저자: CharlieMunger및WarrenBuffett대화발췌 · 외국인
요약 보기
부자가 되려면 완벽한 지혜가 아니라 장기간 평균보다 조금 더 나은 판단이면 충분하다는 주장. 투자에는 복잡성 지수가 없으며 1피트 장대를 넘을 필요 없이 쉬운 기회를 골라야 한다고 강조. 도덕적 이유로 사업을 거절하는 기준(담배 기업 소유 vs 주식 보유 구분)과 독립 이사의 독립성 문제, 보수 위원회에 대한 비판을 다룸. 예측 발언이나 특정 자산 가격 전망은 없음.
다듬은 글
You don't need to have perfect wisdom to become very rich. All you have to do is have a little more than other people on average over a long period of time. It's an old story about a boy who was chasing a bear. I mean, he said they didn't need to outrun the bear, I just needed to outrun that other guy.
And Charlie in his " Poor Charlie's Almanac," the title of which I probably attribute to myself . And, uh, he talks about the different psychological traps that people fall into, and just by reading this chapter, you'll be wiser than you were before you , uh, started reading it. Uh, our personalities are such that Charlie and I are probably a little less prone to some of these mistakes , uh, than other people, but as our experience clearly shows, we are still prone to them, and we make them, and we will make them again.
We're probably a little less likely to make some of them than we were 30 or 40 years ago, but, you know, the nice thing is that if you make fewer of those mistakes than others, they'll continue to make their share, and you'll get very rich. I share Warren's agnosticism on this issue. We simply throw some solutions into the too-complicated pile and move on to others.
By the way, there is a lot of wisdom in this remark. I mean, there are things in life that you don't have to make decisions about that are too complicated, and many years ago in one of the reports I said that one of the interesting things about investing is that there is no complexity factor. I mean, if you're going to dive in the Olympics and try to win a gold medal, you actually get paid more for certain types of dives than others because they're more difficult, and they take that factor into account properly .
But from an investing perspective, there is no degree of complexity. If something is staring you in the face, and it's the easiest solution in the world, the reward can be huge, and we're not paid to jump over 7-foot bars, we're paid to step over 1- foot bars. And the most important thing we need to do is decide which ones are 1- foot and which ones are 7- foot.
So when we go for a walk, we don't hit the crossbar. And this is something we are quite good at. Perhaps we dismiss too many things as too complex, and thereby narrow our universe. But I would rather the contraction of the universe be interpreted as a little too much smaller than it actually is, than as a little too much larger than it is.
Charlie? Obviously . Are there any businesses that we won't have as subsidiaries in Berkshire, even if they are great businesses? Do we reject some business opportunities for moral reasons? Yes, well, we...I've already mentioned in past meetings about one that we did on this basis. We will own shares of companies where we would not want to own the entire business.
I mean, you know, you could, uh, I'm not sure the logic in that is perfect, but we wouldn't have a problem owning stock in a tobacco company. We wouldn't want to produce cigarettes, you know. We could own a retail company that sells cigarettes. I mean, there are all sorts of gradations, but we have no problem owning stocks that we don't want to own and being responsible for their business, where we have no problem owning their stocks or bonds.
And a few years ago, Charlie and I went to Memphis... Yeah. Yes, we looked at ...we were invited, and we looked at a company that produced a product that was...perfectly legal. Probably one of the best businesses I've ever seen from an economic perspective. Absolutely. Still thriving. And we met in a room with ...we went to a hotel, we met in a room with people who had businesses, and the people were completely decent people.
And they described the business to us, and we went down to the lobby, and as far as I can remember, we sat in the lobby , and we just decided we did n't want to be in this business. And you know, the lines in these things are n't perfect. I mean, uh, uh, I'm sure there might be ads in the Buffalo News selling some kind of investment services or something that I would shudder at if I knew, uh, the people who do it or what they're selling.
And what , uh, uh, if you own a large retail store , a general merchandise store , you know, you're probably going to be selling cigarettes when you think you shouldn't smoke yourself or that your kids should smoke, and... they're not ideal, but we've given up some of the, uh, most dramatic ones because we've gone on a trip of about a thousand miles to finally come to terms with the fact that we don't want to own this.
Charlie, do you have anything to add to this? No, but it was interesting , because we were young and poor by today's standards, and, you know, we're very human, and we understood that it was like putting a hundred million dollars in a bushel basket and setting it on fire as we walked away. And you make me feel bad.
We made the right decision, and without difficulty, but there was some pain. What is the most difficult decision you have had to make in your life, whether business or personal? I think I'll let Charlie answer that question first. Yeah, I would say that's probably something you shouldn't ask. Or, let's put it this way.
I think you should give some interesting examples before you ask us to answer. A director who receives $150,000 per year from a company that needs it is not an independent director. This director automatically becomes an internal director. So this is typical government intervention. Uh, it just says it's doing one thing and does another.
Yes, I have never been on 19 boards of directors. I have never seen a director for whom the director's fee was important, objecting to an acquisition proposal, objecting to a CEO compensation agreement. This has simply never happened. You know, and, uh, in my experience, and, uh , you know, they often don't behave the way they would if they owned the place.
And, and, basically, we want people to act like they own this place. The correct system is the system of Elihu Ruth. Elihu Root, who had three different cabinet appointments, if I remember correctly, said that no man is fit to hold public office unless he is prepared to leave it at any time. And the guy who wrote it didn't approve of what the government was asking him to do, he could always go back and become the most popular lawyer in the world.
He had a personality to fall back on, and he didn't need a government salary. And I think this should be more of a test for corporate directors. Uh, is a person really fit to make difficult decisions if they are not ready to leave their position at any time? My answer is no. Yes, we have one director who was twice removed from the compensation committees of other corporations because he had the audacity to question the appropriateness of a proposed compensation scheme .
I...uh, that's not...it's ...it's being put on the compensation committee of American corporations, like I said, they're not...They're looking for Chihuahuas, and, and , and not Great Danes , Dobermans, etc... Yeah. Yes. And I hope I'm not offending any of my friends who are on compensation committees. You are insulting dogs. No.
Comments 0