股市小書生
價值投資
１９８６年美國家庭平均收入是２４０００左右。
我個人是比較喜歡投資與ＨＤ類似的公司股票，首先是簡單，買入持有，然後就不需要其它太多的事要做了。其次，在長時間的等待過程中，可以有源源不斷的現金收入（紅利），並且不斷的增加（紅利增加了１５００倍），（即使沒有紅利複利投入，上麵的例子也有５００萬以上的投資回報。）。更重要的一點是，因為HD是個有長期增長能力的公司，所以即使我在投資中犯錯（高價位買入），隻要持有一定的時間，HD的經營業績的增長依然可以超越我的投資錯誤，使我的每一分錢的投資都有回報，而且是相當不錯的回報。
從個人投資者而言，一輩子能夠有機會抓住1個HD這樣的投資機會就足夠了，而在過去30年，美國市場上至少有100家以上的公司取得了與HD類似的經營業績，其中的許多公司我們在日常生活中都非常熟悉，沃爾瑪，強生，寶潔，高度潔，可口可樂，百事可樂，Ｖｉｓａ， ＭａｓｔｅｒＣａｒｄ， ３Ｍ， ＸＯＭ等等，你每天都使用它們的產品和服務。
至少到目前為止，做一個美國投資者是幸運的，因為你掙錢的概率遠遠大於賠錢的概率。
1998-2008的十年，HD的股票投資的回報是負值，因為在此期間ＨＤ實際經營業績非常好，所以在１９９８時 ＨＤ的股票被高估的程度非常驚人。從這個例子，可以看出在股票市場上做空不是件容易的事，一個股票可以被高估得很高，而且可以時間很長。大多數優秀的長期藍籌紅利股都有被長期高估的情況，所以要從一個價值投資者的角度買入這類股票的機會也不是常有的，因此，遇到機會時，要特別珍惜。
基本上任何長期業績優秀的公司股票被高估是常態，而被低估，長期低估是極其罕見的，美國煙草公司（ＭＯ）可能是個特例，ＭＯ是在非常長的時期內反複被政府打壓（加稅，罰款，禁煙條例，健康索賠官司等等），所以過去ＭＯ的市場估值長期偏低。幾十年被長期低估是ＭＯ能成為過去５０年最優秀的十大股票之一的一個重要原因，因為它提供了極好的複利投資機會，而複利又是投資中的核武器。
下麵有網友用自己的實例說明了在ＨＤ的股票上四年有４００％的獲利，這是個非常好的投資回報。根據該網友以前的帖子，我估計他應該有幾萬元的獲利，因為股票投資不是他最重要的投資方向，或許他的實際利潤更多，但是終究這隻是他總資產的一小部分。所以雖然４００％的投資回報是非常高的，但是對該網友的實際經濟狀況（總資產）影響有限。
在大千，經常有網友說自己在一天內獲利２０％，４０％，甚至更多，比如最近寶地主就好多次取得了這樣的投資佳績，但是寶地主也常說自己是隨便玩玩，掙點小錢。
上麵二位網友的股市投資回報是極其出色的，但他們對股市投資都不是太認真，因為這不是他們主要的賺錢方向。
我在一月份時寫過關於加國地產基金的投資貼子，這一次的地產基金的價格波動大致是２０－３５％之間，也就是投資獲利大概在２０－３０％之間，這個投資回報率比起前二位要差，但是這一次的地產基金投資成功對投資者的影響卻遠遠大於前二位投資者。地產基金投資者從今往後，每年有十幾萬的比較穩定的投資收入，這足以改變今後的人生道路。
I've learned many things from him （George Soros）, but perhaps the most significant is that it's not whether you're right or wrong, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong.
- Stanley Druckenmiller as quoted in The New Market Wizards
The trouble with you, Byron [Byron Wein – Morgan Stanley], is that you go to work every day [and think] you should do something. I don’t, I only go to work on the days that make sense to go to work. And I really do something on that day. But you go to work and you do something every day and you don’t realise when it’s a special day. - George Soros
巴菲特：“當天上掉金子的時候，應該用大桶去接，而不是杯子。 ”
在巴菲特投資可口可樂時，他投入了４０％的總資產，目前他的７２％投資組合在前４個股票倉位中。索羅斯和巴菲特的投資倉位策略是個比較高級的投資理念，高級不是高深莫測，指的是重要性，其背後的基本數學原理是非常簡單的，人人都能理解，但是能做到的人很少，可能就像芒格講的，因為太簡單了，所以沒有人願意做。
They bet big when they have the odds. And the rest of the time, they don't. It's just that simple.
2010年，芒格的演講 ART OF STOCK PICKING
Here again, look at the pari-mutuel system. I had dinner last night by absolute accident with the president of Santa Anita. He says that there are two or three betters who have a credit arrangement with them, now that they have off-track betting, who are actually beating the house. They're sending money out net after the full handle a lot of it to Las Vegas, by the way to people who are actually winning slightly, net, after paying the full handle. They're that shrewd about something with as much unpredictability as horse racing.
And the one thing that all those winning betters in the whole history of people who've beaten the pari-mutuel system have is quite simple. They bet very seldom.
It's not given to human beings to have such talent that they can just know everything about everything all the time. But it is given to human beings who work hard at it who look and sift the world for a mispriced be that they can occasionally find one. And the wise ones bet heavily when the world offers them that opportunity. They bet big when they have the odds. And the rest of the time, they don't. It's just that simple.
That is a very simple concept. And to me it's obviously right based on experience not only from the pari-mutuel system, but everywhere else. And yet, in investment management, practically nobody operates that way. We operate that way I'm talking about Buffett and Munger. And we're not alone in the world. But a huge majority of people have some other crazy construct in their heads And instead of waiting for a near cinch and loading up, they apparently ascribe to the theory that if they work a little harder or hire more business school students, they'll come to know everything about everything all the time. To me, that's totally insane. The way to win is to work, work, work, work and hope to have a few insights.
How many insights do you need? Well, I'd argue: that you don't need many in a lifetime. If you look at Berkshire Hathaway and all of its accumulated billions, the top ten insights account for most of it. And that's with a very brilliant man Warren's a lot more able than I am and very disciplined devoting his lifetime to it. I don't mean to say that he's only had ten insights. I'm just saying, that most of the money came from ten insights.
So you can get very remarkable investment results if you think more like a winning pari-mutuel player. Just think of it as a heavy odds against game full of craziness with an occasional mispriced something or other. And you're probably not going to be smart enough to find thousands in a lifetime. And when you get a few, you really load up. It's just that simple.
