저자: CharlieMunger/WarrenBuffett · 외국인
요약 보기
버크셔 해서웨이 주주총회형 Q&A. 군살 없는(lean) 기업이 과잉 인력 기업보다 낫다는 경영 원칙, 저유가는 미국 전체에는 이롭지만 석유 자산 가치와 산유국에는 타격이라는 주장, 아메리칸 익스프레스는 결제 시장 경쟁 심화에도 장기 보유 의사를 밝힘, GM 등 과거 강자의 몰락 사례로 지속적 사업 재평가 필요성 강조. 종목·지수에 대한 1~3개월 방향 예측 발언은 없음.
다듬은 글
Yeah, and sometimes when you reduce volume, it's very intelligent because you're losing money on the volume you're discarding. It's quite common for a business not only to have more employees than it needs, but it sometimes has two or three customers that it'd be better off without. And so you it's hard to judge from outside whether things are good or bad just because volume is going up or down a little.
Generally speaking, I think the leanly staffed companies do better at everything than the ones that are overstaffed. I think overstaffing is like getting to weigh 400 lb when you're a normal person. Yeah, sloppy thinking in one area probably indicates there may well be sloppy thinking thinking elsewhere.
And I have been a director of 19 public corporations and I've seen some very sloppy sloppy operations and I've seen a few really outstanding business operators. And there's there's a huge huge difference. If you have a wonderful business, you can get away with being sloppy. We could be wasting a billion dollars a year at Berkshire, you know, the 650 million after tax, that'd be 4% of earnings and maybe you wouldn't notice it.
But I would. It it it grows. And Charlie would notice it. Uh but it it's it's the really prosperous companies that you know, some Well, the the classic case I think were the tobacco companies many years ago. I mean, they you know, they they went off into this thing and that thing and and uh uh you know, it was it was practically play money cuz it was so easy to make and and uh it didn't require you know, it it didn't require good management and and they took advantage of that fact.
You can read about some of that in Barbarians at the Gate. It should be good for the United States overall that low prices for oil. We're in that oil importer. I mean, just like it's good for the United States have low prices for bananas. We're banana importer. That anything we net buy uh is a plus when prices fall, but that oil was big enough and extends into so many areas that it also hurts plenty when the price of oil falls and it particularly hurts capital values.
So, the value the consumer gets the benefit when he or she goes to the filling station, you know, every two or three weeks or something like that, and it comes in relatively small increments. The capital value contraction which is huge if you if you project out lower price oil for a while, you know, hits immediately.
I mean, an oil field that was worth X maybe worth half X or a third of X or no X uh overnight. And so, there are certain big factors Well, in terms of our our uh chemical operation, people just stop ordering. So, you have this big impact on capital values immediately and you have the benefits move in over time, but net uh the United States is better off and Saudi Arabia is worse off when prices of oil are lower.
It's a It Oil's a big part of the economy, but uh our economy has continued to make progress overall during the during the oil price decline. Uh but obviously given regions uh, suffer disproportionately just as like they boomed as you know, they got a real boom and uh, during the period when it was at $100 and when when fracking came in big time.
Uh, you've long stressed the importance of taking a long-term view when investing. Over the decades your substantial returns in American Express seem to support your point. You've talked in the past about the ability of American Express to reinvent itself over time, but today seems to be a company that doesn't have alternative businesses and its brand doesn't seem to have the same cachet as it once did.
Shouldn't a prudent investor shouldn't Berkshire periodically reassess its reasons for owning an investment? Well, we reassess our our reasons for owning all investments on almost a continuous basis and both Charlie and I do that and and we're usually in a general range of agreement, but sometimes we are are a fair distance apart perhaps.
Uh, there's no question that payments are an area of intense interest to a lot of very smart people who've got a lot of resources and [clears throat] [cough] and rapid change. Yeah, and rapid change and and it will change and I personally feel okay about American Express. We and I'm happy to own it.
I think uh, but their position and it has been under attack for [clears throat] decades more intensively later lately and it will continue to be under attack. I mean it's it's it's too big a business and it's too interesting a business and it could be too attractive a business for people to ignore it and it plays to the talents of some very smart people.
I mean it it it it's a natural that a great many organizations that are really quite able uh, think about it. And it's big. So, A lot of great businesses aren't quite so great as they used to be. The package good business with the Procter & Gambles and so forth of the world, General Mills. They're They're all weaker than they used to be at their peak and and and the auto companies.
I mean, when Charlie and I were Oh my god. When I think of the power of General Motors when I was young and then what happened? They wiped out all the shareholders. I would no more have predicted that when I was young. General Motors loomed over the economy like a colossus. It looked totally invincible.
Torrents of cash, torrents of everything. Trying to hold down market share. Yes, because they Yeah, they were afraid they'd be too monopolistic. And so, the world changes and and we can't change make a portfolio change every time something is a little less advantage than it used to be. But you have to be You have to be thinking all the time in order to whether there's been something that really changes the game in a big way.
And and that's not only true for American Express, that's that's true for other things we own, including things we own 100% of. And we'll be wrong sometimes. We'll be late sometimes, we'll be wrong sometimes, but we'll be right sometimes, too. And and but it's not that we're not cognizant of threats, but assessing the probabilities of those threats being a minor problem or a major problem or a life-threatening problem is you know, it's a tough game, but that's what makes our job interesting.
I think anybody in payments probably who's an established long-time player with an old method has more danger than used to exist. It's just there's more fluidity of it. Uh my family runs some cattle ranches down in Arizona and that's kind of what my question pertains to. I'm curious on your thoughts as it relates to um the expanding global population and investing in cattle uh and if you think it's wise Thank you.
Charlie? I think it's one of the worst business I can imagine for somebody like us. There's nothing personal about this. Yeah. Not only is it a bad business that we have no aptitude for it. Some people have done well in it, Charlie. Well, yeah, yeah, they have one good year every 20 years or something.
I know you guys like steak. Very much, but not owning cattle. Yeah. Now Ed actually uh I know a few people that have done reasonably well in cattle, but they usually own banks on the side or something. Sorry. But I wish you the best in it. And I'm in Key West Plaza if you want to sell anything like Somebody has to occupy the tough niches in the economy. We need you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah.
Comments 0