A Great Business Isn't a Great Investment at the Wrong Price or Wrong Terms 
假设价格或许条件不合适,那大公司也不是好的投资之选

We spend a lot of time talking about the various traits of a good business - high returns on equity, little or no debt, franchise value, a shareholder friendly management, etc. 
我们花了大量时间评论辩论好的投资产品的多种特点:股本收益高、根本没有债务、特许权价值、对股东有益捕鱼电玩上下分的管理等等。

Although Charlie Munger's dictum, "it's far better to buy a good business at a fair price rather than a fair business a great price" is true, it is important for you to realize that good results are not likely to be had by those that buy such stocks regardless of price. 
固然查理·芒格说的“以相对捕鱼电玩上下分公平的价格买下好的投资产品要好过以昂扬价格买下一个相对捕鱼电玩上下分公平的投资产品”是对的,但对你来讲,懂得不推敲价格就买如许的股票也不一捕鱼电玩上下分定会有好的收益,这一点很重要。

It's a fine distinction, but one that can mean the difference between good results and disastrous losses. At least, not within a short period of time.
这是纤细的差别,但它指的是高收益和灾害性损掉之间的差别。至少短期内是如许的。

Back in the late 1960's, Wall Street became enthralled with a group of stocks dubbed The Nifty Fifty. Perhaps the online encyclopedia Wikipedia sums it up best, "[These stocks] had everything going for them - brand names, patents, top management, spectacular sales, and solid profits. 
回想20世纪60年代末期,华尔街迷上了一批称为Nifty Fifty的股票,能够可以上下分的电玩软件网络百科全书Wikipedia总结得最到位“这些股票有所有让你买下的来由:大牌、专利、高层管理人员、可不雅的发卖额和稳定的利润。

They were thought to be best stocks to buy them and hold them for the long run, and that was all you needed to do.
人们认为这些是可以买下并经久持有的最好的股票,你只需买下就好。

These were the stocks 'dreams' were made of ...for the long haul to retire with."
这些是做梦都想买的股票,可以经久持有,退休有它就够了。”

The fatal flaw in this logic is that investors believed that these companies - enterprises such as Eastman Kodak and Xerox - were so inherently good that they could (and should) be bought at any price. Of course, this is simply not the case. 
这一逻辑的致命缺点就是投资者认为这些公司如柯达公司和施乐太好了,以什么价格都能(并且应当)买入,固然现实并不是如此。

Although a stock trading at a high p/e ratio isn't always overpriced, more often than not, a stock trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of 60x is almost assuredly going to generate a rate of return less than that of a so-called "risk-free" U.S. Treasury bond. 
固然以高市盈率交易的股票并不是总是价格偏高,但常常以60x的市盈率交易的股票产生可以上下分的电玩软件的报答率实在其实会低于所谓的“无风险”美国国债。

What makes this discussion complicated is:
招致这一成绩复杂化的身分是:

First, many inexperienced investors fail to realize that, even though companies like Eastman Kodak went bankrupt, long-term investors still should have walked away with a lot more wealth than they had prior to their investment.  
起首,很多缺乏经历的投资者没无认识到即使像柯达如许的公司破产了,经久投资者依然可以带着比投资之前赚到的更多的钱转移资金。

This can be difficult to grasp if you aren't aware of how dividends, spin-offs, split-off, and even tax loss credits work but it is, nevertheless, the case.
假设你不懂股息、剥离、分拆,乃至抵税是若何操作的,那这个很难控制,但现实依然并不是如此。

Second, for 20 to 30 years after the Nifty Fifty peaked, the basket of stocks, as a whole, underperformed the market.  
其次,Nifty Fifty火爆以后的20-30年间,股票篮子全体市场表示不佳。

However, by the time you started getting into the 30 to 40-year range, the underlying businesses were, in fact, so good that they ultimately ended up beating the market as the core economic engines were so superior they burned off the excess valuation. 
但是你买了30-40年以后,这个潜伏的投资产品其实也很好,终究能克服股市,由于核心经济引擎太好了,能消费掉落多余价值。

Not only that, but the Nifty Fifty would have had better tax efficiency than an index fund. When dealing with excellent businesses, the ghost ship approach, historically, has won in the long-run but how many investors are willing to stick with 30 or 40 years of near total passivity in a lifetime that, for most people, will last only 80 years or so? Again, it's an issue for behavioral economics.
不只如此,Nifty Fifty比指数基金的税见效益更好,从汗青角度来看“鬼魂船”的方法针对好的投资产品具有经久优势,但有若干投资者情愿一生可以上下分的电玩软件简直完全主动地等上30或40年呢?大多半人只能活80岁阁下。再强调一下,这是行动经济学的成绩。

All else equal, though, try and avoid investments that are priced to perfection with no margin of safety because a mere blip in operating performance could cause a long-term, catastrophic loss in principal as fickle speculators flee to hotter securities. 
但是其他的都一样,你要尽可能防止订价可以上下分的电玩软件完美但利润没有包管的投资,由于操作时的一点动摇,都邑对本金形成经久的巨大损掉,由于变更无常的投机者会转向更热点的证券市场。

Even then, if you are going to consider it, stick solely to the bluest of the blue chips. You can probably get away with overpaying for a company like Johnson & Johnson if you're going to hold it for the next 50 years - nobody knows the future but the odds seem to favor it - whereas I wouldn't be so keen on doing it for a firm like Facebook.
虽然如此,假设你想,你还可以保持只投蓝筹股中最稳定的,强生这类公司的股票假设你在手里存50年也能防止花冤枉钱,谁也不克不及猜想将来,但胜算照样有的,不然我也不会热中于经久持有脸书如许的公司的股票。

 

翻译:菲菲