The contents of this transcript are for educational and entertainment purposes only, and do not purport to be, and are not intended to be financial, legal, accounting, tax, or investment advice. Investments or strategies that are discussed may not be suitable for you, do not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation, or needs, and are not intended to provide investment advice or recommendations appropriate for you. Before making any investment or trade, consider whether it is suitable for you and consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser.

本记录稿的内容仅用于教育和娱乐目的，并非也无意成为财务、法律、会计、税务或投资建议。所讨论的投资或策略可能不适合您，没有考虑到您的特定投资目标、财务状况或需求，也无意提供适合您的投资意见或建议。在进行任何投资或交易之前，请考虑该投资或交易是否适合您，并考虑向您自己的财务或投资顾问寻求建议。

Stig: Welcome to the Investor's Podcast. I am your host, Stig Brodersen, and today we could not be in better company; Mohnish Pabrai has joined us for a conversation about life and investing. Mohnish, how are you today?

斯迪格：欢迎收听《投资者播客》。我是主持人斯迪格-布罗德森（Stig Brodersen），今天我们有一个再好不过的伙伴：莫尼什-帕布雷（Mohnish Pabrai）加入我们，与我们一起探讨人生和投资。莫尼什，今天好吗？

Mohnish: I am doing great. It is a beautiful day in Austin and we will be in Omaha in a few weeks, so it is wonderful.

莫尼什：我做得很好。奥斯汀的天气很好，几周后我们就会到奥马哈，所以这真是太好了。

Stig: That is wonderful to hear. Mohnish, I have had the privilege of interviewing you a lot of times, and it has always been a lot of fun. I have always interviewed them and then publishing this episode on the Berkshire weekend, quite a few people have gotten the wind of that. One of the wonderful things about getting the opportunity to interview you is that I have gone through all of your interviews over the past year. On the YouTube channel, there might be another 30 videos over the past year. In one of your wonderful interviews, someone said he was on a train ride with you. He met you in Omaha and then sat next to you on a train ride, and it was completely confidential. I wanted to use that premise and ask you some super selfish questions and just ask you something about life. Perhaps we get to speak about investing at some point in time, who knows? I wanted to start talking to you about life so I will get right to it here. The first question is that in 84, you sold a small stake in your business TransTech, and it was like a million dollars after tax. You turned that money into 13 -odd million dollars in five years. You became financially independent. I think you were 33; very young. How did that change your relationships, if at all?

斯迪格：应该说，我已有幸采访过你多次，每次都乐趣横生，有机会采访你的一大好处，是我会把过去一年你所有的采访再看一遍。YouTube上，你可能有另外30多个视频。我给自己提了一个挑战，那就是，每当你去听一场音乐会，艺术家想演奏他最新的歌曲，但其他人总想让他演奏最火的歌，这很烦，对吧？我想说：让我们听听新专辑里的歌吧。在一次访谈中，有个人说他曾在奥马哈碰到你，非常巧地和你坐了同一班火车，就坐你旁边。我想借此为前提，问你一些超自私的问题，一些关于人生的问题，或许我们会在某个时候谈及投资，但我想先谈谈人生。抱歉，莫尼什，我喋喋不休了两分钟，下面我就直奔主题了。第一个问题是：你以税后100万美元卖掉了Trans Tech公司的一部分股份（注：90年代中期），随后你把它在5年内变成了1300万美元。我想我曾听你说过，你在33岁时就财富自由了，非常年轻。这是如何改变你的人际关系的？如果有改变的话。

Mohnish: I do not think there was any change in the relationships I can think of. My friends were the friends and the family was pretty similar and the same. The only change I can think of is that I could pursue a more independent path, and I started to think about that. Like Charlie would say, his main driver for wealth was independence. The money freed me up to really think about how I wanted to spend my time and what I wanted to do. For example, one of the things I did at that time was that I fired myself from my company; the IT services company. I was not enjoying running it. I looked for and then hired a CEO to run it. I was making changes that were focused on what would give me the greatest satisfaction and joy. I knew that I wanted to spend more time investing, and I was not even focused much at that time on managing other people's money. At that time, my focus was just managing my own money. I felt like that was a nice enough pot that I thought I could grow over time and would allow me to lead the life I wanted to lead. The relationships did not change that much. Just the way I was spending my time on a day-to-day basis went through a lot of change.

Mohnish: 我不认为我所能想到的关系有任何变化。我的意思是，我觉得我的朋友还是我的朋友，家人们也都基本一样。我能想到的唯一变化是，我可以追寻一条更加独立的道路，我开始思考这个问题。大体上，我觉得就像查理说的，他获得财富的主要动力是独立。钱解放了我，我可以真正考虑我想要怎样度过时间，我想要做什么，等等。举个例子，我当时做的一件事是，我把自己从我的IT服务公司（注：Trans Tech）解雇了，因为我并不喜欢经营这家公司，随后我雇了一位CEO来经营它。我做的改变大多都集中在能给我带来最大满足感和快乐的事情上。此外，我知道我想把更多的时间花在投资上。当时，我甚至没把太多精力放在管理别人的钱上。我的重点只是管理我自己的钱，我觉得这是一个足够好的差事，随着时间的推移，我能让它继续增长，并过我想过的生活。因此，人际关系并没有太大变化，只是我每天支配时间的方式发生了很大变化。

Stig: Is it stressful for you by any means, to invest other people's money? I should probably have made a full disclaimer that I am in the privileged position of having invested with you Mohnish. I do not know if I should even ask you this question but does it add stress to your life to manage money for other people, because you are in a very privileged financial position now and so you could also just invest your own money now and perhaps not have that stress. What do you think about that?

斯迪格：投资别人的钱你会感到压力吗？或许我该事先声明，我有幸投资了你的基金，所以我不确定我是否该问你这个问题，但为他人管理资金是否给你的生活增添了压力？你目前的财务状况非常优越，你本可以只投资自己的钱，也许就不会有这种压力了。你怎么看这个问题？

Mohnish: I have actually never found it stressful. Of course there are times, like for example, during the financial crisis we were down   from the peak. The index was down about 40%. There was a big drop. We had about 600 million of management before the financial crisis, and it was down to 200 million. What bothered me and I could not really do much about it at that time, was some of the people who came in at the peak and then redeemed at the bottom. I really could not do much about that; it was their money and they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do. That was unfortunate because I had no chance to make it back for them. But that was a small minority. Most of the money stayed. The gyrations to the extent that people start making decisions that are counter to their best long-term interests are unfortunate. I do not feel stressed about it, but I am a little sad about it and cannot do much. Other than that, I have never really found managing money to be a stressful situation at all. In fact, what has happened is that it has led to some wonderful new friendships and wonderful new relationships. I have been able to interact with folks that I would not have been able to interact with. It has also made it easier to engage with the businesses that we invest in. They pay a little bit more attention because we have got some size. That is a little bit of an advantage. Overall, I would say the pluses outweigh the minuses.

Mohnish：实际上，我从来没觉得有什么压力...当然，有些时候，比如（2008年）金融危机期间，我们的基金从最高点下跌了65%、67%，指数大约跌了40%。所以是很大的跌幅。金融危机前，我们的资金管理规模有6亿，危机后曾跌至2亿。但真正困扰我、而且我没办法做什么的是，有些人在高峰期进入，在低谷时赎回。对此，我真的无能为力。我的意思是，那是他们的钱，他们想做什么就做什么，这很遗憾，因为我没机会为他们赚回来了。但那只是少数，绝大部分资金都留了下来。我认为，当股价震荡导致人们做出与他们最佳长期利益背道而驰的决定时，这令人遗憾。对此，我不觉得有压力，但我有点难过，因为我无能为力。除此之外，我从来没觉得管钱有什么压力。事实上，这让我结识了很多新朋友，建立了很好的人际关系，我得以与那些我原本不可能交往的人交往。而且，这也让我们更容易与我们投资的企业打交道。由于我们有一定规模，所以他们会更重视一点，这也是个小小的优势。总体而言，我认为利大于弊。

Stig: I am happy to hear that. I know that you have not been shy of telling students not to use Excel, but you also mentioned that during the financial crisis, you had to climb up from that hole and use Excel because in your Excel sheet, you could see what was the intrinsic value, and then you could look at the tickers and it would tell you something very different. Have you fired up Excel since the financial crisis?

斯蒂格：我知道你经常告诉学生不要使用 Excel。但你也提到，在金融危机期间，你不得不从那个深渊里爬出来，使用了Excel，因为在你的Excel表里，你可以看到内在价值是多少，它们和股票行情告诉你的东西非常不同。自金融危机以来，你启用过Excel吗？

Mohnish: I still keep that spreadsheet because I think it is useful to understand. We get quoted values on the businesses that we own but it is also useful to know what I think might be the underlying value of the businesses that we own. I still have a very similar spreadsheet, and I do update it periodically. It does not take much time. We might have one or two new ideas in a year, and so there is not much movement. But one of the reasons why that was helpful is that we had invested a few years back in a Turkish company where there was such a big gap between price and value, that it was kind of useful to understand what the whole thing is worth. It was also needed because we have so much concentration in one of the funds with that position, that I needed to educate our investors that, "Hey, listen, if you sell or exit, please understand what you are selling. You are selling based on market value, but the intrinsic value may be much different than that. In the financial crisis, the rope was important to pull me out of a deep well. Now I am in, but it is really a beacon; kind of like a notch star, which tells me how I should think about it. For example, in a particular business, Reysas in Turkey, we own about a third of that business. I really think of it like a family business. I am not part of the family that founded that business. I am not the part of the family that runs that business but I feel like I am part of an extended family that has ownership of this business and asset. I think of it almost like a private position; like we own a private business. My goal with that business is to own it forever. As long as the family that owns the business and runs the business maintains their ownership and they are the managers running the business, we do not want to make any changes. That mindset is important. I try to use that mindset in some of our other positions as well because that is really the name of the game; once you have ownership or partial ownership of a truly wonderful business that you acquired at a wonderful price, you are done. Not much to do; just watch the paint dry.

莫尼什：我仍然保留着那张电子表格，因为我认为它对了解情况很有帮助。我们会得到我们所拥有企业的报价，但了解我认为我们所拥有企业的潜在价值也很有用。我仍然有一个非常类似的电子表格，而且会定期更新。这并不需要花费太多时间。我们一年中可能会有一两个新想法，因此不会有太大的变动。但这对我们有帮助的原因之一是，几年前我们投资了一家土耳其公司，价格和价值之间存在很大差距，因此了解整个公司的价值是非常有用的。另外，由于我们的一只基金集中了太多的持仓，所以我需要教育我们的投资者："嘿，听着，如果你们出售或退出，请了解你们出售的是什么。你卖出的是市场价值，但内在价值可能与此大相径庭。在金融危机中，绳子对把我从深井中拉出来非常重要。现在，我身处其中，但它其实是一座灯塔；有点像北极星，告诉我应该如何思考。例如，在土耳其的雷萨斯公司（Reysas），我们拥有该公司三分之一的股份。我真的把它当成一个家族企业。我不是创建这家企业的家族成员。我不是但我觉得自己是大家庭的一员，拥有这家企业和资产的所有权。我认为这几乎就像一个私人仓位；就像我们拥有一家私人企业。我的目标是永远拥有这家企业。只要拥有企业和经营企业的家族保持其所有权，而且他们是经营企业的管理者，我们就不想做任何改变。这种心态很重要。我在其他一些仓位上也尝试使用这种心态，因为这才是真正的游戏规则；一旦你以很好的价格持有了一家真正出色的企业的全部或部分所有权，你就大功告成，没什么可做的了。就看着油漆慢慢变干吧。

Stig: Go to Tokyo and have Sushi like you have been known to do; the good things in life. Mohnish, which period of your life have you been happiest and why?

斯迪格：就像你被熟知的那样，去东京吃寿司（注：莫尼什曾因为看了寿司之神小野二郎的纪录片，专程前往东京只为吃他做的寿司），享受生活中的美事。莫尼什，你一生中最快乐的时期是什么时候，为什么？

Mohnish: I would say I have always been a happy guy in general. I have usually tried to set up my life in a manner that I am professionally very satisfied with. There have been periods in the past when I was professionally unhappy and those were tough periods. But I would say that the current period is as happy as I can remember any period being. It would be hard for me to calibrate, but I can think of two or three times in my past that were not great periods where I was out of alignment, and I was not in a good place. When I look back since I was 18 when I started college till today, I am going to be 60 in a few months, in these 42 years, there have been a few single-digit years, maybe two or three single-digit years that were not great. But those were the periods where I made changes. Where I was not happy with the situation, and I took the bull by the horns and it transformed things so that I have not had that type of situation in several decades. It has been great.

Mohnish: 总体来说，我一直是个快乐的人。我通常会努力把自己的生活安排得让自己在职业上非常满意。过去我也有过职业上不快乐的时期，那是一段艰难的时期。但我可以说，目前的生活是我记忆中最幸福的时期。对我来说，这很难校准，但我能想到我过去有两三次不是很好的时期，在那段时间里，我不在状态，心情不好。回顾我从 18 岁上大学到今天（再过几个月我就 60 岁了）的 42 年，有几个个位数的年头，也许有两三个个位数的年头并不好。但就是在那些时期，我做出了改变。我对现状不满意，于是我迎难而上，改变了一切，几十年来我再也没有遇到过这种情况。这已经很棒了。

Stig: Wow. That must be wonderful. One letter that you refer quite a few times to is Buffett's 2022 letter where he talks about those 12 decisions that improved the strike record. Because we are at this concert, and I do not want to play the greatest hits, I am not going to ask about the best investment decisions, but aside from your decision to sell TransTech, which other decisions have made you the biggest improvement in terms of happiness?

斯迪格：有一封信你提到过很多次，就是巴菲特的2022年致股东的信，他在信中谈到了真正提升击球记录的12个决定。由于我不想播放最热门的歌，所以我不准备问你最好的投资决策是什么。我想问的是，除了你出售Trans Tech的决定之外，还有哪些决策让你的幸福感得到了最大的提升？

Mohnish: That is a great question. I have only had one employer in my life. I only worked for one company in Chicago called Tellabs and I had started with them in R&D and engineering. After about two and a half years, I was quite unhappy with the situation. We did not really have great projects and I did not have a great manager. I was going through a lot of confidence issues and I was a very young guy at that time. I really needed better mentors and better managers. I made a change at that time when I moved from engineering to marketing. That was a tremendous positive change that really led to a very euphoric period; and great professional satisfaction. It was wonderful. Then another period was when I made the transition from TransTech. There have only been two or three of these periods in my life where I was hitting a low point. The actions I took to get out of that low point led to new highs and led to great highs.

莫尼什：这个问题问得好。我一生中只有一个雇主。我只在芝加哥一家名为 Tellabs 的公司工作过，一开始是从事研发和工程工作。大约两年半之后，我对公司的状况很不满意。我们并没有很好的项目，我也没有很好的经理。我经历了很多自信心的问题，而且当时我还很年轻。我真的需要更好的导师和经理。我当时做出了改变，从工程部转到了营销部。这是一个巨大而积极的变化，让我度过了一段非常愉悦的时期，并获得了极大的职业满足感。这真是太棒了。另一个时期是我从 TransTech 转型的时期。在我的人生中，只有两三次这样的低谷期。我为走出低谷而采取的行动，使我的事业达到了新的高峰，也使我的事业达到了顶峰。

One of the reasons why I think the happiness equation has worked as well as it has is because I am always asking myself the question, "Are you happy? Are you content? Are you satisfied? What would you like to change? What would you like to do differently?" For example, one of the changes I have made in the last few years is I try to kick the tires a lot more on the businesses that we own. I have been spending more time visiting the plants, coal mines, coal terminals, and warehouses; different things related to the different businesses that we own. I enjoyed that. First of all, it has helped me understand those businesses a lot better. But I also regret that I should have done more of that earlier. I was a lot more of an armchair investor earlier, and that is a comfortable place to be, but you can miss a lot when you are an armchair investor. It helps you understand the business better when you are in the field and you are meeting the different people who are doing different things in the business. That is an area I am trying to expand in my life. It leads to more travel and things, but there is a huge payoff as well, which is great.

我认为幸福等式之所以如此有效，原因之一是我一直在问自己："你幸福吗？你满足吗？你满意吗？你想改变什么？你想做什么不同的事情？例如，在过去的一年里，我所做的改变之一是这几年，我尝试着更多地考察我们拥有的企业。我花了更多的时间参观工厂、煤矿、煤炭码头和仓库；与我们拥有的不同业务相关的各种事物。我很喜欢这样做。首先，这有助于我更好地了解这些业务。但我也很后悔，早知道就多做一些这样的工作。我早些时候更多的是做 "坐而论道型投资者"，那是一个很舒服的地方，但如果你是一个 "坐而论道型投资者"，你可能会错过很多东西。当你身临其境，接触到在企业中从事不同工作的人时，你会对企业有更深入的了解。这也是我在生活中努力拓展的一个领域。这会导致更多的旅行和事情，但也有巨大的回报，这很好。

Stig: You mentioned the happiness equation just before, and I wanted to talk a bit more about that. If I say that we have two mental models; one is you figure out what makes you happy, and then you do more of that, and the other mental model, which is, you have some things that make you unhappy, and then you invert. Which one would you choose and do you have other mental models in terms of optimizing for happiness?

斯迪格：你提到幸福方程式，我想再谈谈这个问题。如果我说我们有两种思维模型，一种是你找出什么能让你快乐，然后做更多这样的事，而另一种是找出哪些事情让你不快乐，然后反其道而行之，你会选择哪一种？在优化幸福感方面，你还有其他的思维模型吗？

Mohnish: Well, I do not think it is one or the other; you have to do both. One of the things a lot of humans do is they drift through life. For example, you have a friend who has some shortcomings and, sometimes loyalty overrides rationality, and that can have a negative effect. It is easy to be in a status quo, but first of all, to grow as a person and to have a higher degree of happiness and a higher degree of satisfaction, you have to take the bull by the horns. You have to be deliberate in expanding the very healthy relationships, grow them, and deemphasize the ones that do not get you there. Those types of actions, a lot of humans are not willing to take, because loyalties get in the way, or other things get in the way. I am always trying to do that. When I moved to Austin, I started meeting people at my home for Assam tea in the afternoon, a couple of times a month. I can only handle so much with humans. A couple of times a month I am happy to step out of my cave and I meet someone I had not known or met for an hour or so. I tried to pick them based on the possibility that there was something possible there. People reach out to me if they would like to meet me. Of course, I cannot meet all of them, but in some cases, something is intriguing about the person, so I decide to meet the person. Most of the people I met that way have been wonderful to meet. It still does not result in anything. It is a one-and-done because there is just not enough there. Of course, I already have so many relationships and friendships that there is not that much room to keep adding an infinite number. I am much happier with fewer relationships, but deeper relationships. My dad used to say that if you have one good wife and one good friend, there is nothing else you need in life, and that was always my focus. These afternoons of Chai with Pabrai have been wonderful, and they have led to some new, wonderful friendships. It is just a small number. The ratio is small but I am okay with that. I feel happy when I meet someone, and I conclude that we probably will not have a deep friendship here, because I feel like we explored something and that is good. It is good to explore and check one off the list and keep the exploring going.

莫尼什：我认为这两者缺一不可，你必须两者兼顾。很多人都会在生活中随波逐流。例如，你有一个朋友，他有一些缺点，有时忠诚会压倒理性，这会产生负面影响。安于现状很容易，但首先，要想成长为一个人，要想获得更高的幸福感和满足感，就必须迎难而上。你必须有意识地扩大非常健康的人际关系，发展这些关系，淡化那些不能让你达到目标的关系。很多人都不愿意采取这些行动，因为忠诚会妨碍他们，或者其他事情会妨碍他们。我一直在努力做到这一点。当我搬到奥斯汀后，我开始每月几次在下午约人到家里喝阿萨姆茶。我只能处理这么多的人际关系。每个月有几次，我很高兴能走出我的洞穴，在一个小时左右的时间里，我遇到了一个我不认识或没见过的人。我试着根据可能存在的可能性来挑选他们。如果有人想见我，他们会主动联系我。当然，我不可能见所有的人，但在某些情况下，这个人身上有一些耐人寻味的东西，所以我决定见见这个人。我通过这种方式认识的大多数人都非常好。但这仍然不会带来任何结果。这只是一个一劳永逸的过程，因为还不够。当然，我的人际关系和朋友圈已经太多了，没有那么多空间继续无限增加。人际关系越少，但越深入，我就越快乐。 我父亲曾经说过，如果你有一个好妻子和一个好朋友，那么你的生活就别无所求了，这一直是我关注的焦点。与 Pabrai 一起度过的这些 "Chai "午后时光是美好的，它们促成了一些新的、美好的友谊。这只是一个小数字。虽然比例很小，但我觉得无所谓。当我遇到某个人时，我感到很高兴，我断定我们可能不会在这里建立深厚的友谊，因为我觉得我们探索了一些东西，这很好。探索是件好事，从清单上勾选一个，然后继续探索下去。

Stig:   Rumors have it that the Assam tea is very good; that is what I am told.

Stig:   有传言说，阿萨姆茶非常好喝；我也是这么听说的。

Mohnish: If you find yourself in Austin, Stig, we will have Assam tea.

Mohnish: 如果你在奥斯汀，Stig，我们会喝到阿萨姆茶。

Stig: I would love that. I am also worried because it leads me to the next question, not about the Assam tea, but I am a bit worried because you said in an interview that at that time, it was around 34ish people who had come to your home and you said one person made the cut. We have previously also talked about how to live a life of not telling lies. I would imagine that more than one of those people who you had in your home might have felt that you were great buddies. Now, perhaps you let one pass the filter, but perhaps the other person now feels that you are best friends. Let us say a person reaches out to you after being in your home, getting the best Assam tea, and then saying, "Hey, Mohnish can I pop by next Tuesday?" How do you say no to that person?

斯迪格：我很乐意。我也很担心，因为这让我想到了下一个问题，不是关于阿萨姆茶的，而是我有点担心，因为你在一次采访中说，当时大约有 34 人来到你家，你说有一个人入选了。我们之前也谈到过如何过一种不说谎话的生活。我猜想，在那些来你家的人中，可能不止一个人觉得你们是好朋友。现在，也许你让一个人通过了过滤，但也许另一个人现在觉得你们是最好的朋友。比方说，一个人在你家里喝了最好的阿萨姆茶后主动联系你，然后说："嘿，莫尼什，我下周二能过来吗？你怎么拒绝他呢？

Mohnish: One of the things I learned from Warren is you have to be good at saying no, and you have to be direct. I have always tried to be candid with everyone. One person came recently; a nice person. But also part of it is that I should just caveat this, that I may or may not fully understand that person after one meeting. I am making a judgment call based on Buffett's principles. When I had lunch with Warren, I told him, "Charlie and you are such fantastic judges of humans. Were you always a great judge of humans or is this something that you picked up over the years?" He says to me, "Well, first of all, Charlie is a lot better than me, but I just want to correct you, Mohnish. I am not a great judge of humans. If you put me in a cocktail party with a hundred people, and you gave me five or 10 minutes with each person, I could tell you that three or four people are exceptional and wonderful. I could also tell you three or four people are folks that you will have nothing to do with. The other 92 or so, I really would not have an opinion on because it is not enough time to form an opinion." But then he said that the three or   who are not great, and the  , who are unknown, he puts them both in the same bucket, which is harsh, but it is what you got to do. He says, "I will try to have a relationship with the three or four great people and ignore the rest."

That is an unfair system because, in that  , there are probably many good people; it just did not come through in that short period and that is the same thing with my Assam teas. In one hour, I am not going to be able to precisely nail down where everyone stands and what the realities of something that could be a great relationship are. But just like in investing, there are no call strikes because there are an infinite number of humans on this planet. Because there are an infinite number of future Assam teas, you can set a high bar and there is not much of a price you pay for not recognizing a great individual, but there is a huge negative price to be paid for letting someone in that may not be the right person to let into the inner circle. It is an unfair system. It is a bad system, Stig, but it is the system that Warren uses and who am I to try to improve on that system. What I look for is when I meet somebody, I reflect after the tea. I say, "Okay, what do I think? What is going on?" The most recent Chai with Pabrail had that person ask me to come to his place. He lives very close to my home. He said, "I was happy with the Assam tea, but I am a fan of Darjeeling Tea. I make a great cup of Darjeeling tea. Would you come to my home so that we can have Darjeeling tea?" I like the guy so I agreed even though I did not tell him Darjeeling is not my favorite. But it is okay, if the company is good, we can deal with mediocre tea.

莫尼什：我从沃伦身上学到的其中一件事是：你必须善于说“不”，你必须非常直接。我一直试着对每个人坦诚相待、直言不讳。但我也应该说明一下，我也许可以、也许不能在一次会面后就完全了解那个人，对吧？因为我是在做主观判断，我的判断是基于巴菲特的原则。当我和沃伦共进午餐时，我对沃伦说：“查理和你对人的判断都很出色，你们是一直都很会看人，还是这些年才学会的？”他对我说：“首先，查理比我强多了，但我还是想纠正你，莫尼什，我对人的判断并不出色。”他说：“如果你把我和100个人放在一个鸡尾酒会上，让我和每个人待5分钟或10分钟，我可以告诉你有3、4个是出类拔萃的。我也可以告诉你，有3、4个是你不想和他们有任何瓜葛的。至于其他92个人，我确实没什么观点。因为没有足够的时间来形成观点。”但他又说，他会把那3%或4%不怎么样的人和那92%无法判断的人都放进同一个桶里。没错，这很苛刻，但这是你必须做的。他说：“我会试着和那3、4个优秀的人建立关系，而忽略其他人。”

因此，那是一个不公平的系统，因为在那92%的人中，可能有很多好人，只是没法在那么短的时间内脱颖而出。而我的阿萨姆茶活动正是如此。在一个小时的时间里，我不可能准确确定每个人的水准，也不能准确确定是否可能是一段很好的关系。但就像投资一样，这个星球上有无限多的人类，所以不会有“三振出局”。也因为未来还将有无数要会面的人，你大体上可以设定一个很高的标准。没能辨认出一个优秀的人，你付出的代价并不大，但如果让一个不适合的人进入你的内部圈子，你绝对会付出很大的代价。

这的确是个不公平的系统，是个糟糕的系统，斯蒂格。但这就是沃伦使用的系统。我有什么资格去改进它呢？所以，每当我会见了某人，我基本都会在茶话会后反思。我会自问，“好吧，我是怎么想的？发生了什么？”最近一次茶话会后，有个人邀请我去他家，离我家很近，他说：“我对阿萨姆茶很满意，但我很喜欢大吉岭茶，我泡的大吉岭茶很棒，你能来我家一起品茶吗？” 我喜欢这个人，所以这不是一棍子打死，这不止一棍。我说，“好阿，大吉岭茶可以有。”你知道，大吉岭茶不是我的最爱，不过没关系。如果同伴不错，平庸的茶叶完全可以接受。

Stig: Whenever you say that you are a harsh grader, and whenever you say you want to be direct, of course, you also want to be kind, but do you say, "It was great meeting you," or do you say, "It was not great meeting you," if it was not a great meeting.

斯迪格：每当你说你是一个苛刻的评分者时，每当你说你想直接时，当然，你也想和蔼可亲，但如果不是一次很好的会面，你会说 "见到你很高兴"，还是说 "见到你不高兴"。

Mohnish: I have enjoyed these meetings. I am not lying when I am telling them I am not. I have enjoyed meeting these people because they go through a lot of filtering process before they show up, and I learned from everyone. They are wonderful people, so I am very direct with them. There was a person who came a few days back and he was interested in going to dinner with my girlfriend and his wife the four of us together. Now that adds more layers of complexity.

Mohnish: 我很享受这些会议。我告诉他们我没有说谎。我很喜欢和这些人见面，因为他们在出现之前要经过很多筛选过程，我从每个人身上都学到了东西。他们都是很好的人，所以我对他们很直接。前几天来了一个人，他想和我的女朋友和他的妻子一起吃饭，我们四个人一起。这又增加了一层复杂性。

Because she is going to ask me a bunch of questions. Who, what, where, what are we, what are we doing here? What is going on? To me, it was obvious. I did not even ask her. It was obvious to me that that was not going to be in the cards. I just told the person, "I am sorry, things are too busy. We cannot do it. All the best." Then he had a very gracious response, so it was fine.

因为她会问我一大堆问题谁，什么，在哪里，我们是什么，我们在这里做什么？发生了什么事？对我来说，这是显而易见的。我甚至都没问她。对我来说，这显然是不可能的。我只是告诉她："对不起，事情太忙了。我们办不到。祝您一切顺利"。然后他有了一个非常亲切的回应，所以就没事了。

Stig: Okay, wonderful.

斯迪格：好的，太好了。

Mohnish: When you are direct with people, it is not like they are sad; they appreciate the candor.

莫尼什：当你对别人直言不讳时，他们不会感到难过，反而会欣赏你的坦率。

Stig: Thank you for saying so because most of us come up with bad excuses and then we have to remember what we lied about last time, and we paint ourselves into a corner.

斯迪格：谢谢你这么说，因为我们大多数人都会想出一些糟糕的借口，然后我们又不得不回忆起上次撒了什么谎，结果就把自己逼到了墙角。

Mohnish: Yes. Do you remember the book Power Versus Force?

Mohnish: 是的。你还记得《Power vs. Force》这本书吗？

Stig: Yes, exactly.

斯蒂格：是的，没错。

Mohnish: We talked about it. You have to choose truth over diplomacy. When you choose truth over diplomacy and you play that long game, you come out ahead. It is a disservice. If I am not candid, it is a big negative. I try to be as candid while not trying to be abrasive.

莫尼什：我们谈过这个问题。我认为，如果我不坦诚，那将会帮倒忙。如果我不坦诚，那将产生很大的负作用。因此我尽量做到坦率，同时又不刻意刁难。

Stig: Mohnish shifting gears here a bit I want to talk about bridge. I know that was a, no pun intended, but a weird bridge to my next question. You teamed up with Dr. Jack Skeen in 1999ish. He gave you this owner's manual and you learned that you like to play games, you like single-play games in particular. With that in mind, I have learned that you are also really into playing bridge. I cannot help but ask you, I do not know if this is an either-or, but why are you so much into bridge and not a game like Hold'em poker?

斯迪格：换个话题吧。我想谈谈桥牌。之前我们谈过，1999年左右，你和Jack Skeen博士合作，他给了你一本<用户指南>，让你了解到自己喜欢玩游戏，特别是单人游戏。基于这点，我也了解到你非常喜欢玩桥牌。我忍不住问你，不知道这是不是二选一，但你为什么这么喜欢玩桥牌，为什么不是德州扑克那样的游戏呢？

Mohnish:It is funny Warren Buffett is a very good bridge player. He plays with a former world champion as his partner. Around two decades ago, he was invited to a poker tournament. He studied up a bit, and tried to understand how to play poker; it is a very different game. He did very terribly in poker. He went back to his bridge. I have played poker a few times, and I have never really gotten enough into the game to study it in depth. It is also a game of probabilities and you would know what to do better if you had a lay of what cards are left and what is going on and all of that. But the thing is, poker has elements of luck and elements of skill. The elements of skill are very significant because we do end up with some world champions who have a repetitive streak of getting to the last final table. Skill is significant, but there is a luck element in poker. Bridge, on the other hand, has zero luck element. It is purely a skill-based game. That has more appeal to me. It is also difficult to play poker without some money at stake. It is kind of intertwined with money. When I used to play bridge with Charlie, that was Social Bridge. We played for money. It was small stakes, but if I lost a hundred dollars or  , Charlie would be very delighted to collect that from me and his eyes twinkled thinking, "Mohnish's 125 is coming to me." Likewise, when I took money from Charlie, there was something very special about that. The small stakes worked with Social Bridge and it was okay. I am okay with Social Bridge, but I really enjoy Duplicate Bridge. Duplicate Bridge is purely skill-based. There is no money in the picture. We do it for points; points really have no value other than psychological value, and that is fine. We try on different gloves and some gloves fit well and work, and some gloves do not fit well and do not work. I have played poker dozens and dozens of times, many times in social situations with very good friends and all of that. It has just never gotten to the point that I wanted to do it all the time. I am playing at least four to six hours a week of bridge. Warren is playing even more than that. Warren is probably playing more than 10 , to 15 hours a week of bridge.

莫尼什：嗯…我想起一件好笑的事，沃伦巴菲特，他是一个很好的桥牌手，曾和一个前世界冠军做搭档。几年前，也许是十几二十年前，他受邀参加了一些德州扑克锦标赛，他真的去钻研了一下，试图了解如何玩好德州扑克。德州是一种非常不同的游戏，他在德州扑克中的表现非常糟糕。我也玩过几次扑克，但我从来没有深入研究过这个游戏。

我想说的是，这也是一个概率游戏，如果你知道还有什么牌，刚刚打了什么牌，就会知道怎么做才更好。但问题是，扑克中既有运气成分，也有技巧成分。显然，技巧的成分非常重要，因为我们确实有一些（扑克）世界冠军，他们会一而再再而三地进入最终的决赛桌。但是，技巧固然重要，扑克显然也有运气成分，而桥牌则没有。它纯粹是一种基于技巧的游戏，这对我更有吸引力。而且，我认为如果不赌上一些钱，也很难玩德州扑克，对吧？这和钱有关系。我以前和查理打桥牌时，那是社交桥牌。我们为钱而战，赌注很小。但如果我输了100或150美元，查理很高兴能从我这里收钱，他的眼里闪烁着光芒。同样，当我从查理那里拿钱的时候，也会有一些很特别的感觉。

所以说，社交桥牌只需要小小的赌注就能打。我对社交桥牌还行，但我真正喜欢的是复式桥牌。复式桥牌是一种纯粹以技巧为基础的桥牌，完全不涉及钱，我们是为了积分。除了心理价值外，积分完全没有其他价值。但这就够了。所以，我认为这就像是尝试不同的手套，有些手套很适合，有些手套不那么适合。我打过几十次扑克，主要是在社交场合和很好的朋友玩，只是从未达到我想一直玩下去的地步。桥牌，我每周至少打4到6个小时，沃伦打的比这还多。我觉得沃伦每周打桥牌的时间可能超过10到15个小时。

Stig:   That is interesting. I went to a bowling school where you could choose bridge as an elective. It was a great experience; you go there, you go to a tournament and there was someone with oxygen tanks. You kind of think, / got them, but then you just wipe it forward because they are so much better than you. It definitely makes you humble. I am not saying I was ever a good bridge player, perhaps I am a slightly better poker player, but I think in terms of investing, poker has been helpful because you learn how to control your emotions and to lose money, which I would say you probably do not do to the same extent in bridge, or at least not the type of bridge that I have been playing. It was very interesting to hear your take on how you just saw the two games and bridge was just perhaps just more fun, and you did not see it as a segue into investing by any means. Thank you for sharing Mohnish.

Stig:   有意思。我上过一所寄宿学校，可以选修桥牌课。那是个很棒的经历。你去那参加比赛，差点就觉得能赢他们，但之后被打得落花流水，因为他们比你强太多了，这绝对会让你变得谦虚。我从来不是个优秀的桥牌手，可能我的扑克水平略胜一筹，但我认为在投资方面，扑克很有帮助，因为你确实学会了如何控制自己的情绪以及如何输钱。你可能无法在桥牌中做到这一点，或者至少我玩的桥牌类型无法做到这一点。所以听你讲你如何看待这两种游戏很有意思。桥牌可能只是更有意思，你并没有将其视为投资的无缝衔接。谢谢你的分享。

Mohnish: Bridge is more directly tied to probabilities because there is no luck element. In investing luck may come into play in the sense that you may accidentally end up with a great manager or something that you did not understand at the outset. But the probabilities dominate. We try to ascribe probabilities to different things, so it kind of works.

莫尼什：桥牌更直接地与概率挂钩，因为没有运气成分。在投资中，运气可能会发挥作用，因为你可能会不小心遇到一位出色的经理，或者遇到一些你一开始并不了解的事情。但概率占主导地位。我们试图将概率归因于不同的事物，因此它也是有效的。

Stig: I am going to take the liberty here and define a principle as something timeless and something similar across all cultures. If we use that definition, which principles do you live by and why do you live by those principles?

斯迪格：在此，我冒昧地将原则定义为永恒的、在所有文化中都相似的东西。如果我们使用这个定义，你遵循哪些原则，为什么遵循这些原则？

Mohnish: Some principles are very front and center. A lot of these become intertwined with mental models. For example, like we talked about Power versus Force and the importance of truth and candor. That becomes a very core principle. Integrity, honesty, and trust are attributes that will make the world your oyster. It is a huge advantage to be trustable. Being trustable is a long game. It is an infinite game. It does not happen overnight. You have to be willing to play that long game to build trust. We had a high school intern at Pabrai Investment Funds who would help us with mailings and different things, like sending books to stake and so on. What my assistant told me was that he would say, "I am going to be there on Tuesday at 3 o'clock to work on stuff," and then he would not show up. Or he would say, "I am coming Wednesday at this time," but he would not show up. She said that when he does show up, his performance is exceptional, but when he says he is going to show up, there is a   probability that he is going to show up. I never talked to him, but I told her, "Munger says that one of the most important traits is reliability. Unfortunately, this young person does not recognize how important it is to be reliable. He can easily tell us that he is not available this week. We would be fine with it. But why lead someone on?" Charlie says that one of the best educational institutes on the planet is McDonald's because it hires very young people, and one of the most important traits they learn at McDonald's is reliability. Now, they are not like us in the sense that if you tell your boss at McDonald's, you are going to show up at 3:00 PM and you do not show up, by the second or third time you do that, you do not have a job. Even the second time you do that, you will not have a job. Reliability is extremely important for McDonald's because they will not be able to service their customers otherwise. The young people who work there get that work ethic, which is great, and that is why Charlie thinks that they do such a great job. The principles that carry the most weight are the most basic; trust, reliability, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, hard work, diligence, and fairness. People like to be treated fairly. If people are working for you, they really want to see that things are fair. These are just basic principles that you have to live by. If you do not do those, then in the end you will be the loser.

Mohnish: 我认为有一些原则处在非常前沿的位置，而且有很多都与思维模型交织在一起。举个例子，就像我们谈到的《Power vs. Force》，以及坦诚的重要性。我认为那应该成为一个非常核心的原则。正直、诚实、信任（integrity, honesty, trust），这些特质基本上会让你在世界如鱼得水。值得信赖是一个巨大的优势，值得信赖是一个长期游戏，是一个无限的游戏。它不会一蹴而就，你必须愿意玩这种长期游戏，以此建立信任。

我们在帕伯莱基金有一个高中实习生，他会帮助我们做邮寄等各种杂事，例如给Stig寄本书等等。我的助手告诉我说，他会说“我周二下午3点到那里工作”,结果没出现。或者他说“我周三某个时候来”，结果没来。我的助手说，当他出现时，他的表现非常出色。但当他说他会来的时候，他真来的概率是60%。我从没给那个年轻人谈过，但我告诉助手：“听着，芒格说，人最重要的特质之一就是可靠。不幸的是，这个年轻人并没有意识到可靠是多么重要。他可以很容易地告诉我们“我这周没空”，我们不会介意，但为什么要诱导别人呢？

查理说世界上最好的教育机构之一就是麦当劳，因为麦当劳雇用的都是年轻人。他们在麦当劳学到的最重要的特质之一就是“可靠”。他们可和我们不同，你告诉麦当劳的老板，你会在下午3点出现，但你接二连三都没出现，你就没工作了。即便是第二次不出现，你都不会有工作了。可靠对麦当劳来说极度重要，否则他们就无法服务好顾客，所以在那里工作的年轻人都明白这种职业道德，这很好。我觉得这就是查理认为他们工作出色的原因。

因此，我认为大部分最重要的原则，都是那些最基本的原则：信任、可靠、正直、诚实、真实、努力工作、勤勉、公正。人们喜欢被公正地对待。如果有人为你工作，他们想要看到事情是真正公平的。所以这些都是你必须遵守的基本原则。如果你不这么做，那么到头来，你会是个失败者。

Stig:   Why do so few people live by those seemingly simple perhaps not easy rules?

斯迪格：   为什么很少有人遵守这些看似简单或许并不容易的规则？

Mohnish: Because the payoffs do not come immediately. Trust is something that pays off after decades. Just think about Warren and Charlie. How old were they when the world started to trust them? Even outside the US, Buffett was not very well known till maybe   years ago. It is a lifetime of doing something that eventually leads to that type of outcome. A lot of people are looking for shortcuts. They do not want to play the long game. A used car dealer is just focused on, "Hey, let me take this sucker for the maximum I can. Who cares about the next one? He is not going to buy another car for so many years, and he might never, ever show up here again."

It is a very transactional one-off relationship, but over time, you end up with the shallows in life. People cannot see that because like I said, you have to connect the dots. This type of reliability and trustworthiness gets built over a long period. It is not overnight. You do not get to see the results of that relatively quickly. That is why people do not do it because they want to see  equals  . If I do  , then   happens. But here, no XY relationship is visible until a long time later.

Mohnish: 因为它们的回报不是立竿见影的。信任要在几十年后才会有回报。想想沃伦和查理吧。当全世界开始信任他们的时候，他们多大了？在美国以外，巴菲特甚至不算特别出名，他直到15或20年前才开始被越来越多的人熟知。这是践行一生而最终导致的结果。很多人都在寻找捷径，他们不想玩长期游戏。二手车交易商仅仅专注在：“嘿，让我宰一个算一个，最大限度地把这车卖掉。谁在乎下一辆呢？他很多年都不会再买另一辆车了，而且他可能永远不会再出现在这里了。”对不对？

这是一种非常交易性的、一次性的关系，随着时间的流逝，你的人生将充斥着浅薄的人和关系。但人们看不到这点，原因就像我说的，你必须将这些点串联起来（以明了全局）。而且这种可靠和可信度需要很长一段时间才能建立起来，无法一蹴而就。你不会很快就看到结果。这就是为什么人们不这么做，因为他们希望看到如果我做了X，Y就会发生。但这种事没有（明显的）XY关系，这种关系要在很久之后才能看到。

Stig:That is why some companies that should be buying back shares are not doing it. But that is a different discussion, I guess.

斯迪格：这就是为什么一些应该回购的公司却不这么做，但那是另外一个话题了…

Mohnish: Yes, and as I said, even the best companies play the long game. We are seeing right now, for example, at Boeing, a situation where Boeing used to be an engineer-led company, and after they merged with McDonnell Douglas. The bean counters took over and the bean counters focused on, "Hey, can we increase earnings   a year? They must be fat. We can cut." For example, if you look at something like the 737 aircraft, which is the workhorse, there was a demand for 737 s with more capacity. Quite frankly, that airplane with that fuselage cannot grow infinitely, because also to have more capacity, you need bigger engines. What they did was they put these massive engines on the old 737 fuselages. If you look at the max, the engines are huge. Then they extended the fuselage and so they told the engineering groups that, "We know you are telling us that we should go to square one and design a new airplane, but that is   years, and several billion dollars. Can we just modify this?" They forced the modifications, and then we had the two crashes. The max is a bean counter that is what happens when you have bean counters running engineering. They started not playing the long game. They played a short game. Now, there is a "Come to Jesus" at Boeing and it is terrible because quite frankly, we only have two aircraft manufacturers in the world. We need Boeing to be a high-quality, great engineer-driven company, that builds great airplanes and plays the long game. People are very willing to let Boeing make a lot of money. No problem. But please play the long game. We see businesses like Boeing, which are such great businesses suddenly decide, "Let us cut corners."

Mohnish: 我们现在就能看到这种情况。举例来说，在波音公司，现在的情况是，波音曾是一家由工程师领导的公司，但在与麦道合并之后，“精打细算者”（bean counter，这里指那些过于专注于财务指标、想要节省成本的管理者）接手了，这群精打细算者的重点是，我们能不能把每年盈利提高10%、15%？公司一定很臃肿，我们可以削减开支。例如，如果你看看737飞机，那是他们的主力机型，市场有让737提供更多运力的需求，坦率地说，这种机身的飞机不可能无限增长，因为要有更多的运力，就需要更大的发动机。他们做了什么？他们把这些大而重的发动机放置于旧的737机身上。如果你看看波音737 MAX，发动机巨大，然后他们延长了机身。基本上，他们就是告诉工程小组，“是的，我们知道你们觉得应该从头开始设计一架新飞机，但这需要8年、10年和几十亿美元。我们能不能改进一下（现有型号）？”于是他们强行修改了737，随后我们发生了两次坠机。这飞机仍然是一个组装机，你懂我的意思吧？波音737 MAX是个精打细算的作品。这就是当你让精打细算者负责机械工程运营会发生的事。

他们开始不玩长期游戏，玩短期游戏了。这太可怕了，因为说真的，世界上只有两家飞机制造商，我们需要波音成为一家高质量、由优秀工程师所驱动的公司，制造优秀的飞机，玩长期游戏。人们非常愿意让波音公司赚大钱，这没问题，但请玩好长期游戏。所以我们看到，即使像波音这样伟大的企业，也会突然决定偷工减料。

Stig: Mohnish, I want to read books the way that you do. I remember we had a conversation a few years back and you said that if you do not find a book interesting, just like a stock, if it is too much debt, you just stop reading it. I am practicing that. It is surprisingly difficult for me not to read a book from A to C, but I am practicing that. I wanted to ask a bit about your reading habits. Do you take notes in your books or do you put them into a document? How do you process the information you read from books?

斯迪格：是阿，确实很糟糕...莫尼什，记得几年前我们有过一次谈话，你说如果你觉得一本书没意思，就像对待某只股票，如果它负债太多什么的，你就会停止阅读。对我来说，我很难不把一本书从头到尾全部看完，但我正在实践你的做法。我想问问你的阅读习惯。你会在书上记笔记，还是把它们记在文档里，或者你是如何处理从书上读到的信息的？

Mohnish: I want to give you some information, Stig, that I have never given in any interview ever.

莫尼什：斯蒂格，我要告诉你一些我从未在任何采访中透露过的信息。

Stig: I am intrigued.

Stig: 我很感兴趣。

Mohnish: Since I was in kindergarten, all the way to finishing my undergrad and even taking grad classes and so on, I never took notes in any classroom when a professor or teacher was teaching. Everyone around me is taking notes. I am just focused on listening to the person or watching what is going on. I had never, ever taken notes. What I would do is when there is a test that is going to happen or whatever, I would go to the textbook and say for example, "Okay, we have chapter three and chapter six on the test." I would read up on those and get ready for the test. Sometimes what would happen is the professor is not teaching from the book at all, and I am saying, "Oh, what he talked about, I am screwed without notes." And now there is a test, and I am like, kind of scrambling, trying to figure out. I call my friends and say, "Hey, what are we supposed to prepare here and what are we supposed to read here and whatever." But I never changed that habit. Somehow that habit has stayed with me , and I graduated near the top of my class in my undergrad, and I did well. I made it to 60 years of life without taking notes. And even when I am reading books, I mean, if I didn't take notes in class, I am not going to take notes when I am reading a book. It is not going to happen. I have never taken any notes anywhere. I want to also touch on two different data points that you brought up. So Bill Gates has a situation which is like Stig, if he starts a book he has to finish, it has to, he is obsessive-compulsive okay, Charlie is not like that or was not like that at all and I remember I was talking to Tracy Britt, and Tracy said that you know Warren studied Lehman Brothers during the crisis. I think he was looking at whether he should invest there or not, etc. He read their annual reports and different things, and she said, I got the hard pages that he read, and I looked through all the pages for his notes, and she said there was almost nothing. There were like couple of places where there was something underlined or something, but there would have been less than five words of notes in all those 10 Ks that he read for Lehman Brothers. There was really no record. I was trying to figure out what he was thinking about it. Whatever he was thinking was in his head and nothing was kind of put down on paper. One time, Berkshire did some acquisition and the SEC was questioning; there was some insider stuff. They sent Berkshire a request saying, “We want to see all the staff notes for this acquisition.” Munger sent them a response that said, “Sir, there is no staff, and there are no notes. Warm regards.” That was the end of that.

莫尼什：基本上，从我上幼儿园开始，一直到读完本科，甚至读研究生等等，我从不记笔记。在任何课上，当教授或老师讲课时，我周围每个人都在记笔记。我只是专心听老师讲，或是观察课堂上发生了什么，从没记过笔记。我会做的是，当有考试或其它什么任务时，我会翻开课本看看，例如说要考第三章和第六章，我会读一下，然后准备考试。有些时候，教授完全不照本宣科，这时我就有点傻了，我会想，他都讲了些什么，我会拼命想办法，打电话给我朋友什么的，问问这一部分我们应该准备什么？应该读些什么？诸如此类…但我从没改变过这个习惯。不知怎么的，这个习惯一直伴随着我，而且我毕业成绩名列前茅。所以我在不做笔记的情况下成功活到了60岁。阅读时也是一样，我是说，如果我在课堂上都不记笔记，看书的时候当然更不会记了。这不会发生的，斯蒂格。

所以说，我从来没在任何地方做过笔记。我还想谈谈你提到的两个不同的数据点。比尔盖茨也有你这种情况。如果他开始读一本书，他就必须读完它。必须！他有点强迫症。查理完全不是那样的人。

另外，我记得我和特蕾西·布里特（Tracy Britt，1984年生，担任巴菲特助理及伯克希尔旗下四家公司的董事长）谈过，Tracy说沃伦在金融危机期间研究过雷曼兄弟公司，我猜他当时是在考虑是否应该投资它，所以他读了他们的年报和不同的资料。她说，当我拿过他阅读过的那些纸张，翻看他所有的笔记，里面几乎什么都没有，有个别地方有一些下划线什么的，但在所有为了解雷曼兄弟所阅读的10K（年报）中，可能最多不超过5个字的笔记，实际上就是没记录。她说，我试图搞清楚他是怎么想的，但里面基本没有记录。无论他想了什么，都是在他脑子里进行的，没有被写在纸上。

有一次，我想是伯克希尔公司做了一些收购，而美国证券交易委员会质疑他们有内幕消息相关的一些东西。因此证监会向伯克希尔提出申请，说：“我们想看看关于这次收购的所有员工笔记。”芒格给他们的回复是：“好的，先生。这里没有员工，也没有笔记。问好。”这事就这样结束了。（哈哈…）很抱歉让你失望了，但我不是个爱记笔记的人。

Stig: That is fantastic.

Stig: 太棒了。

Mohnish: I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a note-taker.

莫尼什：很抱歉让你失望了，我不是一个记笔记的人。

Stig: Interesting. Well, thank you for sharing. That was insightful. I am going to ask you some questions that are investment-related. They are going to be a little bit different than what you are used to. It is no secret that you have a great track record, but you have been handling the beating, the S&P 500, for more than two decades now. I am teeing myself up to ask you, and I do not know if this is going to come across as rude or, perhaps even the opposite. If you started Pabrai Investment Funds over a thousand times, do you think your current track record would be better or worse than what it is now if we subtract good and bad luck? Please feel free to challenge that premise and say that it has already been evened out. Good and bad luck for now.

Stig: 谢谢你分享这些。莫尼什，我还是会问你一些与投资相关的问题，但这些问题可能与你所熟悉的有点不同。你的投资业绩很好，这不是什么秘密，20多年来，你一直在轻松地战胜标准普尔500指数。但我想问你，如果让你成立帕伯莱基金1000次，剔除掉其中的运气成分，你认为你的业绩会比现在更好还是更差？你可以随便质疑这一前提，认为目前好运和厄运已经相互抵消掉了。

Mohnish: First of all, I should just preface and say that I started investing in the 94-95 timeframe from then till about 2018. If you look at any period, one year, five years, 10 years of life, whatever I beat the S&P, all the different funds, I managed. We have been behind the S&P from 2018 till now in most of the funds. But we have also turned a corner, I think from 2020 onwards. We are again beating the S&P. We have to go a little bit longer period, a few more years. Then we will again be back to beating it over all periods. It is a difficult question to answer. What has happened over the years is that I have learned a few things along the way and I have changed some approaches along the way. I do not know what the answer would be. I would think that in most of those scenarios, we should end up with a decent record. But it is hard to say. At the end of the day, it is the individual names, and it is a sliver of those names that lead to the outcomes.

莫尼什：首先，作为开场白，我想先说一下，我从94、95年左右开始投资，从那时一直到2018年左右，无论你截取其中哪一段，1年、5年或是10年，什么都可以，我管理的所有基金都跑赢了标普500指数。但从2018年到现在，我们的大多数基金都跑输了标普500指数。但我们也有转机，从2020年算起，我们再次跑赢了指数，如果再拉长几年，我认为我们应该能重新战胜指数。

所以这是一个很难回答的问题，即使是进行情景模拟。因为这些年来，我一路上也学到了一些东西，改变了一些投资方法，所以我确实不知道答案是什么。我认为，大多数情形下，我们应该能做得很好，我们应该能有一个体面的业绩，但这很难说，因为归根结底，它取决于你所投的个别企业，而这些名字中的一小部分决定了你的结果。

Stig: Yes. That is why I cannot help but ask that question. In a game like poker, if you play enough hands and hundreds of thousands of hands, the luck element goes away. But then if I look at you, as an investor, I get the letters from you and I can see different track records for the three funds that you have. They were more or less started at the same time. and the results are quite different. You were presumably a good investor, whenever you invest for those three funds and for whatever reason. For example, Reysas has a bigger position in one of your funds than the other funds, which I am personally very happy about. You do get different results, which is why I wanted to ask you about what we ran into a thousand times, and I do not even know how to ask that question the best possible way because whenever you said you saw the dotcom bubble, but that was also because you had made some private investments. You sort of saw what was coming. Is that bad luck or is that good luck that you knew that going into it? Can we even put that into a simulation? Can we even do the same period? How do you think about luck whenever it comes to your own track record?

斯迪格：是的，这就是我忍不住问这个问题的原因。在扑克这样的游戏中，如果你玩了足够多的牌，玩了几十万手牌，运气成分就会消失。但是，如果我看看你，作为你的投资者，我收到你的信，我可以看到你三只基金不同的业绩记录。它们基本是同时成立的，不完全是，但大体上是，基金结果却大相径庭。而且在投资这三只基金时，可以想见你都是一样好的投资者。举例来说，不管出于什么原因，其中一只基金中Reysas这家公司的持仓比另外两只更大，我个人对此感到非常高兴，但结果的差异的确会存在。这就是我为什么想问你，如果我们运行1000次的话会怎样？我甚至不知道该怎么问才好。每当你说你预见到了互联网泡沫，因为当时你在做一些个人投资，我不禁会想，你预见了泡沫然后全身而退，这是厄运还是好运？我们能把这一因素加以模拟吗？甚至在同一时期进行模拟？谈到你的历史业绩，你如何看待运气在其中扮演的角色？

Mohnish: It was a huge advantage for Pabrai Investment Funds that I had a front-row seat on. I could see what was going to happen maybe three months ahead of what others could see, and I completely sidestepped the bubble and did well. Part of that I think is luck. The experience I had or what I had observed, we did not have the same situation in the financial crisis. When we had the financial crisis at that time, I really could not see it. I did not see it ahead of time and we paid the price. We had some investments go to zero, and we had a lot of things get marked down. It is not perfect. You cannot always have a crystal ball seeing what we are doing. Like Charlie says, "We are old too soon and wise too late." I wish I had some of the insights I have now, 20 or 30 years ago. That would give me a huge advantage. But it is what it is. We take it as it goes. I do not spend any time thinking about it the way you are suggesting. My focus is that we have a certain reality of positions, we own assets, we manage opportunities available, and then we do the best we can with all that.

莫尼什：我有前排座位（指对企业和市场有更深、更密切的接触），这对帕伯莱基金来说是个巨大的优势。我比别人提前看出了将要发生的事情，虽然不是很多，但也有三四个月吧，所以我完全避开了（互联网）泡沫，而且做得非常好。当然，我认为这里面有运气的成分，也有我的经历和我的观察。但（2008年）金融危机有所不同。金融危机那时候，我确实没有预见到。我没提前看出泡沫，结果我们付出了代价。我们有一些投资变成零，有很多东西大幅折价。所以这并不完美，不可能总是有一个水晶球能看出我们在做什么。

就像查理说的，我们老得太快，聪明得太晚。我真希望我二三十年前就能有现在的一些见解，但人生就是这样，我们只能把它当作一个目标。我不会像你提议的那样花时间思考这类问题。我认为我的关注点在于，在我们目前的持仓、管理的资产和可获得的机会的现实条件下，尽我们所能做好这一切。

Stig: That is just a healthy way of looking at it. Because of Charlie, you got all these wonderful questions about stories about Charlie and how you remember him. One of the things that you mentioned in other interviews is that he is so good at looking forward, not thinking about everything that has been in the past, which is just wonderful. I kind of feel bad about asking you this very theoretical question, but again I am not here playing the greatest hits. Let us say I am the genie coming out of this bottle here and I am going to grant you a wish. I am going to tell you that I have an account here and there is a 20% interest rate in perpetuity if you put money into that account. But the price is that you can never invest your own money. You can take your own money and put it in this account, you get 20% like clockwork. You get 20%, but you cannot play the game of investing. Would you ever take that bet or not even bet? Would you ever do that knowing that you do not need the money from that 20% compounding, but you perhaps love to play the game?

斯迪格：你有很多关于查理的精彩故事，以及对他的回忆。你在其他采访中提到的一件事是，他非常善于向前看，不考虑过去的一切，所以我觉得问你这个理论性很强的问题有点不妥，但我还是要问。这么说吧，假设我是瓶子里的精灵，我告诉你我有一个账户，利率是20%。如果你把钱存入这个账户，就能永远得到20%的利息，这不是庞氏骗局，是真的交易，但代价是你永远不能用自己的钱投资。你会接受吗？还是说你知道你不需要那20%的复利回报，你也许更喜欢玩（投资）游戏？

Mohnish: That is a great question. I do very much enjoy the game, but that would be a very tempting offer. I would have to think about it. You are suggesting it is all or none, right?

莫尼什：这个问题问得好。我非常喜欢这款游戏，但这是一个非常诱人的提议。我得考虑一下。你的意思是要么全要，要么不要，对吗？

Stig: Yes.

斯蒂格：是的。

Mohnish:Right. I would say that I might take it and go all in on bridge.

莫尼什：好吧我想说的是，我可能会接受它，然后all in到桥牌。

Stig: Wonderful.

Stig: 太棒了。

Mohnish: I will be playing math games. There was a guy who had invested in my fund a long time back maybe more than 20 years ago. He said that one day he had opened Barron's or something, and there was some article on Berkshire He saw that the stock was like 70,000. He is a smart guy. He said, "No company on the planet is worth 70,000 per share." He did not know anything about Berkshire, nothing about Warren Buffett and he shorted the stock. He met me a few years after getting burnt on that short. He told me, "In the early eighties, I had noticed that the US treasuries were playing   "; pretty close to what you said. You could have bought 30-year US treasuries in 1980 or 1981, and for 30 years, the US government would pay you   a year on that bet. He told me, "Mohnish, not only did I short Berkshire, but I did not take that   bet." Most people did not take that bet. Then he told me, "I just want God to give me one more chance of   US treasuries, and I will put everything in. I promise God I will put everything in. I will never invest in anything again."

Exactly what you were saying is what this guy was saying to me, which would have been smart for him to do. That would have been one hell of an investment, from 1980 to 2010 to get   compounded would have been unbelievable with no volatility.

Mohnish: 我会玩数学游戏。很久以前，有一个人投资了我的基金，大概有 20 多年了吧。他说有一天他打开《巴伦周刊》或其他什么杂志，里面有一篇关于伯克希尔公司的文章。他是个聪明人。他说，"地球上没有一家公司每股值7万"他对伯克希尔公司一无所知，对巴菲特也一无所知，他就做空了这只股票做空失败几年后，他遇到了我。他告诉我：“80年代初期，我注意到美国国债的收益率是18%。”跟你说的20%差不多了吧。在1980年或1981年，你可以买30年期的美国国债，随后30年里，美国政府每年会为你这笔赌注支付18%的利息。他对我说：“莫尼什，我不仅做空了伯克希尔，我也没有接受那个赌注。”是啊，大多数人都没有下那个注。然后他对我说：“我只想让上帝再给我一次机会。如果再给我一次18%美国国债的机会，我就把所有的钱都投进去。我向上帝保证，我会把所有钱都投进去，再也不投资任何东西了。”

所以刚刚你说的正是这家伙对我说的，对他来说，这么做是明智的。从1980年到2010年，如果能获得18%的复利回报，而且没有波动，那将是笔难以置信的投资。

Stig: What a story. Mohnish, I wanted to preface this question by saying I wanted to ask you about giving away money without talking about Dakshana which I do not know if it is even a fair premise. If we are good at accumulating capital, we should probably be accumulating capital instead of spending too much time, giving it away. Giving away money is very difficult. It is very difficult because you do not have that positive feedback, in terms of figuring out if it is right or wrong, and should make all kinds of disclaimers that you probably figured out with Dakshana. This is probably a weird question, but I am going to ask it anyway. Assume that you are better at accumulating money than giving money away. You want to help society, but you take so much more joy in giving money away than accumulating more capital whenever you are financially independent. How would you think about how to allocate your time?

斯迪格：真是个好故事。接下来，我想在不谈Dakshana（注：莫尼什创立的慈善项目，主要帮助来自印度农村的优秀贫困学生准备印度理工学院和医学入学考试）的情况下问你关于捐赠的问题，不知道这是不是个公平的前提。如果我们善于积累资本，我们或许应该去积累资本，而不是花时间在如何捐赠。把钱捐出去是非常困难的，因为你缺乏正反馈闭环，找出它是对是错，尽管你可能已经从Dakshana的事业中搞清楚了这点。所以这可能是个奇怪的问题，但我想问：假设你更善于赚钱，而不是捐钱，但你想帮助社会，因为捐钱带给你的快乐远大于积累更多的资本，而且你已经财务自由了。这种情况下，你会怎样分配你的时间？你是怎么考虑这个问题的？

Mohnish:Well, I did not want to spend time giving money away. I knew that I did not believe in large inheritances. If you do not believe in large inheritances, then you are going to end up with a lot of money. You will end up having one choice only which is to give it away. There is nothing else you can do. My focus in 20062007, when I was trying to figure this out, was to find a nonprofit that I could just write checks. I did not want to do the work. It is very painful to do the work. The first few years at Dakshana took an incredible amount of time and effort to get it off the ground. There were a lot of challenges in the early days. I was forced to do it because the model I wanted to follow, the guy who had that model did not want to scale. So I said, okay, we will just clone it because we have no other choice. Today I know of one or two nonprofits that do a really good job. If I were facing that situation today, I would look to them assuming they could absorb the amounts I was looking at. I think that would be great. My natural inclination was to not be building Dakshana or anything like that.

莫尼什：老实讲，我本不想花费时间在捐钱上面。我知道我不想留大笔遗产给孩子。如果你不相信大笔遗产，而你最终有很多钱，那么你只有一个选择，就是把钱捐出去。你别无选择。

所以在2006年、2007年的时候，当时我的重点是想找一个非营利组织，能直接开支票给他们就行，我并不想下场做这些工作。做Dakshana的前几年很痛苦，因为要花费大量时间和精力才能让它起步，初期有很多挑战，而且我是被迫自己干的，因为创建出我想遵循的慈善模式的那人，并不想扩大规模。因此我说，“好吧，那我们就克隆它，因为我们没有其它选择。”

如今，我知道有一两家非营利组织做得非常好，所以如果我今天面临这种情况，我会直接去找他们。假设他们能吸收我的捐赠额度的话，我觉得那会很棒。所以我固有的倾向是不创立Dakshana或类似的东西。

In hindsight, what has happened is that Dakshana blew away the most optimistic goals I had for it by quite a distance. The ball got hit way out of the park, and I never expected that. I actually expected to fail at doing something in India when I was not there. Dakshana has enriched my life in a way that I really could not have forecasted. It was definitely in 2007 when I was starting it, none of these things were on the radar. None of these things were even possibilities. It went beyond those possibilities. Now when I look back, I say, "Wow, Mohnish, you are really lucky because you actually ended up with something like Dakshana and the people I met as a result, the scholars who become such good friends and all of this stuff that is happening. I know that the real miracles at Dakshana will come about in the next few decades, and I am hoping that I have a nice long life because there is so much joy in all of those stories and miracles that are happening every day." You can just say that my middle name is Forrest Gump. I stumbled into this and a lot of things, just like I stumbled into a friendship with Charlie, playing bridge with him, and taking money off him and all that, and stumbled into a relationship with Warren. There has been so much stumbling, but also I would say that you take some actions so that then luck can do its part. If you do not take the action, luck cannot do its part. From a very selfless point of view, I wanted to just thank Warren Buffett for all the things I learned from him. The lunch I bid for, though there was no ulterior motive, the only motivation was to see him eye to eye and say, "Thank you so much, Warren." I was willing to give Warren at that time up to   million for that lunch, but we got it for much less. I felt like giving up two or  of my net worth at that time was very worthwhile in terms of a low tuition bill. That was all the thought that was paid. It added so many dimensions to my life. The friendship with Charlie was not a buy one get one free. It was buy one, get infinite lunches free, which is great. What I have learned is, that if you are a good person, working hard, putting yourself in the right place, and doing the right actions, the universe conspires to help you in very magical ways. I truly believe that, and I think as long as you are playing the long game, playing the infinite game, and trying to do the right thing, things have a way of working out wonderfully.

Stig: I wanted to tie a few things together here on that note, Mohnish. In William Green's wonderful book Richer, Wiser, Happier, chapter one might be the best because that is with you, Mohnish. Chapter six is with Nick and Sack. They talk about handing someone a loaded gun and then you can only treat the other person well. I found that to be such a wonderful framework. I started gifting William's book away to different people. Grant has this wonderful framework of givers, takers, and matchers which a lot of our listeners might be familiar with. I heard you talk about Dakshana and the idea behind it, you are not going to tell anyone to give   or   of whatever you make by getting help from Dakshana in terms of paying back to the school and helping others. You say, "Give, give, give, give, give." If you are a giver, beautiful things can come back to you. I have been trying on a very small scale to set up at a Dakshana Foundation. Whenever I do, I come up with these beautiful principles, I read your annual letters from Dakshana and it all sounds good. People tell me it is a very bad way of running any kind of non-profit. How would you give a rebuttal to that because it worked for you, Mohnish?

斯迪格：在这里，我想把一些东西联系在一起。威廉格林的著作《更富裕、更聪明、更幸福》第6章，我得说第1章可能更好（注：书中第1章写的是莫尼什·帕伯莱），Nick和Zak谈到，“交给别人一把上膛的枪，这样你只能好好对待对方。”我发现这是个很好的框架。所以我开始把威廉的书赠送给不同的人，与我交谈过的更富有、更注重价值投资的人都觉得这很有道理。我在第三世界国家也有朋友，他们对我说，如果你能负担得起拥有所有这些原则，不管你怎么称呼它们，那真是太美好了。然后格兰特也有一个很好的框架，即给予者、索取者和匹配者。很多你的听众可能对这个框架很熟悉，你给我讲过Dakshana以及背后的理念。你不会告诉任何人你应该从中分得多少比例的回报，你只是给、给、给…如果你是给予者，美好的事物就会回到你身边。因此，我一直尝试设立一个小规模的基金会。每当我这么做，我想起这些美丽的原则，我读了你的年信，一切听起来都很好，但人们基本都告诉我，这样运作任何一种非营利组织都是很糟糕的方式。你会怎样驳斥这点？因为它显然对你是奏效的。

Mohnish: I would say that as Charlie said, we talked about McDonald's and reliability. If you want to get ahead in life, do well in life, and have a disproportional advantage in life you want to be a giver; you want to be reliable. Being a giver does not require you to be wealthy. We have so many poor scholars and students at Dakshana who give their time to us. They volunteer for us. They do not have anything else to give, but their time, and they are very excited to give that time. What I am saying is you do not need to be wealthy to be a giver. You can give within your means. It does not need to be anything related to money. The other traits, reliability, truthfulness, integrity, high empathy, caring for people, etc., play the long game. In the end, the universe will conspire to help you in a manner that would blow you away. I just think the skeptics do not know the way the world works, and you can see so many examples in history. It would be difficult to come up with examples of people who were very reliable, honest, hardworking, with very high integrity, and did terribly in life. That would be very difficult to come up with examples of people like that.

Mohnish: 就像我们前面提到的麦当劳和可靠性。我认为，如果你想在生活中出人头地，在生活中如鱼得水，拥有不成比例的优势，你会想要成为一个给予者，成为一个可靠的人。成为一个给予者并不需要你很富有。在Dakshana，有很多贫困的学者和学生在为我们奉献时间，他们是我们的志愿者。除了时间，他们没有其它可以奉献的东西，并且他们非常乐意奉献自己的时间。

所以我想说的是，你不需要很富有，也可以成为一个给予者。你可以量力而行，不一定必须要和钱相关，对吧？其它特质，可靠、真实、正直、高度的同理心、对他人的关爱，等等，玩长期游戏。最终，宇宙会用一种让你大吃一惊的方式帮助你。因此，那些怀疑论者，我只是认为他们不知道世界是如何运转的。你可以在历史上看到很多这样的例子，但你很难举出那些非常可靠、非常诚实、非常勤奋、有很高诚信度，但最终却过得很惨的例子。你很难找出这样的例子。

Stig: As we are nearing the end of our train ride here together Mohnish, what a wonderful way of ending a train ride. Anything you want to add here before we round off the interview?

斯迪格：我们接近这趟列车的终点了，真是一段精彩的旅程。在我们结束访谈之前，你还有什么要补充的吗？

Mohnish: Some of my best memories in childhood were train rides in India. William Green and I had two wonderful train rides when he was in India with me. He was drinking from a fire hydrant. There were so many things going on. He was full technicolor going on. I would just say that anyone listening to the video if you get a chance to visit India, try to take an overnight train journey. I think you will love that experience. The Indian government has set up several trains. The Rajdhani Express, the Duronto, and these go all over the country. You can catch a train at seven or eight o'clock at night and it pulls into your destination at 10 , or 11 a.m. You do not lose much, and you have got a free hotel to stay for the night. I think that is a wonderful experience to broaden your horizons.

莫尼什：我童年最美好的一些记忆就是在印度的火车旅行。威廉格林和我曾有过两次美妙的火车之旅，他和我一起去印度，竟然真从消防栓上喝水，还发生了很多事情，多姿多彩。我想说，如果你有机会去印度游览，或者任何看到视频的人有机会去游览的话，尽量坐一夜火车吧，我想你会爱上这种体验的。

 我童年最美好的一些记忆就是在印度的火车旅行。威廉格林和我曾有过两次美妙的火车之旅，他和我一起去印度，竟然真从消防栓上喝水，还发生了很多事情，多姿多彩。我想说，如果你有机会去印度游览，或者任何看到视频的人有机会去游览的话，尽量坐一夜火车吧，我想你会爱上这种体验的。

Stig: Fantastic. Mohnish thank you. Thank you so much for your time. It was a pleasure speaking with you as always, and thank you for playing along in this probably very different interview.

Stig: 太棒了。谢谢你。非常感谢你抽出时间。很高兴能一如既往地与您交谈，感谢您参与这次可能非常不同的采访。

Mohnish: It was my pleasure Stig and I look forward to seeing the edited version.

Mohnish: 这是我的荣幸，Stig，我期待着看到编辑后的版本。

Stig: Alright. Fantastic.

好吧。太棒了

Mohnish: Thank you. Bye.

莫尼什Thank you.再见

Stig: Bye. 再见