巴菲特为何拒绝科技股
巴菲特太有影响力了，他说的每一句话，投资界和媒体都会非常关注，尤其是和他的投资方向有关的话。不过，由于巴菲特的股东大会不准录音录像，所以大多数媒体只是简短记录其中几句话，而不是对一个问题完整的回答，有时就会断章取义，严重歪曲巴菲特的本意。
在今年的股东大会上，巴菲特说：如果再活50年，会选择买入科技股。
要知道，巴菲特从来不买科技股，即使在网络股大牛市期间也拒绝投资任何科技股，巴菲特怎么会出尔反尔呢？
看一下比较详细的股东大会记录，你就会发现，这是很多媒体严重的断章取义。
巴菲特的原话意思可以概括成两句话：如果能够再活上50年，我可能会把科技板块加入我的能力圈。但是我要成为一个科技领域比别人了解更多的专家，是根本不可能的。
提问：如果你还能再活上50年，能够再把一个板块或者哪类资产添加进你的能力圈，你会选择什么？为什么？
巴菲特：这是一个非常好的问题。我特别喜欢前面那半句话。我会选择一个足够大的板块，在这个板块中做一笔规模相当大的投资，足以对伯克希尔巨大的投资组合 产生显著的影响。我想说如果可能会是科技板块的一些东西。如果我是一个科技领域的专家，我所说的专家是指了解比其它人多很多，那简直太棒了。但是非常明 显，这种事儿是不可能发生的。科技行业将会成为一个规模非常巨大的行业，在科技行业里面将会出现少数几个规模巨大的大赢家，但也会出现很多输家。科技公司 未来的业绩差异可能会非常非常大。如果你挑选到大赢家，你会赚到非常多的钱。但是想要挑选出那些大赢家是非常艰巨的任务，要比在其它行业如石油行业挑选出 大赢家困难得多。
相信你一看就完全明白了：巴菲特说如果再活50年，他可能会选择科技股，但这是根本不可能的。因为要从科技股中选择出一个大赢家，要比其它行业困难大得多。
如果巴菲特能够成为科技行业的专家的话，早在10年前的网络股大牛市中，他肯定选择了一批科技板块的大牛股，早就赚得比比尔・盖茨还要多了。
选择科技股大赢家，会非常非常赚钱，但很遗憾，巴菲特非常清楚，对他来说，这是根本不可能的。因此，巴菲特过去拒绝现在也拒绝投资科技股。其原因是：
首先，巴菲特承认他对分析科技公司并不在行，所以不会投资科技股。
在1998年 伯克希尔股东大会上，有股东问巴菲特是否考虑过在未来某个时候投资科技公司，当时美国股市正处在网络股的狂热中。巴菲特回答说：“这也许很不幸，但答案是 不。我很崇拜安迪・格鲁夫和比尔・盖茨，我也希望能通过投资于他们将这种崇拜转化为行动。但当涉及微软和英特尔股票，我不知道10年后世界会是什么样子。我不想玩这种别人拥有优势的游戏。我可以用所有的时间思考下一年的科技发展，但不会成为这个国家分析这类企业的优秀专家，第100位、第1000位、第10000位专家都轮不上我。许多人都会分析科技公司，但我不行”。
其次，科技公司发展变化太快，难以预测长期前景，所以巴菲特拒绝投资科技股。
巴菲特在1993年致股东的信中说：“有许多产业，我和芒格可能都无法确定到底这些公司的业务是“宠物石头”（pet rock）还是“芭比娃娃”（Barbie）。 甚至即使我们花了许多年时间努力研究这些产业之后，我们还是无法解决这个问题。有时是由于我们本身智力和学识上的缺陷阻碍了我们对事情的了解，有时则是产 业的特性本身就是很大的障碍。例如对于一家随时都比须应对快速技术变迁的公司来说，根本就无法判断其长期经济前景。在三十年前，我们能预见到现在电视机制 造产业或电脑产业的变化吗？当然不能。那么为什么查理和我非得认为我们能够预测其他快速变迁产业的发展前景呢? 我们宁愿专注于那些容易预测的产业。”
巴菲特说：“我可以理性地预期投资可口可乐的现金流量。但是谁能够准确预测10大网络公司未来25年里的现金流呢？如果你说你不能准确预期，你就不可能知道这些网络公司的价值，那么你就是在�猜而不是在投资。对于网络企业，我知道自己不太了解，一旦我们不能了解，我们就不会随便投资。”依据1：http://www.scribd.com/doc/54517226/2011-Berkshire-Annual-Meeting-Notes-by-Ben-Claremon-of-http-inoculatedinvestor-blogspot-com
Question 4: Crowd: If you were going to live another 50 years, what sector or asset class would you add to your circle of confidence and why?
Buffett: He would have to pick a sector that is large enough that an investment in it would make difference to BRK’s huge portfolio. It would have to be something in the technology field. Clearly, this is not going to happen. If he could be an expert—defined as knowing a lot more than other people-- in the tech field, that would be terrific. Tech is going to be a huge field and there are likely to be huge winners and a lot of losers. However, picking winners is going to be very tough, much tougher than picking winners in the integrated oil industry. The disparity in the future is likely to be very dramatic. You could make a lot of money if you could pick winners in the tech field.
Munger: It would either be tech or energy. He thinks they are the wrong people to develop that expertise though. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened. But they want to identify someone else who has the abilities that they lack. That has been hard for them as well but they have gotten better lately。
依据2：Q: If you were going to live another 50 years and could add one additional sector or asset class to your circle of competence what would it be?
Buffett: That’s a very good question, and I particularly like the preamble. [Laughter]
I would say it would have to be something in the tech field. I think that would be terrific but it isn’t going to happen. It’s going to be a huge field. There are likely going to be a few winners but a lot of disappointment so that the ability to pick the winners in technology is going to be disproportionately more difficult than picking the winners in, say, the major integrated oil industry.
The degree of disparity of results among large tech companies in the future is likely to be very dramatic. If I had the skills where I could pick the winners there I would do much better than if I had the skills to pick the winner in the major integrated oil industry.
依据3：http://www.fundspeople.com/rs_archivos/201105161229423471.pdf
Question 4: Crowd: If you were going to live another 50 years, what sector or asset class would you add to your circle of confidence and why?
Buffett: He would have to pick a sector that is large enough that an investment in it would make difference to BRK’s huge portfolio. It would have to be something in the technology field. Clearly, this is not going to happen. If he could be an expert—defined as knowing a lot more than other people-- in the tech field, that would be terrific. Tech is going to be a huge field and there are likely to be huge winners and a lot of losers. However, picking winners is going to be very tough, much tougher than picking winners in the integrated oil industry. The disparity in the future is likely to be very dramatic. You could make a lot of money if you could pick winners in the tech field.
Munger: It would either be tech or energy. He thinks they are the wrong people to develop that expertise though. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened. But they want to identify someone else who has the abilities that they lack. That has been hard for them as well but they have gotten better lately。
依据4：http://www.hendershotinvestments.com/new/hendershotinvestments/Berkshire Hathaway 2011 Notes.pdf?advisorid=331723
A shareholder asked if Buffett and Munger were to live another 50 years, what sector would they add to their investment circle of competence. Buffett joked that he liked the part about living another 50 years. He said he would choose a sector that is large, perhaps like the technology sector. However, he warned that while the technology sector is large, it is very hard to pick winners in the sector as the degree of disparity among technology companies is very dramatic. Charlie Munger said he would likely choose the energy or technology sectors. However, he said he and Buffett are the wrong people to develop expertise now in these sectors, summing it up by bluntly stating, “If we were going to do it, it would have already happened.”
没有评论:
发表评论