原文信息：
- 标题：1965 Annual Letter to Partners
- 作者：Warren Buffett
- 发表时间：1966-01-20
- 链接：Buffett Partnership Letters 1957-1970
- 中文翻译参考：RanRan
- 整理：孙萧萧
- 校译：
BUFFETT PARTNERSHIP, LTD.
810 KIEWIT PLAZA
OMAHA 31, NEBRASKA
January 20, 1966
1966 年 1 月 20 日
Our War on Poverty was successful in 1965.
1965 年，我们打赢了脱贫战（译注:1964 年美国总统林登·约翰逊在国情咨文中提出向贫穷开战 (War on Poverty)，当时美国的贫困率是 19%）。
Specially, we were $12,304,060 less poor at the end of the year.
我们年末的资产比年初多了 12,304,060 美元。
Last year under a section in the annual letter entitled “Our Goal” (please particularly note it was not headed "Our Promise"), I stated we were trying to achieve “... An average advantage (relative to the Dow) of ten percentage points per annum for BPL before allocation to the general partner again with large amplitudes in the margin from perhaps 10 percentage points worse than the Dow in a bad year to 25 percentage points better when everything clicks.”
去年的信中有一段是“我们的目标”(注意，我写的不是“我们的承诺”)，我说我们追求的是“...扣除普通合伙人分成之前，巴菲特合伙基金平均每年领先指数 10 个百分点。合伙基金的领先优势会剧烈波动:在不利环境中可能落后 10 个百分点;在顺风顺水时可能领先 25 个百分点。”
My fallibility as a forecaster was quickly demonstrated when the first year fell outside my parameters. We achieved our widest margin over the Dow in the history of BPL with an overall gain of 47.2% compared to an overall gain (including dividends which would have been received through ownership of the Dow) of 14.2% for the Dow. Naturally, no writer likes to be publicly humiliated by such a mistake. It is unlikely to be repeated.
去年刚定完目标，今年我们的业绩就偏离了目标，我的预测真是不靠谱。包含股息在内，道指的整体收益率是 14.2%，我们的整体收益率是 47.2%，这是巴菲特合伙基金成立以来取得的最大相对优势。我犯了错，大家都看到了，换了是谁，都会感到惭愧。以后应该不会有这样的事了。
The following summarizes the year-by-year performance of the Dow, the performance of the Partnership before allocation (one quarter of the excess over 6%) to the general partner, and the results for limited partners:
下面是道指收益率、普通合伙人分成前合伙基金收益率(收益超过 6% 的部分，普通合伙人提取 25%)以及有限合伙人收益率的最新逐年对比情况。
| Year 年份 |
Overall Results From Dow (1) 道指整体收益率 (1) |
Partnership Results (2) 合伙基金收益率 (2) |
Limited Partners’ Results (3) 有限合伙人收益率 (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1957 | -8.4% | 10.4% | 9.3% |
| 1958 | 38.5% | 40.9% | 32.2% |
| 1959 | 20.0% | 25.9% | 20.9% |
| 1960 | -6.2% | 22.8% | 18.6% |
| 1961 | 22.4% | 45.9% | 35.9% |
| 1962 | -7.6% | 13.9% | 11.9% |
| 1963 | 20.6% | 38.7% | 30.5% |
| 1964 | 18.7% | 27.8% | 22.3% |
| 1965 | 14.2% | 47.2% | 36.9% |
(1) Based on yearly changes in the value of the Dow plus dividends that would have been received through ownership of the Dow during that year. The table includes all complete years of partnership activity.
(1) 根据道指年度涨跌计算，其中包含股息。表格中为合伙基金整年运作的年份。
(2) For 1957-61 consists of combined results of all predecessor limited partnerships operating throughout the entire year after all expenses, but before distributions to partners or allocations to the general partner.
(2) 1957-61 年的数据是之前全年管理的所有有限合伙人账户的综合业绩，其中扣除了经营费用，未计算有限合伙人利息和普通合伙人分成。
(3) For 1957-61 computed on the basis of the preceding column of partnership results allowing for allocation to the general partner based upon the present partnership agreement, but before monthly withdrawals by limited partners.
(3) 1957-61 年的数据按前一列合伙基金收益率计算得出，按照当前合伙协议，扣除了普通合伙人分成。
On a cumulative or compounded basis, the results are:
下表是累计收益率或复合收益率：
| Year 年份 |
Overall Results From Dow 道指整体收益率 |
Partnership Results 合伙基金收益率 |
Limited Partners’ Results 有限合伙人收益率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1957 | -8.4% | 10.4% | 9.3% |
| 1957 – 58 | 26.9% | 55.6% | 44.5% |
| 1957 – 59 | 52.3% | 95.9% | 74.7% |
| 1957 – 60 | 42.9% | 140.6% | 107.2% |
| 1957 – 61 | 74.9% | 251.0% | 181.6% |
| 1957 – 62 | 61.6% | 299.8% | 215.1% |
| 1957 – 63 | 94.9% | 454.5% | 311.2% |
| 1957 - 64 | 131.3% | 608.7% | 402.9% |
| 1957 - 65 | 164.1% | 943.2% | 588.5% |
| Annual Compounded Rate 年化复合收益率 |
11.4% | 29.8% | 23.9% |
After last year the question naturally arises, "What do we do for an encore?” A disadvantage of this business is that it does not possess momentum to any significant degree. If General Motors accounts for 54% of domestic new car registrations in 1965, it is a pretty safe bet that they are going to come fairly close to that figure in 1966 due to owner loyalties, dealer capabilities, productive capacity, consumer image, etc. Not so for BPL. We start from scratch each year with everything valued at market when the gun goes off. Partners in 1966, new or old, benefit to only a very limited extent from the efforts of 1964 and 1965. The success of past methods and ideas does not transfer forward to future ones.
去年收益率这么高，合伙人自然会问：“我们后面还有什么高招？”投资这行有一点不好，前一年强劲的势头对下一年基本没什么用。如果 1965 年通用汽车在国内上牌新车中占 54%，由于用户忠诚度、经销商能力、产量、品牌形象等因素，可以相当肯定地说，1966 年，通用汽车的销量应该和去年不相上下。我们的合伙基金不一样。每一年，发令枪一响，我们都一切按市值计算，从零开始1。1964 年和 1965 年，我们也努力了，但来到 1966 年，对于新老合伙人来说，我们过去的努力带不来多少收益。过去的赚钱方法和机会就是过去的，将来总要找新的方法和机会。
I continue to hope, on a longer-range basis, for the sort of achievement outlined in the "Our Goal" section of last year's letter (copies still available). However, those who believe 1965 results can be achieved with any frequency are probably attending weekly meetings of the Halley’s Comet Observers Club. We are going to have loss years and are going to have years inferior to the Dow - no doubt about it. But I continue to believe we can achieve average performance superior to the Dow in the future. If my expectation regarding this should change, you will hear immediately.
长期而言，我仍然希望我们能实现去年信中所说的“我们的目标”。（如需去年的年度信，请联系我们。）要是有人相信 1965 年的收益率能频繁出现，他们可能是在出席哈雷彗星观测者俱乐部的每周会议。亏损的年份，落后道指的年份，我们肯定会有。但是，我仍然相信我们将来的平均业绩能战胜道指。假如有一天，我认为我们达不到这个目标，我会立即告诉各位。
We regularly compare our results with the two largest open-end investment companies (mutual funds) that follow a policy of being typically 95% - 100% invested in common stocks, and the two largest diversified closed-end investment companies. These four companies, Massachusetts Investors Trust, Investors Stock Fund, Tri-Continental Corp., and Lehman Corp. manage over $5 billion, are owned by about 600,000 shareholders, and are probably typical of most of the $35 billion investment company industry. My opinion is that their results roughly parallel those of the overwhelming majority of other investment advisory organizations which handle, in aggregate, vastly greater sums.
我们一直拿最大的两只开放式股票型基金（股票占 95-100%）和最大的两只分散投资的封闭式股票型基金的业绩，与合伙基金的收益率做对比。它们是 Massachusetts Investors Trust、Investors Stock Fund、Tri-Continental Corp.。这四家公司为大约 60 万投资人管理着 50 多亿的资金。基金行业管理的总资产是 350 亿美元，它们应该能代表大多数的基金公司。有些投资顾问机构管理的资产规模更大，它们绝大多数的业绩应该和这四家基金公司不相上下。
The purpose of this tabulation is to illustrate that the Dow is no pushover as an index of investment achievement. The advisory talent managing just the four companies shown commands annual fees of about $10 million and this represents a very small fraction of the professional investment management industry. The public batting average of this highly paid and widely respected talent indicates performance a shade below that of the Dow, an unmanaged index.
我想用下面的表格说明，作为衡量投资业绩的指数，道指不是那么容易战胜的。上述四家基金由能力出众的经理人管理，它们每年收取的管理费是 1000 多万美元，整个基金行业收取的管理费数额就更庞大了。从这些高薪经理人的打击率（batting average）来看，他们的业绩和道指相比稍逊一筹。
YEARLY RESULTS
年度业绩
| Year 年份 |
Mass. Inv. Trust (1) | Investors Stock (1) | Lehman (2) | Tri-Cont. (2) | Dow 道指 |
Limited Partners 有限合伙人实际收益率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1957 | -11.4% | -12.4% | -11.4% | -2.4% | -8.4% | 9.3% |
| 1958 | 42.7% | 47.5% | 40.8% | 33.2% | 38.5% | 32.2% |
| 1959 | 9.0% | 10.3% | 8.1% | 8.4% | 20.0% | 20.9% |
| 1960 | -1.0% | -0.6% | 2.5% | 2.8% | -6.2% | 18.6% |
| 1961 | 25.6% | 24.9% | 23.6% | 22.5% | 22.4% | 35.9% |
| 1962 | -9.8% | -13.4% | -14.4% | -10.0% | -7.6% | 11.9% |
| 1963 | 20.0% | 16.5% | 23.7% | 18.3% | 20.6% | 30.5% |
| 1964 | 15.9% | 14.3% | 13.6% | 12.6% | 18.7% | 22.3% |
| 1965 | 10.2% | 9.8% | 19.0% | 10.7% | 14.2% | 36.9% |
(1) Computed from changes in asset value plus any distributions to holders of record during year.
(1) 计算包括资产价值变化以及当年持有人获得的分红。
(2) From 1965 Moody's Bank & Finance Manual for 1957-64. Estimated for 1965.
(2) 来源：1965 Moody's Bank & Finance Manual for 1957-64。1965 年数据为估算值。
COMPOUNDED
复合收益率
| Year 年份 |
Mass. Inv. Trust (1) | Investors Stock (1) | Lehman (2) | Tri-Cont. (2) | Dow 道指 |
Limited Partners 有限合伙人实际收益率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1957 | -11.4% | -12.4% | -11.4% | -2.4% | -8.4% | 9.3% |
| 1957-58 | 26.4% | 29.2% | 24.7% | 30.0% | 26.9% | 44.5% |
| 1957-59 | 37.8% | 42.5% | 34.8% | 40.9% | 52.3% | 74.7% |
| 1957-60 | 36.4% | 41.6% | 38.2% | 44.8% | 42.9% | 107.2% |
| 1957-61 | 71.3% | 76.9% | 70.8% | 77.4% | 74.9% | 181.6% |
| 1957-62 | 54.5% | 53.2% | 46.2% | 59.7% | 61.6% | 215.1% |
| 1957 – 63 | 85.4% | 78.5% | 80.8% | 88.9% | 94.9% | 311.2% |
| 1957 - 64 | 114.9% | 104.0% | 105.4% | 112.7% | 131.3% | 402.9% |
| 1957 - 65 | 136.8% | 124.0% | 145.3% | 138.4% | 164.1% | 588.5% |
| Annual Compounded Rate 年化复合收益率 |
10.1% | 9.4% | 10.5% | 10.1% | 11.4% | 23.9% |
A number of the largest investment advisory operations (managing, in some cases, well into the billions of dollars) also manage investment companies partly as a convenience for smaller clients and partly as a public showcase. The results of these funds roughly parallel those of the four funds on which we report.
有不少规模很大的投资顾问公司，管理着数十亿美元的资产，它们也管理小型基金，有时候是为了照顾规模较小的客户，有时候是为了向公众展示业绩。它们管理的基金，业绩和上述四只基金不相上下。
I strongly believe in measurement. The investment managers mentioned above utilize measurement constantly in their activities. They constantly study changes in market shares, profit margins, return on capital, etc. Their entire decision-making process is geared to measurement - of managements, industries, comparative yields, etc. I am sure they keep score on their new business efforts as well as the profitability of their advisory operation. What then can be more fundamental than the measurement, in turn, of investment ideas and decisions? I certainly do not believe the standards I utilize (and wish my partners to utilize) in measuring my performance are the applicable ones for all money managers. But I certainly do believe anyone engaged in the management of money should have a standard of measurement, and that both he and the party whose money is managed should have a clear understanding why it is the appropriate standard, what time period should be utilized, etc.
衡量绝对是投资中的关键一环。在上述基金经理的日常活动中，他们总是在衡量。他们总是在研究市场份额、利润率、资本回报率等因素的变化。他们在整个决策过程中都在衡量，衡量管理层、行业、相对收益率等等。我相信他们也会衡量新增业务量以及投资顾问业务的利润率。说到底，在各种各样的衡量中，哪一项能比投资机会和投资决策的衡量更重要？我在衡量自己的业绩时有自己的一套标准（也希望我的合伙人使用同样的标准），我的这套标准肯定不适用于所有基金经理。但是，无论是谁，只要做资产管理工作，就应该有一套衡量标准，资产管理人和投资者都要清楚为什么这套标准合适，要选取多长时间衡量。
Frank Block put it very well in the November-December 1965 issue of the Financial Analysts Journal. Speaking of measurement of investment performance he said," ...However, the fact is that literature suffers a yawning hiatus in this subject. If investment management organizations sought always the best performance, there would be nothing unique in careful measurement of investment results. It does not matter that the customer has failed to ask for a formal presentation of the results. Pride alone should be sufficient to demand that each or us determine objectively the quality of his recommendations. This can hardly be done without precise knowledge of the outcome. Once this knowledge is in hand, it should be possible to extend the analysis to some point at which patterns of weakness and strength begin to assert themselves. We criticize a corporate management for failure to use the best of tools to keep it aware of the progress of a complicated industrial organization. We can hardly be excused for failure to provide ourselves with equal tools to show the efficiency of our own efforts to handle other people’s money. ...Thus, it is our dreary duty to report that systems of performance measurement are not automatically included in the data processing programs of most investment management organizations. The sad fact is that some seem to prefer not to know how well or poorly they are doing.
弗兰克·布洛克（Frank Block）在1965年《财务分析师期刊》（Financial Analysts Journal） 11 月-12月刊中说得很好。在讲到投资业绩的衡量时，他说： “关于投资业绩衡量的内容是一片巨大的空白。如果投资管理机构都把目标定为追求最佳业绩，那么所有关于投资业绩的分析，再怎么仔细，也都是千篇一律。虽说客户没给要求我们严肃认真地分析业绩，但出于职业投资者的尊严，我们每位职业资产管理人也应该客观地评估自己的表现。对业绩没有明确的理解，又怎么能客观评估？对业绩有了明确的了解，才能着手进行分析，才看得出强弱优劣。公司的管理层缺乏合适的工具和方法，掌握不了复杂的企业组织的动态变化，我们会批评这样的管理层。我们同样缺乏合适的工具和方法，为别人管理资产，却不知道自己的表现如何，我们的过失同样不可原谅。我们很遗憾，在大多数投资管理机构处理的众多数据中，缺失了衡量业绩的体系。很悲哀，有些人宁愿糊涂，不想自己的表现如何。”
Frankly, I have several selfish reasons for insisting that we apply a yardstick and that we both utilize the same yardstick. Naturally, I get a kick out of beating par - in the lyrical words of Casey Stengel, "Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser.” More importantly, I insure that I will not get blamed for the wrong reason (having losing years) but only for the right reason (doing poorer than the Dow). Knowing partners will grade me on the right basis helps me do a better job. Finally, setting up the relevant yardsticks ahead of time insures that we will all get out of this business if the results become mediocre (or worse). It means that past successes cannot cloud judgment of current results. It should reduce the chance of ingenious rationalizations of inept performance. (Bad lighting has been bothering me at the bridge table lately.) While this masochistic approach to measurement may not sound like much of an advantage, I can assure you from my observations of business entities that such evaluation would have accomplished a great deal in many investment and industrial organizations.
坦白说，我坚持我们一定要有个标准，而且我们都使用同样的标准，也是有些私心。我就喜欢把指数甩在后面。凯西·斯坦戈（译注：Casey Stengel，美国职业棒球大联盟著名球员和教练）说得好：“甘心服输的都是卢瑟”(Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.)。更重要的是，有了标准，合伙人批评我的话，一定也是因为我真的表现不好（不如道指），而不会因为某年出现亏损而错怪我。知道了合伙人能合理地给我打分，我能更专注地工作。最后，事先就把衡量标准定好，将来如果业绩不行了，我们可以解散。无论过去收益率多高，都不会影响对当前业绩的判断。表现拙劣就是拙劣，找各种借口也没用。（我最近桥牌打得不好，因为光线太暗了。）表面看，这样衡量业绩是自讨苦吃，哪有什么好处。我观察过许多企业，可以肯定地告诉大家，若是能制定正确的评估方法，许多投资机构和实业公司会取得了不起的成绩。
So if you are evaluating others (or yourself!) in the investment field, think out some standards - apply them - interpret them. If you do not feel our standard (a minimum of a three-year test versus the Dow) is an applicable one, you should not be in the Partnership. If you do feel it is applicable, you should be able to take the minus years with equanimity in the visceral regions as well as the cerebral regions -as long as we are surpassing the results of the Dow.
如果你要评估别人（或你自己！）在投资活动中的表现，最好确定具体的标准，按照标准评估和解读。要是你觉得我们的标准（检验三年以上与道指的相对业绩）不合适，请不要投资合伙基金。如果你认为我们的标准很合适，当出现亏损的年份时，只要我们的整体业绩领先道指，你就应当保持平静，不但头脑要平静，内心也要平静。
Usually, at this point in my letter, I have paused to modestly attempt to set straight the historical errors of the last four or five hundred years. While it might seem difficult to accomplish this in only a few paragraphs a year, I feel I have done my share to reshape world opinion on Columbus, Isabella, Francis I, Peter Minuit and the Manhattan Indians. A by-product of this endeavor has been to demonstrate the overwhelming power of compound interest. To insure reader attention I have entitled these essays "The Joys of Compounding. " The sharp-eyed may notice a slight change this year.
在每年的信里，写到这部分的时候，我都要停下来，纠正一下过去四五百年里关于复利投资的错误。每年只有几段的篇幅，这是个艰巨的任务。不过，我觉得我已经尽力了，世人对哥伦布、伊莎贝拉、弗朗西斯一世、彼得·米努伊特和曼哈顿的印第安人应该有了新认识。在分析错误的同时，我们也见证了复利的巨大威力。为了吸引读者的注意，我给这部分选的标题是“复利的喜悦”，眼尖的读者可能发现今年的标题变了。
A decent rate (better we have an indecent rate) of compound -plus the addition of substantial new money has brought our beginning capital this year to $43,645,000. Several times in the past I have raised the question whether increasing amounts of capital would harm our investment performance. Each time I have answered negatively and promised you that if my opinion changed, I would promptly report it.
这些年来我们的复合收益率相当好，另外合伙人还追加了大量投资，今年年初，我们的资金量已经达到43,645,000美元。资金的增加是否会影响我们的业绩？这个问题我之前说过几次。以前每次我都说，不会有影响，而且保证什么时候我不这么想了，一定会立即告诉大家。
I do not feel that increased capital has hurt our operation to date. As a matter of fact, I believe that we have done somewhat better during the past few years with the capital we have had in the Partnership than we would have done if we had been working with a substantially smaller amount. This was due to the partly fortuitous development of several investments that were just the right size for us -big enough to be significant and small enough to handle.
到目前为止，资金的增加并没有降低我们的收益。其实，过去几年里，要是我们的资金量小得多的话，合伙基金的业绩可能会更差一些。因为有几笔投资正好适合我们的体量，它们的规模不算小，能对业绩做出较大贡献，它们的规模又不算大，正好我们能掌控得了。我们运气很好，这几笔投资收益都不错。
I now feel that we are much closer to the point where increased size may prove disadvantageous. I don't want to ascribe too much precision to that statement since there are many variables involved. What may be the optimum size under some market and business circumstances can be substantially more or less than optimum under other circumstances. There have been a few times in the past when on a very short-term basis I have felt it would have been advantageous to be smaller but substantially more times when the converse was true.
现在我觉得我们的资金量已经很大了，可能就快产生不利影响了。这里面涉及很多变量，我也没办法说准。随着市场和商业环境的变化，最合适的规模也会相应变化。一个环境里的最佳规模，换到另一个环境里，可能就完全不一样了。过去几年里，有时候，从非常短的时间看，我觉得要是我们规模更小会更好。但更多时候，我还是觉得我们规模大比较好。
Nevertheless, as circumstances presently appear, I feel substantially greater size is more likely to harm future results than to help them. This might not be true for my own personal results, but it is likely to be true for your results.
现在我们的规模更大了，从当前的环境来看，这样的规模将来拖累业绩的可能性比提升业绩的可能性更大。真正受影响的或许不是我的个人收益，而是各位合伙人的收益。
Therefore, unless it appears that circumstances have changed (under some conditions added capital would improve results) or unless new partners can bring some asset to the Partnership other than simply capital, I intend to admit no additional partners to BPL.
综上所述，除非环境变化了（在有些情况下，新增资金有助于提升业绩）或新合伙人能为合伙基金带来资金以外的贡献，我打算停止接受新合伙人加入巴菲特合伙基金。
The only way to make this effective is to apply it across-the-board and I have notified Susie that if we have any more children, it is up to her to find some other partnership for them.
这项措施要执行到底就必须一视同仁，我已经告诉苏茜，要是我们再有子女想加入，由她为他们寻找其他投资途径。
Because I anticipate that withdrawals (for taxes, among other reasons) may well approach additions by present partners and also because I visualize the curve of expectable performance sloping only very mildly as capital increases, I presently see no reason why we should restrict capital additions by existing partners.
一方面，现有合伙人的资金提取（用于支付税款等）和资金追加规模应当不相上下；另一方面，我预计随着资金增加，预期收益率只会轻微降低。目前，我没任何理由限制现有合伙人追加投资。
The medically oriented probably will interpret this entire section as conclusive evidence that an effective antithyroid pill has been developed.
经常和医学打交道的人，看完这部分会得出结论：一种有效治疗甲亢的新药研发出来了。
Last year I discussed our various categories of investments. Knowing the penalties for cruel and unusual punishments, I will skip a rehash of the characteristics of each category, but merely refer you to last year's letter. However, a few words should be said to bring you up to date on the various segments of the business, and perhaps to give you a better insight into their strengths and weaknesses.
去年，我详细介绍了我们的几种投资。法律规定禁止施加残酷和逾常刑罚（译注：Cruel and unusualpunishment，美国宪法第八修正案规定禁止施加残酷和逾常刑罚），我就不赘述每个类别的特点了，各位可以从去年的信中找到相关内容。但是，我应该向大家报告一下各类投资的进展情况，让大家更了解每类投资的优缺点。
The "Workout" business has become very spasmodic. We were able to employ an average of only about $6 million during the year in the Workout section, and this involved only a very limited number of situations. Although we earned about $1,410,000 or about 23 1⁄2% on average capital employed (this is calculated on an all equity basis - borrowed money is appropriate in most Workout situations, and we utilize it, which improves our rate of return above this percentage), over half of this was earned from one situation. I think it unlikely that a really interesting rate of return can be earned consistently on large sums of money in this business under present conditions. Nevertheless, we will continue to try to remain alert for the occasional important opportunity and probably continue to utilize a few of the smaller opportunities where we like the probabilities.
近来只有零星的“套利类”投资机会。去年，我们只做了几笔套利，平均只投入了600万美元。套利类的收益是1,410,000美元，平均资本回报率是23.5％（计算中使用的是自有资本。在大多数套利类投资中可以借钱，我们在套利投资中使用一部分借来的资金，可以提升回报率）。在这1,410,000 美元的收益里，一半以上来自一笔套利。在当前的情况下，大量资金参与套利不可能持续获得较高的收益率。尽管如此，我们仍将继续关注偶尔出现的大机会，从概率看赢面较大的情况下，我们或许也会继续参与较小的机会。
The "Generals-Private Owner Basis" category was very good to us in 1965. Opportunities in this area have become more scarce with a rising Dow, but when they come along, they are often quite significant. I mentioned at the start of last year that we were the largest stockholder of three companies in this category. Our largest yearend 1964 investment in this category was disposed of in 1965 pursuant to a tender offer resulting in a realized gain for BPL of $3,188,000. At yearend 1964 we had unrealized appreciation in this investment of $451,000. Therefore, the economic gain attributable to 1965 for this transaction was only $2,737,000 even though the entire tax effect fell in that year. I mention these figures to illustrate how our realized gain for tax purposes in any year bears no necessary relationship to our economic gain.
1965年，“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”（Generals-Private Owner Basis）给我们带来了丰厚的收益。随着道指上涨，此类投资机会越来越少。但是这样的机会一出现，往往就是大机会。在去年的信中，我一开头就提到，我们在三笔低估类投资中是最大股东。1965年，我们通过要约收购将其中1964年末规模最大的一笔卖出，为合伙基金实现了3,188,000美元的收益。1964年末，此类投资的未实现增值是451,000美元。所以说，这笔交易对1965年贡献的收益只有2,737,000美元，但是全部税款都要在1965年缴纳。我给出这些数字，是想告诉大家：在任何一年，我们实现的收益都要纳税，这个实现的收益是用于税收的，和我们的实际收益没多大关系。
The fundamental concept underlying the Generals-Private Owner category is demonstrated by the above case. A private owner was quite willing (and in our opinion quite wise) to pay a price for control of the business which isolated stock buyers were not willing to pay for very small fractions of the business. This has been a quite common condition in the securities markets over many years, and although purchases in this category work out satisfactorily in terms of just general stock market behavior, there is the occasional dramatic profit due to corporate action such as the one above.
从刚才讲的这笔投资中，我们就能很好地理解“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”的含义。一个价格，产业资本非常愿意按这个价格买入一家公司的控股权（我们认为产业资本很聪明），但是散户就不愿按这个价格买入公司很小的一部分股权。多少年来，股市里一直都这样。单纯因为股市里人们的行为，这个类别的投资就能取得良好的收益。偶尔会出现要约收购等公司行为，这个类别能赚得更多。
The "Control" section of our business received a transfer member from our “Private Owner” category. Shares in Berkshire Hathaway had been acquired since November 1962 on much the same line of reasoning as prevailed in the security mentioned above. In the case of Berkshire, however, we ended up purchasing enough stock to assume a controlling position ourselves rather than the more usual case of either selling our stock in the market or to another single buyer.
“控制类”投资中新增了一个成员，是从“低估类（基于产业资本视角）”转过来的。我们从 1962年11月就开始买入伯克希尔哈撒韦（Berkshire Hathaway）的股份，买入的理由基本和上面讲到的那只一样。伯克希尔这笔投资的不同之处在于，我们最后买到了很多股票，我们自己取得了控股权。大多数低估类投资，要么是上涨后在市场卖出，要么是卖给其他大买家。
Our purchases of Berkshire started at a price of $7.60 per share in 1962. This price partially reflected large losses incurred by the prior management in closing some of the mills made obsolete by changing conditions within the textile business (which the old management had been quite slow to recognize). In the postwar period the company had slid downhill a considerable distance, having hit a peak in 1948 when about $29 1/2 million was earned before tax and about 11,000 workers were employed. This reflected output from 11 mills.
1962年，我们刚开始买伯克希尔时，买入的价格是每股7.60美元。纺织行业的格局发生了较大变化，之前的管理层后知后觉，被迫关闭了几家濒临淘汰的工厂，导致了巨大亏损，所以股价如此之低。二战结束以来，伯克希尔深陷泥潭，一直在走下坡路。1948年，这家公司最辉煌的时候税前利润有2950万美元，拥有11家工厂、11,000名工人。
At the time we acquired control in spring of 1965, Berkshire was down to two mills and about 2,300 employees. It was a very pleasant surprise to find that the remaining units had excellent management personnel, and we have not had to bring a single man from the outside into the operation. In relation to our beginning acquisition cost of $7.60 per share (the average cost, however, was $14.86 per share, reflecting very heavy purchases in early 1965), the company on December 31, 1965, had net working capital alone (before placing any value on the plants and equipment) of about $19 per share.
1965年春，我们取得控股权时，伯克希尔只剩下两家工厂，2,300名工人。没想到伯克希尔虽然只剩下残存的业务，但留下来的管理人员很优秀，我们不用从公司外面找人来经营，这真是太好了。我们最开始的买入成本才每股7.60美元（平均买入成本是每股14.86美元，1965年初我们加大了买入力度），1965年12月31日，这家公司的净营运资本就有每股19美元（厂房和设备的价值不算）。
Berkshire is a delight to own. There is no question that the state of the textile industry is the dominant factor in determining the earning power of the business, but we are most fortunate to have Ken Chace running the business in a first-class manner, and we also have several of the best sales people in the business heading up this end of their respective divisions.
能拥有伯克希尔，我们感到很高兴。毫无疑问，伯克希尔的盈利能力如何，主要决定因素是纺织行业的行业状况。幸好我们有一流的经理人肯·切斯（Ken Chace）负责公司运营，另外，负责伯克希尔销售团队的几位经理人也是行业精英。
While a Berkshire is hardly going to be as profitable as a Xerox, Fairchild Camera or National Video in a hypertensed market, it is a very comfort able sort of thing to own. As my West Coast philosopher says, “It is well to have a diet consisting of oatmeal as well as cream puffs.”
伯克希尔处于生存压力巨大的行业，不可能像施乐（Xerox）、仙童摄影器材（Fairchild Camera）或国家影视（National Video）那么赚钱，但是我们拥有伯克希尔非常放心。正如我的西海岸哲学家朋友所说：“燕麦、奶油泡芙都要吃，这样的膳食才合理。”
Because of our controlling interest, our investment in Berkshire is valued for our audit as a business, not as a marketable security. If Berkshire advances $5 per share in the market, it does BPL no good - our holdings are not going to be sold. Similarly, if it goes down $5 per share, it is not meaningful to us. The value of our holding is determined directly by the value of the business. I received no divine inspiration in that valuation of our holdings. (Maybe the owners of the three wonder stocks mentioned above do receive such a message in respect to their holdings -I feel I would need something at least that reliable to sleep well at present prices.) I attempt to apply a conservative valuation based upon my knowledge of assets, earning power, industry conditions, competitive position, etc. We would not be a seller of our holdings at such a figure, but neither would we be a seller of the other items in our portfolio at yearend valuations –otherwise, we would already have sold them.
既然已经取得了控股权，在审计中，我们对伯克希尔这笔投资会按照企业价值评估，而不是有价证券。伯克希尔的股价涨5美元，和我们没多大关系，我们不会卖。同样，跌5美元，也和我们没多大关系。控股公司的价值取决于公司本身的价值。在评估我们的控股权益时，我不是按照神的启示来估值。（前面提到了三只牛股，或许买了这三只股票的人真得到了神的启示。没有神的启示，现在的价格这么高，晚上怎么能睡得着？）对于伯克希尔，我会根据我对资产、盈利能力、行业状况、竞争情况等因素的了解，进行保守的估值。我们在年末会给出一个估值，但是我们不会按这个估值卖出，其他投资也一样，否则我们早就卖了。
Our final category is "Generals-Relatively Undervalued.” This category has been growing in relative importance as opportunities in the other categories become less frequent.
最后一类投资是“低估类（相对低估）”（Generals-Relatively Undervalued）。随着其他类别的投资机会减少，此类投资的重要性日益增加。
Frankly, operating in this field is somewhat more ethereal than operating in the other three categories, and I'm just not an ethereal sort. Therefore, I feel accomplishments here are less solid and perhaps less meaningful for future projections than in the other categories. Nevertheless, our results in 1965 were quite good in the “Relatively Undervalued” group, partly due to implementation of the technique referred to in last year's letter which serves to reduce risk and potentially augment gains. It should reduce risk in any year, and it definitely augmented the gains in 1965. It is necessary to point out that results in this category were greatly affected for the better by only two investments.
说实话，与其他三类相比，我觉得这类投资多少有些虚浮，我不喜欢虚浮的东西。我觉得这类投资没其他几类那么稳妥，也不像其他几类那样可以比较准确地预知未来会如何。虽说如此，1965年，“相对低估类”投资表现优异，这得益于我在去年信中提到的操作方法，这种方法可以既能降低风险，又能提高收益。无论是哪一年，这种方法都应该能降低风险，但是在1965年，这个方法确实帮助我们提高了收益。需要告诉大家的是，为此类投资出色表现做出最大贡献的，只是两笔投资。
Candor also demands I point out that during 1965 we had our worst single investment experience in the history of BPL on one idea in this group.
因为要如实报告，我也要告诉大家，1965年，在相对低估类中，我们有一笔投资失败了，这是合伙基金成立以来最糟糕的一次单笔投资。
Overall, we had more than our share of good breaks in 1965. We did not have a great quantity of ideas, but the quality, with the one important exception mentioned above, was very good and circumstances developed which accelerated the timetable in several. I do not have a great flood of good ideas as I go into 1966, although again I believe I have at least several potentially good ideas of substantial size. Much depends on whether market conditions are favorable for obtaining a larger position.
整体来说，在相对低估类中，我们1965年的运气还是不错的。我们在这类投资中找到的机会不多，但是找到的都是相当好的（除了上面提到失败的那个）。由于情况变化，我们加快了对其中几个机会投资的步伐。进入1966年，我看到的机会不是很多，但刚才也说了，有几个大机会可能是相当好的。主要看市场情况是否有利，我们能不能买到比较多的货。
All in all, however, you should recognize that more came out of the pipeline in 1965 than went in.
总之，1965年用上了的投资机会多，新找到的投资机会少。
Last year in commenting on the inability of the overwhelming majority of investment managers to achieve performance superior to that of pure chance, I ascribed it primarily to the product of: "(1) group decisions - my perhaps jaundiced view is that it is close to impossible for outstanding investment management to come from a group of any size with all parties really participating in decisions; (2) a desire to conform to the policies and (to an extent) the portfolios of other large well-regarded organizations; (3) an institutional framework whereby average is "safe" and the personal rewards for independent action are in no way commensurate with the general risk attached to such action; (4) an adherence to certain diversification practices which are irrational; and finally and importantly, (5) inertia.”
去年，在讲到大多数基金经理的业绩还不如随机选股时，我给出的分析是，说这种现象有如下几个原因：“（1）群体决策—这或许是我的偏见：我认为，只要是一个群体，所有成员共同参与决策，投资管理工作想要达到一流水平几乎不可能；（2）与其他声誉卓著的大型机构保持一致的倾向，无论是策略，还是部分投资组合；（3）机构框架的束缚—平均水平很“安全”，对个人而言，特立独行的回报与风险毫不相称；（4）僵化固守某些不理智的分散投资策略；最后一点，也是最重要的一点：（5）惯性。”
This year in the material which went out in November, I specifically called your attention to a new Ground Rule reading, "7. We diversify substantially less than most investment operations. We might invest up to 40% of our net worth in a single security under conditions coupling an extremely high probability that our facts and reasoning are correct with a very low probability that anything could drastically change the underlying value of the investment."
在今年11月份给各位寄送的材料中，我特别提醒各位注意，我新增加了一条基本原则：“7．与大多数同行相比，我们的分散程度远远更低。一笔投资，我们掌握了事实和逻辑，正确的概率极大，与此同时，这笔投资的内在价值不可能出现根本变化，出错的概率很小，在这种情况下，我们可能最多拿出40％的净资产用于这笔投资。”
We are obviously following a policy regarding diversification which differs markedly from that of practically all public investment operations. Frankly, there is nothing I would like better than to have 50 different investment opportunities, all of which have a mathematical expectation (this term reflects the range of all possible relative performances, including negative ones, adjusted for the probability of each - no yawning, please) of achieving performance surpassing the Dow by, say, fifteen percentage points per annum. If the fifty individual expectations were not intercorelated (what happens to one is associated with what happens to the other) I could put 2% of our capital into each one and sit back with a very high degree of certainty that our overall results would be very close to such a fifteen percentage point advantage.
在分散投资方面，我们遵循的策略显然与几乎所有公募投资机构截然不同。说实话，要是有50个不同的投资机会摆在我面前，每个机会都有每年领先道指15个百分点的数学期望值（mathematical expectation 是一个统计学术语，它描述的是所有可能出现的相对收益（包括负收益），按照各种相对收益的概率调整后，计算出的范围。别晕！），这再好不过了。要是这50个投资机会的期望值是不相关的（在其中一个投资机会中发生的事件不会影响其他投资机会），我可以把我们的资金分成50份，每个机会投资2％的资金，然后就可以高枕无忧了，因为我们的整体业绩会非常接近于领先道指15个百分点，这个确定性极高。
It doesn't work that way.
实际上不是这么回事。
We have to work extremely hard to find just a very few attractive investment situations. Such a situation by definition is one where my expectation (defined as above) of performance is at least ten percentage points per annum superior to the Dow. Among the few we do find, the expectations vary substantially. The question always is, “How much do I put in number one (ranked by expectation of relative performance) and how much do I put in number eight?" This depends to a great degree on the wideness of the spread between the mathematical expectation of number one versus number eight.” It also depends upon the probability that number one could turn in a really poor relative performance. Two securities could have equal mathematical expectations, but one might have .05 chance of performing fifteen percentage points or more worse than the Dow, and the second might have only .01 chance of such performance. The wider range of expectation in the first case reduces the desirability of heavy concentration in it.
经过一番艰苦的努力，我们也就能找到寥寥几个特别可能赚钱的投资机会。按照我们的目标，对于这样的投资机会，我的要求是拥有领先道指至少10个百分点的数学期望值。这样的机会能找到的就不多，找到的机会里，每个的数学期望值又存在巨大差异。我们总要回答这个问题：“按照相对收益的数学期望值，排名第一的要分配多少仓位？排名第八的要分配多少仓位？”这主要取决于第一和第八的数学期望值相差多少，还要考虑第一有多大的概率会出现极其糟糕的相对收益。两只股票的数学期望值可能相同，但是其中一只有5％的概率落后道指15个百分点以上，另一只出现这个情况的概率只有1％。前者的数学期望值范围较大，这就会降低我集中投资这只股票的意愿。
The above may make the whole operation sound very precise. It isn't. Nevertheless, our business is that of ascertaining facts and then applying experience and reason to such facts to reach expectations. Imprecise and emotionally influenced as our attempts may be, that is what the business is all about. The results of many years of decision-making in securities will demonstrate how well you are doing on making such calculations - whether you consciously realize you are making the calculations or not. I believe the investor operates at a distinct advantage when he is aware of what path his thought process is following.
上面的论述把投资说得好像是非常精确的操作。其实不然。我们做投资就是确定事实，然后用经验和理智分析事实，得出数学期望值。这个过程不精确，受情绪影响，但这就是投资。一位投资者，无论是否有意识地进行这样的估算，他在股市摸爬滚打很多年，对许多股票做过决策，从他的长期业绩里，就能看出他估算水平的高低。有的投资者有着非常清晰的思维过程，我相信他们在投资中有明显优势。
There is one thing of which I can assure you. If good performance of the fund is even a minor objective, any portfolio encompassing one hundred stocks (whether the manager is handling one thousand dollars or one billion dollars) is not being operated logically. The addition of the one hundredth stock simply can't reduce the potential variance in portfolio performance sufficiently to compensate for the negative effect its inclusion has on the overall portfolio expectation.
有一点我非常肯定。就算不以追求良好业绩为首要目标，无论资金量是 1000美元，还是10亿美元，一个投资组合，要是其中包含了一百只股票，就肯定不符合逻辑。在投资组合中加入第一百只股票，它拉低整个投资组合数学期望值的弊，远远大于平滑组合业绩波动的利。
Anyone owning such numbers of securities after presumably studying their investment merit (and I don't care how prestigious their labels) is following what I call the Noah School of Investing - two of everything. Such investors should be piloting arks. While Noah may have been acting in accord with certain time-tested biological principles, the investors have left the track regarding mathematical principles. (I only made it through plane geometry, but with one exception, I have carefully screened out the mathematicians from our Partnership.)
谁要是持有这么多只股票，而且还像模像样地研究过每一只，无论他们的名头有多响，我都把他们称为诺亚方舟派，什么东西都来两个。他们还是别投资了，去开诺亚方舟得了。诺亚可能遵循了某些久经考验的生物学规律，诺亚方舟派的投资者却偏离了数学原理。（我平面几何差点就挂科了。除了一个例外，在挑选合伙人时，数学好的，我一律不收。）
Of course, the fact that someone else is behaving illogically in owning one hundred securities doesn't prove our case. While they may be wrong in overdiversifying, we have to affirmatively reason through a proper diversification policy in terms of our objectives.
别人持有一百只股票的做法不符合逻辑，这证明不了我们就是对的。别人的投资过度分散可能是错的，我们必须从正面证明，按照我们的目标，我们如何分散才是正确的。
The optimum portfolio depends on the various expectations of choices available and the degree of variance in performance which is tolerable. The greater the number of selections, the less will be the average year-to-year variation in actual versus expected results. Also, the lower will be the expected results, assuming different choices have different expectations of performance.
一个最佳投资组合，有两个决定因素：一是各种股票的不同数学期望值，二是对业绩波动的容忍程度。选的股票越多，每年的实际收益率与预期收益率越接近，波动越小。既然各只股票具有不同的业绩数学期望值，选的股票越多，预期收益率也越低。
I am willing to give up quite a bit in terms of leveling of year-to-year results (remember when I talk of “results,” I am talking of performance relative to the Dow) in order to achieve better overall long-term performance. Simply stated, this means I am willing to concentrate quite heavily in what I believe to be the best investment opportunities recognizing very well that this may cause an occasional very sour year - one somewhat more sour, probably, than if I had diversified more. While this means our results will bounce around more, I think it also means that our long-term margin of superiority should be greater.
为了追求更高的长期整体收益率，我会毫不犹豫地放弃平滑每年的业绩波动（请注意，我这里所说的“业绩”是指相对道指的表现）。简单点说，一旦看准了最佳投资机会，我愿意下重注集中投资。我很清楚，我这么操作可能偶尔一年业绩特别差，要是分散了，就没这个情况。我们的业绩波动幅度更大，但是从长期来看，我们的领先优势也更大。
You have already seen some examples of this. Our margin versus the Dow has ranged from 2.4 percentage points in 1958 to 33.0 points in 1965. If you check this against the deviations of the funds listed on page three, you will find our variations have a much wider amplitude. I could have operated in such a manner as to reduce our amplitude, but I would also have reduced our overall performance somewhat although it still would have substantially exceeded that of the investment companies. Looking back, and continuing to think this problem through, I feel that if anything, I should have concentrated slightly more than I have in the past. Hence, the new Ground Rule and this long-winded explanation.
各位从过去几年的业绩里就看得出来。我们相对道指的领先优势，最低的是1958年的2.4个百分点，最高的是1965年的33个百分点。再看一下基金公司和道指的比较情况，你会发现我们的波动幅度大得多。要我降低我们的波动幅度，我完全做得到，而且还能远远领先基金公司，但我们的整体收益肯定会降低。结合过去几年的投资经历思考这个问题，我有这么个感觉：我以前应该再集中一些。于是，我新增加了一条基本原则，又在这里解释了这么多。
Again let me state that this is somewhat unconventional reasoning (this doesn't make it right or wrong - it does mean you have to do your own thinking on it), and you may well have a different opinion - if you do, the Partnership is not the place for you. We are obviously only going to go to 40% in very rare situations - this rarity, of course, is what makes it necessary that we concentrate so heavily, when we see such an opportunity. We probably have had only five or six situations in the nine-year history of the Partnership where we have exceeded 25%. Any such situations are going to have to promise very significantly superior performance relative to the Dow compared to other opportunities available at the time. They are also going to have to possess such superior qualitative and/or quantitative factors that the chance of serious permanent loss is minimal (anything can happen on a short-term quotational basis which partially explains the greater risk of widened year- to-year variation in results). In selecting the limit to which I will go in anyone investment, I attempt to reduce to a tiny figure the probability that the single investment (or group, if there is intercorrelation) can produce a result for our total portfolio that would be more than ten percentage points poorer than the Dow.
重复一遍，我的逻辑有些不合常规（是对是错，不能通过是否符合常规来判断，你必须独立思考），我尊重你的不同见解，但如果你和我看法相左，合伙基金不适合你。我们能投入40％的仓位，肯定是遇到了特别罕见的情况。正因为罕见，抓准了机会，才要下重注。合伙基金成立九年来，我们仓位超过25％的投资也只有五六笔。能成为集中投资的机会，首先是与其他机会相比，它们相对道指的预期收益率必须远远更高。除此之外，它们还必须是通过定性和／或定量分析挑选出来的一等一的好机会，出现严重永久性损失的风险极低（短期的市场报价多高多低都有可能，所以说集中投资，每年业绩的波动风险更大）。在安排仓位时，任何一笔投资，我都要对它的仓位进行限制，尽可能降低一笔投资（或相关的一组投资）导致整体组合落后道指10％的概率。
We presently have two situations in the over 25% category - one a controlled company, and the other a large company where we will never take an active part. It is worth pointing out that our performance in 1965 was overwhelmingly the product of five investment situations. The 1965 gains (in some cases there were also gains applicable to the same holding in prior years) from these situations ranged from about $800,000 to about $3 1/2 million. If you should take the overall performance of our five smallest general investments in 1965, the results are lackluster (I chose a very charitable adjective).
目前，我们有两笔投资仓位在25％以上，一个是我们控股的公司，另一个是我们将始终保持被动投资的大型公司。值得指出的是，我们1965年的收益绝大部分来自五笔投资。1965年，这五笔投资对收益的贡献在80万美元到350万美元之间（其中有几笔投资的收益是前几年就有了）。要是只算1965年我们规模最小的五笔低估类投资，我们的业绩就黯然失色了（我选择了比较文明的字眼形容）。
Interestingly enough, the literature of investment management is virtually devoid of material relative to deductive calculation of optimal diversification.
有个奇怪的现象，关于最佳分散选择的推理计算这个问题，在投资管理文献中竟然鲜有论述。
All texts counsel "adequate" diversification, but the ones who quantify "adequate" virtually never explain how they arrive at their conclusion. Hence, for our summation on overdiversification, we turn to that eminent academician Billy Rose, who says, "You've got a harem of seventy girls; you don't get to know any of them very well.”
所有材料都建议“充分”分散，但是提出“充分”分散的人从来不讲他们是怎么得出结论的。我们关于过度分散的论述这就讲完了，最后就用著名学者比利·罗斯（Billy Rose）的话结尾：“你要是有70个女人的后宫，没一个女人你能懂。”
Last year we boldly announced an expansion move, encompassing an additional 227 1/4 square feet. Older partners shook their heads. I feel that our gain from operations in 1965 of $12,304,060 indicates that we did not overextend ourselves. Fortunately, we didn't sign a percentage lease. Operationally, things have never been running more smoothly, and I think our present setup unquestionably lets me devote a higher percentage of my time to thinking about the investment process than virtually anyone else in the money management business. This, of course, is the result of really outstanding personnel and cooperative partners.
去年，我们大举扩张，将办公室面积增加了21平米。老合伙人直摇头。从1965年12,304,060美元的收益来看，我们没扩张过度。幸好签的不是百分比租约（译注：percentage lease，按营业额百分比支付租金。）我对合伙基金的日常运营非常满意，在我们的运营体系中，与资金管理行业的任何人相比，我都可以把更多时间用于思考投资。这离不开我们工作人员的努力和合伙人的配合。
John Harding has taken complete charge of all administrative operations with splendid results. Bill Scott continues to develop detailed information on investments which substantially enhances our net profit figure. Beth Feehan, Donna Walter and Elizabeth Hanon (who joined us in November) have all handled large work loads (secretary's note -Amen!) accurately and efficiently.
约翰·哈丁现在全权负责所有行政工作，他的工作做得有声有色。比尔·斯科特一如既往地搜集关于投资的详细信息，他为我们的收益做出了巨大贡献。贝丝·菲恩、多娜·沃尔特和伊丽莎白·哈农（伊丽莎白是11月份加入的）准确高效地完成了大量工作。
The above people, their spouses (one apiece) and children have a combined investment in the Partnership of over $600,000. Susie and I have an investment of $6,849,936, which should keep me from slipping away to the movies in the afternoon. This represents virtually our entire net worth, with the exception of our continued holding of Mid-Continent Tab Card, a local company into which I bought in 1960 when it had less than 10 stockholders.
我们的上述工作人员及其配偶（一人一个）和子女在合伙基金中共计投资 600,000美元。苏茜和我在合伙基金里有6,849,936美元的投资，我保证不会下午溜出去看电影。我们的全部净资产几乎都在合伙基金里。在合伙基金之外，我们只持有 Mid—Continent Tab Card Co.的股权，这是一家本地公司，是我1960年投资的，当时股东还不到10人。
Additionally, my relatives, consisting of three children, mother, two sisters, two brothers-in-law, father-in-law, three aunts, two uncles, five cousins, and six nieces and nephews have interests in BPL, directly or indirectly, totaling $2,708,233. So don't get any ideas about voting a change in the Partnership name.
另外，我们一大家子，包括三个子女、我的母亲、两个姐妹、两个姐夫、岳父、三个姑姑、两个叔叔、四个表亲、六个侄子侄女，直接或间接持有总计2,708,233 美元的合伙基金权益。谁要想投票更改合伙人基金名称，没门。
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. has done the customary excellent job of expediting the audit and tax information. This requires great effort and ability, and they supply both. This year a computer was brought to bear on our problems, and naturally, I was a little worried someone else would come out as the general partner. However, it all worked quite smoothly.
毕马威会计师事务所像往常一样，审计工作和税收信息整理工作做得又快又好，这是因为他们既能力出众，又勤劳肯干。今年，他们带来一台电脑来做审计工作，我还担心可别把别人当成普通合伙人，还好，一切很顺利。
Within the coming two weeks you will receive:
在今后两周，各位合伙人会收到如下文件：
- A tax letter giving you all BPL information needed for your 1965 federal income tax return. This letter is the only item that counts for tax purposes.
- 一份包含税收数据的信函，其中列有申报1965 年联邦所得税所需的所有巴菲特合伙基金信息。
- An audit from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. for 1965, setting forth the operations and financial position of BPL, as well as your own capital account.
- 毕马威会计师事务所出具的1965年审计报告，其中包含巴菲特合伙基金的运营数据和财务状况以及合伙人资本账户的信息。
- A letter signed by me setting forth the status of your BPL interest on 1/1/66. This is identical with the figures developed in the audit.
- 一份由我签署的、证明您于1966年1月1日持有巴菲特合伙基金权益的文件，其中的权益数据与审计报告中列出的数据一致。
Let me know if anything in this letter or that occurs during the year needs clarifying. It is difficult to anticipate all of the questions you may have and if there is anything that is confusing, I want to hear about it. For instance, we received an excellent suggestion last year from a partner regarding the presentation of the reconciliation of personal capital accounts.
如果对信中内容有任何疑问，或者年中遇到任何问题，请随时与我联系。我在信中很难面面俱到，要是有任何不明白的地方，请告诉我。去年，一位合伙人给我们提了一条极好的建议，他建议我们改进个人资金账户调节的列式方法。
My next letter will be about July 15th, summarizing the first ha1f of this year.
下一封信是上半年总结，各位将在 7月15日左右收到。
Cordially,
Warren E. Buffett
沃伦 E.巴菲特谨上
Footnotes
-
Ponge 的翻译优化建议：每年，当比赛的发令枪一响，我们的成绩都要从零开始，所有的资产都会以年初的市场价值为基准计算收益率。这里的考虑是：发令枪的翻译是准确的，但是「一切按市值计算，从零开始」表述的有点不清楚，我尽量扩充了省略的内容，保证好理解。 ↩