巴菲特：股市长期回报优于黄金和债券（下）

    从现在开始往后推100年，其间，4亿英亩农田将产出无数的玉米、小麦、棉花和其他作物。而且不论我们采取什么作为货币，它都会继续带来这样丰富的物产。而埃克森美孚可能已向股东派发了几万亿美元的股息，且持有资产规模还在进一步扩大（记住，选B组的投资者手头拥有16家埃克森美孚）。100年内17万吨黄金的大小不会有丝毫变化，而且依然不会有任何产出。当然，你可以抚弄这个黄金立方体，但它不会有反应。

    不可否认，100年后，当人们感到害怕时，很多人可能还是会抢购黄金。但我相信，A组的当前市值9.6万亿美元在这100年内的复合增长率将远逊于B组。

    市场的恐惧心理达到顶点时，第一、第二类投资最受追捧：经济崩溃担忧会促使人们买入依托于货币的资产，主要是美国债券；货币贬值担忧会让人们购入黄金等无产出资产。2008年底时我们听说“现金为王”，但事实上当时本应积极投资，而非持币观望。同样，20世纪80年代初时我们又听说“现金是垃圾”，但事实上当时的固定美元投资处于我们记忆中最具吸引力的水平。这两次，跟风投资者们为求心安，都付出了沉重代价。

    我自己最看好的——你知道，接下来我们就要谈到了——是第三类投资：投资产出性资产，不管是企业、农场，还是房地产。理想的话，在通胀时期，这些资产只需最低水平的新资本投入，就能通过产出保持购买力价值。农场、房地产和许多企业，比如可口可乐（Coca-Cola）、IBM以及我们自己的See's Candy都属于这样的优质资产。其他有些公司——比如受管制的公用事业公司——则稍逊一筹，因为通胀会给它们带来沉重的资本投资负担。为增加盈利，这些公司必须扩大投入。即便如此，这类公司还是优于无产出投资或基于货币的投资。

    不管100年后货币的形式是黄金、贝壳、鲨鱼牙，还是今天这样的纸币，人们还是会愿意用几分钟日常劳动，换取一罐可口可乐或一些See's的花生薄脆糖。未来美国人将运输更多商品、消费更多食品并需要更大的居住空间。人们永远需要将自己生产的东西与别人进行交换。

    美国企业将继续高效地生产出美国人需要的商品和服务。打个比方，这些商业“奶牛”将存活几百年，产出更多的“牛奶”。决定它们价值高低的不是交换介质，而是它们的产奶能力。对于奶牛主而言，卖奶收入将呈复合增长，就像20世纪一样，琼斯指数从66点增长到了11,497点（与此同时，还支付了大笔股息）。

    伯克希尔的目标将是增加对一流企业的持股。我们首选全盘持股——但也会通过持有相当数量的可售股票成为股东。我相信在任何一个较长时期内，这类投资都将证明是我们所分析的三类投资中遥遥领先的优胜者。更重要的是，它也将远比其他两类投资安全。

    译者：zdm

    A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops -- and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. Exxon Mobil (XOM) will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

    Admittedly, when people a century from now are fearful, it's likely many will still rush to gold. I'm confident, however, that the $9.6 trillion current valuation of pile A will compound over the century at a rate far inferior to that achieved by pile B.

    Our first two categories enjoy maximum popularity at peaks of fear: Terror over economic collapse drives individuals to currency-based assets, most particularly U.S. obligations, and fear of currency collapse fosters movement to sterile assets such as gold. We heard "cash is king" in late 2008, just when cash should have been deployed rather than held. Similarly, we heard "cash is trash" in the early 1980s just when fixed-dollar investments were at their most attractive level in memory. On those occasions, investors who required a supportive crowd paid dearly for that comfort.

    My own preference -- and you knew this was coming -- is our third category: investment in productive assets, whether businesses, farms, or real estate. Ideally, these assets should have the ability in inflationary times to deliver output that will retain its purchasing-power value while requiring a minimum of new capital investment. Farms, real estate, and many businesses such as Coca-Cola (KO), IBM (IBM), and our own See's Candy meet that double-barreled test. Certain other companies -- think of our regulated utilities, for example -- fail it because inflation places heavy capital requirements on them. To earn more, their owners must invest more. Even so, these investments will remain superior to nonproductive or currency-based assets.

    Whether the currency a century from now is based on gold, seashells, shark teeth, or a piece of paper (as today), people will be willing to exchange a couple of minutes of their daily labor for a Coca-Cola or some See's peanut brittle. In the future the U.S. population will move more goods, consume more food, and require more living space than it does now. People will forever exchange what they produce for what others produce.

    Our country's businesses will continue to efficiently deliver goods and services wanted by our citizens. Metaphorically, these commercial "cows" will live for centuries and give ever greater quantities of "milk" to boot. Their value will be determined not by the medium of exchange but rather by their capacity to deliver milk. Proceeds from the sale of the milk will compound for the owners of the cows, just as they did during the 20th century when the Dow increased from 66 to 11,497 (and paid loads of dividends as well).

    Berkshire's goal will be to increase its ownership of first-class businesses. Our first choice will be to own them in their entirety -- but we will also be owners by way of holding sizable amounts of marketable stocks. I believe that over any extended period of time this category of investing will prove to be the runaway winner among the three we've examined. More important, it will be by far the safest.