Buffett/Jayhawk Q&A
2012-01-10 21:27阅读：
(在管我财博客上看到此文，偶尔得空，就把前面的一小部分翻译了下。我的英文水平很烂，真不好意思贴出来，呵呵，指正的可以，拍砖的不要哈）
Buffett/Jayhawk Q&A
By mhirschey
July 13, 2005
Posts selected for this
feature rarely stand
alone. They are
usually a part
of an ongoing
thread, and are
out of context
when presented here.
The material should
be read in
that light. How
are these posts
selected? Click here
to find out
and nominate a
post yourself!
I took a bunch
of students to
Omaha for a
Q&A with Warren
recently, and I
thought you might
be interested in
the back and
forth.
Berkshire Hathaway
Warren Buffett Q&A
May 6, 2005
Question: According to a
business week report
published in 1999,
you were quoted
as saying 'it's
a huge structural
advantage not to
have a lot
of money. I
think I could
make you 50%
a year on
$1 million. No,
I know I
could. I guarantee
that.' First, would
you say the
same thing today?
Second, since that
statement infers that
you would invest
in smaller companies,
other than investing
in small-caps, what
else would you
do differently?
问：你在1999年商业周报上提及：“钱不多是一个巨大的结构优势，我认为我能用1百万给你一年赚50%。是的，我知道我可以，我保证。”首先，你今天还会这样说吗？第二，由于你提到除了投资小型股意外，你还会投资于更小的公司，这两者有何区别？”
Yes, I would still
say the same
thing today. In
fact, we are
still earning those
types of returns
on some of
our smaller investments.
The best decade
was the 1950s;
I was earning
50% plus returns
with small amounts
of capital. I
could do the
same thing today
with smaller amounts.
It would perhaps
even be easier
to make that
much money in
today's environment
because information is
easier to access.
答：是的，我今天还会这样说。实际上，我们现在还在我们的一些很小的投资上获得了这样的回报。最好的时期是50年代，我用很小的资本获得了50%的收益率，今天用很小的资本，我可以同样做到。而且今天可能更容易赚到那么多钱，因为信息发达。
You have to turn
over a lot
of rocks to
find those little
anomalies. You have
to find the
companies that are
off the map
- way off
the map. You
may find local
companies that have
nothing wrong with
them at all.
A company that
I found, Western
Insurance Securities, was
trading for $3/share
when it was
earning $20/share!! I
tried to buy
up as much
of it as
possible. No one
will tell you
about these businesses.
You have to
find them.
你必须翻开一块又一块岩石，去找出那些小的反常案例，你必须寻找到那些不在地图上标注的公司。你可以找到并没有犯错误的地区小公司，比如我找到的一个，西部保险证券，每股价格$3，每股收益高达$20！我拼命地买。没人告诉你这些，你得自己去寻找他们。
Other examples: Genesee
Valley Gas, public
utility trading at
a P/E of 2,
GEICO, Union Street
Railway of New
Bedford selling at
$30 when $100/share
is sitting in
cash, high yield
position in 2002.
No one will
tell you about
these ideas, you
have to find
them.
再比如：Genesee山谷天然气公司，公开交易价格为2倍PE。还有GEICO。还有新贝德福德的联合街道铁路，2002年，每股$100的现金，收益率高，却以$30的价格出售。没人告诉你这些，你得自己去寻找他们。
The answer is still
yes today that
you can still
earn extraordinary
returns on smaller
amounts of capital.
For example, I
wouldn't have had
to buy issue
after issue of
different high yield
bonds. Having a
lot of money
to invest forced
Berkshire to buy
those that were
less attractive. With
less capital, I
could have put
all my money
into the most
attractive issues and
really creamed it.
答案就是，今天你仍旧可以用很小的资本获得超额回报。比如，我不会再购买问题众多的高收益率债券，但现在由于资金量太庞大，伯克希尔被迫购买这些没有什么吸引力的债券。如果只有很小的资本，我会将我所有的钱都投入到最最有吸引力的机会中。
I know more about
business and investing
today, but my
returns have continued
to decline since
the 50's. Money
gets to be
an anchor on
performance. At
Berkshire's size, there
would be no
more than 200
common stocks in
the world that
we could invest
in if we
were running a
mutual fund or
some other kind
of investment
business.
今天，对于商业和投资，我知道得更多，但是我的投资回报从50年代以来持续下降。钱多影响了投资绩效。如果我们运营一支基金或别的投资业务，规模大小类似现在的伯克希尔，那么，世界上不会有超过200支普通股票值得我们投资。
Q: Since Ben Graham
isn't around anymore,
what money managers
do you respect
today? Is there
a Ben Graham
today?
问：由于本格雷厄姆不在了，今天你还尊敬那些资产管理者？今天还有格雷厄姆吗？
You don't need another
Ben Graham. You
don't need another
Moses. There were
only Ten Commandments;
we're still waiting
for the eleventh
(j/k). His investing
philosophy is still
alive and well.
There are disciples
of him around,
but all we
are doing is
parroting. I did
read Phil Fisher
later on, which
showed the more
qualitative aspects of
businesses. Common stocks
are part of
a business. Markets
are there to
serve you, not
to instruct you.
You can often
find a couple
of companies that
are out of
line. Find one;
get rich. Most
people think that
what the stock
does from day
to day contains
information, but it
doesn't. It isn't
just something that
wiggles around. The
stock market is
the best game
in the world.
You can take
advantage of people
who have no
morals. High prices
inside of a
year will typically
be 100% of
the low price.
Businesses don't change
in value that
much. That is
simply crazy. There
are extreme degrees
of fluctuation, and
Mr. Market will
call out the
prices. Wait until
he is nutty
in one direction
or the other.
Put in a
margin of safety.
Don't find a
bridge that says
no more than
10,000 pounds when
you have a
9800 pound vehicle.
It isn't a
function of IQ,
but receptivity of
the mind.
答：
你不需要一个新的格雷厄姆，你也不会需要一个新的墨斯。只有十诫，我们却还在等第十一个（开玩笑）。他的投资哲学现在仍旧很好。他有很多追随者，但我们都只不过是鹦鹉学舌罢了。我后来是读过费雪的书，他更多地描写了质的方面。普通股是生意的一部分，市场先生是为你服务的，不是来指导你的。你常常可以发现一些价格与价值背离的公司，找到一个就发了。许多人认为股票每天的表现包含某些信息，但其实没有，那只不过是一些来回波动的东西。股票市场是世界上最好的游戏。你可以利用那些没有常识的人们，一年内，高价可以是低价的2倍，而生意价值没有任何改变。很简单的疯狂。这里有极端的波动，市场先生叫价，等待他在一
个方向上或另一个方向上狂热，进入到安全空间，不要在一座承载不超过1万磅的桥上开9800磅的车。不需要什么IQ，只需要接受这个思想。
When investing you don't
have to invest
in all 10,000
companies available, you
just have to
find the one
that is out
of line. Mr.
Market is your
servant. Mr. Market
is your partner
and wants to
sell the business
to you everyday.
Some days he
is very optimistic
and wants a
high price, others
he is pessimistic
and will sell
at a low
price. You have
to use this
to your advantage.
The market is
the greatest game
in the world.
There is nothing
else that can,
at times, get
this far out
of line with
reality. For example,
land usually only
fluctuates within a
15% band. Negotiated
transactions are less
volatile. Some get
this; others don't.
Just keep your
wits about you
and you can
make a lot
of money in
the market.
投资时，你不必投资于所有可投的1万家公司，你只需找到那家反常的。市场先生是你的仆人，是每天都想将生意出售给你的合伙人。有时，他很乐观，想要个高价，有时很悲观，会以低价出售。你得利用他。这个市场是世界上最棒的游戏。
没有别的东西可以在现实中如此反常。比如：地产通常在15%的幅度内波动，协议交易更少。一些可参与，一些不能。保持你的智慧，你就可以在这个市场上挣到很多钱。
Q: Do you expect
the stock market
premium to continue
to be 6.5%
over bonds?
问：你预期股票市场的收益率会持续超越债券6.5%吗？
I don't think that
the stock market
will return 6.5%
over bonds in
the future. Stocks
usually yield a
little more, but
that isn't ordained.
Every once in
a while, stocks
will get very
cheap, but it
isn't ordained in
scripture that this
is so. Risk
premiums are mostly
nonsense. The world
isn't calculating risk
premiums.
答：我不认为未来股票市场会超越债券6.5%。股票收益通常会多一点点，但不注定是这样。总有时候，股票会变得很便宜，但这不注定是这样。风险溢价通常没有意义。世界计算不出风险溢价。
Best book prior to
Graham was written
by Edgar Lawrence
Smith in 1924
called Common Stocks
as Long Term
Investments. It was
a study that
evaluated how bonds
compared to stocks
in various decades
of the past.
There weren't a
whole lot of
publicly traded companies
back then. He
thought he knew
what he was
going to find.
He thought that
he'd find that
bonds outperformed stocks
during periods of
deflation, and stocks
outperformed during
inflationary times. But
what he found
was that stocks
outperformed the bonds
in nearly all
cases. John M.
Keynes then enumerated
the reasons that
this was so.
He said that
over time you
have more capital
working for you,
and thus dividends
would grow higher.
This was novel
information back then
and investors then
went crazy and
started buying stocks
for these higher
returns. But then
they started to
get crazy, and
no longer really
applied the sound
tactics that made
the reasons given
in the book
true. Be careful
that when you
buy something for
a sound reason,
make sure that
the reason stays
sound.
在格雷厄姆之前，最好的书是埃德加.劳伦斯.史密斯于1924年写的《将普通股做为长期投资》。其研究评估了债券与股票在过去的年代如何不同，当时债券和股票背后没有大量公开交易的公司，他认为他知道他要找什么。他本认为他会发现债券在过去的通缩时期击败了股票，而股票在通胀时期击败了债券。但是实际上他发现的是股票在几乎所有的案例中都击败了债券。约翰.M.凯恩斯指出了原因，他说随着时间的推移，你有更多的资本为你工作，结果分红更多。这是一个新奇的信息，投资者开始变得疯狂，开始购买股票，期望获得更高的回报。但是他们陷入疯狂后，不再真正地采取合理的策略。当你以一个合理的理由购买东西时，一定要保证这个理由忠实可信。
If you buy GM,
you need to
write the price
and the respective
market valuation. Then
write down why
you are buying
the business. If
you can't, then
you have no
business doing it.
如果你要买GM，你要写下价格和市场估值，然后写下你为什么要买这项业务，如果你不能，那么你不应该买。
Quote from Ben Graham:
'You can get
in more trouble
with a sound
premise than an
unsound premise because
you'll just throw
out the unsound
premise'.
引自本格雷厄姆：“合理的假设会比一个不合理的假设更容易让你陷入麻烦，因为你会将不合理的假设扔掉”。
Q: What was your
biggest mistake?
问：你犯过的最大错误是什么？
First off, follow Graham
and you'll be
fine.
答：首先，跟随格雷厄姆，会不错。
My biggest mistakes were
errors of omission
vs. commission. Berkshire
Hathaway was also
a big mistake.
Sometimes the opportunity
costs of keeping
money in something
(like a lousy
textile business) can
be a drag
on Berkshire's
performance. We didn't
learn from the
previous mistake and
bought another textile
mill (Womback Mills)
6-7 years after
buying Berkshire
Hathaway. Meanwhile, I
couldn't run the
one in New
Bedford.
我最大的错误是作为和不作为的错误。伯克希尔同样是一个大错误。有时将现金留在某些业务（比如糟糕的纺织业务）里面的机会成本会严重阻碍伯克希尔的绩效。我们没有从先前的错误中得到教训，在购买伯克希尔6-7年后，又买了另一家纺织工厂（Womback工厂），与此同时，我不能运营新贝德福德的那家。
Tom Murphy, my friend,
bought the newspaper
in Fort Worth.
The previous ownership
of these entities
owned NBC as
well, but he
wanted to divest
the NBC affiliate
- $30 million
to buy, doing
$75 million in
earnings. It was
really a pretty
good company, but
he wanted to
sell it anyway.
There wouldn't be
many more of
it. Network television
stations don't require
excessive brains to
run. They add
a lot of
money to our
bottom lines.
We have never lost
lots of money
in things, except
in insurance after
9/11. We don't
do the kinds
of things that
lose you a
lot of money.
We just might
not be finding
the 'best'
opportunities.
Don't worry about
mistakes. You'll make
mistakes. Get over
it. At the
same time, it's
important to learn
from someone else's
mistakes. You don't
want to make
too many mistakes.
Side note: Warren once
asked Bill Gates,
'If you could
only hire from
one place, where
would it be?'
Gate's reply was
Indian Institute of
Technology.
Q: Could you comment
on your currency
position?
We have about $21
billion in about
11 foreign currencies.
We have $60-70
billion in things
that are denominated
in US Dollars.
We still have
a huge US
bias. If Martians
came down with
currency certificates and
could choose any
currency on earth,
I doubt it
would be 80%
in US Dollars.
We are following policies
that make me
doubt that our
currency will not
follow a downward
spin. We lost
$307 million this
quarter. The net
gain since we
started holding foreign
currencies in 2002
is $2.1 billion.
We have to
mark these future
contracts to market
daily. If we
owned bonds instead
of sterling forward
contracts, it wouldn't
fluctuate around so
much.
Identifying bubbles is
fairly easy. You
don't know how
big they will
get and you
don't know when
they will pop.
You don't know
when midnight will
hit, but when
it does, it
turns carriages to
pumpkins and mice.
What markets will
do is pretty
easy. When they
will do it
is more difficult.
Some people want
to stick around
for the last
dance, and they
thought that a
bigger fool would
be just around
the corner
tomorrow.
When we bought those
junk bonds, I
didn't know we
would make $4
billion in such
a short time.
It would have
been better if
it wouldn't have
happened so quickly,
as we would
have gotten a
bigger position.
Q: When did you
know you were
rich?
I really knew I
was rich when
I had $10,000.
I knew along
time ago that
I was going
to be doing
something I loved
doing with people
that I loved
doing it with.
In 1958, I
had my dad
take me out
of the will,
as I knew I
would be rich
anyway. I let
my two sisters
have all the
estate.
I bet we all
in this room
live about the
same. We eat
about the same
and sleep about
the same. We
pretty much drive
a car for
10 years. All
this stuff doesn't
make it any
different. I will
watch the Super
Bowl on a
big screen television
just like you.
We are living
the same life.
I have two
luxuries: I get
to do what
I want to
do every day
and I get
to travel a
lot faster than
you.
You should do the
job you love
whether or not
you are getting
paid for it.
Do the job
you love. Know
that the money
you will follow.
I travel distances
better than you
do. The plane
is nicer. But
that is about
the only thing
that I do a
whole lot
different.
I didn't know my
salary when I
went to work
for Graham until
I got his
first paycheck. Do
what you love
and don't even
think about the
money. I will
take a trip
on Paul Allen's
Octopus ($400M yacht),
but wouldn't want
one for myself.
A 60 man
crew is needed.
They could be
stealing, sleeping with
each other, etc.
Professional sports teams
are a hassle,
especially when you
have as much
money as him.
Fans would complain
that you aren't
spending enough when
the team loses.
If there is a
place that is
warm in the
winter and cool
in the summer,
and you do
what you love
doing, you will
do fine. You're
rich if you
are working around
people you like.
You will make
money if you
are energetic and
intelligent. This society
lets smart people
with drive earn
a very good
living. You will
be no exception.
Q: What is your
opinion of the
prospects for the
Kmart/Sears merger? How
will Eddie Lambert
do at bringing
Kmart and Sears
together?
Nobody knows. Eddie is
a very smart
guy but putting
Kmart and Sears
together is a
tough hand. Turning
around a retailer
that has been
slipping for a
long time would
be very difficult.
Can you think
of an example
of a retailer
that was successfully
turned around?
Broadcasting is easy;
retailing is the
other extreme. If
you had a
network television
station 50 years
ago, you didn't
really have to
invent or being
a good salesman.
The network paid
you; car dealers
paid you, and
you made money.
But in retail you
have to be
smarter than Wal-Mart.
Every day retailers
are constantly thinking
about ways to
get ahead of
what they were
doing the previous
day.
Retailing is like
shooting at a
moving target. In
the past, people
didn't like to
go excessive distances
from the street
cars to buy
things. People would
flock to those
retailers that were
near by. In
1996 we bought
the Hochschild Kohn
department store in
Baltimore. We learned
quickly that it
wasn't going to
be a winner,
long-term, in a
very short period
of time. We
had an antiquated
distribution system. We
did everything else
right. We put
in escalators. We
gave people more
credit. We had
a great guy
running it, and
we still couldn't
win. So we
sold it around
1970. That store
isn't there anymore.
It isn't good
enough that there
were smart people
running it.
It will be interesting
to see how
Kmart and Sears
play out. They
already have a
lot of real
estate, and have
let go of a
bunch of Sears'
management (500 people).
They've captured some
savings already.
We would rather look
for easier things
to do. The
Buffett grocery stores
started in Omaha
in 1869 and
lasted for 100
years. There were
two competitors. In
1950, one competitor
went out of
business. In 1960
the other closed.
We had the
whole town to
ourselves and still
didn't make any
money.
How many retailers have
really sunk, and
then come back?
Not many. I
can't think of
any. Don't bet
against the best.
Costco is working
on a 10-11%
gross margin that
is better than
the Wal-Mart's and
Sams'. In comparison,
department stores have
35% gross margins.
It's tough to
compete against the
best deal for
customers. Department
stores will keep
their old customers
that have a
habit of shopping
there, but they
won't pick up
new ones. Wal-Mart
is also a
tough competitor because
others can't compete
at their margins.
It's very
efficient.
If Eddie sees it
as impossible, he
won't watch it
evaporate. Maybe he
can combine certain
things and increase
efficiencies, but he
won't be able
to compete against
Costco's margins.
Q: What led you
to develop your
values and goals
at an early
age?
I was lucky because
I knew what
I loved at
an early age.
I was wired
in a certain
way when I
was born, and
I was lucky
enough to stumble
upon some books
at a library
at a very
early age. In
1930, I won
the ovarian lottery.
If I had
been born 2000
years ago, I'd
have been somebody's
lunch. I couldn't
run fast, etc.
I was lucky. I
had a terrific
set of parents.
My father was
an enormous inspiration
for me. The
job when you
are a parent
is to teach
them. Be a
natural hero. They
are learning from
you every moment
you are around.
There is no
rewind button. If
your parents do
what they say
and their values
match what they
teach you, you
are lucky. What
I observed in
the world was
consistent with what
my parents taught
me. That was
important. If you
are sarcastic, and
use it as a
teaching tool to
kids, they'll never
learn to get
over it. Those
first few years
they are very
impressionable.
Q: Could you discuss
your views on
estate planning and
how you will
allocate your wealth
to your children?
It really reflects my
views on how
a rich society
should behave. If
it weren't for
this society, I
wouldn't be rich.
It wasn't all
me. Imagine if
you were one
of a pair
of identical twins
and a genie
came along and
allowed you to
bid on where
you could be
born. The money
that you bid
is how much
you had to
agree to give
back to society,
and the one
who bids the
most gets to
be born in
the US and
the other in
Bangladesh. You would
bid a lot.
It is a
huge advantage to
be born here.
There should be no
divine right of
the womb. My
kids wouldn't go
off and do
nothing if I
give them a
lot of money,
but if they
did, that would
be a tragedy.
$30 billion will
be generated from
estate taxes, which
will go to
help pay for
the war in
Iraq and other
things. If you
take away the
estate tax, that
money will have
to come from
somewhere else. If
not from estate
taxes then you
inherently get it
from poorer citizens.
Less than 2%
of estates will
pay the estate
tax. They would
still have $50
million left over
on average. I
think those that
get the lucky
tickets should pay
the most to
the common causes
of society. I
believe in a
big redistribution.
Wealth is a
bunch of claim
checks that I
can turn in
for houses, etc.
To pass those
claim checks down
to the next
generation is the
wrong approach. But
for those that
think I am
perpetuating the welfare
state, consider if
you are born
to a rich
parent. You get
a whole bunch
of stocks right
at the beginning
of your life,
and thus you
are sort of
on a welfare
state of support
from your rich
parents from the
beginning. What's the
difference?
At $100,000 a year,
I can find
10 people to
paint my portraits
to find the
perfect one. I
have that kind
of money. But
that is a
waste, as those
people could be
doing something useful.
I feel the
same way about
my kids and
other heirs. They
should be doing
things that help
to contribute to
society.
Q: What kind of
impact will the
demographic shift (i.e.
baby boomers) have
on the United
States?
We aren't big on
demographic trends. It's
difficult to translate
that information into
profitable decisions. It
is hard to
figure out what
businesses will prosper
in the future,
based on macro
trends. See's candy
is for anyone
and Fruit of
the Loom is
for people who
need underwear today.
We want to
be right on
something that will
work right now,
not something that
might work in
the future. I
doubt that Wal-Mart
spends a lot
of time on
demographics. They
instead focus on
where to put
the store and
what to put
on the shelves.
I've never found
those kinds of
stats useful. People
were all excited
to go into
stocks 6 years
ago, but it
wasn't because of
demographic trends.
Warren then referred to
a recent WSJ
article written by
Jeremy Siegel that
discussed funds flowing
out of investments
because baby boomers
will need to
cash in their
investments during
retirement. He said
he respected Siegel,
but he doesn't
find fund flows
data useful.
Q: What would Berkshire
be like if
you hadn't met
Charlie Munger?
It would be very
different, but I
could say the
same thing about
a lot of
other people, too.
I've had a
lot (at least
a dozen) of
heroes, including my
parents. Charlie and
I didn't meet
until 1959, although
he grew up
a half a
block from where
I lived. Charlie
was 35 and
I was 29.
We've been partners
ever since. He
is very strong-minded,
but we've never
had an argument
that whole time.
I've never been
let down once.
It must be
a terrible feeling
to be let
down by a
hero.
Hang around people who
are better than
you all the
time. You do
pick up the
behavior of people
who are around
you. It will
make you a
better person. Marry
upward. That is
the person who
is going to
have the biggest
effect on you.
A relationship like
that over the
decades will do
nothing but good.
Q: Are investors more
or less knowledgeable
today compared to
ten years ago?
There is no doubt
that there are
far more 'investment
professionals' and way
more IQ in
the field, as
it didn't use
to look that
promising. Investment
data are available
more conveniently and
faster today. But
the behavior of
investors will not
be more intelligent
than in the
past, despite all
this. How people
react will not
change ?their
psychological makeup
stays constant. You
need to divorce
your mind from
the crowd. The
herd mentality causes
all these IQ's
to become paralyzed.
I don't think
investors are now
acting more
intelligently, despite
the intelligence. Smart
doesn't always equal
rational. To be
a successful investor
you must divorce
yourself from the
fears and greed
of the people
around you, although
it is almost
impossible.
Do you think Ponzi
was crazy? The
tech and telecom
madness that existed
just 6 years
ago is right
up there with
the craziest mania's
that have ever
happened. Huge training
in capital management
didn't help.
Take Long Term Capital
Management. They had
100's of millions
of their own
money, and had
all of that
experience. The list
included Nobel Prize
winners. They probably
had the highest
IQ of any
100 people working
together in the
country, yet the
place still blew
up. It went
to zero in
a matter of
days. How can
people who are
rich and no
longer need more
money do such
foolish things?
Q: What effect does
large institutional
ownership have on
stock price
volatility?
Never has so much
been managed by
so few that
care so much
about what happens
tomorrow. So much
of the world
of investing is
people who are
trying to beat
indexes, and they
have a willingness
and eagerness to
make decisions in
the next 24
hours. This condition
didn't exist years
ago. It has
created a 'hair
trigger' effect. An
example of this
hair trigger effect
was Black Monday
in '87. The
cause was program
trading and stop
loss orders.
Q: What sectors are
hurting? Is there
a bear market
coming?
Humans are still made
up of the
same psychological
makeup, and opportunities
will always present
themselves. All these
people have not
gotten more rational.
They are moved
by fear and
greed. But I'm
never afraid of
what I am
doing. What are
directors thinking [by
not repurchasing shares]
if the business
is selling on
a per share
basis for one-fourth
of what the
whole business would
sell for? They
don't always think
rational. I simply
don't have that
problem.
Berkshire owned the
Washington Post, the
ABC network and
Newsweek. It was
selling for $100
million based on
the stock price.
No debt. You
could have held
an auction, and
sold off the
companies individually
for $500M total,
but $100M was
the price. In
other words they
were willing to
sell us money
that was worth
$1 for $0.25.
According to efficient
markets, the beta
was higher when
the stock was
at $20 than
at $37. This
is insanity. We
bought what was
then worth $9
million that is
now worth $1.7
billion.
Q: How do you
feel about divisions
of conglomerates trying
to horde capital?
Berkshire wants the
capital in the
most logical place.
Berkshire is a
tax efficient way
to move money
from business to
business, and we
can redeploy capital
in places that
need them. Most
of the managers
of companies we
own are already
independently rich. They
want to work,
but don't have
to. They don't
horde capital they
don't need.
Q: How do you
feel about the
current real estate
environment?
If you are buying
to own a
home, that is
fine. Otherwise, it
seems to be
getting into bubble
territory. We're not
excited about real
estate because generally
there is not
enough return at
current prices.
http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2005/050713.htm
