通胀如何欺诈股票投资者

How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor - by Warren Buffett

巴菲特：通货膨胀如何欺诈股票投资者

2011-05-18 16:25:44

The central problem in the stock market is that the return on capital hasn´t risen with inflation. It seems to be stuck at 12 percent.
股票市场中最核心的问题是资本收益并没有随着通货膨胀而增加，将会有12%的收益流掉。
by Warren E. Buffett, FORTUNE May 1977
作者：沃伦 巴菲特，《财富》杂志1977年5月号

It is no longer a secret that stocks, like bonds, do poorly in an inflationary environment. We have been in such an environment for most of the past decade, and it has indeed been a time of troubles for stocks. But the reasons for the stock market's problems in this period are still imperfectly understood.
股票在通货膨胀环境下像债券一样表现不佳，这已经不是个秘密。在过去10年里，我们一直处于这种通胀环境里。确实，这是一个股票遇到麻烦的时期。但是，在这段时间里造成股票市场难题的原因仍然没有被人们完全理解。
There is no mystery at all about the problems of bondholders in an era of inflation. When the value of the dollar deteriorates month after month, a security with income and principal payments denominated in those dollars isn't going to be a big winner. You hardly need a Ph.D. in economics to figure that one out.
在通胀时期债券持有者所遇到的问题一点也不神秘。当美元月复一月地贬值，一种本金和收入都用美元支付的证券不会是个大赢家。你根本不需要一个博士学位就能搞懂这个问题。
It was long assumed that stocks were something else. For many years, the conventional wisdom insisted that stocks were a hedge against inflation. The proposition was rooted in the fact that stocks are not claims against dollars, as bonds are, but represent ownership of companies with productive facilities. These, investors believed, would retain their Value in real terms, let the politicians print money as they might.

一直以来，人们认为股票是不同的。多年来，传统智慧坚持认为股票是对通货膨胀的对冲。这个说法来源于一个事实，那就是股票不像债券一样是对美元的所有权，而是对有着生产设施的公司的所有权。因此，股票投资者们相信，无论政客们如何印钞票，股票投资者仍然能保持他们投资的实际价值。
And why didn't it turn but that way? The main reason, I believe, is that stocks, in economic substance, are really very similar to bonds.
但是为什么实际上不是这么回事？主要原因在于：我认为股票在经济实质上非常类似于债券。
I know that this belief will seem eccentric to many investors. They will immediately observe that the return on a bond (the coupon) is fixed, while the return on an equity investment (the company's earnings) can vary substantially from one year to another. True enough. But anyone who examines the aggregate returns that have been earned by companies during the postwar years will discover something extraordinary: the returns on equity have in fact not varied much at all.
我知道我的主张对很多投资者来说显得古怪。他们马上就观察到债券的回报（利息）是固定的，而股票投资的回报（盈利）会每年变化极大。这确实是事实。但是，任何研究战后公司总体回报的人都会发现一个现象：资本回报率实际上并没有变化那么多。
The coupon is sticky
停滞的息票

In the first ten years after the war - the decade ending in 1955 -the Dow Jones industrials had an average annual return on year-end equity of 12.8 percent. In the second decade, the figure was 10.1 percent. In the third decade it was 10.9 percent. Data for a larger universe, the FORTUNE 500 (whose history goes back only to the mid1950's), indicate somewhat similar results: 11.2 percent in the decade ending in 1965, 11.8 percent in the decade through 1975. The figures for a few exceptional years have been substantially higher (the high for the 500 was 14.1 percent in 1974) or lower (9.5 percent in 1958 and 1970), but over the years, and in the aggregate, the return on book value tends to keep coming back to a level around 12 percent. It shows no signs of exceeding that level significantly in inflationary years (or in years of stable prices, for that matter).
战后10年，一直到1955年，道琼斯工业指数里的公司的资本回报率是12.8%。战后的第二个10年，这个数字是10.1%。在第三个10年，是10.9%。财富500强（历史数据最早到50年代中期），这一个更大范围的数据显示了相似的结果：1955-1965年资本回报率11.2%，1965-1975资本回报率11.8%。这个数字在几个特殊年份里非常高（财富500强的最高值是1974年的14.1%）或者非常低（1958年和1970年是9.5%）。但是，过去这些年，总体上，净资产的回报率持续回到12%的水平。在通胀时期，这个数字没有显著超越这一水平。在价格稳定的时期净资产的回报率也没有超越这一水平。
For the moment, let's think of those companies, not as listed stocks, but as productive enterprises. Let's also assume that the owners of those enterprises had acquired them at book value. In that case, their own return would have been around 12 percent too. And because the return has been so consistent, it seems reasonable to think of it as an "equity coupon".
让我们先不把这些公司看成上市的股票，而是生产的企业。让我们假定企业的所有人按净资产价值购买了这些企业。如果是这样，这些企业的所有人自己的回报也是12%左右。由于回报如此固定，我们有理由把回报看成“股票的息票”。
In the real world, of course, investors in stocks don't just buy and hold. Instead, many try to outwit their fellow investors in order to maximize their own proportions of corporate earnings. This thrashing about, obviously fruitless in aggregate, has no impact on the equity, coupon but reduces the investor's portion of it, because he incurs substantial frictional costs, such as advisory fees and brokerage charges. Throw in an active options market, which adds nothing to, the productivity of American enterprise but requires a cast of thousands to man the casino, and frictional costs rise further.
当然，在现实世界里，股票投资者并不只是购买并持有。相反，很多人在股票市场上反复买卖，试图战胜其它投资者，以获得公司盈利里面自己那部分的最大化。这种争斗，从总体上来说是无效的，对股票及股票自身的盈利无影响，却减少投资者的收益。因为这些活动会造成很高的摩擦成本，比如咨询费和交易费等。一个活跃的期权市场的引入根本无法增加美国企业的生产率，只不过是产生了给这个赌场配置数以千计的人手的需求。而摩擦成本则进一步升高。
Stocks are perpetual
股票是永久的
It is also true that in the real world investors in stocks don't usually get to buy at book value. Sometimes they have been able to buy in below book; usually, however, they've had to pay more than book, and when that happens there is further pressure on that 12 percent. I'll talk more about these relationships later. Meanwhile, let's focus on the main point: as inflation has increased, the return on equity capital has not. Essentially, those who buy equities receive securities with an underlying fixed return - just like those who buy bonds.
实际上，在现实世界，股票投资者通常并不用净资产价格购买股票。有时他们能在净资产价格之下购买。但是大多数的情况下他们的购买价格要比净资产价格高。这种情况下，就进一步增加了12%的资本回报的压力。在后面的文章里我会进一步谈二者的关系。现在，让我们关注主要的一点：通货膨胀已经增加，但资本回报不变。本质上，买股票的人得到的是内在的固定收益 —— 和买债券的人一样。
Of course, there are some important differences between the bond and stock forms. For openers, bonds eventually come due. It may require a long wait, but eventually the bond investor gets to renegotiate the terms of his contract. If current and prospective rates of inflation make his old coupon look inadequate, he can refuse to play further unless coupons currently being offered rekindle his interest. Something of this sort has been going on in recent years.
当然，股票和债券有一些重要的不同。首先，债券最终会到期。债券可能需要等很长时间才到期，但是最终债券投资者能够重新谈判合同的条款。如果目前和未来的通货膨胀率上涨使债券投资人旧的息票率显得不够，他可以拒绝再买。除非目前的息票率提高，重新引起他的兴趣。这种情况在近些年一直在持续上演。
Stocks, on the other hand, are perpetual. They have a maturity date of infinity. Investors in stocks are stuck with whatever return corporate America happens to earn. If corporate America is destined to earn 12 percent, then that is the level investors must learn to live with. As a group, stock investors can neither opt out nor renegotiate. In the aggregate, their commitment is actually increasing. Individual companies can be sold or liquidated and corporations can repurchase their own shares; on balance, however, new equity flotations and retained earnings guarantee that the equity capital locked up in the corporate system will increase.
股票，与之相反，是永久的。股票具有无限的到期日。股票投资者只能接受美国企业的盈利，无论好坏。如果美国企业注定获得12%的资本回报，这就是股票投资人必须接受的水平。作为一个群体，股票投资者无法退出，也无法重新谈判。从总体上说，他们的投入是增加的。单个的公司可以被买卖或破产清算。公司可以回购股票。但是从总体来说，增发新股和未分配利润肯定会使锁定在公司系统里的资本增加。
So, score one for the bond form. Bond coupons eventually will be renegotiated; equity "coupons" won't. It is true, of course, that for a long time a 12 percent coupon did not appear in need of a whole lot of correction.
所以，债券在这点上占了上风。债券最终会被重新谈判，股票的“息票”不会。确实，在很长时间里，12%的息票率看起来并不需要很多调整。
The bondholder gets it in cash
债券投资者拿的是现金
There is another major difference between the garden variety of bond and our new exotic 12 percent "equity bond" that comes to the Wall Street costume ball dressed in a stock certificate.
这是另外一个债券与12%回报的“股权债券”的重要的区别。股票就好像是穿着股票证书华丽外衣参加华尔街化妆舞会的一种新的债券 - “股权债券”。
In the usual case, a bond investor receives his entire coupon in cash and is left to reinvest it as best he can. Our stock investor's equity coupon, in contrast, is partially retained by the company and is reinvested at whatever rates the company happens to be earning. In other words, going back to our corporate universe, part of the 12 percent earned annually is paid out in dividends and the balance is put right back into the universe to earn 12 percent also.
通常情况下，债券投资者拿到现金息票。他可以自己决定这笔现金最好的投资方式。我们的股票投资者的“息票” - 盈利，则与之相反，一部分被公司留用并重新投资，而且投资回报率完全取决于公司。换句话说，公司的12%的年资本回报率一部分以现金方式发股息，剩下的重新投入盈取12%的回报。
The good old days
美好的旧日时光
This characteristic of stocks - the reinvestment of part of the coupon - can be good or bad news, depending on the relative attractiveness of that 12 percent. The news was very good indeed in, the 1950's and early 1960's. With bonds yielding only 3 or 4 percent, the right to reinvest automatically a portion of the equity coupon at 12 percent via s of enormous value. Note that investors could not just invest their own money and get that 12 percent return. Stock prices in this period ranged far above book value, and investors were prevented by the premium prices they had to pay from directly extracting out of the underlying corporate universe whatever rate that universe was earning. You can't pay far above par for a 12 percent bond and earn 12 percent for yourself.
股票盈利的一部分重新再投入的特性，是好消息也是坏消息，这取决于那12%的回报到底有多诱人。在1950年代和60年代早期，这的确是好消息。当债券收益率只有百分之三或四的时候，能够有权自动把股票盈利的一部分再投入，取得12%的回报，具有极大的价值。注意，投资人无法把自己的资金投资其他的东西而取得那12%的回报。在这个时期，股票价格远超过净资产价格。由于价格高涨，无论公司内在的回报率是多少，投资者都无法直接从公司的收益中获得回报。这就好比年息12%的债券，如果你以远远超过票面价值的价格购买，是无法获得12%的回报的。（老K注：如果一个企业的长年ROE为12%，而你以远超类似债券的票面价值即1PB的价格购买，则无法获得12%的回报）
But on their retained earnings, investors could earn 22 percent. In effert, earnings retention allowed investors to buy at book value part of an enterprise that, :in the economic environment than existing, was worth a great deal more than book value.
但是，投资者的存留收益可以获得22%的回报。实际上，在当时的经济环境下，存留收益让投资者以净资产价格购买价值远超出净资产价格的企业。
It was a situation that left very little to be said for cash dividends and a lot to be said for earnings retention. Indeed, the more money that investors thought likely to be reinvested at the 12 percent rate, the more valuable they considered their reinvestment privilege, and the more they were willing to pay for it. In the early 1960's, investors eagerly paid top-scale prices for electric utilities situated in growth areas, knowing that these companies had the ability to reinvest very large proportions of their earnings. Utilities whose operating environment dictated a larger cash payout rated lower prices.
这种情况让现金股利与收益存留相比没有任何吸引力。确实，能有更多的盈利再投入赚取12%回报，投资者就更认为他们的投资有价值。他们就更愿意付更高的价格。在60年代早期，投资者对增长区域的电力公司股票付出了高价。因为他们知道这些成长型公司有能力再投入大量的盈利赚取更多回报。而由于运营环境的原因付出更多现金股利的电力公司则股价很低。
If, during this period, a high-grade, non-callable, long-term bond with a 12 percent coupon had existed, it would have sold far above par. And if it were a bond with a further unusual characteristic - which was that most of the coupon payments could be automatically reinvested at par in similar bonds - the issue would have commanded an even greater premium. In essence, growth stocks retaining most of their earnings represented just such a security. When their reinvestment rate on the added equity capital was 12 percent while interest rates generally were around 4 percent, investors became very happy - and, of course, they paid happy prices.
如果在这一时期，一个高等级，无法回购的年息12%的长期债券存在的话，也会卖的远远超过票面价值的。如果这样一个债券再有另外一个不寻常的特性 - 能够把利息收入的大部分再以票面价值投入到类似的债券中去，那它还会卖得更高。实际上成长型股票把大部分盈利存留下来再投入，就好像前面提到的债券。当资本再投入的回报是12%而银行利息只有4%左右时，投资者非常高兴。当然，他们也付出了高的价格。
Heading for the exits
逃离
Looking back, stock investors can think of themselves in the 1946-56 period as having been ladled a truly bountiful triple dip. First, they were the beneficiaries of an underlying corporate return on equity that was far above prevailing interest rates. Second, a significant portion of that return was reinvested for them at rates that were otherwise unattainable. And third, they were afforded an escalating appraisal of underlying equity capital as the first two benefits became widely recognized. This third dip meant that, on top of the basic 12 percent or so earned by corporations on their equity capital, investors were receiving a bonus as the Dow Jones industrials increased in price from 138 percent book value in 1946 to 220 percent in 1966, Such a marking-up process temporarily allowed investors to achieve a return that exceeded the inherent earning power of the enterprises in which they had invested.
回首过去，股票投资者可以认为他们在1946到1956年间享受了丰盛的三重盛宴。第一，他们享受了远超过银行利息的公司回报。第二，这些回报的很大部分又重新被投入，获得了其他投资方式无法获得的高回报。第三，当前面两点好处被广泛认知时，他们从股票资产价格的不断上升中又进一步获得了好处。这第三重好处意味着在12%的公司资本回报率之上，他们获得了额外的奖金。道琼斯工业指数股票价格从1946年的相当于138%的净资产增长到1966年的相当于220%的净资产。在这一增长过程中，投资者短暂地获得了超越其所投资企业内在盈利能力的回报。（老K注：即股票价格从1.38倍PB上涨到了2.2倍PB，投资者短暂获得了超越企业实际的回报，之后呢，那多出来的回报肯定是需要后面的人慢慢还回去的了）
This heaven-on-earth situation finally was "discovered" in the mid-1960's by many major investing institutions. But just as these financial elephants began trampling on one another in their rush to equities, we entered an era of accelerating inflation and higher interest rates. Quite logically, the marking-up process began to reverse itself. Rising interest rates ruthlessly reduced the value of all existing fixed-coupon investments. And as long-term corporate bond rates began moving up (eventually reaching the 10 percent area), both the equity return of 12 percept and the reinvestment "privilege" began to look different.
这一人间天堂式的情形在60年代中期被许多主要投资机构“发现”。但正当这些金融界的大象争先恐后进入股票市场时，我们进入了一个加速通货膨胀和高利率的时期。非常合乎逻辑的是，股票的上涨开始改头向下。升高的利息无情的减少了现存的固定收益投资的价值。当长期公司债券利息开始上升（最终达到了10%的附近），股票投资的12%的回报和再投入的优势都变得不一样了。
Stocks are quite properly thought of as riskier than bonds. While that equity coupon is more or less fixed over periods of time, it does fluctuate somewhat from year to year. Investors' attitudes about the future can be affected substantially, although frequently erroneously, by those yearly changes. Stocks are also riskier because they come equipped with infinite maturities. (Even your friendly broker wouldn't have the nerve to peddle a 100-year bond, if he had any available, as "safe.") Because of the additional risk, the natural reaction of investors is to expect an equity return that is comfortably above the bond return - and 12 percent on equity versus, say, 10 percent on bonds issued by the same corporate universe does not seem to qualify as comfortable. As the spread narrows, equity investors start looking for the exits.
股票被认为比债券更加具有风险。在一定时期内，股票的收益率虽然多多少少是固定的，但却每年上下浮动。投资者对未来的态度，很大程度上被每年的这种收益率浮动所影响，而这种影响往往是错误的。股票有更大的风险还因为股票是无限期的。（即使你的友好的股票经纪人有“安全”的100年的债券，他也不敢兜售给你。）由于这些额外的风险，投资者自然预期股票要有令人满意的高于债券的回报。而同样是公司发行的股票和债券，股票回报12%，债券回报10%，这两者的差异还够不上令人满意。当两者的差异缩小时，股票投资者开始寻找逃离的方式。
But, of course, as a group they can't get out. All they can achieve is a lot of movement, substantial frictional costs, and a new, much lower level of valuation, reflecting the lessened attractiveness of the 12 percent equity coupon under inflationary conditions. Bond investors have had a succession of shocks over the past decade in the course of discovering that there is no magic attached to any given coupon level - at 6 percent, or 8 percept, or 10 percent, bonds can still collapse in price. Stock investors, who are in general not aware that they too have a "coupon", are still receiving their education on this point.
但是，作为一个群体，他们无法逃离。他们所能取得的只有很多的股票价格变动，显著的摩擦成本和新的、更低的估值水平。这一估值水平反映了在通货膨胀条件下，12%的股票收益率毫无吸引力。在过去10年，债券投资者受到了一系列的打击。他们在这一遭受打击的过程中发现，在任何债券利息水平，无论是6%，或8%，还是10%，都没有任何神奇的力量阻止债券价格的崩溃。股票投资者虽然总的来说没有意识到他们也有“息票”，但是他们还正在接受教育的过程中。
Five ways to improve earnings
提高盈利的五个方法
Must we really view that 12 percent equity coupon as immutable? Is there any law that says the corporate return on equity capital cannot adjust itself upward in response to a permanently higher average rate of inflation?
我们必须把12%的资本回报率看成是不变的吗？有没有一条法律规定：公司资本回报率不能自我调节，来应对长期的更高的平均通货膨胀率？
There is no such law, of course. On the other hand, corporate America cannot increase earnings by desire or decree. To raise that return on equity, corporations would need at least one of the following: (1) an increase in turnover, i.e., in the ratio between sales and total assets employed in the business; (2) cheaper leverage; (3) more leverage; (4) lower income taxes, (5) wider operating margins on sales.
当然，并没有这样一条法律。恰恰相反，美国企业无法通过意愿或者命令增加盈利。为了提高资本回报率，企业需要至少下面的其中一项：
　　1）提高周转率，也就是销售额与总资产的比。
　　2）廉价的债务杠杆
　　3）更高的债务杠杆
　　4）更低的所得税
　　5）更高的运营利润率

And that's it. There simply are no other ways to increase returns on common equity. Let's see what can be done with these.
这就是所有的方式。根本没有提高普通股资本回报率的其他方式。让我们看看我们如何利用这些方式。

We'll begin with turnover. The three major categories of assets we have to think about for this exercise are accounts receivable inventories, and fixed assets such as plants and machinery.
我们先从周转率开始。为了分析周转率，我们必须考虑三个主要类型的资产：应收帐款、库存和固定资产，如厂房和机器。

Accounts receivable go up proportionally as sales go up, whether the increase in dollar sales is produced by more physical volume or by inflation. No room for improvement here.
应收帐款随销售额增加成比例增加。而以美元计的销售额增加是由销量增加或通货膨胀引起。在这里没有改善的空间。

With inventories, the situation is not quite as simple. Over the long term, the trend in unit inventories may be expected to follow the trend in unit sales. Over the short term, however, the physical turnover rate may bob around because of spacial influences - e.g., cost expectations, or bottlenecks.
库存的情况非常不简单。从长期看，计件的实体库存数量趋势跟随销量趋势。但是从短期看，实体库存的周转率会上下波动，原因可能是空间影响、成本预期、或者生产瓶颈。

The use of last-in, first-out (LIFO) inventory-valuation methods serves to increase the reported turnover rate during inflationary times. When dollar sales are rising because of inflation, inventory valuations of a LIFO company either will remain level, (if unit sales are not rising) or will trail the rise 1n dollar sales (if unit sales are rising). In either case, dollar turnover will increase.
在通胀时期，使用后进先出库存估值方法会提高报告的周转率。当由于通货膨胀引起销售额上升，使用后进先出方式的公司库存值要么会保持不变（如果销量不增加），要么会跟随销售额上升（如果销量上升）。无论哪种情况，以美元计的周转率都会提高。

During the early 1970's, there was a pronounced swing by corporations toward LIFO accounting (which has the effect of lowering a company's reported earnings and tax bills). The trend now seems to have slowed. Still, the existence of a lot of LIFO companies, plus the likelihood that some others will join the crowd, ensures some further increase it the reported turnover of inventory.
在70年代早期，公司的一个显著趋势就是转向“后进先出”会计方式（这样做有降低公司报告的盈利和降低税的效果）。这一趋势目前似乎有所减缓。但是，很多“后进先出”公司的存在，加上很多其他公司也可能加入“后进先出”这一行列，会使未来报告的库存周转率提高。

The gains are apt to be modest
中等程度的改善
In the case of fixed assets, any rise in the inflation rate, assuming it affects all products equally, will initially have the effect of increasing turnover. That is true because sales will immediately reflect the new price level, while the fixed-asset account will reflect the change only gradually, i.e., as existing assets are retired and replaced at the new prices. Obviously, the more slowly a company goes about this replacement process, the more the turnover ratio will rise. The action stops, however, when a replacement cycle is completed. Assuming a constant rate of inflation, sales and fixed assets will then begin to rise in concert at the rate of inflation.
在固定资产方面，假定对所有产品的影响是相同的的情况下，任何通胀，在一开始会有改善周转率的效果。这是因为销售额会立即反映新的价格水平。但固定资产会逐渐反映价格的变化。当前的资产逐渐消耗掉，新的资产反映新的价格水平。很明显，一个公司的固定资产替换过程越慢，固定资产周转率上升的越多。但是当替换过程完成后，这一上升就停止了。假定通货膨胀率是固定的，那么销售额和固定资产将随通货膨胀率一起上升。

To sum up, inflation will produce some gains in turnover ratios. Some improvement would be certain because of LIFO, and some would be possible (if inflation accelerates) because of sales rising more rapidly than fixed assets. But the gains are apt to be modest and not of a magnitude to produce substantial improvement in returns on equity capital. During the decade ending in 1975, despite generally accelerating inflation and the extensive use of LIFO accounting, the turnover ratio of the FORTUNE 500 went only from 1.18/1 to 1.29/1.
总结一下。通胀将引起周转率在一定程度的上升。由于“后进先出”会计方式，也会带来一些周转率的改善。如果通胀加速，由于销售额增速超过固定资产增速，也会改善周转率。但是，所有这些改善都是中等程度的，没有达到明显改善资本回报率的程度。从1965到1975这10年间，虽然通胀总体加速，企业广泛应用“后进先出”会计方式，财富500强企业的周转率只从比1.18/1提高到了比1.29/1。(老K注：中国新会计准则不允许使用后进先出的会计方式记录存货）

Cheaper leverage? Not likely. High rates of inflation generally cause borrowing to become dearer, not cheaper. Galloping rates of inflation create galloping capital needs; and lenders, as they become increasingly distrustful of long-term contracts, become more demanding. But even if there is no further rise in interest rates, leverage will be getting more expensive because the average cost of the debt now on corporate books is less than would be the cost of replacing it. And replacement will be required as the existing debt matures. Overall, then, future changes in the cost of leverage seem likely to have a mildly depressing effect on the return on equity.
便宜的债务杠杆呢？不太可能。高通胀通常导致借贷成本昂贵而不是便宜。快速增长的通胀创造了快速增长的资本需求。但是发放贷款的一方越来越不相信长期合同，变得更苛求。即使通货膨胀率不进一步上升，债务杠杆也会变得更加昂贵。因为目前公司帐面的借贷成本低于替换成新的贷款后的成本。而替换新的贷款需要等目前的贷款到期。总的来看，未来的债务杠杆成本的变化会轻度压缩资本回报率。（老K注：通胀会加重企业的财务负担，从而导致财务费用上涨，对ROE的影响是负面的）

More leverage? American business already has fired many, if not most, of the more-leverage bullets once available to it. Proof of that proposition can be seen in some other FORTUNE 500 statistics - in the twenty years ending in 1975, stockholders' equity as a percentage of total assets declined for the 500 from 63 percent to just under 50 percent. In other words, each dollar of equity capital now is leveraged much more heavily than it used to be.
更多的杠杆呢？美国企业已经用了够多的债务杠杆了。财富500强的数据就是证明。在1975年之前的20年里，财富500强的股东权益占总资产的比例从63%降到了50%以下。换句话说，每一美金的资本已经比过去利用了更高的债务杠杆。

What the lenders learned
贷款发放者学到了什么
An irony of inflation-induced financial requirements is that the highly profitable companies - generally the best credits - require relatively little debt capital. But the laggards in profitability never can get enough. Lenders understand this problem much better than they did a decade ago - and are correspondingly less willing to let capital-hungry, low-profitability enterprises leverage themselves to the sky.
通胀引发了一个具有讽刺意味的财务要求：高度盈利的公司，一般有最好的信用，但只需要相对很少的债务。但是在盈利方面不佳的公司对债务的需求从来就没够。相对10年前，贷款发放者对此了解的更加透彻。所以，他们不愿意贷款给资本匮乏，盈利不佳的公司，让他们把债务杠杆抬高到天上去。

Nevertheless, given inflationary conditions, many corporations seem sure in the future to turn to still more leverage as a means of shoring up equity returns. Their managements will make that move because they will need enormous amounts of capital - often merely to do the same physical volume of business - and will wish to got it without cutting dividends or making equity offerings that, because of inflation, are not apt to shape up as attractive. Their natural response will be to heap on debt, almost regardless of cost. They will tend to behave like those utility companies that argued over an eighth of a point in the 1960's and were grateful to find 12 percent debt financing in 1974.
即便如此，在通胀条件下，将来很多企业看起来肯定会利用更高的债务杠杆来提高资本回报率。很多公司通常即使维持同等规模的实体商业运营，也需要巨额的资本。而减少股息或者增发新股在通胀条件下都不具备吸引力，这些公司的管理层因此会选择更高的债务杠杆。无论债务成本如何，这些公司都会债务堆积如山。他们的行为会像那些电力公司。那些公司在60年代曾经为八分之一个点的利息而与发放贷款者争执。而1974年，他们对能拿到12%的债务融资已经很感激了。

Added debt at present interest rates, however, will do less for equity returns than did added debt at 4 percent rates it the early 1960's. There is also the problem that higher debt ratios cause credit ratings to be lowered, creating a further rise in interest costs.
和60年代早期4%利息的债务相比，以现在的利息水平增加的债务对资本回报的促进有限。但另外的问题是高债务比率会降低信用评级，进而提高利息成本。
So that is another way, to be added to those already discussed, in which the cost of leverage will be rising. In total, the higher costs of leverage are likely to offset the benefits of greater leverage.
所以，除了我们讨论的其它因素，债务比率增加会提高利息成本，也会导致债务杠杆成本增加。更高的债务杠杆成本会抵消更高债务杠杆的各种好处。
Besides, there is already far more debt in corporate America than is conveyed by conventional balance sheets. Many companies have massive pension obligations geared to whatever pay levels will be in effect when present workers retire. At the low inflation rates of 1965-65, the liabilities arising from such plans were reasonably predictable. Today, nobody can really know the company's ultimate obligation, But if the inflation rate averages 7 percent in the future, a twentyfive-year-old employee who is now earning $12,000, and whose raises do no more than match increases in living costs, will be making $180,000 when he retires at sixty-five.
除了这些之外，美国企业的资产负债表上，与传统相比已经有了太多的债务。很多企业担负了大量的养老金义务。这些义务把养老金设置成当现在的工人退休时的实际支付水平。在低通胀的1955至1965年，由这些养老金义务引发的负债相当好预测。而今天，没人能够真正搞清楚公司的最终义务是多少。但是，如果未来通货膨胀率平均7%的话。一个今天25岁挣一万两千美金一年的雇员，未来的工资涨幅仅仅和通胀持平，在他65岁退休的时候也要挣十八万美金。（译者注：通用汽车就是这么死的。老K注：此处为不知名的译者的备注，呵呵，很恰当）
Of course, there is a marvelously precise figure in many annual reports each year, purporting to be the unfunded pension liability. If that figure were really believable, a corporation could simply ante up that sum, add to it the existing pension-fund assets, turn the total amount over to an insurance company, and have it assume all the corporation's present pension liabilities. In the real world, alas, it is impossible to find an insurance company willing even to listen to such a deal.
当然，每年有很多年报里有非常精确的缺少资金的养老金义务数字。如果那些数字可信，一个公司可以把这个养老金义务的数字加上当前的养老基金资产，把整个养老金交给一个保险公司。让保险公司承担养老金义务。实际上，找到一个愿意听一听这样一个交易的保险公司都不可能。
Virtually every corporate treasurer in America would recoil at the idea of issuing a "cost-of-living" bond - a noncallable obligation with coupons tied to a price index. But through the private pension system, corporate America has in fact taken on a fantastic amount of debt that is the equivalent of such a bond.
实际上，每个美国企业的司库都不敢有发行“生活成本”债券的想法。“生活成本”债券也就是一种无法召回而且息票和价格指数相联系的债务。但是，通过私人的养老金系统，美国企业实际上承担了大量相当于“生活成本”债券的债务。
More leverage, whether through conventional debt or unbooked and indexed "pension debt", should be viewed with skepticism by shareholders. A 12 percent return from an enterprise that is debt-free is far superior to the same return achieved by a business hocked to its eyeballs. Which means that today's 12 percent equity returns may well be less valuable than the 12 percent returns of twenty years ago.
对更多的债务杠杆，无论是传统的债务还是没有记录的与价格指数相关的养老金债务，股东都应该持怀疑态度。一个无债一身轻的企业的12%回报要远胜于一个负债累累的企业的同样的回报。这也意味着今天的12%的回报的价值要比20年前的12%回报低得多。
More fun in New York
纽约更有趣

Lower corporate income taxes seem unlikely. Investors in American corporations already own what might be thought of as a Class D stock. The class A, B and C stocks are represented by the income-tax claims of the federal, state, and municipal governments. It is true that these "investors" have no claim on the corporation's assets; however, they get a major share of the earnings, including earnings generated by the equity buildup resulting from retention of part of the earnings owned by the Class D sharaholders.
更低的企业所得税不太可能。美国的投资者已经只拥有D级的股票。A、B、C级股票的拥有者是对企业征所得税的联邦、州、市级政府。确实，那些“投资者”并不拥有企业的资产。但是，他们却获得企业盈利的主要一块。D级股票拥有者把盈利再投入来积累资本。增加的资本所创造的盈利却被政府收走。
A further charming characteristic of these wonderful Class A, B and C stocks is that their share of the corporation's earnings can be increased immedtately, abundantly, and without payment by the unilateral vote of any one of the "stockholder" classes, e.g., by congressional action in the case of the Class A. To add to the fun, one of the classes will sometimes vote to increase its ownership share in the business retroactively - as companies operating in New York discovered to their dismay in 1975. Whenever the Class A, B or C "stockholders" vote themselves a larger share of the business, the portion remaining for Class D - that's the one held by the ordinary investor - declines.
A、B、C级股票的另一个诱人之处就在于股票持有者可以不经任何一方投票，就立刻，突然地提高对企业的盈利分成。比如A级股票（联邦一级）只要国会采取行动就行了。更有趣的是，这3个等级的其中一级有时投票决定增加企业过去盈利的分成。1975年在纽约运营的企业就发现自己处于这种可怕的境地。无论何时，只要A、B、C级股票拥有者自己投票决定增加盈利份额，剩下的部分 —— 也就是留给D级普通股票投资者的部分，肯定减少。

Looking ahead, it seems unwise to assume that those who control the A, B and C shares will vote to reduce their own take over the long run. The class D shares probably will have to struggle to hold their own.
展望未来，长期看A、B、C级股票拥有者投票决定减少自己份额的可能性不大。D级股票能保住自己那一份就不错了。
Bad news from the FTC
来自于联邦贸易委员会的坏消息

The last of our five possible sources of increased returns on equity is wider operating margins on sales. Here is where some optimists would hope to achieve major gains. There is no proof that they are wrong. Bu there are only 100 cents in the sales dollar and a lot of demands on that dollar before we get down to the residual, pretax profits. The major claimants are labor, raw materials energy, and various non-income taxes. The relative importance of these costs hardly, seems likely to decline during an age of inflation.
提高资本回报只有5个可能的来源，其中最后一个就是销售额之上更高的运营利润率。一些乐观主义者希望在这里能有重要的改善。没有证据表明他们的乐观是错误的。但是，一个美元的销售里面只有100个美分。在我们得到剩余的部分也就是税前利润之前还有很多东西要花钱。主要的东西有人力成本、原材料、能源和各种各样的非所得税。这些成本的比重在通胀时期不太可能降低。

Recent statistical evidence, furthermore, does not inspire confidence in the proposition that margins will widen in, a period of inflation. In the decade ending in 1965, a period of relatively low inflation, the universe of manufacturing companies reported on quarterly by the Federal Trade Commission had an average annual pretax margin on sales of 8.6 percent. In the decade ending in 1975, the average margin was 8 percent. Margins were down, in other words, despite a very considerable increase in the inflation rate.
最近的统计数据并不支持通胀时期利润率提高的想法。1965年之前的10年是一个通胀相对较低的时期。在这一时期，制造厂商每季度向联邦贸易委员会报告的年平均税前利润率为。1965到1975年的10年是一个通胀相对较高的时期。而这一时期年平均税前利润率为8%。虽然通胀显著提高，利润率却降低了。

If business was able to base its prices on replacement costs, margins would widen in inflationary periods. But the simple fact is that most large businesses, despite a widespread belief in their market power, just don't manage to pull it off. Replacement cost accounting almost always shows that corporate earnings have declined significantly in the past decade. If such major industries as oil, steel, and aluminum really have the oligopolistic muscle imputed to them, one can only conclude that their pricing policies have been remarkably restrained.
如果一个行业能够根据重置成本定价，那么在通胀时期利润率会提高。但是，一个简单的事实：大多数大型企业虽然有巨大的实力，却无法提高利润率。重置成本会计几乎总是显示企业盈利在过去10年显著下降。如果这些大型企业如石油、钢铁、铝业等确实有寡头垄断的实力却无法提价，我们只能得出结论：他们的定价权受到了明显的限制。

There you have, the complete lineup: five factors that can improve returns on common equity, none of which, by my analysis, are likely to take us very far in that direction in periods of high inflation. You may have emerged from this exercise more optimistic than I am. But remember, returns in the 12 percent area have been with us a long time.
至此我们已经总结了所有因素：在我的分析之中，所有5个能够提高普通股票回报的因素都不可能在通胀时期带我们走的太远。你也许能得出比我更乐观的结论。但是，记住12%左右的回报已经持续了很长时间。
The investor's equation
投资者的公式

Even if you agree that the 12 percent equity coupon is more or less immutable, you still may hope to do well with it in the years ahead. It's conceivable that you will. After all, a lot of investors did well with it for a long time. But your future results will be governed by three variable's: the relationship between book value and market value, the tax rate, and the inflation rate.
即使你同意12%的回报是不可改变的，你仍然希望在未来能取得好的业绩。这可以理解。毕竟有很多投资者长期业绩很好。但是，你未来的业绩取决于三个变量：股票净资产与股票市场价格的关系、税率和通货膨胀率。
Let's wade through a little arithmetic about book and market value. When stocks consistently sell at book value, it's all very simple. If a stock has a book value of $100 and also an average market value of $100, 12 percent earnings by business will produce a 12 percent return for the investor (less those frictional costs, which we'll ignore for the moment). If the payout ratio is 50 percent, our investor will get $6 via dividends and a further $6 from the increase in the book value of the business, which will, of course, be reflected in the market value of his holdings.
让我们算算净资产和市场价格。当股票一直在净资产价格销售时（老K注，即市场价格是1PB），非常简单。100美元的净资产，平均市场价格100美元，12%的公司盈利就给投资者产生12%的回报。（还要减去摩擦成本，在此我们先忽略不计。）如果股息发放率为50%，我们的投资者将拿到6美元的股息，并获得另外6美元的净资产增加。这一净资产的增加会体现在投资者所持有的股票市场价格上。
If the stock sold at 150 percent of book value, the picture would change. The investor would receive the same $6 cash dividend, but it would now represent only a 4 percent return on his $150 cost. The book value of the business would still increase by 6 percent (to $106) and the market value of the investor's holdings, valued consistently at 150 percent of book value, would similarly increase by 6 percent (to $159). But the investor's total return, i.e., from appreciation plus dividends, would be only 10 percent versus the underlying 12 percent earned by the business.
如果股票价格是净资产的150%（老K注：即1.5PB），情况就不一样了。投资者会受到同样的6美元股息。但是这只相当于他150美金成本的4%而已。公司的净资产也会增加6%（达到106美元）。而投资者的股票市场价值在净资产150%的基础上也会增加6%（达到159美元）。但是，投资者的总回报，也就是净资产增值加上股息，才只有10%而不是公司内在的12%盈利。

When the investor buys in below book value, the process is reversed. For example, if the stock sells at 80 percent of book value, the same earnings and payout assumptions would yield 7.5 percent from dividends ($6 on an $80 price) and 6 percent from appreciation - a total return of 13.5 percent. In other words, you do better by buying at a discount rather than a premium, just as common sense would suggest.
当投资者低于净资产买入（老K注：即低于1PB），这个过程正好相反。比如，如果股票价格是净资产的80%，同样的盈利和股息发放率将产生的股息回报（6美元除以80美元）和6%的净资产增值回报。总回报为。换句话说，你最好买打折的而不是高价的，这和常识告诉我们的一样。

During the postwar years, the market value of the Dow Jones industrials has been as low as 84 percent of book value (in 1974) and as high as 232 percent (in 1965); most of the time the ratio has been well over 100 percent. (Early this spring, it was around 110 percent.) Let's assume that in the future the ratio will be something close to 100 percent - meaning that investors in stocks could earn the full 12 percent. At least, they could earn that figure before taxes and before inflation.
战后，道琼斯工业指数股票的市场价格最低达到净资产的84%（1974年）（老K注：0.84PB），最高达到过净资产的232%（1965年）（老K注：2.32PB）。大多数时候，股票市场价格远超过100%的净资产。（今年春天早些时候，股票价格大约是110%的净资产）让我们假定未来这一比率在100%左右。这意味着股票投资者会获得12%的回报。至少，他们在税和通胀之前可以获得那么多。
7 percent after taxes
税后回报7%
How large a bite might taxes take out of the 12 percent? For individual investors, it seems reasonable to assume that federal, state, and local income taxes will average perhaps 50 percent on dividends and 30 percent on capital gains. A majority of investors may have marginal rates somewhat below these, but many with larger holdings will experience substantially higher rates. Under the new tax law, as FORTUNE observed last month, a high-income investor in a heavily taxed city could have a marginal rate on capital gains as high as 56 percent. (See"The Tax Practitioners Act of 1976.")
So let's use 50 percent and 30 percent as representative for individual investors. Let's also assume, in line with recent experience, that corporations earning 12 percent on equity pay out 5 percent in cash dividends (2.5 percent after tax) and retain 7 percent, with those retained earnings producing a corresponding market-value growth (4.9 percent after the 30 percent tax). The after-tax return, then, would be 7.4 percent. Probably this should be rounded down to about 7 percent to allow for frictional costs. To push our stocks-asdisguised-bonds thesis one notch further, then, stocks might be regarded as the equivalent, for individuals, of 7 percent tax-exempt perpetual bonds.
（译者注：由于中美税制不同，在此不再翻译。但是可以用中国的20%股息税和0%的资本利得税算算。假设盈利50%分红，则100美元净资产发6美金股息。按中国20%税率，剩下4.8美元。总回报为，比巴菲特时代的7%左右税后回报要好。)

The number nobody knows

通货膨胀率 —— 一个没人知道的数字

Which brings us to the crucial question - the inflation rate. No one knows the answer on this one - including the politicians, economists, and Establishment pundits, who felt, a few years back, that with slight nudges here and there unemployment and inflation rates would respond like trained seals.
通货膨胀率到底会是多少？这是个重要的问题，但是没有人知道。政客不知道，经济学家不知道，权威评论家也不知道。这些人在几年前还觉得，只要这里那里轻微调节一下，失业率和通货膨胀率就会像训练过的海豹一样做出反应。
But many signs seem negative for stable prices: the fact that inflation is now worldwide; the propensity of major groups in our society to utilize their electoral muscle to shift, rather than solve, economic problems ; the demonstrated unwillingness to tackle even the most vital problems (e.g., energy and nuclear proliferation) if they can be postponed; and a political system that rewards legislators with reelection if their actions appear to produce short-term benefits even though their ultimate imprint will be to compound long-term pain.
但是，很多迹象并不支持稳定的价格：事实上，通货膨胀现在是世界性的。我们社会的主要集团倾向于利用他们对竞选的影响，转移，而不是解决经济问题。如果可以推迟，即使是最关键的问题（比如能源和核扩散）他们也不愿解决。我们的政治系统鼓励短期行为。为了重新当选，立法者做出有利于短期，但却最终会带来长期痛苦的决定。

Most of those in political office, quite understandably, are firmly against inflation and firmly in favor of policies producing it. (This schizophrenia hasn't caused them to lose touch with reality, however; Congressmen have made sure that their pensions - unlike practically all granted in the private sector - are indexed to cost-of-living changes after retirement.)
绝大多数政客都强烈反对通胀，但他们都坚定支持制造通胀的政策。（但是这种精神分裂还没有让他们远离现实。众议院已经确保他们的养老金与退休后生活成本变化挂钩。这与私人部门的一般做法可不一样。）（老K注：只要印钞票能延缓危机的事情，政客们都会做，在取消金本位的今天，全世界都一样）

Discussions regarding future inflation rates usually probe the subtleties of monetary and fiscal policies. These are important variables in determining the outcome of any specific inflationary equation. But, at the source, peacetime inflation is a political problem, not an economic problem. Human behavior, not monetary behavior, is the key. And when very human politicians choose between the next election and the next generation, it's clear what usually happens.
讨论未来通货膨胀率往往会触及货币和财政政策的敏感性。这两者是决定任何精确的通胀公式结果的重要变量。但是问题的根源在于：和平时期的通货膨胀是个政治问题而不是个经济问题。人的行为才是最关键的。货币不是关键。政客也是人，肯定会顾及自己的利益。选择短期利益确保下界继续当选，还是选择长远利益为下一代着想而失去竞选？他们通常会做出确保自己利益的选择。

Such broad generalizations do not produce precise numbers. However, it seems quite possible to me that inflation rates will average 7 percent in future years. I hope this forecast proves to be wrong. And it may well be. Forecasts usually tell us more of the forecaster than of the future. You are free to factor your own inflation rate into the investor's equation. But if you foresee a rate averaging 2 percent or 3 percent, you are wearing different glasses than I am.
这种泛泛而论无法得出精确的数字。但是，对我来说，将来通货膨胀率很有可能会在7%的平均水平。我希望我的预测是错的。这个预测确实可能是错的。对未来的预测通常告诉我们更多有关预测者的信息而不是未来。你可以自己选择把你自己的通货膨胀率代入投资者的公式。但是，如果你预测未来2%-3%的通货膨胀率，那你的视角肯定和我不同。

So there we are: 12 percent before taxes and inflation; 7 percent after taxes and before inflation; and maybe zero percent after taxes and inflation. It hardly sounds like a formula that will keep all those cattle stampeding on TV.
所以，我们的结论出来了：在扣除通胀及税之前股票有12%的回报；扣税但不扣除通胀，股票还有7%的回报；扣除税和通胀后股票可能为零回报。这可不像是一个令人激动人心的公式。

As a common stockholder you will have more dollars, but you may have no more purchasing power. Out with Ben Franklin ("a penny saved is a penny earned") and in with Milton Friedman ("a man might as well consume his capital as invest it").
作为一个普通股票投资者，你将有更多钱。但是，你将不会有更多的购买力。这可不像富兰克林（“存的一分就是挣的一分”）和弗雷德里曼（“一个人可以消费，也可以投入他的资本。”）所说的。

What widows don't notice
寡妇们没有注意到的事情

The arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax than anything that has been enacted by our legislatures. The inflation tax has a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a widow with her savings in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation, or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation. Either way, she is "taxed" in a manner that leaves her no real income whatsoever. Any money she spends comes right out of capital. She would find outrageous a 120 percent income tax, but doesn't seem to notice that 6 percent inflation is the economic equivalent.
算数可以很清楚的证明一个事实：通货膨胀是一种税。而且这种税比我们的立法者所制定的任何税种都更具毁灭性。通货膨胀税具有可怕的消耗资本的能力。对于一个依靠存折上5%利息收入的寡妇来说，零通胀时期100%的所得税和通胀时期5%的通货膨胀率是一样的。两种情况都让她没有任何实际收入。任何她所花的钱都直接来自于资本。她会对120%的所得税感到气愤。但她却不会注意到6%的通货膨胀率在经济上就相当于120%的所得税。

If my inflation assumption is close to correct, disappointing results will occur not because the market falls, but in spite of the fact that the market rises. At around 920 early last month, the Dow was up fifty-five points from where it was ten years ago. But adjusted for inflation, the Dow is down almost 345 points - from 865 to 520. And about half of the earnings of the Dow had to be withheld from their owners and reinvested in order to achieve even that result.
如果我对通胀的假设接近正确，不仅市场下跌时业绩会令人失望，市场上升时业绩也会令人失望。上个月早些时候，道琼斯指数是920点，比10年前上涨55点。但是，经过通货膨胀调整后，道指实际下降345点——从865到520。道琼斯指数里的公司还必须把属于股东的盈利的一半截流，然后再投资，才能取得这样的结果。

In the next ten years, the Dow would be doubled just by a combination of the 12 percent equity coupon, a 40 percent payout ratio, and the present 110 percent ratio of market to book value. And with 7 percent inflation, investors who sold at 1800 would still be considerably worse off than they are today after paying their capital-gains taxes.
在下一个10年，只要股票有12%的资本回报率，40%的股息分红率和110%的市场价与净资产的比率，道琼斯指数会翻倍。但如果有7%的通货膨胀，10年后在1800点卖出的投资者付出资本利得税后的实际结果还远不如今天的水平。（老K注：巴菲特的预测很靠谱啊，参见最后的道琼斯历史走势图吧）

I can almost hear the reaction of some investors to these downbeat thoughts. It will be to assume that, whatever the difficulties presented by the new investment era, they will somehow contrive to turn in superior results for themselves. Their success is most unlikely. And, in aggregate, of course, impossible. If you feel you can dance in and out of securities in a way that defeats the inflation tax, I Would like to be your broker - but not your partner.
我几乎都可以听到一些投资者对我悲观想法的反应。他们会认为无论新的投资时代带来何种困难，他们都能巧妙应对，为自己获得出色的结果。他们的成功未必有把握。而在总体上说肯定是不可能的。如果你感觉你可以在股票市场来回买卖来击败通货膨胀税。我愿意做你的股票经纪人，而不是合伙人。
Even the so-called tax-exempt investors, such as pension funds and college endowment funds, do not escape the inflation tax. If my assumption of a 7 percent inflation rate is correct, a college treasurer should regard the first 7 percent earned each year merely as a replenishment of purchasing power. Endowment funds are earning nothing until they have outpaced the inflation treadmill. At 7 percent inflation and, say, overall investment returns of 8 percent, these institutions, which believe they are tax-exempt, are in fact paying "income taxes" of 87½ percent.
即使那些所谓的免税的投资者，如养老基金和大学捐款基金，也不能逃避通货膨胀税。假设我的7%的通胀率是正确的，一个大学的司库应该把每年的前7%回报看作只是补充购买力。大学捐款基金在超越通胀前没有挣得任何东西。在7%的通胀水平，总体回报8%时，这些机构相信他们是免税的。但是，实际上他们付8的“所得税”。

The social equation
社会的公式
Unfortunately, the major problems from high inflation rates flow not to investors but to society as a whole. Investment income is a small portion of national income, and if per capita real income could grow at a healthy rate alongside zero real investment returns, social justice might well be advanced.
不幸的是，高通胀造成的问题不仅困扰投资者，而且影响整个社会。投资收入只占国民收入的一小部分。如果只是实际投资回报为零，而人均实际收入能以健康的速度增长，整个社会的公平与正义也许会进一步发展。

A market economy creates some lopsided payoffs to participants. The right endowment of vocal chords, anatomical structure, physical strength, or mental powers can produce enormous piles of claim checks (stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital) on future national output. Proper selection of ancestors similarly can result in lifetime supplies of such tickets upon birth. If zero real investment returns diverted a bit greater portion of the national output from such stockholders to equally worthy and hardworking citizens lacking jackpot-producing talents, it would seem unlikely to pose such an insult to an equitable world as to risk Divine Intervention.
市场经济给参与者不成比例的回报。嗓音、解剖结构、身体力量或者智力等天赋可以让人从未来国民产出中得到巨额的财富（股票、债券和其他资本）。投对了胎也能在一出生就拥有一生无尽的财富。如果通胀造成的投资零回报能劫富济贫。从这些有着巨额财富的幸运儿手中，把国民产出的更大一部分转给一样努力工作，但却没那么幸运的公民。那么，这对一个公平的世界不会有什么损害，上天也不会干预的。

But the potential for real improvement in the welfare of workers at the expense of affluent stockholders is not significant. Employee compensation already totals twenty-eight times the amount paid out in dividends, and a lot of those dividends now go to pension funds, nonprofit institutions such as universities, and individual stockholders who are not affluent. Under these circumstances, if we now shifted all dividends of wealthy stockholders into wages - something we could do only once, like killing a cow (or, if you prefer, a pig) - we would increase real wages by less than we used to obtain from one year's growth of the economy.
但是，这种劫富济贫的效果并不明显。员工报酬已经是分红的28倍。而很多这些分红会流向养老基金、非盈利组织，比如大学和并不富裕的个人投资者。在这种情况下，如果我们把所有富裕的股东的分红都转移到员工报酬里。这种事情我们只能做一次。因为这是杀鸡取卵。这样的转移对实际工资的提高还比不上我们过去从一年的经济增长中获得的多。

The Russians understand it too
俄国人也理解这一点
Therefore, diminishment of the affluent, through the impact of inflation on their investments, will not even provide material short-term aid to those who are not affluent. Their economic well-being will rise or fall with the general effects of inflation on the economy. And those effects are not likely to be good.
所以，通过通货膨胀对投资的影响来减少富人（老K注：通货膨胀导致投资结果让富人的购买力不变或减少），这对穷人来说连短期的实际帮助都没有。穷人的经济状况随通胀对经济的总体影响而起伏。而通胀对经济的影响不可能是好的。
Large gains in real capital, invested in modern production facilities, are required to produce large gains in economic well-being. Great labor availability, great consumer wants, and great government promises will lead to nothing but great frustration without continuous creation and employment of expensive new capital assets throughout industry. That's an equation understood by Russians as well as Rockefellers. And it's one that has been applied with stunning success in West Germany and Japan. High capital-accumulation rates have enabled those countries to achieve gains in living standards at rates far exceeding ours, even though we have enjoyed much the superior position in energy.
民众经济状况的大幅度改善需要资本的大幅实际增长，并将资本投入现代的生产设施中。如果不通过产业发展来持续创造并使用昂贵的，新的资本资产，即使有广泛的人力资源，巨大的消费需求和政府的许诺，也只能导致失败。这个公式俄国人和洛克菲勒都理解。这一公式在日本和西德已经被应用，并且产生了惊人的成功。高资本积累率让这些国家的生活水平快速提高。即便我们相对于他们有着能源的优势，但他们生活水平提高的速度远超过我们。

To understand the impact of inflation upon real capital accumulation, a little math is required. Come back for a moment to that 12 percent return on equity capital. Such earnings are stated after depreciation, which presumably will allow replacement of present productive capacity - if that plant and equipment can be purchased in the future at prices similar to their original cost.
为了理解通胀对真实资本积累的影响，需要一点数学计算。让我们回到12%的资本回报率。这样的回报是除去了折旧之后的。也就是说假定可以补充现有的生产能力之后的回报。但前提是厂房和设备可以在未来通过与当初相似的价格购买来。（老K注：这个前提不可能成立）
The way it was
过去的方式
Let's assume that about half of earnings are paid out in dividends, leaving 6 percent of equity capital available to finance future growth. If inflation is low - say, 2 percent - a large portion of that growth can be real growth in physical output. For under these conditions, 2 percent more will have to be invested in receivables, inventories, and fixed assets next year just to duplicate this year's physical output - leaving 4 percent for investment in assets to produce more physical goods. The 2 percent finances illusory dollar growth reflecting inflation and the remaining 4 percent finances real growth. If population growth is 1 percent, the 4 percent gain in real output translates into a 3 percent gain in real per capita net income. That, very roughly, is what used to happen in our economy.
让我们假设盈利的一半用来分红，剩下的6%的资本投入未来的增长。假如通胀很低，为2%，那么增长的大部分将会是实际产出的真实增长。在这一条件下，必须额外投入2%在应收帐款、库存和固定资产上，明年的实际产出才会与今年持平。剩下的4%对资产的投资将带来更多的实际产出。这2%的虚幻增长反映的是通货膨胀，而剩下的4%则支持实际增长。如果人口增长1%，这4%的实际增长会转化为3%的人均收入真实增长。这虽然是非常粗略的估算，但这就是我们经济过去增长的方式。
Now move the inflation rate to 7 percent and compute what is left for real growth after the financing of the mandatory inflation component. The answer is nothing - if dividend policies and leverage ratios Terrain unchanged. After half of the 12 percent earnings are paid out, the same 6 percent is left, but it is all conscripted to provide the added dollars needed to transact last year's physical volume of business.
现在，让我们算一下7%的通胀率下，在满足了必须的通胀部分后，还有多少能剩下给真实增长。答案是，如果分红政策不变，债务杠杆也不变，没有任何东西能剩下支持真实增长。12%回报的一半分红，剩下的6%都要用来投入才能保持明年的实际产出与今年持平。（老K注：也就是说，如果通胀是7%，一个ROE为12%的企业，先去掉这7%——维持生产，实际分红只有5%，这是真实的投资回报，而且是建立在1PB的买入价格，和分红尚未扣税的情况之下，真正的赚钱，难啊）
Many companies, faced with no real retained earnings with which to finance physical expansion after normal dividend payments, will improvise. How, they will ask themselves, can we stole or reduce dividends without risking stockholder wrath? I have good news for them: ready-made set of blueprints is available.
很多公司面临正常分红后，无真正的存留盈利来支持业务扩张的困境。他们只能临时想办法。怎么办呢？他们会问自己：我们怎么才能偷走，或者减少分红，但又不触怒股东呢？我有一个好消息给他们：有这样做法的现成的一组蓝图。
In recent years the electric-utility industry has had little or no dividend-paying capacity. Or, rather, it has had the power to pay dividends if investors agree to buy stock from them. In 1975 electric utilities paid common dividends of $3.3 billion and asked investors to return $3.4 billion. Of course, they mixed in a little solicit-Peter-to-pay-Paul technique so as not to acquire a (Con Ed reputation. Con Ed, you will remember, was unwise enough in 1974 to simply tell its shareholders it didn't have the money to pay the dividend, Candor was rewarded with calamity in the marketplace.
近些年，电力工业只有很少，或者没有能力分红。或者说，如果投资者同意买他们的股票，他们就有能力分红。1975年，电力公司分红33亿美金，却要投资者交回34亿美金。当然，他们把这些都混在一起，施展了拆东墙补西墙的办法，以免得到Con Ed那样的坏名声。Con Ed电力公司，如果你记得，在1974年非常不明智的对股东实话实说：公司没钱分红。这种坦诚带来的是市场的灾难。
The more sophisticated utility maintains - perhaps increases - the quarterly dividend and then asks shareholders (either old or new) to mail back the money. In other words, the company issues new stock. This procedure diverts massive amounts of capital to the tax collector and substantial sums to underwriters. Everyone, however, seems to remain in spirits (particularly the underwriters).
更老于世故的公用事业公司保持，甚至是增加季度分红，然后要求股东（老股东或者新股东）把钱寄回去。换句话说，公司增发新股，让股东把钱送回去。这一过程把大量资本转给了税务局和投行。但是，所有人都很兴致勃勃（尤其是投行）。
More joy at AT&T
AT&T有更多快乐
Encouraged by such success, some utilities have devised a further shortcut. In this case, the company declares the dividend, the shareholder pays the tax, and - presto - more shares are issued. No cash changes hands, although the spoilsport as always, persists in treating the transaction as if it had.
受到成功的鼓舞，一些公用事业公司设计出了进一步的捷径。公司宣布分红，股东交税，然后马上增发新股。虽然没有现金交易，但对股东的损害一如既往。

AT&T, for example, instituted a dividend-reinvestment program in 1973. This company, in fairness, must be described as very stockholder-minded, and its adoption of this program, considering the folkways of finance, must he regarded as totally understandable. But the substance of the program is out of Alice in Wonderland.
比如AT&T在1973年推出了一个分红再投资计划。这个公司一定被描述成非常为股东利益着想。采用这种计划，按照通常的财务做法，也一定被认为是可以理解的。但是，计划的内容却好似来自于爱丽丝漫游仙境中一样神奇。

In 1976, AT&T paid $2.3 billion in cash dividends to about 2.9 million owners of its common stock. At the end of the year, 648,000 holders (up from 601,000 the previous year) reinvested $432 million (up from $327 million) in additional shaves supplied directly by the company.
1976年，AT&T给约290万普通股东支付了23亿美金的现金分红。在年底，64万8千股东（上一年是60万1千）再投资了4亿3千2百万美金（上一年是3亿2千7百万美金）购买公司直接增发的股份。
Just for fun, let's assume that all AT&T shareholders ultimately sign up for this program. In that case, no cash at all would be mailed to shareholders - just as when Con Ed passed a dividend. However, each of the 2.9 million owners would be notified that he should pay income taxes on his share of the retained earnings that had that year been called a "dividend". Assuming that "dividends" totaled $2.3 billion, as in 1976, and that shareholders paid an average tax of 30 percent on these, they would end up, courtesy of this marvelous plan, paying nearly $730 million to the IRS. Imagine the joy of shareholders, in such circumstances, if the directors were then to double the dividend.
让我们假定所有的AT&T股东都最终加入这个计划。在这种情况下，不会有现金寄给股东。这就像Con Ed一样不付现金分红。但是，290万股东中的每个人都应该注意到，他应该为这种被改称做“分红”的存留盈利交所得税。假定“分红”总额为23亿美金，1976年股东平均交30%的税。由于这个伟大的计划，股东最后要交7亿3千万美金给税务局。如果公司董事们决定把分红增加一倍，想象一下在这种情况下，股东该有多欢乐。

The government will try to do it
政府将试着投资
We can expect to see more use of disguised payout reductions as business struggles with the problem of real capital accumulation. But throttling back shareholders somewhat will not entirely solve the problem. A combination of 7 percent inflation and 12 percent returns with reduce the stream of corporate capital available to finance real growth.
随着公司在真实资本积累问题上的挣扎，我们将会看到更多伪装起来的减少分红的做法。但是从股东那里截流不会完全解决问题。7%的通胀率和12%的回报率加在一起，会减少公司赖以支持真实增长的资本。
And so, as conventional private capital-accumulation methods falter under inflation, our government will increasingly attempt to influence capital flows to industry, either unsuccessfully as in England or successfully as in Japan. The necessary cultural and historical underpinning for a Japanese-style enthusiastic partnership of government, business, and labor seems lacking here. if we are lucky, we will avoid following the English path, where all segments fight over division of the pie rather than pool their energies to enlarge it.
所以，当传统的私人资本积累方式在通胀条件下失效，我们的政府将会更多的尝试影响资本向工业的流动。这样做可能像英格兰一样失败，也可能像日本一样成功。但是美国缺少日本式积极的政、商、劳工结合所必须的文化和历史基础。如果我们幸运，我们会避免重蹈英格兰的覆辙。在英格兰，所有的各方争夺自己的份额，而不是合力把蛋糕做大。
On balance, however, it seems likely that we will hear a great deal more. as the years unfold about underinvestinent, stagflation, and the failures of the private sector to fulfill needs.
总的来讲，在未来一些年，我们会听到更多有关投资不足、滞胀和私人部门无法满足需求的失败的事情。

About Warren Buffett
关于巴菲特
The author is, in fact, one of the most visible stock-market investors in the U.S. these days. He's had plenty to invest for his own account ever since he made $25 million running an investment partnership during the 1960's. Buffett Partnership Ltd., based in Omaha, was an immensely successful operation, but he nevertheless closed up shop at the end of the decade. A January, 1970, FORTUNE article explained his decision: "he suspects that some of the juice has gone out of the stock market and that sizable gains in the future are going to be very hard to come by."

Buffett, who is now forty-six and still operating out of Omaha, has a diverse portfolio. He and businesses he controls have interests in over thirty public corporations. His major holdings: Berkshire Hathaway (he owns about $35 million worth) and Blue Chip Stamps (about $10 million). His visibility, recently increased by a Wall Street Journal profile, reflects his active managerial role in both companies, both of which invest in a wide range of enterprises; one is the Washington Post.

And why does a man who is gloomy about stocks own so much stock? "Partly, it's habit," he admits. "Partly, it's just that stocks mean business, and owning businesses is much more interesting than owning gold or farmland. Besides, stocks are probably still the best of all the poor alternatives in an era of inflation - at least they are if you buy in at appropriate prices."

附：道琼斯历史走势图

本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/dd4b91c7284ac850ad0242f7.html