BHE 繼續在那些可能實施沒收性州政策的司法管轄區投入資源？當州政府對其電力公用事業部門實施管控時，波克夏能源如何與猶他州官員合作以盡量減少潛在的企業損失？

WARREN BUFFETT: I will let Greg join me in answering this, but I would say our feeling is that Utah is actually very likely to treat us fairly. Whether the action is in granting appropriate rates that give us the return we expect, generally expected in terms of our own properties, or if they decide, for some reason, to go to public power, I think they would compensate us fairly. In the 1930s, George Norris, a senator from Nebraska, just turned Nebraska into a public power state. And our experience in Iowa would indicate that free enterprise has its role and that we can run a privately owned utility company that will be more efficient for society than, at least in most states, people can do with public power.
華倫·巴菲特：我會讓葛瑞格和我一起回答這個問題，但我會說我們的感覺是，猶他州實際上非常有可能公平對待我們。無論是通過批准適當的費率讓我們獲得預期的回報，這通常是我們對自己資產的期望，還是如果他們出於某種原因決定轉向公共電力，我認為他們會公平地補償我們。在 1930 年代，來自內布拉斯加州的參議員喬治·諾里斯，就將內布拉斯加州變成了一個公共電力州。而我們在愛荷華州的經驗表明，自由企業有其作用，我們可以經營一家私營公用事業公司，這對社會來說比至少在大多數州人們用公共電力所能做到的更有效率。

But what has happened is that there are going to be enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of money spent on power. And if you’re going to do it with private owners, there’s nobody better situated than Berkshire to satisfy a large portion of the needs of the country. And we will do it at a rate of return that is not, you know, it’s not designed to make us rich or anything like that. It’s a sensible rate of return, but we won’t do it if we think we’re not going to get any return. It would be kind of crazy. And we’ve seen actions in a few states where some of the costs associated with climate change, they’re not being regarded as costs the utility shouldn’t incur. Well, believe me, if it was publicly owned, they would have incurred it too.
但實際情況是，未來將有巨額資金、龐大的資金投入於電力領域。若由私人業主來執行，沒有比波克夏更適合滿足國家大部分需求的企業了。我們會以合理的報酬率來執行，這不是為了讓我們致富或類似目的。這是個明智的報酬率，但如果我們認為無法獲得任何回報，我們就不會去做。那樣做就太瘋狂了。我們已經看到一些州的作為，與氣候變遷相關的部分成本，並未被視為公用事業不應承擔的費用。相信我，如果是公有企業，他們同樣會承擔這些成本。

But we’ll do what society tells us, and we have the money and the knowledge to participate in something that is enormously important for the country. But we’re not going to throw good money after bad in the field. I don’t worry about… my understanding is, and Greg can elaborate on this now immediately, but I don’t regard Utah as being unfriendly to the idea of utilities being treated fairly. Charlie?
但我們會按照社會的指示行事，我們擁有資金和知識，可以參與對國家極為重要的事務。但我們不會在這個領域白白浪費金錢。我不擔心……據我了解，格雷格現在可以立即詳細說明這一點，但我並不認為猶他州對公用事業受到公平對待的想法不友好。查理？

WARREN BUFFETT: Charlie, I’m so used to that. I had actually checked myself a couple of times already, but I’ll slip again.
華倫·巴菲特：查理，我已經習慣了。其實我已經自我檢查了幾次，但我還是會再犯。

GREG ABEL: That’s a great honor. Yeah. When we touched on it initially in your letter relative to the challenges in the industry, and then you’ve just alluded to the significant investment that has to go into the energy industry, the utility sector, for many years to come. And I think if we start there, if I think of our different utilities, it will definitely come to Utah and PacificCorp.
格雷格·阿貝爾：這是一個極大的榮譽。是的。當我們最初在你的信中談到行業面臨的挑戰時，你剛剛提到了能源行業、公用事業部門未來多年必須投入的重大投資。我認為如果我們從這裡開始，考慮到我們不同的公用事業公司，這肯定會涉及到猶他州和太平洋公司。

But if you look at the underlying demand that is building in each of those utilities and the amount of dollars that are going to have to go in to meet that demand, it’s absolutely incredible. So when you raised it in your letter, it’s a really important issue. We have to have a regulatory compact that works between, if it’s a public utility, it has to work in concert with the state, Utah being an example, or it ultimately becomes potentially a public power. So just to set the frame a little bit, if I think of Iowa, which you mentioned, and the underlying… we’ve made substantial investments there, it’s been very consistent with both the public policy that the state and legislators wanted, and they enacted very specific laws to encourage that. But that utility is more than 100 years old right now.
但如果你看看這些公用事業中正在積累的潛在需求，以及為了滿足這些需求而必須投入的資金，那絕對是令人難以置信的。所以當你在信中提出這個問題時，這確實是一個非常重要的議題。我們必須建立一個有效的監管契約——如果是公共事業，就必須與州政府協調運作，以猶他州為例，否則最終可能會演變成公共電力。稍微設定一下框架，如果我想到你提到的愛荷華州及其潛在需求...我們在那裡進行了大量投資，這些投資完全符合該州和立法者所期望的公共政策，他們還制定了非常具體的法律來鼓勵這種投資。但現在這家公用事業公司已經有超過 100 年的歷史了。

And if we look at the demand that’s in place for MidAmerican (Iowa utility) over the next, say, into the mid-2030s associated with AI and the data centers, that demand doubles in that short period of time, and it took 100 years plus to get where we are today, and now it’s going to double. And that will require substantial amounts of capital from MidAmerican and its shareholders. And how that will function is if we have a proper regulatory compact in place, which you’ve highlighted, if we then go to, say, Nevada, where we own two utilities there and cover the lion’s share in Nevada, if you go over a similar timeframe and you look at the underlying demand in that utility and say, go into the later 2030s, it triples the underlying demand and billions and billions of dollars have to be put in. Our rate base will literally go from, it’s not a modest level now, but you’re talking probably an incremental six to 10 billion at least of rate base going into that type of entity, which requires, again, alignment with the state and their policies and a proper recovery of our underlying both capital and a return on capital. So when we come to the wildfires, that’s been a substantial challenge because it’s the first time there’s been a lot of discussion around one of our utilities.
如果我們看看 MidAmerican（愛荷華州公用事業）在未來，比如說到 2030 年代中期，與人工智慧和數據中心相關的需求，在那段短時間內需求將翻倍，而我們花了 100 多年才達到今天的水平，現在卻要翻倍。這將需要 MidAmerican 及其股東投入大量資金。而這將如何運作，取決於我們是否有一個適當的監管協議，正如你所強調的，如果我們接著看內華達州，我們在那裡擁有兩家公用事業公司並覆蓋了該州的大部分地區，如果你看一個類似的時間框架，看看該公用事業的基礎需求，比如到 2030 年代末，基礎需求將增加三倍，必須投入數十億美元。我們的費率基礎將從現在不算低的水平，增加到可能需要額外 60 到 100 億美元的費率基礎投入這類實體，這再次需要與州政府及其政策保持一致，並確保我們能夠合理回收基礎資本及資本回報。 因此當我們談到野火問題時，這確實是個重大挑戰，因為這是首次有大量討論圍繞我們旗下的一家公用事業公司展開。

One experienced significant losses associated with the wildfires. What portion of those costs will be recovered? And that’s really the dialogue we’re in. And does that properly work? When I think of the wildfires, there have been many claims, and a recent additional claim last week for $30 billion. We don’t take that lightly, but it is an incremental claim to an already existing lawsuit that’s in place.
其中一家公司因野火遭受了重大損失。這些成本中有多少比例能夠獲得補償？這正是我們當前對話的核心。這樣的機制真的可行嗎？當我思考野火問題時，已經有許多索賠案件，上週又新增了一筆 300 億美元的索賠。我們不會輕視此事，但這只是對現有訴訟的追加索賠要求。

And when I think of PacifiCorp, we’re in a place where, first and foremost, all the litigation will be challenged because the basis for it, at least we believe, is in places unfounded, and we will continue to challenge it. And it will take many years to be resolved, as Warren highlighted in the letter. But if you think of PacifiCorp and the litigation there, number one, how we think and operate those assets has to change. Change because we have worked with the states across all our states for many years with the fundamental goal to be to keep the power on. And our teams and our employees worked incredibly hard to keep the power on, day in, day out, through storms.
當我想到 PacifiCorp 時，我們所處的情況是，首先，所有的訴訟都將受到挑戰，因為我們認為這些訴訟的基礎在某些方面是沒有根據的，我們將繼續對此提出異議。正如華倫在信中強調的那樣，這將需要許多年才能解決。但如果你考慮到 PacifiCorp 及其訴訟，第一點，我們對這些資產的思考和運營方式必須改變。改變的原因是我們多年來與各州合作，基本目標是保持電力供應。我們的團隊和員工日復一日，在風暴中極其努力地工作以保持電力供應。

Unfortunately, through the 2020 fires, the instincts were not to turn off the power. The instinct was to keep the power on, to keep hospitals, fire stations responding. It’s not in their mind, or at least culturally, it wasn’t in our minds to de-energize. So the first thing we had to do was step back and say, “We’ve got to fundamentally change the culture, not just at PacifiCorp, but across all our utilities.”
不幸的是，在 2020 年的火災期間，本能反應不是切斷電源。本能反應是保持電力供應，讓醫院、消防站能夠繼續運作。在他們的心中，或者至少在文化上，我們沒有想到要斷電。因此，我們必須做的第一件事就是退一步說：「我們必須從根本上改變文化，不僅僅是在 PacifiCorp，而是在我們所有的公用事業公司中。」

The first thing we have to recognize is that there are now going to be situations where we prioritize de-energizing the assets, and that’s completely different than we’ve operated those assets, as I’ve highlighted, for 100-plus years. So we start with the culture. We had to change that. The second thing is we’ve now changed our operating systems so that we can turn off the power very quickly. If there’s a fire that’s increasing, approaching, we will turn off our systems now, and the minute the conditions are safe again, we’ll re-energize it.
首先我們必須認識到，現在將會出現需要優先考慮切斷資產供電的情況，這與我們過去一百多年來運營這些資產的方式完全不同，正如我所強調的。因此，我們從文化開始改變。我們必須改變這一點。其次，我們現在已經改變了運營系統，以便能夠迅速切斷電源。如果有火勢加劇、逼近，我們現在會關閉系統，一旦條件安全，我們會立即恢復供電。

But we’ve had to do that. And then the third thing is continuing to invest in a way that allows us to try to minimize the risk of fire. But when you get back to Utah and PacifiCorp, the challenge we do have is within PacifiCorp, as we go through both litigation and through continuing to operate that entity, it generates a certain amount of capital and profits that will remain in that entity and be reinvested back into that business.
但我們不得不這樣做。第三件事是持續投資，以盡量降低火災風險。但當你回到猶他州和 PacifiCorp 時，我們面臨的挑戰是在 PacifiCorp 內部，隨著我們經歷訴訟並繼續運營該實體，它會產生一定數量的資本和利潤，這些將留在該實體內並重新投資回該業務。

But fundamentally, as we go forward, we need both legislative and regulatory reform across the PacifiCorp states if we’re going to deploy incremental capital, make incremental contributions into that business. As Warren said, we don’t want to throw good capital after bad capital, so we’ll be very disciplined there. But the reality is there are opportunities to both solve the legislative and regulatory solutions. And the best example we actually have, and I think it’s the gold standard across the country, is Utah.
但從根本上說，如果我們要部署增量資本，對 PacifiCorp 業務做出增量貢獻，我們就需要在 PacifiCorp 所屬各州推動立法和監管改革。正如華倫所說，我們不想把好錢投在壞錢後面，所以我們會在這方面非常謹慎。但現實情況是，我們有機會同時解決立法和監管問題。而我們實際擁有的最佳範例，我認為這是全美的黃金標準，就是猶他州。

So, as Warren touched on, it’s a state we’re happy we’re investing in. It is part of PacifiCorp, so there’s a certain amount of balance there as to how we do it. But in the last legislative session that existed, Utah actually passed a bill that does a couple of very important things.
因此，正如華倫提到的，我們很高興能在這個州投資。它是 PacifiCorp 的一部分，所以我們在如何操作上有一定的平衡考量。但在最近一屆立法會議中，猶他州實際上通過了一項法案，該法案做了幾件非常重要的事情。

One, it caps non-economic damages on wildfire claims. So, if you go back to the wildfires we have in Oregon and the claims you’re hearing filed for, there’s economic damages associated with them, and those harms should receive the economic damages associated with that. But unfortunately, and even though there’s legislature and case law in Oregon that says wildfire non-economic damages should not be awarded, there are very substantial non-economic damages being awarded there. Utah took a very proactive position to say, “We will cap those non-economic damages,” and it creates an environment… Again, it’s back to that: Is there an environment where you want to invest in? Yes. And then incrementally, they’ve created a very substantial fund. It’s literally called the Wildfire Fund for fires in Utah that will help facilitate both liquidity and the ability to resolve the situation.
一、它對野火索賠的非經濟損害賠償設定了上限。因此，回顧我們在俄勒岡州遭遇的野火及相關索賠案件，這些案件確實伴隨著經濟損失，而這些損害理應獲得相應的經濟賠償。但不幸的是，儘管俄勒岡州的立法和判例法明確規定不應判給野火非經濟損害賠償，當地卻仍判決了非常巨額的非經濟損害賠償。猶他州則採取了非常積極的立場，表示「我們將對這些非經濟損害賠償設定上限」，這創造了一個環境……再次強調，關鍵在於：這是否是一個你願意投資的環境？答案是肯定的。此外，他們還逐步建立了一個非常龐大的基金，該基金正式名稱為「猶他州野火基金」，旨在為發生在猶他州的野火提供協助，促進流動性並增強解決問題的能力。

So Utah, we believe, including the legislation, that a lot of other things came out of it, is the actual gold standard as we go forward. So, very important issue for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, but at the same time, it is a PacifiCorp issue. The risk of regulatory compacts not being respected is a much broader one that we will always evaluate, and be careful how we deploy our capital. But both PacifiCorp will manage through it. And I see other very good and significant opportunities in PacifiCorp.
我們相信，包括立法在內，猶他州在未來將成為實際的黃金標準，許多其他事項也由此衍生。這對波克夏·海瑟威能源來說是一個非常重要的議題，但同時也是 PacifiCorp 的問題。監管協議不被尊重的風險是一個更廣泛的問題，我們將持續評估並謹慎配置資本。不過，PacifiCorp 將能夠應對這一挑戰。此外，我在 PacifiCorp 看到了其他非常優質且重要的機會。

I mean, in Berkshire Hathaway Energy, the return on equity investment that’s been promulgated and been achieved over the years has been, particularly in recent years, well below the return on equity that has been achieved by American industry generally. And so whether you earn x or x plus a half a percent or x minus a half a percent, that differs by state, and some states are more attractive than others. But whether you earn x or go broke is not an equation that works. And, you know, we won’t put our shareholders’ money… They didn’t give it to us to lose it all, and they might like it if it’s better when it’s plus a half a percent than minus a half a percent. But the electric utility industry will never be as good as, I mean, just remotely as good as, you know, the kind of businesses we own in other arenas. I mean, you look at the return on tangible equity at Coca-Cola or American Express or, to really top it off, Apple. It’s just, it’s, you know, it’s just a whole different game.
我的意思是，在波克夏海瑟威能源公司，這些年來所公布並實現的股權投資報酬率，尤其是近年來，遠低於美國工業整體所達到的股權報酬率。因此，無論你賺取 x 或 x 加半個百分點，還是 x 減半個百分點，這會因州而異，有些州比其他州更具吸引力。但無論你賺取 x 還是破產，這都不是一個可行的等式。而且，你知道，我們不會把股東的錢...他們把錢交給我們不是為了全部虧掉，如果報酬率是加半個百分點而不是減半個百分點，他們可能會更滿意。但電力公用事業行業永遠不會像，我是說，甚至遠遠比不上我們在其他領域所擁有的那種企業。我是說，你看看可口可樂或美國運通，或者更頂尖的蘋果，它們的有形股權報酬率，這完全是，你知道，完全是另一個層次的遊戲。

But in utilities, the trade has been, the compact has been that you get a modest return. And climate change comes along, and it causes way more fires. That’s just the cost of doing business. And it doesn’t mean that we can’t do things to mitigate fires in the future. And you can make different policies on when you turn off the lights, but somebody’s going to do, somebody’s going to put up many, many hundreds of billions, maybe in the trillions, and climate change enters into that, and it can be done through public power or it can be done through private enterprise to quite a degree. And we would be certainly good for 100 billion or more, but we’re not going to throw good money after bad.
但在公用事業領域，傳統的交易模式或契約精神是你能獲得適度的回報。當氣候變遷來臨時，它導致了更多的火災。這只是營運成本的一部分。這並不意味著我們無法採取措施來減少未來的火災。你可以制定不同的政策來決定何時關閉電力，但總有人需要投入數千億，甚至可能上兆的資金來應對氣候變遷，這可以通過公共電力或很大程度上通過私營企業來實現。我們當然可以承擔 1000 億或更多的投資，但我們不會無謂地浪費資金。

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay, let’s do station four.
華倫·巴菲特：好的，我們來進行第四站的提問。

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Joe, visiting from San Francisco. How do you think about the role of technological advances, especially generative AI, on more traditional industries? Thank you.
觀眾成員：嗨，喬，我來自舊金山。您如何看待技術進步，特別是生成式人工智慧，對傳統產業的影響？謝謝。

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, I made a mistake in calling on four, but I’ll get back to two later on. I don’t know anything about AI, but I do have… that doesn’t mean I deny its existence or importance or anything of the sort. And last year I said that we let a genie out of the bottle when we, when we developed nuclear weapons, and that genie has been doing some terrible things lately. And the power of that genie is what, you know, scares the hell out of me. And then I don’t know any way to get the genie back in the bottle.
華倫·巴菲特：是的，我在點第四區時犯了個錯誤，但我稍後會回到第二區。我對人工智慧一無所知，但我確實有...這並不意味著我否認它的存在、重要性或任何這類事情。去年我說過，當我們發展核武器時，我們放出了一個精靈，而那個精靈最近做了一些可怕的事情。那個精靈的力量，你知道的，讓我害怕極了。而且我不知道有什麼方法能把精靈重新裝回瓶子裡。

And AI is somewhat similar. It’s partway out of the bottle, and it’s enormously important, and it’s going to be [used] by somebody. We may wish we’d never seen that genie, or it may do wonderful things, and I’m certainly not the person that can evaluate that, and I probably wouldn’t have been the person that could have evaluated it during World War II, whether we [should have] tested a 20,000-ton bomb that we felt was absolutely necessary for the United States, and would actually save lives in the long run. But where we also had [J. Robert] Oppenheimer, I think it was, who was on a parallel with Einstein in terms of saying, you may, with this test, ignite the atmosphere in such a way that civilization doesn’t continue. And we decided to let the genie out of the bottle, and it accomplished the immediate objective. But whether, whether it’s going to change the future of society, we will find out later.
人工智慧在某種程度上也是如此。它已經部分脫離了瓶子的束縛，極其重要，而且將會被某些人所使用。我們或許會希望自己從未見過那個精靈，又或者它可能會帶來美好的事物，而我當然不是能夠評估這一點的人，即便是在第二次世界大戰期間，我大概也不會是那個能夠評估是否應該測試我們認為對美國絕對必要、長遠來看實際上能拯救生命的兩萬噸炸彈的人。但當時我們還有（J. 羅伯特）奧本海默，我想是他，與愛因斯坦持相同觀點，認為這次測試可能會以某種方式點燃大氣層，導致文明無法延續。而我們決定讓精靈脫離瓶子，它確實實現了當下的目標。但至於它是否會改變社會的未來，我們將在日後知曉。

Now, AI, I had one experience that does make me a little nervous, and I’ll just explain it. That very, very recently, fairly recently, I saw an image in front of my eyes on the screen, and it was me, and it was my voice. And [I was] wearing the kind of clothes I wear, and my wife or my daughter wouldn’t have been able to detect any difference. And it was delivering a message that [in] no way came from me. So it… When you think of the potential for scamming people, if you can reproduce images that I can’t even tell [aren’t me and say], “I need money, you know, it’s your daughter, I’ve just had a car crash. I need $50,000 wired.” I mean, scamming has always been part of the American scene, but this would make me, if I was interested in investing in scamming, [think] it’s going to be the growth industry of all time, and it’s enabled in a way… Obviously, AI has potential for good things, too, but I don’t know how you… Based on the one I saw recently, I practically would [have] send money to myself over some crazy [scheme].
現在，AI，我有過一次讓我感到有點緊張的經歷，我來解釋一下。就在最近，非常近的時間，我在螢幕上看到了一個影像，那是我，是我的聲音。穿著我平常穿的衣服，連我的妻子或女兒都無法分辨出任何差異。而它傳達的訊息完全不是出自我。所以它……當你想到詐騙的可能性，如果你能複製出連我都無法辨認的影像，說「我需要錢，你知道的，我是你的女兒，我剛出了車禍。我需要匯 5 萬美元。」我的意思是，詐騙一直是美國社會的一部分，但這會讓我覺得，如果我對投資詐騙感興趣，這將是有史以來增長最快的行業，而且它是以某種方式實現的……顯然，AI 也有做好事的潛力，但我不知道你怎麼……根據我最近看到的那個，我幾乎會因為某個瘋狂的[計劃]而把錢匯給自己。

So I don’t have any advice on how the world handles it because I don’t think we know how to handle what we did with the nuclear genie. But I do think, as someone who doesn’t understand a damn thing about it, that it has enormous potential for good, [and] enormous potential for harm. And I just don’t know how that plays out.
所以我對世界如何處理這個問題沒有任何建議，因為我認為我們還不知道如何應付我們釋放出來的核能精靈。但作為一個對此一竅不通的人，我確實認為它既有巨大的潛力造福人類，也有巨大的潛力造成傷害。我只是不知道最終會如何發展。

WARREN BUFFETT: I’d like to mention to Becky that Ajit will not be participating in the afternoon session, so if you could focus on any, if there are insurance questions you want to ask, that’d be a good one?
華倫·巴菲特：我想提醒貝姬，阿吉特不會參加下午的會議，所以如果有任何保險相關的問題想問，這會是個好時機？

BECKY QUICK: Yeah. This next question is for both Warren and Ajit. It’s from Ben Noll, who’s a Minneapolis shareholder who’s been a shareholder since 1995. And he says, in an interview this past year, Todd Combs said that in [his] first meeting [with] you in 2010, he told you GEICO is better at marketing and branding, Progressive is a data company, and data is going to win in the long run. But it appears you did not prioritize data analytics at GEICO until a decade later, when you made Todd CEO. As business units like GEICO age and need new strategic direction, I wonder if Berkshire’s hands-off management approach is a source of vulnerability. Will you please review your thinking on changes made at GEICO and explain how Berkshire is structured to react if the Berkshire CEO sees that a business unit is strategically off track? And Ajit, I hope you will continue to update us on yours and Todd’s progress at remedying the data analytics shortcomings at GEICO.
貝琪·奎克：好的。下一個問題要同時請教華倫和阿吉特。提問者是明尼阿波利斯的股東班·諾爾，他自 1995 年起就是我們的股東。他在問題中提到，去年的一場訪談中，陶德·康布斯提到 2010 年首次與您會面時，他曾告訴您 GEICO 在行銷與品牌方面更勝一籌，而 Progressive 是一家數據公司，長期來看數據終將勝出。但 GEICO 似乎直到十年後陶德接任執行長時，才真正將數據分析列為優先事項。當像 GEICO 這樣的業務單位逐漸老化、需要新的戰略方向時，我想知道波克夏的放手管理方式是否會成為弱點。能否請您回顧對 GEICO 進行改革的思考過程，並說明若波克夏執行長發現某個業務單位偏離戰略軌道時，公司架構如何因應？阿吉特，我也希望你能持續向我們更新你和陶德在補強 GEICO 數據分析短板上取得的進展。

AJIT JAIN: As Warren has pointed out in the past, one of the drawbacks that GEICO is faced with, it hasn’t been doing as good a job as matching rate with risk and segmenting and pricing product based on the risk characteristics. This has been a disadvantage at GEICO for a few years now. We are trying to still play catch up. Technology is something that is, unfortunately, a bottleneck. But there again, we are making progress. And equally importantly, we have hired people who are much better than what they inherited in terms of data analytics and pricing and slicing data. So, yes, I recognize we are still behind. We’re taking steps to bridge the gap, and hopefully by the, certainly by the end of ’25, we should be able to be along with the best of players when it comes to data analytics, whether it’s pricing, whether it’s claims, or any other factor that drives the economics of the insurance business.
阿吉特·賈恩：正如華倫過去所指出的，GEICO 面臨的其中一個缺點是，它在根據風險特性進行費率匹配、產品細分和定價方面做得不夠好。這幾年來，這一直是 GEICO 的劣勢。我們仍在努力追趕。不幸的是，技術是一個瓶頸。但在這方面，我們正在取得進展。同樣重要的是，我們聘請了在數據分析、定價和數據切片方面比他們繼承的團隊更優秀的人才。是的，我承認我們仍然落後。我們正在採取措施縮小差距，希望在 2025 年底之前，我們應該能夠在數據分析方面與頂尖玩家並駕齊驅，無論是定價、理賠，還是影響保險業務經濟效益的任何其他因素。

WARREN BUFFETT: I would add, equating rate with risk obviously is important in every line of insurance business. I mean, that’s what you’re involved with, is deciding whether a given rate offers us the chance or the probability that we will make a little [bit] of money on it, and that sometimes we’re only risking losing a little and sometimes we’re risking losing huge amounts. But GEICO and Progressive has done a better job [at] that recently. But our fundamental advantage at GEICO, of course, is that we have lower costs than virtually anybody. And that cost advantage has been dramatic. We’ve driven our underwriting expense ratio below 10%, and there’s just very, very, very few companies that can compete with us.
華倫·巴菲特：我要補充的是，在每一項保險業務中，將費率與風險等同顯然是非常重要的。我的意思是，這就是你所參與的工作，決定一個給定的費率是否為我們提供了賺取一點錢的機會或可能性，而有時候我們只冒著損失一點的風險，有時候我們則冒著損失巨額資金的風險。但 GEICO 和 Progressive 最近在這方面做得更好。不過，GEICO 的根本優勢當然是我們的成本幾乎比任何人都低。這個成本優勢非常顯著。我們已將我們的核保費用比率壓低到 10%以下，而能夠與我們競爭的公司真的非常、非常、非常少。

So it isn’t, it’s not in the least a survival question, and it isn’t even exactly a profitability thing. But, you know, we would rather have x percent of the market than a half of x percent. But we roughly, I think in the month of March, we, we were just, we didn’t lose policyholders, and we got 16 million or whatever it is, of them, and we’ve got the lowest cost operations. So it’s not a threat. It’s not remotely a threat to survival, it’s not a threat to even profitability. But on the other hand, we would like to be growing with something that is the best model around in the insurance business of delivering at a low cost. And we now have a recognition that we didn’t have back when Leo Goodwin started in 1936.
所以這根本不是生存問題，甚至嚴格來說也不是盈利問題。但你知道，我們寧願擁有市場的 x%份額，而不是半個 x%。不過大致上，我想在三月份，我們只是沒有流失保單持有人，而且我們獲得了 1600 萬左右的客戶，我們擁有最低成本的運營。所以這不是威脅。這完全不是生存威脅，甚至不是盈利威脅。但另一方面，我們希望隨著保險業務中最佳的低成本交付模式一起成長。而現在我們有了里奧·古德溫在 1936 年創立時所沒有的認知。

short little movie and we’ll just have a little explanation of something that I think will be of interest, certainly of interest to me, but it. So I would like to. We will break promptly at twelve, and I would like everybody to really make an attempt to be in their seat and quiet at 01:00 and if you can’t do that, if you’ll wait a few minutes and watch in the halls and all that.
一小段短片，我們會簡單解釋一些我認為會引起興趣的事情，至少對我來說是這樣。所以我希望。我們會在十二點準時休息，我希望每個人都能盡量在 01:00 時回到座位上並保持安靜，如果你做不到，請稍等幾分鐘，在大廳裡觀看等等。

You know, now we have. We’re getting over $2,000. Well, all the advances in technology and everything like that, if we had been wedded this formula, what we did with $40, we’d have had a terrible business. But in effect, by making the cars much safer, they’ve also made it much more expensive to repair. And a whole bunch of things have happened, including inflation.
你知道，現在我們擁有。我們正突破 2000 美元。嗯，所有技術進步之類的，如果我們當初堅持那個公式，用 40 美元做到的事，我們現在會是個糟糕的生意。但實際上，通過讓汽車變得更安全，他們也讓維修變得更昂貴。還有一大堆事情發生了，包括通貨膨脹。

So now we have a $40 billion business from something that was 7 million back when I called on it. So if we’d operated in a non inflationary world, Geico would not be a $40 billion company.
所以現在我們從當初 700 萬的業務做到了 400 億。如果我們在一個沒有通貨膨脹的世界運作，Geico 不會是一家 400 億美元的公司。

Okay, we’re now finally coordinated towards station three. Believe.
好的，我們現在終於協調一致前往第三站了。相信。

Hello. Hey, everyone. I warren. I’m Liam. I’m 27, from Newmark, Ontario, Canada.
哈囉。嘿，大家好。我是華倫。我是連恩，27 歲，來自加拿大安大略省的紐馬克。

I got invested in Berkshire, thanks to my dad, who brought me down to this meeting. I’m so excited to be here. Most 27 year olds had idols who are rappers, but instead, my idols are Warren, Charlie, who will miss forever, and also your cousin Jimmy, who unfortunately had to go this year, too. It’s been a tough year as a Canadian. Similar with Greg, I always wonder about our canadian economy and what you think about the canadian economy.
我之所以投資伯克希爾，要感謝我父親帶我來參加這場會議。能來到這裡讓我非常興奮。大多數 27 歲年輕人的偶像可能是饒舌歌手，但我的偶像卻是華倫、查理（我將永遠懷念他），還有你的表弟吉米，不幸的是他今年也離開了。對加拿大人來說，這是艱難的一年。和格雷格一樣，我總是在思考我們加拿大的經濟狀況，以及你對加拿大經濟的看法。

We got some beat down bank stocks right now, and I don’t know what your opinions are on these. And I also wonder at, in their nineties, if the rumors are true and you’re still able to eat McDonald’s. I like fast food myself, but I always wonder at 93, he’s still able to eat those and enjoy the Coca Cola. Thanks, Warren. Okay, well, we’ve got a Canadian here, so we’ll let him answer the first part.
現在我們有一些表現不佳的銀行股，我不知道你對這些有什麼看法。另外我也很好奇，在你們九十多歲高齡時，傳聞說你們還能吃麥當勞是真的嗎？我自己也喜歡快餐，但總覺得 93 歲了還能享用那些食物和可口可樂真是不可思議。謝謝你，華倫。好的，我們這裡有位加拿大人，就讓他先回答第一部分吧。

And if you watch me, you’ll see what I like to eat. Go to it, Greg. Okay. Yeah. Well, we are fortunate to have a number of operations up in Canada.
如果你觀察我，就會知道我喜歡吃什麼。交給你了，格雷格。好的。嗯，我們很幸運在加拿大擁有多項業務。

It goes across many of our operating entities. And then, as Warren touched on, all the businesses that we have, a piece of that we’re invested in are up in Canada. So the presence is significant where we’re always looking at making incremental investments there, because it’s an environment we’re very comfortable with. Warren touched on understanding the US environment, business environment, and I would put Canada equally in that bucket that we understand it and would be comfortable. And I would say the economy moves very closely to the US.
這涉及我們許多營運實體。正如華倫提到的，我們所有業務中，有一部分投資是在加拿大。因此我們在那裡的影響力相當顯著，我們總是在尋找增加投資的機會，因為那是一個我們非常熟悉的環境。華倫談到了對美國商業環境的理解，我會把加拿大放在同一個類別——我們同樣理解且感到自在。而且我認為加拿大的經濟走勢與美國非常相近。

So the results we’re seeing out of our various businesses that report both the US and canadian operations aren’t drastically different. And there’s a few that we’re on the energy side. For example, we make very substantial investments up there in Alberta. But again, it’s very consistent with how that economy is growing, and I would see it being very consistent with what we see here. Warren, anything to.
所以我們從那些同時報告美國和加拿大業務的企業所看到的結果，並沒有太大差異。其中有幾家是能源領域的企業。例如，我們在亞伯達省進行了非常重大的投資。但同樣地，這與該地區的經濟成長非常一致，我認為這與我們在這裡看到的情況高度吻合。華倫，你有什麼要補充的嗎？

Yeah, no, obviously there aren’t as many big companies up there as there are in the United States. But when we get. I got one from Canada just the other day that I sent over to Greg, too. When we see anything that’s suggesting an idea that’s of a size that would interstere and meets other requirements, we don’t have any hesitancy about political. Putting big money in Canada.
是的，顯然那裡沒有像美國那麼多的大公司。但當我們遇到...前幾天我才從加拿大收到一個案子，也轉給了葛雷格。只要看到任何規模夠大、能引起興趣且符合其他條件的投資機會，我們在政治上絕不會猶豫。在加拿大投入大筆資金完全沒問題。

And there are things we actually can do fairly well that where Canada could benefit from Berkshire’s participation. We did it some years ago, not that many years ago, but there was a financial institution up there. They had a problem and they did, as I remember, 30 plus various other people that were kicking it around. And meanwhile, the place was getting close to the edge for not a fundamental problem. And Ted Weschler from our office went up there.
事實上有些我們相當擅長的事，加拿大能因波克夏的參與而受益。幾年前我們就做過——其實也沒那麼久，當時有家加拿大金融機構出了狀況。我記得他們找過 30 多個各方人馬商討對策，但與此同時那間機構已瀕臨崩潰邊緣，儘管問題本質並不嚴重。後來我們辦公室的泰德·韋施勒親自飛了過去。

I heard about it on a Monday or something. Ted Wesler went up there and we offered a solution in a couple of days to something that was getting close to the brink. So we do not feel uncomfortable in any way, shape or form putting our money into Canada. In fact, we’re actually looking at one thing now. But, you know, they still have to meet our standards in terms of what we get for our money.
我是在某個星期一聽說這件事的。泰德·韋斯勒上去那裡，我們在幾天內就對一個瀕臨崩潰邊緣的情況提出了解決方案。所以，我們對於把資金投入加拿大沒有任何形式的不適感。事實上，我們現在正在考慮一件事。但你知道，他們仍然必須符合我們對於資金回報的標準。

But they don’t have a, they don’t have a mental, we don’t have any mental blocks about that country. And of course, there’s a lot of countries we don’t understand at all. So Canada, it’s terrific. When you’ve got a major economy, not the size of the US, but a major economy that you absolutely give them, you feel confident about operating there. Okay, Becky, Warren, you just said that you’d rather have a jeet running risk assessment at the insurance operations than any other thousand insurance adjusters in the world.
但他們沒有，他們沒有心理障礙，我們對那個國家沒有任何心理障礙。當然，有很多國家我們完全不了解。加拿大很棒。當你有一個主要經濟體，雖然規模不及美國，但絕對是一個你能夠放心在那裡運營的主要經濟體。好的，貝琪，華倫，你剛才說你寧願讓吉特來負責保險業務的風險評估，而不是世界上其他任何一千名保險理算員。

So I’d like to follow up with a question that came in from Mark Blackley in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He said, warren, for years you have spoken about the incredible impact Ajeet has had on Berkshire. Often joked, if you and Ajit are in a sinking boat and we can only save one of you, swim to Ajit. While we often discuss plans for the next CEO of Berkshire, little is mentioned on who will one day replace Ajit. How should we think about the future of the Berkshire insurance operations, given how challenging it may be to find another Ajit?
所以我想接著回答來自奧克拉荷馬州塔爾薩的馬克·布萊克利提出的問題。他說，華倫，多年來你一直在談論阿吉特對波克夏的巨大影響。經常開玩笑說，如果你和阿吉特在一艘正在下沉的船上，而我們只能救一個人，那就游向阿吉特。雖然我們經常討論波克夏下一任 CEO 的計劃，但很少提到有一天誰會接替阿吉特。考慮到找到另一個阿吉特可能有多麼困難，我們應該如何看待波克夏保險業務的未來？

And I’d like to hear Ajit’s thoughts on this as well. Well, I would say we won’t find another Ajit, but fortunately, he’s a good bit younger than I am, so I hope you have to worry a little bit about me first before I start working by the jeep.
我也想聽聽阿吉特對此的看法。嗯，我想說我們找不到另一個阿吉特，但幸運的是，他比我年輕得多，所以我希望你們得先擔心我一點，然後我才會開始為吉普車工作。

We won’t find another jeep, but we have an operation that he has created and that at least part of it. There are certain parts of it that are almost impossible for competitors to imitate, and if I was in their shoes, I wouldn’t try and imitate them. And so we’ve institutionalized some of our advantages, but Ajit is. Well, his presence allowed us to do it and he did it. But now we’ve created a structure that didn’t exist when he came in 1986.
我們不會再找到另一輛吉普車，但我們擁有他創建並至少部分參與的運營體系。其中某些部分幾乎是競爭對手無法模仿的，如果我是他們，我也不會嘗試去模仿。因此，我們已經將部分優勢制度化，而這一切都要歸功於阿吉特。他的存在讓我們能夠做到這一點，並且他確實做到了。但現在我們已經建立了一個在他 1986 年加入時還不存在的結構。

Nothing close to it existed with us or with anybody else. And insurance is the most important business at Berkshire.
無論是在我們這裡還是在其他任何地方，都沒有與之類似的存在。而保險業務是伯克希爾最重要的業務。

Marketable securities are important, but they’re not in the class exactly as our insurance business. And Ajit.
有價證券固然重要，但它們與我們的保險業務並不完全屬於同一類別。而阿吉特...

We won’t have the same business if Ajit isn’t running it, but we’ll have a very good business. And again, that’s thanks to Ajit. I’d been in the business when he came in 1986.
如果沒有阿吉特來管理，我們將不會擁有相同的業務，但我們仍會有一個非常優秀的業務。再次強調，這都要感謝阿吉特。在他 1986 年加入時，我已經在這個行業了。

I first went to Geico in 1950. We first bought national indemnity in 1957, and it was something that we’d made quite a bit of money in the stocks of insurance companies, but we needed an Ajit, unfortunately, he came into the office on a Saturday and he was tired of working at something where he really didn’t.
我首次接觸 Geico 是在 1950 年。我們於 1957 年首次收購了 National Indemnity，當時我們在保險公司股票上賺了不少錢，但我們需要一位像 Ajit 這樣的人才，可惜的是，他在某個週六來到辦公室，已經厭倦了從事一份他並不真正熱愛的工作。

It just challenges his intellect. And I said, well, we got a lot of challenges. Nobody’s perfect. So you’ve never seen an insurance policy or owned an insurance stock, but here are the keys, and that’s worked out very well.
這只是對他智力的一種挑戰。我說，好吧，我們面臨很多挑戰。人無完人。所以，你從未見過保險單或持有過保險股票，但這是鑰匙，結果證明這一切運作得非常好。

Thank you very much, Warren. Thank you very much, everyone. But the fact of the matter is, nobody is irreplaceable. And we have Tim Cook here in the audience, I believe, who has proved that and has set an example for a lot of people who follow.
非常感謝你，華倫。非常感謝大家。但事實是，沒有人是不可替代的。我相信觀眾席中的提姆·庫克已經證明了這一點，並為許多追隨者樹立了榜樣。

That’s a great observation. Now, having said that, I will also add that our board is conscious of the succession issue, not only at Warren’s level, but also at my level. And every year they have me sitting in front of them answering questions and having me share my ideas with them in terms of what would happen to the operations if I get hit by a truck.
這是個很好的觀察。話雖如此，我還想補充一點，我們的董事會對繼任問題非常重視，不僅是在華倫的層面，也包括我的層面。每年他們都會讓我坐在他們面前回答問題，並分享我的想法，關於如果我遭遇不測，公司的運營將會如何進行。

We go through the various operations we have. I review with them a short list of people I think ought to be candidates for replacing me. And in addition to that, I go a step further and identify a particular individual as the person I would hand over the keys to if something were to happen to me. Obviously that would be subject to change. But we take this issue fairly seriously.
我們會審視旗下各項業務運作。我會與他們討論一份簡短名單，列出我認為有潛力接替我職位的人選。不僅如此，我更進一步指定特定人選——若我遭遇不測時，將立即移交管理權的人。當然這可能隨情況調整。但我們對此議題相當嚴肅看待。

And I think at the end of the day, as Tim Cook has proved to us, it will be the biggest non issue of the day. The earth will still keep revolving around the axis.
我認為最終結果會如同提姆·庫克向我們證明的，這將成為當天最無關緊要的問題。地球依舊會繞著地軸自轉。

Okay, we know what we will do. We know it’s a good answer, but we know it isn’t. It isn’t. We won’t have another agenda. Station five.
好的，我們清楚該怎麼做。我們知道這是個好答案，但同時也明白這並非最佳解。不會再有其他議程了。第五站。

Hi, my name is Ange. Andrew Nickes and I’m wondering, if you. Had one more day with Charlie, what would you do with him?
嗨，我是安琪。安德魯·尼克斯。我想請教您——若還能與查理共度一日，您會如何安排這天？

Well, it’s kind of interesting because, in effect, I did have one more day. I mean, it wasn’t a full day or anything, but he.
嗯，這其實挺有意思的，因為實際上我確實多了一天。我是說，那不算完整的一天或什麼的，但他。

We always lived, in a way where we were happy with what we were doing every day. I mean, Charlie. Charlie liked learning. He liked, as I mentioned in the movie, he liked a wide variety of things. So he was much broader than I was.
我們一直以來的生活方式，在某種程度上，就是對每天所做的事感到快樂。我是說，查理。查理喜歡學習。就像我在電影裡提到的，他喜歡各種各樣的事物。所以他的興趣比我廣泛得多。

But I didn’t have any great desire to be as broad as he was. And he didn’t have any great desire to be as narrow as I. But we had a lot of fun doing anything. And, you know, we played golf together, we played tennis together, we did everything together. And this you may find kind of interesting.
但我並沒有強烈的慾望要像他那樣廣泛。而他也不像我這樣專注於少數事物。但我們做任何事都玩得很開心。你知道的，我們一起打高爾夫，一起打網球，我們什麼都一起做。這一點你可能會覺得挺有趣的。

We had as much fun, perhaps even more to some extent, with things that failed, because then we really had to work and work our way out of them. And in a sense, there’s more fun having somebody that’s your partner in digging your way out of a foxhole than there is just sitting there and watching an idea that you got ten years ago just continually produce more and more profits. So it wasn’t, you know, he really fooled me, though. He went to 99.9 years. I mean, if you pick two guys, you know, he never publicly said he never did a day of exercise except where it was required when he was in the army.
我們從失敗中獲得的樂趣，某種程度上甚至更多，因為那時我們真的必須努力、想辦法脫困。在某種意義上，與夥伴一起從戰壕中爬出來，比只是坐在那裡看著十年前的想法不斷產生越來越多的利潤更有趣。所以，你知道，他確實騙了我。他活到了 99.9 歲。我是說，如果你挑兩個人，你知道，他從未公開說過他除了在軍隊時被迫運動外，從未自願做過一天運動。

He never did a day of voluntary exercise. He never thought about what he ate. You know, we started every day, and Charlie had. He was interested in more things than I was, but we never had any doubts about the other person, period. And so if I’d had another day with him, we’d probably have done the same thing we were doing the earlier days and we wouldn’t have wanted another.
他從未自願做過一天運動。他從不考慮自己吃什麼。你知道，我們每天開始時，查理已經...他對比我更多的事物感興趣，但我們對彼此從未有過任何懷疑，就這樣。所以，如果我能再和他多相處一天，我們可能會做和之前一樣的事情，而且我們也不會想要更多。

We only had one day. There’s a great advantage in not knowing where you’re going, what day you’re going to die. And Charlie always said that, just tell me where I going to die, so I’ll never go there. Well, the truth is he went everywhere with his mind, and therefore he was not only interested in the world at 99, but the world was interested in him. It’s remarkable, you know, they, he.
我們只有一天時間。不知道自己的終點在哪、何時會死，其實是種巨大的優勢。查理總是這麼說，只要告訴我我會死在哪裡，我就永遠不去那個地方。但事實上，他用思想走遍了每個角落，因此他不僅在 99 歲高齡仍對世界充滿好奇，世界也對他充滿興趣。這真的很了不起，你知道的，他們，他。

I would, I told him toward that. In the last few years, I’d never seen anybody that was peaking, you know, in 99 and where the world wanted to come and see him. I mean, they actually wanted to go out to 351 North Yune street. And whether it was, well, I could name a whole bunch of names, but just. I’ll start with Elon Musker, but go down the list.
我曾經這麼告訴他。過去幾年裡，我從未見過任何人能在 99 歲時仍處於巔峰狀態，讓全世界都渴望來見他。我是說，人們真的會專程前往北雲街 351 號。不管是誰——嗯，我可以列出一長串名字，但就從伊隆·馬斯克開始吧，後面還有一連串人物。

And they all wanted to meet Charlie, and Charlie was happy to talk with them. And the only person I could think of otherwise was the Dalai Lama. I don’t know that they had a lot else in common, but it was, he lived his life the way he wanted to, and he got to say what he wanted to say. He like, I loved having a podium again. I can’t remember any time that he was mad at me or I was mad at him.
他們全都想見查理，而查理也很樂意與他們交談。我能想到的唯一類似人物大概只有達賴喇嘛。雖然不確定他們有多少共同點，但查理確實活出了自己想要的人生，說出了自己想說的話。他喜歡——我特別懷念那個演講台。我實在想不起來我們之間有任何爭執，無論是他對我生氣，還是我對他發火。

It just didn’t happen.  就是沒有發生。

And calling him was fun back when long distance rates were high and we didn’t talk as often as the years in recent years, as we used to be on daily for long periods. And we did keep learning and we liked learning together, but, you know, we tended to be a little smarter because as the years went by, because we had mistakes and we had other things where we learned something. And the fact that he and I were on the same wavelength in that respect meant that the world was still a very interesting place to us when he got to be 99 and I got to be 93. So I don’t have a perfect answer for you there, but I can tell you the ingredients that would go into. Sometimes people would say to me or Charlie at one of these meetings, you know, if you had only have lunch with one person that lived over the last 2000 or so years, you know, who would you want to have it with?
在長途電話費昂貴的年代，打電話給他是件有趣的事，那時我們不像近年來這樣頻繁交談，過去我們常常每天通話很長時間。我們持續學習，也喜歡一起學習，但你知道，隨著歲月流逝，我們因為犯過錯、經歷過其他事情而學到教訓，所以變得稍微聰明了一些。他和我在這方面的想法一致，這意味著即使他活到 99 歲、我 93 歲時，這個世界對我們來說依然非常有趣。所以我無法給你一個完美的答案，但我可以告訴你其中的要素。有時候人們會在這類會議上問我或查理，如果只能選擇與過去 2000 年左右歷史中的一個人共進午餐，你會選誰？

Charlie says, I’ve already met all of them. You know, because he read all the books. I mean, he, and he eliminated all the trouble of going to restaurants to meet him or anything like that. He just went through a book and he met Ben Franklin. And he really, he was remarkable.
查理說，我已經見過他們所有人了。你知道，因為他讀過所有的書。我是說，他省去了去餐廳見他們之類的麻煩。他只需翻開一本書，就能遇見班傑明·富蘭克林。他真的非常了不起。

He said he really had no one else to meet because he’d read all their stuff and he liked Ben Franklin’s stuff better than he liked mine. But with Ben Franklin, he just had to read about it. He didn’t have to go have lunch with him or anything of the sort. But it’s an interesting question. What you should probably ask yourself is that who do you feel that you’d want to start spending the last day of your life with?
他說他確實沒有其他人需要見面，因為他已經讀過所有人的著作，而且比起我的作品，他更喜歡班傑明·富蘭克林的。但對於班傑明·富蘭克林，他只需要閱讀相關資料就好，不需要和他共進午餐或做任何類似的事情。但這是一個有趣的問題。你或許應該問問自己，在你生命的最後一天，你會想開始和誰一起度過？

And then figure out a way to start meeting them, or tomorrow, and meet them as often as you can, because why wait a little last day and don’t bother with the others?
然後想辦法開始與他們見面，或者明天就開始，並且盡可能經常與他們見面，因為為什麼要等到生命的最後一天才行動，而忽略其他人呢？

Okay, Becky, this question comes from Carol de Gend in Switzerland, in Europe, and this is for both Mister Buffett and Mister Jain. As political instability in the world is growing with a rise in the number of armed conflicts and trade tension, there is also increasing risk of cyberattacks. What are your views on cybersecurity insurance? Asking this question in general, for retail, small businesses and large companies, including critical key infrastructure such as power plants, harbors, airports, nuclear plants, etcetera, do you see a potential for profit making in cybersecurity insurances, and what are the key challenges?
好的，貝琪，這個問題來自瑞士的卡蘿·德·亨德，位於歐洲，這是給巴菲特先生和賈恩先生兩位的。隨著全球政治不穩定加劇，武裝衝突和貿易緊張局勢增加，網路攻擊的風險也在上升。你們對網路安全保險有何看法？這個問題是普遍性的，針對零售業、小型企業和大型公司，包括關鍵基礎設施如發電廠、港口、機場、核電廠等，你們認為網路安全保險有盈利潛力嗎？主要的挑戰是什麼？

Okay, let me start. Cyber secure. Cyber insurance has become a very fashionable product these days over these last few years. It is at least a $10 billion market right now globally, and profitability has also been fairly high. I think profitability is at least 20% of the total premium has ended up as profit in the pockets of the insurance bearers.
好的，讓我先開始。網路安全。網路保險在過去幾年已成為非常時尚的產品。目前全球市場規模至少有 100 億美元，而且盈利能力也相當高。我認為盈利能力至少佔總保費的 20%，最終成為保險承擔者的利潤。

Now, having said that, we at Berkshire tend to be very, very careful when it comes to taking on cyber insurance liabilities for the part of. Actually for two reasons. One is it’s very difficult to know what is the quantum of losses that can be subject to a single occurrence, and the aggregation potential of cyber losses, especially if some cloud operation comes to a standstill. That aggregation potential can be huge, and not being able to have a worst case gap on it is what scares us. Secondly, it’s also very difficult to have some sense of what we call loss cost, or the cost of goods sold could potentially be.
話雖如此，我們波克夏在承擔網路保險責任這部分往往會非常、非常謹慎。實際上出於兩個原因。一是很難知道單一事件可能導致的損失規模，以及網路損失的累積潛力，尤其是當某些雲端運算陷入停頓時。這種累積潛力可能非常巨大，而無法對其最壞情況有所掌握正是我們所擔憂的。其次，要對我們所謂的損失成本或潛在銷貨成本有個大致概念也非常困難。

It’s not just for a single loss, but for losses across over time, they have been fairly well contained out of 100 cents of the dollar. The premium losses over the last four or five years, I think, have not been beyond forty cents of the dollar, leaving a decent profit margin. But having said that, there’s not enough data to be able to hang your hat on and say what your true loss cost is. So in our insurance operations, I have told the people running the operations is I’ve discouraged them from writing cyber insurance to the extent they need to write it so as to satisfy certain client needs. I have told them, no matter how much you charge, you should tell yourself that each time you write a cyber insurance policy, you’re losing money.
這不僅僅是單一損失的問題，而是長期累積的損失，它們在每 100 美元中已被控制得相當好。過去四、五年間，保費損失我認為沒有超過 40 美分，這留下了不錯的利潤空間。但話雖如此，現有的數據還不足以讓你確信並說出真正的損失成本是多少。因此，在我們的保險業務中，我已告訴負責營運的人員，我勸阻他們承保網絡保險，除非是為了滿足某些客戶需求而不得不為之。我告訴他們，無論你收取多少保費，每次簽署一份網絡保險保單時，你都應該告訴自己你正在虧錢。

We can argue about how much money you’re losing, but the mindset should be you’re not making money on it, you’re losing money. And then we should go from there. So it is good. It’s projected to be a huge business. My guess is at some point it might, it might become a huge business, but it might be associated with huge losses.
我們可以爭論你虧了多少錢，但心態上應該是你沒有賺錢，而是在虧錢。然後我們應該從這一點出發。所以這是好的。預計這將是一個巨大的業務。我猜測在某個時候，它可能會成為一個巨大的業務，但也可能伴隨著巨大的損失。

And our approach is to sort of stay away from it right now until we can have access to some meaningful data and hang our hat on data. Well, you’ve just made, you’ve just heard why Ageita is invaluable. Because when you insure something, you really want to think of what, how much can you lose? And the question, I remember the first time it was happened, I think in the 1968 when there were the riots in various cities, because I think it was the Bobby Kennedy death that set it off for the Martin Luther King death. I’m not sure which one.
我們目前的做法是暫時避開這個問題，直到我們能夠獲得一些有意義的數據並依賴這些數據來做出決策。嗯，你剛才已經聽到了為什麼 Ageita 是無價的。因為當你為某物投保時，你真的需要考慮的是，你可能會損失多少？我記得第一次發生這種情況是在 1968 年，當時多個城市發生了騷亂，我想是因為 Bobby Kennedy 的死亡引發的，或者是 Martin Luther King 的死亡。我不確定是哪一個。

But in any event, when you write a policy, you have a limit in that policy. But the question is, what is one event? So if somebody is assassinated in some town and that causes losses at thousands of businesses all over the country, if you’ve written all those thousands of policies, you have one event, nor do you have a thousand events. And there’s no place where that kind of a dilemma enters into more than cyber. Because if you think about it, if, you know, let’s say you’re writing $10 million of limit per risk, and that’s fine, if you lose 10 million for some event, you can take it.
但無論如何，當你簽署一份保單時，保單中會有一個限額。但問題是，什麼算是一個事件？所以如果某個城鎮有人被暗殺，導致全國各地數千家企業遭受損失，如果你簽署了所有這些數千份保單，這算是一個事件，還是一千個事件？這種困境在網絡領域尤為突出。因為如果你仔細想想，假設你為每個風險簽署了 1000 萬美元的限額，這沒問題，如果某個事件讓你損失了 1000 萬美元，你可以承受。

But the problem is if that one event turns out to affect 1000 policies and somehow they’re all linked together in some way and the courts decide that way.
但問題在於，如果那個單一事件最終影響了 1000 份保單，而且這些保單以某種方式相互關聯，法院又那樣判決的話。

You’ve written something that in no way we’re getting the proper price for and could break the company. And I will tell you that most people want to be in anything that’s fashionable when they write insurance. And Cyber’s an easy issue. You can write a lot of it. The agents like it.
你寫下的東西，我們根本沒有獲得合理的價格，而且可能會讓公司破產。我要告訴你，大多數人在承保時都想趕時髦。而網路險是個簡單的議題。你可以大量承保。代理商喜歡它。

You know, they’re getting the commission on every policy they write. And you’ve got to have somebody in charge of things that understands that you may get an aggregation of risks that you never dreamt of and maybe worse as, and some earthquake happening someplace just because you have a whole bunch of policies with a million dollar limit. And I would say that human nature is such that most insurance companies will get very excited and their agents will get very excited, and it’s very fashionable and it’s kind of interesting, and as Charlie would say, it may be rat poison.
你知道，他們每寫一份保單都能拿到佣金。你必須讓一個明白風險聚合的人來負責，你可能會遇到從未想過的風險累積，甚至更糟，就像因為你有一大堆保額一百萬的保單，某個地方就發生了地震。我要說，人性就是這樣，大多數保險公司會非常興奮，他們的代理商也會非常興奮，這很時髦也很有趣，就像查理會說的，這可能是老鼠藥。

Okay, well, that cheerful view. We’ll go to station six.
好吧，這個樂觀的看法。我們去第六站吧。

Good morning. This question is for Warren Buffet and Greg Abel. My name is Maria Preenas. I am a retiree from Las Vegas, Nevada. I am here today as a member of ChiC Spike Nevada, a group of developed latin leaders for the environment of justices.
早安。這個問題是給華倫·巴菲特和格雷格·阿貝爾的。我是瑪麗亞·普雷尼亞斯，來自內華達州拉斯維加斯的退休人士。今天我以 ChiC Spike Nevada 成員的身份出席，這是一個為環境正義而發展的拉丁裔領袖團體。

I am almost here representing Maryland families in Nevada who are struggling to pay their utility bills and want access to affordable, clean electricity. I want to add today, why is NV Energy, which is owned by the Berkshire Hathaway, building new gas plants instead of investing in solar energy? With Nevada one and the sunniest state in the country, can I expect to see future leadership take dangerous investments in the fossils levels more seriously? Thank you. And thank you, Maria.
我幾乎是代表內華達州那些難以支付公用事業帳單並希望獲得負擔得起的清潔電力的馬里蘭州家庭來到這裡。我今天想補充的是，為什麼由波克夏·海瑟威擁有的 NV Energy 正在建設新的天然氣發電廠，而不是投資於太陽能？內華達州是全國陽光最充足的州之一，我能否期待未來的領導層更認真地對待對化石燃料的危險投資？謝謝。也謝謝你，瑪麗亞。

Greg, you want them? Sure. Thank you. So, as we touched on with Nv energy even earlier, there’s a lot going on there. When I think of.
格雷格，你想回答嗎？當然。謝謝。正如我們之前提到的 NV Energy，那裡有很多事情正在進行。當我想到...

There’s no question solar is a great opportunity for nv energy, and we’ll continue to utilize that as a resource and continue to invest in it in that utility and the other utility we have in Nevada. We’re also in a point where, when you think of a transition that’s going on within the energy sector, we are transitioning from carbon resources to renewable resources, as was noted, but it will not occur overnight. That transition will take many years. And as we use, be it renewable resources such as solar or wind, they are intermittent, and we do try to combine it with batteries. But at this point in time, time, we cannot transition completely away from the carbon resources.
毫無疑問，太陽能對 NV Energy 來說是一個巨大的機會，我們將繼續利用這一資源，並在該公用事業以及我們在內華達州的其他公用事業中持續投資。我們正處於能源行業轉型的階段，正如所指出的，我們正在從碳資源轉向可再生能源，但這不會一夜之間發生。這一轉型將需要許多年。而當我們使用太陽能或風能等可再生能源時，它們具有間歇性，我們確實嘗試將其與電池結合使用。但在目前這個時間點，我們還無法完全擺脫碳資源。

So if I think of Nevada in the, in the next two years, our last two coal units are. Well, actually, in the next year, our last two coal units will retire, but we are replacing them with a new gas unit, which is truly needed to make sure that system remains reliable and available to, to our customers. And that’s done in conjunction with our, with the state representatives and our regulatory agencies to make sure we can serve those customers every day and every minute. We have great examples in Iowa where at times, 100% of our energy comes from wind. And we’re thrilled with that.
因此，如果我考慮內華達州在未來兩年內的情況，我們最後兩座燃煤機組將在明年退役。但我們正以一座新的天然氣機組來替代它們，這確實是必要的，以確保系統的可靠性並持續為客戶提供服務。這項工作是與州代表及監管機構協同進行的，以確保我們能夠每天、每分鐘都為這些客戶提供服務。我們在愛荷華州就有很好的例子，有時我們 100%的能源來自風力。對此我們感到非常興奮。

And I believe we hit that example on earth day. We had enough wind that we could meet the demand of that state. But the next day, if the wind’s not blowing, we need our gas resources, our gas plants, to fill that gap. And really, that’s the situation we still have in Nevada. So we’ll continue the transition to renewable resources, be it solar in Nevada.
我相信我們在地球日那天就達到了這個例子。當時風力充足，足以滿足該州的需求。但第二天如果風不吹了，我們就需要我們的天然氣資源、天然氣發電廠來填補這個缺口。這實際上就是我們在內華達州仍然面臨的情況。因此，我們將繼續向可再生能源轉型，無論是在內華達州的太陽能。

And wind and other areas combined with batteries. But for the foreseeable future, we do see gas being a very important resource to help maintain reliability and meet our customer needs. And to meet it in an affordable way is also an important piece of that. So thank you for your comments. Yeah, we’ve got the capital to do whatever makes the most sense in a place like Nevada and the Nevada, I don’t know.
風能及其他領域與電池技術相結合。但在可預見的未來，我們確實認為天然氣將是維持供電可靠性並滿足客戶需求的重要資源。同時，以可負擔的方式滿足這些需求也是其中的關鍵部分。感謝您的意見。是的，我們擁有足夠的資本在內華達州這樣的地方做任何最合理的事情，至於內華達州，我不太確定。

Each state calls their ruling commission something different, but they probably call it the public service commission or something like that. And they’re making the decision as to what they think can and should be done in terms of getting from where a vastly complicated utility business moves towards something different without messing things up in the meantime and having the lights go off. And they, I think they would probably agree with you very much, Maria, that they what they where they want to get, but they can’t do it tomorrow because of the intermittent problems. And their job is to make sure the lights stay on. And their job is also to move toward better sources.
每個州對其監管委員會的稱呼各不相同，但可能會稱之為公共服務委員會之類的。他們正在決定在確保不中斷供電的前提下，如何從當前極其複雜的公用事業業務過渡到不同的模式。我認為他們很可能會非常同意您的觀點，瑪麗亞，關於他們希望達成的目標，但由於間歇性問題，他們無法立即實現。他們的職責是確保燈火通明，同時也要推動向更優質的能源來源邁進。

But solar will never be the only source of electricity because, well, Greg may know more about this, but I’m barring some real breakthroughs in storage and that sort of thing. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Generally a battery right now to do it in an economical way is a four hour battery.
但太陽能永遠不會是唯一的電力來源，因為，嗯，Greg 可能對這方面了解更多，但我認為除非在儲能技術等方面有真正的突破。對吧？是的。是的。目前來說，要經濟實惠地做到這一點，電池通常只能維持四小時。

And when you think of the time without the sun being available, that’s a challenge. Now there’s a lot of technology advancements and that’s stretching out and you throw dollars, a lot of things, you can accomplish things, but the reality is that there’s a careful balance of the reliability and also balancing. As it was noted, the rates do matter and how much customers are paying. So delicate balance of both delivering reliability but doing it in an affordable way. My friend Bill Gates, he’s working on shortening up that, lengthening the time the battery works on.
當你想到太陽不可用的時間，這是一個挑戰。現在有很多技術進步，這正在延長儲能時間，投入資金，很多事情都可以實現，但現實是需要在可靠性和平衡之間謹慎權衡。正如所指出的，費率確實很重要，以及客戶支付多少。因此，既要提供可靠性，又要以負擔得起的方式實現，這是一個微妙的平衡。我的朋友比爾·蓋茲正在努力縮短這個時間，延長電池的工作時間。

And so you got some very smart people working on it, but it isn’t something that you actually do overnight. And I can understand why people want it done overnight, but it is going to take a lot of money. It’s going to take a lot of good ideas and smart people like Bill and Greg, not me. I don’t understand why the damn lights go on when I even turn the switch, but those, those fellas really do. And there’s plenty of them working on it and we got plenty of money to implement it.
所以你有非常聰明的人在研究這個問題，但這不是一夜之間就能完成的事情。我能理解為什麼人們希望一夜之間完成，但這需要大量的資金。這需要很多好點子和像比爾和格雷格這樣的聰明人，而不是我。我甚至不明白為什麼我按下開關該死的燈就會亮，但那些傢伙真的懂。有很多人在研究這個問題，我們也有足夠的資金來實施。

But there are certain things that just take a certain amount of time. My daughter hates it when I use this example, but it’s really true that you can’t create a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. I mean, you may want a baby, so there are certain laws of nature that you have to work with. Okay, Becky, this question comes from Rich. McCloskey in Dunedin, Florida.
但有些事情就是需要一定的時間。我女兒討厭我用這個例子，但這確實是真的，你不能通過讓九個女人懷孕來在一個月內創造一個嬰兒。我的意思是，你可能想要一個孩子，所以有些自然法則你必須遵守。好的，貝基，這個問題來自佛羅里達州鄧尼丁的里奇·麥克洛斯基。

He says, Warren and Ajit, would you let us know what you think about the car and property insurance situation in Florida as a resident? Both seem out of control since the Florida market seems to be so mismanaged. Is this an opportunity for Berkshire?
他說，沃倫和阿吉特，你們能告訴我們作為居民，你們對佛羅里達州的汽車和財產保險情況有什麼看法嗎？自從佛羅里達市場似乎管理不善以來，這兩者似乎都失控了。這對伯克希爾來說是一個機會嗎？

Yeah. The Florida market, both for auto insurance and for homeowners insurance, has had a few tough years. The two problems we face in Florida and all the risk bearers face in Florida, one is the lawyers and the amount of corruption that takes place place in the Florida market keeps skyrocketing, making it difficult for us to price the product and make a profit. And secondly, the amount of activity in terms of storms, both the frequency and the severity, is also so severe that the losses in Florida tend to make it very difficult for a risk bearer to make money. Having said that, we’ve had a, we fortunately had a very good run at Florida last year.
是的。佛羅里達市場，無論是汽車保險還是房屋保險，這幾年都經歷了一些艱難時期。我們在佛羅里達面臨的兩個問題，也是所有風險承擔者在佛羅里達面臨的問題，一是律師以及佛羅里達市場中不斷飆升的腐敗現象，這使得我們難以為產品定價並獲利。其次，風暴活動的頻率和嚴重程度也極為惡劣，導致佛羅里達的損失讓風險承擔者很難賺到錢。話雖如此，我們去年在佛羅里達的表現相當不錯。

We increased our exposure in Florida as we talked about last year, and fortunately nothing bad happened. So a lot of our premiums that were in the top line flew straight to the bottom line. Florida is a large market. Florida is the market that’s subsidized by the rest of the country. I don’t think those that’s going to stand the test of time.
我們去年就提到過，我們增加了在佛羅里達的風險敞口，幸運的是沒有發生任何壞事。因此，我們帳面上的許多保費直接轉化為淨利潤。佛羅里達是一個大市場，但這個市場實際上是由美國其他地區補貼的。我不認為這種情況能夠長期持續下去。

The Florida market, the legislators are trying to improve it. They have passed law that is bringing down the amount of fraud that takes place in Florida. And I hope Florida will be a fairly buoyant insurance market because at the end of the day, they do believe in the free market more than some of the other states that have an insurance crisis, like California and New York. So, yes, Florida has a problem. Prices will go up fairly substantially, but at the end of the day, I think we’ll achieve a degree of balance so that the risk bearers can make a decent profit and will be deploying capital out there.
佛羅里達市場方面，立法者正試圖改善現狀。他們已通過法律來減少佛羅里達發生的詐騙案件。我希望佛羅里達能成為一個相當活躍的保險市場，因為歸根結底，比起加州和紐約等面臨保險危機的其他州，佛羅里達更相信自由市場。是的，佛羅里達確實存在問題。價格將會大幅上漲，但最終我認為我們能達到某種平衡，讓風險承擔者能夠獲得合理利潤並願意在那裡投入資本。

Okay. Station seven, please.
好的，請第七站提問。

Hi, Warren. My name is Christine Hone Garcia and I’m from Agora Hills, California. Thank you for being an excellent teacher and imparting your wisdom to us throughout the years. What advice would you like to share today that you believe everyone needs to hear?
嗨，華倫。我是克莉絲汀·洪恩·加西亞，來自加州阿古拉山。感謝您多年來作為一位出色的老師，向我們傳授智慧。今天您想分享什麼建議，是您認為每個人都需要聽到的？

Well, too bad you didn’t add that. What the rest of us would like to hear.
嗯，可惜你沒加上這句。我們其他人想聽的內容。

I would say that if I had one piece of advice, I would try to. Well, and you’re lucky to live in this country just to start with, because you’ve got opportunities here that wouldn’t exist in much of the world.
我會說，如果我要給一條建議，我會試著...嗯，首先你生活在這個國家已經很幸運了，因為這裡有世界上大部分地區所沒有的機會。

But I would like. I would. I would like to really sort of use Charlie’s advice of the thinking how you like your obituary to read, and then start selecting the educational past, the social pass, whatever. Maybe that your particular situation in terms of associating, and perhaps certainly in my day, it would have been marrying the person that would best help you do that. Well, Charlie would say you were offering some similar benefit to the partner and.
但我想要...我會...我想要真正運用查理的那個建議，思考你希望你的訃聞怎麼寫，然後開始選擇教育歷程、社交圈等等。也許根據你的特殊情況來選擇交往對象，當然在我那個年代，可能就是選擇最能幫助你實現這一切的伴侶。嗯，查理會說你也為伴侶提供了某種相似的益處。

But the opportunity in this country is basically limitless. When you think of going back not that many centuries, if you were going to be a shepherd or something like that, 100 years from now, your grandson was a granddaughter, was going to be a shepherd, nothing really happened. And what has happened in the last 200 years with the combination of the industrial revolution, whether it’s science or education or health, you name it. We are so lucky to be born when we were the people in this room, and many of us were lucky enough to be born in the United States as well, that you.
但這個國家的機會基本上是無限的。想想看，不用回溯太多世紀，如果你要成為一個牧羊人或類似的工作，100 年後，你的孫子或孫女也會是個牧羊人，什麼都沒改變。而在過去 200 年裡，隨著工業革命的結合，無論是科學、教育還是健康等各方面，我們何其幸運能生在這個時代，這個房間裡的每個人，還有我們中的許多人也幸運地生在美國。

You’re entering the best world that’s ever existed, and you want to find the people to share it with and the activities to participate in that fit you. And if you get lucky, like Charlie and I did, you find things that interest you young. But if you don’t find them right away, you keep looking. And I always tell students to take the job. I mean, find the job that you would like to have if you didn’t need a job.
你正進入一個有史以來最美好的世界，你要找到能與之分享的人，以及適合你參與的活動。如果你像查理和我一樣幸運，年輕時就能找到感興趣的事物。但如果沒有馬上找到，就繼續尋找。我總是告訴學生們要接受那份工作。我的意思是，找到那份即使不需要工作你也會想做的工作。

And sometimes you can find that very early, and sometimes you go through various experiences, but don’t forget what you actually are trying to do, and there’s no place to do it like this country. Find the person that you like to share your life with in many cases. And, you know, sometimes you get lucky into that early, and sometimes you make mistakes.
有時你能很早發現這點，有時你會經歷各種波折，但別忘記你真正想追求的是什麼，而沒有哪個地方比這個國家更適合實現它。在許多情況下，找到那個你願意與之分享生活的人。要知道，有時你早早就能幸運地遇到，有時則會犯錯。

But I would try to, in a very, very general way, I would try to figure out how you’d want to look back on your life and think about yourself and start today to go on the path that leads to that goal and expect some difficulties along the way. But if you’re thinking that way, you’re more likely to get there.
但我會試著以非常、非常概括的方式，試著想像你希望如何回顧自己的人生、如何看待自己，並從今天就開始踏上通往那個目標的道路，同時預期途中會遇到一些困難。但如果你這樣思考，就更有可能到達那裡。

Becky. This question comes from Axel Mayerseek in Hamburg, Germany. What has changed for Berkshire’s operating CEO’s since Greg Abel and Ajit Jain became vice chairman, for example? Can and do the operating CEO’s still reach out to Warren Buffet directly?
貝琪。這個問題來自德國漢堡的阿克塞爾·邁爾西克。自從格雷格·阿貝爾和阿吉特·賈恩成為副主席後，對波克夏的營運執行長們來說有什麼改變？例如，營運執行長們是否還能直接聯繫華倫·巴菲特？

Well, that’s the answer. Might surprise you, but they overwhelmingly, the operating executives, well, they prefer to talk to Gregor, to Ajit. And that didn’t. And that’s understandable because I don’t really do much and I don’t operate at the same level of efficiency than I would have 30 years ago or 40 years ago. I don’t know the managers as well as I would have when we were smaller and when I could get more accomplished in a day than I can now.
嗯，這就是答案。可能會讓你感到驚訝，但營運主管們壓倒性地更傾向於與 Gregor 或 Ajit 交談。這並不難理解，因為我實際上做得不多，而且我的工作效率也不如 30 或 40 年前。我不像在公司規模較小、一天能完成更多事情時那樣了解這些經理人。

And you’ve got. When you’ve got somebody like Greg in Ajit, why settle for me, basically? So it’s worked out extremely well.
而且，當你有像 Greg 和 Ajit 這樣的人時，為什麼還要將就於我呢？基本上就是這樣。所以這種安排運作得非常好。

And I almost can’t imagine anything working better because Greg in a year accomplishes. I mean, he sees more of them, understands more about their problems, you know, can give them suggestions. He’s got incredible amounts of energy and nobody has more wisdom than Ajit about insurance. And they’ve got access and insurance to him now. They had it before we stuck some of those titles on insurance.
我幾乎無法想像還有什麼能比這運作得更好，因為 Greg 一年內完成的事情——我是說，他見的人更多，更了解他們的問題，能給他們建議。他擁有驚人的精力，而在保險方面，沒有人比 Ajit 更有智慧。現在他們可以直接接觸到他並獲得保險方面的建議。在我們給保險業務加上那些頭銜之前，他們就已經有這樣的機會了。

Whereas with Greg, he much expanded things when he became the vice chairman in charge of really everything except insurance. So he is. If you polled our managers that fall under his jurisdiction, which would be a lot of them, they would much prefer, unless like a few, they weren’t paying as much attention to their business and I wouldn’t do anything about it, but Greg would. And they still like it when he does it. He can deliver news very well to people who.
至於格雷格，當他成為負責除保險外幾乎所有事務的副董事長時，他大幅擴展了業務範圍。他就是這樣的人。如果你調查那些歸他管轄的經理們——這會是很多人——除非少數人沒有那麼關注自己的業務，而我對此不會採取行動，但格雷格會。而且即使他採取行動，他們仍然喜歡他這樣做。他非常擅長向人們傳達消息。

There will be some people. If you have. If you have 20 children and you’re very rich, you’ll have some that will be go getters anyway, and you’ll have some that won’t. And we are a very, very rich company and we don’t.
總會有一些人。如果你有。如果你有 20 個孩子而且非常富有，其中一些會是積極進取的人，而另一些則不會。我們是一家非常、非常富有的公司，但我們不這樣。

We haven’t had a history of being very tough on people that coasted. And we’ve had some that would do that. And Greg will do something about it. And Charlie and I wouldn’t have. Not because we didn’t know it should be done, but because we were doing so well ourselves.
我們過去對於那些敷衍了事的人並不嚴厲。我們確實有這樣的人。而格雷格會對此採取行動。查理和我則不會。不是因為我們不知道應該這樣做，而是因為我們自己做得太好了。

It just wasn’t. We wouldn’t make the effort. We didn’t want to change our lives that way. Plus, we slowed down in various ways, ways physically and everything. So I would say that the number of calls I get from managers is essentially awfully close to zero.
事實並非如此。我們不會費這個功夫。我們不想那樣改變自己的生活。而且，我們在各方面都放慢了腳步，無論是體力還是其他方面。所以我要說，我接到經理人來電的次數幾乎可以說是零。

And Greg is handling those. I don’t know quite how he does it, but we’ve got the right person, I can tell you that. And with the jeep, he does less physical moving and the insurance people are more used to working with the jeep, obviously, over the years. So I wouldn’t say that changing the title really changed as much there because he was in charge of insurance. Anyway, you can go to a business school and they can give you way better answers than I’ve just given you, but that’s the way we do it at Berkshire.
而葛雷格正在處理這些事。我不太清楚他是怎麼做到的，但我可以告訴你，我們找對了人。至於吉普車，他減少了體力上的移動，而保險公司的人顯然這些年來更習慣與吉普車打交道。所以我不會說職稱的改變在那方面有多大影響，因為他本來就負責保險業務。總之，你可以去商學院，他們能給你比我剛才說的更好的答案，但這就是我們在波克夏的做法。

Yeah. If I can add a comment. From my perspective, the transition has worked out very, very well, but I think the credit really goes to how Warren has handled the situation. And what I mean by that is, after the transition was announced, and a lot of the operating managers used to be. They were used to calling Warren directly on some issue or the other.
是的。如果我可以補充一點。從我的角度來看，這個過渡進行得非常、非常順利，但我認為功勞真的在於華倫是如何處理這個情況的。我的意思是，在過渡宣布之後，許多營運經理過去習慣直接打電話給華倫討論某些問題或其他事情。

After the transition, when they would continue to do so, Warren would very skillfully, in his manner, handle them such that he would not answer what they were looking for, but at the same time made them feel good and told them that he sort of enjoyed hearing from them and talking to them. So as a result of which, you know, the transition took place, people got the message. They got the message and were very responsive to it. And it’s a non issue as far as today is concerned. I would probably add.
在過渡期之後，當他們仍持續這麼做時，華倫會以他一貫嫻熟的方式應對，讓他們得不到想要的答案，但同時又讓他們感覺良好，並告訴他們自己某種程度上很享受聽到他們的消息和與他們交談。因此，過渡順利進行，人們明白了訊息。他們理解了這個訊息並且反應非常積極。就目前而言，這已經不是問題了。我可能會補充說。

Yeah, the only thing I would add is we do have an exceptional set of managers across both the non insurance and insurance. And, yes, Warren made it incredibly easy, but so did they. It was a very easy transition because they cared deeply about Berkshire, they cared deeply about the culture, and they very much wanted it to be a success it. And we’re fortunate to have those managers in insurance and non insurance. So.
是的，我唯一想補充的是，我們在非保險和保險業務中都擁有一批出色的經理人。而且，沒錯，華倫讓這一切變得非常容易，但他們也是。這是一個非常順利的過渡，因為他們深切關心波克夏，關心這裡的文化，並且非常希望這次過渡能夠成功。我們很幸運能在保險和非保險業務中擁有這些經理人。所以。

Thank you. Yeah. What Greg is talking about is they really wanted more direction in some cases than I gave them. You know, I mean, I just sat there reading the Wall Street Journal or whatever, and Greg is. I don’t, you know, one way or another, there are more than 24 hours in his day, and I just don’t know how he covers the ground.
謝謝。是的。Greg 所談論的是，在某些情況下他們確實希望獲得比我提供的更多指導。你知道嗎，我的意思是，我就只是坐在那裡讀《華爾街日報》之類的，而 Greg 則不然。我不管怎樣，他的一天超過 24 小時，我就是不知道他怎麼能涵蓋這麼多事情。

He does, but he knows more about the people.
他確實做到了，但他更了解那些人。

We got the same feeling in terms of judging the attractiveness of businesses and making capital decisions and that sort of thing. He’s willing to work. I mean, I, you know, I, you know, and I couldn’t get as much done anyway. You know, what I could do in a couple of hours, you know, may take 8 hours now. I just don’t read as fast and everything said, but it’s working very well.
在評估業務吸引力和做出資本決策這類事情上，我們有相同的感覺。他願意工作。我的意思是，我，你知道的，我，你知道的，反正我也做不了那麼多事情。你知道嗎，我過去幾個小時能完成的事情，現在可能要花 8 個小時。我就是閱讀速度沒那麼快了，但一切運作得非常好。

And this place, if anything happened to me, it would be working extremely well the next day. I don’t get any phone calls. You can actually. We can. We can rig something up so we got some answering machine that people think I’m still around, you know, or something.
而這個地方，如果我有什麼不測，第二天它還是會運作得非常好。我不會接到任何電話。你其實可以。我們可以。我們可以設置一些東西，比如弄個答錄機讓人以為我還活著，你知道的，或者之類的。

So, anyway, that’s. That’s much, much less than you’d learn in business school, but that’s the way we do it at Berkshire. Okay. Station eight.
總之，這就是了。這比你在商學院學到的要少得多，但這就是我們在波克夏的做法。好的，第八站。

Dear Warren, Greg n Ajit, thank you for having us. Your teachings have not only made us better investors, but more importantly, better people. Thank you for that. My name is Rajiv Agarwal, and I am from New Jersey. I run an India focused fund called Do Darshi India Fund.
親愛的華倫、葛雷格和阿吉特，感謝你們的邀請。你們的教導不僅讓我們成為更好的投資者，更重要的是，更好的人。感謝你們。我是拉吉夫·阿加瓦爾，來自紐澤西。我管理一個專注於印度的基金，名為 Do Darshi 印度基金。

My question is related to India. Indian economy and indian equities have done quite well in the last 510 20 years. It is the fifth largest economy and will be the third largest in the next few years. My question is, is Berkshire actively looking for opportunities in the indian equity market and what will allow you to buy anything meaningful there? Thank you.
我的問題與印度有關。印度經濟和印度股市在過去 5 到 20 年間表現相當不錯。印度是第五大經濟體，並將在未來幾年內成為第三大經濟體。我的問題是，波克夏是否正在積極尋找印度股市的機會，以及什麼因素會讓你們在那裡進行有意義的投資？謝謝。

Yeah. Well, that’s a very good question. And obviously India, you know, I’m sure there are loads of opportunities in a place like India. And the question is, do we have any advantage in either insights into those businesses or contexts, it will make possible some transaction that might what the parties in India would particularly want us to participate.
是的，這是一個非常好的問題。顯然，印度，你知道的，我相信在像印度這樣的地方有大量的機會。問題是，我們是否對這些業務有任何優勢或洞察力，或者是否有某種背景，能夠促成一些交易，讓印度的各方特別希望我們參與其中。

I would say that that’s something that a more energetic management at Berkshire could pursue, because we do have the reputation. Now, Berkshire is known, not like it’s known in the United States, but it’s known around the world. And, you know, our japanese experience has been fascinating in that respect. So there may be an unexplored or unattended to opportunity in that area. I’m not the one to do it, but that may be something that in the future, it might be opportunities.
我會說這是伯克希爾一個更具活力的管理團隊可以追求的目標，因為我們確實擁有這樣的聲譽。現在，伯克希爾不僅在美國知名，在全球範圍內也廣為人知。而且，我們在日本市場的經驗在這方面就非常引人入勝。因此，在那個領域可能存在尚未開發或未被關注的機會。我不是執行這件事的人，但未來這可能會成為一個機會。

There are opportunities. The question is, does Berkshire have some kind of advantage in actually pursuing those opportunities against, particularly against people that are using other people’s money, that where they get paid based on asset met, on assets managed or something of this sort. I mean, there are plenty of people in the game who are buying and running businesses that do not really have our philosophy. I mean, they’re going to get rich no matter what happens, and their payment may be based on how much they buy rather than what they buy. So we’ll see how the next management plays the game out at Berkshire.
機會是存在的。問題在於，伯克希爾在實際追求這些機會時是否具有某種優勢，尤其是面對那些使用他人資金、基於管理資產規模獲取報酬的競爭者。我的意思是，市場上有許多人購買和經營企業時並不真正遵循我們的理念。他們無論如何都會變得富有，而且他們的報酬可能取決於他們購買了多少，而不是他們購買了什麼。所以我們將看看伯克希爾的下一任管理層如何玩這場遊戲。

Fortunately, you don’t have too long to wait on that. Generally, I feel fine, but I know a little bit about actuarial tables, and I just. Well, I would say this. I shouldn’t be taking on any four year employment contracts like several people doing in this world in an age where you can’t be quite that sure where you’re going to be in four years. Okay.
幸運的是，你不需要等太久。總的來說，我感覺還不錯，但我對壽命表略知一二，我只是...好吧，我應該這麼說。在這個你無法確定四年後自己會在哪裡的時代，我不應該像世界上某些人那樣簽訂任何四年期的僱傭合約。好吧。

But you’re absolutely right about, if you were energetic, had some way to be become a buyer or a party that people particularly wanted to do business with.
但你說得完全正確，如果你精力充沛，有辦法成為買家或人們特別想與之做生意的一方。

Japan was great, and India could be great, but India and Japan aren’t the same. I mean, I don’t adapt myself terribly well to different cultures, and some people are really good at it, and almost anybody’s better than I am. But I stumbled into one or two, but that could happen in act two of Berkshire Hathaway. Becky, this is a question from Rafael DePino from Spain. Maine.
日本很棒，印度也可能很棒，但印度和日本不一樣。我的意思是，我不太能很好地適應不同的文化，有些人真的很擅長這一點，幾乎任何人都比我強。但我偶然適應了一兩個地方，這可能會發生在波克夏·海瑟威的第二幕。貝琪，這是來自西班牙拉斐爾·德皮諾的問題。緬因州。

Berkshire has grown tremendously thanks to, and among other things, its architect, Mister Munger, and you, its general contractor, were all tremendously thankful to you for taking us along the way. We are aware that both of you and many others have spent an enormous amount of time ensuring Berkshire’s culture provides a solid footing on which to grow the building. You also currently have a very talented bench of what we may label as subcontractors. Mister Abel, Mister Jain, Mister Combs, and Mister Weschler. However, for a long time, you’ve had the advantage that talented subcontractors have wanted to work with a once in a generation architect and general contractor.
伯克希爾能夠如此壯大，除了其他因素外，多虧了其建築師芒格先生，而您作為總承包商，我們非常感謝您一路以來的帶領。我們深知您與許多人投入了大量時間，確保伯克希爾的文化為這棟建築的成長奠定了堅實基礎。您目前還擁有一批我們可稱之為分包商的傑出人才——阿貝爾先生、賈恩先生、康布斯先生和韋施勒先生。然而長期以來，您一直擁有一項優勢：才華橫溢的分包商們都渴望與這世代難逢的建築師和總承包商共事。

How do you envision Berkshire will overcome the loss of said advantage when the contractor bench needs to be renewed again? And what are potential renovation works in this great building that may necessitate a new architect? Yeah, well, that’s a great question, which Charlie and I obviously talked a lot about over time. And of course, we will not be sure to the extent it remains the sort of entity that it is, will not need to attract people very often. It would be absolutely crazy for anybody, for our board of directors to ever pick anybody to run this business that thought, you should retire at 65.
你如何看待伯克希爾在承包商團隊需要再次更新時，將如何克服失去上述優勢的問題？在這棟偉大的建築中，有哪些潛在的翻修工程可能需要一位新的建築師？是的，這是個很好的問題，查理和我顯然已經討論過很多次了。當然，我們無法確定它是否會保持現有的實體形式，也不需要經常吸引新人加入。如果我們的董事會選擇任何一個認為應該在 65 歲退休的人來經營這項業務，那將是極其荒謬的。

It may be that they should retire the next day when you learn what they’re really like managing something, or it may turn that you want to keep them around till they. They really start being affected by old age, which hits different people at different times, but it hits everybody eventually. And so we. It’s very likely that if it’s. If the directors, and it’s very tough, because they will be acting against conventional wisdom, which is always difficult.
也許當你真正了解他們管理某件事的方式後，隔天就該讓他們退休；又或者你會想留任他們，直到他們確實開始受到年老的影響——這對不同的人發生在不同的時間點，但終究會降臨在每個人身上。所以我們...這很可能會是...如果董事們...這非常困難，因為他們將違背傳統智慧行事，這總是艱鉅的。

But I think we’ve got the group on that, and they will not have to make a decision very often. If they pick the right CEO, that’s 99% of the job of the directors. And if they. The other 1% is, do you have a good method to correct it if you’ve made a wrong decision? And that’s extremely hard to do in our present system.
但我認為我們在這方面已經有了共識，而且他們不需要經常做決定。如果他們選對了執行長，那就是董事們 99%的工作了。至於剩下的 1%，則是當你做了錯誤決定時，是否有好的方法來糾正？而在我們現行的體制下，這極其困難。

It’s not impossible, but it’s just not something that happens. It’s too good a job to be a director, to try and throw over somebody, particularly if you can use the money from directorships and you want to be on other boards and everything. We do not have a perfect system in terms of boards or directors at all. And it’s. It doesn’t operate at all.
這並非不可能，但就是不太會發生。擔任董事是份太好的工作，以至於沒人想推翻誰，特別是當你能利用董事職位的收入，還想在其他董事會任職等等。我們在董事會或董事的制度上完全不完美。而且它...根本沒有正常運作。

Well, I shouldn’t say at all, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t operate as people may think. It generally operates. So we will.
嗯，我不該這麼說，但事實並非如此。它的運作方式可能與人們想像的不同。總體而言，它是這樣運作的。所以我們會繼續這樣做。

We’ve really got the problem solved for the next 20 years unless something untoward happens. And if something untoward happens, then. Then the directors need to find, probably within our own organization, somebody that they’ve got confidence in to maintain the special advantages we have over another 20 years period. There’s various things that are low probabilities, but you still have to think about them, and we are in that position now. Now, if you asked me whether.
我們確實已經為未來 20 年解決了這個問題，除非發生什麼意外。如果真的發生了意外，那麼董事會就需要在我們自己的組織內部找到一個他們有信心的人，來維持我們在接下來 20 年所擁有的特殊優勢。雖然這些事情發生的機率很低，但你仍然需要考慮它們，而我們現在就處於這樣的位置。現在，如果你問我是否...

If something happened to Greg today, everybody says, don’t travel on the same plane. The thing to do is not travel in the same auto. Planes don’t go down that often. Autos crash all the time. I’ve seen all these corporate policies on that, which are kind of crazy when you think about the real risk.
如果今天格雷格出了什麼事，大家都說，不要坐同一架飛機。真正該做的是不要坐同一輛車。飛機失事的頻率並不高，但車禍卻時常發生。我看過所有那些公司政策，當你真正考慮到風險時，會覺得這些政策有點瘋狂。

But in any event, Greg is going to have to tell the directors about what if something happened tomorrow. He has to tell the directors about what should be done if anything happens to him. And that’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t have.
但無論如何，格雷格必須告訴董事會，如果明天發生什麼事該怎麼辦。他必須告訴董事會，如果他出了什麼事，應該採取什麼措施。這不是一件容易的事，而我沒有...

Well, it will be his decision, and then the director’s really to decide whether he’s made the right one, but he will make the right one. And what you really have to hope is that you get lucky on how long managers stick around. I mean, you might need three in the century, and you might need six or seven, but the answer is you need a little luck, and you need some break in the mortality tables. But we’ve got an entity that if you really aspire to be a certain kind of manager, of a really large entity, there’s nothing like it in the world. So we’ve got something to offer the person who we want to have.
嗯，這將是他的決定，然後董事會才能真正判斷他是否做出了正確的選擇，但他會做出正確的決定。而你真正必須希望的是，在經理人任職時間長短這方面能有點運氣。我的意思是，一個世紀裡你可能需要三位經理人，也可能需要六、七位，但答案是，你需要一點運氣，還需要死亡率表上出現一些例外。但我們擁有這樣一個實體，如果你真的渴望成為某種經理人，管理一個真正龐大的實體，世界上沒有什麼能與之相比。所以對於我們想要的人選，我們有東西可以吸引他。

It’s sort of like Charlie said about marrying the best person that will have you. Well, we’ve got something that the right person would want to marry, basically, in terms of Berkshire. And if we get the wrong person, then the directors have to do something about it, and that probably won’t happen. But it’s always a contingency, a possibility, I should say, Greg, having been put on the spot like that, you don’t have to name anybody now, but I’m sure the crowd would love it and make news. Well, the only thing I would add, Warren, is, and it’s really how the comment started, was around culture, the culture we have at Berkshire and that being our shareholders, being our partners and our managers of our business, having that ownership mentality, that’s never going to change and that will attract the right managers at every level.
就像查理說的，這有點像要娶那個願意嫁給你的最好的人。基本上，就波克夏而言，我們擁有能吸引合適人選的特質。如果我們選錯了人，董事會就必須採取行動，雖然這種情況可能不會發生。但這始終是個應急方案，或者說可能性。格雷格，既然你被點名了，現在不必指名道姓，但我確信在場觀眾會很樂見其成，這也會成為新聞。嗯，華倫，我只想補充一點，這其實是從文化話題開始的，就是我們在波克夏擁有的文化——把股東視為夥伴，把事業經理人視為擁有者心態，這點永遠不會改變，而這種文化會吸引各層級合適的經理人。

So I think, as Warren said, we have a very special company in Berkshire, but it’s that culture that makes it special, and that’s not going to change.
所以我想，正如華倫所言，波克夏是一家非常特別的公司，但正是這種文化讓它與眾不同，而這點永遠不會改變。

Okay, station nine.  好的，第九站。

I’m never sure where nine is. Hi, I’m Sherman Lam, a Berkshire shareholder, and I work for family office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Just really happy to see you, Warren and the team. And where I come from, you’re a hero. And both you and Charlie have positively transformed mine and many, many other Malaysians and Southeast Asians lives, not only financially, but also in how we navigate our lives and relationships.
我總是搞不清楚九在哪裡。嗨，我是謝爾曼·林，波克夏的股東，在馬來西亞吉隆坡為一個家族辦公室工作。真的很高興見到你，華倫和團隊。在我來自的地方，你是個英雄。你和查理不僅在財務上，也在我們如何導航生活和關係方面，正面地改變了我和許多其他馬來西亞人及東南亞人的生活。

Thank you very, very, very much. Thank you. Thank you. That makes us feel good.
非常、非常、非常感謝你。謝謝。謝謝。這讓我們感覺很好。

Question is, what have your team’s greatest learnings been on business? Capital allocation, stock picking and portfolio allocation throughout the COVID-19 pandemic period over the last five years? And, Warren, appreciate it if you can get your views, as well as your representations on TeD and Todd, as well as directly from Greg and Ajit, too, on their respective businesses. Thank you. Yeah, I don’t think I want to give individual appraisals, but really what you’re doing is in terms of capital allocation, which is my job, I don’t go out and sell insurance policies or anything sort.
問題是，在過去五年的 COVID-19 大流行期間，你的團隊在業務、資本配置、選股和投資組合配置方面最大的學習是什麼？華倫，如果你能分享你的觀點，以及你對泰德和托德的看法，還有直接來自格雷格和阿吉特關於他們各自業務的看法，我將非常感激。謝謝。是的，我不認為我想給出個別評價，但實際上你在資本配置方面所做的，這是我的工作，我不會出去賣保險單或任何類似的事情。

And you represent a group of shareholders like we do represent. We are totally clear on our mission. And, you know, it may be that other people don’t agree with them, but I would say that in a great many places, you know, I just don’t agree with our mission.
而你們代表一群股東，就像我們代表的那樣。我們對自己的使命非常清楚。而且，你知道，可能其他人不同意這些使命，但我會說，在很多地方，我就是不同意我們的使命。

I would say that, for example, that anybody that wants to retire at 65 would be disqualified from being CEO of Berkshire. They might get retired the next day if they were the wrong person. But there’s just certain things we don’t want, and the were well fixed now, and that the odds are very good, but far from certainty that that takes care of the next 20 years. Now, the but you have to provide for the contingency. And there are several people on the board that know what I would do on that, but it’s up to Greg.
我會說，例如，任何想在 65 歲退休的人都不符合擔任波克夏 CEO 的資格。如果他們是錯誤的人選，可能第二天就會被退休。但有些事情我們就是不想要，而且現在已經很好地固定下來了，雖然機率很大，但遠非確定，這能照顧到接下來的 20 年。現在，但你必須為意外情況做準備。董事會中有幾個人知道我會在那種情況下做什麼，但這取決於格雷格。

But if Greg and I go at the same time, then you’ll move into making another decision.
但如果格雷格和我同時離開，那麼你們將進入做出另一個決定的階段。

There are a few people who know my thoughts on that, but the job of the director is then to come up with the right CEO, and the right CEO can’t make a terrible business great. Tom Murphy, who was the best, he was the best business manager I’ve ever known. And Tom Murphy, you know, he said the real key was buying the right business. And now Murph brought a million other attributes to it after that. But, you know, Charlie said, what was this?
有少數人知道我在這方面的想法，但董事的職責就是找到合適的執行長，而再優秀的執行長也無法將一門糟糕的生意變得出色。湯姆·墨菲是我所認識最傑出的企業管理者，他曾說過真正的關鍵在於買對生意。當然，墨菲之後還為此帶來了無數其他特質。但查理說過什麼來著？

He had a saying on that. But basically, we could have brought in Tom Murphy and told him his job was to run the textile business, and it would have done a little bit better, but it still would have failed. And one of the reasons I stuck with the textile business as long as I did was that I liked Ken Chase so much, and I thought he was a terrific guy, and he was a very good manager. If he’d been a jerk, you know, we’d have quit the textile business much faster, and we’d have been better off. But.
他對此有句名言。但基本上，就算我們找來湯姆·墨菲並告訴他負責經營紡織業務，情況可能會稍有好轉，但最終仍會失敗。我之所以堅持經營紡織業務那麼久，其中一個原因是因為我非常喜歡肯·蔡斯，他是一位出色的人，也是位非常優秀的管理者。如果他是個混蛋，我們早就放棄紡織業務了，那樣反而會更好。但是...

So the answer was for him to get in the tv business, like Murph had done and ad supported. You know, Murph figured that out early, and he started with a pathetic operation, which was a VHF in Albany, New York, competing against GE and everything. And he was operating out of a home for retired nuns, and he only painted the side that faced the street. He had one car dashing around town, and he called it news truck number six. But from that, he built an incredible company, and he built it because he was the best manager I’ve ever met.
所以解決方案就是讓他進入電視行業，像墨菲那樣做廣告支持的業務。你知道，墨菲很早就想通了這一點，他從一個可憐的運營開始，那是在紐約州奧爾巴尼的一個 VHF 頻道，與通用電氣等大公司競爭。他從一座退休修女的住所運營，只粉刷了面向街道的那一面。他只有一輛車在城裡跑來跑去，他稱之為第六號新聞車。但從那裡，他建立了一個不可思議的公司，他之所以能做到這一點，是因為他是我見過的最好的經理人。

But beyond that, he was in a good business. And the key will be to have Tom Murphy and then hand them a bunch of good businesses, and he or she will know what to do with it.
但除此之外，他所在的是一個好行業。關鍵在於要有像湯姆·墨菲這樣的人，然後給他們一堆好業務，他或她就會知道該怎麼做。

Now, that’s not as precise as you would get in most companies, but you really can’t get more precise than that. I mean, you can have committees and management consultants and everybody. But it wasn’t a management consultant that hired Tom Murphy. And I forget whether he was doing. His sales volume was a couple thousand a week at first.
現在，這不像你在大多數公司得到的那麼精確，但你確實無法比這更精確了。我是說，你可以有委員會和管理顧問等等。但聘用湯姆·墨菲的不是管理顧問。我忘記他當時在做什麼了。一開始他的銷售額每週只有幾千塊。

And then as soon as he hit, that was his goal. It got to 2000, he says. Now my goal is 3000. He kept doing that, surpassed all these people, like CB’s and ABC, that only had the world by the tail. And it was just a wonderful lesson in life to get.
然後他一達到目標，就立刻設定下一個。他說，當達到 2000 時，現在的目標是 3000。他持續這樣做，超越了所有這些人，像是 CB 和 ABC 那些只是僥倖成功的人。這真是人生中值得學習的一課。

Just to be able to view something like that. I learned an awful lot from what he said to me, but I just learned by watching somebody like him operate. I mean, it’s like watching a great golfer, a great tennis player, then you ought to learn something about the kind of swing you’re trying to develop or something of sort. So that’s not a great answer for you. But so far, it’s worked, and I think it works.
光是能夠見證這樣的事情就很有價值。我從他對我說的話中學到了很多，但光是觀察像他這樣的人如何運作，就讓我學到不少。我的意思是，這就像觀看一位偉大的高爾夫球手或網球選手，你應該能從中學到一些關於如何發展自己的揮桿技巧之類的東西。所以這對你來說可能不是一個很好的答案。但到目前為止，這方法有效，而且我認為它確實有效。

I’m very sure it works with Greg, and it’s up to people in the future when, you know, I’m underground or wherever they put me, to really make a decision every 20 years or something like that. On average, it’s the right decision, but correct it if it turns out to be the wrong decision. That’s what a board of directors is for. And we’ve got the people on the board that really understand that responsibility. They take it seriously, but they don’t take themselves too seriously, and so therefore, they don’t.
我非常確定這對 Greg 也有效，而未來的人們，在我已經入土或無論他們把我放在哪裡之後，大約每 20 年需要做出一次決定。平均而言，這是正確的決定，但如果結果證明是錯誤的，就應該糾正。這就是董事會的職責所在。我們的董事會成員真正理解這一責任。他們認真對待這一責任，但不會過於自負，因此他們不會。

They don’t wanna. They don’t necessarily wanna do a lot of things just to look busy. And they aren’t using us as a stepping stone to get on other boards, but we’ve got people that really believe in what we’re doing, and they’re the ones that are going to have to make this place work. And if they got lucky on Greg’s mortality, they can do just what Revan would go to sleep for 20 years or so and then make another decision. And Berkshire has every tool in the world available to be what it is now and continue to be what it is now.
他們不想。他們不一定想為了看起來忙碌而做很多事。而且他們也不是把我們當作跳板去加入其他董事會，但我們有一群真正相信我們在做什麼的人，而他們正是要讓這個地方運作起來的人。如果他們在格雷格的壽命上賭對了，他們大可以像瑞文那樣沉睡個二十年左右，然後再做另一個決定。而伯克希爾擁有世界上所有的工具，可以維持現狀並繼續保持現狀。

I mean, we’ve gotten from 20 million of net worth to 570 billion. And, you know, we. There aren’t as many things to do, but we can do a few big things better than anybody else can do. And there will be occasional times when we’re the only one willing to act. And at those times, we want to be sure that the US government thinks we’re an asset to the situation and not liability or a supplicant, as the banks were.
我是說，我們從淨值兩千萬成長到了五千七百億。而且，你知道，我們。雖然能做的事沒那麼多了，但我們能把幾件大事做得比任何人都好。而且偶爾會有只有我們願意行動的時候。在那些時候，我們要確保美國政府認為我們是局勢的資產，而不是負擔或乞求者，就像那些銀行一樣。

We’ll say in 2008 and nine, they were all tarred with the same brush. But we want to be sure that the brush that determines our future is not tarred. And I think we’re in the. I don’t think anybody’s got a better position to do it than Berkshire.
我們會說在 2008 和 09 年，他們都被一視同仁地抹黑了。但我們要確保決定我們未來的刷子沒有被抹黑。而且我認為我們處於...我不認為有任何人比伯克希爾更有能力做到這一點。

Becky? This question’s from Johan Halen, who writes, you’re sitting on $168 billion of cash, which he told us today is now more than $182 billion. His questions are, one, what is Buffett waiting for? And two, why not at least deploy some of it? Well, I think that’s pretty easy to answer.
貝琪？這個問題來自約翰·哈倫，他寫道，你們坐擁 1680 億美元的現金，而他今天告訴我們現在已經超過 1820 億美元。他的問題是，第一，巴菲特在等什麼？第二，為什麼至少不部署一部分？嗯，我覺得這個問題相當容易回答。

I don’t think anybody sitting at this table has any idea of how to use it effectively. And therefore, we don’t use it. And we don’t use it now at 5.4%. But we wouldn’t use it if it was. If it was at 1%.
我不認為在座的任何一位知道如何有效地利用這筆錢。因此，我們沒有動用它。即使現在利率是 5.4%，我們也不會用。就算利率是 1%，我們同樣不會用。

Don’t tell the Federal Reserve that, but prefer it. But the.
別告訴聯邦儲備委員會，但我更喜歡這樣。不過...

We don’t. We only swing at pitches we like. And if anybody tried to swing at every pitch, or felt that because they hadn’t swung at a pitch for the last two pitches, they ought to swing at the third one or something like that. It’s just.
我們不會。我們只揮棒打我們喜歡的球。如果有人試圖對每一個球都揮棒，或者因為他們已經連續兩球沒有揮棒，就覺得第三球應該揮棒之類的。這實在是...

There are times, and obviously. But I would say this, I would not like to be running 10 billion now. 10 million. I think we could. I think Charlie or I could earn high returns on, because I think there are just a few things that happen on a very, very small scale.
有時候確實如此，這很明顯。但我要說的是，我現在不會想管理 100 億。1000 萬的話，我想我們可以。我認為查理或我都能獲得高回報，因為我認為只有極少數機會出現在非常、非常小的規模上。

But if we had 10 billion, I wouldn’t basically see many more opportunities than we found now. It’s true that something like Japan, we could have done, if the company had had a 30 or 40 billion, and we’d make. We’d have had great returns on equity. But if I saw one of those now, I’d do it for Berkshire. It isn’t like I’ve got a hunger strike or something like that going on.
但如果我們有 100 億，基本上我不會看到比現在更多的機會。像日本這樣的案例，如果公司有 300 或 400 億資金，我們原本可以操作。我們本可以在股權上獲得巨大回報。但如果現在我看到這樣的機會，我會為波克夏行動。這並不是說我在進行什麼絕食抗議之類的。

It’s just that things aren’t attractive, and there’s certain ways that can change, and we’ll see whether they do.
只是目前這些機會並不吸引人，而且情況可能以某些方式改變，我們會觀察是否真的發生。

Okay. Station ten.  好的。第十站。

Mister Buffett, this is an incredible meeting that you host every year. My name is Sean Cawley. I am a real estate agent with Berkshire Hathaway Home Services in Arizona and California. My mother, Cindy, my brother, and my two sisters all sell real estate with Berkshire Hathaway Home Services for many years. We love being a part of the Berkshire family, and along with the 70,000 other agents that sell real estate for the company, Mister Buffett Home Services of America recently settled our class action lawsuit.
巴菲特先生，您每年主持的這場會議令人難以置信。我是 Sean Cawley，在亞利桑那州和加州擔任 Berkshire Hathaway Home Services 的房地產經紀人。我的母親 Cindy、兄弟和兩個姐妹多年來也一直在 Berkshire Hathaway Home Services 從事房地產銷售工作。我們熱愛成為 Berkshire 大家庭的一員，與公司其他 7 萬名房地產經紀人一起，巴菲特先生的美國房屋服務最近解決了我們的集體訴訟案。

Regarding commissions for $250 million last week. This dollar amounts about 100 million more than Keller Williams. 166.5 million more than anywhere. Real estate, which is better homes and gardens in Coldwell. Banker as a realtor with Berkshire Hathaway home services in multiple markets, and a shareholder who’s been coming to this meeting for 15 straight years.
關於上週 2.5 億美元的佣金和解金額。這個數字比 Keller Williams 多出約 1 億美元，比 Better Homes and Gardens 的 Coldwell Banker 多出 1.665 億美元。作為在多重市場中為 Berkshire Hathaway Home Services 工作的房地產經紀人，同時也是連續 15 年參加這場會議的股東。

That’s one of the reasons I got involved with real estate, is because of this meeting. What are your thoughts on buying and. Selling a home in light of this recent settlement? And maybe ask the note to Greg and Ajit, too. Would you consider a Berkshire agent when.
這正是我當初進入房地產業的原因之一，就是因為這場會議。對於在近期和解案背景下買賣房屋，您有什麼看法？或許也可以請 Greg 和 Ajit 發表意見。當您下次購屋時，會考慮選擇 Berkshire 的經紀人嗎？

Buying your next home?  購買您的下一棟住宅？

I don’t buy them that often, as some people have noted.
我不常買它們，就像有些人注意到的那樣。

I certainly would consider him but I say the probability of that happening is low. And I really appreciate the fact you’ve joined up with us, but I’m going to. In terms of the settlement, I mean, Craig kept me informed, but I turned it over 100% to him. So, Greg, you want to talk about it? Sure.
我當然會考慮他，但我說這種情況發生的概率很低。而且我非常感謝你加入我們，但我會這麼做。就和解而言，克雷格有讓我了解情況，但我完全交給他去處理。所以，格雷格，你想談談這件事嗎？當然。

So, thank you for you and your family for being an agent and working for our. For our company, Berkshire Hathaway Home Services. I think there’s a few questions in there. One, there’s no question the industry will go through some transitions because of that settlement. Ours and the every other major player in the industry settled.
所以，感謝你和你的家人作為一名代理人，為我們的公司——伯克希爾哈撒韋家庭服務公司工作。我想這裡面有幾個問題。首先，毫無疑問，由於那項和解，這個行業將會經歷一些轉變。我們和行業內其他主要參與者都達成了和解。

The National Association, association of Realtors settled for more than 400 million. So effectively everybody was swept up in that settlement, and it did set the grounds for both home services and for the industry to move forward. There’s a lot of changes that happen in, or are being proposed associated with that settlement. The one thing that I think you hopefully would absolutely agree with, the real estate agent, is still an important part of these transactions. It’s the one time in our lives where we make these massive investments, and having that counseling guidance is critical.
全國房地產經紀人協會以超過 4 億美元達成和解。實際上，所有人都被捲入了這場和解，它確實為家居服務和整個行業的未來發展奠定了基礎。與該和解相關的許多變化正在發生或已被提出。有一點我希望您能完全同意，那就是房地產經紀人仍然是這些交易中不可或缺的一部分。這是我們一生中進行重大投資的時刻，擁有這樣的諮詢指導至關重要。

And that’s really what our business and those other businesses rely on, how the commission structures change and how it’s negative negotiated, which is really what the settlement was. It was no longer that a buyer would automatically pay a commission agent to the. To the selling agent. That now has to be negotiated. That’ll impact things, but I think the realtors will continue to be a very important part of that.
這正是我們業務和其他相關業務所依賴的，佣金結構如何變化以及如何進行負面協商，這實際上是和解的核心內容。買家不再自動支付佣金給賣方經紀人，現在這必須通過協商來決定。這將對市場產生影響，但我認為房地產經紀人仍將在其中扮演非常重要的角色。

And I think home services and the industry will remain very relevant. And then the only thing I would share with our shareholders on a broader basis is that obligation resides with home services and can be met by home services. And that was an important condition because they were also pursuing Berkshire and Berkshire Hathaway Energy. And we said, you can pursue us separately, but that settlement will reside with home services and be an obligation of that. And they decided the ultimate settlement.
我認為家居服務及其產業將持續保持高度相關性。而我想向股東們更廣泛分享的是，這項義務歸屬於家居服務，且可由家居服務履行。這是個重要條件，因為他們同時也在洽談 Berkshire 及 Berkshire Hathaway Energy。我們表明，你可以分別與我們協商，但最終解決方案將歸屬於家居服務並成為其責任。最終由他們決定了這項和解協議。

And. We’Ll go forward from there. So, Warren, any other comments? Well, yeah, I’ve sold two houses in the last. Well, the last 93 refraction years, and I’ve bought one that I still have, but I obviously bought the other two, and I have not negotiated down the commission, even though the last one sold for 7 million or something like that.
接著，我們將從那裡繼續前進。那麼，華倫，還有其他意見嗎？嗯，有的，我在過去...準確來說是過去 93 個折射年裡賣了兩棟房子，買了一棟至今仍持有的，當然另外兩棟也曾經買過。而且我從未議價降低佣金，儘管最後一棟是以 700 萬美元左右的價格成交的。

People do negotiate down commissions to some extent, but I can tell you, I’ve looked at the figures and I think the system has really worked out very well. When I got out of school, they had what they called Fizzbowl for sale by owner and so I’ve been involved to some degree in watching the whole system operate, and I know what our average agent makes. I know how long they work on things sometimes that don’t materialize.
人們確實會在一定程度上協商降低佣金，但我可以告訴你，我已經看過數據，我認為這個系統運作得非常好。當我從學校畢業時，他們有所謂的「業主自售」Fizzbowl，所以我某種程度上參與了觀察整個系統的運作，我知道我們的平均經紀人賺多少錢。我知道他們有時花費很長時間處理那些最終沒有結果的事情。

I don’t think we’ll end up with a better system, but it’s up to Greg and the people at home services we work through here. But I like our agency group, and we’ve got a very large number of real estate agents, and I’ve encouraged the expansion we’ve done in the real estate brokerage business. It was just one or two operations when we bought Berkshire Hathaway Energy, and we really built up quite a company. And I think it’s a very fundamental business. You need help.
我不認為我們最終會有一個更好的系統，但這取決於 Greg 和我們在這裡合作的居家服務人員。但我喜歡我們的經紀團隊，我們有非常多的房地產經紀人，而且我鼓勵了我們在房地產經紀業務上的擴張。當我們收購伯克希爾哈撒韋能源時，這只是一兩個業務，我們確實建立了一個相當大的公司。我認為這是一個非常基礎的業務。你需要幫助。

90% of the people need help in buying a home or selling one. And I’ve watched it operate all my life and been involved with lots of people who have been in the business. But there was a decision in court, and I told Greg to handle it, whatever seemed best to him. And I’m quite. I’m perfectly happy with the way we’ve handled.
90%的人需要協助買房或賣房。我一生都在觀察這個行業的運作，也與許多從業人員有過合作。但法院做出了一項判決，我告訴格雷格由他全權處理，採取他認為最合適的方式。我對此相當...我對我們的處理方式感到非常滿意。

I think I’m surprised at the decision, but we get surprised indecisions in the insurance business lots of times. I mean, just think of the various things we faced, and when 911 came along, we never thought something like that could happen, but it happened, and then we didn’t know what was one event or more events. If they closed down the New York Stock Exchange, a bunch of brokers. Well, all kinds of people lose their jobs or lose their income for a while. Is that one event or multiple events?
我對這項判決感到意外，但在保險業中我們經常會遇到出人意料的裁決。想想我們經歷過的各種狀況，當 911 事件發生時，我們從未想過會發生這種事，但它確實發生了，當時我們甚至無法判斷那算單一事件還是多重事件。如果紐約證券交易所關閉，一堆經紀人...嗯，各種人會暫時失業或失去收入。那該算單一事件還是多重事件？

There’s all kinds of things come up in business, and we just play the ball wherever we find it. And I was surprised by the decision. Was it in Missouri? Missouri, yes. Yeah.
商場上總會出現各種狀況，我們就是見招拆招。我對這項判決感到意外。是在密蘇里州嗎？對，密蘇里。沒錯。

But we’ve gotten surprised by some other decisions, and we’ll keep doing sensible things as we move forward. Greg, do you want to. No, I think the only thing I would add back, maybe to how the model has changed. And he asked one. Yes, we’ll always, I can’t speak for jeep, but we’ll always use home services agents.
但我們確實對某些其他決定感到意外，而我們將繼續在未來採取合理的行動。格雷格，你想...不，我想唯一要補充的，或許是關於這個模式如何改變。而他提出了一個問題。是的，我們總是——我不能代表吉普發言——但我們總是會使用家庭服務代理。

But it’s interesting. I have bought a home abroad. I lived over in the United Kingdom, in Newcastle, running our utility over there. And it is a completely different experience to buy a home outside of the US. Our agents take great responsibility for the whole transaction.
但這很有趣。我在國外買了一棟房子。我曾住在英國的紐卡斯爾，負責我們在那邊的公用事業運營。在美國以外購買房屋是完全不同的體驗。我們的代理對整個交易負有重大責任。

In the US, they put, as Warren said, time and capital at risk to ensure the transaction closes. And when you do close, they make sure what you bought, you actually what you thought you were purchasing, you end up with, and that’s not the way it is always around the world. And there are more affordable models, but it’s the old saying, you get what you pay for. So I think our real estate agents still provide incredible value within our business, and as Warren touched on it, it’ll survive. The form may be a little bit different, but there’s no question it’ll continue to thrive.
在美國，正如沃倫所說，他們投入時間和資金以確保交易完成。當你完成交易時，他們確保你買到的確實是你以為你購買的東西，而這在世界各地並不總是如此。雖然有更經濟的模式，但老話說得好，一分錢一分貨。所以我認為我們的房地產經紀人在我們的業務中仍然提供了難以置信的價值，正如沃倫提到的，它會存活下來。形式可能會有些不同，但毫無疑問它將繼續蓬勃發展。

Yeah, we still will want to buy real estate brokerages at the right price, and I hope we’re bigger in the industry ten years from now and 20 years from now than we are currently. And I did sell a house for 7 million. I did not negotiate the 6% down, and I feel I got my money’s worth and then some. And I’m cheap by nature, so it isn’t. I’m careless about it.
是的，我們仍然希望在合適的價格下收購房地產經紀公司，我希望十年後、二十年後我們在這個行業的規模能比現在更大。我確實以 700 萬美元的價格賣出了一棟房子，我沒有談判那 6%的佣金，我覺得我物有所值，甚至更多。我天生就很節儉，所以這並不是我不在乎。

I just. I got my money’s worth. And so let’s move on to becky. This question’s for Warren and Ajit. It’s from Jeff Oyster.
我只是覺得物有所值。那麼我們繼續 Becky 的問題。這個問題是給 Warren 和 Ajit 的，來自 Jeff Oyster。

As a Berkshire and Tesla shareholder, I would like to hear your thoughts on the potential financial effects to Geico, assuming Elon Musk delivers on his fully autonomous driving goal. On Tesla’s most recent earnings call, Elon said, if you’ve got, at scale, a statistically significant amount of data that shows conclusively that the autonomous car has, let’s say, half the accident rate of a human driven car, I think that’s difficult to ignore. Assuming Elon succeeds in reducing accidents by 50% versus human drivers, wouldn’t auto insurance rates fall to reflect the reduced underwriting risks, thereby adversely impacting GEIco’s revenues and float and perhaps margins, too? Well, yeah.
作為伯克希爾和特斯拉的股東，我想聽聽你們對 Geico 可能面臨的財務影響的看法，假設 Elon Musk 實現了他完全自動駕駛的目標。在特斯拉最近的財報電話會議上，Elon 說，如果你有大量統計上顯著的數據，明確顯示自動駕駛汽車的事故率只有人類駕駛的一半，我認為這很難忽視。假設 Elon 成功將事故率比人類駕駛降低 50%，汽車保險費率難道不會因此下降以反映降低的承保風險，從而對 GEIco 的收入、浮存金甚至利潤率產生不利影響嗎？嗯，是的。

Well, let’s just take the extreme example. Let’s say there are only going to be three accidents in the United States next year for some crazy reason that anything that reduces accidents is going to reduce costs. But that’s been harder to do than people have done before. But obviously. But if it really happens, the figures will show it, and our data will show it, and the prices will come down.
讓我們舉個極端的例子。假設明年美國只會發生三起事故，出於某種瘋狂的原因，任何能減少事故的措施都會降低成本。但這比人們之前所做的要困難得多。不過很顯然，如果真的發生這種情況，數據會顯示出來，我們的資料也會顯示，價格就會下降。

There have been a lot of people talk about doing that in the past. I mean, General Motors used to be very big in the insurance business, and when Uber first started, they. They used some firm, which now is, I think a Jeetl confirmed they’re close to bankruptcy now, aren’t they? Because of taking things on at the wrong prices. Is that true?
過去有很多人談論過這樣做。我是說，通用汽車曾經在保險業務上非常龐大，而當優步剛開始時，他們用了某家公司，現在那家公司，我想是 Jeetl 確認的，他們現在瀕臨破產了，不是嗎？因為以錯誤的價格承接業務。這是真的嗎？

Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Insurance always looks easier than it is, and it’s so much fun because you get the money at the start, you know, and then you find out whether you’ve done something stupid later on. But it’s a very tempting business when somebody hands you money and you hand them a little piece of paper, but really knowing whether you’re.
是的。沒錯。保險看起來總是比實際容易，而且非常有趣，因為你一開始就拿到了錢，然後你才會發現自己是否做了蠢事。但當有人給你錢，而你只給他們一張小紙條時，這是一個非常誘人的生意，但你真的知道自己是否...

I mean, if accidents get reduced 50%, it’s going to be good for society and it’s going to be bad for insurance companies. Volume. But, you know, but for society is what we’re looking for so far you might find kind of interesting. I mean, the number of people killed per 100 million passenger miles driven. I think it actually, when I was young, it was like 15, but even post world war two, it only fell like seven or thereabouts.
我是說，如果事故減少 50%，對社會來說是好事，但對保險公司來說卻是壞消息。業務量會減少。但你知道，我們追求的正是對社會有益的事情，這點你可能會覺得有點意思。我是說，每行駛一億乘客英里的人數死亡數。我記得在我年輕時大概是 15 人，但即使在二戰後，這個數字也只降到 7 人左右。

And Ralph Nader probably has done more for the american consumer than just about anybody in history because that seven or six has now come down to under two. And I don’t think it would have come down that way without him. There have been some kind of fluke figures of what people did during the pandemic, which are quite interesting because they, they didn’t drive immediately, they didn’t drive as many miles, but they drove more dangerously, didn’t they? Is that right, Ajit? Yeah.
拉爾夫·納德可能對美國消費者做出的貢獻比歷史上任何人都多，因為那個 7 或 6 的數字現在已經降到 2 以下。我認為如果沒有他，這個數字不會降得這麼低。疫情期間人們的行為出現了一些異常數據，相當有趣，因為他們一開始沒有開車，行駛里程也減少了，但他們開車的方式卻更危險了，對吧？阿吉特，是這樣嗎？是的。

Yeah. So the point I want to make in terms of Tesla and the fact that they feel that because of their technology, the number of accidents do come down, and that is certainly provable. But I think what needs to be factored in as well is the repair cost of each one of these accidents has skyrocketed. So if you multiply the number of accidents times the cost of each accident, I’m not sure that total number has come down as much as Tesla would like us to believe. Tesla has been toying with the idea of writing insurance directly or indirectly.
是的。關於特斯拉，我想強調的重點是，他們認為由於其技術，事故數量確實有所下降，這點是可以證明的。但我認為還需要考慮的是，每起事故的維修成本已經飆升。所以，如果你將事故數量乘以每起事故的成本，我不確定總數下降的幅度有特斯拉希望我們相信的那麼多。特斯拉一直在考慮直接或間接提供保險的想法。

And so far it hasn’t really sort of been much of a success. Time will tell. But I think, you know, automation just shifts a lot of the expense from the operator to the equipment provider.
到目前為止，這並不算非常成功。時間會證明一切。但我認為，自動化只是將大量費用從操作者轉移到了設備供應商身上。

We’ll get in their seats and be ready at 1:00 when we reconvene, because we will have another very [important presentation]. But we do not want to be seating people and have people milling [around] here at 1:00, just like a play in New York or something. It’ll take a few minutes, and only a few minutes, to cover what we’re going to [do] at 1:00, but we don’t want to be seating people during that period.
我們會在 1 點重新開始時就座並準備好，因為我們將有另一個非常重要的[報告]。但我們不希望像紐約的戲劇表演那樣，在 1 點時還在安排座位和讓人們在這裡[走動]。我們只需要幾分鐘，而且真的只需要幾分鐘，來介紹我們在 1 點要做的事情，但我們不希望在那段時間還在安排座位。

But now let’s… We’ll go on till 12:00, and then we’ll have a break until 1:00, and we will go to station [number one].
但現在我們...我們會持續進行到 12 點，然後休息到 1 點，接著我們會前往一號站台。

HUMPHREY LIU: My name is Humphrey Liu, and I am from Charlottesville, Virginia. I asked the question last year and wish to pose it again. It can be considered a follow-up. There is something to be said for traditions. It is the same question, but it is a changing and different world we are in. Looking at global trends, it increasingly does seem that zero-emission vehicles may have finally reached the cusp of massive adoption. Do you see any opportunities in this space, either in specific vehicle manufacturers or in related technologies?
劉漢弗萊：我是漢弗萊·劉，來自維吉尼亞州夏洛茨維爾。我去年問過這個問題，今年想再次提出。這可以視為一個後續提問。傳統有其意義所在。雖然是同一個問題，但我們所處的世界正在變化且不同。觀察全球趨勢，零排放車輛似乎終於迎來了大規模普及的臨界點。在這個領域，無論是特定的車輛製造商還是相關技術，您看到了哪些機會？

As an addendum, I will note that Berkshire has very relevant interests in energy, Pilot Flying J, and BYD. Thank you.
作為補充說明，我要指出波克夏在能源、Pilot Flying J 和比亞迪等相關領域擁有重要利益。謝謝。

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, well, we will. I hope you’re right [about massive adoption]. And massive adoption has been sort of a moving target so far, but I hope we get there. But Berkshire would not be… I don’t think that we bring any special talent to that field. You’ve got vehicle manufacturers, and I would certainly not know how to pick the winners in an industry like that. But I’ll be delighted if there are some winners.
華倫·巴菲特：是的，我們會的。我希望你是對的（關於大規模普及）。到目前為止，大規模普及一直是個移動的目標，但我希望我們能實現。不過波克夏並沒有...我不認為我們在這個領域有什麼特殊才能。那裡有車輛製造商，而我當然不知道如何在這樣的產業中挑選贏家。但如果能出現一些贏家，我會很高興。

But don’t count on us foreseeing who the winners will be, and don’t count on us for predicting when something will happen. It obviously has been a moving target so far, and it is an incredible problem that society faces, and it may be that governments are not very good at solving it for a while.
但別指望我們能預見誰會成為贏家，也別指望我們能預測事情何時會發生。顯然到目前為止這一直是個移動的目標，這是社會面臨的一個巨大難題，而且可能在一段時間內政府都不太擅長解決這個問題。

All of climate change… it’s got a terrible problem just in the fact that the United States, particularly, has been the one that’s caused the problem the most. And then we’re asking poorer societies to say, “Well, you’ve got to change the way you live because we lived the way we did.” But that really hasn’t been settled yet.
所有關於氣候變遷的問題…它本身就有一個嚴重的問題，尤其是美國，是造成這個問題的最大元兇。然後我們卻要求較貧窮的社會說：「好吧，你們必須改變生活方式，因為我們過去就是這樣生活的。」但這個問題實際上還沒有得到解決。

It’s a fascinating problem to me, but I don’t have anything to add to how you really slice through the world [population]. When I was born in 1930, there were just essentially 2 billion people in the world. Now there are 8 billion. Now, if you’d asked anybody in 1930, if you take the 50 smartest people in the world and you said, “What’s the optimum population for the world when you’re 93 years old?”, they would have not said 8 billion. There wouldn’t be anybody close to it. But we did it. Now we’re reaping some of the consequences of having done that, and we got the benefits in the United States. I’m exaggerating here to some extent, but the developed world basically got it. And then we’re telling a whole bunch of other people that we want them to change the way they live because of the way we lived.
這對我來說是個引人入勝的問題，但我對於如何真正劃分世界[人口]沒有什麼要補充的。當我在 1930 年出生時，世界上基本上只有 20 億人。現在有 80 億人。如果在 1930 年，你問世界上 50 個最聰明的人：「當你 93 歲時，世界的最佳人口是多少？」他們不會說是 80 億。沒有人會接近這個數字。但我們做到了。現在我們正在收穫這樣做的部分後果，而美國得到了好處。我在某種程度上誇大了，但基本上發達國家得到了好處。然後我們告訴一大堆其他人，因為我們的生活方式，我們希望他們改變他們的生活方式。

So we will see what happens with it. But that’s a problem that is very, very, very hard to solve, [to be] solved among a couple of hundred countries. And I really don’t have anything to contribute on it.
所以我們會看看情況如何發展。但這是一個非常、非常、非常難以解決的問題，需要在幾百個國家之間解決。而我對此真的沒有什麼可以貢獻的。

And now I’ve got instructions from the monitor in front of me. I would like to introduce one person here that [you all know] because she’s been here so many times, but my friend Carol Loomis, who is now… well, she’s going to be 95 on June 25. You can send [cards] to her care of our office. And Carol has edited the [Berkshire] annual report since 1977.
現在我面前監視器上有指示要介紹一位大家熟知的人物，因為她已參與多年——我的朋友卡蘿·盧米斯，她即將在 6 月 25 日迎來 95 歲生日。賀卡可寄至我們辦公室轉交給她。自 1977 年起，卡蘿便負責編輯[波克夏]年報。

(Applause)  （掌聲）

WARREN BUFFETT: There we are. And there are two points I’d like to mention. Every year, I give Carol a little item for a bracelet that is a replica of the front page of the report that year, and they’re different colors and all of that sort of thing. And so she now has, what, since 1977, what, 47 of them? I think she’s put ten on each one. But I’ve always wondered if she put them all on one arm, whether one arm would now be four or five inches longer than the other. But I’m sure she foresaw that.
華倫·巴菲特：好的。這裡有兩點我想提一下。每年我都會送卡蘿一個小手鍊飾品，那是當年報表首頁的復刻版，每年顏色款式都不同。所以她現在擁有從 1977 年開始算起，共 47 個了吧？我猜她每條手鍊串了十個。但我總好奇，如果全戴在一隻手上，那隻手臂會不會因此比另一隻長了四五英寸。不過我相信她早有預見。

But I want to reveal one other… Well, I want to ask one more question while Carol was here, because I’m sure most everybody in this audience grew up like I did, knowing that Ty Cobb’s lifetime batting average was .367. I mean, he’s the leader among everyone, and it may be that that record is never broken. And Ty Cobb, .367 is immortal. But Carol has a distinction that probably most of you don’t know, but she dated Ty Cobb.
但我想揭露另一件事…嗯，趁卡蘿還在這裡，我想再問一個問題，因為我相信在場大多數人都和我一樣，從小就知道泰·柯布的終身打擊率是 0.367。我的意思是，他是所有人中的領先者，而且這個紀錄可能永遠不會被打破。泰·柯布的 0.367 是不朽的。但卡蘿有一個區別，可能大多數人都不知道，那就是她曾經和泰·柯布約會過。

And Carol was officed at 6th Avenue and 50th Street in the Time Life building. And NBC was right across the street in, in Rockefeller Center. And the quiz shows became the head of TV. And Carol, being the kind of person she is, walked across the street at lunchtime and went on the quiz show [in] the late 1950s. And they gave her the… they gave her the questions regarding baseball. And Carol answered them all correctly, of course. She was encyclopedic on all kinds of things. So she knew all the answers. And she proceeded… And she was single at the time. And she proceeded back to her office at Fortune.
卡蘿的辦公室位於第六大道和 50 街的時代生活大廈。NBC 就在對面的洛克菲勒中心。當時的問答節目成為了電視的頭牌。卡蘿就是這樣的人，她在 1950 年代末的午餐時間走過街去參加了問答節目。他們給了她…他們給了她關於棒球的問題。當然，卡蘿全都答對了。她對各種事情都瞭如指掌。所以她知道所有的答案。然後她繼續…那時她還是單身。然後她回到了她在《財富》雜誌的辦公室。

And at some point, she got a phone call from… [It] sounded like a fairly young man in Georgia. And he said, “My uncle is Ty Cobb, and he would like to take you to lunch at ’21.'” And so Carol went to lunch with Ty Cobb at ’21.’ And I think he subsequently had one more lunch [with her]. And then she decided to call it off.
後來某天，她接到一通電話…聽起來像是喬治亞州一位相當年輕的男子。他說：「我叔叔是泰·柯布，他想請妳到『21 俱樂部』共進午餐。」於是卡蘿就和泰·柯布在『21 俱樂部』吃了午餐。我記得後來他們又約了一次午餐。之後她就決定不再赴約了。

But those of you who follow baseball may have noticed that in the 1990s, they found that the statistics had been faulty when Ty Cobb played. And that he actually only batted .366, that there were a couple of bad at-bats they didn’t count. So the real question I want to know from Carol, and I think she should maybe tell us, is that would she have dated Ty Cobb if she [had known]? I mean, I know she wouldn’t have… I know she wouldn’t have dated Ty Cobb if his batting average had been .300 or something like that. But where was the cutoff point at which she would have told Ty Cobb to stay in Atlanta and forget about coming up to New York?
但你們這些棒球迷可能注意到，1990 年代人們發現泰·柯布當年的打擊數據有誤。其實他的打擊率只有.366，有幾次糟糕的打擊沒被計入。所以我真正想問卡蘿的是——也許她該告訴我們——如果早知道真相，她還會和泰·柯布約會嗎？我是說，如果他的打擊率只有.300 左右，她肯定不會…但究竟打擊率低到多少，她就會叫泰·柯布乖乖待在亞特蘭大，別來紐約找她了？

And if Carol would… If anybody has a microphone, Carol would care to express herself on that question. It’s the unanswered question that I’ve had and all inquiring minds have had, and only she knows the answer. And she’s with her daughter. She married a wonderful guy, John Loomis. And Barbara’s… Barbara’s with her. I’m sure Barbara’s been always wanting to ask this question, but it’s kind of tough when you’re in the family. But I’m sort of a non-anxious guy… older, in front of a lot of people. Carol. Carol. Or are we going to have Barbara as [our] guest? Either one will… She would have been happy to go either way, right?
如果卡蘿願意...如果有人有麥克風的話，卡蘿應該會想就這個問題發表看法。這是個懸而未決的問題，不僅是我，所有好奇的人都想知道，而只有她知道答案。她現在和女兒在一起。她嫁給了一個很棒的人，約翰·盧米斯。芭芭拉...芭芭拉和她在一起。我相信芭芭拉一直想問這個問題，但當你是家人時，這有點難開口。不過我是個不太會緊張的人...年紀大了，又在這麼多人面前。卡蘿。卡蘿。還是我們要請芭芭拉當[我們的]嘉賓？無論哪一位都...她應該都會樂意回答，對吧？

(Laughter)  （笑聲）

WARREN BUFFETT: Thank you, Carol.
華倫·巴菲特：謝謝妳，卡蘿。

Carol is the best business writer. She comes from a town of [Kahoka], Missouri. I don’t know, around a thousand [people], probably. She never took an accounting course and ended up becoming the best business writer in the United States.
卡蘿是最棒的商業作家。她來自密蘇里州的[卡霍卡]鎮，人口大概一千人左右吧。她從未上過會計課程，卻成為了美國最優秀的商業作家。

And we… You know, she didn’t want to be an editor, actually. I mean, she could have done other things at Fortune, but she just plain liked writing business stories. And like I say, nobody came close to her. And she started from scratch.
而且我們...你知道，她其實並不想當編輯。我是說，她在《財富》雜誌本可以做其他工作，但她就是喜歡寫商業報導。就像我說的，沒人能比得上她。她是從零開始的。

But in 1977, I asked her to edit my report, and she turned out to be just [as good of] an editor [as] she was a writer. And all the way through this year, including this year, Carol has edited the Berkshire report. And to the extent anybody enjoys reading them, let’s give a hand to Carol.
但在 1977 年，我請她編輯我的報告，結果發現她當編輯和當作家一樣出色。一直到今年，包括今年在內，卡蘿爾都在編輯波克夏的報告。如果大家喜歡閱讀這些報告，讓我們為卡蘿爾鼓掌。

(Applause)  （掌聲）

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay. And I’ve been told to show a video right before you go to lunch, because it’s only 30 some seconds, and then we’ll talk a little bit more about it when we come [back]. So if we’ll dim the lights, we will have [a video] showing what a Berkshire shareholder did when she sold us a billion dollars worth of stock the other day. And you’ll meet somebody that I hope is… I know she is the prototype. She may have more zeroes, but she’s the prototype of a good many Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. It’ll be the first thing we talk about when we come back. But some of you may have noticed, whenever it was a few weeks back, when Ruth Gottesman gave $1 billion to Albert Einstein [College of Medicine] to take care of all of us, and Ruth doesn’t like a lot of attention drawn to herself. But here’s how they felt at Albert Einstein when they announced that Ruth Gottesman had just made a decision to take care of all of the costs of education at Albert Einstein, and it’s going to be in perpetuity. So let’s just show the film.
華倫·巴菲特：好的。我被告知在大家去吃午餐前要播放一段影片，因為它只有大約 30 秒，等我們回來後會再討論一下。所以如果我們把燈光調暗，將會播放一段影片，展示一位波克夏股東日前賣給我們價值十億美元股票時做了什麼。你們將會見到一個人，我希望她是…我知道她就是典型代表。她可能有更多零，但她是許多波克夏·海瑟威股東的典型代表。這將是我們回來後首先討論的事情。但你們有些人可能已經注意到，幾週前當露絲·戈特斯曼向愛因斯坦醫學院捐贈 10 億美元以照顧我們所有人時，露絲不喜歡引起太多關注。但這是愛因斯坦醫學院宣布露絲·戈特斯曼決定承擔愛因斯坦醫學院所有教育費用時的感受，而且這將是永久性的。所以讓我們播放這段影片。

I’m happy to share with you that starting in August of this year, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine will be tuition-free.
我很高興與大家分享，從今年八月開始，愛因斯坦醫學院將免收學費。

WARREN BUFFETT: And that’s why Charlie and I have had such fun running Berkshire. She transferred a billion dollars to other people. She happened to do it with Berkshire stock, and, you know, they offered [to] rename the school after [her] and everything like that. But she said, “Albert Einstein. That’s a pretty good name to start with.” So there’s no ego involved in it, no nothing. She just decided that she’d rather have 100 plus, closer to 150 eventually, of students be able to start out debt-free and proceed in life. And she did it happily, and she did it without somebody asking, you know, [to] name it, you know, put my name on [it] for all four sides of neon lights, and I salute her.
華倫·巴菲特：這就是為什麼查理和我經營波克夏如此有趣。她將十億美元轉移給其他人。她碰巧用的是波克夏的股票，而且，你知道，他們提議以她的名字重新命名學校之類的。但她說：「阿爾伯特·愛因斯坦。這已經是個很好的名字了。」所以這裡面沒有自我，什麼都沒有。她只是決定她寧願讓 100 多位，最終接近 150 位的學生能夠無債一身輕地開始人生。她愉快地做了這件事，而且是在沒有人要求的情況下，你知道，沒有人要求把她的名字用霓虹燈打在四面牆上，我向她致敬。

So let’s all have lunch, and we’ll come back and talk a little bit more about that. Thanks.
所以我們都去吃午餐吧，回來後我們再稍微多談談這件事。謝謝。

Afternoon Session  下午場
WARREN BUFFETT: So please take your seats. We’re going to finish at three, so the sooner we start, the sooner [we have] more chance we’ll have to talk about various questions you may have. I just like to follow on, however, with that film we showed just before we left for lunch because it says something about Berkshire.
華倫·巴菲特：請大家就座。我們將在三點結束，所以我們越早開始，就越有機會討論你們可能有的各種問題。不過，我想接著我們午餐前播放的那部影片繼續談，因為它說明了波克夏的一些事情。

There are all kinds of public companies and wealthy public companies throughout America, and there are certainly cases where, in one family, somebody has made a very large amount of money and is devoting it to philanthropy, or much of it to philanthropy, such as the Walton family would be the number one [example] in Walmart. And certainly, Bill did the same thing, Bill Gates did the same thing at Microsoft.
全美各地有各種各樣的上市公司和富裕的上市公司，當然也有這樣的案例：在一個家族中，有人賺取了巨額財富並將其投入慈善事業，或大部分用於慈善，例如沃爾瑪的沃爾頓家族就是頭號[例子]。當然，比爾也做了同樣的事，比爾·蓋茲在微軟也是如此。

But what is unusual about Berkshire is that a very significant number of Berkshire shareholders located all over the United States, not just in Omaha, but [in] many different [places], Berkshire holders who have contributed $100 million or more to their local charities, usually with people not knowing about it. I think it’s many multiples of any other public company in the country. It’s not more [than] multiples [of what] those [who] put a whole lot into philanthropy, and I don’t know the details of the family, but clearly there’s a huge sum of money that the Walmart family, I’m sure, has done all kinds of things philanthropically and will continue to do it.
但伯克希爾的與眾不同之處在於，遍布美國各地（不僅僅是奧馬哈）的伯克希爾股東中，有相當多的人向當地慈善機構捐贈了 1 億美元或更多，而且通常不為人知。我認為這比美國任何其他上市公司的類似行為要多出許多倍。這並不是說那些投入大量資金於慈善事業的人做得不夠多，我不清楚沃爾頓家族的具體情況，但顯然沃爾頓家族在慈善方面投入了巨額資金，我相信他們已經做了各種慈善事業，並將繼續這樣做。

But I don’t think you’ll find any company where a group of shareholders who aren’t related to each other… So many of them have done something along the lines of what Ruth did a few weeks ago, just to exchange a little piece of paper that they’ve held for five decades, and they’ve lived well themselves. They haven’t denied their family anything, but they don’t feel that they have to create a dynasty or anything, and they give it back to society. And a great many do it anonymously. They do it in many states. To some extent, we see some concentration of it in Nebraska, because generally, when you’re giving away a lot of money, they call it, in the philanthropic world, they call it “absorption capacity.” And the truth is, it’s very hard to give away a billion dollars to $10 at a time to people who are needy or something of the sort. And so large institutions have this absorption capacity, which tends to be universities or colleges or that sort of thing. And some philanthropies are much more imaginative than others.
但我不認為你能找到任何一家公司，有一群彼此沒有親屬關係的股東……他們中有許多人做了類似露絲幾週前所做的事，僅僅是為了交換那張他們持有了半個世紀的小紙片，而他們自己也過得很好。他們沒有剝奪家人的任何東西，但他們不覺得有必要建立王朝或什麼的，而是將財富回饋社會。而且很多人是匿名進行的。他們在許多州這樣做。在某種程度上，我們看到內布拉斯加州這類行為較為集中，因為通常當你捐出大筆金錢時，在慈善界他們稱之為「吸收能力」。事實上，要將十億美元一次十塊錢地分給需要幫助的人或類似情況是非常困難的。因此，大型機構擁有這種吸收能力，這些機構往往是大學或學院之類的。而有些慈善機構比其他機構更具想像力。

But the one thing I’ve never… Well, most of them want to do it anonymously, so I can’t tell their specific stories. But I have to say one thing that was astounding is that the same day we bought a billion dollars worth of Berkshire Class A stock from Ruth… So that… And I guess we were actually buying it from the school at that point because she’d just given [it to] them. And then… So the transaction was with them. But Mark Millard in our office bought a billion dollars from them, but he also bought $500 million worth of stock from somebody else that nobody will ever have heard of, and in a different state. And I won’t elaborate beyond that, but we have had a very significant number of people, and there’s more to come. And obviously, they had to be people that came in early, or their parents did, or their grandparents did, but they’ve all lived good lives. They haven’t denied themselves anything. You know, they have second homes, and they… But they generally… In fact, I would say almost universally, they… People knew them in the community, [and] everything. But they’ve used what they accomplished, what they saved… They denied themselves consumption themselves. That’s what savings are, is consumption deferred. And they’ve given… They’ve financed everything all over the country. And usually, they like to do it anonymously.
但我從未...嗯，他們大多希望匿名進行，所以我無法透露具體的故事。但我必須說，有一件事令人驚訝，就在我們從露絲那裡買下價值十億美元的波克夏 A 類股票的同一天...所以那...我想當時我們實際上是在從學校購買，因為她剛把股票捐給了學校。然後...所以交易是與他們進行的。但我們辦公室的馬克·米勒德從他們那裡買了十億美元，同時他還從另一個無人知曉的人那裡買了價值五億美元的股票，而且是在另一個州。我不會進一步詳述，但我們已經有非常多這樣的人，而且還會有更多。顯然，這些人必須是早期加入的，或是他們的父母或祖父母早期加入的，但他們都過著美好的生活。他們沒有剝奪自己任何東西。你知道，他們有第二套房子，而且他們...但他們通常...事實上，我幾乎可以說是普遍地，他們...社區裡的人都認識他們，[而且]一切。但他們利用了自己所取得的成就，自己所積累的...他們克制了自己的消費。 儲蓄的本質就是延遲消費。他們提供了...他們資助了全國各地的各種項目。通常，他們更喜歡匿名進行這些善舉。

I outed my sister when I wrote about her in the annual report, but Bertie’s here today. I told her she should wear a T-shirt or something, [that] said, “No solicitors allowed” or something, but they just do it. And it’s really both, Charlie… I [have] felt it’s really fun to work for a group of people like that rather than for index funds or for hedge funds or whatever it may be. I mean, you’re just seeing what people actually… It sort of restores your faith in humanity, that people defer their own consumption within a family for decades and decades, and then they could do something like [that]. And they will. I think it may end up being 150 people to pursue different lives and [who are] talented people and diverse people [and who have] the dream of being a doctor and not [having] to incur incredible debt to do it, or whatever may be the case. There’s a million different examples.
我在年度報告中寫到我妹妹時曝光了她的身份，但今天伯蒂也在場。我開玩笑建議她該穿件 T 恤，上面寫著「謝絕推銷」之類的標語，但他們就是這樣默默付出。查理，這真的讓我覺得...為這樣一群人工作，而不是為指數基金或對沖基金之類的，實在充滿樂趣。你會親眼見證人們真實的...這某種程度上恢復了你對人性的信心——看到人們數十年如一日地在家族中延遲自己的消費，最終能成就這樣的事。而且他們確實做到了。我想最終可能會有 150 位才華洋溢、背景多元的人因此能追求不同的人生，比如實現成為醫生的夢想，而不必背負巨額債務，類似的情況不勝枚舉。

And I want you to know that… That you’re very… You’re a unique, actually, group of shareholders among public companies, as far as I know, in terms of the way you’ve deferred your own consumption while living fine to help other people. And it takes a lot of years, but it can really amount to something very substantial. And what Ruth did was [at] roughly my age. She looked at a little piece of paper, which actually was a claim check on the output of others in the future. And she said, instead of the output being for her, that the output would be for a continuing stream of people, for decades and decades and decades to come, that were having a different life in the pursuit of becoming doctors than they otherwise would have.
我想讓你們知道…你們是非常…實際上，就我所知，在上市公司中，你們是一群獨特的股東，因為你們在過著不錯生活的同時，延遲了自己的消費來幫助他人。這需要很多年，但它確實可以累積成非常可觀的東西。而露絲所做的，差不多是在我這個年紀。她看著一張小紙片，那實際上是對他人未來產出的索取權。她說，與其讓這些產出歸她所有，不如讓它們持續流向未來幾十年、幾十年、幾十年的人們，讓他們在追求成為醫生的道路上，過上與原本不同的生活。

And Berkshire has been… Of course, her husband Sandy contributed substantially to Berkshire’s record. Sandy was a wonderful partner to have. So it was both input by him, and then there was deferred consumption by his family. And then there was ultimately this final gift to Albert Einstein [College of Medicine]. And like I say, the same day, there’s only 500 million [dollars that] will go to [another cause] in a different way. But it’s happening all over, and I don’t think any, any companies [are] like that.
而波克夏一直以來...當然，她的丈夫桑迪對波克夏的紀錄貢獻良多。桑迪是個絕佳的合作夥伴。這既來自他的投入，也來自他家人的延遲消費。最終這份禮物歸於阿爾伯特·愛因斯坦醫學院。正如我所說，同一天，還有 5 億美元將以不同方式流向[另一項事業]。但這種情況比比皆是，我認為沒有任何其他公司能做到這樣。

So I just want to tell you that it’s inspiring to work for a group of shareholders [like you].
所以我想告訴你們，為像你們這樣的股東群體工作，令人振奮。

BECKY QUICK: And Becky, go to it.
貝琪·奎克：貝琪，請繼續。

BECKY QUICK: All right, the next question comes from Slavin Vucelbrot. As CEO, will Mr. Abel be in charge of the portfolio of common stocks that Mr. Buffett has been managing, or will this function be exercised by Mr. Combs and Mr. Weschler? As investing could be defined as the discipline of relative selection, can major capital allocation decisions, such as large acquisitions, be separated from the common stock selection process?
貝琪·奎克：好的，下一個問題來自斯拉文·武塞爾布羅特。作為執行長，阿貝爾先生將負責巴菲特先生一直管理的普通股投資組合嗎？還是這項職能將由康姆斯先生和韋施勒先生行使？既然投資可以被定義為相對選擇的紀律，那麼像大型收購這樣的主要資本配置決策，能否與普通股的選擇過程分開？

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, I would say that decision actually will be made when I’m not around, and I may try and come back and haunt them if they do it differently. But I’m not sure the Ouija board will get that job done. So that job, I’ll never know the answer on whether it [will] get covered, but I feel very comfortable about the fact that it will be made by a board, that they’ve got loads of brainpower, they’ve got a dedication to an unusual institution, and they will figure things out.
華倫·巴菲特：是的，我會說那個決定實際上會在我離開後做出，如果他們做得不同，我可能會試著回來纏著他們。但我不確定通靈板能否完成這項工作。所以這項工作，我永遠不會知道答案是否會被涵蓋，但我對這個事實感到非常放心，那就是它將由一個董事會做出決定，他們擁有大量的智慧，他們對一個不尋常的機構有著奉獻精神，他們會想出解決辦法。

But I would say that if I were on that board and were making the decision, I would probably, knowing Greg, I would just leave… I would leave the capital allocation to Greg. And he understands businesses extremely well. And if you understand businesses, you understand… you understand common stocks. I mean, if you really know how business works, you are, you are an investment manager. How much you manage, maybe just your own funds or maybe other people’s [funds]. And if you really are primarily interested in getting assets under management, which is where the money is, you know, you don’t really have to understand that sort of thing.
但我會說，如果我在那個董事會上並做出決定，我可能會，了解格雷格的情況下，我會把資本配置留給格雷格。他非常了解企業。如果你了解企業，你就了解…你就了解普通股。我的意思是，如果你真的知道企業如何運作，你就是一個投資經理。你管理的資金有多少，可能只是你自己的資金，也可能是別人的資金。如果你真的主要對獲得管理資產感興趣，那就是錢所在的地方，你知道，你其實不必理解那種事情。

But that’s not the case with Ted or Todd, obviously. But I think the responsibility ought to be entirely with Greg. The responsibility has been with me, and I farmed out some of it. And I used to think differently about how that would be handled, but I think the responsibility should be that of the CEO. And whatever that CEO decides may be helpful in effectuating that responsibility. That’s up to [him or her] to decide at the time they’re running the money.
但泰德或陶德顯然並非如此。但我認為責任應完全落在葛雷格身上。責任一直在我這裡，而我將部分責任分配出去。我過去對此事的處理方式有不同的想法，但我認為責任應由執行長承擔。而執行長為履行該責任所決定的任何事項，都可能有所幫助。這取決於他們在管理資金時的決定。

So I would say that my thinking on that has developed to some extent as the sums have grown so large at Berkshire, and we do not want to try and have 200 people around that are managing a billion each. [It] just doesn’t work. And I think that when you’re handling the sums that we will have, you’ve got to think very strategically about how to do very big things, and I think Greg [is] capable of doing that. I think I’ve missed a lot of stuff in the past, so I’m actually wiser about doing that now. But I, you know, I would do it better this time around in 2008 and 2009 if something akin to that happened. But it won’t be exactly like 2008 or [2009], you can be sure of that. But you also can say that there will be times when having huge sums available extremely quickly… Maybe it will be once every five years, probably [more like] once every ten years or something. But as the world gets more sophisticated, complicated, and intertwined, more can go wrong. And there’s no sense going through here exploring the possibilities of the different things that could happen.
所以我會說，隨著波克夏的資金規模變得如此龐大，我在這方面的想法已經有所發展，我們不希望嘗試讓 200 個人各自管理 10 億美元。這根本行不通。而且我認為，當你處理我們將擁有的資金規模時，你必須非常戰略性地思考如何做大事，我認為葛瑞格（Greg）有能力做到這一點。我想我過去錯過了很多機會，所以現在我實際上更明智了。但你知道，如果類似 2008 和 2009 年那樣的情況再次發生，這次我會做得更好。但可以肯定的是，情況不會完全像 2008 或 2009 年那樣。但你也會說，有時候能夠極快地調動巨額資金……也許每五年一次，更可能是每十年一次之類的。但隨著世界變得更加複雜、精密且相互交織，出錯的可能性也更大。在這裡探討可能發生的各種情況是沒有意義的。

But you do want to be able to act when [something] happens. And I think the chief executive should be somebody that can weigh buying businesses, buying stocks, doing all kinds of things that might come up at a time when nobody else is willing to move. It wasn’t that people didn’t have money in 2008. It’s that they were paralyzed. And we did have the advantage of having some capital and eagerness to act, and a government that, in effect, looked at us as an asset instead of a liability.
但你確實需要能在[某些事]發生時採取行動。我認為執行長必須是那種能權衡收購企業、買進股票、處理各種可能突發狀況的人，尤其是在其他人都不敢輕舉妄動的時候。2008 年時人們並非沒有資金，而是陷入癱瘓。而我們確實擁有資金優勢、行動意願，以及一個實質上將我們視為資產而非負債的政府。

And I think that all of those qualities will be even more important as our capital pile grows. So I think Greg may have even more fun than I had in a period when extraordinary things were happening, and we were the logical place to go. You never know whether it’ll be next week, next year, [or the] next decade, but you [know], it won’t be a century from now, that is for sure. [The more] intertwined and sophisticated the world financial situation gets, the more vulnerable it gets in a certain sense. It solves a lot of small problems, but it leaves [the system] more vulnerable to large problems.
我認為隨著我們資金規模擴大，這些特質將更顯重要。所以葛瑞格可能會比我經歷特殊事件時更樂在其中，而我們始終是合理的求助對象。你永遠無法預知是下週、明年，還是十年後，但可以確定不會是一個世紀後。世界金融局勢越是交織複雜，某種程度上就越顯脆弱。它能解決許多小問題，卻也讓[整個體系]更容易受到大問題衝擊。

GREG ABEL: Without directly answering the question?
葛瑞格·阿貝爾：能不直接回答這個問題嗎？

WARREN BUFFETT: Greg, does that bother you at all or not?
華倫·巴菲特：葛瑞格，這會讓你感到困擾嗎？

GREG ABEL: I think there’s one important thing, [and that] is I think as we go through any transition, it’s important to know that the capital allocation principles that Berkshire lives by today will continue to survive. Warren and I think that’s the thing I’d want to communicate. We have our operating businesses, insurance, [and] non-insurance, [and] we’re going to [support] that. We’ll provide them the capital necessary to be successful and grow, if it’s appropriate. At the same time, we’re expecting [a] return of capital from them when they have excess cash.
格雷格·阿貝爾：我認為有一件重要的事情是，在我們經歷任何過渡時期時，必須知道波克夏目前遵循的資本配置原則將會持續下去。華倫和我都認為這是我想要傳達的重點。我們擁有營運業務，包括保險和非保險業務，我們將會支持這些業務。在適當的情況下，我們會提供它們成功和成長所需的資金。同時，我們也期待這些業務在擁有過剩現金時能回報資本。

And then, as we’ve discussed, or you’ve touched on, always looking at potentially new businesses as a whole or in a piece, and as you’ve always highlighted, and I fully agree, it’s… we’ll always look at equities as [if] we’re investing in a business, either 1% or 100%, but we’re looking at the business, we’re looking at the economic prospects of that business, how sustainable it is, and what it will look like ten years from now. And is our capital… the capital we originally put in at exponential risk, or where’s that risk? Set that profile. And then, of course, and then we’ll obviously continue to always put excess cash in the safest investment there is in US Treasuries, knowing we want to maintain that fortress of a balance sheet for two reasons. One, to act, but also to always protect our shareholders if we have a… We want to maintain the position Berkshire is in now, realistically for the… To ensure it, to ensure it endures.
接著，正如我們討論過的，或者您提到的，我們總是會全面或部分地審視潛在的新業務，而您一直強調的，我也完全同意，就是...我們總是會把股票投資視為對一家企業的投資，無論是 1%還是 100%，但我們關注的是企業本身，我們關注的是該企業的經濟前景、其可持續性，以及十年後它會是什麼樣子。而我們的資本...我們最初投入的資本是否面臨指數級風險，或者風險在哪裡？設定這樣的評估框架。當然，之後我們顯然會繼續將多餘的現金投入最安全的美國國債，因為我們知道要維持那種堅如磐石的資產負債表有兩個原因。其一，是為了能夠採取行動，但同時也是為了在遇到...時始終保護我們的股東。我們希望現實地維持波克夏目前的地位...以確保它，確保它持久。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, when he says that, it makes me wish I’d stayed around to be number two instead of number one in this process over the years. It’s, you know, it doesn’t get more fun than what we’re doing, and we’re better positioned than ever before. We’re not positioned, though, however, to earn extraordinary returns versus what American business generally earns. I would hope we could be slightly better, but nobody’s going to be dramatically better [than anyone else] over the next century. It gets very hard. It gets very hard to predict who the winner will be. If you look back, as we did a few meetings ago, at the top 20 companies in the world at ten-year intervals, you realize the game isn’t quite as easy as it looks. Getting a decent result actually is reasonably… should be reasonably easy if you just don’t get talked out of doing what has worked in the past, and don’t get carried away with fads, and don’t listen to people who have different interests in mind than the interests of our shareholders.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，當他這麼說的時候，讓我希望這些年來我寧願當第二名而不是第一名。你知道的，沒有什麼比我們正在做的事情更有趣了，而且我們現在的處境比以往任何時候都要好。不過，相對於美國企業整體的收益，我們並沒有處於能夠獲得超額回報的位置。我希望我們能稍微好一點，但在接下來的世紀裡，沒有人會比其他人好得多。這變得非常困難。預測誰會成為贏家變得非常困難。如果你回顧過去，就像我們幾次股東大會前所做的那樣，看看每隔十年的全球前 20 大公司，你就會意識到這場遊戲並不像看起來那麼簡單。實際上，獲得一個不錯的結果應該是相當容易的，只要你堅持過去有效的方法，不被一時的潮流所迷惑，也不聽信那些心懷不同利益而非我們股東利益的人的話。

Okay, we’ll go to station number one.
好的，我們將前往一號站。

TOMO DRGE: Hello, Mr. Buffett, my name is Tomo Drge. I’m from Düsseldorf, Germany. This is my first time out here in Omaha, so thank you for having us here today. So my question is directed to you, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Abel.
TOMO DRGE：您好，巴菲特先生，我是 Tomo Drge，來自德國杜塞爾多夫。這是我第一次來到奧馬哈，非常感謝您今天邀請我們來這裡。我的問題是想請教您，巴菲特先生和 Abel 先生。

In 2019, you reportedly made a bid for the IT distribution business, Tech Data, and commented that you understand its role as a middleman. I wonder if you could kindly elaborate on the criteria you look at when evaluating IT distribution businesses like Tech Data and their competitive position. Thank you.
據報導，您在 2019 年曾對 IT 分銷業務 Tech Data 提出收購要約，並評論說您理解其作為中間商的角色。我想請問您能否詳細說明在評估像 Tech Data 這樣的 IT 分銷業務及其競爭地位時，您所考慮的標準是什麼。謝謝。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, we had some experience with distribution businesses, and we know their potential to a degree and their limitations. And, Greg, you were involved in that more than I was. I mean, that was a case where there had been a bid made, and there was a go-shop provision, and I think the management probably would have preferred that we buy it. And when we went in with a better bid, the original party raised their bid, and we never make the same offer twice, so… Greg, tell [us about it].
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我們在分銷業務方面有一些經驗，我們在一定程度上了解它們的潛力和限制。Greg，你在這方面的參與比我多。我的意思是，當時已經有人提出了收購要約，而且有一個「go-shop」條款，我想管理層可能更希望我們來收購。當我們提出更高的報價時，原來的買家提高了他們的報價，而我們從不重複相同的報價，所以……Greg，你來談談[這件事]。

GREG ABEL: Yeah, so, absolutely. In 2019, we saw Tech Data as a unique opportunity. When we saw the other bid and the underlying value of that distribution business, we did… Warren, Warren and I were talking, [and] others made the conclusion we should talk to management. We talked to the team. They were very interested in Berkshire being their long-term owner, and we still saw good value in the opportunity. And we had a good understanding of distribution businesses.
格雷格·阿貝爾：是的，確實如此。2019 年，我們將 Tech Data 視為一個獨特的機會。當我們看到其他競標以及該分銷業務的潛在價值時，我們確實...我和華倫（巴菲特）討論過，[並且]其他人也得出結論認為我們應該與管理層談談。我們與團隊進行了交流。他們對伯克希爾成為他們的長期所有者非常感興趣，而我們仍然看到了這個機會的良好價值。我們對分銷業務有很好的理解。

We have TTI. It’s not exactly identical to Tech Data in that they’re very specific to who their customers are and who they serve and supply and who they purchase from. Because on the distribution side, it’s important to have that input coming in from folks who want their product. And, you know, it’s needed on the other side that there’s demand for it. And they had an excellent model, if you think of TTI, for example, that Warren’s talked about Paul Andrews many times, [who was] the person who founded this business.
我們擁有 TTI。它與 Tech Data 並不完全相同，因為它們非常具體地針對其客戶、服務對象、供應對象以及採購來源。在分銷方面，重要的是要有來自希望其產品的人的輸入。而且，你知道，另一方面也需要有對它的需求。他們有一個優秀的模式，例如 TTI，華倫多次談到保羅·安德魯斯，[他是]創辦這項業務的人。

But it’s a unique business in that our revenues on that business are approximately $10 billion. The average part they sell is a little over nine cents. Ninety-five billion parts go through their warehouse every year. But it’s a model that, if you have the right people on both sides of the equation and you understand that, well, there’s, there’s a unique opportunity there. And, and that is something we saw in Tech Data.
但這是一門獨特的生意，我們在這項業務上的收入約為 100 億美元。他們銷售的零件平均單價略高於九美分。每年有九百五十億個零件通過他們的倉庫。但這種模式，只要你在供需兩端都有合適的人選，並且理解其中的運作，那裡就存在獨特的機會。而這正是我們在 Tech Data 身上看到的特質。

And as Warren highlighted, we made our bid. Unfortunately, it was then topped by the original bidder, and we moved on. But we thought very highly of it. We’ve probably seen at least five of them in aggregate over the last three or four, five years. It’s not a business that you can dream about because it’s a decent business.
正如華倫強調的，我們提出了收購要約。不幸的是，原始投標者隨後提高了報價，我們便選擇退出。但我們對其評價極高。過去三、四、五年間，我們總共至少看過五家類似企業。這不是那種能讓人做夢的生意，因為它就是一門穩健的生意。

But, for example, many of the items that the manufacturer just… they don’t want to tie up their capital [in inventory]. If you have, you know, a million-plus SKUs (stock-keeping units), it’s like selling jelly beans or something like that. And you do… You’re serving a purpose to a degree, but you don’t… You don’t really… It isn’t your product, in effect. I mean, you’re just a good system for the producer of the equipment to get it to the end user without tying up a lot of capital, being in a business they don’t want to be in. We understand, but there’s no magic to it.
但是，舉例來說，許多製造商只是...他們不想把資金綁在庫存上。如果你有，你知道的，超過一百萬個庫存單位（SKU），那就像是在賣糖果之類的東西。而你確實...在某種程度上你提供了服務，但你並沒有...你實際上並沒有...這並不是你的產品。我的意思是，你只是一個良好的系統，讓設備生產商能夠將產品送達終端用戶，而不必綁住大量資金，涉足他們不想從事的業務。我們理解這一點，但這其中並沒有什麼魔法。

With TTI, you had a marvelous man running things, and when you get a marvelous person running something, to some extent, that’s [a] deluxe [situation]. [They attract] better people underneath. Greg and I went to Paul Andrews’ funeral a few years ago, and there were 300 people or so there, and there wasn’t one person that had to say something particularly nice, but [everyone] stretched a little bit about the deceased. I mean, everybody… Paul Andrews was the real McCoy, and he was an amazing man. He behaved wonderfully with Berkshire. I mean, he wanted to do more for Berkshire than Berkshire would do for him. I mean, it was very simple.
在 TTI，你有一位出色的人管理著一切，當你有一個出色的人管理某件事時，在某種程度上，那是一種豪華的[情況]。[他們吸引]下面更好的人。幾年前，格雷格和我參加了保羅·安德魯斯的葬禮，那裡有大約 300 人，沒有一個人需要說些特別好聽的話，但[每個人]都對逝者稍微誇大了一點。我是說，每個人...保羅·安德魯斯是真正的麥考伊，他是一個了不起的人。他對伯克希爾表現得非常出色。我是說，他想要為伯克希爾做的比伯克希爾為他做的還要多。我是說，這非常簡單。

And you run into those people, as I say, you run into people that bend over backward for us, and then some bend over forwards. But that’s just the way it is in this world, and we’ve had quite a few that have been [bending] over backward for us.
正如我所說，你會遇到那些為我們鞠躬盡瘁的人，然後有些人甚至會鞠躬盡瘁到前傾。但這就是這個世界的樣子，我們已經有相當多的人為我們鞠躬盡瘁。

The distribution business is not a wonderful business, but it is a business. And if it’s big enough, it’s one we would look at and we would buy [more of], and TTI makes some smaller acquisitions on its own all the time. I don’t even hear about them until I read the quarterly reports. And so we… We want to build up… We want to build our businesses in every area that we operate, and we’ve got unlimited capital to do it. So we’re willing to have small acquisitions take place if they fit in with something we already have. But we’re not in the business of going out after small acquisitions, and if we did, we [wouldn’t be successful]. We just don’t have the people for it, and it wouldn’t move the needle anyway. At Berkshire, we may or we would have been happy doing the deal [that] the questioner asked about.
分銷業務並非一門絕佳生意，但它確實是門生意。只要規模夠大，我們就會考慮並收購（更多），而 TTI 也經常自行進行一些小規模收購。我甚至要到季度報告出來後才會知道這些交易。因此我們...我們希望壯大...我們希望在每個營運領域都發展業務，且擁有無限資金來實現。只要符合現有業務範疇，我們樂見小型收購案發生。但我們不會主動追逐小型收購，即便嘗試也（難以成功）。我們缺乏相應人力，且這類交易對整體影響微乎其微。在波克夏，我們原本可能——或者說會很樂意——完成提問者所提及的那筆交易。

But if we don’t do it, you know, it just doesn’t make that much difference. We [only] want to do it if we [can] do it well. We’ll do it right. They’ll make the right decision. If they don’t, you know, we will find something else to do with the money in the end. And we can always buy a little more of TTI for you, the shareholders, by just buying in our stock, too.
但若未成行，你知道的，其實無關緊要。我們（只）在能妥善執行的情況下才會行動。我們會正確處理。他們會做出正確決定。若未能如願，最終我們總能找到其他資金運用方式。況且，我們隨時能透過回購股票，為各位股東多買進一些 TTI 股份。

GREG ABEL: Exactly.  格雷格·阿貝爾：正是如此。

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah. Okay. Let’s see. We need Becky next, don’t we?
華倫·巴菲特：好的。讓我們看看。接下來我們需要貝琪，對吧？

BECKY QUICK: Yeah, Becky. All right, Warren, earlier you talked about selling some of the Apple shares in order to build up your cash supply. And I think it’s had a lot of people wondering where you see opportunities or what might be coming or [about] market valuations. So I’ll ask this question from Foster Taylor. At the 1999 annual meeting, you mentioned that if you owned all of America’s 500 businesses, you would be making $334 billion while paying $10.5 trillion. You emphasized that this was not a good return on investment. Today, by my math, the S&P 500 has a market capitalization of around $44 trillion, with profits of around $1.45 trillion. This is a very similar return on investment to the 1999 levels. Do you see similarities in the market today and the 1999 levels?
貝琪·奎克：是的，貝琪。好的，華倫，稍早你提到賣出部分蘋果股票以增加現金儲備。我想這讓許多人好奇你看到了哪些機會、或預期什麼情況、或是對市場估值的看法。因此我要提出福斯特·泰勒的問題。在 1999 年的年度股東會上，你曾提到如果擁有美國所有 500 家企業，你將獲得 3340 億美元的利潤，但需支付 10.5 兆美元的成本。你強調這不是一個好的投資回報。如今，根據我的計算，標普 500 的市值約為 44 兆美元，利潤約為 1.45 兆美元。這與 1999 年的投資回報率非常相似。你認為當今市場與 1999 年的水平有相似之處嗎？

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, one thing has changed dramatically from… Well, from 1990… I misunderstood [the question] on the 1999 [meeting], but there have been times in my life that I’ve been awash in so many opportunities that I could have invested everything by nightfall. And then there are other times when the year goes… Well, not in the early days, but now we just… We haven’t seen anything that makes sense that moves the needle. Now, we’ve made small acquisitions during the year. Our companies have made acquisitions. And we… You know, Greg and I may talk about something that involves a $300 million purchase or something like that. And, you know, if it fits well enough, we do it.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，有一件事從...好吧，從 1990 年起發生了巨大變化...我誤解了[關於 1999 年（股東會）的提問]，但在我生命中有過幾次機會多到讓我可以在日落前就把所有資金投完。然後也有其他時候一整年過去...呃，早期倒不會，但現在我們只是...我們沒看到任何能真正帶來改變的合理機會。當然，這一年間我們確實完成了一些小規模收購。旗下公司也進行了收購。而我們...你知道的，葛雷格和我可能會討論一項涉及 3 億美元左右的收購案。如果條件足夠合適，我們就會執行。

But… And if our managers see things that fit them, we want to look at them because our managers do not have necessarily the same equations in mind that we do. But there are some managers [to] which we would have just say, you know, whatever you decide to do. And then there are other managers that would not know how to allocate capital, particularly, and that they don’t have to be able to be great capital allocators. If they happen to be great at serving customers and understand their own industry and all of that, they can be great managers. A good many of them are capital allocators, and others aren’t.
但是…如果我們的經理人看到適合他們的機會，我們會想看看，因為他們的考量未必與我們相同。有些經理人我們會直接告訴他們：「你知道的，你想怎麼做就怎麼做。」而另一些經理人則不太懂得如何配置資金，尤其是這樣的人，他們不需要成為優秀的資金配置者。如果他們剛好擅長服務客戶、了解自己的產業等等，他們依然可以是出色的經理人。其中有不少人是資金配置高手，但也有些人不是。

But this is not a time when the phone is going to be ringing often. But there are times for that, and Greg will know how to handle them as well or better than I have. Over time, Charlie and I, we missed a lot of things, and what we really regretted was missing something that [should have been] very big. We never worried about missing something that we didn’t understand. Why should we be able to predict the future of every business any more than we can predict what wheat yields are likely to be in Illinois next year? Well, not Wheaton, Illinois, [but] Wheaton, Kansas, but [maybe] Cornyn, Illinois.
但現在不是電話會頻繁響起的時刻。不過確實有這樣的時期，而葛雷格會知道如何處理這些情況，甚至比我做得更好。隨著時間推移，查理和我錯過了很多機會，我們真正後悔的是錯過那些本該非常重要的機會。我們從不擔心錯過那些我們不理解的事物。為什麼我們應該能預測每家企業的未來，就像我們無法預測伊利諾州明年小麥產量一樣？嗯，不是伊利諾州的惠頓，而是堪薩斯州的惠頓，但也可能是伊利諾州的科尼恩。

So I don’t really think of whether it’s similar to 1999 because I’m not that good on chronology anyway. Unless something really dramatic happened at the time. I mean, I remember things from 2008 and [2009] much better than I remember whether something happened in 2015 or… Or 1987 or… Well, 1987 I remember because of October 19. But I just don’t think… I don’t think that way. I just look at what I can do every day. Greg.
所以我其實不考慮這是否與 1999 年相似，因為我本來就不太擅長記年表。除非當時發生了非常戲劇性的事情。我是說，比起記得 2015 年或...或 1987 年發生了什麼，我更清楚地記得 2008 年和 2009 年的事情。嗯，1987 年我記得是因為 10 月 19 日。但我只是不...我不那樣思考。我只是每天做好我能做的事。葛雷格。

GREG ABEL: I’m gonna have to [pass on that]. Nothing. Sorry. Nothing to add.
葛雷格·阿貝爾：我必須[跳過這個問題]。沒有。抱歉。沒有補充。

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay, well, we’ll go to station two. I mean, it’s nice to know what lines you can get.
華倫·巴菲特：好的，那我們轉到第二站。我是說，知道哪些線路能接通總是好的。

(Applause for session two.)
（第二場會議的掌聲。）

STEFAN WUERNBACHER: Hello. My name is Stefan Wuernbacher. I am a shareholder from Hamburg, Germany. I’ve been coming to Omaha since 2007, and I’m deeply grateful for all the things I could learn here, both about investing and about life, in particular, creating circumstances that will enable me to lead a productive life during my entire healthy lifespan. So thank you for that.
史蒂芬·沃恩巴赫：您好。我是史蒂芬·沃恩巴赫，來自德國漢堡的股東。自 2007 年起我每年都來奧馬哈，非常感謝在這裡學到的一切，無論是關於投資還是人生的課題，特別是創造能讓我在健康壽命期間持續過著充實生活的條件。所以，謝謝你們。

My question to Warren, your favorite holding period is forever, holding American Express or Coca-Cola for decades. Berkshire recently went in and out of Markel, and you, I believe, sold and later bought Oxy, which I think happens to everyone all the time. But can you maybe [explain] to us [your] thought process when you exit positions? Thank you.
我的問題要請教華倫，您最喜歡的持有期限是永遠，像是持有美國運通或可口可樂數十年。但波克夏最近進出馬克爾保險，而我相信您也曾賣出後又買回西方石油，這種情況我想大家時常遇到。能否請您向我們說明[您]在退出持倉時的思考過程？謝謝。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, there are various reasons for exiting positions. One is if you need the money, but that doesn’t happen very often with us. But it used to happen on every decision I made when I started when I was 20 years old, which I consider the post-Graham variant, although I actually started in 1942, if you just talk about buying stocks. But in any event, the decision process is really quite interesting in certain ways because we made… Charlie and I made decisions extremely fast. But in effect, after years of thinking about the parameters that would enable us to make the quick decision when it presented itself.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，退出持倉有各種原因。其中之一是如果你需要錢，但這在我們身上不太常發生。不過在我 20 歲剛開始投資時，幾乎每個決定都會遇到這種情況，我將那時期視為後葛拉漢階段，雖然嚴格來說我從 1942 年就開始買股票了。無論如何，在某些方面這個決策過程其實相當有趣，因為我們...查理和我做決定非常快。但實際上，這是經過多年思考那些能讓我們在機會出現時迅速決策的參數後才有的結果。

People have speculated on how I’ve decided to really put a lot of money into Apple, and for a reason I can’t… One thing that Charlie and I both learned a lot about was consumer behavior. That didn’t mean we thought we could run a furniture store or anything else. But we did learn a lot when we bought a furniture chain in Baltimore. And we quickly realized that it was a mistake.
人們一直猜測我為何決定大舉投資蘋果公司，其中有個原因我無法...查理和我都學到很多關於消費者行為的知識。這不代表我們認為自己能經營家具店或其他生意。但當我們買下巴爾的摩一家家具連鎖店時，確實學到很多。我們很快就意識到那是個錯誤。

But having made that mistake, [it] made us smarter about actually thinking through what the capital allocation process would be and how people were likely to behave in the future with department stores and all kinds of things that we wouldn’t have really focused on. So we learned something about consumer behavior from that. We didn’t learn how to run a department store. Now, the next one was See’s Candy. And See’s Candy was also a study of consumer behavior.
但犯下那個錯誤後，讓我們更聰明地實際思考資本配置流程會是如何，以及人們未來在百貨公司等各種情境下可能如何行動——這些都是我們原本不會真正關注的。因此我們從中學到了關於消費者行為的一些事。我們沒學會如何經營百貨公司。接著是時思糖果的案例。時思糖果同樣是對消費者行為的研究。

We didn’t know how to make candy. There were all kinds of things we didn’t know. But we’ve learned more about consumer behavior as we go along. And that sort of background, in a very general way, led up to [our] study of consumer behavior in terms of Apple’s products.
我們當時不懂如何製作糖果。有太多我們不了解的事。但隨著時間推移，我們對消費者行為有了更多認識。這種背景知識，以非常宏觀的方式，引領我們後續研究蘋果產品時的消費者行為分析。

And in that case, while I watched what was happening at the furniture mart, in terms of people leaving the store, even though we were selling Apple products at a price where we weren’t even making any money, [they] were just so popular that if we didn’t have it, people left the store and went to Best Buy or someplace. And if you know the Blumkins, they can’t stand anybody leaving the store, so they behave accordingly. But then you learned that [customers] had [an] interest in the brand, and then you had a million different inputs. But I think the psychologists call this apperceptive mass. But there is something that comes along that takes a whole bunch of observations that you’ve made and knowledge you have and then crystallizes your thinking into action.
在這種情況下，當我觀察家具賣場發生的狀況時，就人們離開店鋪這點而言，即便我們以毫無利潤的價格銷售蘋果產品，[它們]實在太受歡迎了，如果我們沒貨，人們就會離開店鋪轉去百思買或其他地方。而如果你了解布魯姆金家族，他們無法忍受任何人離開店鋪，所以他們會採取相應行動。但接著你了解到[顧客]對這個品牌有興趣，然後你獲得了無數不同的資訊輸入。不過我認為心理學家稱此為統覺質量。但總會有某個契機出現，它會整合你所有的觀察與既有知識，進而將你的想法具體化為行動。

[This led to] big action in the case of Apple. And there actually is something, which I don’t mean to be mysterious, but I really can’t talk about, but it was perfectly legal, I’m sure, you know, that. It just happened to be something that entered the picture that took all the other observations. And I guess my mind reached what they call apperceptive mass, which I really don’t know anything about, but I know the phenomenon when I experience it. And that is, we saw something that I felt was, well, enormously [important to the] enterprise.
[這導致了]蘋果案例中的重大行動。實際上有些事情，我不是要故弄玄虛，但我真的不能談論，不過我確信那是完全合法的，你知道的。只是碰巧有某些因素介入，取代了所有其他觀察。我想我的腦海達到了所謂的統覺質量，雖然我對此一無所知，但當我經歷這種現象時我能認出來。那就是，我們看到了某樣我認為對企業極其[重要的]東西。

Maybe I’ve used this example before, but if you talk to most people, if they have an iPhone and they have a second car, the second car cost them 30 or $35,000, and they were told that they never could have the iPhone again, or they could never have the second car again, they would give up the second car. But the second car cost them 20 times [more than the iPhone]. Now, people don’t think about their purchases that way, but I think about their behavior. And so we just decide without knowing.
或許我之前用過這個例子，但如果你問大多數人，如果他們有一部 iPhone 和第二輛車，第二輛車花了他們三萬或三萬五千美元，而他們被告知永遠不能再擁有 iPhone，或者永遠不能再擁有第二輛車，他們會放棄第二輛車。但第二輛車的花費是 iPhone 的 20 倍[以上]。人們不會這樣思考他們的消費，但我會思考他們的行為。所以我們就這樣在不知不覺中做出了決定。

I don’t know. There may be some little guy inside the iPhone or something. I have no idea how it works. But I also know what it means. I know what it means to people, and I know how they use it.
我不知道。也許 iPhone 裡面藏了個小精靈之類的吧。我完全不懂它的運作原理。但我明白它代表的意義。我知道它對人們意味著什麼，也清楚他們如何使用它。

And I think I know enough about consumer behavior to know that it’s one of the great products, maybe the greatest product of all time. And the value it offers is incredible. And I think it has, and Tim Cook, I think it has somebody that, in his own way, is the equivalent of a partner, [a] partner with Steve Jobs that could do one thing extraordinarily well and more than one application, but one thing. And Tim was the perfect partner to serve sequentially with him. So it’s, you sort of know it when you see it.
我認為自己對消費者行為有足夠了解，可以斷定這是史上最偉大的產品之一，或許就是最偉大的。它提供的價值令人難以置信。而且我相信——提姆·庫克，我相信在他身上有種特質，某種程度上就像是賈伯斯的合夥人，那種能把單一事情做到極致的人才。雖然不只限於單一應用，但專注於核心。提姆正是最適合接續他位置的完美夥伴。這種事，你看到的時候自然就會明白。

I actually saw it with GEICO when I, I went there in 1950. I didn’t know exactly what I was seeing, but Lorimer Davidson on a Saturday, in 4 hours, taught me enough about… what I understood what auto insurance was, and I knew what a car was, and I knew what people [were thinking]. I knew they didn’t like to buy it, but I knew they couldn’t drive without it. So that was pretty interesting. And then, but he filled in all the blanks in my mind as I sat there on that Saturday afternoon.
其實我在 1950 年造訪 GEICO 時就見識過這種特質。當時我並不完全理解眼前的事物，但那個週六下午，洛里默·戴維森花了四小時讓我徹底明白...我理解了汽車保險的本質，我知道汽車是什麼，也懂人們（的想法）。我明白他們不喜歡購買保險，但沒有保險就不能開車。這相當有意思。而他就這樣在那個週六下午，把我腦中所有空白處都填滿了。

And, you know, every now and then it happens. You know, why do you [choose] this [one] person you met? You know, there are all these different potential spouses in the room, and then something happens that you decide that this is the one for you. You know, I think Rodgers and Hammerstein, [in] “Some Enchanted Evening,” wrote about that. Well, our idea of an enchanted evening is to come up with a business, Charlie and me, and there is an aspect of knowing a whole lot and having a whole lot of experiences and then seeing something that turns on the light bulb.
你知道，這種事偶爾就會發生。為什麼你會選擇遇到的某個人？房間裡明明有這麼多可能的對象，但就是有那麼一刻，讓你認定就是這個人了。羅傑斯與漢默斯坦在《南太平洋》的〈Some Enchanted Evening〉裡寫過這種感覺。而我和查理心目中的「魔幻時刻」，則是當我們接觸一家企業時，在累積大量知識與經驗後，突然靈光一現的瞬間。

And that will continue to happen. And I hope it happens a few times to you, but you can’t make it happen tomorrow, but you can prepare yourself for it happening tomorrow, and it will happen sometimes.
這種情況會持續發生。我希望你們也能經歷幾次，雖然你無法強求它明天就出現，但你可以做好準備迎接它隨時降臨——它終究會發生的。

BECKY QUICK: Hey, Warren, he mentioned Oxy, which I think is a great example where you made the original decision basically on a weekend with some thought. But as [you learned] more about Oxy and the, the asset position, they had their ability to operate in an exceptional manner, and then a strong CEO around capital allocation. I think your confidence, which was reflected in continuing to acquire more shares, is sort of that type of process.
貝琪·奎克：嘿，華倫，他提到了西方石油公司，我認為這是一個很好的例子，你基本上是在一個週末經過一些思考後做出了最初的決定。但隨著[你對]西方石油公司及其資產狀況的了解加深，他們擁有以卓越方式運營的能力，還有一位在資本配置方面表現出色的 CEO。我想你持續收購更多股份所反映出的信心，正是這種決策過程的體現。

WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, it’s exactly to the point. I mean, I just learned more as I went along. I learned enough. You know, I’d never, I’d heard of Occidental Petroleum. Occidental Petroleum happens to [have] been a descendant, not a descendant, but it’s a continuation of Cities Service, which was the first stock I bought. And, of course, I knew a lot about the oil and gas business, but I didn’t know anything about geology, so I knew the economics of it. I had a lot of various things stored in my mind about the business, but I never heard of Vicki Hollub until, I guess, it was a Friday or Saturday, and we met on Sunday morning. We made a deal, but that was one sort of deal. And then as time passed, all [kinds] of different events happened. You know, Icon came in. I mean, there are a million things you couldn’t predict at the start, and I formed certain opinions as I went along, but then, I learned more as I went along. And then at a point when I heard an investor call, it put things together for me in a way… It didn’t mean I knew I had a sure thing or anything like that. I don’t know what the price of oil was going to be next year, but I knew that it was something to act on. So we did, and we’re very happy we did, and we still don’t know what the price of oil is going to be next year.
華倫·巴菲特：沒錯，正是如此。我的意思是，我只是隨著時間學到更多。我學得夠多了。你知道，我從來沒聽過西方石油公司。西方石油公司恰好是城市服務公司的後繼者，不是後代，但它是延續，而城市服務公司是我買的第一支股票。當然，我對石油和天然氣業務了解很多，但我對地質學一無所知，所以我了解它的經濟面。我腦海中儲存了許多關於這個行業的各種資訊，但在某個星期五或星期六之前，我從未聽說過維琪·霍盧布，我們在星期天早上見了面。我們達成了一項協議，但那只是一種協議。隨著時間的推移，各種不同的事件發生了。你知道，Icon 進來了。我的意思是，一開始有無數你無法預測的事情，我在過程中形成了某些觀點，但後來，我在過程中學到了更多。然後在某個時刻，當我聽到一個投資者電話時，它以某種方式為我拼湊出了事情的全貌…這並不意味著我知道我有確定的東西或類似的東西。我不知道明年石油的價格會是多少，但我知道這是值得採取行動的事情。 於是我們這麼做了，而且我們非常高興我們做了這個決定，但我們仍然不知道明年石油的價格會是多少。

I don’t know what [Vicki] does, but I think the odds are very good that it was, but not a cinch, that it was a good decision, and we’ve got options to buy more stock, and when we get through with it, it could be a worthwhile investment for Berkshire. We’re in it, and we’re in it for keeps. There are other things that we own that we aren’t in for keeps.
我不知道[Vicki]做了什麼，但我認為機率很大，雖然不是十拿九穩，但這是一個好的決定，而且我們有購買更多股票的選擇權，當我們完成這一切時，這可能會成為波克夏一項值得的投資。我們已經投入其中，而且我們是長期持有。我們還持有其他一些我們並不打算長期持有的東西。

Oh, incidentally, I should just throw this out, since there’s been speculation on it. We’ve sold [our stake in] Paramount. I was 100% responsible for the Paramount decision. I [have] read speculation that either Ted or Todd had some involvement in that. No, it was 100% my decision, and we sold it all, and we lost quite a bit of money, and that happens in this business, too. But actually owning Paramount made me think even further… I like to think deeper, but I certainly thought harder even about the whole question of what people do with their leisure time and what the governing principles are of running an entertainment business of any sort, whether it’s sports or movies or whatever it might be. And I think I’m smarter now than I was a couple of years ago. But I also think I’m poorer because I acquired the knowledge in the manner I did. But I just want to be very clear that, a, we lost money on Paramount, and, b, and I did it all by myself, folks.
哦，順帶一提，我應該把這件事說出來，因為外界有些猜測。我們已經賣掉了（我們持有的）派拉蒙股份。關於派拉蒙的決策，我負百分之百的責任。我讀到一些猜測，認為泰德或托德可能參與其中。不，這完全是我的決定，我們全數賣出，而且虧了不少錢，這在這一行的生意中也時有發生。但實際上持有派拉蒙讓我更深入地思考……我喜歡想得更深，但我確實更認真地思考了整個關於人們如何利用休閒時間的問題，以及經營任何形式的娛樂業務——無論是體育、電影還是其他什麼——的指導原則是什麼。我想我現在比幾年前更聰明了。但我也認為我更窮了，因為我是以這樣的方式獲得了這些知識。不過我想非常清楚地說明，第一，我們在派拉蒙上虧了錢；第二，各位，這完全是我一個人的決定。

I don’t know whether I’ve anticipated one of Becky’s questions now, but we will find out. Let’s see now.
我不知道我現在是否已經預料到貝琪的一個問題，但我們會知道的。現在讓我們看看。

BECKY QUICK: Yes, you did anticipate one of the questions. Let’s go to another one. This question comes from Vincent James in Munich, Germany. In the chairman’s letter, Warren points out that the profit margins for BNSF have slipped relative to all five other railroads. However, Warren comments in the letter, “BNSF carries more freight and spends more on capital expenditures than any of the other five major railroads, and has a vast service territory second to none.” Given the comments from Warren about the clear strengths of BNSF, what explains the decline in revenue and profit, and in particular, the profit margins relative to the other five railroads? What are the issues relative to the other railroads, and what is being done to address them? Please be specific.
貝琪·奎克：是的，您確實預見到了其中一個問題。讓我們來看下一個問題。這個問題來自德國慕尼黑的文森特·詹姆斯。在董事長的信中，華倫指出，BNSF 的利潤率相對於其他五家鐵路公司有所下滑。然而，華倫在信中評論道：「BNSF 運輸的貨物量比其他五家主要鐵路公司都多，資本支出也更高，其服務區域之廣更是無與倫比。」考慮到華倫對 BNSF 明顯優勢的評論，是什麼導致了收入和利潤的下降，特別是相對於其他五家鐵路公司的利潤率？與其他鐵路公司相比存在哪些問題，正在採取哪些措施來解決這些問題？請具體說明。

WARREN BUFFETT: Okay. And I will… Well, how specific we get depends on what Greg wants to say. But Greg, it’s… It’s Greg’s responsibility. It’s my responsibility for the purchase and for the operation up till Greg took over. But I think I’ll let Greg answer that.
華倫·巴菲特：好的。我會...嗯，我們能具體到什麼程度取決於葛雷格想說什麼。但葛雷格，這是...這是葛雷格的責任。在葛雷格接手之前，購買和運營是我的責任。但我想我會讓葛雷格來回答這個問題。

GREG ABEL: Sure. Yeah, [what] Warren touched on… And the comments from the… As reflected there are very accurate. If you look at this quarter’s results or our last year’s results, they were both… They’re disappointing as shareholders and disappointing… relative to the other Class I railroads. And as highlighted in the question, there are five other Class I railroads. So it’s pretty easy to understand how you’re performing versus the others.
格雷格·阿貝爾：當然。是的，[正如] 沃倫提到的……以及來自……的評論。正如所反映的，這些都非常準確。如果你看看本季度的業績或我們去年的業績，它們都……對股東來說是令人失望的，相對於其他一級鐵路公司來說也是令人失望的。正如問題中所強調的，還有其他五家一級鐵路公司。因此，很容易理解你相對於其他公司的表現如何。

And there’s a lot of other variables, but there’s some very simple things to look at. When we look at where we’ve been with, associated with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), I would… I would just back up a little bit because if you go back to 2021, the BNSF team and management team and the group, we’re making excellent progress on a lot of fronts when it comes to our operating [costs], and both being… Being efficient and effective in how we’re operating the railroad. And I remember very specific comments from myself in 2022, where I commented that that was the year there were all the supply chain issues, a lot going on in the West Coast ports. Our trains were backed up in a variety of places, and we called that a reset year. And I think we did need a reset year on the operational side. But as we moved into ’23, the business cost level, cost structure, we didn’t reset it to the underlying demand we were seeing. We anticipated more demand, and we did not reset our cost structure. And the team’s working very hard as we speak, to both reset the cost structure and allocate the cost resources where they need to be.
還有許多其他變數，但有些非常簡單的事情可以觀察。當我們回顧與伯靈頓北方聖塔菲鐵路（BNSF）合作的歷程時，我會...我會稍微回顧一下，因為如果你回溯到 2021 年，BNSF 團隊、管理團隊以及整個集團，在許多方面都取得了卓越的進展，尤其是在營運成本方面，我們在鐵路運營上既高效又有效。我記得在 2022 年，我自己曾發表過非常具體的評論，當時我提到那一年供應鏈問題層出不窮，西岸港口也發生了許多狀況。我們的火車在多處地方堵塞，我們稱之為「重置年」。我認為在運營方面，我們確實需要一個重置年。但當我們進入 2023 年時，業務成本水平和成本結構並未根據我們所見的實際需求進行調整。我們預期會有更多需求，因此沒有重置成本結構。目前，團隊正在非常努力地工作，既要重置成本結構，也要將成本資源分配到需要的地方。

And when you go through something like that, what we’ve recognized as an organization… yes, the demand of the rail will drive a certain amount of the cost, but the reality is that the rail industry, if you go back many, many years, it’s flat. There’s not a lot of growth in the industry. There are opportunities [to] become more efficient, effective, and our margins can go up. But the reality is the demand is going to be flat. But it does move within different sectors of the rail. It can be in the consumer products, it can be [in] industrial, it can be [in] ag[riculture]. But overall, it’s generally going to be relatively flat. So we need to get our cost structure right, and we need to get it right, both for the coming year, but for the long term. And that means it’s going to be a continuous exercise. We can’t stop. We can’t say we, we’ve gotten far enough because our competitors, and we compete with the other rails, but we also do compete with the truck industry. We have to have a cost structure [that] allows us to compete both within our rail industry and within the transportation sector as a whole.
當你經歷這樣的事情時，我們作為一個組織所認識到的是...沒錯，鐵路的需求會驅動一定程度的成本，但現實是，如果你回顧許多年，鐵路行業的發展是平緩的。這個行業沒有太多增長。我們有機會變得更高效、更有效，從而提升利潤率。但現實是需求將會持平。不過，鐵路在不同領域之間確實有所變動，可能是消費品、工業或農業。但總體而言，它基本上會相對平穩。因此，我們需要調整好成本結構，不僅是為了來年，更是為了長遠發展。這意味著這將是一項持續的工作。我們不能停下來。我們不能說我們已經做得夠好了，因為我們不僅與其他鐵路公司競爭，還與卡車運輸業競爭。我們必須擁有一個成本結構，讓我們能在鐵路行業內以及整個運輸業中保持競爭力。

So the team at Burlington is working very hard to address the cost structure, just like we have in the past. I think one thing we do recognize, when the other railroads have implemented precision scheduled railroading, there are other metrics that we have to continue to pay attention to and challenge ourselves. If we’re not at their level, what are the things that are driving it? So we’re gonna… When they ask for specifics, I’ll give you a few. We have to look at our rail yards and understand how we’re managing that. We have to look at our locomotive fleet, both the size and how we’re utilizing that, and challenge ourselves. And we have to then go back to how we’re using our employee resources and allocating them across the business.
因此，伯靈頓的團隊正非常努力地調整成本結構，就像我們過去所做的那樣。我認為我們確實認識到一點，當其他鐵路公司實施精確排程鐵路運輸時，還有其他指標需要我們持續關注並自我挑戰。如果我們沒有達到他們的水準，那麼是哪些因素在驅動這種差距？所以我們將會...當他們要求具體細節時，我會提供一些。我們必須審視我們的鐵路調車場，了解我們是如何管理的。我們必須檢視我們的機車隊，無論是規模還是使用效率，並對自己提出挑戰。然後我們還必須回頭審視我們如何運用員工資源，並在業務中進行分配。

So there’s a lot to be done there. Our team’s 100% committed to driving to the right cost structure that’s going [to be] consistent with the underlying demand in the business, and then we can’t stop there, is the answer. So, a lot to be done, but we have a team that’s absolutely engaged and committed to it, and we’re going to make good progress in this current year.
因此，這方面還有很多工作要做。我們的團隊百分之百致力於推動建立符合業務基本需求的合理成本結構，而答案就是我們不能就此止步。所以，雖然還有很多事情要做，但我們擁有一個完全投入並致力於此的團隊，我們將在當前這一年取得良好進展。

WARREN BUFFETT: At Berkshire, we want everybody to have the idea that there’s a lot to be done with every business, you know? So, I mean, it is… We built a remarkable, remarkable company, and [the] Omaha building company, [was] really remarkable. And there’s this question, after everything they did, that was something that was done particularly well, you know, digging a tunnel under the East River or something, [he] said it couldn’t be done. He would say he would be… He was pleased, but not satisfied. And that is exactly the way we want the attitude to be at Berkshire forever.
華倫·巴菲特：在波克夏，我們希望每個人都能抱持著每項業務都有無限可能的心態，你懂嗎？我是說...我們打造了一家非凡、非凡的公司，而奧馬哈建築公司，真的非常了不起。在他們完成所有事蹟後，總會有人質疑某些特別出色的成就，比如在東河底下挖掘隧道之類的，有人說那不可能辦到。他會說他感到...高興，但並不滿足。而這正是我們希望波克夏永遠保持的態度。

Omaha is a railroad town. If President Lincoln, in 1862, I think it was, had decided to pick St. Joe or Plattsmouth or anyplace else to build the transcontinental railroad, Omaha would probably [be] a little town of 20,000 or something on the banks of the Missouri. But [because of] Lincoln’s desire to make this the eastern connection and make a transcontinental railroad, Omaha just took off. So it’s been… It’s been railroading at its base. The… You know… And anybody that was interested in financial matters had to think about railroads. Plus, they had a certain glamour to them anyway.
奧馬哈是座鐵路城。如果林肯總統在 1862 年（我記得是那年）決定選擇聖喬或普拉茨茅斯等其他地方作為橫貫大陸鐵路的起點，奧馬哈可能至今仍是密蘇里河畔一個約兩萬人的小鎮。但由於林肯希望將此地作為東部連接點並建造橫貫大陸鐵路，奧馬哈就此起飛。所以它的根基...始終與鐵路息息相關。要知道...任何對金融事務感興趣的人都必須考慮鐵路。更何況，鐵路本身還帶著某種魅力。

But the interesting thing is that UP, which is our main competitor, fell way behind 20 or 25 years ago. Before Jim Young came in, in 2000, whenever it was, eight or so, I started buying three railroad stocks: Union Pacific, BNSF, and Norfolk Western, I believe. I don’t know why I wasn’t buying C&O, but in any event, Jim Young had done a marvelous job with being with Union Pacific. So we were on all three stocks. But what we did in 2009 is we were able… Well, we already owned 22% of it, but overall, it was $35 billion, which was a significant part of our capital. We were able to put it to work in a business we liked. And there are certain tax advantages that come in terms of making money in something that’s more than 80% owned. We call it 100% owned, in this case, versus making it through stocks. So it has a net benefit to us from making the same amount of money owning one of the other railroads, by owning all of the railroad, and we got $35 billion out during a recessionary period.
但有趣的是，我們的頭號競爭對手聯合太平洋鐵路（UP）在 20 或 25 年前就已經遠遠落後。在 2000 年吉姆·楊（Jim Young）接手之前——大概是八年前左右——我開始買入三家鐵路公司的股票：聯合太平洋、伯靈頓北方聖塔菲（BNSF）和諾福克南方鐵路（Norfolk Southern），我記得是這樣。不知道為什麼當時沒買切薩皮克與俄亥俄鐵路（C&O），但總之吉姆·楊在聯合太平洋的表現非常出色。所以我們當時持有這三家公司的股票。而 2009 年我們做的是...其實我們已經持有 22%的 BNSF 股權，但總收購金額達到 350 億美元，這在我們資本中佔了很大比重。我們成功把資金配置到喜歡的產業。當持股超過 80%時，稅務上會產生特定優勢——這種情況下我們視為 100%持有，相較於透過股票投資獲利。因此相較於持有其他鐵路公司等值股權，全資收購這條鐵路能帶來淨收益，而且我們還能在經濟衰退期間動用這 350 億美元資金。

I think that was the worst quarter, the third quarter of 2009, maybe [that] the rails had had for a long time. So it’s worked out. Actually, it’s worked out very well, but it’s because we were putting out capital in 2008 and [2009], and if we put money in anything, we’d have made a lot of money. But it’s more satisfying, and it’s actually better in certain ways, tax-wise, to make it from something that’s 100% owned [than from] a bunch of 5% or 10% owned businesses.
我認為那是最糟糕的一季，2009 年的第三季，可能是鐵路業長期以來最慘淡的時期。但結果證明這筆投資是成功的。實際上，結果非常好，但這是因為我們在 2008 年和 2009 年投入了資金，如果我們當時投資任何東西，都會賺很多錢。不過，從完全擁有的企業中獲利，比起從一堆持股 5%或 10%的企業中獲利，更令人滿意，而且在某些方面，尤其是稅務上，也確實更有利。

As I mentioned in the annual report, railroads are absolutely essential to the country. That doesn’t mean they’re on the cutting edge of everything. They’re just essential to the country. And that’s why the government, I think they took them over one time, and they negotiate what our labor settlements will be and everything. And if you shut down the railroads of the country, it would be incredible, the effects, but… And they would be impossible to construct now. I mean, look at what’s happening in California when they’re trying to build a [high-speed rail] line. I mean, you know, everybody’s worried about the environmental effect of every mile, and, you know, and what will happen to the various species of birds. Can you imagine the rail system of the United States being built? It would take decades, unless [there] was a war on and the government took over things and just ordered them. You can’t create it.
正如我在年度報告中提到的，鐵路對國家絕對至關重要。這並不意味著它們在所有方面都處於領先地位。它們只是對國家來說不可或缺。這就是為什麼政府，我認為他們曾經接管過鐵路，並且他們協商我們的勞工協議等等。如果你關閉國家的鐵路，其影響將是難以置信的，但是……而且現在要建造鐵路幾乎是不可能的。我的意思是，看看加州在嘗試建造一條[高速鐵路]線時發生的事情。我是說，你知道，每個人都在擔心每一英里對環境的影響，以及，你知道，各種鳥類會發生什麼事。你能想像美國的鐵路系統現在被建造嗎？除非發生戰爭，政府接管一切並下令建造，否則這將需要數十年時間。你無法創造它。

So we love owning a business like that. It’s going to be around 100 years from now, [it] won’t be the best growth business in the world at all during that period, but it will be essential. And what it earns in relation to its replacement value is a pittance. But we’ll do fine in terms of what we paid for it. And we’ll distribute substantial amounts in relation to what we paid to Berkshire in a very tax-efficient way.
所以我們很喜歡擁有這樣的企業。它一百年後仍會存在，[雖然]這段期間內它絕對不會是世界上成長性最好的事業，但它會是不可或缺的。而它相對於重置價值的獲利能力微不足道。但就我們當初支付的價格而言，我們會表現得不錯。而且我們將以極具稅務效率的方式，相對於當初支付給波克夏的金額，分配可觀的收益。

So [the answer to] the question is, what are the issues relative to the other railroads? It wouldn’t have been the end of the world at all if we bought the Union Pacific, and Jim Young had stayed alive to run it for us. That would have been great, too. But we had the opportunity to buy BNSF, and it’s been good for them, and it’s been good for us. And we think it’s been a very important asset to the country. And I just hope we can find something in other industries that makes as much sense as that, where we can put a whole bunch of money to work at an advantageous time.
因此[問題的]答案是，相較於其他鐵路公司，關鍵問題是什麼？如果我們買下聯合太平洋鐵路，而吉姆·楊格繼續活著為我們經營它，這也絕對不會是世界末日。那也會很棒。但我們有機會買下 BNSF，這對他們很好，對我們也很好。而且我們認為它對國家來說是非常重要的資產。我只希望我們能在其他產業找到像這樣合理、能讓我們在有利時機投入大量資金的標的。

So, let’s go on to station three. Is that correct or not? Yeah. Okay. Kia ora, good afternoon. Mr. Buffett, Mr. Abel.
那麼，我們繼續前往第三站。這樣對嗎？好的。Kia ora（毛利語問候語），午安。巴菲特先生、阿貝爾先生。

SIRAPOB WU: My name is Sirapob Wu. [I am] a resident of New Zealand but originally from Thailand. This is my first time in America and [my] first time attending the meeting. The journey was rough, but it was all worth it because I can now personally thank you, Mr. Buffett—and the late Charlie Munger, were he still with us—for organizing such a wonderful event and, most importantly, for being such exceptional role models and sharing your wisdom with us all these years. So, thank you.
吳西拉波：我的名字是吳西拉波。[我]現居紐西蘭，但原本來自泰國。這是我第一次來美國，也是第一次參加股東會。這趟旅程很辛苦，但一切都值得，因為我現在能親自感謝您，巴菲特先生——還有已故的查理·芒格，如果他還在世的話——舉辦了這麼棒的活動，更重要的是，這些年來成為如此卓越的榜樣，並與我們分享您的智慧。所以，謝謝您。

Here’s my question for you, Mr. Buffett. Towards the end of 2018, you mentioned that you guarantee you could make a 50% annual return if you had to start again with under $1 million. The question is: if tomorrow you woke up in the body of a 20-year-old American, your name was now Warren À la carte, and you had some money to invest on a full-time basis, what method or methods would you use to achieve that return? Would it involve flipping through 20,000 pages of Moody’s Manual and similar publications to find cigar butts? Or would it be hunting for great companies at a fair price, as Mr. Munger would? Or would it be a combination of both, with opportunity cost serving as the final arbiter of which method to use, given that your investing universe had now broadened significantly? Thank you. Kob khun krab.
巴菲特先生，我有一個問題想請教您。2018 年底時，您曾提到如果能重新開始且資金少於 100 萬美元，您保證能實現 50%的年回報率。問題是：假設明天您醒來時變成一位 20 歲的美國年輕人，名字改為華倫·阿拉克特，並且有全職投資的資金，您會採用什麼方法或策略來達成這樣的回報率？是會翻閱 20,000 頁穆迪手冊之類的出版物尋找「雪茄屁股」型股票？還是像蒙格先生那樣以合理價格尋找偉大的公司？或者會結合兩種方法，並以機會成本作為最終選擇依據，畢竟您的投資視野已大幅擴展？謝謝。ขอบคุณครับ（泰文：謝謝）。

WARREN BUFFETT: Good question. I’m glad you came. The answer would be, in my particular case, it would be going through the 20,000 pages. And since we were talking about railroads, you know, I went through the Moody’s Transportation Manual a couple of times. That was 1,500 or 2,000 pages, or probably 1,500 pages.
華倫·巴菲特：好問題。很高興你來提問。就我個人而言，答案會是——翻閱那 20,000 頁的手冊。既然我們談到鐵路行業，其實我曾兩度研讀穆迪運輸手冊，那大概有 1,500 到 2,000 頁，應該是 1,500 頁左右。

And I found all kinds of interesting things when I was [20] or 21. And I don’t imagine there’s anybody here that knows about the Green Bay and Western Railroad Company, but there were hundreds and hundreds of railroad companies, and I [liked] to read about every one of them. The Green Bay and Western… In those days, everybody had a nickname for railroads. I mean, that was just what [the] Northern Pacific was, the Nipper. And, you know, Phoebe Snow was one of them in the east that used to go up to Cornell, and the Green Bay and Western was known as “grab baggage and walk,” GB&W. And they had a… They had a bond that was actually the common stock, and they had a common stock that was actually a bond. And, you know, that that could lead to unusual things, but they wouldn’t lead to unusual things that would work for you with many millions of dollars, but if you collected a whole bunch of those, which I set out to do… And actually, that’s what impressed Charlie when I first met him because I knew all the details of all these little companies on the West Coast that he thought I would never have heard of, but I knew about the Los Angeles Athletic Club, or whatever it might be, and he thought he was the only one that knew about that.
而我 20 或 21 歲時發現了各種有趣的事物。我想在座應該沒人聽過綠灣與西部鐵路公司，但當時有數以百計的鐵路公司，我[喜歡]閱讀每一家的資料。綠灣與西部...在那個年代，每條鐵路都有綽號。比如北太平洋鐵路就被稱為"Nipper"。東部有條開往康乃爾大學的鐵路線叫"Phoebe Snow"，而綠灣與西部鐵路的綽號是"拎著行李走路"(GB&W)。他們有種...有種債券其實是普通股，還有種普通股其實是債券。 而且，你知道，那可能會導致一些不尋常的事情，但它們不會是那種能讓你用數百萬美元就能奏效的不尋常事情。不過，如果你收集了一大堆這樣的東西，這正是我當初著手去做的……實際上，這正是我第一次見到查理時讓他印象深刻的地方，因為我知道西岸所有這些小公司的所有細節，他以為我從未聽說過這些，但我卻知道洛杉磯運動俱樂部之類的，而他以為自己是唯一知道這些的人。

And that became an instant point of connection. So to answer your question, I don’t know what the equivalent of Moody’s Manuals or anything would be now, but I would try and know everything about everything small, and I would find something. And with a million dollars, you could earn 50% a year. But you have to be in love with the subject. You can’t just be in love with the money. You really [have] got to just find it like a true… you know, essentially, like, you know, people find other things in other fields because they just love looking for it. A biologist looks for something because they want to find something, and it’s built into… I don’t know how the human brain works that much, and I don’t think anybody understands too well how the human brain works. But there are different people that just find it exciting to expand their knowledge in a given area.
而這立刻成為了一個連結點。所以回答你的問題，我不知道現在有什麼相當於穆迪手冊之類的東西，但我會試著了解所有小事物的所有細節，然後我會找到一些東西。而且，用一百萬美元，你一年可以賺 50%。但你必須熱愛這個主題。你不能只是愛錢。你真的必須像一個真正的……你知道，基本上，就像人們在其他領域發現其他事物一樣，因為他們就是喜歡尋找。生物學家尋找某樣東西是因為他們想要發現什麼，這已經內建在……我不太了解人類大腦是如何運作的，我也不認為有人真的非常了解人類大腦的運作方式。但就是有不同的人覺得在特定領域擴展知識是令人興奮的。

I know great bridge players, I know great chess players. Actually, [Garry] Kasparov came to… Oh, [he] met Mrs. B. I’ve had the luck of meeting a lot of people that are unbelievably smart in their own arena and do some unbelievably dumb things in other areas. So all I know is the human brain is complicated, but it does its best when you find out what your brain is really suited for, and then you just pound the hell out of it from that point.
我認識許多優秀的橋牌玩家，也認識不少出色的棋手。事實上，[加里]卡斯帕羅夫曾來過...噢，[他]見過 B 夫人。我很幸運能遇到許多在各自領域聰明絕頂，卻在其他方面做出令人難以置信蠢事的人。所以我只明白一件事：人類的大腦很複雜，但當你找到真正適合自己大腦的領域時，它就能發揮最佳狀態，然後你只需要從那個點開始全力以赴。

And that’s what I would be doing if I had a small amount of money and I wanted to make 50% a year, but I also wanted to just play the game. And you can’t do it if you really, if you don’t find the game of interest, whether it’s bridge, or whether, you know, whatever it may be, chess, or in this case, finding securities that are undervalued. But it sounds to me like you’re on the right track. I mean, anybody that’ll come all the way to this annual meeting has got something in their mind other than bridge or chess. So I’m glad you came, and come again next year.
如果我有少量資金，又想每年獲得 50%的回報，同時還想享受這個遊戲的樂趣，這就是我會做的事。但如果你對這個遊戲不感興趣，不管是橋牌、象棋，或是尋找被低估的證券，你都做不到。不過聽起來你已經走在正確的道路上。我是說，任何願意千里迢迢來參加這場年度股東大會的人，腦子裡想的肯定不只是橋牌或象棋。所以我很高興你來了，明年記得再來。

And now we move to Becky.
現在我們把時間交給貝琪。

BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Denny Poland, a shareholder from Pittsburgh. When describing the principal-agent problem, Mr. Munger said that capitalism often works best when the people managing the property also own the property. In recent years, agents of pension funds and asset management firms who do not have significant personal ownership stakes in Berkshire have forwarded proposals that were not in the economic interest of shareholders. What can be done to limit the negative influence of these agents in the decades after you’re no longer able to cast significant votes against them?
貝琪·奎克：這個問題來自匹茲堡的股東丹尼·波蘭。在描述委託代理問題時，蒙格先生曾說，當管理財產的人也擁有財產時，資本主義往往運作得最好。近年來，那些在波克夏沒有重大個人持股的退休基金和資產管理公司的代理人，提出了一些不符合股東經濟利益的提案。在您們不再能夠投下重大反對票的未來幾十年裡，有什麼方法可以限制這些代理人的負面影響？

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, that’s a very perceptive question, and it’s been answered in a temporary manner, but who knows how the situation will develop in the future? All I know is that you have a wonderful hand at Berkshire Hathaway, but you have to be able to think your way [through it]. I mean, obviously, you have to think your way through political realities. You have to think your way [through] what will cause… You want to be on… You want to be regarded as an asset to the country because you’ll find more solutions if you are an asset. You owe [it] to the country anyway. But beyond that, you’ll find more solutions than if you’re regarded as evil or something, and worse yet, if you deserve it.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，這是個非常犀利的問題，目前已經以暫時性的方式得到了解答，但誰知道未來情況會如何發展？我只知道你在波克夏·海瑟威握有一手好牌，但你必須能夠思考出解決之道。我的意思是，顯然你必須考慮政治現實。你得想清楚什麼會導致……你希望被視為國家的資產，因為如果你是一項資產，你會找到更多解決方案。無論如何，你對國家負有責任。但除此之外，相較於被視為邪惡或類似負面形象，你會發現更多解決方案，更糟的是，如果你確實應得這樣的評價。

So it’s something that’s constantly in our mind, and it needs to be in the mind of the directors, and they need to think for themselves on this rather than bow to conventional wisdom, which, you know, in a sense, you don’t want to become a cynic about life, but almost everybody that approaches you, if you have tons of resources, [has] got some interest in figuring out how to use your resources to their advantage, and that’s true whether they’re in politics or whether they’re in investment banking or whether they’re selling you… Well, whatever it may be that they’re selling, I don’t want to do any injury to anybody, but life insurance agents see the advantage of buying life insurance, and investment managers who get paid based on assets managed [are] interested in selling you their services.
所以這是我們時常掛念的事，董事們也必須放在心上，他們需要自行思考這個問題，而非盲從傳統智慧。在某種程度上，你不想對人生變得憤世嫉俗，但幾乎每個接近你的人，如果你擁有龐大資源，都會想方設法利用你的資源來謀取自身利益。無論他們身處政界、投資銀行業，或是向你推銷...無論他們賣的是什麼，我不想傷害任何人，但人壽保險業務員自然會看到購買保險的好處，而按管理資產收費的投資經理則熱衷於向你推銷他們的服務。

Imagine if everybody in this room were following the investment advice of somebody that said, “You know, for 1% a year, I’ll tell you how to invest your money.” And in 1950, when we started, in 1965, they would have said, “Well, buy Berkshire Hathaway,” and if they were around now and they saw the 1% deal, they’d be collecting $8 billion a year from people who aren’t getting any dividends from us. So they would have a different interest in the kind of contract they worked out with you than you would have. And [the] best thing to do was just pay them a commission one time and own the stock.
想像一下，如果這個房間裡的每個人都遵循某個人的投資建議，他說：「你知道嗎，每年只要付 1%，我就告訴你如何投資你的錢。」而在 1950 年，當我們開始時，到了 1965 年，他們會說：「嗯，買伯克希爾·哈撒韋的股票吧。」如果他們現在還在，看到這 1%的交易，他們每年會從那些沒有從我們這裡得到任何股息的人那裡收取 80 億美元。所以，他們與你達成的合約類型會有與你不同的利益。而最好的做法就是一次性支付他們佣金，然後擁有股票。

But you have to be alert to how what human nature does to both other people and to you. And then, you know, if you think it through well and actually listen to what Charlie has told you, you’ll have a big head start on most people.
但你必須警惕人性對他人以及對你自己的影響。然後，你知道，如果你仔細思考並真正聽從查理告訴你的話，你將比大多數人擁有更大的優勢。

There’s one thing that I should mention that really is terribly interesting about Charlie. Charlie knew the importance of psychology and human behavior and incentives and all of that. He figured that out very early. And, of course, he gave some talks, even on 25 or so ways, whatever it happened to be… I don’t remember the exact number of different ways that one person could take advantage of another by understanding how humans behave. And then after doing a magnificent job of explaining it… He believed in understanding what others would do, but he thought it was beneath him to actually use those methods to manipulate people.
有件事我必須提到，關於查理真的非常有趣。查理深知心理學、人類行為和激勵機制等的重要性。他很早就領悟了這一點。當然，他也做過一些演講，甚至列出了大約 25 種方式，具體數字我記不清了……就是一個人如何通過理解人類行為來利用他人。在精彩地解釋完這些之後……他相信理解他人的行為很重要，但他認為實際運用這些方法來操控他人是有失身份的。

[He’s a] really interesting human being that thinks through the psychology of human behavior and figures out, you know, how you become a great insurance salesman or manager on Wall Street, or [how you] accumulate assets under management or whatever it may be. And you get very rich by understanding the weaknesses of others to some extent, and then [you] decide that it’s very important for you to recognize these [weaknesses] when they occur. It’s very important for you to know them better than the person that actually is using them, but not [to use them yourself]. And Charlie told me that in his lifetime after he figured this out, there were a couple of times when he used them. He wasn’t proud of it, but he also never lied to me. So he explained to me that there were a couple of times when he used some of these techniques, but he didn’t plan on using them anymore. [He] also wanted me to know that if I ever did something like that, I wasn’t really behaving terribly, that he allowed for the fact that humans may misbehave.
他是一個非常有趣的人，會深入思考人類行為的心理學，並弄清楚如何成為一名出色的保險銷售員或華爾街經理，或是如何累積管理資產等等。在某種程度上，你可以透過理解他人的弱點變得非常富有，然後決定當這些弱點出現時，識別它們對你來說非常重要。你必須比實際利用這些弱點的人更了解它們，但不要自己去利用它們。查理告訴我，在他一生中，當他明白這一點後，有幾次他利用了這些弱點。他並不為此感到驕傲，但他也從未對我撒謊。所以他向我解釋說，有幾次他使用了一些這樣的技巧，但他不打算再使用它們了。他也希望我知道，如果我曾經做過類似的事情，我並不是真的行為惡劣，他允許人類可能會行為不當的事實。

So I’m sure that I behaved somewhat better before my marriage than I did afterwards in my enthusiasm for different activities, like dancing or something. And he said, “We all do it, but don’t do it again.” So that’s part of acquiring human wisdom. And speaking of human wisdom, we’ve just got that one book out there by Charlie, I mean, Poor Charlie’s Almanack, and that’s worth reading three or four times. I think I read Ben Graham’s book about five or six times. And each time I read it, I realized that I just needed to think a little more deeply about certain things. They weren’t complicated or anything. But, you know, it’s better to… If you’ve got some great instruction, like you get with Charlie, it’s better to read it several times than to just figure you’ll just read every book once [that]’s in the library.
所以我確信，在結婚前我對各種活動的熱情，比如跳舞之類的，表現得比婚後要好一些。他說：「我們都這樣做過，但別再犯了。」這就是獲取人生智慧的一部分。說到人生智慧，我們手頭上只有查理寫的那本書——《窮查理的普通常識》，這本書值得讀上三四遍。我想我讀班傑明·葛拉漢的書大概讀了五六遍。每次重讀，我都發現自己需要對某些事情思考得更深入一些。它們並不複雜，但你知道的，與其……如果你得到了一些偉大的指導，就像查理給你的那樣，多讀幾遍總比只讀圖書館裡的每本書一遍要好。

Okay, let’s go to section four.
好的，我們繼續第四部分。

JEFF RABELIER: Jeff Rabelier from Tulsa, Oklahoma. And I’m thinking of Dr. Graham, Mr. Munger, [and] your father. And my question is, for all of us, but it’s probably especially for the younger people in the room, [about] the importance of picking the right heroes in life [and] choosing friends wisely, and maybe tell us a story, if you could, about each of those folks. Thank you, sir.
傑夫·拉貝利爾：我是來自奧克拉荷馬州塔爾薩的傑夫·拉貝利爾。我想到葛拉漢博士、蒙格先生，以及您的父親。我的問題是，對我們所有人，但可能特別是對在場的年輕人來說，[關於]在生活中選擇正確的英雄以及明智地選擇朋友的重要性，如果可以的話，也許能告訴我們關於這些人的故事。謝謝您，先生。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, there’s no question you’re 100% right in terms of having the right heroes. And, you know, you’re lucky if you get them. I mean, Charlie had Charlie Adams, I… [Charlie] had… And the interesting thing, my sister is here today, my younger sister, [one of] the two survivors. And we both experienced having the same hero, even though as we grew older, we saw that we didn’t agree with plenty of his ideas, but we did agree with his values and motivation. And that’s, that’s a better lesson than having somebody that [is] reading to you from a catechism, that has got a lot of rules in it, which are pretty good rules, but… but there’s a special, special place for somebody that is going to continue loving you even if you break some of the rules. And that’s what Charlie had in his life, [and] what Bernie and I had in our life.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，毫無疑問，在選擇正確的英雄這方面，你百分之百正確。而且，你知道，如果你能遇到他們，那你是幸運的。我是說，查理有查理·亞當斯，我…[查理]有…有趣的是，我妹妹今天也在這裡，我的妹妹，[是]兩位倖存者之一。我們兩個都有過同一位英雄，儘管隨著年齡增長，我們發現自己並不認同他的許多想法，但我們確實認同他的價值觀和動機。這比有人向你朗讀教義問答、裡面有很多規則——雖然那些規則相當不錯——但…但有一個特別、特別的位置，是留給那些即使你打破了一些規則，仍會繼續愛你的人。這就是查理一生中所擁有的，[也是]伯尼和我一生中所擁有的。

So I would just repeat what you said. I don’t need to give you a bunch of… well, when I ran away from home, I’ll give you a specific example with me. When I ran away from home and went… we hitchhiked up to Hershey, Pennsylvania, and got picked up by the state police and everything. And I talked these other two guys into it, and we lied like crazy to the state police, you know, saying we had our parents’ permission. Some kid at the place where we stayed had tipped them off that we’d run away from home.
所以我只是重複你所說的。我不需要給你一堆...嗯，當我離家出走時，我會給你一個關於我的具體例子。當我離家出走並前往...我們搭便車到了賓夕法尼亞州的赫希，然後被州警攔下等等。我還說服了另外兩個傢伙一起，我們對州警撒了彌天大謊，你知道的，說我們有父母的許可。我們住處的一個小孩向他們告密說我們是離家出走的。

And we started, like I said, [the] state police picked us up. We decided two things. You know, we decided to tell them a bunch of lies about the fact [that] we had our parents’ permission. And we decided we better get out of [Hershey] because these cops were going to find out sooner or later. And so anyway, we end up back in Washington after a couple of days. And when I walked in the door, well, one of the boys’ mothers… and this other kid was [the son of] Congressman Roger Bell. And his mother was in the hospital over this whole thing. He’d taken out his cash and his savings bonds. And so she was sick. And Judge Bell, her husband, was all concerned and everything. And I walked in the door in Washington, and my mother said, “How come he came back so soon?” And my father said, he said, “I know you can do better.”
就像我說的，我們一開始就被州警攔下。我們決定兩件事。你知道，我們決定對他們撒一堆謊，說我們有父母的許可。而且我們決定最好離開[好時鎮]，因為這些警察遲早會發現真相。總之，幾天後我們回到了華盛頓。當我走進家門時，其中一個男孩的母親...另一個孩子是國會議員羅傑·貝爾的兒子。他母親因為整件事住院了。他拿走了現金和儲蓄債券。所以她病倒了。貝爾法官，也就是她丈夫，非常擔心這一切。當我走進華盛頓的家門時，我母親說：「他怎麼這麼快就回來了？」而我父親說：「我知道你可以做得更好。」

And I just paid more attention to my father than [to] my mother. So you want to have the right heroes, and you don’t have to have them. It’s not [about] the heroes based on what they’ve accomplished. It’s the people that you want to be [like] yourself. And if you copy the right people, you’re off to a great start. And I don’t mean [a] great start about making money. I mean a great start about living your life. So you can check with my sister Birdie, who’s here, and see if I’ve told the story correctly.
而我只是比較關注父親，而非母親。所以，你要選對英雄，而且你不一定非得有英雄。重點不在於他們成就了什麼，而是那些你想成為的人。如果你效法對的人，你就有個好的開始。我指的不是賺大錢的好開始，而是過上好人生的好開始。你可以問問在場的妹妹柏蒂，看我說得對不對。

She ran away from home, too, incidentally, but she didn’t get as far as I got. She was running away to go over to my grandfather’s house, which was about 2 miles away.
順帶一提，她也離家出走了，但沒我跑得那麼遠。她只是跑去我祖父家，大概兩英里遠。

But I don’t want to denigrate her runaway attempt, at least, because she was much more accomplished than I am in all kinds of other things. But when it comes to running away, I definitely outclassed her.
不過我不想貶低她的出走嘗試，至少在其他各方面她都比我出色得多。但說到離家出走，我絕對勝她一籌。

Okay, let’s go to Becky.
好的，我們來聽聽貝琪的問題。

BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Vedant Sharma in India. Warren, you and Charlie have often said that you were able to identify the people you want to go into business with and have had an exceptional record in that.
貝琪·奎克：這個問題來自印度的維丹特·夏爾馬。華倫，你和查理常說你們能識別出想一起共事的人，而且在這方面紀錄斐然。

However, in the case of Pilot, we noticed that the final stake purchase ended up in a dispute and had a sense of smart accounting, to put it one way, to squeeze a little more out from the deal than was deserved by the seller. Knowing well that this has been said, settled out of court, and needs due confidentiality, I would like your views on some of the lessons learned that may be beneficial for future deals to watch for and for coming leadership to look out for as well. Well, I’ll make two comments on that. A couple of the directors had their doubts about going in, and in any event, pilot is working out well for us. And my friend Sam Butler one time said to me that, and he was talking in general about certain kinds of situations, but he said, well, Warren, he said, all is well that ends, and that’s where we are.
然而，就 Pilot 而言，我們注意到最終股權收購以爭議告終，且某種程度上帶有「聰明會計」的意味——用一種方式來說，就是從交易中榨取了比賣方應得更多的利益。雖然深知此事已被談論、達成庭外和解且需保密，我仍想請教您從中學到的經驗教訓，這些對未來交易審查及新領導層防範類似情況或有所裨益。對此，我會提出兩點看法。幾位董事當初對是否參與確實存疑，但無論如何，Pilot 目前對我們運作良好。我的朋友薩姆·巴特勒曾對我說過一句話（雖然他當時是在泛論某類情境），他說：「華倫啊，凡事結局好就是真的好。」而我們現在正是如此。

So we’ll go to station five.
那麼我們接下來前往第五站。

Well, while we’re getting to station five, I’ll tell you a little bit more about the fellow that is now running pilot. I knew you may have met here that Greg had known for a long, long time. And he grew up in Omaha and came from a poor family and was raised by his mother. Right. And went to the same high school, public high school that my wife went to, North High.
在我們抵達五號站的途中，我來多介紹一下現在擔任機長的這位夥伴。你可能在這裡見過葛瑞格，我認識他很久很久了。他在奧馬哈長大，出身貧寒，由母親獨自撫養。沒錯。他就讀的公立高中和我妻子是同一所——北高中。

Went to University of Omaha, set an all time record in russian yardage playing there. He was a bouncer, yes. Drafted by the New York Giants, as I remember. Exactly. Yeah.
他就讀奧馬哈大學時，創下了俄式橄欖球碼數的校史紀錄。他當過保鑣，是的。我記得後來被紐約巨人隊選中。沒錯。是的。

And. But then injured, actually, in spring training, I remember, in some way. And so he ended up being an intern. Not an intern, but a trainee, you might say, for mid American before I was there. And.
然後...但實際上他在春訓時受了傷，我記得是某種傷勢。所以他最後成了實習生。不算是實習生，可以說是美中能源的培訓生，那是在我加入之前。而且...

And now here he is, still relatively young, and he’s running a huge company, and we’ve got incredible confidence in what he will do. And we like very, very, very much the business that was created by Big Jim Haslam. And it really is almost an only in an american type story, but it does show you with somebody with some real stuff and with a mother that believes in them and with bad breaks along the way. I mean, imagine how you’d feel if you were drafted by the New York giants and then you suffered some injury in spring training or something. I mean, you spend your life, it just, it hurts, but it’s not an experience I would have ever had.
而現在他還相當年輕，就已經在經營一家龐大的公司，我們對他未來將做的事充滿無比信心。我們非常、非常、非常喜歡由大吉姆·哈斯拉姆所創建的這門生意。這幾乎只能是一個美國式的故事，但它確實向你展示了，當一個人擁有真材實料、有一位相信他的母親，再加上一路上的種種挫折——想像一下，如果你被紐約巨人隊選中，卻在春訓時受傷，那會是什麼感受？我是說，你耗費一生心血，這真的很痛，但這是我永遠不會有的經歷。

That was the last guy chosen. But to see that he’s running a company depends on the price of deal, but it’s a huge company.
那是最後一個被選中的人。但看看他現在經營的公司規模，雖然取決於交易價格，但確實是一家巨型企業。

What does he have, 2020, 5000 or something?
他有多少來著，2020 年還是 5000 什麼的？

And he’s got many, many, many years to go. So I couldn’t be more pleased about not only the acquisition of Pilot, but just what it tells you about America. You can, what do you have to look up to? Read about them in Google or an interview with Adam? Yeah, I try and think if it’s.
而且他還有很多很多年的路要走。所以我對收購 Pilot 這件事感到無比滿意，不僅如此，這還告訴你關於美國的一些事。你能怎麼辦？去 Google 上查他們的資料還是看亞當的訪談？是啊，我試著想想看是不是這樣。

A podcast, yeah, he’s got a podcast. Podcast that will just blow you away. And if you don’t think this is a great country, it has a lot of great people. All you got to do is read that podcast. So.
一個播客，沒錯，他有個播客。那個播客會讓你大開眼界。如果你不認為這是個偉大的國家，它可是有很多了不起的人。你只需要聽聽那個播客就知道了。所以。

But we do have a great set of assets. Oh, yeah. You know, if you look at Pilot, we have 800, more than 800 stations, travel stations, centers, and just so everybody knows, I mean, the beauty of that, and there’s a question regarding this morning around fuel choices at Pilot. And the exciting thing is, in the end, pilot’s going to serve whatever fuel our customers need. It can be electric, it can be renewable diesel, it can be diesel or any of the various sustainable fuels.
但我們確實擁有一系列優質資產。哦，是的。你知道，如果你看看 Pilot，我們有 800 多個站點，旅行站點、中心，而且讓大家知道，這其中的美妙之處在於，今早有個關於 Pilot 燃料選擇的問題。令人興奮的是，最終，Pilot 將提供我們客戶所需的任何燃料。可以是電動、可再生柴油、柴油或任何各種可持續燃料。

But the point is, it has exceptional locations that are on the interstate highways. Hundreds of them. Hundreds of them. And we bought an incredible franchise and now we have a great leadership team in both Adam and his team that’s around him. So we’re pleased where that opportunity will go.
但重點是，它擁有位於州際公路上的絕佳位置。數百個。數百個。而且我們買下了一個不可思議的特許經營權，現在我們有 Adam 和他周圍的團隊這樣一個優秀的領導團隊。所以我們對這個機會的未來發展感到滿意。

Yeah, we’ve got probably the average one might be ten or twelve acres or something like that zone commercial on interstates throughout the whole United States. Who knows? But what was created there is amazing, too. You had a fellow that played at University of Tnsylvania, I mean, University of Tennessee, and undefeated and came away from this football team and you think, well, another football player, you know, maybe he goes out and, and there may be some intermediate parts in the story a little bit, but he buys a gas station and he turns it into something that is huge. So we’re really delighted with it.
是的，我們在全美各州際公路沿線可能平均擁有約十到十二英畝左右的商業用地。誰知道呢？但那裡創造的成就同樣令人驚嘆。有位曾在田納西大學打球的傢伙——我是說田納西大學——保持不敗戰績離開這支美式足球隊時，你會想：又一個球員嘛，或許他之後會...嗯，故事中間可能有些轉折，但他買下一座加油站後，竟將其發展成如此龐大的事業。我們對此真的非常欣喜。

And it’s another kind of only an american story.
這又是另一種只有美國才會出現的故事。

You know, how many of us can become an all american, number one ranked team, let alone start a business that goes on these sort of heights. So we feel very good about it. Becky? No, I think they’re ready for five now. Oh, I see.
你知道嗎？我們之中有多少人能成為全美排名第一的球隊成員，更別說創辦出達到如此高度的事業。所以我們對此感到相當欣慰。貝琪？不，我想他們準備好要進行第五個問題了。哦，我明白了。

He’s up there now, ready to go. Okay, go do it. Hello, Miss Buffett. My name is Zhang Yabo. I came from micro City, Hainan, China.
他現在就在台上準備好了。好的，請開始吧。巴菲特女士您好，我是張亞波，來自中國海南微城市。

So I want to express my sincere gratitude for you, for the extraordinary value you generated for shareholders and the positive influences you’ve had on younger generation of investors like us. And my question relates to the concept of maximizing the duration of compounding. As individuals age, the quality of compounding inevitably diminishes. What are your secrets in maintaining your sharp man? Extraordinary judgment and great physical condition.
因此，我想向您表達誠摯的感謝，感謝您為股東創造的非凡價值，以及您對我們這一代年輕投資者的積極影響。我的問題與「最大化複利持續時間」的概念有關。隨著年齡增長，複利的質量無可避免會下降。您保持思維敏銳的秘訣是什麼？非凡的判斷力和絕佳的身體狀態。

We wish you well. Thank you. Well, you don’t know me well, but that’s. I like. Just keep talking.
我們祝您一切順利。謝謝。嗯，您不太認識我，但這正是我喜歡的。就繼續說下去吧。

Well, I. You know, you have to be just plain lucky. I mean, there’s no question about it that there’s 100 or a thousand. You know, multiply a number of times that some drunk could have pulled out of the car and broadsided me, or, you know, just the bad luck you can have in life. And I can say my great skill has been avoiding bad luck, but that isn’t a skill.
這個嘛，你知道的，你得純粹靠運氣。我是說，毫無疑問，有上百甚至上千次...你知道的，很多時候可能會有醉漢開車衝出來撞上我，或是生活中可能遇到的各種霉運。我可以說我的偉大技能就是避開霉運，但那其實算不上什麼技能。

That’s luck or bad activities. And then to get to be. I would not have been if you’d taken my high school class. And you say a couple of you are going to live to be 90. Men are going to live to be 93, maybe I’ve got.
那只是運氣好或沒做壞事罷了。然後能活到這個歲數...如果你拿我高中班上同學來看，我本不該是活到現在的人。你會說班上可能有幾個人能活到 90 歲，男性大概能活到 93 歲，也許我就是那少數之一。

You know, I wouldn’t. I would not have been a heavy favorite, I can tell you that. And I wouldn’t have bet on myself. But you just. Now, you should make the most of your luck when you get it.
你知道嗎，我不會。我可以告訴你，我不會成為熱門人選，我也不會押注在自己身上。但你只需要...現在，當好運降臨時，你應該好好把握。

And sometimes I’ve done that and sometimes I haven’t.
有時候我做到了，有時候卻沒有。

I mean, it is absolutely true that if I had to do over again, there’d be a lot of different choices I would make, whether they would have ended up working out as well as things that worked out. It’s hard to imagine how they could have worked out any better. So. So. But it is interesting how many mistakes you can make if you just keep going.
我的意思是，這絕對是真的——如果我能重來一次，我會做出許多不同的選擇，無論這些選擇最終是否能像那些成功的事情一樣順利。很難想像它們還能比現在更好。所以...所以...但有趣的是，只要你繼續前進，你可以犯下多少錯誤。

And Charlie, you know, when he used to talk about that, that you just soldier through, you just keep going, and. But you still need luck, you know, you don’t want to. Anybody that says I did it all myself is just kidding. I mean, it’s just. They’re delusional and, you know, actually living a country with a life expectancy is pretty darn good, you know, so that alone is a huge plus.
而查理，你知道，當他談到這個時，他說你只需要堅持下去，繼續前進，但是...你仍然需要運氣，你知道的，你不想...任何說「這一切都是我自己做到的」的人只是在開玩笑。我的意思是，這只是...他們是妄想，而且你知道，實際上生活在一個預期壽命相當不錯的國家已經是非常大的優勢了。

I was born… if I’d been born… my sister’s here, and she was born female, and she’s just as smart as I was and everything. But even my own family, who really did well, particularly my dad, [loved] us all equally in a terrific manner. But he still told me that… Well, [my sister] was born ten years after the 19th Amendment was passed, but he basically told my sisters to marry young [because] “you still have your looks.” And he told me that the world… that [the] power [was] in [my hands] and [I] really could do anything. Well, I found there were a lot of things I couldn’t do, but the message given to females and males was incredibly different by the most well-meaning and loving of parents.
我出生了…如果我當初出生…我妹妹在這裡，她生來就是女性，她和我一樣聰明，各方面都一樣。但即使是我的家人，他們做得很好，特別是我父親，他以一種極好的方式平等地愛著我們所有人。但他還是告訴我…嗯，[我妹妹]是在第 19 條修正案通過十年後出生的，但他基本上告訴我的姐妹們要早點結婚[因為]「你們還保有你們的美貌」。而他告訴我，這個世界…[權力]在[我手中]，[我]真的可以做任何事情。嗯，我發現有很多事情我做不到，但即使是出於最善意和最慈愛的父母，給予女性和男性的訊息也是天差地別。

You know, like I say, in 1930… I mean, it’s been that way for millions of years. It’s changed quite dramatically, but obviously not completely, but during my lifetime… but it’s been during the latter half of my lifetime. If you take my sisters, if they’d been born even five or ten years later, they still would have been getting instructions when they went away to college, to be sure, and get married while [they were] young, [or get] arranged so that you’re going to be married while you’re in school, because after you get out, all the good ones are taken. Birdie was telling me that was a message that [had] basically been imparted to a lot of the women she had met, obviously.
你知道，就像我說的，在 1930 年...我是說，這種情況已經持續了數百萬年。它已經發生了相當戲劇性的變化，但顯然並未完全改變，不過在我的一生中...特別是在我後半生的時候。如果你拿我的姐妹們來說，即使她們晚出生五年或十年，她們上大學時仍然會收到指示，要確保在年輕時結婚，或者安排好在上學期間結婚，因為一旦畢業，所有好對象都會被搶走。伯蒂告訴我，這基本上是她遇到的許多女性都被告知的訊息。

So it really… It’s extraordinary how much progress we’ve made, but it’s unbelievable how long it took to get it made. I mean, it really does make you wonder about, you know, we’ve got all these heroes from American history and all the wonderful things they did, but how could they say, “All men are created equal” and then write a Constitution that… you know, allowed women not to be able to own property, [it] depend[ed] on the state. I mean, just terrible conditions.
所以這真的...我們取得的進步是多麼驚人，但令人難以置信的是，我們花了多長時間才取得這些進步。我是說，這真的會讓你思考，你知道，我們有美國歷史上所有的英雄和他們所做的所有偉大事情，但他們怎麼能說「人人生而平等」，然後寫出一部憲法...你知道，允許女性不能擁有財產，這取決於州的法律。我是說，情況真是糟糕透了。

But anyway, that’s how you learn about what humans can do. And I feel, and you’ve got to feel, better about the future for your kids than you would have felt 100 years ago, no matter what the situation is.
但無論如何，這就是你了解人類能做什麼的方式。而且我覺得，你也必須對孩子們的未來感到比 100 年前更樂觀，無論情況如何。

Anyway, we’ll move to Becky.
總之，我們接下來交給貝琪。

BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Linda Frazier in Westport, Connecticut. Dear Mr. Buffett, in the past, you’ve specified that 90% of your wife’s inheritance be invested in a low-cost S&P 500 index fund and 10% in short-term government bonds. But the market cap of the “magnificent seven” tech stocks now represents more than one-quarter of the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 index, which seems like a big bet on the tech sector. I was wondering if you would now recommend investing some portion of the funds in a low-cost, equal-weight S&P 500 index fund, rather than having all of the equity exposure in a tech-heavy market-cap-weighted fund.
貝琪·奎克：這個問題來自康乃狄克州西港的琳達·弗雷澤。親愛的巴菲特先生，過去您曾指定將您妻子 90%的遺產投資於低成本的標普 500 指數基金，10%投資於短期政府債券。但現在「科技七巨頭」的市值已佔市值加權標普 500 指數的四分之一以上，這似乎是對科技行業的重大押注。我想知道您現在是否會建議將部分資金投資於低成本的等權重標普 500 指數基金，而不是將所有股票曝險都放在科技股比重高的市值加權基金中。

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, that’s an interesting question. And I will tell you that I revise my will about every three years or so, and I get little thoughts from time to time, and then you don’t change it. Every time you do it, you [change] a tiny thing. But the one section I haven’t changed is that, that with my wife, [she] got left a huge amount of money by practically anybody’s measurement, except [a] pittance compared to what I’ve accumulated in total. And it won’t make one bit of difference to her in life whether she beats the S&P or anything else. All I want to leave is plenty of money to take care of [her] way beyond anything she’ll ever spend, and at the same time, give her as much peace of mind as possible and really make sure that the trustee who administers it doesn’t really have to worry about whether… it just doesn’t make any difference whether she beats the S&P or not. And the main thing is that she feels that… She feels that she’s in a financial position, which, of course, she will be, that she doesn’t even need to think about it. And the trustee doesn’t have to worry about getting sued or anything else.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，這是個有趣的問題。我會告訴你，我大約每三年左右會修改一次遺囑，時不時會有一些小想法，但通常不會做什麼變動。每次修改時，你可能只會調整一小部分。但有一條我從未改變過，那就是關於我妻子的部分——按照幾乎任何人的標準，她都會繼承一大筆錢，雖然與我累積的總資產相比只是九牛一毛。對她來說，這筆錢是否能跑贏標普 500 指數或其他任何指標，對她的生活完全不會有任何影響。我只想確保留給她足夠的錢，遠超過她一生可能的花費，同時盡可能讓她心安，並確保管理這筆信託的受託人不必擔心……是否跑贏標普 500 真的無關緊要。最重要的是讓她感受到……她會處於一種無需為財務擔憂的狀態，當然她也確實會如此。而受託人也無需擔心被起訴或其他問題。

So it’s simply not an economic [decision]. Now, obviously, with 99% plus of what I have going to philanthropy, and I’ve got my three children… The one good thing is that at the age of 70, 69, and 65, they have matured remarkably, probably more than their father.
所以這根本就不是一個經濟[決定]。現在很明顯，我 99%以上的財產都會捐給慈善事業，而我有三個孩子……唯一的好處是，他們現在分別是 70 歲、69 歲和 65 歲，他們已經非常成熟了，可能比他們的父親還要成熟。

But at the same time, they’ve got less time to work with the money than they would have if they were 50 or something like that. So you do the best you can in accomplishing your objectives in your will, and in the end, you know, you can’t… you don’t know what’s going to happen after you die, but you make sure that, to the extent that you leave, you have a lot of money to leave. You [want to] take… Obviously, you want to say thanks to a lot of people, and [to] quite a few people in terms of specific requests, you want to take care of your family.
但同時，與他們如果 50 歲左右相比，他們能用這些錢的時間更少了。所以你在遺囑中盡你所能實現你的目標，最終，你知道，你無法……你不知道你死後會發生什麼，但你要確保，在你離開的時候，你有大量的錢可以留下。你[想要]……顯然，你想感謝很多人，對於一些特定的請求，你也想照顧好你的家人。

But in my case, that requires practically no money and a fair amount for taxes. But I have, and my children are in charge of what happens to the funds that are left. But like I say, the problem is when you live as long as I have, and the kids get older, who knows what happens with mortality tables? And they’re the ones that I really want to see handle the distributions. And they will, and they’ll be very good about it. But if we’re all alive three years from now, they’ll be three years older. So everything… you can’t solve everything in life. You do the best you can with it.
但就我而言，那幾乎不需要花錢，卻得繳不少稅。但我已經安排好了，我的孩子們會負責處理剩下的資金。不過就像我說的，問題在於當你活得像我這麼久，孩子們也越來越年長，誰知道壽命表會怎麼變化？而他們正是我真正希望看到能妥善分配資金的人。他們會做到的，而且會做得很好。但如果三年後我們都還活著，他們又會再老三歲。所以人生中...你無法解決所有問題。只能盡力而為。

People do interesting things. I’ve been around probably as many rich people as almost anybody, and [for] a fair number of [them], I know what they’re doing or have done with their funds. And the idea that you can have a huge amount of money and leave everybody very rich and have people liking each other less when it all happens… Humans are really… they are interesting to watch. Some of them handle it beautifully, and others [do] terribly. The one thing lawyers will always tell you is don’t use codicils. In other words, you know, when you change your mind on a will, just write a new one, but tear up the old one. Don’t do it by just adding codicils.
人們會做出有趣的事。我接觸過的富人可能和任何人一樣多，而對於其中相當一部分人，我知道他們如何處理或曾經如何運用他們的財富。那種認為你可以擁有巨額財富、讓每個人都變得非常富有，卻在過程中讓人們彼此更加不喜歡的想法⋯⋯人類真是⋯⋯觀察他們實在很有意思。有些人處理得非常好，有些人則糟糕透頂。律師總會告訴你的一件事就是：別用遺囑附錄。換句話說，當你改變對遺囑的想法時，直接寫一份新的，但要把舊的撕掉。別只是添加附錄來修改。

But I believe I’m correct… [I’ve] certainly read it… That Paul Getty, who was the richest man in the world, presumably at one point in the 1950s or 1960s, and [he] was a very interesting guy to read about, and he had five wives, and he’s the one whose grandson was kidnapped, and they sent Paul Getty an ear of the child and everything. I mean, it’s not a happy life when you get through it. But the one, one thing he did that was kind of interesting, he actually liked to use codicils because I think he had like 25 of them. And it was kind of his way of writing, “Well, I’m taking you out of the will because…” you know, and so he sort of delighted in explaining through his will how he felt about all these people.
但我相信我是對的…[我]肯定讀過…保羅·蓋提，他曾經是世界上最富有的人，大概是在 1950 或 1960 年代的某個時候，他是個非常有趣的人物，有五任妻子，就是那個孫子被綁架，綁匪還寄了孩子的一隻耳朵給他的那位。我是說，這樣的人生經歷下來可不算快樂。但他做過一件挺有意思的事，他其實很喜歡用遺囑附錄，我記得他大概有 25 份吧。這算是他的一種寫作方式，「好吧，我要把你從遺囑中剔除，因為…」你知道的，他就是樂於透過遺囑來解釋他對這些人的感受。

I mean, you really get some strange things revealed in a will. I just read about a will of a fellow that made a whole lot of money and was leaving it to his… I don’t know whether it was children, grandchildren, whatever it may have been, but in any event, his opening line in his will is, and this was done some years ago, but I know something about the family. His opening line, in effect, said, “I’m writing this will while I am [riding] in the economy section of Eastern Airlines, number such and such.” I mean, he believed in getting right to the point [about] what the people who were recipients, how they should live, and he was going to be judging them.
我是說，遺囑裡真的會揭露一些奇怪的事情。我剛讀到一個人的遺囑，他賺了很多錢，要把錢留給他的……我不知道是孩子、孫子還是誰，但無論如何，他遺囑的開頭是這樣的——這是幾年前寫的，但我對這家人略知一二——他的開頭實際上寫道：「我正在東方航空某某班機的經濟艙裡[乘坐]時寫下這份遺囑。」我是說，他深信要直截了當地告訴那些繼承人該怎麼生活，而且他還會評判他們。

It’s just so darned interesting to watch people’s wills. But one guy left a lot of money to his wife on the condition that she remarry, so that at least one man would mourn his passing.
觀察人們的遺囑真是有趣極了。但有個傢伙留了一大筆錢給他妻子，條件是她必須再婚，這樣至少會有一個男人為他的離去感到哀傷。

Well, I’m not giving legal advice here, as I always say, but I feel very, very, very good about how things have turned out. And I wish I could figure out ways better to use the really vast resources I’ve got [to address] some of the really important questions of the world, but I haven’t been able to do that. [I had] goals when I was 30 or 40, and [I] may have written them in [my] will then, in terms of what the world needed [to be] done and how the money could be used. And unfortunately, I decided that they weren’t feasible to accomplish. And of course, I was setting out to accomplish things that were important [that] nobody’s solved yet, so you [have] got to expect that… why should I be able to solve them?
嗯，我這裡不是提供法律建議，就像我常說的，但我對事情的結果感到非常、非常、非常滿意。我希望能想出更好的方法，利用我擁有的龐大資源來解決世界上一些真正重要的問題，但我還沒能做到這一點。我在 30 或 40 歲時有過目標，可能當時在遺囑中寫下了這些目標，關於世界需要做什麼以及如何利用這些錢。不幸的是，我後來認為這些目標無法實現。當然，我當時設定的目標是解決那些至今無人能解的重要問題，所以你必須預料到……為什麼我應該能夠解決它們呢？

But nevertheless, it’s an interesting… And the one thing about it is everybody here, I don’t know about the ones who’ve come from other countries, but you should have a will because if you don’t have a will, you still have a will, and it’ll be whatever the state says. And it’s amazing. Four American presidents died intestate, without wills. Four, you know, we’ve only had 45. And imagine becoming president of the United States and not having a will. But you can look up somebody recently, I think, Lincoln, I’m certain Lincoln was one of the four. And here’s a man, I mean, I don’t know what you can always say… Well, he didn’t get around to it, but that’s hard to imagine why Abraham Lincoln would have died intestate. I’m sure we’ve got some Lincoln scholars out there that will write me after this and explain why, and I’ll be interested to receive their letters.
但無論如何，這很有趣...而且有一點在場各位都該知道，我不清楚從其他國家來的朋友們如何，但你們都該立遺囑。因為如果你沒有遺囑，實際上你仍然有遺囑——那就是州政府替你決定的版本。令人驚訝的是，有四位美國總統死時未立遺囑。想想看，我們總共才 45 位總統。你能想像當上美國總統卻沒有遺囑嗎？最近你可以查查，我確定林肯是這四位之一。這個人...該怎麼說呢？或許他只是沒來得及處理，但實在難以理解為什麼亞伯拉罕·林肯會沒有遺囑。我相信在座一定有林肯學者會在這場會議後寫信告訴我原因，我很期待收到這些信。

But human beings are human beings, and we all have weaknesses and peculiarities and everything else. And don’t be too hard on yourself, because you have some of those. But don’t be totally forgiving either. You can change the future. You can’t change the past, but you can change the future.
但人終究是人，我們都有弱點、怪癖和各種毛病。別對自己太苛刻，因為你也有這些特質。但也不要完全放任自己。你可以改變未來。雖然無法改變過去，但你能塑造未來。

Okay? Station six.  好的？第六站。

CAROLINE: Good afternoon. My name is Caroline, and I’m a lawyer in San Diego. Please don’t hold that against me.
卡洛琳：下午好。我是卡洛琳，聖地牙哥的一名律師。請別因此對我有所偏見。

(Laughter)  （笑聲）

WARREN BUFFETT: Remember, Mr. Munger was once an attorney, too, right?
華倫·巴菲特：別忘了，芒格先生也曾經是律師，對吧？

CAROLINE: First, I’d like to sincerely thank you, Mr. Buffett, for your business integrity, tireless leadership, and generous contribution to philanthropy. My question for the distinguished panel of two is, now that the AI genie is out of the bottle, as someone astutely put it earlier today, what business in Berkshire Hathaway may be most at risk with AI?
卡洛琳：首先，我想真誠地感謝您，巴菲特先生，感謝您的商業誠信、不懈的領導力以及對慈善事業的慷慨貢獻。我對兩位傑出的與會者提出的問題是，正如今天早些時候有人敏銳指出的那樣，既然 AI 的精靈已經從瓶子裡跑出來了，波克夏·海瑟威的哪些業務可能最受 AI 的威脅？

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, that’s a wonderful question. The problem is I really don’t know anything about AI, obviously. [It will affect] anything that’s labor-intensive and that it can create an enormous amount of leisure time. Now, what the world does with leisure time is another question, whether more leisure time… I know an awful lot of people think when they go to work at first, what they want is leisure time. And what I like is actually having more problems to solve.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，這是個很棒的問題。問題是我顯然對人工智慧一無所知。[它將影響]任何勞動密集型的工作，並且能創造大量的休閒時間。現在，世界如何利用這些休閒時間又是另一個問題，更多的休閒時間是否...我知道很多人剛開始工作時，他們想要的是休閒時間。而我喜歡的其實是有更多問題需要解決。

But AI is profound. That’s what makes it… Makes it a genie. [The question] is what [is] going to happen? I could tell a few genie jokes about [it], but… I guess… When we probably, I don’t know what, you know, in terms of our businesses, they’ll figure things out. I mean, we’ve got smart people. It’s obviously, if it’s used in a pro-social way, it’s got terrific benefits to society.
但人工智慧是深遠的。這就是為什麼它...讓它像個精靈。[問題是]會發生什麼？我可以講幾個關於[它]的精靈笑話，但是...我想...在我們的業務中，我們可能會，我不知道，他們會想出辦法。我是說，我們有聰明人。顯然，如果它以一種親社會的方式被使用，它將為社會帶來巨大的好處。

But I don’t know how you make sure that that’s what happens any more than I know how to be sure that when you use two atomic bombs in World War II that you knew that you hadn’t created something that could destroy the world later on.
但我不知道你如何確保這會發生，就像我不知道如何在二戰中使用兩顆原子彈時，確保你沒有創造出後來可能毀滅世界的東西一樣。

GREG ABEL: Yeah, I think when we think of AI at a lot of the business units, I mean, we’re truly [in the] early [stages], trying to think how does it make us more efficient, more effective? I mean, it results in more idle time. And we’re probably not thinking of the iterative AI where we’re looking at very specific processes where our people can implement it. And either at times it displaces the labor, but then hopefully there’s other opportunities [for them] within the business.
格雷格·阿貝爾：是的，我認為當我們在各業務單元思考人工智慧時，坦白說我們還處於非常早期的階段，試圖理解它如何讓我們更高效、更有效？這可能會導致更多閒置時間的產生。我們可能還沒考慮到迭代式人工智慧的應用，也就是針對特定流程讓人們能夠實際運用它。有時候它確實會取代人力，但希望這能在企業內部為員工創造其他機會。

But I think when you think of all our businesses, I mean, we do have a heavy labor workforce [in] a lot of them, but I think at the stage we’re at as a company and maybe where [AI] is at right now, it’s really around how do we do things more effectively, more efficiently, [and] more safely, if it involves dangerous processes? So we’re [in the] early innings.
但當你審視我們所有業務時，我得說其中許多確實擁有大量勞動力。不過就公司現階段發展，以及當前人工智慧的成熟度而言，重點真的在於如何更有效、更高效地完成工作——如果涉及危險流程，還要更安全。所以我們現在還處於比賽的初局階段。

WARREN BUFFETT: John Maynard Keynes was just wonderful to read [and had an] incredible mind. But in around the time I was born, he wrote a book about what could happen. I don’t know whether it was in the next hundred years or whatever. And he predicted correctly that that output per capita would grow at this incredible rate that it has. But in terms of speculating as [to] what people would do with that, I mean, this guy was unbelievably smart, but it hasn’t developed exactly the way he predicted. He was right about what was going to go into the equation, but he didn’t have it figured out exactly what the result would be. So it is really… well, we didn’t know when we were developing the bomb that there would probably be, very soon, nine countries, three of whom we should worry about plenty, that will have what they have, but we didn’t really have any choice.
華倫·巴菲特：約翰·梅納德·凱因斯的著作讀來真是精彩絕倫，他的思想令人驚嘆。但在我出生前後那段時間，他寫了本書預測未來可能發生的事。我不確定他預測的是接下來百年還是更久之後，但他準確預言了人均產出將以這種驚人速度增長——事實也確實如此。不過談到人們會如何運用這些產出時，這位天才的預測並未完全應驗。他正確判斷了影響變數，卻沒能精準推演出最終結果。這就像...我們研發原子彈時並不知道，很快會有九個國家擁有核武，其中三個更值得我們高度戒備——但當時我們其實別無選擇。

And you could have had all kinds of papers written on [the subject] and everything else, but we were going to do it anyway. We needed to do it. And if you haven’t read it, it’s fascinating to go to Google and read the letter by Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt, written about a month before, almost exactly a month before Germany [moved] into Poland. And it laid out… well, Leo Szilard knew what was going to happen or had a good hunch of what was going to happen in terms of nuclear bomb development. And he couldn’t get through to Roosevelt.
你可以找到各種關於[這個主題]的論文和其他資料，但我們無論如何都要去做。我們必須這麼做。如果你還沒讀過，非常值得上谷歌查閱李奧·西拉德和愛因斯坦寫給羅斯福總統的信，那封信寫於德國入侵波蘭前約一個月。信中詳細闡述...好吧，李奧·西拉德當時已經預見或強烈懷疑核彈發展的走向。但他無法直接聯繫上羅斯福。

But he knew that a letter signed by Albert Einstein would [get his attention]. So it’s probably the most important letter ever written, and you can read it, which is just fascinating to me, but that started the Manhattan Project. That started it. Just everything flowed out of it.
但他知道由愛因斯坦署名的信[能引起他的注意]。這可能是史上最重要的信件，你現在還能讀到它，這讓我覺得非常奇妙，而這封信啟動了曼哈頓計劃。就是它開啟了一切。所有事情都由此衍生。

And I’ll bet anything that Roosevelt didn’t understand it, but he understood that Albert Einstein [had] sent [him] a letter, and he probably knew what he was talking about, and he better get… he better start the Manhattan Project. It is just unbelievable what happens in this world.
我敢打賭羅斯福根本看不懂內容，但他明白這是愛因斯坦[寄給他的]信，他可能知道愛因斯坦在說什麼，所以他最好...最好啟動曼哈頓計劃。這個世界上發生的事就是如此難以置信。

BECKY QUICK: Anyway, let’s move on to Becky, I guess, is next, right?
貝琪·奎克：總之，我們接著讓貝琪發問，應該是輪到她了吧？

WARREN BUFFETT: Yep. Randy Jeffs from Irvine, California.
華倫·巴菲特：好的。來自加州爾灣的蘭迪·傑夫斯。

RANDY JEFFS: The March 25, 2024, Wall Street Journal reported that the Treasury market is about sixfold larger than before the 2008-2009 crisis. Do you think that at some point in time, the world market will no longer be able to absorb all of the US debt being offered?
蘭迪·傑夫斯：2024 年 3 月 25 日的《華爾街日報》報導，國債市場規模比 2008-2009 年危機前大了約六倍。您是否認為在某個時間點，全球市場將無法再吸收美國提供的所有債務？

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, I would say the answer, of course, I don’t know, but my best speculation is that US debt will be acceptable for a very long time because there’s not much alternative. But it won’t be the quantity. The national debt was nothing to speak of for a long, long time. It won’t be the quantity. It will be whether in any way inflation would get let loose in a way that really threatened the whole world economic situation. And there really isn’t any alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency. And you get a lot of people who give you a lot of speeches on that, but that really is the answer.
華倫·巴菲特：嗯，我會說答案當然是我不知道，但我最好的推測是美國債務在很長一段時間內仍會被接受，因為沒有太多替代選擇。但問題不在於數量。長期以來，國債根本不算什麼。問題不在於數量，而在於通脹是否會以某種方式失控，真正威脅到全球經濟狀況。而且美元作為儲備貨幣確實沒有替代品。雖然有很多人對此發表了很多演講，但這確實是答案。

And Paul Volcker worried about that back in 19… before 1980, but he had threats on his life. And I happened to have a little contact with him at that time. He was an amazing, amazing fellow that, in effect, decided that he had to act, or [else] the financial system would fall apart in some way that he couldn’t predict. And he did it, and he had people threatening his life and [doing] all kinds of things, but he was the man for that crisis. But it wasn’t the quantity of US debt that was being offered that threatened the system then. It was the fact that inflation and the future value of the dollar, the “cash is trash” type thinking that… that was setting up something that could really affect the future of the world in terms of its economic system. And Paul Volcker took it on, and he was [as good as] it could be.
而保羅·沃爾克早在 19...1980 年之前就對此感到憂慮，但他當時甚至面臨生命威脅。我恰巧在那段時間與他有過一些接觸。他是一位了不起、了不起的人物，實際上他認定自己必須採取行動，否則金融體系將以某種他無法預測的方式崩潰。他確實這麼做了，儘管有人威脅他的生命、做出各種恐嚇行為，但他是應對那場危機的不二人選。當時威脅體系的並非美國債務的發行量，而是通貨膨脹與美元未來價值的問題，那種「現金如廢紙」的思維模式...這正在醞釀一場可能從根本上影響全球經濟體系未來的事件。保羅·沃爾克挺身而出，他的表現堪稱完美。

And if you haven’t read a book or two about him or the one he last wrote, you really ought to take a look at it. But it is… I don’t worry about the quantity, I worry about the fiscal deficit, but I’m not a worrier just generally. I mean, I think about it, but I don’t sit [around and] get up, work myself into a stew about it in the least. But I, but I can’t help thinking about it, and that’s… we’ve got a… we’ve got a great [deal of] attention… It’s interesting, I think [the] media enters into this and the focusing that focuses on the Fed, and they, you know, they just love it because things are always happening, and economists are always saying what’s going to happen with the Fed and everything else. But the fiscal deficit is what should be focused on. And Jay Powell is not only a great human being, but he’s, he’s a very, very wise man, but he doesn’t control fiscal policy.
如果你還沒有讀過一兩本關於他的書，或是他最後寫的那本，你真的應該看一看。但這...我不擔心數量，我擔心財政赤字，不過我通常不是個愛擔心的人。我是說，我會思考這個問題，但我不會坐著[無所事事]然後起來，把自己搞得焦慮不安。但我忍不住會去想，這...我們得到了...我們得到了大量的關注...有趣的是，我認為媒體也參與其中，把焦點放在聯準會上，他們，你知道的，他們就是喜歡這樣，因為總是有事情發生，經濟學家總是在預測聯準會和其他一切會發生什麼。但財政赤字才是應該關注的重點。而傑伊·鮑爾不僅是個了不起的人，他還非常、非常聰明，但他不掌控財政政策。

And every now and then he sends out a kind of a disguised plea [to] please pay attention to this because that’s where the trouble will be if we have it. As one of the comics used to say, there was a stand-up comic [who] used to say, “Who have I forgotten to offend after this talk?” And I always feel like that after these meetings. But we’ve got time for at least one question and maybe two. But let’s go to station seven.
而時不時地，他會發出一種偽裝的請求，[要]大家注意這個，因為如果出問題的話，麻煩就會出在這裡。就像一位喜劇演員常說的，有位單口相聲演員過去常說：「這次談話後，我還有誰忘了得罪？」而每次開完這些會議後，我總有這種感覺。但我們至少還有一個問題的時間，或許兩個。那麼，我們轉到第七站吧。

DENNIS: Hello, my name is Dennis from Gifhorn, Germany. [This is] my first time here. I’m here with my friend who would, by the way, love to invite you to dinner. You talked about the importance of heroes, and we are very happy and thankful that we have you as our hero with great values, and thank you for that. First of all, my question is, it is clear that you [have] achieved great success in life. Earlier you talked about every investment having [an] opportunity cost. From what I’ve learned in life, that does not only apply to investing your money, but also to investing your time. Every hour you spend in your office is an hour you cannot spend with your spouse or children. With the life experience you have now, if you had the possibility to start all over again, would you set your priorities any different? If yes, how and why? And what’s the best way to invite you to dinner?
丹尼斯：您好，我是來自德國吉夫霍恩的丹尼斯。[這是]我第一次參加。我與朋友一同前來，順帶一提，他非常希望能邀請您共進晚餐。您談到了英雄的重要性，我們非常高興且感激能擁有您這樣一位價值觀崇高的英雄，為此感謝您。首先，我的問題是，您顯然在人生中取得了巨大成功。早先您提到每項投資都有[其]機會成本。根據我的生活經驗，這不僅適用於金錢投資，也適用於時間投資。您在辦公室度過的每一小時，都是無法與配偶或孩子共度的時光。以您現在的人生閱歷，如果有機會重來一次，您會設定不同的優先順序嗎？如果是，會如何調整及原因？還有，邀請您共進晚餐的最佳方式是什麼？

(Laughter)  （笑聲）

WARREN BUFFETT: That definitely won’t be one of my priorities if I figure out how to do that. But don’t take it personally, because you can figure [it] out [in] the maximum longer period I’ve got.
華倫·巴菲特：那絕對不會是我優先考慮的事，如果我能想出辦法赴約的話。但請別往心裡去，因為你可以從我剩餘的最長壽命中推算出答案。

I don’t think… I mean, I can figure out all kinds of things that should have been done differently, but so what, you know? I mean, I’m not perfect. I don’t believe in [a] lot of self-criticism or being unrealistic about either what you are or what you’ve accomplished or what you’d like to do. You do the… you know, you do a lot of things, and who knows whether somewhat different trade-offs… You know, you just can’t… you can’t… You don’t know what the paths would have led.
我不認為...我是說，我能想出各種本該做得不同的事情，但那又如何呢？我的意思是，我並不完美。我不相信過多的自我批評，也不認同對自己現狀、成就或目標抱持不切實際的態度。你做了...你知道的，你做了很多事，誰知道稍微不同的取捨會...你懂的，你就是無法...無法...你永遠不會知道其他選擇會導向何方。

I feel… I don’t think there’s any… any room in beating up [on] yourself over what’s happened in the past. It’s happened, and you get to live the rest of [your] life, and you don’t know how long it’s going to be. And you keep trying to do the things that are important to you. If I was a doctor or if I was [in] all kinds of different professions, I might do different things, but I really enjoy managing money for people who trust me. I don’t have any reason to do it for financial reasons. I’m not running a hedge fund or getting an override [or] anything, but I just like the feeling of being trusted. Charlie felt the same way. You know, that’s a good way to feel in life, and it continues to be a good feeling.
我覺得...我不認為有任何必要對過去發生的事苛責自己。事情已經發生，而你得以繼續過接下來的人生，且不知道這段人生還有多長。你要持續嘗試去做對你重要的事。如果我是醫生或從事其他各種職業，我可能會做不同的事，但我真的很享受為信任我的人管理資金。我這麼做並非出於財務考量——我不是在經營避險基金或抽取佣金什麼的，我只是喜歡被信任的感覺。查理也這麼覺得。你知道嗎，這是人生中一種美好的感受，而且這種美好感受會持續下去。

So I’m not really looking to change much. And, you know, if I’m very lucky, I get to play it off for six or seven years, and it could end tomorrow. But that’s… That’s true of everybody. Although the equation isn’t exactly the same. But I don’t believe in beating yourself up over anything you’ve done in the past. And I don’t believe in… well, I believe in trying to find what you’re good at, what you enjoy. And then I think the one thing that you can aspire to be, because this can be done by anybody and it’s amazing… [it] doesn’t have anything to do with money… but you can be kind. You can be kind if you’re… And then the world’s better off. I’m not sure that the world will be better off if I’m richer, but there’s no question that… I mean, you know, kind people… and in the end, aspire to be more… Or I’m sure many of you are [kind] yourself, but just aspire to be more.
所以我其實沒打算改變太多。而且，你知道，如果我很幸運的話，我還能再玩個六、七年，也可能明天就結束了。但這...這對每個人都一樣。雖然情況不盡相同。但我不相信要為過去所做的任何事苛責自己。我也不相信...嗯，我相信要試著找到你擅長且喜歡的事。然後我認為有一件事是你可以追求的，因為這是任何人都能做到的，而且很了不起...這與金錢無關...但你可以善良。你可以善良，如果你是...這樣世界會更好。我不確定如果我更富有世界會不會更好，但毫無疑問...我是說，你知道，善良的人...最終，追求更...或者我相信你們很多人本身就很善良，但還是要追求更善良。

So… And I guess we can take one more question from Becky, and then we’ll wind up.
那麼...我想我們可以再回答貝琪的一個問題，然後就結束了。

BECKY QUICK: This question comes from Devon Spurgeon. On March 4th, Charlie’s will was filed with the County of Los Angeles. The first codicil contained an unusual provision. It reads, “Averaged out, my long life has been a favored one, made better by duty, imposed by family tradition, requiring righteousness and service. Therefore, I follow an old practice that I wish was more common. Now, inserting an ethical bequest that gives priority not to property, but to [the] transmission of duty.” If you were to make an ethical bequest to Berkshire shareholders, what duties would you impose and why?
貝琪·奎克：這個問題來自德文·斯珀吉恩。3 月 4 日，查理（芒格）的遺囑在洛杉磯縣提交。第一份遺囑附錄中包含了一項不尋常的條款，內容如下：「總體而言，我漫長的一生是幸運的，因家庭傳統所賦予的責任而變得更好，這些責任要求正直與服務。因此，我遵循一種希望更為普遍的古老做法。現在，我插入一項道德遺贈，優先考慮的不是財產，而是（責任的）傳承。」如果你要向波克夏股東做出一項道德遺贈，你會賦予他們什麼責任？為什麼？

WARREN BUFFETT: I’d probably say, “Read Charlie.” I mean, he’s expressed it well, and I would… Well, I would say that if they’re not financially well-off, if you’re being kind, you’re doing something that most of the rich people don’t do, even when they give away money. But that’s on the question of whether you’re rich or poor. And I would say, if you’re lucky in life, make sure a bunch of other people are lucky, too.
華倫·巴菲特：我可能會說，「去讀查理（的書）吧。」我的意思是，他已經表達得很好了，而我會...嗯，我會說，如果他們經濟狀況不佳，如果你正在行善，你正在做大多數有錢人不會做的事，即使他們捐錢的時候也是如此。但這取決於你是富有還是貧窮的問題。我會說，如果你在生活中很幸運，確保也讓其他人同樣幸運。

Okay. Just in case… You know what my advice to myself would be [and] has been during this period. So we only got 33 questions, or whatever it is. But thank you very, very much for coming, and I not only hope that you come next year, but I hope I come next year.
好的。以防萬一...你知道在這段時間裡我給自己的建議是什麼（而且）一直是這樣。所以我們只收到了 33 個問題，或者不管多少。但非常、非常感謝你們的到來，我不僅希望你們明年再來，還希望我自己明年也能來。