저자: WarrenBuffett · 외국인
요약 보기
버핏은 2002~2003년 페트로차이나 투자 시 연차보고서만 읽고 결정했으며, 경영진 면담이나 증권사 리포트 없이 기업가치(약 1000억 달러) 대비 시가(약 350억 달러)만으로 판단했다고 설명. 정밀 분석보다 '재무적으로 명확히 싼지' 여부가 핵심. 실사 비용을 과도하게 쓰는 것보다 엔지니어식 안전마진 사고가 낫다고 주장하며, 실수는 대부분 통상적 실사로 피할 수 없었던 것이라고 밝힘. 특정 현재 자산에 대한 가격 예측은 없음.
다듬은 글
Uh Harry Bai, San Francisco. Uh Mr. Buffett, I was reading recently uh in Fortune magazine that when you invested $500 million in pro-china back in 2001 or 2002, uh all you did was read the annual report. Um now I was thinking that most professional investors with the kind of resources that you have would have like to have done a lot more research and talked to management maybe regulators etc etc.
Uh the question I have is how you what is it that you look for when you're reading an annual report like that? How is it that you were able to like that? How is it that you were able to and did make an investment purely on the back of reading that report? Yeah. Well, it was in 2002 and 2003 and the report came out in the spring and I read it and that's the only thing I ever did.
I never contacted any management. I never got a brokerage report. I never asked for anybody's opinion. But what I did do was I came to the conclusion that the company and it's not hard to understand crude oil production and refining and marketing and the chemical operation they have. I mean you can do the same thing with Exxon or BP or any of them and I do that with all I look at them and I came to the conclusion it's worth a hundred billion and then I checked the price and it was selling for 35 billion roughly.
Uh what's the sense of talking to management? I mean basically if you talk to management almost every company they'll say they think their stock's so wonderful buy and they'll give you all the the good stuff and skip over things that it it just doesn't make any difference. Now, if I thought the company was worth 40 billion, it had been selling for 35 billion, you know, then at that point, you have to start trying to refine your analysis more.
But there's no reason to refine your analysis. I mean, I didn't need to know whether it was worth 97 billion or 103 billion if I was buying it at 35 billion. So, any further refining of analysis would be a waste of time when what I should be doing is buying the stock. Uh so we really like things that you don't have to carry out to three decimal places.
You know uh if you have to carry it out to three decimal places it's not a good idea. And and and you know it with something like Petrochi it's like if somebody walked in the door here and they weighed somewhere between 300 and 350 lbs I might not know how much they weigh but I would know they were fat you know.
And the that's all I'm looking for is something that's financially fat. And whether Petro China weigh 95 billion or 105 billion didn't make much difference. If it was selling for 35 billion, if it had been selling for 90, it would have made a difference. So if you can't make a decision on something like Petra, China off the figures, forget about going further.
And that's basically what we did. The a straightforward report just like reading another like just like reading chevrons or conical Phillips or anything like that. just as informative. We're going to learn more, you know, by going out and deciding whether you thought they've got one huge field in China, whether the life of it was 13 years or 14 years or something of the sort.
They they should hit you between the eyes, Charlie. Yeah, I I would argue that we have lower due diligence expenses than anybody else in America and that we have had less trouble because we had less expense. I know of an investment operation in America that pays over $200 billion a year to its million 200 million yes 200 million pardon me.
Uh to every year to its accountants a lot to help them with due diligence. And I think our operation is safer because we think like engineers. We want these margins of reliability and and they're trying to do something really difficult which is to have fine grain when we get a call on something like the Mars Wrigley situation.
if we don't know enough about Mars and Wrigley by this point so that we have to go out I still like to go out and of course and sample all the bars so we have a 15 I mean I feel I owe that to the Bergkshire shareholders but but I'm not going to look at their labor contracts or their leases or anything like that it it if if the value of of Wrigley depends on a specific lease someplace or a specific commitment to this or that you know or a given environmental problem, forget it.
You know, the there there's these overriding considerations that are enormously important and then there's a whole lot of trivia that doesn't mean anything that we have never made a we've made plenty of big investment I've made plenty of big investment mistakes. I've never made one in my view that would have been uh avoided by conventional due diligence and we would have spent a lot of money and we would have wasted a lot of time and in some cases we would have missed deals simply because we wouldn't have committed fast enough.
댓글 0