I.H.183.Warren Buffett.Be regarded as an asset
巴菲特在1992年的股东信中引用一句话：“狂热就是在忘记目标后加倍努力”，“Be regarded as an asset”是最基本的目标也是最容易忘记的目标，想明白了所有的幻觉都发生在问题的起点。
1、《1995-04-20 Steve Jobs.Interview with Daniel Morrow》
The Apple Computer Company 苹果电脑公司
SJ: Apple was this incredible journey. I mean we did some amazing things there. The thing that bound us together at Apple was the ability to make things that were going to change the world. That was very important. We were all pretty young. The average age in the company was mid-to-late twenties. Hardly anybody had families at the beginning and we all worked like maniacs and the greatest joy was that we felt we were fashioning collective works of art much like twentieth century physics. Something important that would last, that people contributed to and then could give to more people; the amplification factor was very large.
SJ：苹果是一段不可思议的旅程。我是说，我们在那里做了一些惊人的事情。在苹果把我们凝聚在一起的，是那种能够制造出将改变世界的产品的能力，这非常重要。我们都还很年轻，公司平均年龄在二十多岁末。最初几乎没人有家庭，我们都像疯子一样工作，而最大的快乐是我们觉得自己在打造集体艺术品，就像二十世纪的物理学那样，创造出持久的重要成果，人们为之贡献，然后能传递给更多人；这种放大效应非常显著。
SJ: In doing the Macintosh, for example, there was a core group of less than a hundred people, and yet Apple shipped over ten million of them. Of course everybody's copied it and it's hundreds of millions now. That's pretty large amplification, a million to one. It's not often in your life that you get that opportunity to amplify your values a hundred to one, let alone a million to one. That's really what we were doing. If you look at what we tried to do, it was to say "Computation and how it relates to people is really in its infancy here. We are in the right place at the right time to change the course of that vector a little bit." What's interesting is that if you change the course of a vector near its origin, by the time it gets a few miles out its course is radically different. We were very cognizant of this fact. From almost the beginning at Apple we were, for some incredibly lucky reason, fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time. The contributions we tried to make embodied values not only of technical excellence and innovation--which I think we did our share of--but innovation of a more humanistic kind.
SJ：以Macintosh为例，核心团队不到一百人，但苹果出货量却超过了一千万台。当然，后来大家纷纷模仿，现在已经达到数亿台。这是一种极大的放大效应，约为一百万比一。在你的一生中，很少有机会能把你的价值放大一百倍，更别说一百万倍了。这正是我们所做的。如果你看看我们的努力，我们在说“计算及其与人类的关系还处于初级阶段，我们正处于一个合适的时机，可以稍微改变这一发展方向。”有趣的是，如果你在向量的起点就改变它的方向，当它行进几英里后，其轨迹将截然不同。我们非常清楚这一点。几乎从苹果成立之初，出于某种难以置信的幸运，我们就处在了正确的时机。我们所做的贡献不仅体现了技术卓越和创新——我认为我们做出了不少贡献——还体现了一种更具人文精神的创新。
SJ: The things I'm most proud about at Apple is where the technical and the humanistic came together, as it did in publishing for example. The Macintosh basically revolutionized publishing and printing. The typographic artistry coupled with the technical understanding and excellence to implement that electronically--those two things came together and empowered people to use the computer without having to understand arcane computer commands. It was the combination of those two things that I'm the most proud of. It happened on the Apple II and it happened on the Lisa, although there were other problems with the Lisa that caused it to be a market failure; and then it happened again big time on the Macintosh.
SJ：我在苹果最自豪的事情，是技术与人文精神的融合，就像在出版领域那样。Macintosh基本上彻底革新了出版和印刷业。排版艺术与将其以电子方式实现的技术理解和卓越相结合——这两者结合在一起，使人们能够使用电脑而无需理解那些晦涩的电脑命令。这种结合正是我最自豪的地方。它先后在苹果II和Lisa上出现过，尽管Lisa由于其他问题而市场失败；随后在Macintosh上又大幅实现了这一点。
DM: You used an interesting word in describing what you were doing. You were talking about art not engineering, not science. Tell me about that.
DM：你在描述你的工作时用了一个有趣的词。你谈论的是艺术，而非工程，也不是科学。请谈谈这方面。
SJ: I actually think there's actually very little distinction between an artist and a scientist or engineer of the highest calibre. I've never had a distinction in my mind between those two types of people. They've just been to me people who pursue different paths but basically kind of headed to the same goal which is to express something of what they perceive to be the truth around them so that others can benefit by it.
SJ：我其实认为，最高水平的艺术家与科学家或工程师之间几乎没有区别。在我看来，我从未将这两类人区分开来。他们只是走着不同的道路，但基本上都朝着同一个目标努力，那就是表达他们所感知到的真理，让别人从中受益。
DM: And the artistry is in the elegance of the solution, like chess playing or mathematics?
DM：那么这种艺术性体现在解决方案的优雅上吗，就像下棋或数学那样？
SJ: No. I think the artistry is in having an insight into what one sees around them. Generally putting things together in a way no one else has before and finding a way to express that to other people who don't have that insight so they can get some of the advantage of that insight that makes them feel a certain way or allows them to do a certain thing. I think that a lot of the folks on the Macintosh team were capable of doing that and did exactly that. If you study these people a little bit more what you'll find is that in this particular time, in the 70's and the 80's the best people in computers would have normally been poets and writers and musicians. Almost all of them were musicians. A lot of them were poets on the side. They went into computers because it was so compelling. It was fresh and new. It was a new medium of expression for their creative talents. The feelings and the passion that people put into it were completely indistinguishable from a poet or a painter. Many of the people were introspective, inward people who expressed how they felt about other people or the rest of humanity in general into their work, work that other people would use. People put a lot of love into these products, and a lot of expression of their appreciation came to these things. It's hard to explain.
SJ：不，我认为艺术性在于对周围事物的深刻洞察。通常是以一种别人从未尝试过的方式把事物组合在一起，并找到一种方法向那些没有这种洞察力的人表达，从而让他们也能获得那种感受或者能够做某件事。我认为Macintosh团队中的许多人正是具备并实现了这种能力。如果你更仔细地研究这些人，你会发现，在70年代和80年代，计算机领域最优秀的人本来往往是诗人、作家和音乐家，几乎全都是音乐家，很多人还兼职写诗。他们进入计算机领域是因为那实在太吸引人，新鲜而独特，是他们展现创意才能的新媒介。人们在其中投入的情感和热情，与诗人或画家完全无异。许多人内省、内向，把自己对他人或整个人类的感受融入到他们的作品中，而这些作品正是供别人使用的。人们对这些产品倾注了大量的爱，而这种感激之情也充分体现出来。这真的难以形容。
微信大致符合这样的描述，特别是朋友圈的设计，但是好的产品或者好的设计不等于好的商业模式，如果两者能够叠在一起肯定会更好。
DM: It's passion in the truest sense of the word.
DM：这是真正意义上的激情。
SJ: The computer industry is at a very critical juncture where those people are clearly leaving the field.
SJ：计算机行业正处于一个非常关键的转折点，那些才华横溢的人显然正在离开这个领域。
DM: What are they doing?
DM：他们在做什么呢？
SJ: Hard to say. They're not being attracted by something else. They're being driven out of the computer business. They're being driven out because the computer business is becoming a monopoly with Microsoft. Without getting into whether Microsoft gained its position legally or not--who cares? The end product of the position is that the ability to innovate in the industry is being sucked dry. I think the smartest people have already seen the writing on the wall. I think some of the smartest young people are questioning whether they'll really get in it. Hopefully things will change. It's kind of a dark period right now or about to enter.
SJ：很难说。他们不是被其他东西吸引，而是被迫退出计算机行业。之所以被迫退出，是因为计算机行业正逐渐被微软垄断。至于微软是否合法获得这种地位——谁在乎呢？最终的结果就是，行业的创新能力正被榨干。我认为最聪明的人已经看到了前景，有些最聪明的年轻人正在质疑自己是否真的应该进入这个领域。希望情况会改变，现在或即将进入一个相当黑暗的时期。
DM: Apple had a reputation as a company that absolutely broke the mold and set its own course. Looking back from where you are today with NeXT, do you think that, as Apple grew larger, it could have sustained that original approach? Or was it destined to become a big standard American company?
DM：苹果曾以打破常规、走自己路而著称。从你现在在NeXT的角度回顾，你认为随着苹果变大，它能否保持最初的方式？还是说它注定要成为一家庞大的标准美式公司？
WARREN BUFFETT: There was a great article, and this applies — (applause) — to an earlier question.
WARREN BUFFETT：有一篇很棒的文章，这也——（掌声）——呼应了先前的问题。
There was a very good article in Forbes about one issue ago that showed the occupational profile of the U.S. at a couple of different intervals, going back to 1900.
在《Forbes》不久前的一期里，有篇文章对比了自 1900 年以来美国在若干时点的职业结构。
And one problem you can see, just by looking at that profile, is that, if you assume 20 percent of the — the bottom 20 percent — however you measure it, in terms of employability — whether it’s measured by IQ, or interest in working, or energy level, or whatever you want to do — they fit, very well, most of the jobs that were available a hundred years ago.
仅凭这张“结构图”，你就能看到一个问题：如果我们假设最末端的 20%（无论你用“就业能力”、IQ、工作兴趣、精力水平等指标衡量），在一百年前，他们与当时大量可供选择的工作高度匹配。
In other words, you could do most of the jobs, of which there were many, with relatively unimpressive mental abilities. And as jobs have changed, the profile of people hasn’t changed. So there are more people that end up on the short end.
换言之，当时有许多岗位并不需要突出的心智能力；而如今工作性质已改变，但人群“能力画像”并未同速改变，于是落在不利端的人更多了。
Now, the good part of that is the society produces so much more that it can take care of those people, one way or another. Now, the trick is to take care of them and make them not only feel, but be productive and be part of the act, and —
好的一面是，社会总产出大幅提升，有能力以某种方式照顾这些人。难点在于：既要照顾他们，也要让他们不仅有“被参与的感觉”，而且能真正产生产出、成为行动的一部分，并且——
We’ve got enough product to do that. But the country turns out way more output than 50 or a hundred years ago.
我们的“蛋糕”足够大；国家的产出比 50 年、100 年前高出许多。
We don’t have — we’re not perfect at figuring out how to make the bottom 20 or 30 percent, in terms of abilities, fit a new, changing job profile.
但我们并不擅长——也还远未完善——如何让“能力处于底部 20%—30% 的人”去适配这套不断变化的职位结构。
I really recommend you look at that Forbes magazine. Because if you think through the implications of those charts, I think you’ll see what social problems have to be attacked.
我强烈建议你看看那期《Forbes》。当你把那些图表的含义想透，我想你会更清楚：我们究竟该攻克哪些社会问题。
3、《1998-05-04 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting》
78. Buffett on inheritance: “Enough to do anything, not enough to do nothing”
巴菲特谈遗产：“足够让他们做任何事情，但不足以让他们无所事事”
WARREN BUFFETT: OK, zone 8, please.
沃伦·巴菲特：好的，请第8区提问。
JAIME MCMAHON: Hello, I’m Jaime McMahon (PH) from Birmingham, Alabama.
杰米·麦克马洪：你好，我是杰米·麦克马洪（音），来自阿拉巴马州伯明翰市。
And I was hoping that, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger, y’all would expand a little bit on your ideas of an inheritance, and the positive and negative influences that that can have on your heirs, and what you might be able to do as a businessperson, and an investor, and as a parent to sort of mitigate those negative influences.
我希望巴菲特先生和芒格先生能谈谈你们对遗产的看法，以及遗产对继承人可能产生的积极和消极影响。作为一个企业家、投资者和父母，你们认为可以做些什么来减轻这些消极影响？
WARREN BUFFETT: Yeah, well, I quoted — I think Kay Graham was quoting her father at the time but — some years back as saying, “If you’re quite rich, probably the idea of leaving your children enough so they can do anything, but not enough so they can do nothing, is not a bad formula.”
沃伦·巴菲特：是的，我曾引用过——我认为这是凯·格雷厄姆当时引用她父亲的话——多年前她说，“如果你很富有，可能留给你的孩子足够让他们做任何事情，但不足以让他们无所事事，这并不是一个坏的方式。”
I think, if you’re talking about people that aren’t quite rich, I’ve seen — you know, socially, I wouldn’t have a system that involved inheritances. But recognizing the situation that exists, I think probably at lower levels, that leaving to the children in this society is perfectly OK.
我认为，如果你谈论的是那些不太富有的人，我认为从社会角度来看，我不会设计一个包含遗产的系统。但基于现有的社会情况，我认为在较低的财富水平上，留给孩子一些遗产是完全可以接受的。
But I believe enough in a meritocracy that if I were devising the system with a consumption tax and everything, I would probably make inheritance a form of consumption that would be very heavily taxed, because I don’t believe that because you happen to be the — come out of the right womb, essentially, that you are entitled to live an entirely different life than somebody who wasn’t quite as lucky, in terms of womb selection. (Laughter)
但我足够相信精英主义，如果让我设计一个包含消费税的系统，我可能会把遗产视为一种消费，并对其征收重税。因为我不认为仅仅因为你——从“正确的子宫”出生，你就有权过上完全不同于那些在“子宫选择”上不太幸运的人的生活。（笑声）
But in my own case, you know, I follow the “enough so they can do anything, but not enough so they can do nothing.” I think that society showered all these —
但在我自己的情况下，我遵循的是“足够让他们做任何事情，但不足以让他们无所事事”的原则。我认为社会赋予了我们这些机会——
I was very lucky, I was wired the right way at the right time in history to do very well in this kind of a market economy. Whereas Bill Gates has told me if I was born some thousands of years ago, I’d been some animal’s lunch. (Laughter)
我非常幸运，在历史的正确时机具备了适合市场经济的才能。而比尔·盖茨曾告诉我，如果我出生在几千年前，我可能会成为某种动物的午餐。（笑声）
You know, I don’t run very fast. (Laughter)
你知道的，我跑得不快。（笑声）
And there are different assets that are useful at different times.
在不同的时代，有用的能力是不同的。
And I’ll add, I’m not wired to play championship bridge, or championship chess, or not wired to be a basketball star or anything. It just so happens I’m in an area where it pays off like crazy to be good at capital allocation.
我再补充一下，我的能力并不适合打冠军桥牌或国际象棋，也不适合成为篮球明星或其他领域的明星。只是碰巧我擅长资本分配，而这在我的领域里带来了非常高的回报。
And that doesn’t make me a more worthwhile human being than anybody else or anything. It just means I was lucky.
但这并不意味着我比其他人更有价值。这只是意味着我很幸运。
And should that luck, in effect, enable many generations of people that are good at womb selection to do nothing in this world? You know, I would have some reservations about that.
而这种幸运是否应该使得许多代擅长“子宫选择”的人在这个世界上无所事事？对此我有一些保留意见。
So that’s my own feeling on inheritance. But Charlie has a bigger family and he can give you a better answer.
所以这就是我对遗产的看法。但查理的家庭更大，他可以给你更好的答案。
79. Munger on inheritance: Few people are “ruined by money”
芒格谈遗产：“很少有人被金钱毁掉”
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well, I feel, in a capitalist system, that there should be an inheritance tax, and that once that’s been imposed and paid, what each person wants to do in his own testamentary arrangements is up to that person.
查理·芒格：嗯，我认为在资本主义体系中应该有遗产税。一旦遗产税被征收和缴纳，每个人如何安排自己的遗嘱就是他自己的选择了。
I see very few people that I regard as ruined by money. Many of the people that I see ruined who have money would have been ruined without money. (Laughter)
我见过的因金钱被毁掉的人非常少。我见过的那些有钱却被毁掉的人，假如没有钱，他们也会被毁掉。（笑声）
And I think the percentage of the people that are going to be living the life of the French aristocracy before the revolution is always going to be very small.
我认为，那些过着法国大革命前贵族生活的人所占的比例总是非常小。
And there are plenty of grasping people to take the money away from the incompetents who inherit it.
而且有很多精明的人会从那些继承遗产却无能的人手中夺走这些钱财。
I don’t think we have to worry about a whole class of incompetents ruling the world as their money cascades ever higher.
我不认为我们需要担心一整个阶级的无能者会因为他们的财富不断增加而统治世界。
So I like a fair amount of charity, and certainly some testamentary charity is OK. But I feel it’s an individual choice that people have to make.
因此，我喜欢适量的慈善行为，当然一些遗赠慈善是可以的。但我认为这是一个人们必须做出的个人选择。
WARREN BUFFETT: They get a choice there.
沃伦·巴菲特：他们在这方面有选择的自由。
4、《2003-05-29 Steve Jobs.You never know what’s around the next corner.》
There’s a lot of management techniques. I’m sure you study a lot of management techniques. When I was younger, it was management by objective. It’s all a crock. They’re all after-the-fact management techniques: “You’ve failed, and I know that because we are going out of business tomorrow.” All after the fact. “You’ve ruined this department; all the good people have left. So now I’m firing you.” “You’ve accomplished none of your objectives.” It doesn’t work.
有很多管理技巧。我相信你研究了很多管理技巧。当我年轻的时候，目标管理是主流。这都是废话。它们都是事后管理技巧：“你失败了，我知道，因为我们明天就要倒闭。”全都是事后才说。“你毁了这个部门；所有优秀的人都离开了。所以现在我要解雇你。”“你没有完成任何目标。”这行不通。
And a really smart guy I met a long time ago who used to teach at Disney University—Walt Disney recruited him to run Disney University, actually—he told me about his point of view, which I’ve remembered to this day. He called it management by values. What that means is you find people that want the same things you want, and then just get the hell out of their way.
我很久以前遇到的一个非常聪明的人，他曾在迪士尼大学任教——实际上是沃尔特·迪士尼招募他来管理迪士尼大学——他告诉我他的观点，我至今仍记得。他称之为价值观管理。这意味着你找到那些想要和你一样东西的人，然后就让他们自由发挥。
The way I describe it is, let’s say we’re all going to take a trip together. The first thing is to figure out where we all want to go. The worst thing is if we all decide we want to go to different places. You can never manage it. [Pointing] You want to go to New Orleans. You want to go somewhere else. I want to go to San Francisco. You want to go to San Diego.
我描述的方式是，假设我们要一起去旅行。第一件事是弄清楚我们都想去哪里。最糟糕的是如果我们都决定想去不同的地方。你永远无法管理它。[指着] 你想去新奥尔良。你想去别的地方。我想去旧金山。你想去圣地亚哥。
It doesn’t work. Right? 它不管用。对吧？
But if we all want to go to San Diego, that’s the key. Then we can argue about how to get there. [Pointing] You think it’s better to walk. You think it’s better to take a plane. You think it’s better to take a train. We’ll figure that [part] out. Because if I say, “I want to take a train to San Diego,” and somebody goes, “That’s really stupid! It will take three days! We can fly and be there in an hour,” I’ll go, “Oh. OK.” Because, actually, I want to go to San Diego. So if I can get there in an hour [flying], I’ll ditch my idea about the train.
但如果我们都想去圣地亚哥，那就是关键。然后我们可以争论怎么去那里。[指着] 你认为走路更好。你认为坐飞机更好。你认为坐火车更好。我们会搞清楚这一部分。因为如果我说：“我想坐火车去圣地亚哥，”而有人说：“那真的很愚蠢！要花三天时间！我们可以飞一个小时就到，”我会说：“哦，好吧。”因为实际上，我想去圣地亚哥。所以如果我能一个小时内到达[飞行]，我就会放弃我关于火车的想法。
That’s what management by values is. It’s finding people with passion that want to go to San Diego—who want to go to the same place you want to go to! Right? That’s the key.
这就是价值观管理。就是要找到有激情、想去圣地亚哥的人--他们想去的地方和你想去的地方一样！对不对？这就是关键所在。
And so, what happened at Apple was that Apple’s goals used to be to make the best personal computers in the world. And then the second goal was to make a profit so we could keep on doing number one. Right?
所以，苹果发生的事情是，苹果的目标曾经是制造世界上最好的个人电脑。第二个目标是盈利，以便我们能够继续做第一件事。对吗？
What happened was that, for a time, those got reversed: “We want to make a bunch of money, and so, OK, to do that, we’re going to have to make some good personal computers.” But it didn’t work. It never works. And so things start to fall apart.
发生的事情是，曾经这些情况发生了逆转：“我们想赚很多钱，因此，好吧，为了做到这一点，我们必须制造一些好的个人电脑。”但这并没有成功。它从来没有成功过。因此事情开始崩溃。
Those subtle changes in values can mean everything. The higher up in the organization they are, the more pervasive influence they have. So if you want to preserve something, what you want to do is have a good enough place to go, that’s got a long enough focal length that it will survive over time, that everybody agrees on—and not codify how you’re going to get there. So that each generation can argue anew about the best way to get to San Diego, and they’re not just taking your footsteps on how you got there. You see what I’m saying? But all the people want to go to the same place.
那些微妙的价值变化可能意味着一切。它们在组织中的地位越高，影响力就越广泛。因此，如果你想保留某样东西，你需要有一个足够好的地方可以去，那个地方的焦距足够长，以便能够随着时间的推移而存活下来，大家都能达成共识——而不是规定你将如何到达那里。这样每一代人都可以重新争论到达圣地亚哥的最佳方式，而不仅仅是沿着你到达那里时的足迹。你明白我的意思吗？但所有人都想去同一个地方。
And that’s one of my mantras around Apple and Pixar: that recruiting is the most important thing that you do. Finding the right people—that’s half the battle.
这也是我在苹果和皮克斯工作时的口头禅之一：招聘是最重要的事情。找到合适的人，就等于成功了一半。
5、《2010-09-23 Warren Buffett.The One Trait Every Investor Needs》
Warren Buffet: They'll probably say Berkshire Hathaway. I hope it's still around and doing very well, too. If it isn't, I'll come back and haunt them. No, what I've done has not been very complicated. I've followed somebody else's teachings. But what I really hope, if you could pick one word, it would be teacher. I got an enormous amount... Jay has talked about his sixth grade teacher... I think almost anyone that's been successful has had a teacher, maybe not a formal teacher, it can be a parent, obviously, but somebody's had a teacher that's affected him. And if you can pass that along, I think that's better than money, actually.
Warren Buffet：大概会说 Berkshire Hathaway。我也希望那时它依然存在、而且蒸蒸日上；不然的话，我可要“回来找他们算账”了。（笑）说真的，我做的事并不复杂，不过是遵循了前人的教诲。但如果只能选一个词，我希望是“teacher”。我从老师那里收获巨大……Jay 也提到过他的六年级老师。我觉得几乎所有成功的人都曾有“老师”——未必是学校里的老师，也可能是父母，但总会有人在“教”。如果你能把这种影响传下去，我认为那比金钱更珍贵。
Google在管理上也和改革开放后的中国有些类似的地方，鼓励基层创新，敢闯敢试，同时在核心权力上高度集中，有集中力量办大事的制度优势。
Google的"Do No Evil" 我觉得是深入到Google基因里的，不是随便说说的。Google是真的把mission，价值观放在利润之前的，如《基业长青》里描述的优秀公司，Google的利润是随着做正确的事带来的副产品。
同时"Do No Evil"其实也是Google对自身可作恶能力的一种警醒。越深入Google内部，越能意识到Google有很强的通过作恶来牟利的能力，所以向所有的人申明不作恶，让大家一起来监督是很智慧的。我在Google的那几年，Google的大部分收购很成功。这些成功的案例大部分是收购了一个拥有很好团队的小公司，这个小公司能融入Google的文化，然后在Google的土壤上长成大树。这个和为了消灭一个竞争对手产生的并购是有很大差别的。
也有好些事儿是Google没怎么搞定或想改变而无力改变的。比方说Google想用在广告上成功的竞价模式来做自己的IPO进而一定程度上改变股票发行这个古老的效率未见高的行业，但是结果一般。Google的创始人一直试图避免Google步入层层职业经理人的管理模式，但好像也没有逃脱。还有，Google在社交上做了很多尝试也做了巨大的投入，但在这点上的命运和微软做搜索好像是一样的。有些客观规律和现状，不是一个简单的愿望可以的，往往需要比你想象多得多的能量，这和人总是要死的一样，是一个不得不面对的事实。
7、《2024-05-04 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting》
Becky Quick: This question comes from Denny Poland, a shareholder from Pittsburgh. When describing the principal agent problem, Mr Munger said that capitalism often works best when the people managing the property also own the property. In recent years, agents of pension funds and asset management firms who do not have significant personal ownership stakes in Berkshire have forwarded proposals that were not in the economic interest of shareholders. What can be done to limit the negative influence of these agents in the decades after you’re no longer able to cast significant votes against them?
Becky Quick: 这个问题来自匹兹堡的股东丹尼·波兰。芒格先生在描述委托代理问题时说，当管理财产的人也拥有财产时，资本主义通常运作得最好。近年来，那些在伯克希尔没有显著个人所有权的养老基金和资产管理公司的代理人，提出了不符合股东经济利益的提案。在您不再能够对他们投下重大反对票的几十年后，可以做些什么来限制这些代理人的负面影响？
Warren Buffett: Well, that’s a very perceptive question, and it’s been answered in a temporary manner, but who knows how the situation will develop in the future? All I know is that you have a wonderful hand at Berkshire Hathaway, but you have to be able to think your way. I mean, obviously, you have to think your way through political realities. You have to think your way for what will cause a. You want to be on. You want to be regarded as an asset to the country because you’ll find more solutions. If you are an asset, you owe to the country anyway. But beyond that, you’ll find more solutions than if you’re regarded as evil or something, and worse yet, if you deserve it. So it’s something that’s constantly in our mind, and it needs to be in the mind of the directors, and they need to think for themselves on this rather than bow to conventional wisdom, which, you know, in a sense, you don’t want to become a cynic about life, but almost everybody that approaches you, if you have tons of resources that’s got some interest in figuring out how to use your resources to their advantage, and that’s true whether they’re in politics or whether they’re in investment banking or whether they’re selling you, well, whatever it may be that they’re selling, I don’t want to do any injury to anybody, but life insurance agents see the advantage of buying life insurance, and investment managers who get paid based on assets managed to get interested in selling you their services.
沃伦·巴菲特：这是一个非常有洞察力的问题，而且已经以一种临时的方式得到了回答，但谁知道将来情况会如何发展呢？我只知道在伯克希尔·哈撒韦，你拥有一手好牌，但你必须能够自己思考。我的意思是，显然，你必须通过政治现实来思考你的路。你必须思考什么会导致你想要处于的位置。你希望被视为国家的资产，因为你会发现更多的解决方案。如果你是资产，你反正也欠国家的。但除此之外，如果你被视为邪恶或什么的，你就会发现的解决方案会更少，更糟糕的是，如果你应得的话。所以这是我们一直在考虑的事情，它需要在董事们的心中，他们需要自己思考这个问题，而不是屈服于传统智慧，你知道，在某种意义上，你不想对生活变得愤世嫉俗，但是几乎每个接近你的人，如果你拥有大量资源，他们就有兴趣弄清楚如何利用你的资源来获得优势，无论是在政治上还是在投资银行中，或者无论他们是在向你推销什么，嗯，无论他们可能在推销什么，我不想伤害任何人，但是人寿保险代理人看到了购买寿险的优势，而那些根据管理资产获得报酬的投资经理则对你销售他们的服务感兴趣。
Imagine if everybody in this room were following the investment advice of somebody that said, you know, for 1% a year, I’ll tell you how to invest your money. And in 1950, when we started in 1965, they would have said, well, buy Berkshire Hathaway, and if they were around now and they saw the 1% deal, they’d be collecting $8 billion a year from people who aren’t getting any dividends from us. So they would have a different interest in the kind of contract they worked out with you than you would have. And best thing to do was just pay them a commission one time and own the stock. But you have to be alert to how what human nature does to both other people and to you.
想象一下，如果这个房间里的每个人都遵循某个人的投资建议，那个人说：“你知道，每年1%的费用，我会告诉你如何投资你的钱。”而在1950年，或者我们1965年开始的时候，他们会说：“好吧，买伯克希尔·哈撒韦股票。”如果他们现在还在，看到1%的交易，他们会从那些没有从我们这里获得任何股息的人那里每年收取80亿美元。所以他们与你达成的合同类型的利益会有所不同，而你的利益则不同。最好的做法就是一次性给他们支付佣金，然后拥有股票。但你必须警惕人性对他人和你自己的所作所为。
And then, you know, if you think it through well and actually listen to what Charlie has told you, you’ll have a big head start on most people. Charlie - there’s one thing that I should mention that really is terribly interesting about Charlie. Charlie knew the importance of psychology and human behavior and incentives and all of that. He figured that out very early. And, of course, he gave some talks, even on 25 or so ways, whatever it happened to be. I don’t remember the exact number, but the different ways that one person could take advantage of another by understanding how humans behave. And then after doing a magnificent job of explaining it. He believed in understanding what others would do, but he thought it was beneath him to actually use those methods to manipulate people. Really interesting human being that thinks through the psychology of human behavior and figures out, you know, how you become a great insurance salesman or manager on Wall Street, or accumulate assets under management or whatever it may be. And you get very rich by understanding the weaknesses of others to some extent, and then decide that it’s very important for you to recognize these when they occur. It’s very important for you to know them better than the person that actually is using them, but not that you don’t have to stoop to using them yourself. And Charlie told me that in his lifetime after he figured this out, there were a couple of times when he used them. He wasn’t proud of it, but he also never lied to me. So he explained to me that there were a couple times when he used some of these techniques, but he didn’t plan on using them anymore. Also wanted me to know that if I ever did something like that, I wasn’t really behaving terribly, that he allowed for the fact that humans may misbehave.
然后，你知道，如果你仔细思考并真正聆听查理告诉你的话，你将在大多数人面前拥有一个巨大的先机。查理——有一件事我应该提一下，这真的是关于查理非常有趣的一点。查理知道心理学、人类行为、激励等的重要性。他很早就明白了这一点。当然，他甚至做过一些演讲，关于25种左右的方式，或者无论具体数字是多少，关于一个人如何通过理解人类行为来利用另一个人的不同方式。在出色地解释了这一点之后，他相信理解他人会做什么，但他认为自己使用这些方法去操纵人是有失身份的。真正有趣的人，他思考了人类行为的心理学，并弄清楚了，你知道，如何成为一个伟大的保险销售员或华尔街的经理，或者积累管理下的资产，或者无论它可能是什么。你通过在一定程度上理解他人的弱点，然后决定在它们出现时认识到这些是非常重要的。对你来说，比实际使用它们的人更了解它们是非常重要的，但这并不意味着你非得降低自己去使用它们。查理告诉我，在他一生中，当他明白这一点后，有几次他使用了它们。他并不为此感到骄傲，但他也从未对我撒谎。所以他向我解释说，有几次他使用了这些技巧，但他不打算再使用它们了。他还想让我知道，如果我做了类似的事情，我的行为并不是真的很糟糕，他允许人类可能会有不当行为的事实。
社交软件大面积利用人性的弱点并制造大量噪音，这样的成功充满了不确定，有时候会被视为邪恶，马斯克的X，扎克伯格的Facebook，张一鸣的抖音，现在看着都有这个问题。
So I’m sure that I behaved somewhat better before my marriage than I did afterwards in my enthusiasm for different activities, like dancing or something. And he said, we all do it, but don’t do it again. So that’s part of acquiring human wisdom. And speaking of human wisdom, we’ve just got that one book out there by Charlie, I mean, poor Charlie’s Almanac, and that’s worth reading three or four times. I think I read Ben Graham’s book about five or six times. And each time I read it, I realized that I just needed to think a little more deeply about certain things. They weren’t complicated or anything. But, you know, it’s better to. If you’ve got some great instruction, like you get with Charlie, it’s better to read it several times than to just figure you’ll just read every book once it’s in the library. Okay, let’s go to section four.
所以我可以肯定，在我结婚之前，我在对不同活动的热情上表现得比结婚后要好一些，比如跳舞或其他什么。他说，我们都会这样做，但不要再这样做了。这就是获得人类智慧的一部分。说到人类智慧，我们刚刚有了查理的那本书，我的意思是，poor Charlie’s Almanac，值得读三四遍。我想我读本·格雷厄姆的书大概五六遍。每次我读它，我意识到我只需要更深入地思考某些事情。它们并不复杂或其他什么。但是，你知道，最好是。如果你得到了像查理那样的伟大指导，最好多读几遍，而不是认为你需要在图书馆里看完每本书。好的，让我们去第四部分。
8、《2024-11-25 Warren Buffett.He Has Estate-Planning Advice for Everyone.》
NEWS RELEASE 新闻稿
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 立即发布
Omaha, NE (BRK.A; BRK.B) -
Today, Warren E. Buffett will convert 1,600 A shares into 2,400,000 B shares in order to give these B shares to four family foundations:1,500,000 shares to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and 300,000 shares to each of The Sherwood Foundation, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and NoVo Foundation.
今天，沃伦·E·巴菲特将把1,600股A类股票转换为2,400,000股B类股票，并将这些B类股票捐赠给四个家庭基金会：1,500,000股捐赠给苏珊·汤普森·巴菲特基金会，300,000股分别捐赠给舍伍德基金会、霍华德·G·巴菲特基金会和诺沃基金会。
Mr. Buffett’s comments to his fellow shareholders follow:
巴菲特先生对其他股东的评论如下：
*************
The gifts I am making today reduce my holdings of Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares to 206,363, a 56.6% decrease since my 2006 pledge. In 2004, before Susie, my first wife, died, the two of us owned 508,998 Class A shares. For decades, we had both thought that she would outlive me and subsequently distribute the vast majority of our large fortune. That was not to be.
今天我所做的捐赠将我持有的伯克希尔哈撒韦 A 类股票减少到 206,363 股，自 2006 年我承诺以来减少了 56.6%。2004 年，在我的第一任妻子苏西去世之前，我们两人拥有 508,998 股 A 类股票。几十年来，我们都认为她会比我活得更久，然后分配我们大部分的巨额财富。事实并非如此。
When Susie died, her estate was roughly $3 billion, with about 96% of this sum going to our foundation. Additionally, she left $10 million to each of our three children, the first large gift we had given to any of them. These bequests reflected our belief that hugely wealthy parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything but not enough that they can do nothing.
Susie去世时，她的遗产约为30亿美元，其中约96%的遗产将用于我们的基金会。 此外，她给我们的三个孩子每人留下了1000万美元，这是我们送给他们中的任何一个人的第一份大礼物。 这些遗赠反映了我们的信念，即非常富有的父母应该给他们的孩子留下足够多的东西，这样他们就可以做任何事情，但不足以让他们什么都不做。
Susie and I had long encouraged our children in small philanthropic activities and had been pleased with their enthusiasm, diligence and results. At her death, however, they were not ready to handle the staggering wealth that Berkshire shares had generated. Nevertheless, their philanthropic activities were dramatically increased by the 2006 lifetime pledge that I subsequently made and later expanded.
我和苏西长期以来一直鼓励我们的孩子参与小型慈善活动，并对他们的热情、勤奋和成果感到满意。然而，在她去世时，他们还没有准备好处理伯克希尔股份所产生的巨额财富。尽管如此，由于我在 2006 年做出的终身承诺以及后来的扩展，他们的慈善活动大幅增加。
The children have now more than justified our hopes and, upon my death, will have full responsibility for gradually distributing all of my Berkshire holdings. These now account for 99.5% of my wealth.
孩子们现在已经完全证明了我们的期望，并且在我去世后，将全权负责逐步分配我所有的伯克希尔股份。这些现在占我财富的99.5%。
*************
Father time always wins. But he can be fickle - indeed unfair and even cruel - sometimes ending life at birth or soon thereafter while, at other times, waiting a century or so before paying a visit. To date, I’ve been very lucky, but, before long, he will get around to me.
时间老人总是赢。但他有时会反复无常——确实不公平，甚至残酷——有时在出生时或不久后就结束生命，而在其他时候，则要等上一个世纪左右才会造访。到目前为止，我一直很幸运，但不久之后，他也会找上我。
There is, however, a downside to my good fortune in avoiding his notice. The expected life span of my children has materially diminished since the 2006 pledge. They are now 71, 69 and 66.
然而，我在避免他的注意方面的好运也有一个缺点。自 2006 年承诺以来，我孩子的预期寿命大幅缩短。他们现在分别是 71 岁、69 岁和 66 岁。
I’ve never wished to create a dynasty or pursue any plan that extended beyond the children. I know the three well and trust them completely. Future generations are another matter. Who can foresee the priorities, intelligence and fidelity of successive generations to deal with the distribution of extraordinary wealth amid what may be a far different philanthropic landscape? Still, the massive wealth I’ve collected may take longer to deploy than my children live. And tomorrow’s decisions are likely to be better made by three live and well-directed brains than by a dead hand.
我从未希望建立一个王朝或追求任何超越孩子们的计划。我非常了解这三个人，并完全信任他们。未来的世代是另一回事。谁能预见后代的优先事项、智慧和忠诚，以应对在可能截然不同的慈善环境中分配巨额财富？尽管如此，我积累的大量财富可能需要比我孩子活着更长的时间来部署。而明天的决策更有可能由三个活着且方向明确的大脑做出，而不是由一只死去的手。
As such, three potential successor trustees have been designated. Each is well known to my children and makes sense to all of us. They are also somewhat younger than my children.
因此，已指定三位潜在的继任受托人。我的孩子们都很熟悉他们，并且我们都认为这是合理的。他们也比我的孩子们稍微年轻一些。
But these successors are on the wait list. I hope Susie, Howie and Peter themselves disburse all of my assets.
但这些继任者在等待名单上。我希望苏西、豪伊和彼得亲自分配我的所有资产。
Each respects my wish that the disposition program for my holdings of Berkshire shares in no way betrays the exceptional trust Berkshire shareholders bestowed upon Charlie Munger and me. The 2006-2024 period gave me the chance to observe each of my children in action and they have learned much about large-scale philanthropy and human behavior. Each has overseen teams of 20-30 for many years and has observed the unique employment dynamics affecting philanthropic organizations.
每个人都尊重我的愿望，即我对伯克希尔股份的处置计划绝不背叛伯克希尔股东对查理·芒格和我所赋予的特殊信任。2006-2024 年期间，我有机会观察我的每个孩子的行动，他们学到了很多关于大规模慈善事业和人类行为的知识。每个人多年来都管理着 20-30 人的团队，并观察到影响慈善组织的独特就业动态。
Wealthy friends have been curious about the extraordinary confidence I have in my children and their possible alternates. They express particular surprise at my requirement that all foundation actions will require a unanimous vote. How can this be workable?
富有的朋友们对我对孩子们及其可能替代者的非凡信心感到好奇。他们对我要求所有基金会行动都需要一致投票感到特别惊讶。这怎么可能可行呢？
I’ve explained that my children will forever be besieged with earnest requests from very sincere friends and others. A second reality: When large philanthropic gifts are requested, a “no” frequently prompts would-be grantees to ponder a different approach - another friend, a different project, whatever. Those who can distribute huge sums are forever regarded as “targets of opportunity.” This unpleasant reality comes with the territory.
我已经解释过，我的孩子们将永远被非常真诚的朋友和其他人热切的请求所包围。第二个现实：当被要求提供大额慈善捐赠时，一个“拒绝”常常会促使潜在的受赠者考虑不同的方法——另一个朋友，一个不同的项目，等等。那些能够分配巨额资金的人永远被视为“机会目标”。这种不愉快的现实是不可避免的。
Hence, the “unanimous decision” provision. That restriction enables an immediate and final reply to grant-seekers: “It’s not something that would ever receive my brother’s consent.” And that answer will improve the lives of my children.
因此，“一致决定”条款。该限制使得可以立即并最终回复寻求资助者：“这不是我兄弟会同意的事情。”而这个答案将改善我孩子们的生活。
My unanimity clause, of course, is not a panacea - it clearly isn’t workable if you have nine or ten children or stepchildren. And it doesn’t solve the daunting problem of intelligently distributing many billions annually.
当然，我的一致同意条款并不是万能药——如果你有九个或十个孩子或继子女，这显然是行不通的。而且它也不能解决每年明智分配数十亿资金的艰巨问题。
I have one further suggestion for all parents, whether they are of modest or staggering wealth. When your children are mature, have them read your will before you sign it.
我对所有父母还有一个建议，无论他们是普通财富还是巨额财富。当你的孩子成熟时，让他们在你签署遗嘱之前阅读它。
Be sure each child understands both the logic for your decisions and the responsibilities they will encounter upon your death. If any have questions or suggestions, listen carefully and adopt those found sensible. You don’t want your children asking “Why?” in respect to testamentary decisions when you are no longer able to respond.
确保每个孩子都理解你做决定的逻辑以及他们在你去世后将面临的责任。如果有人有问题或建议，仔细倾听并采纳那些合理的建议。你不希望在你无法回应时，孩子们对遗嘱决定问“为什么”。
Over the years, I have had questions or commentary from all three of my children and have often adopted their suggestions. There is nothing wrong with my having to defend my thoughts. My dad did the same with me.
多年来，我的三个孩子都曾向我提出问题或评论，我经常采纳他们的建议。我需要为自己的想法辩护，这没有什么不对。我爸爸也曾这样对我。
I change my will every couple of years - often only in very minor ways - and keep things simple. Over the years, Charlie and I saw many families driven apart after the posthumous dictates of the will left beneficiaries confused and sometimes angry. Jealousies, along with actual or imagined slights during childhood, became magnified, particularly when sons were favored over daughters, either in monetary ways or by positions of importance.
我每隔几年就会更改我的遗嘱——通常只是一些很小的改动——并保持简单。多年来，查理和我看到许多家庭在遗嘱的死后指令让受益人感到困惑，有时甚至愤怒后分崩离析。嫉妒，以及童年时期的实际或想象中的轻视，变得更加严重，尤其是在儿子在金钱上或重要职位上被优待于女儿时。
Charlie and I also witnessed a few cases where a wealthy parent’s will that was fully discussed before death helped the family become closer. What could be more satisfying?
我和查理也见证了一些案例，在这些案例中，富裕父母在生前充分讨论的遗嘱帮助家庭变得更加亲密。还有什么比这更令人满意的呢？
As I write this, I continue my lucky streak that began in 1930 with my birth in the United States as a white male. My two sisters had, of course, been explicitly promised by the Amendment’s enactment in 1920 that they would be treated equally with males. This, after all, had been the message of our thirteen colonies in 1776.
在我写下这些文字时，我依然延续着自1930年出生以来的幸运历程——我在美国出生，作为一名白人男性。我的两个姐妹，当然，早在1920年通过宪法修正案的颁布，就被明确承诺将与男性平等对待。毕竟，这正是我们十三个殖民地在1776年所传达的信息。
In 1930, however, I emerged in a country that hadn’t yet gotten around to fulfilling its earlier aspirations. Aided by Billie Jean King, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and countless others, things began changing in the 1970s.
然而，在 1930 年，我出现在一个尚未实现其早期愿望的国家。在比莉·简·金、桑德拉·戴·奥康纳、鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格以及无数其他人的帮助下，事情在 1970 年代开始发生变化。
So favored by my male status, very early on I had confidence that I would become rich. But in no way did I, or anyone else, dream of the fortunes that have become attainable in America during the last few decades. It has been mind-blowing - beyond the imaginations of Ford, Carnegie, Morgan or even Rockefeller. Billions became the new millions.
由于我的男性身份，我很早就有信心我会变得富有。但无论是我还是其他人，都没有想到在过去几十年里在美国可以获得的财富。这令人震惊——超出了福特、卡内基、摩根甚至洛克菲勒的想象。数十亿成为了新的数百万。
Things didn’t look great when I arrived at the beginning of The Great Depression. But the real action from compounding takes place in the final twenty years of a lifetime. By not stepping on any banana peels, I now remain in circulation at 94 with huge sums in savings - call these units of deferred consumption - that can be passed along to others who were given a very short straw at birth.
当我在大萧条开始时到达时，情况看起来并不乐观。但复利的真正作用发生在一生的最后二十年。由于没有踩到任何香蕉皮，我现在在 94 岁时仍然活跃，并且有巨额储蓄——称之为延迟消费的单位——可以传递给那些出生时运气不佳的人。
I am also lucky that my philanthropic philosophy has been enthusiastically embraced - and widened - by both of my wives. Neither I, Susie Sr. nor Astrid, who succeeded her, believed in dynastic wealth.
我也很幸运，我的慈善理念得到了我两位妻子的热情拥护和扩展。无论是我、苏西·斯尔还是继任的阿斯特丽德，都不相信家族财富。
Instead, we shared a view that equal opportunity should begin at birth and extreme “look-atme” styles of living should be legal but not admirable. As a family, we have had everything we needed or simply liked, but we have not sought enjoyment from the fact that others craved what we had.
相反，我们一致认为，平等的机会应该从出生开始，极端的“看我”生活方式应该是合法的，但不值得钦佩。作为一个家庭，我们拥有了一切我们需要或喜欢的东西，但我们并没有因为别人渴望我们所拥有的东西而感到享受。
It also has been a particular pleasure to me that so many early Berkshire shareholders have independently arrived at a similar view. They have saved - lived well - taken good care of their families - and by extended compounding of their savings passed along large, sometimes huge, sums back into society. Their “claim checks” are being widely distributed to others less lucky.
我也特别高兴的是，许多早期的伯克希尔股东独立地达成了类似的观点。他们储蓄——生活得很好——很好地照顾了他们的家庭——通过长期复利增长，他们的储蓄回馈给社会大量的，有时是巨大的资金。他们的“索赔支票”被广泛分发给那些不那么幸运的人。
************
With this philosophy, I have lived the way I wanted to live since my late 20s, and I have now watched my children grow into good and productive citizens. They have different views in many cases from both me and their siblings but have common values that are unwavering.
秉持这一理念，自二十多岁后期以来，我一直按照自己想要的方式生活，现在我看到我的孩子们成长为优秀且有成效的公民。他们在许多情况下与我和他们的兄弟姐妹有不同的看法，但拥有坚定不移的共同价值观。
Susie Jr., Howie and Peter have each spent far more time directly helping others than I have. They enjoy being comfortable financially, but they are not preoccupied with wealth. Their mother, from whom they learned these values, would be very proud of them.
小苏西、豪伊和彼得都比我花了更多的时间直接帮助他人。他们喜欢在经济上感到舒适，但他们并不专注于财富。他们的母亲，他们从她那里学到了这些价值观，会为他们感到非常自豪。
As am I. 我也是。
About Berkshire 关于伯克希尔
Berkshire Hathaway and its subsidiaries engage in diverse business activities including insurance and reinsurance, utilities and energy, freight rail transportation, manufacturing, services and retailing. Common stock of the company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, trading symbols BRK.A and BRK.B.
伯克希尔·哈撒韦及其子公司从事多种商业活动，包括保险和再保险、公用事业和能源、货运铁路运输、制造、服务和零售。公司的普通股在纽约证券交易所上市，交易代码为 BRK.A 和 BRK.B。
Contact 联系
Marc D. Hamburg 402-346-1400
9、《2025-02-11 Matt Levine.OpenAI hostile takeover》
OpenAI hostile takeover
OpenAI 恶意收购
In the spring of 2022, Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter Inc. for about $44 billion. Twitter’s board of directors met with its investment bankers to discuss exactly one question: Was Musk’s offer more than Twitter was worth otherwise (on its own or in a competing deal)? The bankers and board concluded that Twitter was not going to do better for its shareholders than Musk was offering, so they took Musk’s deal.
2022 年春天，Elon Musk 提议以约 440 亿美元收购 Twitter Inc.。Twitter 的董事会与其投资银行家会面，讨论的唯一问题是：Musk 的报价是否高于 Twitter 本身的价值（无论是独立运营还是在竞争交易中）？银行家和董事会得出的结论是，Twitter 无法为股东争取比 Musk 提供的更好条件，因此他们接受了 Musk 的交易。
A lot of Twitter employees and users were sad about this. Musk’s takeover was, let’s say, a mixed bag for Twitter’s employees and users and advertisers, and for its role in public life. At the time, the employees expressed their sadness at a town hall with Parag Agrawal, then Twitter’s chief executive officer. Agrawal was unmoved, as Casey Newton reported, saying that the board’s job was to “act in the interest of our shareholders and look for value for them in the long term”:
许多 Twitter 员工和用户对此感到难过。马斯克的收购对 Twitter 的员工、用户、广告商以及其在公共生活中的角色来说，可以说是喜忧参半。当时，员工们在一次市政会议上向时任 Twitter 首席执行官 Parag Agrawal 表达了他们的悲伤。Agrawal 毫不动摇，正如 Casey Newton 报道的那样，他表示董事会的职责是“为股东的利益行事，并从长远来看为他们寻找价值”：
OK sure, employees said, but how is it in Twitter’s best interest to go private?
好的，当然，员工们说，但让推特私有化如何符合其最大利益？
“This is the answer you don’t want to hear, right?” Agrawal said. “Twitter is a public company owned by shareholders. There are other companies which may have other legal mechanics … Twitter is not one of those companies.”
“这是你不想听到的答案，对吧？”阿格拉瓦尔说。“推特是一家由股东拥有的上市公司。还有其他公司可能有不同的法律机制……推特不是其中之一。”
We talked about this at the time. It was 2022, remember, and I wrote that “now we have stakeholder capitalism and environmental, social and governance investing” and talk of “redefining the purpose of a corporation”:
我们当时谈过这个。那是 2022 年，记得吗？我写道：“现在我们有了利益相关者资本主义和环境、社会及治理投资”，以及关于“重新定义企业宗旨”的讨论：
And then Twitter’s CEO shrugs and says, in effect, “meh look this deal might be bad for our users and employees and product and mission, but we can’t think about that; the price is right and my only duty is to shareholders.” It’s strange!
然后，Twitter 的 CEO 耸耸肩，实际上说：“呃，看，这笔交易可能对我们的用户、员工、产品和使命不利，但我们不能考虑这些；价格合适，而我唯一的责任是股东。” 这太奇怪了！
Strange but understandable. I don’t think it’s exactly right that Twitter’s only duty, in considering Musk’s offer, was to think about what would make shareholders the most money, but I understand why Twitter’s board thought that. And I think that a board and chief executive officer with a more compelling vision of what Twitter was might have been better positioned to say no to Musk: Visionary tech founders can confidently turn down big-dollar buyout offers, both because they are motivated by some mission other than making money, and because they think that if they achieve that mission they will make even more money than whatever they’re being offered now. Lacking that sort of vision, Twitter shrugged and sold.
奇怪但可以理解。我不认为推特在考虑马斯克的收购要约时唯一的责任就是考虑如何让股东赚最多的钱，但我理解推特董事会为什么会这么想。而且我认为，如果董事会和首席执行官对推特的本质有更具说服力的愿景，他们可能会更有能力拒绝马斯克的收购：有远见的科技创始人可以自信地拒绝高额收购要约，因为他们不仅受到某种超越金钱的使命驱动，而且他们认为如果实现这一使命，他们最终赚到的钱会比当前的报价更多。缺乏这种愿景，推特选择了妥协并出售。
非常好的解释。
If you are the board of directors of a nonprofit organization and a consortium led by Elon Musk comes to you with a $97.4 billion hostile takeover offer, are you obligated to get the highest possible price, or are you allowed to consider other factors in deciding whether or not to accept his offer? Man: I do not know! It seems very unlikely that any nonprofit board has ever faced this problem before, and when I put it like that, it sounds completely incoherent. Nonprofits do not get hostile takeover offers, nonprofits do not get acquired by investor consortiums for $97 billion, and surely nonprofit boards do not have an obligation to maximize their valuation? Like, generally, the opposite? Of all of that?
如果你是一家非营利组织的董事会成员，而由 Elon Musk 领导的财团向你提出 974 亿美元的恶意收购要约，你是否有义务获得最高可能的价格，还是可以考虑其他因素来决定是否接受他的提议？ 男人：我不知道！似乎不太可能有任何非营利组织的董事会曾经遇到过这个问题，而当我这样表述时，它听起来完全不合逻辑。非营利组织不会收到恶意收购要约，非营利组织不会被投资者财团以 974 亿美元收购，而且非营利组织的董事会肯定没有义务最大化其估值吧？基本上，情况应该正好相反？
And yet there is something extremely clever here:
然而，这里却有一些极其巧妙之处：
A consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI, upping the stakes in his battle with Sam Altman over the company behind ChatGPT.
由埃隆·马斯克领导的投资者财团提出以 974 亿美元收购控制 OpenAI 的非营利组织，加剧了他与萨姆·奥特曼围绕 ChatGPT 背后公司的争夺战。
Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, said he submitted the bid to OpenAI’s board of directors Monday.
马斯克的律师马克·托贝罗夫表示，他已于周一向 OpenAI 董事会提交了该收购要约。
The unsolicited offer adds a major complication to Altman’s carefully laid plans for OpenAI’s future, including converting it to a for-profit company and spending up to $500 billion on AI infrastructure through a joint venture called Stargate. He and Musk are already fighting in court over the direction of OpenAI. …
这一未经请求的要约为奥特曼精心制定的 OpenAI 未来计划增添了重大复杂性，其中包括将其转变为一家营利性公司，并通过一个名为 Stargate 的合资企业在 AI 基础设施上投入高达 5000 亿美元。他和马斯克已经在法庭上就 OpenAI 的发展方向展开争斗。
The bid is being backed by Musk’s own artificial intelligence company xAI, which could merge with OpenAI following a deal.
该竞标得到了马斯克自己的人工智能公司 xAI 的支持，交易达成后，该公司可能会与 OpenAI 合并。
Get it? OpenAI is, currently, a nonprofit organization that controls a for-profit subsidiary. The for-profit subsidiary has some investors who have written big checks in exchange for quasi-equity profit shares in the business. OpenAI’s plan is to make the for-profit subsidiary a more normal standalone for-profit company, so that it can sell more normal shares, raise more money from investors and, uh, have more profits. (Eventually.)
明白了吗？OpenAI 目前是一家控制着一个营利性子公司的非营利组织。该营利性子公司有一些投资者，他们支付了大笔资金，以换取公司业务中的准股权利润份额。OpenAI 的计划是将该营利性子公司转变为一个更正常的独立营利性公司，以便能够出售更常规的股份，从投资者那里筹集更多资金，并且，呃，获得更多利润。（最终。）
But you cannot just take the assets of a nonprofit organization and give them to a for-profit company. The nonprofit’s assets have to remain “irrevocably dedicated to its charitable purpose.” OpenAI-the-nonprofit’s main asset is control of OpenAI-the-business, and it can’t just give that away. It can sell it, though. The newly independent for-profit business could pay OpenAI-the-nonprofit the fair value of its current ownership, and then OpenAI-the-nonprofit’s assets (that payment) could remain dedicated to charitable purposes.
但你不能只是拿走一个非营利组织的资产并将其交给一个营利性公司。非营利组织的资产必须“不可撤销地用于其慈善目的。” OpenAI-非营利组织的主要资产是对 OpenAI-企业的控制权，而它不能直接放弃这一资产。不过，它可以出售。新独立的营利性企业可以向 OpenAI-非营利组织支付其当前所有权的公允价值，然后 OpenAI-非营利组织的资产（这笔付款）仍然可以用于慈善目的。
In practice that value is very large, and the for-profit entity wouldn’t just write the nonprofit a check for the value; instead, the value would be expressed in shares of the for-profit. The for-profit arm would become a normal corporation with normal shareholders, and the nonprofit would be one of those shareholders.
在实践中，该数值非常大，盈利实体不会直接向非营利组织开出一张等额支票；相反，该数值将以盈利实体的股份形式体现。盈利部门将成为一个拥有普通股东的正常公司，而非营利组织将成为其中一个股东。
其实是重新分配相关各方的利益。
How much should the nonprofit get? Well, you know, OpenAI-the-nonprofit hires some bankers, and OpenAI-the-for-profit hires some bankers, and OpenAI’s for-profit investors (Microsoft Corp. and some venture capitalists) hire some bankers, and they build financial models and propose valuations. In theory, the nonprofit’s bankers should seek a high number, arguing that the nonprofit currently controls OpenAI’s business and so should get most of the value of that business, while, for instance, Microsoft’s bankers will seek a lower number, arguing that most of the profits of that business have already been promised to investors, and so those investors should end up with most of the ownership.
非营利组织应该得到多少？嗯，你知道，OpenAI 的非营利组织雇佣了一些银行家，OpenAI 的营利性公司雇佣了一些银行家，OpenAI 的营利性投资者（微软公司和一些风险投资家）也雇佣了一些银行家，他们建立财务模型并提出估值。理论上，非营利组织的银行家应该争取一个较高的数字，理由是非营利组织目前控制着 OpenAI 的业务，因此应该获得该业务的大部分价值，而例如微软的银行家则会争取一个较低的数字，理由是该业务的大部分利润已经承诺给投资者，因此这些投资者最终应该获得大部分所有权。
And then they negotiate, and they come to an answer that they can all live with, and they get some sort of fairness opinion or valuation blessing that answer, and they submit it to the California and Delaware state attorneys general (and probably eventually to a court), and eventually it gets more or less blessed. At The Information, Martin Peers estimates that those negotiations might give the nonprofit something like a 25% stake in OpenAI’s business, which is currently raising money at a $260 billion pre-money valuation, making the nonprofit’s stake worth about $65 billion.
然后他们进行谈判，达成一个所有人都能接受的答案，并获得某种公平性意见或估值认可，然后将其提交给加利福尼亚州和特拉华州的总检察长（最终可能提交给法院），最终这一方案或多或少会得到认可。《The Information》的马丁·皮尔斯估计，这些谈判可能会让该非营利组织在 OpenAI 的业务中获得约 25% 的股份，而 OpenAI 目前正在以 2600 亿美元的投前估值融资，这意味着该非营利组织的股份价值约 650 亿美元。
And then Musk threw a spanner in the works by proposing a bigger number. Because if the nonprofit needs to be fairly compensated, then if Musk is offering a bigger number, that implies that OpenAI’s smaller number is not fair compensation. From Musk’s lawyer’s emailed statement:
然后马斯克提出了一个更大的数字，给事情添了乱。因为如果非营利组织需要得到公平补偿，那么如果马斯克提供了一个更大的数字，这意味着 OpenAI 的较小数字并不是公平补偿。马斯克的律师在电子邮件声明中表示：
“If Sam Altman and the present OpenAI, Inc. Board of Directors are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time,” said Marc Toberoff, the attorney representing the investors.
“如果萨姆·奥特曼和现任 OpenAI, Inc.董事会执意要成为一家完全营利性的公司，那么至关重要的是，该慈善机构应得到公平补偿，以弥补其领导层从中夺走的东西：对我们这个时代最具变革性技术的控制权，”代表投资者的律师马克·托贝罗夫表示。
“As we understand the OpenAI, Inc. Board’s present intentions, they will give up majority ownership and control over OpenAI’s entire for-profit business in exchange for some minority share of a new, consolidated for-profit entity. Who on Earth would make that trade? If the Board is determined to relinquish OpenAI, Inc.’s assets, it is in the public’s interest to ensure that OpenAI, Inc. is compensated at fair market value. That value cannot be determined by insiders negotiating on both sides of the same table. After all, the public is OpenAI, Inc.’s beneficiary, and a sweetheart deal between insiders does not serve the public interest.” ...
“据我们了解，OpenAI, Inc. 董事会目前的意图是，他们将放弃对 OpenAI 整个营利性业务的多数所有权和控制权，以换取新合并的营利性实体的一小部分股权。天底下谁会做这样的交易？如果董事会决心放弃 OpenAI, Inc. 的资产，那么确保 OpenAI, Inc. 按照公平市场价值获得补偿符合公众利益。而这个价值不能由同时坐在谈判桌两侧的内部人士来决定。毕竟，公众才是 OpenAI, Inc. 的受益者，而内部人士之间的私下交易并不符合公众利益。”
Musk and his investment partners have determined that the ownership and control that OpenAI, Inc. represents it has over its various for-profit OpenAI subsidiaries and affiliates is worth no less than $97.375 billion. They offer that amount today, and they are prepared to consider matching or exceeding higher bids. Because OpenAI, Inc.’s assets are held in charitable trust, this entire purchase price will flow into the charity and be irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes.
马斯克及其投资伙伴已确定，OpenAI, Inc. 对其各个营利性 OpenAI 子公司和关联公司的所有权和控制权的价值不低于 973.75 亿美元。他们今天提出这一报价，并准备考虑匹配或超越更高的出价。由于 OpenAI, Inc. 的资产存放于慈善信托中，整个购买价格将流入慈善机构，并被不可撤销地用于慈善目的。
And so you are left with the absolutely bizarre circumstance that a nonprofit plausibly might have a fiduciary obligation to sell to the highest bidder, even if it finds that highest bidder unsavory and uncharitable. What if it got a topping bid from the Chinese Communist Party? What if a robot wearing a fake mustache came in and said “I will pay $150 billion for your company and will not use it to take over the world and enslave humanity, what even gave you that idea”? Would the charity’s obligation — its obligation not to give assets away to a for-profit company, but to be paid fair value for them — require it to sell to the highest bidder?1
因此，你就会陷入一种极其奇怪的境地，即一个非营利组织可能确实有受托责任将其出售给出价最高者，即使它认为出价最高者令人反感且缺乏慈善精神。如果出价更高的是中国共产党呢？如果一个戴着假胡子的机器人走进来说：“我愿意出价 1500 亿美元收购你们的公司，并且不会用它来统治世界、奴役人类，你们怎么会有那种想法？”那么，这家慈善机构的责任——它的责任不是将资产赠送给营利性公司，而是以公平价值出售——是否要求它必须卖给出价最高者？
And, recognizing that bizarre circumstance, Musk, the richest man in the world, lobbed in a bid. I cannot fault it! It is top-tier M&A trolling.
而且，意识到这种奇怪的情况，世界首富马斯克抛出了一个竞标。我无可指摘！这是顶级的并购恶搞。
One assumes he is not serious.2 The point here is not to buy OpenAI; the point is to raise the price. If the right valuation of the nonprofit’s stake in OpenAI is north of $100 billion, then that means that the nonprofit needs to get a bigger chunk of the company, which leaves less for the for-profit shareholders. It is harder to raise $40 billion from SoftBank if that $40 billion gets SoftBank a smaller share of the company.3 The Wall Street Journal notes:
人们认为他并不认真。这里的重点不是收购 OpenAI，而是抬高价格。如果这家非营利组织在 OpenAI 的持股估值超过 1000 亿美元，那么这意味着非营利组织需要获得公司更大份额，这将减少盈利性股东的份额。如果 400 亿美元只能让软银获得公司较小的股份，那么从软银筹集 400 亿美元就会更难。《华尔街日报》指出：
The higher the valuation of the nonprofit, the bigger its stake would likely be in the for-profit OpenAI following a conversion.
非营利组织的估值越高，在转换后，其在营利性 OpenAI 中的股份可能就越大。
At the same time, OpenAI is negotiating how much equity Microsoft, its biggest investor, should get in the for-profit company, along with other backers and employees. It is also seeking to raise up to $40 billion of new capital. Investors in that round will likely expect equity when OpenAI becomes a for-profit as well.
与此同时，OpenAI 正在协商其最大投资者微软在这家盈利性公司中应获得多少股权，以及其他支持者和员工的权益。该公司还希望筹集最多 400 亿美元的新资本。该轮投资者可能也会期望在 OpenAI 转为盈利性公司时获得股权。
Satisfying all those parties was already complicated. If Musk’s gambit increases the equity awarded to the nonprofit, it will be even more difficult.
满足所有这些相关方本已十分复杂。如果马斯克的策略增加了授予非营利组织的股权，那将变得更加困难。
And here’s Sam Altman:
这就是萨姆·奥特曼：
“I think he is probably just trying to slow us down. He obviously is a competitor,” Altman said in an interview with Bloomberg Television Tuesday on the sidelines of the Paris AI summit. “I wish he would just compete by building a better product, but I think there’s been a lot of tactics, many, many lawsuits, all sorts of other crazy stuff, now this.” …
“我认为他可能只是想拖慢我们的进展。他显然是一个竞争对手，”阿尔特曼周二在巴黎人工智能峰会期间接受彭博电视采访时表示。“我希望他能通过打造更好的产品来竞争，但我认为已经有很多策略，许多、许多诉讼，各种疯狂的事情，现在又来了这个。”
In the interview on Tuesday, Altman chided Musk, saying: “Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity — I feel for the guy.” Altman added that he doesn’t think Musk is “a happy person.”
在周二的采访中，奥特曼斥责马斯克，说道：“他的一生可能都处于不安全感之中——我为这个家伙感到难过。”奥特曼补充说，他不认为马斯克是“一个快乐的人。”
一开始没有足够的勇气，后面只会变得越来越碎片化，奥特曼和马斯克都有这个问题。
Also: 另外：
Altman added in the interview Tuesday that the OpenAI board is looking at a range of options for the business in the future. But selling the AI operations is not on the table.
奥特曼在周二的采访中补充说，OpenAI 董事会正在考虑未来业务的多种选择。但出售人工智能业务不在讨论范围内。
“OpenAI is not for sale,” he said. “The OpenAI mission is not for sale.”
“OpenAI 不出售，”他说。“OpenAI 的使命不出售。”
Yeah I mean sort of? The nonprofit board’s obligation is to its mission, and it should make decisions that are in the best interests of building AI for the benefit of humanity, not to maximize dollars. On the other hand, OpenAI kind of literally is for sale, in that the nonprofit really is not allowed to give it away to a for-profit company. Someone has to buy OpenAI-the-business from OpenAI-the-nonprofit. OpenAI would like that someone to be OpenAI-the-business, but OpenAI has put itself in play, and now there’s a higher bidder.
是的，我是说，有点吧？非营利董事会的责任是履行其使命，它应该做出有利于构建造福人类的人工智能的决定，而不是最大化金钱收益。另一方面，OpenAI 从某种意义上确实是可以被收购的，因为非营利组织实际上不被允许将其免费转让给一家营利性公司。必须有人从 OpenAI 非营利组织手中购买 OpenAI 这家企业。OpenAI 希望这个买家是 OpenAI 这家企业本身，但 OpenAI 已经将自己置于市场之中，而现在出现了一个出价更高的竞标者。
And again, as with Twitter, the problem here — the thing that leaves the board vulnerable to Musk — is the fuzziness of OpenAI’s vision. If OpenAI had a vision like “we are going to build open AI, for the benefit of mankind, rather than for profit,” then there would be absolutely no question of it selling out to the highest bidder. That would be an absurd suggestion. Or if OpenAI had a vision like “we are going to make zillions of dollars building AI, it’s gonna be absolute Skynet up in here,” there would be no question of it selling to Elon Musk for any price even he could name. But OpenAI is trying to do both: It is still pursuing its benefit-of-humanity mission while also converting to a for-profit. That is messy and arguably insupportable, and Musk pounced.
同样，就像推特一样，这里的问题——让董事会对马斯克脆弱的原因——是 OpenAI 愿景的模糊性。如果 OpenAI 的愿景是“我们要构建开放的人工智能，以造福人类，而不是为了盈利”，那么它绝对不会考虑以最高出价出售。这将是一个荒谬的建议。或者，如果 OpenAI 的愿景是“我们要通过构建人工智能赚取巨额财富，这里将彻底变成天网”，那么无论马斯克出多少钱，它都不会卖给他。但 OpenAI 试图兼顾两者：它仍在追求造福人类的使命，同时也在向营利性公司转型。这种做法混乱且可能站不住脚，而马斯克抓住了这一点。
By the way: I assume he does not have $97 billion of committed financing?4 Like:
顺便说一句：我猜他并没有承诺的 970 亿美元融资？4 像：
1.That would be a lot: by a factor of 2 the largest-ever leveraged buyout, and by a factor of, uh, probably infinity, the largest-ever leveraged buyout of a nonprofit.
那将是一个巨大的数额：是有史以来最大杠杆收购的两倍，并且，呃，可能是无穷大倍数，成为有史以来对非营利组织的最大杠杆收购。
2.Honestly how would you even get financing to do a leveraged buyout of a nonprofit?5 I’m sure there is an answer, but, man.
老实说，你要如何融资来杠杆收购一个非营利组织？我肯定是有答案的，但是，天哪。
3.This is mostly trolling? Like the goal here is not to buy OpenAI, but to make it awkward and difficult for OpenAI to convert to a for-profit company. Seems silly to get commitment letters for this.
这主要是在恶作剧吗？这里的目标不是收购 OpenAI，而是让 OpenAI 在转变为盈利公司时变得尴尬和困难。为此获取承诺函似乎很荒谬。
At the same time, though, he’s not kidding, right? Like he clearly could raise $97 billion for a stunt like this. I suppose OpenAI could reject his offer for the uncertainty of his financing, and then he’d come back 12 hours later and be like “aha, I have the money right here,” and then where would they be? He’ll roll up with 9.7 trillion pennies, won’t he?
不过与此同时，他不是在开玩笑吧？他显然真的能筹集到 970 亿美元来做这样的事情。我想 OpenAI 可能会因为对他的融资不确定而拒绝他的提议，然后 12 小时后他又回来，说“哈哈，我的钱就在这里”，那时候他们该怎么办？他会带着 9.7 万亿枚便士出现，不是吗？
热门主题
Recent Articles
2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $16.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2009-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2009-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our decrease in net worth during 2008 was $11.5 billion, which reduced the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2025-10-14 Tracy Britt Cool.What I Learned Working With Buffett
Refer To：《2025-10-14 Tracy Britt Cool.What I Learned Working With Buffett》。 INTRODUCTION 引言 SHANE PARRISH: Tracy, welcome to the show. SHANE PARRISH：Tracy，欢迎来到节目。 TRACY BRITT COOL: Thank you. It’s an honor to be here. I appreciate it. TRACY BRITT ...2010-05-26 Warren Buffett.Interview With FCIC
INTERVIEWER: Thank you. Mr. Buffett we’re with the staff of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. We were formed by Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the financial crisis both globally and domestically. And to do a report, due at the ...1988-02-29 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《1988-02-29 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 1987 was $464 million, or 19.5%. Over the last 23 years (that is, since present management took ...