找回密码
 立即注册
楼主: atcoolman

The Real Warren Buffett - 巴菲特每周新闻专贴

[复制链接]
发表于 2009-3-28 08:47:17 | 显示全部楼层
“股神”在入股高盛的投资案上即将翻身!
“股神”巴菲特旗下伯克希尔-哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway)所持的高盛认股权证很可能大幅升值,因最近几个月这家投资银行的股票剧烈反弹。《华尔街日报》报道,去年10月初,伯克希尔向高盛注资50亿美元,获得了50000股高盛累积永久优先股,股息率为10%。伯克希尔还从这桩交易中获得可购买43478260股高盛普通股的认股权证。这些认股权证在2013年到期,可以50亿美元的总价行权,折合每股115美元。在这桩交易后不久,金融危机就加剧了,高盛股价在11月21日跌至47.41美元低点。这令巴菲特受到一些人的责难,尤其是加上他还在10月16日的《纽约时报》发表署名文章建议买进美股。然而,高盛股价从11月21日至今已经上涨了一倍以上,23日收于111.93美元。如果高盛股价攀升至115美元以上,伯克希尔的认股权证就会处于“价内”状态(即正收益)。Buffettologist.com网站的编辑、Midway Capital Research & Management LLC的合伙人富勒(Justin Fuller)举例说,如果高盛股价达到150美元,巴菲特理论上就能以115美元的价格买进高盛股票,再以150美元的价格卖出,从而获得每股35美元利润。如果巴菲特全部以这种方式行使高盛认股权证,伯克希尔在上述情况下将赚进逾15亿美元。富勒说,去年10月和11月的时候巴菲特还受到非议,但如果高盛股价继续上涨,这些认股权证对伯克希尔的股东就会具有重大价值,从而验证他与高盛做这桩交易的正确性。(BLMX)
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-30 06:47:01 | 显示全部楼层

数周前惠誉对巴郡的降级评定让标普坐立不安,思量着怎么也'downgrade'巴郡以昭示其评级的独立和客观,尽管美国股市最近的‘极地大反弹’。穆迪更是蠢蠢欲动,因巴郡作为其最大股东,如果再不有所‘作为’,恐有‘利益冲突’之嫌。


Wednesday, 25 Mar 2009
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Keeps S&P's AAA Rating .. For Now
Posted By: Alex Crippen

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway will keep its top-level AAA rating from Standard & Poor's for the moment, but the ratings agency says that could change.

S&P has lowered its outlook on Berkshire to "negative" from "stable" and indicated it may downgrade the company's rating by one notch over the next twelve months.

In a news release on the S&P site, credit analyst John Iten is quoted as saying, "The decline in equity values in 2009 has reduced the statutory capital of the insurance operations, and a preliminary analysis of the group's capital adequacy indicates that the group's capital is no longer redundant at the 'AAA' level."

But S&P says that over the next year, "If the value of the group's substantial equity investment holdings were to stabilize or improve during this period, or if it appears that the group will be able to rebuild its capital position back to a level commensurate with the current ratings within a reasonable period of time (typically one to two years) through earnings or other means, we could revise the outlook back to stable."

Bob O'Brien at Barron's doesn't think Berkshire will be keeping its triple-A much longer. In his opinion, "A cut to the credit rating at Berkshire - once regarded as unthinkable - looks increasingly likely."

American University finance professor Gerald Martin tells Bloomberg, "Pretty much any company in the world has to have a negative outlook at this point. It’s a reflection of the economy more than it is something that’s happening at Berkshire Hathaway."

That was pretty much what Fitch said earlier this month, focusing on financial companies, when it took away's Berkshire's triple-A, although it also cited some specific negative factors.

Will Moody's also go negative on Berkshire? Buffett's company is Moody's largest shareholder, prompting The Business Insider's Clusterstock to suggest that Moody's looks like a "black sheep" and could raise more questions about a "conflict of interest" if they don't say something soon.

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-30 07:12:38 | 显示全部楼层

过去一周与巴老相关新闻:

盗用巴老名誉诈骗案;

巴老姐姐再次慷慨解囊;

杜克大学教授以巴老为案例谈聪明人如何处理非理性;

华尔街谈巴郡的高盛认股证;

CEG高管痛失奖金;

Geico进入波士顿汽车保险市场。


Published Sunday March 29, 2009
Warren Watch: An 'all you can cheat' Buffet
BY STEVE JORDON
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

When you're investing, it's a good idea to check both the spelling and the math.

A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against a Los Angeles investment company included this declaration from Warren Buffett:

"I am not, nor have I ever been, the 'Honorary Chairman' of the Board of Directors of IRH. I have never had any personal or business relationship with IRH."

The Los Angeles Times reported that the SEC sued International Realty Holdings Inc. of Palmdale, Calif., and its operators, Ottoniel Medrano, a guard at a federal prison, and Leticia Isabel Medrano. A court order froze its assets.

The group had claimed that Buffett was its "honorary chairman," but misspelled his name as "Buffet" in its investment brochures. A photo showed him with a group of people identified as International Realty employees but who actually were University of Michigan business students.

International Realty falsely said it was 50 percent owned by Credit Suisse and promised annual returns up to 15 percent by investing in a new class of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shares.

There are no such shares.

The SEC said it is working to recover $535,000 sent to Philippine bank accounts, out of more than $700,000 taken from at least 15 investors in six states.

One was James T. Bonner, 80, a retired IBM systems analyst in San Diego who invested more than $100,000 and said, "My analysis was that if IRH was good enough for an investment and endorsement by Warren Buffet(t) it was good enough for me."


Thanks to Doris

Hearts & Homes for Youth, a Maryland nonprofit group for troubled and at-risk young people, held a luncheon in downtown Washington, D.C., to thank Buffett's sister, Doris, for a $150,000 challenge grant from her Sunshine Lady Foundation.

In a press release from the group, she said each of her grants is an "investment and a call to action for individuals to do their part to help change lives."

The group needed to match every dollar of the grant to receive the entire amount and reached its goal with time to spare.


Irrationality

Duke University behavioral economics professor Dan Ariely, a visiting professor at MIT's media laboratory, says really smart people acknowledge and address their irrationalities.

He cited a story from "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life," Alice Schroeder's biography of Buffett, to show how people try to regain self-control.

"Buffett is the archetypal quant: a data-processing, information-consuming, hard-thinking, analytical machine," Ariely said on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Web site.

"Buffett's success as an investor required not only deep analysis of financial documents but also a large measure of self-control to avoid getting caught in market bubbles and panics."

Yet as a young father, Buffett recognized that his eating habits were irrational because they were causing him to gain weight.

He used a "commitment device" to stop overeating: namely, giving his children unsigned checks for $10,000 and promising to sign them if he was over his target weight by a certain date.

"But Buffett's idea had a big flaw: His children, spotting a rare opportunity to get money from the notoriously frugal billionaire, resorted to sabotage," Ariely wrote. "Doughnuts, pizza and fried food mysteriously appeared whenever Buffett was home."

Buffett kept his weight down and the checks were never signed ? a successful exercise in self-control.

"But had he been purely rational, no commitment device would have been needed," Ariely said.


Looking better

The Wall Street Journal reported that Berkshire's right to buy $5 billion worth of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. stock is close to being "in the money," when not long ago that seemed unlikely any time soon.

In October, Berkshire invested $5 billion in the investment bank and got preferred shares that pay 10 percent a year, plus the right to buy common stock at $115 a share any time before 2013.

When Goldman's shares dropped as low as $47.41 in November, critics complained that Buffett had made a mistake. But last week, the price closed at about $108.

If the shares go to $150 and Buffett buys at $115, he could reap a $1.5 billion profit by selling the shares immediately.

A similar deal with General Electric Co. is still "deeply out of the money," the Journal said. Berkshire can buy GE shares at $22.25, but the price closed last week at $10.78.


No bonuses

The Baltimore Sun reported that Constellation Energy Group, which received financial assistance from Berkshire last year but dropped plans to be acquired by Berkshire, will no longer guarantee paying as much as $32 million in bonuses to executives.

A Sun story on the bonuses sparked criticism from customers concerned about higher energy bills and Constellation shareholders hurt by the company's stock price decline. Some likened the situation to AIG bonuses, although Constellation has not received taxpayer money.

Constellation had negotiated the incentives to keep its senior managers when it agreed to sell half of its nuclear power business to Electricite de France, a French utility. Under the Berkshire purchase, the 135 top Constellation managers would have received "change of control" bonuses, the Sun said, including $10.9 million to CEO Mayo A. Shattuck III.

They would still be eligible for long-term incentives if the company meets its performance goals. The French company had agreed to pay the difference between performance bonuses and what executives would have received in the Berkshire buyout.

Now, the $32 million will be used to "help stabilize and run the business," Constellation spokesman Rob Gould said, and no top executives are guaranteed payments.


Hello, Boston

Berkshire subsidiary Geico is entering the Boston auto insurance market, which recently was deregulated in a plan called "managed competition," the Boston Herald reported.

Massachusetts requires insurers to take part in an "assigned risk pool" to cover high-risk drivers who can't find auto insurance on their own. Insurers new to the market receive a two-year exemption from the rule.

Geico has applied to begin selling policies by May 18. Arch rival Progressive Insurance began selling policies there late last year.

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-18 11:09:02 | 显示全部楼层

NY TIMES

October 17, 2008

Buy American. I Am.

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month ? or a year ? from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

[此帖子已被 highlander 在 2009-3-18 11:10:33 编辑过]
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-18 11:28:45 | 显示全部楼层

谢谢highiander兄!

不知这篇文章有无中文译本?

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-18 12:47:33 | 显示全部楼层

不客气。这是从网上找来的:

  “无论美国还是世界其他地方,金融市场都是一片混乱。更糟糕的是,金融系统的问题已渗透到整体经济中,并且呈现出井喷式发展。短期内,美国失业率将继续上升,商业活动停滞不前,而媒体的头条也令人心惊胆颤。因此……我一直在购买美国股票。我指的是自己的私人账户,之前该账户除了美国政府债券外没有任何资产(这不包括我所持伯克希尔-哈撒维公司的资产,因为这部分资产将全部投入慈善事业)。如果股价价格继续保持吸引力,我的非伯克希尔净资产不久后将 100%是美国证券。
  
  为什么?我奉行一条简单的信条:别人贪婪时我恐惧,别人恐惧时我贪婪。当前的形势是??恐惧正在蔓延,甚至吓住了经验丰富的投资者。当然,对于竞争力较弱的企业,投资人保持谨慎无可非议。但对于竞争力强的企业,没有必要担心他们的长期前景。这些企业的利润也会时好时坏,但大多数都会在未来5、10 或20 年内创下新的盈利记录。澄清一点:我无法预计股市的短期波动,对于股票在1 个月或1 年内的涨跌我不敢妄言。但有一种可能,即在市场恢复信心或经济复苏前,股市会上涨,而且可能是大涨。因此,如果你想等到知更鸟报春,那春天就快结束了。回顾一下历史:在经济大萧条时期,道琼斯指数在1932 年7 月8 日跌至41 点的历史新低,到1933 年3 月弗兰克林•罗斯福(ranklin Roosevelt)总统上任前,经济依然在恶化,但到那时,股市却涨了30%。第二次世界大战初期,美军在欧洲和太平洋遭遇不利。1942 年4 月,美国股市跌至谷底,当时距离盟军扭转战局还很远。同样,20 世纪80 年代初,尽管经济继续下滑,通货膨胀加剧,但却是购买股票的最佳时机。简而言之,坏消息是投资者的最好朋友,它能让你以较低代价下注美国的未来。
  
  长期而言,股市整体是趋于利好的。20 世纪,美国经历了2 次大战、大萧条、十余次经济衰退和金融危机、石油危机、流行疾病和总统下台等事件,但道指却从66 点涨到了11497 点。也许有人会认为,在一个持续发展的世纪里,投资者几乎不可能亏钱。但确实有些投资者亏了,因为他们总是在感觉良好时买入,在市场充斥着恐慌时卖出。今天,拥有现金或现金等价物的人可能感觉良好,但他们可能过于乐观了,因为他们选择了一项可怕的长期资产,没有任何回报且肯定会贬值。其实,美国政府的救市政策很可能导致通货膨胀,并加速现金贬值。未来10 年,证券的投资回报率肯定要高于现金,也许会高出很多。那些手持现金的投资者还在等待好消息,但他们忘了冰球明星韦恩•格雷茨基(Wayne Gretzky)的忠告:“我总是滑向冰球运动的方向,而不是等冰球到位再追。”我不喜欢对股市进行预测,我再次强调,我对股市的短期行情一无所知。一家空荡荡银行大楼里的餐馆打出的广告:“从前你的钱在这里,今天你的嘴在这里。”但今天,我的钱和嘴巴都在股市里。”

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-15 21:06:53 | 显示全部楼层

巴菲特称Berkshire公司可能在美国进行收购--彭博
2009年 3月 12日 星期四 18:55 BJT

路透3月12日电---彭博报导指出,知名投资家巴菲特称已在美国看到一些值得旗下公司Berkshire Hathaway(BRKa.N: 行情)进行收购的机会,因价格下跌,且买主纷纷退出.


"以现在情势的发展,美国可能会发生很多事,"巴菲特接受彭博电视专访时表示.


他表示,Berkshire在美国敲定交易的机率颇大,不过他也指出,也有可能会是收购英国或德国的公司.


"我接受任何交易,但必须是最棒的交易,"巴菲特指出.


"我想要有甜头可尝."他谈到Berkshire在高盛(GS.N: 行情)及通用电气(奇异,GE)(GE.N: 行情)的投资,并表示,他不确定如果Berkshire执行这两家公司的认股权证时,会不会赚到钱.


"我认为我们执行权证的机率颇高.或许我们会选择其中一家执行,但我仍然很满意我所拿到的优先股,"巴菲特指出.


根据9月23日一项协议,Berkshire获得执行价每股115美元的高盛认股权证.另外,在10月1日,Berkshire取得以每股22.25美元购买通用电气的权证.


高盛股价周三收报92.39美元,通用电气收报8.49美元.


巴菲特表示他对通用电气及其执行长Jeffrey Immelt深具信心.(完)


--编译 蔡美珍;审校 张骏


© 路透 2009 版权所有

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-18 10:20:41 | 显示全部楼层
引用
原文由 福尔莫斯 发表于 2009-3-16 21:31:50 :

最让我欣赏的还是巴菲特去年十月份的那篇著名的《By American I am》。我甚至认为,读懂了这篇文章,几基本上懂投资了(因此我要我们的员工都要背过此文,或者如有人能背过此文我能肯定他基本上符合我们的要求了)。因为在我看来那是篇集巴菲特70年投资智慧的结晶之文。。。


福探好!您所说的《By American I am》一文在哪里可以找到?可以把它挂在网站的“价值文摘”栏目里面吗? [此帖子已被 掷铜板的人 在 2009-3-18 10:21:47 编辑过]
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-11 11:30:53 | 显示全部楼层
引用
原文由 lewie 发表于 2009-3-10 13:25:26 :
好象还漏了一些:"People's behaviour have changed and I never saw it before."(看新闻时听的,不一定完全准确)。疑问是:既然你never saw it before, 又凭什么predict "the economy will be running fine five years from now"呢?这个逻辑似乎有些矛盾。

lewie兄提出一个很有意思的逻辑疑问,我想巴老主要是想表述一个信心的重要性,就好像咱们老碰上几十年,乃至上百年的自然灾害一样,人寿有限,你这一生没碰到过,并不代表以前就未发生过,而历史经验又往往表明这些灾害总是会被克服的。

下面摘录相关话题,也许用巴老的原话更有说服力(见加黑体和红体):

BECKY: Right. We'll talk a lot more about this, but let's get back to the state of the economy...

BUFFETT: Sure.

BECKY: ...in general as well. What do you see right now? You spooked a lot of people last week when you talked about how the economy was in tatters and would be there for quite some time.

BUFFETT: Yeah. The economy, ever since we talked in September, we talked about it being an economic Pearl Harbor and how--what was happening in the financial world would move over to the real world very quickly. It's fallen off a cliff, and not only has the economy slowed down a lot, people have really changed their behavior like nothing I've ever seen. Luxury goods and that sort of thing have just sort of stopped, and that's why Wal-Mart is doing well and you know, and I won't name the ones that are doing poorly. But there's been a reset in people's minds, and we see that in something like (Berkshire subsidiary) Geico where year after year after year we say you can save some money insuring with Geico, and year after year there's been a certain number of people who have said, `You know, I've got this pal, Rotary Joe, and I've been insuring with him and for 100 bucks, why should I shift?' Every week we're just seeing it build and build. More and more people are calling. Our price differentials haven't widened, our advertising isn't that much different, but the American public really has changed their buying habits. On the reverse side, our jewelry stores just get killed in a period like this. And high end gets hurt the most, next down gets hurt the second most, and the lowest people get hurt the least.

BECKY: What's happening? What--you knew--you told us a while ago, you told us this was an economic Pearl Harbor about six months ago, but did this happen more quickly or more severely than even you expected?

BUFFETT: It certainly happened close to the worst case. I mean, you never know what's going to happen, but I would not have--I would not have thought there could've been a much worse case than what has happened. Although, I will say this, the Fed did some things in September when it happened...

BECKY: Mm-hmm.

BUFFETT: ...that were vital in keeping the place going. I mean, when the--if they hadn't have insured money market accounts and, in effect, commercial paper, you know, you and I would be meeting at McDonald's this morning.

BECKY: Instead.

BUFFETT: Yeah. Right.

BECKY: So why do you think consumers have gotten as frightened as they have?

BUFFETT: Well...

BECKY: The fear doesn't like too strong of a word.

BUFFETT: No. They're scared, and fear is very contagious.

BECKY: Hm.

BUFFETT: And I've never seen the consumer or the Americans just generally more fearful than this. And they're also confused. And you can get fearful very quickly, but you don't get confident, you know, in five minutes. You can get fearful in five minutes, but you won't get confident for some time. And government is going to play an enormous factor in how fast it comes back. And if you're confused and fearful, you don't get over being fearful till you aren't confused. I mean, the message has to be very, very clear as to what government will be doing. And I think we've had--and it's the nature of the political process, somewhat, but we've had muddled messages, and the American public does not know what--they feel that they don't know what's going on and their reaction, then, is to absolutely pull back.

BECKY: So there've been a lot of fingers of blame that have pointed in a lot of different directions. But you're saying the message from Washington has been confused or...

BUFFETT: Well, I think it's the nature of things.

BECKY: Right.

BUFFETT: I mean, I think people watch 535 members of Congress each give their view of what every player is doing and all of that sort of thing, and I think that, you know, you had a change of administrations and you're dealing with things that people don't understand. I mean, when you first brought up the term SIV or something like that or when you talk about credit default swaps or you talk about--it's--when the public hears that, they just, they think something's wrong and they don't understand it.

BECKY: And still, this is the worst-case scenario from what you had imagined. What went wrong? Why did we wind up in that worst-case scenario?

BUFFETT: Well, we went wrong originally because we had a belief that--and everybody had the belief. I had it, the government had it, mortgage lenders had it, borrowers had it, media had it, everybody thought house prices could go nothing but up and--or at least they couldn't go down a lot. And once you had that belief--and it was nationwide--it didn't make any difference what you lent on the house because if the guy couldn't pay, you'd sell it at a profit anyway or you wouldn't lose much money. So you had 11 trillion of residential mortgage debt built on this theory that who was borrowing it, what their income was really wasn't that important because the house itself had to go up in price.

And when that tumbled and houses which might've been worth 22 trillion at the peak are worth maybe four or five trillion less, it's a huge amount out of people's net worth. It's the biggest asset most people have. And then secondarily, all of these instruments that were built on it, which people didn't understand too well, started toppling to various degrees in value and then that exposed other things. I mean, it was like, you know, some kid saying, `The emperor has no clothes.' And then after he says that, he said, `On top of that, the emperor doesn't have any underwear either.' You know. I mean, various layers have been--and they interact. When people get scared, they change their buying habits. When they quit buying as much, people lay off. We are in a very, very vicious negative feedback cycle. It will end, but, believe me, I mean, I don't want this to be the last line of the movie, the last line of my annual report that America's best days lie ahead. And we can talk about why that is, but--and that is the final answer.

But how fast we get there depends enormously on not only the wisdom of government policy, but the degree in which it's communicated properly. People--when you have a Pearl Harbor, you have to know the nation is going to be united on December 8th to take care of whatever comes up. And we have little squabbles, otherwise we put them aside and everybody goes to work on defense plans, we start building planes, we start building ships, even though they're not going to be ready tomorrow, people join. The Army doesn't blame the Navy because there were too many ships in Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't have happened. The Army doesn't say, `Well, it was your fault, so we're not going to send our troops.' None of that sort of thing. We got united, and we really need that now.

BECKY: Do you think that there has not been that to that extent? There's not enough of the united front right now?

BUFFETT: Yeah, I think--and I can understand why because, economically--Pearl Harbor itself, you knew exactly what had happened and we wiped out a good bit of the fleet and all of that and people knew in a general way what had to be done and they knew who they had to respond to a leader who was unquestionably the commander and chief. And so you didn't have--start congressional hearings on December 8th, you know, that were going to last for weeks while all of the commanders and the various people were in various ways pilloried or taunted or whatever about `Why in the world did they let this happen?' and the Republicans didn't say, `You Democrats have been in since 1933, and it's all your fault.' None of that. I mean, people said, `We've got to get something done.' And they--and they trusted their leadership to do it and put aside mostly the partisan stuff and the--and we went--and everybody, incidentally, felt we'd win the war, even though we, you know, for the first six months, we were--Corregidor fell and we had the death march of Bataan, all kinds of--there was terrible, terrible news, but we knew that if we stuck together and we followed leadership, we would--we would prevail.

BECKY: We're going to have a lot more time to talk about solutions this morning, but in terms of the economy, where do you think it goes from here? What's the best case scenario and the worst case scenario?

BUFFETT: Well, it can't turn around on a dime. That doesn't happen. I mean, it--a lot of stuff works this way. When 600,000 more people become unemployed last month, that not only affects those 600,000, it affects them terribly, but it affects everybody else. They get scared about losing their jobs. The percentage of people are scared about losing their jobs in this country is way higher than the actual numbers that are going to lose them, but they're behaving in an entirely different manner. I mean, they are not--they are not going to go into a--even at Costco or Wal-Mart, their jewelry departments are way down, but other departments are up. People, they started saving money. For years we told them to save money, and now they're saving money, and that's a double whammy. So we've had this great economic machine like nothing the world's ever seen, and it started sputtering a little, and we said, `Well, maybe we should kind of slow it down and see what happens.' And it sputters more. And what we may not realize is that there's interaction, that the slower you run the machine at, the more it sputters. So it's a job to get it working again, and it won't happen fast, Becky, I mean--and unemployment will lag at the end, the actual turn around.

BECKY: We're already talking about unemployment at 8 percent. Where do you see it headed?

BUFFETT: I can't name a number because, frankly, it depends to an extent on the wisdom of government policies. It's going to go higher. It's probably going to go a fair amount higher, but on the other hand, five years from now I can guarantee you that the machine will be running fine, but I'd like to get there a lot faster than five years. And we can.


最后把3月9日CNBC这次采访节目的谈话全本传上,有兴趣者可下载阅读。

相关附件
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-12 12:12:56 | 显示全部楼层

lewie兄言之极是,巴老也为自己的时机判断错误负上沉重的代价,新近出炉的Forbes无疑证实了这一点,世界首富的宝座拱手让回给好友盖兹,倒让我想起David Bowie那首名曲《Heroes》-"Oh we can beat them, for ever and ever, Then we could be heroes, just for one day(year?! :-)" 呵呵,顺便找来这首歌的两个版本,娱乐一下:

1977:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZlTrFcoHn0

2002:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYjBQKIOb-w

By the way, I am not his big fan, put those links here just for fun!

说到犯错误,昨天还在听林森池去年5月16日在香港电台做的访谈,即使到那时候,他还不认为香港进入熊市,而只是狼市。再看看这个“33????林sir,如果想?中半山?自住,但是要?手上的?控作?三成首期,未知????是否?????林sir?理?之前?先解?基本生活,要先有自住的?,???不??作投?。主持?林sir,?自己都?先投?再??…… sir?有?股票升值?比?快,但按???境,建?先??。不?,林sir??未必?要??控,因??控派息?5.5%,借?的按揭息率?是3%,少於5.5%,所以,林sir建???持有?控,?按?可做九成。”如果那位听众听从林Sir的建议,不知道现在做何感想?!

至于罗杰斯长持中国股票就不必说了...

可我总觉得短期的错误并不会影响这些名家的长期盈利,但普罗大众却往往把注意点放在这些瑕疵上,结果什么也没学到。lewie兄宅心仁厚,在下敬仰!

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|徐星官网 ( 粤ICP备14047400号 )

粤公网安备 44030402005841号

GMT+8, 2025-1-16 16:07 , Processed in 0.022791 second(s), 12 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表