原文信息：

• 标题：1964 Annual Letter to Partners
• 作者：Warren Buffett
• 发表时间：1965-01-18
• 链接：Buffett Partnership Letters 1957-1970
• 中文翻译参考：RanRan
• 整理：孙萧萧

BUFFETT PARTNERSHIP, LTD.

810 KIEWIT PLAZA

OMAHA 31, NEBRASKA

January 18, 1965

Although we had an overall gain of $4,846,312.37 in 1964, it was not one of our better years as judged by our fundamental yardstick, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (hereinafter called the "Dow"). The overall result for BPL was plus 27.8% compared to an overall plus 18.7% for the Dow. The overall result for limited partners was plus 22.3%. Both the advantage of 9.1 percentage points on a partnership basis and 3.6 points by the limited partners were the poorest since 1959, which was a year of roughly comparable gains for the Dow.

1964 年，我们的整体收益是 4,846,312.37 美元，然而按照我们的衡量基准道指来看，和往年相比，我们这一年的业绩一般。道指的整体收益率是 18.7％，巴菲特合伙基金的整体收益率是 27.8％，有限合伙人的整体收益率是 22.3％。去年，合伙基金领先道指 9.1 个百分点，有限合伙人领先道指 3.6 个百分点。这是 1959 年以来，我们相对道指的领先优势最微弱的一年。（1959 年的业绩和道指差不多。）

Nevertheless, I am not depressed. It was a strong year for the general market, and it is always tougher for us to outshine the Dow in such a year. We are certain to have years when the Dow gives us a drubbing and, in some respects, I feel rather fortunate that 1964 wasn't the year. Because of the problems that galloping markets pose for us, a Dow repeat in 1965 of 1964 results would make it most difficult for us to match its performance, let alone surpass it by a decent margin.

不过，我并不因此而沮丧。去年，市场很强劲。在市场走强的年份，我们总是很难胜过道指。早晚会有道指把我们远远甩在后面的时候。1964 年，我们没被道指彻底打败，我还有些庆幸。急剧上涨的市场给我们带来重重困难，1965 年，如果道指继续去年的行情，我们一定很难跟上，更别说取得一定的领先了。

To bring the record up to date, the following summarizes the year-by-year performance of the Dow, the performance of the Partnership before allocation to the general partner, and the limited partner's results:

下面是道指收益率、普通合伙人分成前合伙基金收益率以及有限合伙人收益率的最新逐年对比情况。

(1) Based on yearly changes in the value of the Dow plus dividends that would have been received through ownership of the Dow during that year. The table includes all complete years of partnership activity.

(1) 根据道指年度涨跌计算，其中包含股息。表格中为合伙基金整年运作的年份。

(2) For 1957-61 consists of combined results of all predecessor limited partnerships operating throughout the entire year after all expenses, but before distributions to partners or allocations to the general partner.

(2)1957-61年的数据是之前全年管理的所有有限合伙人账户的综合业绩，其中扣除了经营费用，未计算有限合伙人利息和普通合伙人分成。

(3) For 1957-61 computed on the basis of the preceding column of partnership results allowing for allocation to the general partner based upon the present partnership agreement, but before monthly withdrawals by limited partners.

(3) 1957-61年的数据按前一列合伙基金收益率计算得出，按照当前合伙协议，扣除了普通合伙人分成。

On a cumulative or compounded basis, the results are:

下表是累计收益率或复合收益率：

We regularly compare our results with the two largest open-end investment companies (mutual funds) that follow a policy of being typically 95-100% invested in common stock, and the two largest diversified closed- end investment companies. These four companies, Massachusetts Investors Trust, Investors Stock Fund, Tri- Continental Corporation, and Lehman Corporation, manage about $4.5 billion, are owned by about 550,000 shareholders, and are probably typical of most of the $30 billion investment company industry. My opinion is that their results roughly parallel those of the overwhelming majority of other investment advisory organizations which handle, in aggregate, vastly greater sums.

我们一直拿最大的两只开放式股票型基金（股票占 95-100％）和最大的两只分散投资的封闭式股票型基金的业绩，与合伙基金的收益率做对比。Massachusetts Investors Trust、 Investors Stock Fund，Tri-Continental Corp. 这四家公司管理着约45亿美元的资金，基金行业管理的总资产是300亿美元，它们应该能代表大多数的基金公司。有些投资顾问机构管理的资产规模更大，它们绝大多数的业绩应该和这四家基金公司不相上下。

The purpose of this tabulation, which is shown below, is to illustrate that the Dow is no pushover as an index of investment achievement. The advisory talent managing just the four companies shown commands annual fees of over $8 million and this represents a very small fraction of the professional investment management industry. The public batting average of this highly-paid and widely respected talent indicates performance a shade below that of the Dow, an unmanaged index.

我想用下面的表格说明，作为衡量投资业绩的指数，道指不是那么容易战胜的。上述四家基金由能力出众的经理人管理，它们每年收取的管理费是800多万美元，整个基金行业收取的管理费数额就更庞大了。从这些高薪经理人的打击率（batting average）来看，他们的业绩和道指相比稍逊一筹。

YEARLY RESULTS

年度业绩

COMPOUNDED

复合收益率

The repetition of these tables has caused partners to ask: "Why in the world does this happen to very intelligent managements working with (1) bright, energetic staff people, (2) virtually unlimited resources, (3) the most extensive business contacts, and (4) literally centuries of aggregate investment experience?" (The latter qualification brings to mind the fellow who applied for a job and stated he had twenty years of experience - which was corrected by the former employer to read “one year's experience -twenty times.”)

合伙人在每年的信中都会看到上述表格，他们问我：“大型基金的经理人才智超群，他们有聪明勤奋的下属、用之不竭的资源、深厚广博的人脉，他们的投资经验加到一起都有几百年了，最后业绩怎么能做成这样？（说到“投资经验加到一起都有几百年了”，我想起了一个段子。有个人去面试，他说自己有20年的从业经验，他之前的老板说，不是“20年的从业经验”，应该是“一年的经验，重复了20年”。）

This question is of enormous importance, and you would expect it to be the subject of considerable study by investment managers and substantial investors. After all, each percentage point on $30 billion is $300 million per year. Curiously enough, there is practically nothing in the literature of Wall Street attracting this problem, and discussion of it is virtually absent at security analyst society meetings, conventions, seminars, etc. My opinion is that the first job of any investment management organization is to analyze its own techniques and results before pronouncing judgment on the managerial abilities and performance of the major corporate entities of the United States.

这个问题很有意义，按理说，基金经理和广大投资人都应该深入研究一下。300亿美元的1％可就是3亿美元。令人匪夷所思的是，在华尔街连篇累牍的长篇大论中，关于这个问题的研究几乎没有；在分析师团体行行色色的会议上，关于这个问题的探讨寥寥无几。在我看来，无论哪家投资管理机构，在对美国各大公司的管理能力和经营业绩品头论足之前，都应该好好分析一下自己的方法和业绩。

In the great majority of cases the lack of performance exceeding or even matching an unmanaged index in no way reflects lack of either intellectual capacity or integrity. I think it is much more the product of: (1) group decisions - my perhaps jaundiced view is that it is close to impossible for outstanding investment management to come from a group of any size with all parties really participating in decisions; (2) a desire to conform to the policies and (to an extent) the portfolios of other large well-regarded organizations; (3) an institutional framework whereby average is "safe" and the personal rewards for independent action are in no way commensurate with the general risk attached to such action; (4) an adherence to certain diversification practices which are irrational; and finally and importantly, (5) inertia.

大基金的业绩超不过甚至跟不上无人管理的指数，在大多数情况下，绝对不是因为基金经理能力或品行的问题。我把这个现象的主要原因归结为如下几点：（1）群体决策——这或许是我的偏见：我认为，只要是一个群体，所有成员共同参与决策，投资管理工作就几乎不可能达到一流水平；（2）与其他声誉卓著的大型机构保持一致的倾向，无论是策略，还是部分投资组合；（3）机构框架的束缚——平均水平很“安全”，对于个人而言，特立独行的回报与风险毫不相称；（4）僵化固守某些不理智的分散投资策略；最后一点，也是最重要的一点：（5）惯性。

Perhaps the above comments are unjust. Perhaps even our statistical comparisons are unjust. Both our portfolio and method of operation differ substantially from the investment companies in the table. However, I believe both our partners and their stockholders feel their managements are seeking the same goal - the maximum long- term average return on capital obtainable with the minimum risk of permanent loss consistent with a program of continuous investment in equities. Since we should have common goals, and most partners, as an alternative to their interest in BPL, would probably have their funds invested in media producing results comparable with these investment companies, I feel their performance record is meaningful in judging our own results.

也许我对基金经理的这些评论不公平。也许就连上面的统计数据对比都不公平。我们的投资组合和公募基金迥然不同，我们的投资方法也和它们迥然不同。但是，我相信无论是我们的合伙人，还是大基金的投资者，他们有一点是相同的，他们都认为自己的资产管理人追求同一个目标：通过持续投资股票，在将资金永久损失的风险控制在最低限度的同时，实现长期资本回报率的最大化。对于我们的大多数合伙人来说，如果不把资金投到巴菲特合伙基金中，其他的选择可能就是基金等投资公司，获得与基金类似的收益率，因此，我认为与基金对比来检验我们的业绩很有意义。

There is no question that an important service is provided to investors by investment companies, investment advisors, trust departments, etc. This service revolves around the attainment of adequate diversification, the preservation of a long-term outlook, the ease of handling investment decisions and mechanics, and most importantly, the avoidance of the patently inferior investment techniques which seem to entice some individuals. All but a few of the organizations do not specifically promise to deliver superior investment performance although it is perhaps not unreasonable for the public to draw such an inference from their advertised emphasis on professional management.

毫无疑问，基金公司、投资顾问、信托部门等为投资者提供了不可或缺的服务，其中包括实现足够的分散、坚持长期投资、简化投资决策和方法、最重要的是，它们可以帮助投资者避免散户常犯的低级错误。在机构的宣传资料中，它们着力凸显专业管理人士，公众自然会以为他们有能力取得高收益，但绝大多数机构并未对实现超额收益做出具体承诺。

One thing I pledge to you as partners - just as I consider the previously stated performance comparison to be meaningful now, so will I in future years, no, matter what tale unfolds. Correspondingly, I ask that you, if you do not feel such a standard to be relevant, register such disagreement now and suggest other standards which can be applied prospectively rather than retrospectively.

各位合伙人，我在这里向大家保证，我现在说上述业绩对比有意义，将来也会如此，无论将来如何。同时，我向各位合伙人提议，如果你认为这个标准不合适，请现在就告诉我，并提出其他标准。标准要定在前面，不能事后再说。

One additional thought - I have not included a column in my table for the most widely-used investment advisor in the world - Bell management. People who watch their weight, golf scores, and fuel bills seem to shun quantitative evaluation of their investment management skills although it involves the most important client in the world - themselves. While it may be of academic interest to evaluate the management accomplishments of Massachusetts Investors Trust or Lehman Corporation, it is of enormous dollars-and-cents importance to evaluate objectively the accomplishments of the fellow who is actually handling your money - even if it’s you.

我还有个想法。很多人自己管理资产，他们是自己的投资顾问。上面的表格里没有“自我管理”一列。人们很关心自己的体重、高尔夫球分数、油费，但是对自己的投资管理水平却刻意回避，不进行量化评估。他们管理的可是自己的钱，客户是全世界最重要的人，是他们自己。研究 Massachusetts Investors Trust 或 Lehman Corporation 等基金的业绩，这种评估的意义是理论上的。客观研究你的资金管理人的表现，即使这个管理人是你自己，这种评估的意义是真金白银的。

In looking at the table of investment company performance, the question might be asked: “Yes, but aren't those companies run more conservatively than the Partnership?" If you asked that question of the investment company managements, they, in absolute honesty, would say they were more conservative. If you asked the first hundred security analysts you met, I am sure that a very large majority of them also would answer for the investment companies. I would disagree. I have over 90% of my net worth in BPL, and most of my family have percentages in that area, but of course, that only demonstrates the sincerity of my view - not the validity of it.

看到上述大基金的业绩，有人可能会问：“这些大基金的业绩是差一些，但是它们的投资是不是比我们更保守？”要是你这么问基金经理，他们会绝对坦诚地告诉你，他们更保守。要是你这么问100位分析师，我相信他们大部分人也会说基金公司更保守。我不同意。我90％的净资产都在巴菲特合伙基金里，我的很多亲戚都在合伙基金里有投资，当然了，这只能说明我的诚意，证明不了我的投资更保守。

It is unquestionably true that the investment companies have their money more conventionally invested than we do. To many people conventionality is indistinguishable from conservatism. In my view, this represents erroneous thinking. Neither a conventional nor an unconventional approach, per se, is conservative.

没错，与我们相比，大基金的投资方式更符合常规。很多人以为符合常规就是保守。我觉得这种想法错了。一种投资方法是否保守，不在于是否符合常规。

Truly conservative actions arise from intelligent hypotheses, correct facts and sound reasoning. These qualities may lead to conventional acts, but there have been many times when they have led to unorthodoxy. In some corner of the world they are probably still holding regular meetings of the Flat Earth Society.

真正的保守投资源于正确的前提、正确的事实、正确的逻辑。按照这三点做出的投资，有与常规相符的时候，但更多时候是与常规背道而驰。在世界的某个角落，平坦地球协会（Flat Earth Society）或许还在定期开会呢。

We derive no comfort because important people, vocal people, or great numbers of people agree with us. Nor do we derive comfort if they don't. A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought. When we really sit back with a smile on our face is when we run into a situation we can understand, where the facts are ascertainable and clear, and the course of action obvious. In that case - whether other conventional or unconventional - whether others agree or disagree - we feel - we are progressing in a conservative manner.

我们不因为重要的人、善辩的人或大多数人赞同我们，而感到踏实。我们也不因为他们不赞同我们，而感到踏实。民意调查替代不了独立思考。有时候我们会释然一笑，这是因为我们找到了一个投资机会，我们能看懂、事实清楚明了、一眼就能看出来该怎么做。遇到这种情况，不管是常规，还是非常规，不管其他人同意，还是不同意，我们都觉得自己是在保守地投资。

The above may seem highly subjective. It is. You should prefer an objective approach to the question. I do. My suggestion as to one rational way to evaluate the conservativeness of past policies is to study performance in declining markets. We have only three years of declining markets in our table and unfortunately (for purposes of this test only) they were all moderate declines. In all three of these years we achieved appreciably better investment results than any of the more conventional portfolios.

上面的论述有很强的主观色彩。没错。大家应该要求我进行客观分析。我也愿意进行客观分析。如何合理地评估既往投资策略是否保守？我的建议是研究市场下跌时的业绩表现。表格中市场下跌的年份只有三年，而且都是温和下跌，不足以用于此项检验。在这三年里，我们的投资业绩都明显优于更常规的投资组合。

Specifically, if those three years had occurred in sequence, the cumulative results would have been:

如果我们把这三年连在一起，则累计业绩如下所示：

We don’t think this comparison is all important, but we do think it has some relevance. We certainly think it makes more sense than saying “We own (regardless of price) A.T. &T., General Electric, IBM and General Motors and are therefore conservative.” In any event, evaluation of the conservatism of any investment program or management (including self-management) should be based upon rational objective standards, and I suggest performance in declining markets to be at least one meaningful test.

这个比较算不上多重要，但是可以说明一些问题。不谈价格，只说“我们拥有美国电话电报公司（AT＆T）、通用电气（General Electric）、IBM和通用汽车（General Motors），所以很保守”，这样的观点，我们不敢苟同。总之，评估投资方式或资产管理人（包括自己管理）是否保守，要以合理的客观标准为依据，衡量下跌行情中的业绩表现是一种行之有效的检验方法。

Readers of our early annual letters registered discontent at a mere recital of contemporary investment experience, but instead hungered for the intellectual stimulation that only could be provided by a depth study of investment strategy spanning the centuries. Hence, this section.

有的合伙人读了前几年的信，反馈说怎么讲的都是现当代的投资案例，能不能提高点难度，深入讲讲跨越几个世纪的投资策略。于是，我就写了这部分。

Our last two excursions into the mythology of financial expertise have revealed that purportedly shrewd investments by Isabella (backing the voyage of Columbus) and Francis I (original purchase of Mona Lisa) bordered on fiscal lunacy. Apologists for these parties have presented an array of sentimental trivia. Through it all, our compounding tables have not been dented by attack.

在之前的两则投资错误剖析中，我们讲了伊莎贝拉女王（赞助哥伦布远洋航行）和弗朗西斯一世（购买名画《蒙娜丽莎》）所谓精明的投资，实际上是蠢到家了。有些人为这两位的错误辩解，说来说去都是感情用事。在我们的复利表面前，一切辩解都苍白无力。

Nevertheless, one criticism has stung a bit. The charge has been made that this column has acquired a negative tone with only the financial incompetents of history receiving comment. We have been challenged to record on these pages a story of financial perspicacity which will be a bench mark of brilliance down through the ages.

有一个质疑还有些合理。有人说，在我写的这部分内容里，用的案例都是负面的，只是在批评历史上投资能力低下的人。有没有投资能力高超的案例，有没有人的光辉业绩世代流传，值得后来者学习？

One story stands out. This, of course, is the saga of trading acumen etched into history by the Manhattan Indians when they unloaded their island to that notorious spendthrift, Peter Minuit in 1626. My understanding is that they received $24 net. For this, Minuit received 22.3 square miles which works out to about 621,688,320 square feet. While on the basis of comparable sales, it is difficult to arrive at a precise appraisal, a $20 per square foot estimate seems reasonable giving a current land value for the island of $12,433,766,400 ($12 1/2 billion). To the novice, perhaps this sounds like a decent deal. However, the Indians have only had to achieve a 6 1/2% return (The tribal mutual fund representative would have promised them this.) to obtain the last laugh on Minuit. At 6 1/2%, $24 becomes $42,105,772,800 ($42 billion) in 338 years, and if they just managed to squeeze out an extra half point to get to 7%, the present value becomes $205 billion.

当然有。传说中的曼哈顿印第安人就因为他们精明的商业头脑而名垂青史。1626年，他们把曼哈顿岛卖给了有名的败家子彼得·米努伊特（Peter Minuit）。据我所知，印第安人最后拿到手是24美元。米努伊特获得了57.8平方公里的土地，相当于57,756,735平方米。目前，曼哈顿岛的价值是12,433,766,400美元（124亿），约合每平米215美元。外行乍一看，觉得米努伊特赚了。其实，印第安人只要实现每年6.5％的收益率（部落基金的销售代表应该敢承诺这个收益率），他们就能笑到最后。按照每年6.5％的收益率，经过338年，24美元会变成42,105,772,800美元（420亿）。如果他们的收益率能再高0.5个百分点，达到7％，他们的钱现在就是2050亿美元。

So much for that.

讲完了。

Some of you may view your investment policies on a shorter term basis. For your convenience, we include our usual table indicating the gains from compounding $100,000 at various rates:

有的合伙人考虑投资策略时可能不会想这么长远。还是像往常一样，下面是100,000美元按照不同收益率复利累积的结果，方便各位参考。

以下数据不包含10万本金：

This table indicates the financial advantages of:

从这个表格中可以看出，下列三个因素对资金增长有好处：

To be observed are the enormous benefits produced by relatively small gains in the annual earnings rate. This explains our attitude which while hopeful of achieving a striking margin of superiority over average investment results, nevertheless, regards every percentage point of investment return above average as having real meaning.

如上表所示，复合增长率稍微高一点，最后的收益就会高很多。正因为如此，尽管我们希望自己的业绩能远远高于平均水平，但是对我们来说，高于平均水平的每一个百分点都有实际意义。

You will note that there are no columns in the preceding table for the 27.7% average of the Partnership during its eight-year lifespan or the 22.3% average of the limited partners. Such figures are nonsensical for the long term for several reasons: (Don't worry about me "holding back" to substantiate this prophecy.)

上面的表格中没有过去八年里合伙基金平均27.7％的收益率，也没有有限合伙人平均22.3％的收益率。这么高的收益率根本不适用于较长时期，原因是：（别担心，我不会为了证实这个预言，而在投资中“裹足不前”。）

(1) Any significant sums compounded at such rates take on national debt proportions at alarming speed.

(1) 按照这么高的收益率复合增长，较大的资金会以惊人的速度增加，规模很快就会超过国债。

(2) During our eight-year history a general revaluation of securities has produced average annual rates of overall gain from the whole common stock field which I believe unattainable in future decades. Over a span of 20 or 30 years, I would expect something more like 6% - 7% overall annual gain from the Dow instead of the 11.1% during our brief history. This factor alone would tend to knock 4 points or so off of our annual compounding rate. It would only take a minus 20.5% year in 1965 for the Dow to bring it down to a 7% average figure for the nine years. Such years (or worse) should definitely be expected from time to time by those holding equity investments. If a 20% or 30% drop in the market value of your equity holdings (such as BPL) is going to produce emotional or financial distress, you should simply avoid common stock type investments. In the words of the poet - Harry Truman – “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It is preferable, of course, to consider the problem before you enter the “kitchen.”

(2) 合伙基金成立这八年以来，由于股票价值的整体重估，股票投资实现了很高的整体收益率，这个收益率在今后十年不可持续。在我们的基金成立以来的这短短几年里，道指的收益率是11.1％。我认为，把时间拉长到二三十年，道指比较合理的整体收益率应该在6％-7％之间。这一个因素就会把我们的年化复合收益率拉低4个百分点左右。只要1965年道指下跌20.5％，它这九年的平均收益率就会降到7％。对于这样的下跌幅度，甚至更大幅度的下跌，长期投资股票的人应该早就做好心理准备。要是你持有的股票（例如，你投资的巴菲特合伙基金）市值下跌20％或30％，你就会遭受心理创伤或陷入财务困境，你就不适合投资股票。借用诗人哈里·杜鲁门（Harry Truman）的话说：“吃得咸鱼抵得渴。”（If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.）你最好还是先考虑一下，要不要吃“咸鱼”。

(3) We do not consider it possible on an extended basis to maintain the 16.6 percentage point advantage over the Dow of the Partnership or the 11.2 percentage point edge enjoyed by the limited partners. We have had eight consecutive years in which our pool of money has out-performed the Dow, although the profit allocation arrangement left the limited partners short of Dow results in one of those years. We are certain to have years (note the plural) when the Partnership results fall short of the Dow despite considerable gnashing of teeth by the general partner (I hope not too much by the limited partners). When that happens our average margin of superiority will drop sharply. I might say that I also think we will continue to have some years of very decent margins in our favor. However, to date we have benefited by the fact that we have not had a really mediocre (or worse) year included in our average, and this obviously cannot be expected to be a permanent experience

(3) 我们认为，从长期来看，不可能始终保持合伙基金领先道指16.6个百分点的优势或有限合伙人领先道指11.2个百分点的优势。从我们一道投资以来，我们已经连续八年跑赢道指，其中有一年，扣除利润提成后，有限合伙人没有跑赢。我们的合伙基金肯定有落后道指的时候，而且落后的年份肯定不只是一两年。我们跑输了，我作为普通合伙人一定会气得咬牙切齿（希望各位有限合伙人不要太懊恼）。出现这样的情况时，我们的平均相对优势就会显著下降。我也相信，有的年份，我们仍然会取得明显的领先优势。到目前为止，我们没有一年的业绩是平庸或糟糕的，所以我们的平均收益率较高，显然，期望永远如此是不现实的。

So what can we expect to achieve? Of course, anything I might say is largely guesswork, and my own investment philosophy has developed around the theory that prophecy reveals far more of the frailties of the prophet than it reveals of the future.

那么我们预期的目标是什么呢？我下面说的基本都是猜测。在我的投资理念里有一个核心理论：预测常常无法准确判断未来，倒是经常暴露预测者的过错。

Nevertheless, you, as partners, are entitled to know my expectations, tenuous as they may be. I am hopeful that our longer term experience will unfold along the following basis:

各位是我的合伙人，哪怕我的预期未必可靠，我也有义务如实相告。以下是我对长期前景的预期：

(1) An overall gain from the Dow (including dividends, of course) averaging in the area of 7% per annum, exhibiting customarily wide amplitudes in achieving this average -- say, on the order or minus 40% to plus 50% at the extremes with the majority of years in the minus 10% to plus 20% range;

(1) 道指整体收益率为平均每年7％左右（包括股息），整体而言，各年波动剧烈，极端时能跌40％，也能涨50％，大多数年份在下跌10％到上涨20％之间。

(2) An average advantage of ten percentage points per annum for BPL before allocation to the general partner - again with large amplitudes in the margin from perhaps 10 percentage points worse than the Dow in a bad year to 25 percentage points better when everything clicks; and

(2) 扣除普通合伙人分成之前，巴菲特合伙基金平均每年领先指数10个百分点。合伙基金的领先优势同样存在剧烈波动：在逆境中可能落后10个百分点；在顺风顺水时，可能领先25个百分点。

(3) The product of these two assumptions gives an average of 17% to BPL or about 14% to limited partners. This figure would vary enormously from year to year; the final amplitudes, of course, depending, on the interplay of the extremes hypothesized in (1) and (2).

(3) 综合以上两点，巴菲特合伙基金的长期平均收益率是17％，有限合伙人的长期平均收益率是14％。各年的收益率会相差悬殊，具体波动是多少取决于（1）和（2）两个变量的相互作用。

I would like to emphasize that the above is conjecture, perhaps heavily influenced by self-interest, ego, etc. Anyone with a sense of financial history knows this sort of guesswork is subject to enormous error. It might better be left out of this letter, but it is a question frequently and legitimately asked by partners. Long-range expectable return is the primary consideration of all of us belonging to BPL, and it is reasonable that I should be put on record, foolish as that may later make me appear. My rather puritanical view is that any investment manager, whether operating as broker, investment counselor, trust department, Investment Company, etc., should be willing to state unequivocally what he is going to attempt to accomplish and how he proposes to measure the extent to which he gets the job done.

我再重申一遍，上面的预期只是猜测，其中个人得失或自我等因素有很大影响。熟悉金融历史的人都知道，这种预测经常大错特错。我还不如不写这些，但是这是合伙人很关心的一个问题。我们巴菲特合伙基金的各位合伙人都很关心我们能取得的长期收益率，我应该把我们的目标在白纸黑字上写下来，哪怕有一天这会证明我愚不可及。我的要求是很严格的，我看所有投资管理人，无论是券商、投资顾问，还是信托部门、基金公司，都应该开诚布公，坦诚地说明自己定的目标是什么、衡量标准又是什么。

In past annual letters I have always utilized three categories to describe investment operations we conduct. I now feel that a four-category division is more appropriate. Partially, the addition of a new section - "Generals Relatively Undervalued" - reflects my further consideration of essential differences that have always existed to a small extent with our "Generals" group. Partially, it reflects the growing importance of what once was a very small sub-category but is now a much more significant part of our total portfolio. This increasing importance has been accompanied by excellent results to date justifying significant time and effort devoted to finding additional opportunities in this area. Finally, it partially reflects the development and implementation of a new and somewhat unique investment technique designed to improve the expectancy and consistency of operations in this category. Therefore, our four present categories are:

在以前的信中，我一直把我们的投资分为三类，现在我觉得分成四类更合适。新增加的类别是“低估类（相对低估）”（Generals Relatively Undervalued）。我们的“低估类” 投资中一直存在这个细微差别，现在我觉得有必要把这个差别体现出来。此类投资以前只是“低估类”中的一个小类，现在已经发展到在我们的整体投资组合中占据更加重要的地位，因此有必要单独划为一类。这类投资的重要性与日俱增，迄今为止的收益率也非常出色，值得投入大量时间和精力在其中寻找更多投资机会。这个新类别反映了我们已经形成一种独具特色的全新投资方法并将其付诸实践，这个新方法的应用有助于我们改善此类投资的预期收益和稳定性。目前，我们的四类投资如下：

1. “Generals -Private Owner Basis” - a category of generally undervalued stocks, determined by quantitative standards, but with considerable attention also paid to the qualitative factor. There is often little or nothing to indicate immediate market improvement. The issues lack glamour or market sponsorship. Their main qualification is a bargain price; that is, an overall valuation of the enterprise substantially below what careful analysis indicates its value to a private owner to be. Again, let me emphasize that while the quantitative comes first and is essential, the qualitative is important. We like good management - we like a decent industry - we like a certain amount of “ferment” in a previously dormant management or stockholder group. But, we demand value.

1. “低估类（基于产业资本视角）”（Generals-Private Owner Basis）——这类投资包含整体低估的股票，我们主要通过定量分析判断是否低估，但是也特别重视定性分析。一般来说，低估类的投资，几乎看不出来或根本不知道短期内怎么能上涨。低估的股票不光鲜，市场不喜欢。它们唯一的好处就是价格低廉，经过审慎分析可以看出，公司的市值远远低于产业资本所能给予的估值。我重申一下，虽说定量是第一位的，是根本，定性也很重要。我们喜欢优秀的管理层，我们喜欢好行业，我们希望有一定的“催化剂”刺激不作为的管理层或股东，但是我们要买得值。

Many times in this category we have the desirable "two strings to our bow" situation where we should either achieve appreciation of market prices from external factors or from the acquisition of a controlling position in a business at a bargain price. While the former happens in the overwhelming majority of cases, the latter represents an insurance policy most investment operations don't have. We have continued to enlarge the positions in the three companies described in our 1964 midyear report where we are the largest stockholder. All three companies are increasing their fundamental value at a very satisfactory rate, and we are completely passive in two situations and active only on a very minor scale in the third. It is unlikely that we will ever take a really active part in policy-making in any of these three companies, but we stand ready if needed.

在此类投资中，我们很多时候都可以做到“进退有余”，最后要么外部因素刺激股价上涨，要么我们以低廉的价格获得一家公司的控股权。虽说外部因素刺激股价上涨属于绝大多数情况，但廉价取得控股权相当于一个保单，这是其他类型的投资中所没有的。在1964年的中期报告中，我们提到了我们是三家公司的最大股东，我们一直在加大这三家公司的仓位。我对这三家公司创造基本面价值的速度都非常满意。对于其中两家公司，我们完全是被动投资者。在第三家公司中，我们只是略微采取了一些主动措施。对于这三家公司，我们对任何一家可能都不会采取完全主动的策略，但是如果有必要，我们肯定会出手。

2. "Generals -Relatively Undervalued" - this category consists of securities selling at prices relatively cheap compared to securities of the same general quality. We demand substantial discrepancies from current valuation standards, but (usually because of large size) do not feel value to a private owner to be a meaningful concept. It is important in this category, of course, that apples be compared to apples - and not to oranges, and we work hard at achieving that end. In the great majority of cases we simply do not know enough about the industry or company to come to sensible judgments -in that situation we pass.

2. “低估类（相对低估）”（Generals-Relatively Undervalued）——此类投资中的股票是价格相对便宜的，参照对象是质地相差无几的其他股票。我们对此类股票的要求是按照当前市场估值标准严重低估，但是此类股票一般是大盘股，参照产业资本给予的估值没意义。在这类股票的投资中，一定要进行同类比较，否则就牛头不对马嘴了，这一点我们非常注意。在绝大多数情况中，我们对行业和公司不够了解，无法做出合理的判断，会直接跳过。

As mentioned earlier, this new category has been growing and has produced very satisfactory results. We have recently begun to implement a technique, which gives promise of very substantially reducing the risk from an overall change in valuation standards; e.g. I we buy something at 12 times earnings when comparable or poorer quality companies sell at 20 times earnings, but then a major revaluation takes place so the latter only sell at 10 times.

我刚才说了，这个新类别的投资比重在增加，收益率也非常令人满意。股市整体估值标准的变化会给我们带来风险。例如，在我们以12倍市盈率买入一只股票时，同等质地或较差质地的股票市盈率是20倍，但随后出现了一波估值调整，原来20倍市盈率的那些股票，市盈率跌到了10倍。我们最近开始应用一个方法，有望显著削弱这种由于估值标准变化而导致的风险。

This risk has always bothered us enormously because of the helpless position in which we could be left compared to the "Generals -Private Owner" or "Workouts" types. With this risk diminished, we think this category has a promising future.

这个风险一直给我们带来极大的困扰，这类投资与“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”或“套利类”不同，一旦出现估值标准变化的风险，我们无路可退。现在我们能把这个风险削弱了，此类投资大有前途。

3. "Workouts" - these are the securities with a timetable. They arise from corporate activity - sell-outs, mergers, reorganizations, spin-offs, etc. In this category we are not talking about rumors or "inside information" pertaining to such developments, but to publicly announced activities of this sort. We wait until we can read it in the paper. The risk pertains not primarily to general market behavior (although that is sometimes tied in to a degree), but instead to something upsetting the applecart so that the expected development does not materialize. Such killjoys could include anti-trust or other negative government action, stockholder disapproval, withholding of tax rulings, etc. The gross profits in many workouts appear quite small. It's a little like looking for parking meters with some time left on them. However, the predictability coupled with a short holding period produces quite decent average annual rates of return after allowance for the occasional substantial loss. This category produces more steady absolute profits from year to year than generals do. In years of market decline it should usually pile up a big edge for us; during bull markets it will probably be a drag on performance. On a long-term basis, I expect the workouts to achieve the same sort of margin over the Dow attained by generals.

3. “套利类”（Workouts）——套利类投资有时间表可循。套利投资机会出现在出售、并购、重组、分拆等公司活动中。我们做套利投资不听传闻或“内幕消息”，只看公司的公告。在白纸黑字上读到了，我们才会出手。套利类投资有时也受大盘影响，但主要风险不是大盘涨跌，而是中途出现意外，预期的进展没有实现。常见的意外包括反垄断等政府干预、股东否决、税收政策限制等。许多套利类投资的毛利润看起来很低，就像我们平时在生活里找哪个停车计时器还有剩余时间。但是，套利投资的确定性高、持有时间短，去除偶尔出现的重大亏损，年化收益率是相当不错的。套利类投资每年贡献的绝对利润要比低估类稳定。在市场下跌时，套利类投资积少成多，能给我们带来很大的领先优势；在牛市中，此类投资会拖累我们的业绩。从长期来看，我认为套利类能和低估类一样跑赢道指。

4. "Controls" - these are rarities, but when they occur they are likely to be of significant size. Unless we start off with the purchase of a sizable block of stock, controls develop from the general - private owner category. They result from situations where a cheap security does nothing pricewise for such an extended period of time that we are able to buy a significant percentage of the company's stock. At that point we are probably in a position to assume a degree of or perhaps complete control of the company's activities. Whether we become active or remain relatively passive at this point depends upon our assessment of the company's future and the managements capabilities.

4. “控制类”（Controls）——我们的控制类投资比较少见，但这类投资只要做了，就是大规模的。控制类有的是一开始就通过大宗交易买入，有的是从低估类发展而来的。有的低估类股票，价格在低位徘徊的时间很长，我们能买到很多，实现了部分或完全控股，有能力对公司施加影响，这笔投资从低估类转到了控制类。这时候，我们根据对公司前景以及管理层能力的评估，决定是采取主动，还是保持相对被动。

We do not want to get active merely for the sake of being active. Everything else being equal, I would much rather let others do the work. However, when an active role is necessary to optimize the employment of capital, you can be sure we will not be standing in the wings.

我们不愿为了主动而主动。在其他条件一样的情况下，我更愿意放手让别人做。不过，大家可以放心，如果必须要采取主动，才能让资本得到合理运用，我们不会袖手旁观。

Active or passive, in a control situation there should be a built-in profit. The sine qua non of this operation is an attractive purchase price. Once control is achieved, the value of our investment is determined by the value of the enterprise, not the oftentimes irrationalities of the market place.

不管主动还是被动，投资控制类有一点是必须的：投资时就得把钱赚到。控制类投资的必要条件是物美价廉。取得控股权后，我们的投资价值几何，就不再取决于经常失去理智的市场报价，而是企业本身的价值。

Any of the three situations where we are now the largest stockholders mentioned under Generals - Private Owner could, by virtue of the two-way stretch they possess, turn into controls. That would suit us fine, but it also suits us if they advance in the market to a price more in line with intrinsic value enabling us to sell them, thereby completing a successful generals - private owner operation.

在“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”中，我们提到有三只股票我们是最大股东。由于进可攻、退可守，这三只股票都可能变成控制类，这样很好。如果这三只股票股价上涨，达到比较符合内在价值的价位，这样也很好。我们可以卖出去，成功完成“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”的投资。

Investment results in the control category have to be measured on the basis of at least several years. Proper buying takes time. If needed, strengthening management, redirecting the utilization of capital, perhaps effecting a satisfactory sale or merger, etc., are also all factors that make this a business to be measured in years rather than months. For this reason, in controls, we are looking for wide margins of profit -if it appears at all close, we quitclaim.

衡量控制类的投资收益，至少要看几年时间。按部就班地买入需要时间。另外，可能还要改善管理层、重新配置资本、寻求出售或并购等，控制类中的这些工作都需要时间，所以此类投资不能看几个月，要看几年。因为投入时间长，在控制类投资中，我们要求获利空间一定要大。如果赚不了多少，我们不做。

Controls in the buying stage move largely in sympathy with the Dow. In the later stages their behavior is geared more to that of workouts.

在买入阶段，控制类的表现和道指基本趋同。在末期阶段，控制类的表现和套利类更相似。

You might be interested to know that the buyers of our former control situation, Dempster Mill Manufacturing, seem to be doing very well with it. This fulfills our expectation and is a source of satisfaction. An investment operation that depends on the ultimate buyer making a bum deal (in Wall Street they call this the "Bigger Fool Theory") is tenuous indeed. How much more satisfactory it is to buy at really bargain prices so that only an average disposition brings pleasant results.

我们以前做过一笔控制类投资，登普斯特农具机械制造公司，后来卖了出去。这里告诉大家一下，登普斯特的买方现在把这家公司经营得有声有色。我们实现了自己的初衷，感到很欣慰。做投资，别想着坑人，指望最后让傻子接盘（华尔街有个“博傻理论”，说的就是这种做法），这么做长远不了。在极其低贱的价格买入，平价卖出也能获得喜人的收益，这多有成就感。

As I have mentioned in the past, the division of our portfolio among categories is largely determined by the accident of availability. Therefore, in any given year the mix between generals, workouts, or controls is largely a matter of chance, and this fickle factor will have a great deal to do with our performance relative to the Dow. This is one of many reasons why single year's performance is of minor importance and good or bad, should never be taken too seriously.

我说过，在我们的投资组合中，各类投资的分配主要是见机行事，视投资机会而定。单独拿出某一年来，低估类、套利类或控制类的投资占比有很大的随机性。各类投资所占比重有偶然性，但对我们当年相对道指的业绩有很大影响。所以说，单独一年的业绩不重要，无论好坏，都别看得太重。

To give an example of just how important the accident of division between these categories is, let me cite the example of the past three years. Using an entirely different method of calculation than that used to measure the performance of BPL in entirety, whereby the average monthly investment at market value by category is utilized, borrowed money and office operating expenses excluded, etc., (this gives the most accurate basis for intergroup comparisons but does not reflect overall BPL results) the generals (both present categories combined), workouts, and the Dow, shape up as follows:

我就以过去三年为例，说明各类投资占比的随机性对我们的业绩有多大影响。在这里，我们使用另一种完全不同的计算方法。在衡量巴菲特合伙基金业绩时，我们计算的是整体收益率。现在，我们以各类投资的每月平均市值为准，分别计算每类投资的收益率，计算时将借钱和经营开支因素扣除（这样可以最准确地比较各类投资，但并不能反映合伙基金的整体业绩）。低估类（包括当前的两种低估类）、套利类和道指的收益率如下所示：

Obviously the workouts (along with controls) saved the day in 1962, and if we had been light in this category that year, our final result would have been much poorer, although still quite respectable considering market conditions during the year. We could just as well have had a much smaller percentage of our portfolio in workouts that year; availability decided it, not any notion on my part as to what the market was going to do. Therefore, it is important to realize that in 1962 we were just plain lucky regarding mix of categories.

显然，1962年，套利类（和控制类）扭转了局面。这一年如果我们的套利类投资占比较低，与大盘相比，我们的收益率仍然会相当出色，但最终收益肯定没那么高了。这一年，我们的套利类占比完全有可能很低，这类投资就看有没有合适的机会，不是我在预知了市场走势后刻意分配的。所以说，大家要明白，1962年我们各类投资有这样的配比，纯属运气好。

In 1963 we had one sensational workout which greatly influenced results, and generals gave a good account of themselves, resulting in a banner year. If workouts had been normal, (say, more like 1962) we would have looked much poorer compared to the Dow. Here it wasn't our mix that did much for us, but rather excellent situations.

1963年，我们做了一笔漂亮的套利投资，对整体收益贡献很大。再加上低估类也表现出色，全年收益率非常抢眼。假如这一年套利类的收益比较正常（例如，像1962年一样），我们相对道指的优势会大幅缩水。在这一年，我们不是因为各类投资的配比占了便宜，而是受益于良好的形势。

Finally, in 1964 workouts were a big drag on performance. This would be normal in any event during a big plus year for the Dow such as 1964, but they were even a greater drag than expected because of mediocre experience. In retrospect it would have been pleasant to have been entirely in generals, but we don’t play the game in retrospect.

再看1964年。这一年，套利类严重拖累了我们的业绩。在像1964年道指大涨这样的年份中，这种情况实属正常。但是这一年套利类的表现实在乏善可陈，对业绩的拖累超出了我的预期。回过头来看，我们当时要全投资低估类就好了，但是投资不能重头再来。

I hope the preceding table drives home the point that results in a given year are subject to many variables - some regarding which we have little control or insight. We consider all categories to be good businesses and we are very happy we have several to rely on rather than just one. It makes for more discrimination within each category and reduces the chance we will be put completely out of operation by the elimination of opportunities in a single category.

希望通过我对上述表格的阐述，各位能确实明白某一年的业绩受许多变量的影响，有些因素我们既无法控制，也无法预知。我们认为我们的各类投资都是好投资。我们不是只靠一类投资，而是有几类可供选择，这对我们是好事。正因为如此，我们可以在各个类别中精挑细选，而且一个类别的投资机会没了，我们还可以投别的，不会彻底失去投资机会。

We have had a chorus of groans this year regarding partners' tax liabilities. Of course, we also might have had a few if the tax sheet had gone out blank.

今年，有不少合伙人齐声抱怨交的税太多。要是税单一片空白，可能也会有不少人抱怨。

More investment sins are probably committed by otherwise quite intelligent people because of "tax considerations" than from any other cause. One of my friends - a noted West Coast philosopher maintains that a majority of life's errors are caused by forgetting what one is really trying to do. This is certainly the case when an emotionally supercharged element like taxes enters the picture (I have another friend -a noted East Coast philosopher who says it isn't the lack of representation he minds -it's the taxation).

很多人本来脑子很清楚，一到要交税的时候就糊涂了。我有个朋友是西海岸有名的哲人，他说，人生中的绝大多数错误是因为忘了初心。当人们面对税收，被情绪冲昏了头脑而犯错，就属于这个情况。我还有个朋友是东海岸有名的哲人，他说，他不在乎有没有人代表他的权益，只在乎要交多少税。（译注：这句话源于“无代表，不纳税”（No Taxation WithoutRepresentation），是18世纪60年代英属北美殖民地反抗英国统治的一句口号。）

Let's get back to the West Coast. What is one really trying to do in the investment world? Not pay the least taxes, although that may be a factor to be considered in achieving the end. Means and end should not be confused, however, and the end is to come away with the largest after-tax rate of compound. Quite obviously if two courses of action promise equal rates of pre-tax compound and one involves incurring taxes and the other doesn't the latter course is superior. However, we find this is rarely the case.

还是回到西海岸哲人说的那句话。我们投资到底追求的是什么？在投资过程中，虽然我们要考虑税收因素，但投资肯定不是为了交最少的税。我们追求的是最高的税后复合收益率，不能舍本逐末。要是有两种情况，税前复合收益率相同，一种情况要交税，另一种情况不需要交税，无疑后者更合适。现实中很少有这种情况。

It is extremely improbable that 20 stocks selected from, say, 3000 choices are going to prove to be the optimum portfolio both now and a year from now at the entirely different prices (both for the selections and the alternatives) prevailing at that later date. If our objective is to produce the maximum after-tax compound rate, we simply have to own the most attractive securities obtainable at current prices, And, with 3,000 rather rapidly shifting variables, this must mean change (hopefully “tax-generating” change).

现在，从3000只股票中选出20只来构建一个最佳投资组合。一年后，所有股票的价格都截然不同（无论是组合里的，还是组合外的），这时候，这20只股票能仍然是最佳组合吗？不可能。既然我们的目标是实现税后复合收益率最大化，我们就必须持有按当前价格计算最有价值的股票。3000多只股票，每一只都无时无刻不在变化，所以我们必然要对投资组合进行调整。我们当然希望调整投资组合时，卖出去的是赚钱的，这时候就要交税。

It is obvious that the performance of a stock last year or last month is no reason, per se, to either own it or to not own it now. It is obvious that an inability to "get even" in a security that has declined is of no importance. It is obvious that the inner warm glow that results from having held a winner last year is of no importance in making a decision as to whether it belongs in an optimum portfolio this year.

现在是否要持有一只股票，它去年或上个月表现如何，不重要。一只股票下跌了，没办法回本，不重要。去年一只股票赚了大钱，你很欣喜，可是在考虑它是否能纳入今年的最佳投资组合里时，你因为它赚了大钱而对它的喜爱，也不重要。

==（上一段我的翻译）显然，一只股票去年或上个月的表现本身并不是现在持有它或不持有它的理由。如果一只股票已经下跌且回本无望，没必要非得回本再卖；如果一只股票去年涨了很多，心中对它满是喜爱，也不能保证它今年依然属于最佳投资组合的一员。==

If gains are involved, changing portfolios involves paying taxes. Except in very unusual cases (I will readily admit there are some cases), the amount of the tax is of minor importance if the difference in expectable performance is significant. I have never been able to understand why the tax comes as such a body blow to many people since the rate on long-term capital gain is lower than on most lines of endeavor (tax policy indicates digging ditches is regarded as socially less desirable than shuffling stock certificates).

只要是取得了收益，调整投资组合时就要交税。除了极其特殊的情况（确实有这样的情况），只要预期收益很高，交的那点税根本不算什么。我总是搞不懂，为什么那么多投资股票的人对交税如此深恶痛绝。其实，长期资本利得税比大多数行业的税率都低（从税收政策的规定来看，做苦力的对社会的贡献不如炒股票的）。

I have a large percentage of pragmatists in the audience so I had better get off that idealistic kick. There are only three ways to avoid ultimately paying the tax: (1) die with the asset - and that's a little too ultimate for me even the zealots would have to view this "cure" with mixed emotions; (2) give the asset away - you certainly don't pay any taxes this way, but of course you don't pay for any groceries, rent, etc., either; and (3) lose back the gain if your mouth waters at this tax-saver, I have to admire you -you certainly have the courage of your convictions.

我知道合伙人里有不少是特别务实的，所以我还是说点有用的吧。要彻底避免交税，只有三个办法：（1）把资产留到死——我觉得这个办法太终极了，就算狂热的避税分子对这个办法也一定很纠结；（2）将资产赠予他人——这样你就不必交税了，可我们买东西、交房租，也不交税啊（==这个地方翻译的不好。我的翻译：可是我们也没钱买东西、交房租==）；（3）把赚来的钱亏回去——要是你听到这个避税办法眼前一亮，那我很佩服你，你真有坚持信念的勇气。

So it is going to continue to be the policy of BPL to try to maximize investment gains, not minimize taxes. We will do our level best to create the maximum revenue for the Treasury -at the lowest rates the rules will allow.

综上所述，我们的合伙基金将一如既往地追求实现投资收益最大化，而不是把税款降到最低限度。我们愿意尽全力为国库（==我的翻译：基金==）创收，但也会尽全力按税法规定的最低税率纳税。

An interesting sidelight on this whole business of taxes, vis-à-vis investment management, has appeared in the last few years. This has arisen through the creation of so-called "swap funds" which are investment companies created by the exchange of the investment company's shares for general market securities held by potential investors. The dominant sales argument has been the deferment (deferment, when pronounced by an enthusiastic salesman, sometimes comes very close phonetically to elimination) of capital gains taxes while trading a single security for a diversified portfolio. The tax will only finally be paid when the swap fund's shares are redeemed. For the lucky ones, it will be avoided entirely when any of those delightful alternatives mentioned two paragraphs earlier eventuates.

提到投资管理中的税收问题，前几年有这么个趣事。有些基金公司推出了“互换基金”（swap funds），投资者可以用自己手里的股票交换基金的份额。销售员在推销这种基金时力推的卖点是，用一只股票交换一个分散的投资组合可以延期缴纳资本利得税（销售员在说延期缴税时，说的好像不用交一样）。只有赎回互换基金份额时才需要交税。要是有人走运，实现了上面提到的三种可以避免交税的情况，那就真不用交税了。

The reasoning implicit in the swapee's action is rather interesting. He obviously doesn't really want to hold what he is holding or he wouldn't jump at the chance to swap it (and pay a fairly healthy commission - usually up to $100,000) for a grab-bag of similar hot potatoes held by other tax-numbed investors. In all fairness, I should point out that after all offerees have submitted their securities for exchange and had a chance to review the proposed portfolio they have a chance to back out but I understand a relatively small proportion do so.

这些互换基金投资者的逻辑真是有意思。他们显然不喜欢自己手里的股票，要不也不会拿出去换（更别说要交数额不小的手续费，通常是4％，最高可达100,000美元）。他换到手里的同样是一袋子烫手的山芋，是其他不愿意交税的投资者丢掉的。说实在的，这些互换基金的投资者要是看看换来的是些什么股票，他们很可能不会买，我知道真能看的人没几个。

There have been twelve such funds (that I know of) established since origination of the idea in 1960, and several more are currently in the works. The idea is not without appeal since sales totaled well over $600 million. All of the funds retain an investment manager to whom they usually pay 1/2 of 1% of asset value. This investment manager faces an interesting problem; he is paid to manage the fund intelligently (in each of the five largest funds this fee currently ranges from $250,000 to $700,000 per year), but because of the low tax basis inherited from the contributors of securities, virtually his every move creates capital gains tax liabilities. And, of course, he knows that if he incurs such liabilities, he is doing so for people who are probably quite sensitive to taxes or they wouldn't own shares in the swap fund in the first place.

自从第一只互换基金1960年成立以来，一共出现了12只互换基金，现在有几只新成立的正处于募集期。它们的总销售额超过了6亿美元，还是很有市场的。这些基金都聘请基金经理，收取资产的0.5％作为管理费。互换基金的基金经理面对的问题很有意思：投资者付给他们薪水，要他们管理好基金（五只规模最大的基金，每年的费用在250,000美元到700,000美元之间），但是因为投资者提供了股票，基金的课税基础很低，基金经理无论怎么操作，都会产生资本利得税。基金经理也清楚，他们的操作会产生税项，尽管基金的投资者都是非常不愿意交税的，要不他们根本就不会买互换基金。

I am putting all of this a bit strongly, and I am sure there are some cases where a swap fund may be the best answer to an individual's combined tax and investment problems. Nevertheless, I feel they offer a very interesting test-tube to measure the ability of some of the most respected investment advisors when they are trying to manage money without paying (significant) taxes.

上面的话，我说得有些重了，在有些情况下，有的投资者在处理纳税和投资问题时，或许互换基金是最佳解决方案。不过，我觉得这对那些受人尊敬的投资顾问是个挑战，他们怎么才能既少交税，又管好钱呢？

The three largest swap funds were all organized in 1961, and combined have assets now of about $300 million. One of these, Diversification Fund, reports on a fiscal year basis which makes extraction of relevant data quite difficult for calendar year comparisons. The other two, Federal Street Fund and Westminster Fund (respectively first and third largest in the group) are managed by investment advisors who oversee at least $2 billion of institutional money.

三只规模最大的互换基金都是1961年成立的，现在管理的总资产规模是3亿美元左右。其中有一只是Diversification Fund，它的财年和日历年不一致，很难进行对比。另两只是 Federal Street Fund和Westminster Fund（分别是规模第一大和第三大的），它们由专业投资顾问管理，这些投资顾问还为机构投资者管理20多亿美元的资金。

Here's how they shape up for all full years of existence:

下面是它们的历年业绩：

This is strictly the management record. No allowance has been made for the commission in entering and any taxes paid by the fund on behalf of the shareholders have been added back to performance.

这单纯是管理业绩，其中没扣除手续费，包含基金替投资者交纳的税金。

Anyone for taxes?

找谁能少交税呢？（==我的翻译：你还想少缴税吗？==）

In the December 21st issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS it was reported that Ford Motor Co. plans to spend $700 million in 1965 to add 6,742,000 square feet to its facilities throughout the world. Buffett Partnership, Ltd., never far behind, plans to add 227 1/4 square feet to its facilities in the spring of 1965.

12月21日的《汽车新闻》（AUTOMOTIVE NEWS）报道说，福特汽车计划1965年拿出7亿美元在全球增加626,352平米的办公场地。巴菲特合伙基金也不能落后，我们计划在1965年春季增加21平米的办公场地。

Our growth in net assets from $105,100 (there's no prize for guessing who put in the $100) on May 5, 1956 when the first predecessor limited partnership.(Buffett Associates, Ltd. ) was organized, to $26,074,000 on 1/1/65 creates the need for an occasional reorganization in internal routine. Therefore, roughly contemporaneously with the bold move from 682 to 909 1⁄4 square feet, a highly capable is going to join our organization with responsibility for the administrative (and certain other) functions. This move will particularly serve to free up more of Bill Scott's time for security analysis which is his forte. I’ll have more to report on this in the midyear letter.

从我们合伙基金成立之初的1956年5月5日到1965年1月1日，我们的净资产从105,100美元（别猜那100美元是谁出的）增加到26,074,000美元，我们的内部组织的发展也要跟上。因此，在我们将办公场所从63平米大举扩张到84平米的同时，一位精干高效的人才也将加入我们，负责行政管理等工作。有了他的加入，比尔·斯科特的担子就轻了，可以投入更多精力做他擅长的证券分析工作。我会在年中的信里继续报告相关情况。

Bill (who continues to do a terrific job) and his wife have an investment in the Partnership of $298,749, a very large majority of their net worth. Our new associate (his name is being withheld until his present employer has replaced him), along with his wife and children, has made an important investment in the Partnership. Susie and I presently have an interest of $3,406,700 in BPL which represents virtually our entire net worth, with the exception of our continued holding of Mid-Continent Tab Card Co., a local company into which I bought in 1960 when it had less than 10 stockholders. Additionally, my relatives, consisting of three children, mother , two sisters, two brothers-in-law, father-in-Law, four aunts, four cousins and six nieces and nephews, have interests in BPL, directly or indirectly, totaling $1,942,592. So we all continue to eat home cooking.

比尔的工作一如既往地出色。比尔和他妻子把他们的大部分家庭资产都投入到了合伙基金中，他们的权益是298,749美元。我们的新成员（他当前的雇主还没找到合适的替代人选，我们暂不透露他的姓名）同样携妻子和儿女投资了我们的合伙基金。苏茜和我目前在合伙基金中权益是3,406,700美元，这几乎是我们的全部净资产。在合伙基金之外，我们只持有 Mid-Continent Tab Card Co. 的股权，这是一家本地公司，是我1960年投资的，当时股东还不到10人。另外，我们一大家子，包括三个子女、我的母亲、两个姐妹、两个姐夫、岳父、四个姑姑、四个表亲、六个侄子侄女，直接或间接持有总计1,942,592美元的合伙基金权益。所以我们也是一如既往，和大家同吃一锅饭。

We continue to represent the ultimate in seasonal businesses --open one day a year. This creates real problems in keeping the paper flowing smoothly, but Beth and Donna continue to do an outstanding job of coping with this and other problems.

没有哪家公司有我们这么强的季节性，我们一年只营业一天。营业时间这么短，要把大量文书处理得井井有条，真是艰巨的任务。贝丝（Beth）和多娜（Donna）仍然表现出色，应对自如。

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell has distinguished itself in its usual vital role of finding out what belongs to whom. We continue to throw impossible deadlines at them --and they continue to perform magnificently. You will note in their certificate this year that they have implemented the new procedure whereby they now pounce on us unannounced twice a year in addition to the regular yearend effort.

毕马威会计师事务所对我们的帮助不可或缺，他们把账目理得清清楚楚。我们总是给他们提出紧迫的截止日期，他们总是漂亮地完成工作。从今年的审计报告中，各位可以看到，毕马威已经开始实施新程序，除了常规的年末审计，每年还对我们进行两次突击检查。

Finally -and most sincerely -let me thank you partners who cooperate magnificently in getting things to us promptly and properly and thereby maximize the time we can spend working where we should be -by the cash register. I am extremely fortunate in being able to spend the great majority of my time thinking about where our money should be invested, rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae that seems to overwhelm so many business entities. We have an organizational structure which makes this efficiency a possibility, and more importantly, we have a group of partners that make it a reality. For this, I am most appreciative and we are all wealthier.

最后，各位合伙人，请接受我由衷的谢意，谢谢你们密切配合，及时妥善地把文件寄送给我们。这样我们才得以把精力花在该用的地方，努力给大家赚钱。我很感激各位，你们让我能把绝大部分时间都投入到思考投资上。很多公司没这么好的运气，它们总是被纷繁的琐事羁绊，什么都做不成。我们的组织结构就是有这么高的效率，当然，这离不开各位合伙人的鼎力相助。我很珍惜。我们也因此都更加富有。

Our past policy has been to admit close relatives of present partners without a minimum capital limitation. This year a flood of children, grandchildren, etc., appeared which called this policy into question; therefore, I have decided to institute a $25,000 minimum on interests of immediate relatives of present partners.

过去，我们规定允许现有合伙人的亲戚投资，不设最低资金限制。今年，我们不得不接纳大量合伙人的儿孙，这个规定看来要改一改了。我决定对现有合伙人的亲属设置25,000美元的最低投资限额。

Within the coming two weeks you will receive:

在今后两周，各位合伙人会收到如下文件：

(1) A tax letter giving you all BPL information needed for your 1964 federal income tax return. This letter is the only item that counts for tax purposes.

(1) 一份包含税收数据的信函，其中列有申报1964年联邦所得税所需的所有巴菲特合伙基金信息。

(2) An audit from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. for 1964, setting forth the operations and financial position of BPL as well as your own capital account.

(2) 毕马威会计师事务所出具的1964年审计报告，其中包含巴菲特合伙基金的运营数据和财务状况以及合伙人资本账户的信息。

(3) A letter signed by me setting forth the status of your BPL interest on 111165. This is identical with the figure developed in the audit.

(3) 一份由我签署的、证明您于1965年1月1日持有巴菲特合伙基金权益的文件，其中的权益数据与审计报告中列出的数据一致。

(4) Schedule “A” to the partnership agreement listing all partners.

(4) 包含所有合伙人名单的合伙基金协议日程“A”。

Let Bill or me know if anything needs clarifying. Even with our splendid staff our growth means there is more chance of missing letters, overlooked instructions, a name skipped over, a figure transposition, etc., so speak up if you have any question at all that we might have erred. My next letter will be about July 15th" summarizing the first half of this year.

如有任何疑问，请与比尔或我联系。虽然我们的员工各个出色，但是随着规模的增加，还会可能出现信函漏寄、姓名遗漏、数字错位等问题。如果发现任何差错，请联系我们。下一封信是上半年总结，各位将在7月15日左右收到。

Cordially, Warren E. Buffett

沃伦.巴菲特谨上