巴菲特谈企业价值

1、巴菲特谈企业估值（1986年）范闻备注：全文摘自1986年巴菲特致股东信的附录部分，原汁原味。为方便深刻理解巴菲特的投资理念，特采用中英文对照方式。这是巴菲特本人对企业估值的一次全面阐释。全文如下：Appendix   附录Purchase-Price Accounting Adjustments and the "Cash Flow" Fallacy    购买法会计调整数与现金流量的谬误  First a short quiz: below are abbreviated 1986

2、 statements of earnings for two companies. Which business is the more valuable?首先先来个小考：以下是两家公司的财务报表，请问哪一家比较值钱? 图1： As you've probably guessed, Companies O and N are the same business - Scott Fetzer. In the "O" (for "old") column we have shown what the company's

3、1986 GAAP earnings would have been if we had not purchased it; in the "N" (for "new") column we have shown Scott Fetzer's GAAP earnings as actually reported by Berkshire. 大家或许都已经猜到了，公司O跟公司N指的都是同一家公司-史考特-飞兹，O公司(指旧公司)系假设它1986年没有被Berkshire买下时依照一般公认会计原则编制的盈余报表，至于N公司(指新公司)则是指

4、1986年它被Berkshire买下后，依照一般公认会计原则在Berkshire报表上显示的相关数字。 It should be emphasized that the two columns depict identical economics - i.e., the same sales, wages, taxes, etc. And both "companies" generate the same amount of cash for owners. Only the accounting is different.必须强调的是，这两家公司数字所叙述的是

5、同一个经济事实，也就是营收、薪资、税负都相同，而两家公司贡献给股东的现金流入也完全相同，唯一不同的就只有适用的会计原则。 So, fellow philosophers, which column presents truth? Upon which set of numbers should managers and investors focus?所以说，各位伟大的思想家，到底哪一家呈现的才是事实? 投资人与经理人到底应该关心哪一份报表?Before we tackle those questions, let's look at what produces t

6、he disparity between O and N. We will simplify our discussion in some respects, but the simplification should not produce any inaccuracies in analysis or conclusions.在处理这些问题以前，让我们先看看到底这两家公司有哪一些差异之处，我们会试着将讨论予以简化，当然这不致产生错误的分析与结论。The contrast between O and N comes about because we paid an amount for Sc

7、ott Fetzer that was different from its stated net worth. Under GAAP, such differences - such premiums or discounts - must be accounted for by "purchase-price adjustments." In Scott Fetzer's case, we paid $315 million for net assets that were carried on its books at $172.4 million. So w

8、e paid a premium of $142.6 million.新公司(N)与旧公司(O)差异的起因源自于我们购买史考特-飞兹的价钱与其会计帐面净值有所不同，根据一般公认会计原则，这样的差异-不论时溢价或是折价，都必须计入购买法差异调整项下，就本例而言，我们支付了3.15亿美元买下帐面价值1.724亿美元的资产，中间就产生了1.426亿美元的溢价。 The first step in accounting for any premium paid is to adjust the carrying value of current assets to current value

9、s. In practice, this requirement usually does not affect receivables, which are routinely carried at current value, but often affects inventories. Because of a $22.9 million LIFO reserve and other accounting intricacies, Scott Fetzer's inventory account was carried at a $37.3 million discount fr

10、om current value. So, making our first accounting move, we used $37.3 million of our $142.6 million premium to increase the carrying value of the inventory.会计原则规定处理购并溢价的第一步是将流动资产的帐列价值调整至目前的价值，实务上，通常受影响的是存货等资产，至于具立即变现性的应收帐款则不受影响，由于史考特-飞兹的存货计价方式采后进先出法，使得其帐列的存货成本低于市价3,730万美元，所以第一个动作就是将1.426亿美元溢价中的3,730

11、万美元用来调整存货价值。 Assuming any premium is left after current assets are adjusted, the next step is to adjust fixed assets to current value. In our case, this adjustment also required a few accounting acrobatics relating to deferred taxes. Since this has been billed as a simplified discussion, I will

12、 skip the details and give you the bottom line: $68.0 million was added to fixed assets and $13.0 million was eliminated from deferred tax liabilities. After making this $81.0 million adjustment, we were left with $24.3 million of premium to allocate. 在流动资产调整完之后，第二步就是调整固定资产至现在的价值，再次地，我们必须运用一些会计

13、技巧来处理相关的递延所得税，由于之前我们强调是简单的讨论，所以我决定略去部份细节，直接公布结果，其中6,800万加到固定资产，至于另外的1,300万则从递延所得税负债扣除，最后剩下2,430万美元的溢价待处理。 Had our situation called for them two steps would next have been required: the adjustment of intangible assets other than Goodwill to current fair values, and the restatement of liabilities

14、 to current fair values, a requirement that typically affects only long-term debt and unfunded n liabilities. In Scott Fetzer's case, however, neither of these steps was necessary.如果有必要，接下来还有两个步骤要进行：一是调整无形资产(商誉除外)，一是调整负债，通常包含长期负债以及未提拨煺休金负债，然而就本例而言，这些步骤都不需要。 The final accounting adjustment w

15、e needed to make, after recording fair market values for all assets and liabilities, was the assignment of the residual premium to Goodwill (technically known as "excess of cost over the fair value of net assets acquired"). This residual amounted to $24.3 million. Thus, the balance sheet o

16、f Scott Fetzer immediately before the acquisition, which is summarized below in column O, was transformed by the purchase into the balance sheet shown in column N. In real terms, both balance sheets depict the same assets and liabilities - but, as you can see, certain figures differ significantly.最后

17、我们必须进行的会计动作，就是将剩余的溢价部份归类到商誉这个科目(专业的解释是取得成本超越资产公平价值部份)，金额为2,430万美元，就这样旧公司也就是史考特-飞兹在被购并的前一刻的资产负债表，被改成新公司在Berkshire帐上所列的各项数字，现实的状况是，两者都是用来说明同一家公司所拥有的资产与负债，但大家可以清楚地发现，两者在某些科目却有极大的不同。 图2： The higher balance sheet figures shown in column N produce the lower income figures shown in column N of th

18、e earnings statement presented earlier. This is the result of the asset write-ups and of the fact that some of the written-up assets must be depreciated or amortized. The higher the asset figure, the higher the annual depreciation or amortization charge to earnings must be. The charges that flowed t

19、o the earnings statement because of the balance sheet write-ups were numbered in the statement of earnings shown earlier:新公司的盈余数字比旧公司的来得低，这是由于其资产负债表中的某些资产必须冲销或是按期折旧摊销所致，帐列资产金额越高，每年必须提列的折旧与摊销也就越高，就本例而言，可能影响损益的数字包括： $4,979,000 for non-cash inventory costs resulting, primarily, from reductions tha

20、t Scott Fetzer made in its inventories during 1986; charges of this kind are apt to be small or non-existent in future years.1、以1986年史考特飞兹为主的497.9万美元存货跌价损失，这类的成本在往后年度金额将会慢慢变小。 $5,054,000 for extra depreciation attributable to the write-up of fixed assets; a charge approximating this amount will

21、 probably be made annually for 12 more years.2、额外的505.4万美元固定资产折旧成本，往后12年的金额与此数目相当。 $595,000 for amortization of Goodwill; this charge will be made annually for 39 more years in a slightly larger amount because our purchase was made on January 6 and, therefore, the 1986 figure applies to only 98

22、% of the year.3、59.5万的商誉摊销，这笔费用还要持续39年以上，以后年度的数字会略高，因为由于购并是在1月6日发生，所以1986年只反应了98%的数字。 $998,000 for deferred-tax acrobatics that are beyond my ability to explain briefly (or perhaps even non-briefly); a charge approximating this amount will probably be made annually for 12 more years.4、99.8万的递延所

23、得税摊销，由于这部份相当复杂，所以我无法在短期间内向各位说明清楚，这笔金额还会持续12年以上。 It is important to understand that none of these newly-created accounting costs, totaling $11.6 million, are deductible for income tax purposes. The "new" Scott Fetzer pays exactly the same tax as the "old" Scott Fetzer would h

24、ave, even though the GAAP earnings of the two entities differ greatly. And, in respect to operating earnings, that would be true in the future also. However, in the unlikely event that Scott Fetzer sells one of its businesses, the tax consequences to the "old" and "new" company m

25、ight differ widely.有一点很重要，那就是这些新增的会计摊销成本，金额约1,160万美元是无法扣抵所得税的，所以新公司支付的所得税与旧公司并无二致，虽然依照一般公认会计原则所显示的数字完全不同，而且往后年度的损益报表也有相同的情况，当然万一史考特飞兹出售部份的事业时，两者的税负影响就会有所不同。 By the end of 1986 the difference between the net worth of the "old" and "new" Scott Fetzer had been reduced from $142

26、.6 million to $131.0 million by means of the extra $11.6 million that was charged to earnings of the new entity. As the years go by, similar charges to earnings will cause most of the premium to disappear, and the two balance sheets will converge. However, the higher land values and most of the high

27、er inventory values that were established on the new balance sheet will remain unless land is disposed of or inventory levels are further reduced.1986年底两家公司净值上的不同，在扣除1,160万美元的已摊销成本后，将由塬先的1.426亿美元减为1.31亿美元，随着时间过去，相似的摊销将使得彼此的差异逐渐缩小，然而土地或存货的重估必须等到这些资产出售后才会消失。 * * *What does all this mean for owner

28、s? Did the shareholders of Berkshire buy a business that earned $40.2 million in 1986 or did they buy one earning $28.6 million? Were those $11.6 million of new charges a real economic cost to us? Should investors pay more for the stock of Company O than of Company N? And, if a business is worth som

29、e given multiple of earnings, was Scott Fetzer worth considerably more the day before we bought it than it was worth the following day? 对于股东来说，到底有何差别? Berkshire的股东们在1986年买到的，到底是一家年获利4,020万或是2,860万美元的公司呢? 这笔1,160万美元的新增成本对我们到底有没有实质的经济影响呢? 投资人是否应该付出更多的代价来买旧公司呢? 而又若是企业评价按本益比的角度来衡量的话，

30、史考特飞兹在被我们买下之前是否是比较值钱呢? If we think through these questions, we can gain some insights about what may be called "owner earnings." These represent (a) reported earnings plus (b) depreciation, depletion, amortization, and certain other non-cash charges such as Company N's items (1) a

31、nd (4) less ( c) the average annual amount of capitalized expenditures for plant and equipment, etc. that the business requires to fully maintain its long-term competitive position and its unit volume. (If the business requires additional working capital to maintain its competitive position and unit

32、 volume, the increment also should be included in ( c) . However, businesses following the LIFO inventory method usually do not require additional working capital if unit volume does not change.)如果我们能够想通这些问题，那么我们就能体会所谓的所有者的盈余，它代表(a) 帐列盈余，加计(b)折旧、摊销与其它成本，如新公司(1)到(4)项，扣除(c)年度平均的资本支出等以维持公司长期竞争力。(如

33、果企业需要额外的营运资金来维持既有的产能与竞争力，那么这部份的增加也必须纳入(c)项，然而存货计价方式采用后进先出法的公司就比较没有这方面的问题)。 Our owner-earnings equation does not yield the deceptively precise figures provided by GAAP, since( c) must be a guess - and one sometimes very difficult to make. Despite this problem, we consider the owner earnings figu

34、re, not the GAAP figure, to be the relevant item for valuation purposes - both for investors in buying stocks and for managers in buying entire businesses. We agree with Keynes's observation: "I would rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong."我们的所有者盈余公式与按照一般公认会计原则编制的数字并不会完全相同，因为(c)

35、 项本身是个估计数，且有时还很难精确的估算，基于此，我们认为所有者盈余在我们进行购并或买进公司股票，而须评估企业价值时，较有意义，我们相当同意凯因斯的看法：我宁愿大致正确也不要完全错误。 The approach we have outlined produces "owner earnings" for Company O and Company N that are identical, which means valuations are also identical, just as common sense would tell you sho

36、uld be the case. This result is reached because the sum of (a) and (b) is the same in both columns O and N, and because( c) is necessarily the same in both cases.用我们的方式评估新公司与旧公司所得的所有者盈余完全相同，这代表两者的评估价值也一样，事实上，按照一般的认知本该就如此，结果会相同是由于两家公司(a)(b) 两项的合计数一样，至于(c)本来就都一样。 And what do Charlie and I, a

37、s owners and managers, believe is the correct figure for the owner earnings of Scott Fetzer? Under current circumstances, we believe ( c) is very close to the "old" company's (b) number of $8.3 million and much below the "new" company's (b) number of $19.9 million. Theref

38、ore, we believe that owner earnings are far better depicted by the reported earnings in the O column than by those in the N column. In other words, we feel owner earnings of Scott Fetzer are considerably larger than the GAAP figures that we report.那么查理跟我身公司公司的所有人与经营者，到底哪一个数字才真正属于史考特飞兹呢? 在目前的情况下

39、，我们认为(c)项的数字相当接近旧公司(b)830万美元，但远低于新公司(b)项1,990万美元，因此我们认为旧公司财务报表上的数字比较接近所有者的盈余，换句话说，我们觉得史考特飞兹的所有者盈余远大于一般公认会计原则编制的数字。 That is obviously a happy state of affairs. But calculations of this sort usually do not provide such pleasant news. Most managers probably will acknowledge that they need to spend

40、 something more than (b) on their businesses over the longer term just to hold their ground in terms of both unit volume and competitive position. When this imperative exists - that is, when ( c) exceeds (b) - GAAP earnings overstate owner earnings. Frequently this overstatement is substantial. The

41、oil industry has in recent years provided a conspicuous example of this phenomenon. Had most major oil companies spent only (b) each year, they would have guaranteed their shrinkage in real terms.这显然是一个比较快乐的结果，但计算这种东西通常没有那么让人感到乐观，大部分的经理人通常会认为应该花费比(b)项更多的资金以维持既有的产能与竞争力，当这种观念存在时，也就是当(c)项远超过(b)项时，那么也代表

42、一般公认会计原则过分高估了所有者的盈余，而且通常这个数字会非常惊人，近年来的石油产业就为这种现象提供了最明显的例证，要是这些石油公司每年只投入(b)的资金的话，那么它们的实际的产能将大幅地缩水。 All of this points up the absurdity of the "cash flow" numbers that are often set forth in Wall Street reports. These numbers routinely include (a) plus (b) - but do not subtract ( c) . M

43、ost sales brochures of investment bankers also feature deceptive presentations of this kind. These imply that the business being offered is the commercial counterpart of the Pyramids - forever state-of-the-art, never needing to be replaced, improved or refurbished. Indeed, if all U.S. corporations w

44、ere to be offered simultaneously for sale through our leading investment bankers - and if the sales brochures describing them were to be believed - governmental projections of national plant and equipment spending would have to be slashed by 90%.以上这些论点充分解释华尔街经营运用现金流量数字的荒谬性，这些数字通常只包含(a)加(b)但却未扣除(c)，大

45、部分投资银行所提供的介绍手册也使用类似的欺骗手法，这等于是在暗示，所介绍的企业就像是商业世界里的万年金字塔，永远历久弥新、不会被取代、不用维修或更新，事实上，如果全美的企业真如这些投资银行所形容的，那么政府每年编制的全美工厂及设备采购指数将大幅下滑90%以上。 "Cash Flow", true, may serve as a shorthand of some utility in descriptions of certain real estate businesses or other enterprises that make huge initial

46、outlays and only tiny outlays thereafter. A company whose only holding is a bridge or an extremely long-lived gas field would be an example. But "cash flow" is meaningless in such businesses as manufacturing, retailing, extractive companies, and utilities because, for them, ( c) is always

47、significant. To be sure, businesses of this kind may in a given year be able to defer capital spending. But over a five- or ten-year period, they must make the investment - or the business decays.现金流量的观念，确实可以作为某些比如说不动产或是初期需要投入大量资本支出而后仅需负担少量维修的产业之上，具体的例子包含桥梁兴建或是某些蕴藏丰富的天然气油田等，但另一方面，现金流量却不能适用于某些零售、制造、采

48、矿及公用事业之上，因为其必须持续投入的(c)项金额相当巨大，确实这些产业有时可以稍微忍住一两年不做重大的投资，但就五到十年长期间来看，它们就不得不这样做，否则企业的根基就会被侵蚀。 Why, then, are "cash flow" numbers so popular today? In answer, we confess our cynicism: we believe these numbers are frequently used by marketers of businesses and securities in attempts to jus

49、tify the unjustifiable (and thereby to sell what should be the unsalable). When (a) - that is, GAAP earnings - looks by itself inadequate to service debt of a junk bond or justify a foolish stock price, how convenient it becomes for salesmen to focus on (a) + (b). But you shouldn't add (b) witho

50、ut subtracting ( c) : though dentists correctly claim that if you ignore your teeth they'll go away, the same is not true for ( c) . The company or investor believing that the debt-servicing ability or the equity valuation of an enterprise can be measured by totaling (a) and (b) while ignoring (

51、 c) is headed for certain trouble.那么为什么现在现金流量会变得如此流行呢? 在回答前，我们必须承认我们存在某些偏见，我们认为这些数字通常都是那些专门推销股票及公司的人，企图要将一些烂公司粉饰包装出售所用的手法，当(a)项也就是一般公认会计原则的盈余看起来不足以支应往后的债务所需或是过高的股票价格时，这些业务员自然就会将主意摆在(a)+(b)这个比较好看的数字上头，但如果你硬要加上(b)的话，就必须要扣除(c)，虽然有些牙医会告诉你，如果你能忘记牙痛的痛楚，那么它们就等于不存在，如果投资人或企业买家在考虑偿债能力或股票价值，只注意(a)+(b)，却忽略了(c)时，将来肯定会遇上大麻烦。 * * *To sum up: in the case of both Scott Fetzer and our other businesses, we feel that (b) on an historical-cost basis - i.e., with both amortization of intangibles and other purchase-price adjustments excluded - is quite close in amount to ( c) .