M10:39
嗯,如果其他条件都一样,我是说,除了你拥有的经验多少不一样之外,其他条件都一样,那我觉得经验大概还是有用的。
Well, if everything else is equal, I mean, everything else is equal except the amount of experience you've had, I think the experience is probably useful.
但现实里并不会完全一样,而且我不认为——我觉得,更重要得多的是,这两年里你思考了什么,而不是你十年里实际做过什么。
But it isn't going to be equal, and I don't think that the— I think it's way more important what you've thought about for 2 years than what you've practiced for 10 years.
所以,如果——如果在采用的方法方向上有分歧,我宁愿站在那个在理念上和我更一致的人这边。
So if you're— if the direction— if there's a divergence in techniques applied, I would rather be with the one that I'm philosophically in sync with.
如果两个人在理念上我都认同,而其中一个人有十年经验,那么大概率他会比那个只有两年经验的人,多了解一点更多的企业,毕竟他已经看了十年,而不是只看了两年。
If I'm philosophically in sync with both and one's had 10 years of experience, the chances are they will know a little bit more about more businesses if they've been around for 10 years looking at them than if they've been around for 2 years.
但最重要的是,基本上,一开始他的脑子里那套东西就得是对的。也就是说,他是怎么给企业估值的,他是怎么看股票的:他是把股票看成企业的一部分,还是把它看成那种会到处波动的小东西,觉得看看图表、听听 strategist 的说法之类的,就能从中看出很多名堂。
But the biggest thing is that, you know, basically, they've got their heads screwed on right in the first place in terms of how they value businesses and how they look at stocks, whether they look at them as pieces of businesses or whether they look at them as little things that move around and that you can tell a lot by looking at charts or listening to strategists or something of the sort.
我和 Charlie,在过去四十年、五十年里,的确学到了很多很多关于各种企业的东西。
We have— Charlie and I have learned a lot about a lot of businesses over 40 or 50 years.
但我要说的是,对于后来出现到我们面前的新东西,到第二年结束的时候,我们对它们的判断能力,大概就已经和今天差不多好了。
But I would say that in terms of the new things that would come to us, at the end of the second year, we were probably about as good judges of them as we would be today.
不过我觉得,多看过一些事情还是有一点加分,主要是在理解人的行为这类方面,而不是说更了解某个具体商业模式的细节。
But I think there's a little plus to having seen more in terms of human behavior and that sort of thing than knowing about the specifics of a given business model.
Charlie?
Charlie?