BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.
波克夏海瑟崴股份有限公司
To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway
Inc.:
致所有股東:
Our gain in net worth during 1995 was $5.3
billion, or 45.0%. Per-share book value grew by a little less, 43.1%, because
we paid stock for two acquisitions, increasing our shares outstanding by 1.3%.
Over the last 31 years (that is, since present management took over) per-share
book value has grown from $19 to $14,426, or at a rate of 23.6% compounded
annually.
1995年本公司的淨值成長了45 %約53億美元，但由於去年以發行股份的方式併購了兩家公司，使得發行在外股份增加了1.3%，所以每股淨值僅成長了43.1%，而總計過去31年以來，也就是自從現有經營階層接手之後，每股淨值由當初的19元成長到現在的14,426美元，年複合成長率約為23.6%。
There's no reason to do handsprings over
1995's gains. This was a year in which any fool could make a bundle in the
stock market. And we did. To paraphrase President Kennedy, a rising tide lifts
all yachts.
對於1995年能夠有這樣的成果並沒有什麼值得好高興的，因為在去年那樣的股票市場狀況，任何一個笨蛋都可以很輕易在市場上有所斬獲，我們當然也不例外，套句甘迺迪總統說過的一句話，只要一波大浪來就可以撐起所有的船隻。
Putting aside the financial results, there
was plenty of good news at Berkshire last year: We negotiated three
acquisitions of exactly the type we desire. Two of these, Helzberg's Diamond
Shops and R.C. Willey Home Furnishings, are included in our 1995 financial
statements, while our largest transaction, the purchase of GEICO, closed
immediately after the end of the year. (I'll tell you more about all three
acquisitions later in the report.)
先不管亮麗的財務數字，去年對Berkshire來說，有許多令人振奮的好消息，我們總共談成了三件我們渴望已久的公司購併交易，其中兩家-Helzberg鑽石店與R.C. Willey傢具店，將可列入Berkshire 1995年的財務報表之中，而另外一項更大的交易-買進GEICO剩餘全部的股權，則在年度結束後不久正式敲定(在年報後面會再詳加敘述這三件併購交易)。
These new subsidiaries roughly double our
revenues. Even so, the acquisitions neither materially increased our shares
outstanding nor our debt. And, though these three operations employ over 11,000
people, our headquarters staff grew only from 11 to 12. (No sense going crazy.)
這些新加入的子公司將使我們的營收增加一倍，然而購併之後公司流通在外的股份或是負債並沒有增加多少；另外，雖然這三家公司旗下員工人數合計高達11,000人，但集團總部的人員卻僅由11人增加為12人，(我們還沒有到走火入魔的地步)。
Charlie Munger, Berkshire's Vice Chairman
and my partner, and I want to build a collection of companies - both wholly-
and partly-owned - that have excellent economic characteristics and that are
run by outstanding managers. Our favorite acquisition is the negotiated
transaction that allows us to purchase 100% of such a business at a fair price.
But we are almost as happy when the stock market offers us the chance to buy a
modest percentage of an outstanding business at a pro-rata price well below
what it would take to buy 100%. This double-barrelled approach - purchases of
entire businesses through negotiation or purchases of part-interests through
the stock market - gives us an important advantage over capital-allocators who
stick to a single course. Woody Allen once explained why eclecticism works:
"The real advantage of being bisexual is that it doubles your chances for
a date on Saturday night."
Berkshire的副主席，同時也是我的主要合夥人-查理·孟格以及我本人一直致力於建立起一個擁有絕佳競爭優勢，且由傑出經理人領導的企業所組成的集團，其中一部份是100%持有，一部份則是持有部份股權，當然我們最希望的方式還是透過協商以公平合理的價格取得全部的股權，不過如果我們在股票市場中有機會能夠找到以低於購併整家公司所需的平均價格，取得一家好公司相當程度的股份的話，我們也很樂於嘗試，事實上這種雙管齊下的做法，(也就是經由協議買下整家公司或是透過股市買進部份股權)，使得我們比起其他堅持單一做法的資金分配者來說，擁有絕佳的優勢。伍迪．艾倫曾經用以下的方式來形容為什麼會有折衷派出現，他說：雙性戀者最大的好處就是可以讓他們在週末時，比一般人整整多出一倍的約會機會。
Over the years, we've been Woody-like in
our thinking, attempting to increase our marketable investments in wonderful
businesses, while simultaneously trying to buy similar businesses in their
entirety. The following table illustrates our progress on both fronts. In the
tabulation, we show the marketable securities owned per share of Berkshire at
ten-year intervals. A second column lists our per-share operating earnings
(before taxes and purchase-price adjustments but after interest and corporate
overhead) from all other activities. In other words, the second column shows
what we earned excluding the dividends, interest and capital gains that we
realized from investments. Purchase-price accounting adjustments are ignored
for reasons we have explained at length in previous reports and which, as an
act of mercy, we won't repeat. (We'll be glad to send masochists the earlier
explanations, however.)
多年來，我們的看法一直與伍迪一致，在努力增加我們非凡企業的投資部位的同時，也試著買下一些同樣優秀企業的全部所有權，下表充分顯示了我們在這兩方面的進展，表中列示出在十年間Berkshire每股所擁有的股票價值以及每股在扣除利息與營業費用之後來自其他活動的營業利益(但未扣除所得稅與購買法會計調整數)，換言之，後者所代表的是在扣除我們從股票投資所得的股利、利息收入與資本利得之後的盈餘收益，至於購買法會計調整數不列入的原因，在以前的年報中，我們已經花了相當的篇幅解釋過了，在這個地方我們就不再重複了，當然如果你有被虐待的傾向的話，我們也不介意再複述一次。
Pre-tax Earnings Per Share
Marketable Securities Excluding All Income from
Year Per Share Investments
---- --------------------- --------------------------
1965 ................ $ 4 $ 4.08
1975 ................ 159 (6.48)
1985 ................ 2,443 18.86
1995 ................ 22,088 258.20
Yearly Growth Rate: 1965-95 33.4% 14.7%
These results have not sprung from some
master plan that we concocted in 1965. In a general way, we knew then what we
hoped to accomplish but had no idea what specific opportunities might make it
possible. Today we remain similarly unstructured: Over time, we expect to
improve the figures in both columns but have no road map to tell us how that
will come about.
當初在1965年時，我們並未刻意規劃什麼偉大的計畫，來達成以上的成果，我們只知道我們應該朝這個方向做，但卻不曉得到底會有什麼樣的機會會出現，時至今日，我們同樣是漫無目標，只能夠預期這兩欄的數字都能夠持續地精進，至於應該要如何達成，並沒有一個明確的概念。
We proceed with two advantages: First, our
operating managers are outstanding and, in most cases, have an unusually strong
attachment to Berkshire. Second, Charlie and I have had considerable experience
in allocating capital and try to go at that job rationally and objectively. The
giant disadvantage we face is size: In the early years, we needed only good
ideas, but now we need good big ideas. Unfortunately, the difficulty of finding
these grows in direct proportion to our financial success, a problem that
increasingly erodes our strengths.
我們擁有兩項優勢，首先，我們旗下事業的經理人都相當優秀，且大部分的經理人都與Berkshire保持緊密的關係，第二，查理跟我本人在資金分配方面擁有相當豐富的經驗，可以理性客觀地執行這項工作，我們所面臨最大的劣勢是規模太大，在早年，我們只需要好的投資方案，但是現在我們需要的卻是又"大"又好的投資方案，然而不幸的是，要找到能夠與Berkshire發展速度相匹配的公司的難度日益升高，這個問題持續地侵蝕我們的競爭優勢。
I will have more to say about Berkshire's
prospects later in this report, when I discuss our proposed recapitalization.
在報告的後段討論有關公司所提的股權重組提案，我會再詳加說明Berkshire未來的前景。
Acquisitions
併購活動
It may seem strange that we exult over a
year in which we made three acquisitions, given that we have regularly used
these pages to question the acquisition activities of most managers. Rest
assured, Charlie and I haven't lost our skepticism: We believe most deals do
damage to the shareholders of the acquiring company. Too often, the words from
HMS Pinafore apply: "Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk
masquerades as cream." Specifically, sellers and their representatives
invariably present financial projections having more entertainment value than
educational value. In the production of rosy scenarios, Wall Street can hold
its own against Washington.
以往到了這裡，通常是我們質疑其他公司從事的併購活動的時間，然而大家對於我們在去年突然發神經地進行了三件併購案可能會感到相當奇怪，不過大家倒是可以放心，查理跟我本人從來就沒有失去我們原來保持的懷疑態度，我們堅信大部分的併購活動會大大損及發起併購公司背後所代表的股東利益，HMS 圍裙說得沒有錯︰事情通常不是他們外表所看到得的那樣，去脂牛奶會被冒充成奶油，猶有甚者，賣方與其代表人總是會提出一些娛樂性質高於教育性質的財務預估數字，在規劃出美麗的大餅這招方面，華爾街的能力可是不會輸給華府的。
In any case, why potential buyers even look
at projections prepared by sellers baffles me. Charlie and I never give them a
glance, but instead keep in mind the story of the man with an ailing horse.
Visiting the vet, he said: "Can you help me? Sometimes my horse walks just
fine and sometimes he limps." The vet's reply was pointed: "No
problem - when he's walking fine, sell him." In the world of mergers and
acquisitions, that horse would be peddled as Secretariat.
我實在不了解為什麼有些可能的買主會相信賣方提出的預估數字，查理跟我連看都懶得看他們一眼，我們一再謹記一位擁有跛腳馬主人的故事，他牽著病馬去給獸醫看說到︰「你可以幫幫我嗎? 我實在是搞不懂為什麼這匹馬的表現時好時壞。」，獸醫的回答正中要害，「沒問題，趁牠表現正常的時候，趕快把牠賣掉」，在併購的世界中，這樣的跛腳馬往往被裝飾成聖物到處行騙。
At Berkshire, we have all the difficulties
in perceiving the future that other acquisition-minded companies do. Like they
also, we face the inherent problem that the seller of a business practically
always knows far more about it than the buyer and also picks the time of sale -
a time when the business is likely to be walking "just fine."
在Berkshire，我們無從了解這些有意從事併購的公司到底怎麼會做出這樣的舉動，與他們一樣，我們也面臨一個先天上的問題，那就是賣方永遠比買方了解內情，所以很自然地，他們一定會挑選賣出的最佳時機，也就是當跛腳馬表現的都很正常的時候。
Even so, we do have a few advantages,
perhaps the greatest being that we don't have a strategic plan. Thus we feel no
need to proceed in an ordained direction (a course leading almost invariably to
silly purchase prices) but can instead simply decide what makes sense for our
owners. In doing that, we always mentally compare any move we are contemplating
with dozens of other opportunities open to us, including the purchase of small
pieces of the best businesses in the world via the stock market. Our practice
of making this comparison - acquisitions against passive investments - is a
discipline that managers focused simply on expansion seldom use.
儘管如此，我們還是擁有幾項優勢，其中最有利的大概就是我們並沒有一套策略計畫，所以我們就沒有必要依照固定的模式(一種幾乎註定會以離譜的價錢成交的模式)，而是完全以股東本身的利益為優先，在這樣的心態之下，我們隨時可以客觀地將購併案與其他潛在的幾十種投資機會做比較，其中也包含經由股票市場買進部份股權，我們習慣性地做比較，購併vs被動的投資，是一昧地想要擴張經營版圖的經理人絕對做不出來的。
Talking to Time Magazine a few years back,
Peter Drucker got to the heart of things: "I will tell you a secret:
Dealmaking beats working. Dealmaking is exciting and fun, and working is
grubby. Running anything is primarily an enormous amount of grubby detail work
. . . dealmaking is romantic, sexy. That's why you have deals that make no
sense."
管理大師彼得．杜拉克幾年前在對時代雜誌的一次專訪中，切中要點的提到︰讓我告訴你一個祕密，促成交易比辛勤工作好，促成交易刺激有趣，而工作卻盡是一些骯髒污齪的事，經營任何事業無可避免的是一大堆繁雜的工作，而促成交易相對的就很性感浪漫，而這也是為什麼通常交易的發生都沒什麼道理可循。
In making acquisitions, we have a further
advantage: As payment, we can offer sellers a stock backed by an extraordinary
collection of outstanding businesses. An individual or a family wishing to
dispose of a single fine business, but also wishing to defer personal taxes
indefinitely, is apt to find Berkshire stock a particularly comfortable
holding. I believe, in fact, that this calculus played an important part in the
two acquisitions for which we paid shares in 1995.
在從事併購案時，我們還有一項優勢，那就是我們可以提供給賣方，一種背後由眾多優秀企業所組成的股份當作對價，當一家公司的老闆或家族想要處分績優的家族產業，同時希望相關的稅負能夠繼續遞延下去時，應該會發現Berkshire的股票是一種相當好的選擇，事實上，我相信這樣的盤算在我們1985年促成以股份交換的兩項購併案中扮演極關鍵的角色。
Beyond that, sellers sometimes care about
placing their companies in a corporate home that will both endure and provide
pleasant, productive working conditions for their managers. Here again,
Berkshire offers something special. Our managers operate with extraordinary
autonomy. Additionally, our ownership structure enables sellers to know that
when I say we are buying to keep, the promise means something. For our part, we
like dealing with owners who care what happens to their companies and people. A
buyer is likely to find fewer unpleasant surprises dealing with that type of
seller than with one simply auctioning off his business.
此外，有些賣方也會關心他們的公司是否能夠找到一個穩定可靠的美滿歸宿，可以讓其旗下員工有一個良好的工作環境，而就這點而言，Berkshire絕對與眾不同，我們旗下事業的經理人擁有絕對的自主權，此外我們的股權結構使得賣方可以相信當我們在購併時，所做出的每一個承諾將會被信守，對我們而言，我們也希望能與真正關心購併後其公司與員工會有怎樣結局的老闆打交道，就我們的經驗而言，這類的賣主通常會較那些一心要把所擁有的公司拍賣掉的人，要讓我們少發現許多令人不愉快的意外。
In addition to the foregoing being an
explanation of our acquisition style, it is, of course, a not-so-subtle sales
pitch. If you own or represent a business earning $25 million or more before
tax, and it fits the criteria listed on page 23, just give me a call. Our
discussion will be confidential. And if you aren't interested now, file our
proposition in the back of your mind: We are never going to lose our appetite
for buying companies with good economics and excellent management.
以上算是對於我們購併模式的一些解釋，當然在這裡我也要打一點小廣告，如果你擁有或代表一家每年稅前獲利超過2,500萬美元的公司，同時也符合我們表列的各項標準的話，記得打個電話給我，我們談話的內容將會完全保密，當然若是你現在沒有興趣，也請你把我們的這些條件記在腦海，因為我們從來就不會放棄買下擁有優良的競爭優勢與傑出經理人的公司的意願。
Concluding this little dissertation on
acquisitions, I can't resist repeating a tale told me last year by a corporate
executive. The business he grew up in was a fine one, with a long-time record
of leadership in its industry. Its main product, however, was distressingly
glamorless. So several decades ago, the company hired a management consultant
who - naturally - advised diversification, the then-current fad.
("Focus" was not yet in style.) Before long, the company acquired a
number of businesses, each after the consulting firm had gone through a long -
and expensive - acquisition study. And the outcome? Said the executive sadly,
"When we started, we were getting 100% of our earnings from the original
business. After ten years, we were getting 150%."
為了將以上購併論點做一個總結，我忍不住再重複一遍，去年一位企業經理人告訴我的一則小故事︰他提到他原來經營一家由他一手扶持的好公司，在其所處的產業擁有長期的領導地位，只是其前景顯得有些黯淡，所以幾十年前，這家公司特別聘請了一家管理顧問公司，很自然的管理顧問建議他們應該要多角化經營，這在當時還是股風潮(專注本業的論調還未成形)，不久之後，這家公司在經過顧問公司一連串冗長且收費昂貴的購併調查之後，陸續買進了好幾家公司，你一定會想要問，最後結果如何? 這位主管很難過的說，一開始我們的盈餘百分之百是來自於我們原來的本業，但是過了十年後，這個比例變成百分之一百五十!
Helzberg's Diamond Shops
Helzberg 鑽石店
A few years back, management consultants
popularized a technique called "management by walking around" (MBWA).
At Berkshire, we've instituted ABWA (acquisitions by walking around).
幾年前，管理顧問專家有一句相當流行的術語-走動式管理，在Berkshire我們運用的則是走動式併購。
In May 1994, a week or so after the Annual
Meeting, I was crossing the street at 58th and Fifth Avenue in New York, when a
woman called out my name. I listened as she told me she'd been to, and had
enjoyed, the Annual Meeting. A few seconds later, a man who'd heard the woman
stop me did so as well. He turned out to be Barnett Helzberg, Jr., who owned
four shares of Berkshire and had also been at our meeting.
1994年五月，在年度股東會過後不久，正當我在紐約第五大道與58街交叉路口準備過馬路時，突然有一位婦人叫我的名字，我停下駐足，她提到自己很喜歡參加Berkshire的股東會，過了一會兒，旁邊一位先生聽到這位婦人的談話，也如法炮製的把我給攔下來，沒想到他竟是Barnett Helzberg二世，他持有Berkshire四股的股份，同時也曾參加過我們的股東會。
In our few minutes of conversation, Barnett
said he had a business we might be interested in. When people say that, it
usually turns out they have a lemonade stand - with potential, of course, to
quickly grow into the next Microsoft. So I simply asked Barnett to send me
particulars. That, I thought to myself. will be the end of that.
在我們短暫的交談之中，Barnett表示他擁有一家我們可能會有興趣的公司，普通當人們這樣說的時候，一般都是指一些茶水攤，當然搞不好，也有可能會變成微軟第二，所以我只是簡單地請Barnett將他的資料送給我，然後我想一切將就此結束。
Not long after, Barnett sent me the
financial statements of Helzberg's Diamond Shops. The company had been started
by his grandfather in 1915 from a single store in Kansas City and had developed
by the time we met into a group with 134 stores in 23 states. Sales had grown
from $10 million in 1974 to $53 million in 1984 and $282 million in 1994. We
weren't talking lemonade stands.
過了不久，Barnett果然把Helzberg鑽石店的財務報表送給我，這家公司是在1915年由其祖父創立，當初只不過是在堪薩斯市的一家單店，然而直到我們碰面時，該公司已發展成在全美23個州擁有134家分店的集團，營業額也從1974年的1,000萬美元成長到1984年的5,300萬美元，乃至於1994年的二億
8,200萬美元，這顯然不是一間茶水攤。
Barnett, then 60, loved the business but
also wanted to feel free of it. In 1988, as a step in that direction, he had
brought in Jeff Comment, formerly President of Wanamaker's, to help him run
things. The hiring of Jeff turned out to be a homerun, but Barnett still found
that he couldn't shake a feeling of ultimate responsibility. Additionally, he
owned a valuable asset that was subject to the vagaries of a single, very
competitive industry, and he thought it prudent to diversify his family's
holdings.
Barnett現年六十歲，很熱愛這項事業，但也很希望能夠減輕負擔，在1988年他跨出第一步，找到Wanamaker前任總裁-Jeff Comment來協助他經營事業，這個決定事後證明相當正確，但Barnett還是覺得他的壓力相當沈重，而且，他雖然擁有價值不菲的事業，但卻面臨單一且競爭相當激烈的產業，因此他認為有必要要分散家族持股的風險。
Berkshire was made to order for him. It
took us awhile to get together on price, but there was never any question in my
mind that, first, Helzberg's was the kind of business that we wanted to own
and, second, Jeff was our kind of manager. In fact, we would not have bought
the business if Jeff had not been there to run it. Buying a retailer without
good management is like buying the Eiffel Tower without an elevator.
Berkshire被要求提出一個報價，我們花了一段時間才在價格上達成協議，然而此外從頭到尾我都沒有太多的疑問，首先，Helzberg是那種我們想要擁有的事業，第二Jeff，是屬於我們這喜歡的經理人類型，事實上，要是這項事業不是由Jeff所經營的話，我們可能就不會考慮買下它，買下一家沒有優良管理的零售業，就好像是買下一座沒有電梯的艾菲爾鐵塔。
We completed the Helzberg purchase in 1995
by means of a tax-free exchange of stock, the only kind of transaction that
interested Barnett. Though he was certainly under no obligation to do so,
Barnett shared a meaningful part of his proceeds from the sale with a large
number of his associates. When someone behaves that generously, you know you
are going to be treated right as a buyer.
我們在1995年完成對Helzberg的併購案，以免稅的股權交換方式進行，這也是Barnett唯一願意接受的方式，雖然沒有法令規定，但是他還是將併購後的所得與其眾多的員工一起分享，就這點而言，你可以確信對員工如此慷慨的人，相信也會公平合理地對待新加入的買主。
The average Helzberg's store has annual
sales of about $2 million, far more than competitors operating similarly-sized
stores achieve. This superior per-store productivity is the key to Helzberg's
excellent profits. If the company continues its first-rate performance - and we
believe it will - it could grow rather quickly to several times its present
size.
Helzberg單店年平均營業額大約是二百萬美元，這個數字遠比其他相同規模的競爭對手多得多，這種高生產力正是Helzberg擁有高獲利的關鍵因素，如果這家公司能夠繼續這種一流的表現，(我們相信絕對沒問題)，則在不久的將來它將可以發展為數倍於現在的規模。
Helzberg's, it should be added, is an
entirely different sort of operation from Borsheim's, our Omaha jewelry
business, and the two companies will operate independently of each other.
Borsheim's had an excellent year in 1995, with sales up 11.7%. Susan Jacques,
its 36-year-old CEO, had an even better year, giving birth to her second son at
the start of the Christmas season. Susan has proved to be a terrific leader in
the two years since her promotion.
有一點必須強調的是，Helzberg經營的形態與我們原有在奧瑪哈的珠寶事業-波仙珠寶店完全不同，兩家公司仍然會維持各自獨立的營運，波仙1995年的業績相當理想，營收較去年又增加了11.7%，該公司總裁-Susan Jacques的表現更是優異，去年耶誕節前夕她產下第二個兒子，在接任二年後，Susan證明自己是位相當傑出的領導者。
R.C. Willey Home Furnishings
R.C. Willey傢具店
It was Nebraska Furniture Mart's Irv
Blumkin who did the walking around in the case of R.C. Willey, long the leading
home furnishings business in Utah. Over the years, Irv had told me about the
strengths of that company. And he had also told Bill Child, CEO of R.C. Willey,
how pleased the Blumkin family had been with its Berkshire relationship. So in
early 1995, Bill mentioned to Irv that for estate tax and diversification
reasons, he and the other owners of R.C. Willey might be interested in
selling.
關於R.C. Willey傢具店-這家猶他州最大傢具店的併購案，這次換做是內布拉斯加傢具店的Irv Blumkin做走動式併購，多年以來，Irv一直向我提及這家公司所擁有的競爭力，而他也不斷地告訴R.C. Willey總裁-Bill Child，Blumkin家族與Berkshire的合作關係是多麼地令人愉快，終於到了1995年，Bill向Irv提及基於資產稅負與分散風險考量，他自己本身與R.C. Willey其他股東有意出售該公司股份。
From that point forward, things could not
have been simpler. Bill sent me some figures, and I wrote him a letter
indicating my idea of value. We quickly agreed on a number, and found our
personal chemistry to be perfect. By mid-year, the merger was completed.
從那一刻開始，事情就變得再簡單也不過了，Bill給了我一些數字，而我則回信表達我對價值的看法，我們很快地就達成價格上的協議，而後續所產生的化學變化可說是再完美不過了，一直到年中，整個合併案大功告成。
R.C. Willey is an amazing story. Bill took
over the business from his father-in-law in 1954 when sales were about
$250,000. From this tiny base, Bill employed Mae West's philosophy: "It's
not what you've got - it's what you do with what you've got." Aided by his
brother, Sheldon, Bill has built the company to its 1995 sales volume of $257
million, and it now accounts for over 50% of the furniture business in Utah.
Like Nebraska Furniture Mart, R.C. Willey sells appliances, electronics,
computers and carpets in addition to furniture. Both companies have about the
same sales volume, but NFM gets all of its business from one complex in Omaha,
whereas R.C. Willey will open its sixth major store in the next few months.
R.C. Willey有一段相當精彩的故事，1954年當Bill從其岳父手中接下這項事業時，該公司的年營業額只有25萬美元，從那個基礎開始，Bill運用Mae West的哲學，重點不在於你得到的是什麼，重點在於你將得到的如何運用，在其兄弟Sheldon的協助之下，Bill將公司的營業額一舉提升到1995年的2億5,700萬美元，目前擁有猶他州超過50%以上的市場佔有率，就像是NFM一樣，除了傢具以外，R.C. Willey也販賣小家電、電子資訊與地毯等商品，兩家公司的營業額相當，只是NFM的營收全部來自在奧瑪哈惟一的一家總店，而R.C. Willey卻即將在幾個月後成立第六家分店。
Retailing is a tough business. During my
investment career, I have watched a large number of retailers enjoy terrific
growth and superb returns on equity for a period, and then suddenly nosedive,
often all the way into bankruptcy. This shooting-star phenomenon is far more
common in retailing than it is in manufacturing or service businesses. In part,
this is because a retailer must stay smart, day after day. Your competitor is
always copying and then topping whatever you do. Shoppers are meanwhile
beckoned in every conceivable way to try a stream of new merchants. In
retailing, to coast is to fail.
零售業的經營相當不易，在我個人的投資生涯中，我看過許多零售業曾經擁有極高的成長率與股東權益報酬率，但是到最後，突然間表現急速下滑，很多甚至被迫以倒閉關門收場，比起一般製造業或服務業，這種剎那間的永恆在零售業履見不鮮，部份的原因是這些零售業者必須時時保持聰明警戒，因為你的競爭對手隨時準備複製你的做法，然後超越你，同時消費者絕對不會吝於給予新加入業者嘗試的機會，在零售業一但業績下滑，註定就會失敗。
In contrast to this
have-to-be-smart-every-day business, there is what I call the
have-to-be-smart-once business. For example, if you were smart enough to buy a
network TV station very early in the game, you could put in a shiftless and
backward nephew to run things, and the business would still do well for decades.
You'd do far better, of course, if you put in Tom Murphy, but you could stay
comfortably in the black without him. For a retailer, hiring that nephew would
be an express ticket to bankruptcy.
相對於這種必須時時保持警戒的產業，還有一種我稱之為只要聰明一時的產業，舉個例子來說，如果你在很早以前就懂得睿智地買下一家地方電視台，你甚至可以把它交給懶惰又差勁的親人來經營，而這項事業卻仍然可以好好地經營個幾十年，當然若是你懂得將Tom Murphy擺在正確的位置之上，你所獲得的將會更驚人，但是對零售業來說，要是用人不當的話，就等於買了一張準備倒閉關門的門票。
The two retailing businesses we purchased
this year are blessed with terrific managers who love to compete and have done
so successfully for decades. Like the CEOs of our other operating units, they
will operate autonomously: We want them to feel that the businesses they run
are theirs. This means no second-guessing by Charlie and me. We avoid the
attitude of the alumnus whose message to the football coach is "I'm 100%
with you - win or tie." Our basic goal as an owner is to behave with our
managers as we like our owners to behave with us.
不過今年我們買下的這兩家零售業，卻很幸運的擁有喜歡面對競爭挑戰的經理人，同時過去幾十年來也表現的相當優異，就像是我們旗下其他事業的經理人，他們將可以獨立自主地經營事業，我們希望他們覺得就好像是在經營自己的事業一樣，沒錯就是這樣，查理跟我絕沒有其他的意思，我們盡量避免像校友會常常對足球校隊教練所說的那樣︰不論贏或是打平，我們永遠與你站在同一陣線，身為所有權人，我們的基本原則是期望我們自己的行為與我們要求旗下的經理人的表現一樣。
As we add more operations, I'm sometimes
asked how many people I can handle reporting to me. My answer to that is
simple: If I have one person reporting to me and he is a lemon, that's one too
many, and if I have managers like those we now have, the number can be almost
unlimited. We are lucky to have Bill and Sheldon associated with us, and we
hope that we can acquire other businesses that bring with them managers of
similar caliber.
而在我們又新增旗下事業的同時，我被問及我一個人到底可以應付多少個經理人同時向我報告，我的回答相當簡單，要是我只管一個經理人，而他是一顆酸檸檬，那麼管一個人對我來說，實在是太多了，相反的，要是我所面對的是像我們現在所擁有的經理人的話，那麼這個數目將沒有任何限制，很幸運的是，這回新加入的是Bill跟Sheldon，而我們也很希望在不久的未來，還能有更多相同水準的經理人加入我們的行列。
GEICO Corporation
蓋可保險營運
Right after yearend, we completed the
purchase of 100% of GEICO, the seventh largest auto insurer in the United
States, with about 3.7 million cars insured. I've had a 45-year association
with GEICO, and though the story has been told before, it's worth a short recap
here.
就在去年底，我們完成買進蓋可保險100%股權的動作，蓋可是全美第七大的汽車保險公司，約有370萬輛汽車加保，我個人與蓋可保險的關係長達45年以上，雖然這段故事已經說過很多遍，我認為還是有必要在這裡稍微複述一次。
I attended Columbia University's business
school in 1950-51, not because I cared about the degree it offered, but because
I wanted to study under Ben Graham, then teaching there. The time I spent in
Ben's classes was a personal high, and quickly induced me to learn all I could
about my hero. I turned first to Who's Who in America, finding there, among
other things, that Ben was Chairman of Government Employees Insurance Company,
to me an unknown company in an unfamiliar industry.
我是在1950年-1951年間就讀於哥倫比亞商學院，當時的目的倒不在於取得學位，重點還在於我可以受教於當時在該校任教的班哲明．葛拉漢門下，上葛拉漢的課實在是一種享受，很快的就讓我從偶像哪裡學習到許多東西，有一回我翻開全美名人錄，發現我的恩師葛拉漢是公務人員保險公司-GEICO的董事會主
席，對於當時的我而言，那完全是一家陌生產業的不知名公司。
A librarian next referred me to Best's Fire
and Casualty insurance manual, where I learned that GEICO was based in
Washington, DC. So on a Saturday in January, 1951, I took the train to
Washington and headed for GEICO's downtown headquarters. To my dismay, the
building was closed, but I pounded on the door until a custodian appeared. I
asked this puzzled fellow if there was anyone in the office I could talk to,
and he said he'd seen one man working on the sixth floor.
一位好心的圖書館員，介紹我看看全美最佳火險與意外險公司手冊，我發現GEICO的總部位於華盛頓特區，所以在1951年一月的某個星期六，我搭乘火車前往位於華盛頓的GEICO總部，一到當地，令人失望的是總部大門深鎖，朝著大門敲了半天，終於有位守衛前來應門，我向這位一臉疑惑的警衛先生問到，公司是否有人可以跟我談一談，他老兄說六樓有人在加班，你可以去找他試一試。
And thus I met Lorimer Davidson, Assistant
to the President, who was later to become CEO. Though my only credentials were
that I was a student of Graham's, "Davy" graciously spent four hours
or so showering me with both kindness and instruction. No one has ever received
a better half-day course in how the insurance industry functions nor in the
factors that enable one company to excel over others. As Davy made clear,
GEICO's method of selling - direct marketing - gave it an enormous cost
advantage over competitors that sold through agents, a form of distribution so
ingrained in the business of these insurers that it was impossible for them to
give it up. After my session with Davy, I was more excited about GEICO than I
have ever been about a stock.
就這樣我遇到了當時還是副總裁的Lorimer Davidson，後來他成為GEICO的總裁，雖然我唯一的經歷背景只是葛拉漢的一名學生，大衛還是很好心的花了四個小時左右的時間，好好地給我上了一課，我想大概沒有人能夠像我這樣，可以幸運地接受如何經營保險業的半天課程，大衛很坦白地告訴我，GEICO的競爭優勢在於-直接行銷，這使得該公司相較於一般競爭同業必須透過傳統的業務仲介的經營方式所負擔的成本要低得許多，後者受限傳統無法擺脫行之有年的行銷網路，而在上過大衛的課之後，GEICO也成為我有生以來覺得最心動的一支股票。
When I finished at Columbia some months
later and returned to Omaha to sell securities, I naturally focused almost
exclusively on GEICO. My first sales call - on my Aunt Alice, who always
supported me 100% - was successful. But I was then a skinny, unpolished
20-year-old who looked about 17, and my pitch usually failed. Undaunted, I wrote
a short report late in 1951 about GEICO for "The Security I Like
Best" column in The Commercial and Financial Chronicle, a leading
financial publication of the time. More important, I bought stock for my own
account.
在我從哥倫比亞大學畢業的幾個月後，我回到奧瑪哈擔任股票業務員，自然而然的，我把重心全部擺在GEICO這隻股票之上，我作成的第一筆生意就是把它介紹給總是最支持我的阿姨Alice，不過當時的我只是個20歲初出茅廬的小夥子，所以我的話總是沒有人願意相信，即便如此，我還是在1951年寫了一篇最佳推薦個股-GEICO並刊登在當時最大的金融時報專欄之上，當然最重要的是我自己也買了這家公司的股票。
You may think this odd, but I have kept
copies of every tax return I filed, starting with the return for 1944. Checking
back, I find that I purchased GEICO shares on four occasions during 1951, the
last purchase being made on September 26. This pattern of persistence suggests
to me that my tendency toward self-intoxication was developed early. I probably
came back on that September day from unsuccessfully trying to sell some
prospect and decided - despite my already having more than 50% of my net worth
in GEICO - to load up further. In any event, I accumulated 350 shares of GEICO
during the year, at a cost of $10,282. At yearend, this holding was worth
$13,125, more than 65% of my net worth.
你可能會覺得很奇怪，不過打從1944年開始報稅到現在，我都保留每年個人報稅的資料，在將這些資料拿出來比對之後，我發現在1951年我總共分四次買進GEICO股份，最後一次是在9月26日，這樣的做法讓我覺得自己很早就有自我沈醉的傾向，印象中我那時是在向別人推銷這批股票不成之後，決定自己吃下這批股票，儘管在當時我已將個人50%以上的身家全都押在這支股票之上，而在加碼之後，我總共持有350股的GEICO股份，成本為10,282美元，到了年底，這些股票的市值成為13,125美元，超過個人淨值的65%。
You can see why GEICO was my first business
love. Furthermore, just to complete this stroll down memory lane, I should add
that I earned most of the funds I used to buy GEICO shares by delivering The
Washington Post, the chief product of a company that much later made it
possible for Berkshire to turn $10 million into $500 million.
所以大家可以看出GEICO公司可以說是我投資生涯的初戀，還有一點也相當具有紀念價值的，我買下GEICO大部分的資金是來自於派送華盛頓郵報的收入，而後來經由Berkshire我靠著華盛頓郵報，將1,000萬美元變成五億美元。
Alas, I sold my entire GEICO position in
1952 for $15,259, primarily to switch into Western Insurance Securities. This
act of infidelity can partially be excused by the fact that Western was selling
for slightly more than one times its current earnings, a p/e ratio that for
some reason caught my eye. But in the next 20 years, the GEICO stock I sold
grew in value to about $1.3 million, which taught me a lesson about the
inadvisability of selling a stake in an identifiably-wonderful company.
可惜的是，在1952年我以15,259美元的價錢將全部的GEICO股份出清，然後將所得資金投入到西方保險證券公司之上，這項變心的舉動，一部份的原因是因為西方保險證券當時的股價相當吸引人，本益比只有一倍左右，然而在往後的二十年間，當時被我賣的的GEICO股份的價值卻成長到1,300萬美元，這樣的結局讓我體會到絕對不能賣掉一家明顯的好公司的原則。
In the early 1970's, after Davy retired,
the executives running GEICO made some serious errors in estimating their
claims costs, a mistake that led the company to underprice its policies - and
that almost caused it to go bankrupt. The company was saved only because Jack
Byrne came in as CEO in 1976 and took drastic remedial measures.
1970年代初期，在大衛退休後不久，繼任的管理階層犯了一連串嚴重的錯誤，他們低估了保險理賠的成本，使得公司對外銷售保單的訂價過低，此舉導致公司幾乎面臨倒閉的命運，所幸後來由Jack Byrne在1976年接掌公司，並採取緊急的補救措施後，才使得公司倖免於難。
Because I believed both in Jack and in
GEICO's fundamental competitive strength, Berkshire purchased a large interest in
the company during the second half of 1976, and also made smaller purchases
later. By yearend 1980, we had put $45.7 million into GEICO and owned 33.3% of
its shares. During the next 15 years, we did not make further purchases. Our
interest in the company, nonetheless, grew to about 50% because it was a big
repurchaser of its own shares.
由於我相信Jack以及該公司原本擁有的競爭優勢，Berkshire在1976年下半年買進大量的GEICO股份，之後又小幅加碼，到了1980年底，我們總共投入4,570萬美元取得該公司33.3%的股權，然而在往後的15年內，我們並沒有再增加持股，不過由於該公司不斷地購回自家公司的股份，使得我們在GEICO的持股比例逐漸增加到50%左右。
Then, in 1995, we agreed to pay $2.3
billion for the half of the company we didn't own. That is a steep price. But
it gives us full ownership of a growing enterprise whose business remains
exceptional for precisely the same reasons that prevailed in 1951. In addition,
GEICO has two extraordinary managers: Tony Nicely, who runs the insurance side
of the operation, and Lou Simpson, who runs investments.
然後到了1995年，我們同意以23億美元買下另一半原來不屬於我們的股份，這是實在是天價，不過它讓我們可以百分之百擁有一家深具成長潛力的企業，且其競爭優勢從1951年到現在一直都維持不變，更重要的是，GEICO擁有兩位相當優秀的經理人，一位是專門負責保險部門營運的Tony Nicely，一位是專門負責投資部門營運的Lou Simpson。
Tony, 52, has been with GEICO for 34 years.
There's no one I would rather have managing GEICO's insurance operation. He has
brains, energy, integrity and focus. If we're lucky, he'll stay another 34
years.
52歲的Tony在GEICO任職已有34年了，兼具智慧、精力、品格與專注力，他是我心目中經營GEICO保險部門的不二人選，如果我們夠幸運的話，Tony應該還能再為我們經營GEICO 34年以上。
Lou runs investments just as ably. Between
1980 and 1995, the equities under Lou's management returned an average of 22.8%
annually vs. 15.7% for the S&P. Lou takes the same conservative,
concentrated approach to investments that we do at Berkshire, and it is an
enormous plus for us to have him on board. One point that goes beyond Lou's
GEICO work: His presence on the scene assures us that Berkshire would have an
extraordinary professional immediately available to handle its investments if
something were to happen to Charlie and me.
另一方面，Lou在管理投資同樣出色，從1980年到1995年的這段期間，GEICO的投資在Lou的管理之下，年度平均投資報酬率高達22.8%，同期間S&P只有15.7%，Lou在GEICO所採取謹慎保守、專注集中的投資方式與Berkshire一致，有他在，對Berkshire來說絕對有相當大的幫助，而他的存在同時也使得Berkshire可以確保查理跟我本人萬一要是有任何突發狀況時，能夠有一位傑出的專業人士可以立即接手我們的工作。
GEICO, of course, must continue both to
attract good policyholders and keep them happy. It must also reserve and price
properly. But the ultimate key to the company's success is its rock-bottom
operating costs, which virtually no competitor can match. In 1995, moreover,
Tony and his management team pushed underwriting and loss adjustment expenses
down further to 23.6% of premiums, nearly one percentage point below 1994's
ratio. In business, I look for economic castles protected by unbreachable
"moats." Thanks to Tony and his management team, GEICO's moat widened
in 1995.
GEICO如同過往一般，持續地吸引優良的保戶前來，而GEICO的服務也確實令他們滿意，當然訂價與提列準備必須適當，但是該公司能夠成功的最重要關鍵，還在於超低的成本結構，這實在是其他競爭同業遠遠比不上的，1995年在Tony與其領導的經營階層的努力之下，該公司的承保損失與營業費用比率進一步壓低到保費收入的23.6%，比起1994年又低了一個百分點，在商業的世界，我致力於尋找擁有無可侵犯護城河所保護的企業堡壘，感謝Tony跟他的經營團隊，GEICO周圍的護城河又更加寬了許多。
Finally, let me bring you up to date on
Davy. He's now 93 and remains my friend and teacher. He continues to pay close
attention to GEICO and has always been there when the company's CEOs - Jack
Byrne, Bill Snyder and Tony - have needed him. Our acquisition of 100% of GEICO
caused Davy to incur a large tax. Characteristically, he still warmly supported
the transaction.
最後讓我向各位報告一下大衛的近況，高齡93歲的他，對我而言亦師亦友，到現在他還是一樣關心GEICO的情況，而當公司現任的主管-Jack Byrne、Bill Snnder與Tony有任何需要他的地方，他都會隨時挺身相助，雖然這次的併購案將使得大衛必須承擔大筆的稅負，但他還是一樣支持這項交易。
Davy has been one of my heroes for the 45
years I've known him, and he's never let me down. You should understand that
Berkshire would not be where it is today if Davy had not been so generous with
his time on a cold Saturday in 1951. I've often thanked him privately, but it
is fitting that I use this report to thank him on behalf of Berkshire's
shareholders.
自從我認識大衛後，45年以來他一直就是我崇拜的偶像之一，而他確實也從未讓我失望過，大家必須了解如果沒有大衛在1951年那個寒冷的星期六慷慨解說，Berkshire就絕對不可能會有今天的成就，多年來私底下，我已不知感謝他多少次了，但是今天在這裡我覺得應該藉著今年的年報代替Berkshire所有的股東向他致上深深的感謝之意。
Insurance Operations
保險事業營運
In addition to acquiring GEICO, we enjoyed
other favorable developments in insurance during 1995.
除了取得GEICO保險公司全部的股權，1995年我們其他保險事業也都有相當
不錯的發展。
As we've explained in past reports, what
counts in our insurance business is, first, the amount of "float" we
generate and, second, its cost to us. Float is money we hold but don't own. In
an insurance operation, float arises because most policies require that
premiums be prepaid and, more importantly, because it usually takes time for an
insurer to hear about and resolve loss claims.
就像我們在過去年報跟各位解釋過的，保險事業最重要的關鍵，第一是保險浮存金的數量，第二是它的成本，浮存金是我們持有並非我們所有，保險事業營運之所以能有浮存金的原因在於大部分的保單都會要求保戶必須預付保險費，另外更重要的是保險公司在被知會並真正理賠之前，通常都要經過好長的一段時間。
Typically, the premiums that an insurer
takes in do not cover the losses and expenses it must pay. That leaves it
running an "underwriting loss" - and that loss is the cost of float.
An insurance business is profitable over time if its cost of float is less than
the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business
has a negative value if the cost of its float is higher than market rates for
money.
通常保險公司實際上收到的保費並不足以支應實際發生的損失與費用，所以大多會產生承保的損失，而這就是浮存金的成本，長期而言，保險公司的浮存金成本若能低於其他資金管道所需的成本就算是獲利，但是要是其浮存金成本高於貨幣市場利率的話，其是否有存在的價值就有疑問。
As the numbers in the following table show,
Berkshire's insurance business has been a huge winner. For the table, we have
calculated our float - which we generate in exceptional amounts relative to our
premium volume - by adding loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held
under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then subtracting
agents' balances, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes and deferred charges
applicable to assumed reinsurance. Our cost of float is determined by our
underwriting loss or profit. In those years when we have had an underwriting
profit, such as the last three, our cost of float has been negative, which
means we have calculated our insurance earnings by adding underwriting profit
to float income.
如同下表中的數字所顯示的，Berkshire的保險事業大獲全勝，表中的浮存金，係將所有的損失準備、損失費用調整準備與未賺取保費加總後，再扣除應付佣金、預付購併成本及相關再保遞延費用，相對於我們的保費收入總額，我們的浮存金部位算是相當大的，至於浮存金的成本則決定於所發生的承保損失或利益而定，在某些年度由於我們有承保利益，所以換句話說，我們的資金成本甚至是負的，此時我們的保險事業盈餘等於是由原先從浮存金獲取的利益再加上承保利益。
(1) (2) Yearend Yield
Underwriting Approximate on Long-Term
Loss Average Float Cost of Funds Govt. Bonds
------------ ------------- --------------- -------------
(In $ Millions) (Ratio of 1 to 2)
1967 ...... profit 17.3 less than zero 5.50%
1968 ...... profit 19.9 less than zero 5.90%
1969 ...... profit 23.4 less than zero 6.79%
1970 ...... 0.37 32.4 1.14% 6.25%
1971 ...... profit 52.5 less than zero 5.81%
1972 ...... profit 69.5 less than zero 5.82%
1973 ...... profit 73.3 less than zero 7.27%
1974 ...... 7.36 79.1 9.30% 8.13%
1975 ...... 11.35 87.6 12.96% 8.03%
1976 ...... profit 102.6 less than zero 7.30%
1977 ...... profit 139.0 less than zero 7.97%
1978 ...... profit 190.4 less than zero 8.93%
1979 ...... profit 227.3 less than zero 10.08%
1980 ...... profit 237.0 less than zero 11.94%
1981 ...... profit 228.4 less than zero 13.61%
1982 ...... 21.56 220.6 9.77% 10.64%
1983 ...... 33.87 231.3 14.64% 11.84%
1984 ...... 48.06 253.2 18.98% 11.58%
1985 ...... 44.23 390.2 11.34% 9.34%
1986 ...... 55.84 797.5 7.00% 7.60%
1987 ...... 55.43 1,266.7 4.38% 8.95%
1988 ...... 11.08 1,497.7 0.74% 9.00%
1989 ...... 24.40 1,541.3 1.58% 7.97%
1990 ...... 26.65 1,637.3 1.63% 8.24%
1991 ...... 119.59 1,895.0 6.31% 7.40%
1992 ...... 108.96 2,290.4 4.76% 7.39%
1993 ...... profit 2,624.7 less than zero 6.35%
1994 ...... profit 3,056.6 less than zero 7.88%
1995 ...... profit 3,607.2 less than zero 5.95%
Since 1967, when we entered the insurance
business, our float has grown at an annual compounded rate of 20.7%. In more
years than not, our cost of funds has been less than nothing. This access to
"free" money has boosted Berkshire's performance in a major way.
自從1967年我們進軍保險業以來，我們的浮存金每年以20.7%複合成長率增加，大部分的年度，我們的資金成本都低於零以下，受惠於這些免費的資金，大大地幫助Berkshire的績效提昇。
Any company's level of profitability is
determined by three items: (1) what its assets earn; (2) what its liabilities
cost; and (3) its utilization of "leverage" - that is, the degree to
which its assets are funded by liabilities rather than by equity. Over the
years, we have done well on Point 1, having produced high returns on our
assets. But we have also benefitted greatly - to a degree that is not generally
well-understood - because our liabilities have cost us very little. An
important reason for this low cost is that we have obtained float on very
advantageous terms. The same cannot be said by many other property and casualty
insurers, who may generate plenty of float, but at a cost that exceeds what the
funds are worth to them. In those circumstances, leverage becomes a
disadvantage.
任何一家公司的獲利能力決定於(1)資產報酬率(2)負債的成本(3)財務槓桿的運用-也就是其運用負債而非股東權益來支應資產取得的程度。多年以來，我們在第一項表現的相當不錯，運用資產所產生的報酬很高，然而在另外一方面由於資金成本極低，也使得我們受惠不少，這點就比較不為人所知，資金成本之所以可以壓得很低，主要是由於我們可以用很有利的條件取得保險浮存金，關於這點在其他同業身上就不敢說了，通常他們也能取得大量的保險浮存金，但是取得的成本可能遠超過應該付的代價，在這種狀況下，運用財務槓桿反而變得相當不利。
Since our float has cost us virtually
nothing over the years, it has in effect served as equity. Of course, it
differs from true equity in that it doesn't belong to us. Nevertheless, let's
assume that instead of our having $3.4 billion of float at the end of 1994, we
had replaced it with $3.4 billion of equity. Under this scenario, we would have
owned no more assets than we did during 1995. We would, however, have had
somewhat lower earnings because the cost of float was negative last year. That
is, our float threw off profits. And, of course, to obtain the replacement
equity, we would have needed to sell many new shares of Berkshire. The net
result - more shares, equal assets and lower earnings - would have materially
reduced the value of our stock. So you can understand why float wonderfully
benefits a business - if it is obtained at a low cost.
由於多年來這些保險浮存金幾乎沒有讓我們增加任何額外的成本，所以它們實際上等同於股本，當然不同於真正的股本，這些資金並不真正屬於我們，不過假設在1994年我們持有的不是34億美元的浮存金，而是34億美元的股本的話，在這種情況下，我們擁有的總資產一點都不會增加，而且我們的盈餘卻可能還會不增反減，因為去年浮存金的成本是負的，也就是說浮存金的存在對於我們的獲利還有額外的貢獻，而資本的增加卻代表著Berkshire必須額外再發行許多新股，所以想當然爾，更多的股份代表著更低的每股盈餘，等於大大地減損了每股股份的價值，所以大家應該能夠了解，為什麼浮存金對於一個企業來說如此的重要，尤其是當它們取得的成本極低之時。
Our acquisition of GEICO will immediately
increase our float by nearly $3 billion, with additional growth almost certain.
We also expect GEICO to operate at a decent underwriting profit in most years,
a fact that will increase the probability that our total float will cost us
nothing. Of course, we paid a very substantial price for the GEICO float,
whereas virtually all of the gains in float depicted in the table were
developed internally.
在購併GEICO之後，我們的保險浮存金馬上增加近30億美元，而且展望未來這數字還會繼續成長，此外我們也預期GEICO每年還能夠繼續擁有相當的承保獲利，這等於保證這些浮存金不但不須負擔資金成本還能額外貢獻給我們獲利，當然就內部轉撥而言，我們還是必須支付GEICO一筆相當的對價以取得浮存金。
Our enthusiasm over 1995's insurance
results must be tempered once again because we had our third straight year of
good fortune in the super-cat business. In this operation, we sell policies
that insurance and reinsurance companies buy to protect themselves from the
effects of mega-catastrophes. Since truly major catastrophes occur
infrequently, our super-cat business can be expected to show large profits in
most years but occasionally to record a huge loss. In other words, the
attractiveness of our super-cat business will take many years to measure. We
know that the results of years like the past three will be at least partially
offset by some truly terrible year in the future. We just hope that
"partially" turns out to be the proper adverb.
對於1995年我們的保險營運績效的興奮程度可能要再度稍微降溫一下，原因在於我們的霹靂貓再保業務連續第三年大放異彩，我們出售保單給保險公司與再保公司以分散其面臨超大型意外災害所可能承擔的風險，由於真正重大的災害並不常發生，所以我們的霹靂貓業務有可能在連續幾年賺大錢後，才突然發生重大的損失，換句話說，我們這項霹靂貓業務到底有多吸引人可能要花上好幾年才有辦法看得清，我們很清楚的了解過去三年來優異的成果一定會被未來某些悲慘的年度給抵消掉部份的效果，當然我們希望所謂的"部份"是個適當的形容詞。
There were plenty of catastrophes last
year, but no super-cats of the insured variety. The Southeast had a close call
when Opal, sporting winds of 150 miles per hour, hovered off Florida. However,
the storm abated before hitting land, and so a second Andrew was dodged. For
insurers, the Kobe earthquake was another close call: The economic damage was
huge - perhaps even a record - but only a tiny portion of it was insured. The
insurance industry won't always be that lucky.
去年天災不斷，但沒有一個踰越霹靂貓的界限，曾有一個強風Opal在美國東南部以每小時150英哩的速度徘徊在佛羅里達附近，所幸它在登陸前及時轉弱，而避免成為第二個Andrew颶風，另外對保險公司來說，阪神大地震同樣令人印象深刻，不可諱言，那次造成的總體經濟損失可算是空前，不過由於其中僅有一小部份有保險，所以最後真正保險理賠的金額有限，當然保險業不可能永遠都那麼幸運。
Ajit Jain is the guiding genius of our
super-cat business and writes important non-cat business as well. In insurance,
the term "catastrophe" is applied to an event, such as a hurricane or
earthquake, that causes a great many insured losses. The other deals Ajit
enters into usually cover only a single large loss. A simplified description of
three transactions from last year will illustrate both what I mean and Ajit's
versatility. We insured: (1) The life of Mike Tyson for a sum that is large
initially and that, fight-by-fight, gradually declines to zero over the next few
years; (2) Lloyd's against more than 225 of its "names" dying during
the year; and (3) The launch, and a year of orbit, of two Chinese satellites.
Happily, both satellites are orbiting, the Lloyd's folk avoided abnormal
mortality, and if Mike Tyson looked any healthier, no one would get in the ring
with him.
Ajit Jain可說是我們霹靂貓業務的天縱英才，當然他同時也負責許多重要的非霹靂貓業務，在保險業所謂的災害，係指可能導致許多理賠損失的事件，諸如颶風或地震等，另外Ajit也負責受理一些單一重大事件的投保，以下三件個案應該可充分以說明我所說的意思，同時展現Ajit的多才多藝，我們受理(1)拳王泰森的生命險，當然一開始金額相當的高，但隨著一場場的比賽在幾年後逐漸遞減到最後變成零(2)英國最大保險勞埃氏總計225人的生命險以及(3)保證兩顆中國衛星的發射及在軌道上週轉一年；結果所幸中國衛星發射順利，並在軌道上正常運轉，同時勞埃氏的死亡率還算正常，而拳王泰森看起來再健康不過，看不出有誰可以從他手上搶下冠軍戒指。
Berkshire is sought out for many kinds of
insurance, both super-cat and large single-risk, because: (1) our financial
strength is unmatched, and insureds know we can and will pay our losses under
the most adverse of circumstances; (2) we can supply a quote faster than anyone
in the business; and (3) we will issue policies with limits larger than anyone
else is prepared to write. Most of our competitors have extensive reinsurance
treaties and lay off much of their business. While this helps them avoid shock
losses, it also hurts their flexibility and reaction time. As you know,
Berkshire moves quickly to seize investment and acquisition opportunities; in
insurance we respond with the same exceptional speed. In another important
point, large coverages don't frighten us but, on the contrary, intensify our
interest. We have offered a policy under which we could have lost $1 billion;
the largest coverage that a client accepted was $400 million.
Berkshire目前積極尋求各類保險業務，包含霹靂貓與大型單一風險，因為(1) 我們無與倫比的財務實力，使得投保客戶可以確定不論在多糟的狀況下，他們都可以順利獲得理賠(2)我們可以最快的速度向客戶完成報價(3)我們可以簽下比其他保險公司金額更高的保單，其他競爭同業大多都有範圍廣闊的再保條款，並將大部分的業務分保出去，雖然這樣的做法可以讓他們避免重大的損失意外，但卻也破壞掉他們的彈性與反應時間，大家都知道，Berkshire抓住投資與購併的動作向來相當的快，在保險業務方面我們的反應速度也是如此，另外還有很重要的一點，高額的保險上限嚇唬不了我們，相反地更能引起我們的興趣，我們可以接受的最高理賠上限是10億美元，相較之下，其他同業所能容忍的最高限度僅為4億美元。
We will get hit from time to time with
large losses. Charlie and I, however, are quite willing to accept relatively
volatile results in exchange for better long-term earnings than we would
otherwise have had. In other words, we prefer a lumpy 15% to a smooth 12%.
Since most managers opt for smoothness, we are left with a competitive
advantage that we try to maximize. We do, though, monitor our aggregate
exposure in order to keep our "worst case" at a level that leaves us
comfortable.
總有一天我們會碰上大麻煩，但是查理跟我本人卻相當可以接受這種變動劇烈的結局，只要長期來說我們的報酬可以令人滿意，講的再白一點，我們比較喜歡上下變動的15%，更甚於平淡無奇的12%，而正因為大部分的經理人傾向平淡，這使得我們長期報酬極大化的目標享有絕對的競爭優勢，當然我們會密切注意避免讓最壞的狀況超越我們可以容忍的範圍。
Indeed, our worst case from a
"once-in-a-century" super-cat is far less severe - relative to net
worth - than that faced by many well-known primary companies writing great
numbers of property policies. These insurers don't issue single huge-limit policies
as we do, but their small policies, in aggregate, can create a risk of
staggering size. The "big one" would blow right through the
reinsurance covers of some of these insurers, exposing them to uncapped losses
that could threaten their survival. In our case, losses would be large, but
capped at levels we could easily handle.
事實上，即使是發生百年一次的超級大災難的最壞情況下，我們淨值所可能受到的損害程度可以遠比其他簽下一大堆產物意外險保單的知名保險業者要來的輕微許多，雖然這些同業沒有像我們一樣簽下單一極高上限的保單，但是所謂積沙成塔，他們累積的小額保單卻可能造成無以彌補的後果，因為後者可能會直接穿越再保險的防護罩，使他們必須承擔沒有上限的損失與生存的危機，至於我們，損失數字雖然很大，但卻是在我們可以輕易化解的範圍之內。
Prices are weakening in the super-cat
field. That is understandable considering the influx of capital into the
reinsurance business a few years ago and the natural desire of those holding
the capital to employ it. No matter what others may do, we will not knowingly
write business at inadequate rates. We unwittingly did this in the early 1970's
and, after more than 20 years, regularly receive significant bills stemming
from the mistakes of that era. My guess is that we will still be getting
surprises from that business 20 years from now. A bad reinsurance contract is
like hell: easy to enter and impossible to exit.
近年來霹靂貓保單的價格一直萎糜不振，這點可以理解的原因在於幾年前大量的資金流進再保業界競逐有限的保單生意，然而不管別人怎麼做，我們是絕對不會以不合理的價格賠錢做生意的，早在1970年代初期，我們就一直在不知情的情況下，犯下類似的錯誤，結果在往後的二十年內，因為那個年代錯誤所付出的代價，化成理賠損失的帳單不斷地湧進本公司，而我有預感我們將會為20年前所犯的錯誤繼續付出代價，一張糟糕的再保合約就像是地獄一樣，進去容易，但想要出來可就難了。
I actively participated in those early
reinsurance decisions, and Berkshire paid a heavy tuition for my education in
the business. Unfortunately, reinsurance students can't attend school on
scholarship. GEICO, incidentally, suffered a similar, disastrous experience in
the early 1980's, when it plunged enthusiastically into the writing of
reinsurance and large risks. GEICO's folly was brief, but it will be cleaning
things up for at least another decade. The well-publicized problems at Lloyd's
further illustrate the perils of reinsurance and also underscore how vital it
is that the interests of the people who write insurance business be aligned -
on the downside as well as the upside - with those of the people putting up the
capital. When that kind of symmetry is missing, insurers almost invariably run
into trouble, though its existence may remain hidden for some time.
早年我積極參與再保業務，結果使得Berkshire必須為我這一堂課付出昂貴的學費，更不幸的是，修再保課程的學生根本沒有辦法拿到獎學金，碰巧的是GEICO在1980年代初期，也面臨過類似悲慘的命運，當時該公司一頭熱地栽進再保與大型災害保險的業務，雖然GEICO愚昧的舉動為期不久，但是它卻必須花費十年以上的工夫收拾殘局，著名的英國勞埃氏保險的困境進一步說明了不當再保可能造成的災難以及共同投入資金參與保險業務出資人的利益，基本上就是一個生命共同體，不管是在順境與逆境皆然，一旦人們失去對於這點觀念的聚焦，保險業者就註定會發生問題，而且通常必須經歷一段時間後，問題才會逐漸地浮上臺面。
A small, apocryphal story about an
insurance CEO who was visited by an analyst tells a lot about this industry. To
the analyst's questions about his business, the CEO had nothing but gloomy
answers: Rates were ridiculously low; the reserves on his balance sheet weren't
adequate for ordinary claims, much less those likely to arise from asbestos and
environmental problems; most of his reinsurers had long since gone broke,
leaving him holding the sack. But then the CEO brightened: "Still, things
could be a lot worse," he said. "It could be my money." At
Berkshire, it's our money.
有一段小故事是有關一位保險公司總裁接受一位分析師訪問談到保險業的經營，面對分析師詢問關於其公司的情況時，得到的答案顯得相當無奈，費率低得離譜、財務報表上所提的準備連一般理賠都不夠，更不要說其他那些因為石綿與環保問題所引發的重大損害賠償，想到許多以往依靠的再保公司都已倒閉，只剩他一個人獨撐大局，突然間這位總裁略微釋懷的說到，當然情況有可能會更糟，再來可能就會輪到我的荷包，天啊!在Berkshire，這可是我們的荷包呢!
Berkshire's other insurance operations,
though relatively small, performed magnificently in 1995. National Indemnity's
traditional business had a combined ratio of 84.2 and developed, as usual, a
large amount of float compared to premium volume. Over the last three years,
this segment of our business, run by Don Wurster, has had an average combined
ratio of 85.6. Our homestate operation, managed by Rod Eldred, grew at a good
rate in 1995 and achieved a combined ratio of 81.4. Its three-year combined
ratio is an amazing 82.4. Berkshire's California workers' compensation
business, run by Brad Kinstler, faced fierce price-cutting in 1995 and lost a
great many renewals when we refused to accept inadequate rates. Though this
operation's volume dropped materially, it produced an excellent underwriting
profit. Finally, John Kizer, at Central States Indemnity, continues to do an
extraordinary job. His premium volume was up 23% in 1995, and underwriting
profit grew by 59%. Ajit, Don, Rod, Brad and John are all under 45, an
embarrassing fact demolishing my theory that managers only hit their stride
after they reach 70.
Berkshire其他的保險營運，雖然規模相對較小，但在1995年的表現卻同樣極為出色，國家產物保險傳統業務的綜合比率只有84.2，同時以其保費收入來看，還貢獻了大量的浮存金，過去三年以來，這個由Don Wurster負責的部門平均的綜合比率只有85.6；另外由Rod Eldred負責的Homestate業務也有相當幅度的成長，去年的綜合比率更只有81.4，過去三年平均為82.4；由Brad負責的加州勞工退休基金在1995年面對激烈的價格競爭，同時還因為拒絕不合理的降價要求而失去續約的機會，雖然此舉使得業務量大幅縮減，但整體的承保利益仍然相當可觀；最後負責中央州立產險公司營運的John則依然表現出色，1995年的保費收入成長23%，承保利益更大幅增加59%，Ajit、Don、Rod、Brad與John的年紀都在45歲以下，這種情況也讓我以往認為經理人要到70之後才能隨心所欲的論點破功。
To sum up, we entered 1995 with an
exceptional insurance operation of moderate size. By adding GEICO, we entered
1996 with a business still better in quality, much improved in its growth
prospects, and doubled in size. More than ever, insurance is our core strength.
總的來說，1995年我們規模適中的保險事業繳出漂亮的成績單，而展望1996年，在GEICO加入之後，在維持保險事業原有的品質之下，規模與成長皆可期，較之以往，保險事業已成為我們核心競爭事業。
Sources of Reported Earnings
帳列盈餘的來源
The table below shows the main sources of
Berkshire's reported earnings. In this presentation, purchase-premium charges
are not assigned to the specific businesses to which they apply, but are
instead aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the
earnings of our businesses as they would have been reported had we not
purchased them. This form of presentation seems to us to be more useful to
investors and managers than one utilizing GAAP, which requires
purchase-premiums to be charged off, business-by-business. The total earnings
we show in the table are, of course, identical to the GAAP total in our audited
financial statements.
下表顯示Berkshire帳列盈餘的主要來源，在這張表中商譽的攤銷數與購買法會計調整數會從個別被投資公司分離出來，單獨加總列示，之所以這樣做是為了讓旗下各事業的盈餘狀況，不因我們的投資而有所影響，過去我一再地強調我們認為這樣的表達方式，較之一般公認會計原則要求以個別企業基礎做調整，不管是對投資者或是管理者來說，更有幫助，當然最後損益加總的數字仍然會與經會計師查核的數字一致。
(in millions)
---------------------------------------
Berkshire's Share
of Net Earnings
(after taxes and
Pre-Tax Earnings minority interests)
------------------ ------------------
1995 1994 1995 1994
-------- -------- -------- --------
Operating Earnings:
Insurance Group:
Underwriting ............... $ 20.5 $129.9 $ 11.3 $ 80.9
Net Investment Income ...... 501.6 419.4 417.7 350.5
Buffalo News ................. 46.8 54.2 27.3 31.7
Fechheimer ................... 16.9 14.3 8.8 7.1
Finance Businesses ........... 20.8 22.1 12.6 14.6
Home Furnishings ............. 29.7(1) 17.4 16.7(1) 8.7
Jewelry ...................... 33.9(2) ---(3) 19.1(2) ---(3)
Kirby ........................ 50.2 42.3 32.1 27.7
Scott Fetzer Manufacturing Group 34.1 39.5 21.2 24.9
See's Candies ................ 50.2 47.5 29.8 28.2
Shoe Group ................... 58.4 85.5 37.5 55.8
World Book ................... 8.8 24.7 7.0 17.3
Purchase-Price Premium Charges (27.0) (22.6) (23.4) (19.4)
Interest Expense(4) .......... (56.0) (60.1) (34.9) (37.3)
Shareholder-Designated
Contributions ............ (11.6) (10.4) (7.0) (6.7)
Other ........................ 37.4 35.7 24.4 22.3
-------- -------- -------- --------
Operating Earnings ............. 814.7 839.4 600.2 606.2
Sales of Securities ............ 194.1 91.3 125.0 61.1
Decline in Value of
USAir Preferred Stock ...... --- (268.5) --- (172.6)
--------- -------- -------- --------
Total Earnings - All Entities $1,008.8 $662.2 $725.2 $494.8
========= ======== ======== ========
(1) Includes R.C. Willey from June 29,
1995.
(1)包含R.C. Willey 1995年6月29日以後的盈餘
(2) Includes Helzberg's from April 30,
1995.
(2)包含Helzberg 1995年4月30日以後的盈餘
(3) Jewelry earnings were included in
"Other" in 1994.
(3)珠寶事業1994年的盈餘包含在其他項目之下
(4) Excludes interest expense of Finance
Businesses.
(4)扣除金融事業的利息支出
A large amount of information about these
businesses is given on pages 41-52, where you will also find our segment
earnings reported on a GAAP basis. In addition, on pages 57-63, we have
rearranged Berkshire's financial data into four segments on a non-GAAP basis, a
presentation that corresponds to the way Charlie and I think about the company.
Our intent is to supply you with the financial information that we would wish
you to give us if our positions were reversed.
在年報中你可以找到依照一般公認會計原則編製，詳細的部門別資訊，至於我們的目的是希望能夠給大家，所有查理跟我認為在評估Berkshire價值時，應該必要的資訊。
At Berkshire, we believe in Charlie's
dictum - "Just tell me the bad news; the good news will take care of
itself" - and that is the behavior we expect of our managers when they are
reporting to us. Consequently, I also owe you - Berkshire's owners - a report
on three operations that, though they continued to earn decent (or better)
returns on invested capital, experienced a decline in earnings last year. Each
encountered a different type of problem.
在Berkshire，我們相信查理的格言，只管告訴我壞消息，因為好消息絕對會不脛而走，而這也是我們希望旗下事業經理人向我們報告時所採取的態度，也因此身為Berkshire負責人的我有義務向大家報告，去年總共有三個事業營運發生問題，雖然投資在他們身上的資金所取得的報酬率仍然相當的不錯(或甚至是更好)，但每個事業都面臨了不同的問題。
Our shoe business operated in an industry
that suffered depressed earnings throughout last year, and many of our
competitors made only marginal profits or worse. That means we at least
maintained, and in some instances widened, our competitive superiority. So I
have no doubt that our shoe operations will climb back to top-grade earnings in
the future. In other words, though the turn has not yet occurred, we believe
you should view last year's figures as reflecting a cyclical problem, not a
secular one.
去年一整年我們的鞋類事業一直面臨產業困境，有些同業只能勉強賺取蠅頭小利，甚至是虧錢，當然這也代表在某個層面來說，至少我們與同業間仍維持著甚至是擴大了競爭差距，所以我依然堅信在未來，我們的鞋類事業一定能夠回復以往的高獲利，換句話說，雖然目前尚未看到反轉的跡象，但我認為大家可以將去年的數字視為景氣即將反轉的底部，而不是永遠的谷底。
The Buffalo News, though still doing very
well in comparison to other newspapers, is another story. In this case,
industry trends are not good. In the 1991 Annual Report, I explained that
newspapers had lost a notch in their economic attractiveness from the days when
they appeared to have a bullet-proof franchise. Today, the industry retains its
excellent economics, but has lost still another notch. Over time, we expect the
competitive strength of newspapers to gradually erode, though the industry
should nevertheless remain a fine business for many years to come.
至於水牛城新聞報的表現，較之同業雖然還是相當不錯，卻也面臨另外的問題，那就是報業前景不佳，在1991年的年報中，我就曾說過報業早已失去以往金剛不摧的特許事業所享有的競爭優勢，雖然時至今日，報業經營還算穩定，但卻逐漸失去另一項競爭優勢，我們預期報業的競爭力將與日劇減，雖然這產業在未來可見的年度內還是一項不錯的投資。
Berkshire's most difficult problem is World
Book, which operates in an industry beset by increasingly tough competition
from CD-ROM and on-line offerings. True, we are still profitable, a claim that
perhaps no other print encyclopedia can make. But our sales and earnings trends
have gone in the wrong direction. At the end of 1995, World Book made major
changes in the way it distributes its product, stepped up its efforts with electronic
products and sharply reduced its overhead costs. It will take time for us to
evaluate the effects of these initiatives, but we are confident they will
significantly improve our viability.
在Berkshire目前狀況最多的就屬世界百科全書，面臨來自CD與網路激烈的競爭，雖然我們仍能勉強維持獲利，(大概沒有其他百科全書業者敢這樣說)，不過業績與獲利卻直線下滑，因此在1995年底，世界百科全書決定大幅改變行銷方式，加強電子產品內容並大幅降低營運成本，當然這些做法的成效還有待觀察，不過我個人相信此舉絕對有助於我們繼續維持生存。
All of our operations, including those
whose earnings fell last year, benefit from exceptionally talented and
dedicated managers. Were we to have the choice of any other executives now
working in their industries, there is not one of our managers we would replace.
我們旗下所有的事業，也包含幾個獲利大幅衰退的公司，一直都由傑出專注的經理人所經營，就算我們有機會能夠挖到業界最好的經理人，但我們還是不會考慮將給他們取代掉。
Many of our managers don't have to work for
a living, but simply go out and perform every day for the same reason that
wealthy golfers stay on the tour: They love both doing what they do and doing
it well. To describe them as working may be a misnomer - they simply prefer
spending much of their time on a productive activity at which they excel to
spending it on leisure activities. Our job is to provide an environment that
will keep them feeling this way, and so far we seem to have succeeded: Thinking
back over the 1965-95 period, I can't recall that a single key manager has left
Berkshire to join another employer.
我們有許多經理人根本就不必靠這份工作過活，但每天還是一樣全力以赴，就像是口袋麥克麥克的職業高爾夫球選手還是繼續打巡迴賽一樣，他們喜歡現在從事的工作，而且把它做的很好，把他們形容是在工作或許是個錯誤的名詞，他們只不過是把他們大部分的時間花在他們所擅長的生產活動而非休閒活動之上而已，而我的工作則是努力維持一個讓他們有這樣感覺的環境，截至目前為止，我們做的還算是相當成功，回顧過去1965年到1995年這三十年間，Berkshire沒有任何一位主要經理人發生琵琶別抱的情況。
Common Stock Investments
股票投資
Below we present our common stock
investments. Those with a market value of more than $600 million are itemized.
下表是我們超過六億美元以上的普通股投資。
12/31/95
Shares Company Cost Market
---------- ------- -------- --------
(dollars in millions)
49,456,900 American Express Company ............. $1,392.7 $2,046.3
20,000,000 Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. ............. 345.0 2,467.5
100,000,000 The Coca-Cola Company ................ 1,298.9 7,425.0
12,502,500 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
("Freddie Mac") ................... 260.1 1,044.0
34,250,000 GEICO Corp. .......................... 45.7 2,393.2
48,000,000 The Gillette Company ................. 600.0 2,502.0
6,791,218 Wells Fargo & Company ................ 423.7 1,466.9
Others ............................... 1,379.0 2,655.4
-------- ---------
Total Common Stocks .................. $5,745.1 $22,000.3
======== =========
We continue in our Rip Van Winkle mode:
Five of our six top positions at yearend 1994 were left untouched during 1995.
The sixth was American Express, in which we increased our ownership to about
10%.
我們繼續做著我們的李伯大夢，在1994年持有的前六大持股中，有五支在1995年維持不動，唯一有變動的是美國運通，我們將持有股權比例提高到10%左右。
In early 1996, two major events affected
our holdings: First, our purchase of the GEICO stock we did not already own
caused that company to be converted into a wholly-owned subsidiary. Second, we
exchanged our Cap Cities shares for a combination of cash and Disney stock.
在1996年初期，有兩個重大事件影響到我們的持股，首先在買下GEICO剩餘一半的股份之後，GEICO變成我們百分之百持有的子公司，第二，我們將資本城股份轉換成現金與迪士尼股票。
In the Disney merger, Cap Cities
shareholders had a choice of actions. If they chose, they could exchange each
of their Cap Cities shares for one share of Disney stock plus $65. Or they
could ask for - though not necessarily get - all cash or all stock, with their
ultimate allotment of each depending on the choices made by other shareholders
and certain decisions made by Disney. For our 20 million shares, we sought
stock, but do not know, as this report goes to press, how much we were
allocated. We are certain, however, to receive something over 20 million Disney
shares. We have also recently bought Disney stock in the market.
在迪士尼的併購案中，原來資本城的股東可以有好幾種選擇，他們可以選擇將原有一股轉換成迪士尼的一股外加65美元現金，或者他們可以要求全部換成現金或是股票，但是最終可獲得的分配結果還要視其他股東的選擇以及迪士尼本身的態度而定，以我們持有2,000萬股來說，我們選擇全部轉換成股票，不過到年報截止日為止，我們還不確定到底可以分配到多少股份，當然可以確定的是最後收到的股數一定會超過2,000萬股，除此之外，我們還透過公開市場繼續收購迪士尼的股份。
One more bit of history: I first became interested
in Disney in 1966, when its market valuation was less than $90 million, even
though the company had earned around $21 million pre-tax in 1965 and was
sitting with more cash than debt. At Disneyland, the $17 million Pirates of the
Caribbean ride would soon open. Imagine my excitement - a company selling at
only five times rides!
再透露一點歷史，我第一次對迪士尼發生興趣是在1966年，當時它的股票市值還不到9,000萬美元，雖然該公司在前一年度-1965年的稅前淨利是2,100萬美元，而且所擁有的現金甚至多過於負債，當時迪斯奈樂園斥資1,700萬美元的加勒比海海盜船才剛要開幕，而這家公司的賣價只不過是這艄海盜船的五倍!
Duly impressed, Buffett Partnership Ltd.
bought a significant amount of Disney stock at a split-adjusted price of 31?per
share. That decision may appear brilliant, given that the stock now sells for
$66. But your Chairman was up to the task of nullifying it: In 1967 I sold out
at 48?per share.
印象深刻的我，利用巴菲特合夥企業的資金，買進一大筆的股份，照分割調整後的平均成本約31美元一股，這樣的決定顯然很正確，因為現在的股價大概是66美元一股，各位的董事長卻在1967年以每股48美元將這批股票賣出，使
得其效果大打折扣。
Oh well - we're happy to be once again a
large owner of a business with both unique assets and outstanding management.
不過還好，繞了半天，我們很高興能夠再度成為這家擁有獨特資產與傑出管理階層公司的大股東。
Convertible Preferred Stocks
可轉換特別股
As many of you will remember, Berkshire
made five private purchases of convertible preferred stocks during the 1987-91
period and the time seems right to discuss their status. Here are the
particulars:
大家可能都還記得，Berkshire在1987年到1991年透過與公司私下協議的方式，取得五種可轉換特別股，現在的時機很適合來談談它們現在的狀況，以下是一些重點摘要。
Dividend Year of Market
Company Rate Purchase Cost Value
------- -------- -------- ------ --------
(dollars in millions)
Champion International Corp. ... 9 1/4% 1989 $300 $388(1)
First Empire State Corp. ....... 9% 1991 40 110
The Gillette Company ........... 8 3/4% 1989 600 2,502(2)
Salomon Inc .................... 9% 1987 700 728(3)
USAir Group, Inc. .............. 9 1/4% 1989 358 215
(1) Proceeds from sale of common we
received through conversion in 1995.
(2) 12/31/95 value of common we received
through conversion in 1991.
(3) Includes $140 we received in 1995 from
partial redemption.
(1)係1995年轉換為普通股後，出售股票的收入。
(2)係1991年轉換為普通股後的股票市值。
(3)包含1995年收到部份贖回的1.4億美元收入。
In each case we had the option of sticking
with these preferreds as fixed-income securities or converting them into common
stock. Initially, their value to us came primarily from their fixed-income
characteristics. The option we had to convert was a kicker.
每一個案子我們都有權選擇維持原來以固定收益證券為主的特別股形式或是將它們轉換成普通股，剛開始它們的價值主要來自於固定收益證券的特質，至於其所附帶的轉換權利只不過具有加分的作用而已。
Our $300 million private purchase of
American Express "Percs" - described in the 1991 Annual Report - is
not included in the table because that security was a modified form of common
stock whose fixed-income characteristics contributed only a minor portion of
its initial value. Three years after we bought them, the Percs automatically
were converted to common stock. In contrast, the five securities in the table
were set to become common stocks only if we wished them to - a crucial
difference.
另外在1991年的年報中已經介紹過，我們透過私募所取得的美國運通Percs，並未包含在本表之中，其原因主要是因為Percs事實上是一種普通股的修訂版，其固定收益的特性只佔其原始價值的一小部份，在我們買下它們的三年後已經自動轉為美國運通的普通股，相對的，本表所提到的五種有價證券只有在我們有意願的狀況下，才會轉變成一般的普通股，基本上這之間有相當大的差異。
When we purchased our convertible
securities, I told you that we expected to earn after-tax returns from them
that "moderately" exceeded what we could earn from the medium-term
fixed-income securities they replaced. We beat this expectation - but only
because of the performance of a single issue. I also told you that these
securities, as a group, would "not produce the returns we can achieve when
we find a business with wonderful economic prospects." Unfortunately, that
prediction was fulfilled. Finally, I said that "under almost any
conditions, we expect these preferreds to return us our money plus
dividends." That's one I would like to have back. Winston Churchill once
said that "eating my words has never given me indigestion." My
assertion, however, that it was almost impossible for us to lose money on our
preferreds has caused me some well-deserved heartburn.
當我們買進這些可轉換證券時，我曾經跟各位提到我們預期這些投資的稅後報酬率應該可以略高於其所取代的中期固定收益證券，幸運的是結果超乎預期，原因是因為其中有一個案子發了，同時我也提醒過各位，這些投資可能無法與真正找到具有競爭優勢好公司的投資相比，不幸的就這點而言，我一語中的，最後我還說過，不論在任何狀況下，我們完全可以預期這些投資一定能夠回收本金再加上股息，這句話我想要收回來，雖然英國前首相邱吉爾曾說過︰把說過的話吞回去，並不會讓人消化不良，但是關於我說過"特別股一定不會讓我們賠錢的這句話"確實讓我感到心痛。
Our best holding has been Gillette, which
we told you from the start was a superior business. Ironically, though, this is
also the purchase in which I made my biggest mistake - of a kind, however,
never recognized on financial statements.
其中表現最佳的是吉列特別股，從一開始我就跟各位說過這是一家相當好的公司，不過諷刺的是，這也是我犯過的一個大錯之一，雖然這項錯誤從未反應在財務報表之上。
We paid $600 million in 1989 for Gillette
preferred shares that were convertible into 48 million (split-adjusted) common
shares. Taking an alternative route with the $600 million, I probably could
have purchased 60 million shares of common from the company. The market on the
common was then about $10.50, and giventhat this would have been a huge private
placement carrying important restrictions, I probably could have bought the
stock at a discount of at least 5%. I can't be sure about this, but it's likely
that Gillette's management would have been just as happy to have Berkshire opt
for common.
我們在1989年以六億美元取得吉列可轉換特別股，之後並轉換為4,800萬股吉列的普通股(分割調整後)，然而要是當初我們選擇直接投資該公司的普通股，這筆錢將可以買到6,000萬股，因為吉列當時每股的市價為10.5美元，而由於那次的私募對於我們有諸多的限制條款，所以拿到5%左右的折扣應該不成問題，我不知道這樣說對不對，我認為當時要是我們選擇直接以取得普通股的方式投資，該公司的管理階層可能會更高興。
But I was far too clever to do that.
Instead, for less than two years, we received some extra dividend income (the
difference between the preferred's yield and that of the common), at which
point the company - quite properly - called the issue, moving to do that as
quickly as was possible. If I had negotiated for common rather than preferred,
we would have been better off at yearend 1995 by $625 million, minus the
"excess" dividends of about $70 million.
可惜人算不如天算，雖然在這兩年內我們另外還收到額外的特別股股息(這是普通股所沒有的)，如果當初我選擇普通股而非特別股的話，截至1995年止我們將可多獲得6.25億美元的利益，當然還要再扣除7,000萬美元的特別股股息。
In the case of Champion, the ability of the
company to call our preferred at 115% of cost forced a move out of us last
August that we would rather have delayed. In this instance, we converted our
shares just prior to the pending call and offered them to the company at a
modest discount.
另外在Champion這個案子，由於公司可以以115%的價位贖回我們持有的特別股，使得我們被迫於去年八月有所動作，這個案子就在公司即將有權動用贖回權的前夕，以略微打折的價格申請轉換為普通股。
Charlie and I have never had a conviction
about the paper industry - actually, I can't remember ever owning the common
stock of a paper producer in my 54 years of investing - so our choice in August
was whether to sell in the market or to the company. Champion's management had
always been candid and honorable in dealing with us and wished to repurchase
common shares, so we offered our stock to the company. Our Champion capital
gain was moderate - about 19% after tax from a six-year investment - but the
preferred delivered us a good after-tax dividend yield throughout our holding
period. (That said, many press accounts have overstated the after-tax yields earned
by property-casualty insurance companies on dividends paid to them. What the
press has failed to take into account is a change in the tax law that took
effect in 1987 and that significantly reduced the dividends received credit
applicable to insurers. For details, see our 1986 Annual Report.)
查理跟我對造紙業從來沒有涉獵，事實上在我長達54年的投資生涯中，印象中從來就沒有持有過紙類股的股票，所以去年八月我們可以做的選擇大概就是將這筆投資在市場上賣掉或是任由公司贖回，在我們投資Champion的過程中，該公司經營階層對我們的態度一向坦白自重，而他們也希望將這批股票買回，所以到最後我們決定順應公司的要求，這項舉動讓我們有19%的稅後資本利得，當然還要再加上持有六年期間所收到的特別股股息，(附帶一提，許多新聞報導都過度高估一般產物意外險業者所收到股利收入的稅後報酬率，原因在於媒體記者忘了將1987年通過的新稅法列入考慮，這項稅法大大減少了保險業者最後可以得到的利益，相關的細節請參閱1986年的年報)。
Our First Empire preferred will be called
on March 31, 1996, the earliest date allowable. We are comfortable owning stock
in well-run banks, and we will convert and keep our First Empire common shares.
Bob Wilmers, CEO of the company, is an outstanding banker, and we love being
associated with him.
我們在第一帝國銀行的特別股在1996年3月1日進行轉換，這是可以轉換的最早日期，我們對於能夠繼續持有這家經營良好銀行的股份感到相當安心，該公司的總裁Bob Wilmers是位相當優秀的銀行家，我們很高興能夠與他一起合
作。
Our other two preferreds have been
disappointing, though the Salomon preferred has modestly outperformed the
fixed-income securities for which it was a substitute. However, the amount of
management time Charlie and I have devoted to this holding has been vastly
greater than its economic significance to Berkshire. Certainly I never dreamed
I would take a new job at age 60 - Salomon interim chairman, that is - because
of an earlier purchase of a fixed-income security.
另外兩個特別股投資個案的結果就讓人相當失望，雖然所羅門特別股最後的投資報酬率仍高於其替代的固定收益證券投資，不過若考量查理跟我本人在這項投資上所花費的心思，其所得與付出實在是不成正比，當然我根本就沒有料到到了60歲的這把年紀，會因為一筆固定收益證券的投資，還能夠接下這項擔任所羅門臨時董事會主席的新工作。
Soon after our purchase of the Salomon
preferred in 1987, I wrote that I had "no special insights regarding the
direction or future profitability of investment banking." Even the most
charitable commentator would conclude that I have since proved my point.
1987年就在我們剛剛買下所羅門特別股不久之後，我就曾經說過我們對於投資銀行業的發展前景與獲利能力並沒有特殊的見地，我想事後看來就算是最好心的評論家，也會覺得我當時說的那段話很有道理。
To date, our option to convert into Salomon
common has not proven of value. Furthermore, the Dow Industrials have doubled
since I committed to buy the preferred, and the brokerage group has performed
equally as well. That means my decision to go with Salomon because I saw value
in the conversion option must be graded as very poor. Even so, the preferred
has continued under some trying conditions to deliver as a fixed-income
security, and the 9% dividend is currently quite attractive.
到目前為止，我們擁有將這筆投資轉換為所羅門普通股的權利，其價值尚未浮現，另外自從買進這筆投資後，道瓊指數已經漲了一倍，而券商的表現也相當不錯，這代表我因為判斷轉換權利相當有價值而決定繼續與所羅門交往的決策品質相當的差，不過即便如此，這筆特別股投資還是相當勉力地繼續當作我們的固定收益證券投資，畢竟每年9%的股息收入還是相當誘人的。
Unless the preferred is converted, its
terms require redemption of 20% of the issue on October 31 of each year,
1995-99, and $140 million of our original $700 million was taken on schedule
last year. (Some press reports labeled this a sale, but a senior security that
matures is not "sold.") Though we did not elect to convert the
preferred that matured last year, we have four more bites at the conversion
apple, and I believe it quite likely that we will yet find value in our right
to convert.
除非我們選擇轉換，否則這項投資有一條款約定從1995年10月31日開始的五年，該公司每年都可贖回20%的投資，所以去年我們總計7億的投資中，1.4億已按計畫由公司贖回，(有些新聞報導將這筆交易稱呼為出售，事實上債券到期後應該稱之為"贖回")，雖然去年我們放棄轉換選擇而被贖回，不過我們還有四次機會，而我也相信未來我們應該很有可能在這些轉換的權利中找到一些價值存在。
I discussed the USAir investment at length
in last year's report. The company's results improved in 1995, but it still
faces significant problems. On the plus side for us is the fact that our preferred
is structurally well-designed: For example, though we have not been paid
dividends since June 1994, the amounts owed us are compounding at 5% over the
prime rate. On the minus side is the fact that we are dealing with a weak
credit.
去年我花了相當大的篇幅討論美國航空，這家公司今年的表現略微好轉，不過還是著面臨許多的問題，幸運的是我們的特別股投資條款當初訂的對我們較有利，比如說，雖然從1994年起本來應該付給我們的特別股股息就已跳票，但是欠我們的股息每年還是必須以5%的基放利率加計利息，不過不幸的是跟我們打交道的是一家債信不良的公司。
We feel much better about our USAir
preferred than we did a year ago, but your guess is as good as mine as to its
ultimate value. (Indeed, considering my record with this investment, it's fair
to say that your guess may be better than mine.) At yearend we carried our
preferred (in which there is no public market) at 60% of par, though USAir also
has outstanding a junior preferred that is significantly inferior to ours in
all respects except conversion price and that was then trading at 82% of par.
As I write this, the junior issue has advanced to 97% of par. Let's hope the
market is right.
關於美國航空特別股的情況，比起一年前，我們現在樂觀許多，不過這家公司最後到底會變成怎樣，我跟各位一樣還是沒有任何頭緒，(事實上，觀諸過去本人在這項投資上的經驗，或許各位的看法要比起我個人來得具參考價值)，截至去年底，我們帳列的特別股投資金額是票面金額的60%(此特別股並沒有公開明確的市價)，雖然在此同時，美國航空還有另一項發行在外，除了轉換價格之外，其餘的條件包含抵押順位都不如我們的特別股，係以票面金額的82%左右的價位進行交易，而就在我寫這份年報的同時，其交易的價格已上漲為票面金額的97%，衷心期盼市場的看法是對的。
Overall, our preferreds have performed
well, but that is true only because of one huge winner, Gillette. Leaving aside
Gillette, our preferreds as a group have delivered us after-tax returns no more
than equal to those we could have earned from the medium-term fixed-income issues
that they replaced.
總的來說，我們的特別股投資績效算是相當不錯的了，不過主要的原因還在於壓對了吉列特別股這個寶，若扣除吉列不記，我們其他的特別股投資帶給我們的稅後盈餘，大概僅與原先他們所取代的中期固定收益債券的投資報酬率差不了多少。
A Proposed Recapitalization
股權重組提案
At the Annual Meeting you will be asked to
approve a recapitalization of Berkshire, creating two classes of stock. If the
plan is adopted, our existing common stock will be designated as Class A Common
Stock and a new Class B Common Stock will be authorized.
今年的股東會將會有一項股權重組提案需要各位進行投票表決，一旦獲得通過，Berkshire原來發行的股份，將會被分拆為兩種普通股，一種為A級普通股，一種為B級普通股。
Each share of the "B" will have
the rights of 1/30th of an "A" share with these exceptions: First, a
B share will have 1/200th of the vote of an A share (rather than 1/30th of the
vote). Second, the B will not be eligible to participate in Berkshire's shareholder-designated
charitable contributions program.
B級普通股擁有A級普通股三十分之一的權利，除了以下兩點，第一，B級普通股的投票權只有A級普通股的二百分之一(而不是三十分之一)，第二，B級普通股不能參加Berkshire股東指定捐贈計畫。
When the recapitalization is complete, each
share of A will become convertible, at the holder's option and at any time,
into 30 shares of B. This conversion privilege will not extend in the opposite
direction. That is, holders of B shares will not be able to convert them into A
shares.
當股權重組完成之後，每一股A級普通股可以依持有人的自由意志在任何時候，選擇轉換成30股的B級普通股，但反之則不行，也就是說30股的B級普通股不能要求轉換成一股的A級普通股。
We expect to list the B shares on the New
York Stock Exchange, where they will trade alongside the A stock. To create the
shareholder base necessary for a listing - and to ensure a liquid market in the
B stock - Berkshire expects to make a public offering for cash of at least $100
million of new B shares. The offering will be made only by means of a
prospectus.
跟A級普通股一樣，B級普通股也將在紐約證券交易所中掛牌交易，而為了維持掛牌之後的流通性，Berkshire預計將會發行總金額1億美元以上的B級普通股，整個釋股的過程將以透過公開說明書的方式進行。
The market will ultimately determine the
price of the B shares. Their price, though, should be in the neighborhood of
1/30th of the price of the A shares.
市場最終將會決定B級普通股的合理價格，當然若無特殊情況，B級普通股將會以A級普通股三十分之一左右的價位進行交易。
Class A shareholders who wish to give gifts
may find it convenient to convert a share or two of their stock into Class B
shares. Additionally, arbitrage-related conversions will occur if demand for
the B is strong enough to push its price to slightly above 1/30th of the price
of A.
持有A級普通股的股東若有贈與的計畫，將可以很輕易地先將持有的股份轉為B級普通股，當然可能也會有一些轉換套利方面的交易可能使得B級普通股股價略高於A級普通股股價的三十分之一。
However, because the Class A stock will
entitle its holders to full voting rights and access to Berkshire's
contributions program, these shares will be superior to the Class B shares and
we would expect most shareholders to remain holders of the Class A - which is
precisely what the Buffett and Munger families plan to do, except in those
instances when we ourselves might convert a few shares to facilitate gifts. The
prospect that most shareholders will stick to the A stock suggests that it will
enjoy a somewhat more liquid market than the B.
然而，由於A級普通股還是享有完整的投票權以及參與Berkshire股東指定捐贈計畫的權利，所以就這方面而言，A級普通股還是比B級普通股來得好，所以我們預期大部分的股東，就像巴菲特與曼格家族一樣，還是會選擇繼續持有A級普通股，除非有股東有贈與的考量時，可能會將少部份的股份進行轉換，而由於我們預期大部分會選擇維持不變，所以A級普通股的流通性應該會比B級普通股來得高。
There are tradeoffs for Berkshire in this
recapitalization. But they do not arise from the proceeds of the offering - we
will find constructive uses for the money - nor in any degree from the price at
which we will sell the B shares. As I write this - with Berkshire stock at
$36,000 - Charlie and I do not believe it undervalued. Therefore, the offering
we propose will not diminish the per-share intrinsic value of our existing
stock. Let me also put our thoughts about valuation more baldly: Berkshire is
selling at a price at which Charlie and I would not consider buying it.
這次的股權重組對Berkshire來說有利有弊，原因不在於發行新股所帶來的資金，我們一定可以找到合理的用途，也不在於發行新股的價格，就在我撰寫年報的時刻，Berkshire的股價約為每股36,000美元，查理跟我本人都不認為這樣的價位過於低估，因此此次發行新股並不會使得公司原本的每股實質價值受到損害，講的再白一點，以現在的價位而言，查理跟我都不會考慮再加碼買進Berkshire的股份。
What Berkshire will incur by way of the B
stock are certain added costs, including those involving the mechanics of
handling a larger number of shareholders. On the other hand, the stock should
be a convenience for people wishing to make gifts. And those of you who have
hoped for a split have gained a do-it-yourself method of bringing one about.
當然因為B級普通股的發行，Berkshire公司本身必須承擔處理更多股東所帶來的股務作業，不過對於那些有贈與計畫的股東來說，卻變得方便許多，而對於喜歡股票分割的投資人來說，也多了一個自助式分割的管道。
We are making this move, though, for other
reasons - having to do with the appearance of expense-laden unit trusts
purporting to be low-priced "clones" of Berkshire and sure to be
aggressively marketed. The idea behind these vehicles is not new: In recent
years, a number of people have told me about their wish to create an
"all-Berkshire" investment fund to be sold at a low dollar price. But
until recently, the promoters of these investments heard out my objections and
backed off.
當然，之所以會有這樣的舉動還有其他理由，主要是由於目前坊間出現一種模仿Berkshire的信託基金，號稱價位低，只要收取部份費用，人人都投資得起，這樣的主意並不是首次出現，近幾年來，有一些人向我傳達想要設立一種所謂的仿Berkshire投資基金，以較低的價位對外發行，不過由於我個人並不贊同這樣的做法，所以這些人才沒有進一步的舉動。
I did not discourage these people because I
prefer large investors over small. Were it possible, Charlie and I would love
to turn $1,000 into $3,000 for multitudes of people who would find that gain an
important answer to their immediate problems.
對於這些人我不會一昧地打壓，因為畢竟我們的目標鎖定在大額投資人，如果可能，查理跟我當然希望公司的淨值可以直接由1,000美元翻個兩、三翻立刻變成3,000美元，如此一來大家因為這樣的資本利得肯定不會再有其他的意見。
In order to quickly triple small stakes,
however, we would have to just as quickly turn our present market
capitalization of $43 billion into $129 billion (roughly the market cap of
General Electric, America's most highly valued company). We can't come close to
doing that. The very best we hope for is - on average - to double Berkshire's
per-share intrinsic value every five years, and we may well fall far short of
that goal.
為了將這些小籌碼成長三倍，我們可能必須讓Berkshire的市值從原本的430億美元，一下子暴增為1,290億美元(這相當於通用電氣-目前股票市場上市值最高的公司)，這根本就不可能辦得到，所以我們比較希望的是，平均而言，Berkshire的每股價值每五年能夠翻一番，當然要達到這樣的目標並不容易。
In the end, Charlie and I do not care
whether our shareholders own Berkshire in large or small amounts. What we wish
for are shareholders of any size who are knowledgeable about our operations,
share our objectives and long-term perspective, and are aware of our
limitations, most particularly those imposed by our large capital base.
總而言之，查理跟我不太在乎我們的股東們擁有公司股份的多寡，我們衷心期盼的是不論是大、小股東，都能了解我們的營運模式、與我們擁有共同的目標與長期投資理念，同時也能夠明暸我們受到的限制，尤其是股本過大本身加諸予我們的負荷。
The unit trusts that have recently surfaced
fly in the face of these goals. They would be sold by brokers working for big
commissions, would impose other burdensome costs on their shareholders, and
would be marketed en masse to unsophisticated buyers, apt to be seduced by our
past record and beguiled by the publicity Berkshire and I have received in
recent years. The sure outcome: a multitude of investors destined to be
disappointed.
這些基金最近紛紛以這樣的號召浮上台面，通常它們都是透過經紀人以高額佣金銷售，所以加入的投資人必須背負相當沈重的成本，而一些不知情的投資人，可能衝著Berkshire過去的成績以及查理與我本人近年來的高知名度而受騙上當，最後的結果肯定是︰投資大眾註定會大失所望。
Through our creation of the B stock - a
low-denomination product far superior to Berkshire-only trusts - we hope to
make the clones unmerchandisable.
所以透過B級普通股的誕生-一種低面額但遠優於仿Berkshire基金的產物，我們希望可以讓那些模仿的假貨無法在市場上生存。
But both present and prospective Berkshire
shareholders should pay special attention to one point: Though the per-share
intrinsic value of our stock has grown at an excellent rate during the past
five years, its market price has grown still faster. The stock, in other words,
has outperformed the business.
不過我們還是必須再次提醒Berkshire現有以及未來可能的股東，雖然在過去五年間本公司的實質價值以相當快速的速度成長，不過公司本身的股價漲升速度卻有過之而無不及，換句話說，在這期間股票的市價表現遠過於公司本業的表現。
That kind of market overperformance cannot
persist indefinitely, neither for Berkshire nor any other stock. Inevitably, there
will be periods of underperformance as well. The price volatility that results,
though endemic to public markets, is not to our liking. What we would prefer
instead is to have the market price of Berkshire precisely track its intrinsic
value. Were the stock to do that, every shareholder would benefit during his
period of ownership in exact proportion to the progress Berkshire itself made
in the period.
這樣的情況不太可能無止盡的持續下去，不管是Berkshire或是其他股票都一樣，無可避免的，總有一天股價的表現會遜於本業的表現，我們不太願意見到公司的股價受到股票市場影響而劇烈波動，我們比較喜歡的模式是Berkshire的股價能夠與其所代表的實質價值一致，如此一來我們就可以確保每位股東在持有本公司股份的期間所獲得的報酬皆能與Berkshire本身事業的發展狀況一致。
Obviously, the market behavior of
Berkshire's stock will never conform to this ideal. But we will come closer to
this goal than we would otherwise if our present and prospective shareholders
are informed, business-oriented and not exposed to high-commission salesmanship
when making their investment decisions. To that end, we are better off if we
can blunt the merchandising efforts of the unit trusts - and that is the reason
we are creating the B stock.
很顯然的Berkshire的股價不可能以這樣理想的方式演變，不過若是我們能夠確定現有與未來的股東在做投資決策時，能得到充分的資訊、以公司發展為導向且不會受到高佣金的營業員所引誘，我們就越有可能達到這樣的目標，基於這樣的前提，我們必須降低那些想要推銷仿Berkshire基金的動機，這也是我們決定推出B級普通股的主要原因。
We look forward to answering your questions
about the recapitalization at the Annual Meeting.
當然若大家對於本次股權重組還有任何問題，歡迎在股東年會上提出討論。
Miscellaneous
其他事項
Berkshire isn't the only American
corporation utilizing the new, exciting ABWA strategy. At about 1:15 p.m. on
July 14, 1995, Michael Eisner, CEO of The Walt Disney Company, was walking up
Wildflower Lane in Sun Valley. At the same time, I was leaving a lunch at
Herbert Allen's home on that street to meet Tom Murphy, CEO of Cap Cities/ABC,
for a golf game.
Berkshire並不是第一家採用新穎有趣的ABWA走動式併購策略的美國企業，1995年7月14日下午1點15分，當時華德迪士尼的總裁Michael
Eisner正在Sun Valley的野花大道上行走，在此同時，我剛好從同一條街上Herber Allen家中一場午宴離開，趕赴與資本城/ABC總裁Tom Murphy的一場高爾夫球會。
That morning, speaking to a large group of
executives and money managers assembled by Allen's investment bank, Michael had
made a brilliant presentation about Disney, and upon seeing him, I offered my
congratulations. We chatted briefly - and the subject of a possible combination
of Disney and Cap Cities came up. This wasn't the first time a merger had been
discussed, but progress had never before been made, in part because Disney
wanted to buy with cash and Cap Cities desired stock.
就在當天早上，面對由Allen的投資銀行召集一大群企業總裁與基金經理人，Michael做了一場有關迪士尼相當精彩的演講，會後在街上遇到他，於是我上前向他致意，我們做了短暫的交談，聊到迪士尼與資本城進行合併的可能性，這並不是第一次討論有關合併的可能，先前之所以一直沒有進展，一部份的原因是由於迪士尼希望用現金進行交易，而資本城想要拿股票。
Michael and I waited a few minutes for
Murph to arrive, and in the short conversation that ensued, both Michael and
Murph indicated they might bend on the stock/cash question. Within a few weeks,
they both did, at which point a contract was put together in three very busy
days.
Michael跟我花了幾分鐘等候Murph的到來，在接下來短暫的會談後，雙方同意在現金/股票的問題上互做讓步，幾個星期後，雙方達成協議，而經過連續三天馬不停蹄的談判後，終於擬訂了合併契約。
The Disney/Cap Cities deal makes so much
sense that I'm sure it would have occurred without that chance encounter in Sun
Valley. But when I ran into Michael that day on Wildflower Lane, he was heading
for his plane, so without that accidental meeting the deal certainly wouldn't
have happened in the time frame it did. I believe both Disney and Cap Cities
will benefit from the fact that we all serendipitously met that day.
我認為迪士尼與資本城的合併案是天造地設的一對，即使沒有那天在Sun Valley的巧遇，雙方終究還是會結合，不過要不是那天剛好我在野花大道碰到正要趕飛機的Michael，整個合併案可能不會那麼快地順利完成，不可諱言的，迪士尼與資本城都將因為我們那天的巧遇而受惠良多。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
It's appropriate that I say a few words
here about Murph. To put it simply, he is as fine an executive as I have ever
seen in my long exposure to business. Equally important, he possesses human
qualities every bit the equal of his managerial qualities. He's an
extraordinary friend, parent, husband and citizen. In those rare instances in
which Murph's personal interests diverged from those of shareholders, he
unfailingly favored the owners. When I say that I like to be associated with
managers whom I would love to have as a sibling, in-law, or trustee of my will,
Murph is the exemplar of what I mean.
在這裡我特別要提一下Murph，簡單的說，他是我在投資生涯中，遇到最好的經理人之一，同時除了優秀的管理特質之外，他也擁有同等的人格特質，他是一位傑出的朋友、父親、丈夫與公民，許多時候當其個人利益與股東利益相衝突時，他毫不猶豫地會選擇後者，每當我提到我喜歡與那種我希望他們能夠成為我的子孫、女婿或遺囑執行人的經理人共事時，Murph就是我所能引用的最佳典範。
If Murph should elect to run another
business, don't bother to study its value - just buy the stock. And don't later
be as dumb as I was two years ago when I sold one-third of our holdings in Cap
Cities for $635 million (versus the $1.27 billion those shares would bring in
the Disney merger).
如果Murph決定另創事業，不必費心去研究其可行性，閉著眼睛投資就對了，而且絕對不要笨到像我前年一樣把資本城三分之一的持股以6.35億美元賣掉，這批股票在與迪士尼合併後，價值超過12.7億美元。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
About 96.3% of all eligible shares
participated in Berkshire's 1995 shareholder-designated contributions program.
Contributions made were $11.6 million and 3,600 charities were recipients. A
full description of the shareholder-designated contributions program appears on
pages 54-55.
大約有96.3%的有效股權參與1995年的股東指定捐贈計劃，總計約1,160萬美元捐出的款項分配給3,600家慈善機構，詳細的名單參閱附錄。
Every year a few shareholders miss out on
the program because they don't have their shares registered in their own names
on the prescribed record date or because they fail to get their designation
form back to us within the 60-day period allowed. That second problem pained me
especially this year because two good friends with substantial holdings missed
the deadline. We had to deny their requests to be included because we can't
make exceptions for some shareholders while refusing to make them for others.
每年都有一小部份的股東由於沒有將股份登記在本人的名下，或是沒能在60天的期限內，將指定捐贈的表格送回給我們，而沒辦法參加我們的指定捐贈計畫，尤其是第二個原因讓我感到特別頭痛，因為今年有二位Berkshire大股東同時也是我個人的好朋友，未能在截止日以前將表格送達，我們必須忍痛將他們的指定捐贈剔除，因為我們不可能在拒絕其他不符合規定股東的同時，還破例讓他們參與。
To participate in future programs, you must
own Class A shares that are registered in the name of the actual owner, not the
nominee name of a broker, bank or depository. Shares not so registered on
August 31, 1996, will be ineligible for the 1996 program. When you get the
form, return it promptly so that it does not get put aside or forgotten.
想要參加這項計畫者，請必須擁有A級普通股，同時確定您的股份是登記在自己而非股票經紀人或保管銀行的名下，同時必須在1996年8月31日之前完成登記，才有權利參與1996年的捐贈計畫，當你收到表格後，請立即填寫後寄回，以免被丟在一旁給忘記了。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
When it comes to our Annual Meetings,
Charlie and I are managerial oddballs: We thoroughly enjoy the event. So come
join us on Monday, May 6. At Berkshire, we have no investor relations
department and don't use financial analysts as a channel for disseminating
information, earnings "guidance," or the like. Instead, we prefer
direct manager-to-owner communication and believe that the Annual Meeting is
the ideal place for this interchange of ideas. Talking to you there is
efficient for us and also democratic in that all present simultaneously hear
what we have to say.
每次提到年度股東會，查理跟我就變成囉唆的老頭，我們實在是很喜歡這場盛會，所以請大家務必在五月六日星期一大駕光臨，在Berkshire我們沒有投資人公關部門，也從不依賴股票分析師當作資訊溝通的橋樑，盈餘的預估解說等等，相反地，我們比較喜歡股東與經理人直接面對面的溝通，而且相信年度股東會正是觀念溝通的最佳場所，與各位一談對我們來說一點也不會浪費時間，同時也讓各位以相當民主的方式聽到我們想要跟各位傳達的理念。
Last year, for the first time, we had the
Annual Meeting at the Holiday Convention Centre and the logistics seemed to
work. The ballroom there was filled with about 3,200 people, and we had a video
feed into a second room holding another 800 people. Seating in the main room
was a little tight, so this year we will probably configure it to hold 3,000.
This year we will also have two rooms for the overflow.
去年我們首度在Holiday會議中心召開年度股東會，當初預定的準備動作事後看起來相當正確，中央大廳坐滿了3,200個人，同時藉由視聽器材的輔助，旁邊的會議室還有800人得以參與，大廳顯得有點擁擠，所以今年我們打算只排3,000個座位，同時另外會再準備二間會議室以容納更多的人參與。
All in all, we will be able to handle 5,000
shareholders. The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m., but be warned that last year
the main ballroom was filled shortly after 8:00 a.m.
會場總共可以容納5,000人，會議預定在9點30分開始，不過大家可能要早一點到，因為去年中央大廳在8點過後不久便已座無虛席。
Shareholders from 49 states attended our
1995 meeting - where were you, Vermont? - and a number of foreign countries,
including Australia, Sweden and Germany, were represented. As always, the
meeting attracted shareholders who were interested in Berkshire's business - as
contrasted to shareholders who are primarily interested in themselves - and the
questions were all good. Charlie and I ate lunch on stage and answered
questions for about five hours.
來自49個州的股東參與1995年的年度股東會，你從哪裡來，是佛蒙特州嗎? 另外還有一些股東來自海外地區，包含澳洲、瑞典與德國等國家，一如往常，年會吸引了許多真正關心公司發展的股東參加，與其他只關心自己利益別的公司的股東相較有很大的不同，所提出的問題也相當好，查理跟我花了五個多小時回答問題，連午餐都直接在台上解決。
We feel that if owners come from all over
the world, we should try to make sure they have an opportunity to ask their
questions. Most shareholders leave about noon, but a thousand or so hardcore
types usually stay to see whether we will drop. Charlie and I are in training
to last at least five hours again this year.
因為我們認為股東們從世界各地遠道而來，所以總是希望讓他們都有機會可以發問，大部分的股東在中午過後就紛紛離席，但還是有一千多名比較死忠的股東想要瞧瞧我們到底能夠撐多久，今年查理跟我希望盡量努力能夠像去年那樣至少撐五個小時以上。
We will have our usual array of Berkshire
products at the meeting and this year will add a sales representative from
GEICO. At the 1995 meeting, we sold 747 pounds of candy, 759 pairs of shoes,
and over $17,500 of World Books and related publications. In a move that might
have been dangerous had our stock been weak, we added knives last year from our
Quikut subsidiary and sold 400 sets of these. (We draw the line at soft fruit,
however.) All of these goods will again be available this year. We don't
consider a cultural event complete unless a little business is mixed in.
依照慣例，我們在會場上展示了一些Berkshire的產品，今天將會新增一位GEICO保險公司的業務代表，去年股東會總計賣出了747磅的糖果、759雙的鞋子以及價值超過17,500美元的世界百科全書與相關出版品，另外我們臨時還增加了旗下子公司Quikut所生產的小刀，總計賣出400把(幸好去年公司股價表現不錯，否則這可能是相當危險的一項舉動)，今年這些商品將再度與會，我覺得這項盛會總要帶點商業氣息才算完整圓滿。
Because we expect a large crowd for the
meeting, we recommend that you promptly get both plane and hotel reservations.
Those of you who like to be downtown (about six miles from the Centre) may wish
to stay at the Radisson Redick Tower, a small (88 rooms) but nice hotel, or at
the much larger Red Lion Hotel a few blocks away. In the vicinity of the Centre
are the Holiday Inn (403 rooms), Homewood Suites (118 rooms) and Hampton Inn
(136 rooms). Another recommended spot is the Marriott, whose west Omaha
location is about 100 yards from Borsheim's and a ten-minute drive from the
Centre. There will be buses at the Marriott that will leave at 7:30, 8:00 and
8:30 for the meeting and return after it ends.
由於預期會有相當多的人與會，我們建議大家最好先預訂機位與住宿，想要住在市中心的人(距離會場約6英哩)可以選擇擁有88個房間的一家小旅館-Radisson-Redick旅館或是旁邊較大一點的Red Lion旅館，至於會場附近則有Holiday Inn (403個房間)、Homewood Suites (118個房間)或Hampton Inn (136個房間)，另一個推薦的旅館是位在奧瑪哈西區的Marriott，離波仙珠寶店約100公尺，距離會場約10分鐘的車程，屆時在哪裡將會有巴士分7:30、8:00跟8:30三班，接送大家往返股東會會場。
An attachment to our proxy material
explains how you can obtain the card you will need for admission to the
meeting. A good-sized parking area is available at the Centre, while those who
stay at the Holiday Inn, Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn will be able to walk
to the meeting. As usual, we will have buses to take you to the Nebraska
Furniture Mart and Borsheim's after the meeting and to take you from there to
hotels or the airport later.
後面附有股東會開會投票的相關資料，跟各位解釋如何拿到入場所許的識別證，當天會場有相當大的停車場，住在Holiday Inn 、Homewood Suites或Hampton Inn的人可以直接走路過來開會，一如往年，會後我們備有巴士帶大家到內布拉斯加傢具店與波仙珠寶店或是到飯店與機場。
NFM's main store, on its 64-acre site about
two miles north of the Centre, is open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, 10
a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and noon to 6 p.m. on Sundays. Rose Blumkin -
"Mrs. B" - is now 102, but will be hard at work in Mrs. B's
Warehouse. She was honored in November at the opening of The Rose, a classic
downtown theater of the 20's that has been magnificently restored, but that
would have been demolished had she not saved it. Ask her to tell you the story.
佔地60英畝的NFM主館距離會場約2英哩遠，營業時間平日從早上10點到下午9點，星期六從早上10點到下午6點，星期日則從中午開到下午6點，Rose Blumkin-B太太今年高齡102歲，不過每天還是會到B太太倉庫工作，去年十一月她應邀到Rose表演中心擔任開幕剪綵嘉賓，原本是20年代老舊的戲院在B太太大力的支持下得以重新修復，記得問她有關這一段的故事。
Borsheim's normally is closed on Sunday but
will be open for shareholders and their guests from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May
5th. Additionally, we will have a special opening for shareholders on Saturday,
the 4th, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Last year, on Shareholders Day, we wrote 1,733
tickets in the six hours we were open - which is a sale every 13 seconds.
Remember, though, that records are made to be broken.
平時禮拜天不營業的波仙珠寶，特地在五月五日股東會當天會為股東與來賓開放，從中午開到下午6點，此外今年在五月四日星期六股東會的前一晚從下午6點到晚上9點，還將特地為股東開放，去年股東會當天，在短短六個小時的營業時間內，我們總共收到1,733張訂單，等於每13秒就有一筆生意成交，各位請記得記錄本來就是用來打破的。
At Borsheim's, we will also have the
world's largest faceted diamond on display. Two years in the cutting, this
inconspicuous bauble is 545 carats in size. Please inspect this stone and let
it guide you in determining what size gem is appropriate for the one you love.
在波仙珠寶店，將會展出一顆全世界最大的平面鑽石，花費兩年的時間切割，這顆不甚起眼的玩意兒總共有545克拉重，請大家好好看看這一顆石頭，然後再決定你應該為你心愛的人買一顆多大的寶石。
On Saturday evening, May 4, there will be a
baseball game at Rosenblatt Stadium between the Omaha Royals and the Louisville
Redbirds. I expect to make the opening pitch - owning a quarter of the team
assures me of one start per year - but our manager, Mike Jirschele, will
probably make his usual mistake and yank me immediately after. About 1,700
shareholders attended last year's game. Unfortunately, we had a rain-out, which
greatly disappointed the many scouts in the stands. But the smart ones will be
back this year, and I plan to show them my best stuff.
在前一天5月4日，星期六晚上，Rosenblatt體育館將會有一場奧瑪哈皇家隊對路易維里紅鳥隊的比賽，我準備在開幕時擔任開球工作，擁有該隊四分之一的所有權確保我可以每年擔任一次先發，不過一如往常我們的球隊經理-Mike大概都會做出錯誤的決定，很快地就把我拉下場，去年大約有1,700位股東出席這項盛會，可惜的是當晚因雨停賽，使得旁邊的球僮失望不已，今年好戲將會重新上演，而我也準備將拿手絕活展現出來。
Our proxy statement will include
information about obtaining tickets to the game. We will also offer an
information packet this year listing restaurants that will be open on Sunday
night and describing various things that you can do in Omaha on the weekend.
股東會資料將告訴大家如何取得入場的門票，同時我們也會提供星期天晚上會開張的餐廳資訊，同時列出假日期間在奧瑪哈你可以從事的活動介紹。
For years, I've unsuccessfully tried to get
my grade school classmate, "Pal" Gorat, to open his steakhouse for
business on the Sunday evening preceding the meeting. But this year he's relented.
Gorat's is a family-owned enterprise that has thrived for 52 years, and if you
like steaks, you'll love this place. I've told Pal he will get a good crowd, so
call Gorat's at 402-551-3733 for a reservation. You'll spot me there - I'll be
the one eating the rare T-bone with a double order of hash browns.
多年來我一直無法成功說服我的小學同學-Gorat所開的餐廳在年會當天晚上開門營業，不過今年他終於屈服，Gorat's是一家有52年歷史的老牌餐廳，如果你愛吃牛排，包準你會愛上這個地方，我已向Gorat拍胸脯保證一定會有很多顧客上門，所以記得打電話(402-551-3733)去預訂，我保證大家一定可以在那裡看到我，通常我會點一大份丁骨牛排加上雙份的肉丸。
Warren E. Buffett
Chairman of the Board
March 1, 1996
華倫．巴菲特
董事會主席
1996年3月1日