M30:31
我以前也这么觉得。
I used to think so.
Apple 有一款非常了不起的消费品，这一点你比我懂得多得多。
Apple has an incredible consumer product, which you understand a lot better than I do.
至于他们该不该回购股票，除非他们觉得自己的股票价格低于内在价值，否则就根本不该回购。
Whether they should buy in their shares, they shouldn't buy in their shares at all unless they think that they're selling for less than they're worth.
如果股价确实低于内在价值，而且他们手里有钱，同时也看不到什么比这更有吸引力的收购目标，那他们就应该回购自己的股票。
And if they are selling for less than they're worth and they have the money and they don't see an acquisition that's even more attractive, they should buy in their shares.
我觉得这一点非常——因为我认为，对 Apple 来说，要找到那种能增厚价值、而且规模还在五百亿、一千亿或者两千亿美元这个区间的收购，难度是极高的。
And I think that that's very— because I think it's extremely hard to find acquisitions that would be accretive to Apple that would be in the $50 or $100 billion or $200 billion range.
他们会做很多小型收购，而且，你知道，看到他们回购股票我很高兴。
They do a lot of small acquisitions, and, you know, I'm delighted to see them repurchasing shares.
我们持有——这么说吧，大概持有两亿五千万股左右。
We own, let's say we own 250 million or so shares.
而他们总股本，我想，大概是四十九亿两千三百万股，差不多这个数。
They have, I think, 4,923,000,000 or something like that.
你心里可以把它当成我们拥有其中的百分之五，但我觉得，随着时间稍微过去一点，我们也许会拥有百分之六或者百分之七，仅仅因为他们在回购股票。
And mentally, you can say we own 5% of it, but I figure with the passage of a little time, we may own 6 or 7% simply because they repurchase shares.
而我发现，如果你拥有的是一个生态体系里非常卓越的产品，而且还有很多事情可做，那我非常喜欢这样一种情况：我们的百分之五，不管具体是多少，能在我们一分钱都不用掏的情况下，涨到百分之六或者百分之七。
And I find that if you've got an extraordinary product in the ecosystem and there's lots to be done, I love the idea of having our 5% or whatever it may be grow to 6% or 7% without us laying out a dime.
我的意思是，这在很多别的情况下对我们都很有效；但前提是，你得有一种非常、非常、非常特别的产品，而且它背后有一个覆盖极广的 ecosystem，这个产品还得非常稳定；同时，他们也找不到那种五百亿或一千亿美元级别、价格哪怕勉强算合理、而且真能给现有业务增值的收购对象。
I mean, it's worked for us in many other situations, but you have to have some very, very, very special product, and which has an enormously widespread ecosystem, and the product's extremely stable, and they're not going to find $50 or $100 billion acquisitions that they can make at remotely a sensible price that really become additive to that.
当然，他们也可能会找到，谁知道呢？
And they may find it, who knows?
但至少以我现在放眼看去，在可预见的范围里，我看不到什么目标，能让他们在要付出的价格和最终得到的东西之间，形成很有意义的匹配。
But there's certainly, as I look around the horizon, I don't see anything that would make a lot of sense for them in terms of what they'd have to pay and what they would get.
相反，我倒是看到一门他们了如指掌的生意；而当他们回购自己股票的时候，能不能以一个有吸引力的价格买下来，这就另说了。
Whereas I do see a business that they know everything about and where they may or may not be able to buy it at an attractive price when they repurchase their shares.
这个还要再看。
That remains to be seen.
顺便说一句，这也是我一直觉得挺有意思的一点。
Incidentally, that's one thing that I always enjoy.
人们会说，哦，你这是在为自己的持仓说话，或者类似这种意思。
People say, well, you're talking your book or something.
如果从我们的角度来说，我们很乐意看到 Apple 的股价下跌。
If you talk from our standpoint, we would love to see Apple go down in price.
而且他们会——这么说吧。
And they're going to— well, just put it this way.
如果 Andrew、Charlie 和我是一家价值三百万美元企业的合伙人，那么我们每个人都拥有价值一百万美元的权益；如果 Andrew 提出要以八十万美元卖掉他那三分之一的权益，而我们手头又有钱，那我们一定会立刻抓住机会把他的份额买下来。
If Andrew and Charlie and I were partners in a business that was worth $3 million, so each of us had a million-dollar interest in it, if Andrew offered to sell out his one-third interest at $800,000, and we had the money around, we'd jump at the chance to buy him out.
我的意思是，道理就这么简单，但人们总是把自己绕进去。
I mean, it's so simple, but people get all lost.
但如果他要价一百二十万美元，我们就不会付这个钱给他。
And if he wanted $1.2 million for it, we wouldn't pay it to him.
我的意思是，这就是非常简单的算术，但在这些讨论里，大家往往会把这一点给忽略掉。
I mean, it's very simple math, but it gets lost in all these discussions.
当然了，就像我说的，Tim Cook 会做简单的算术，他大概也会做非常复杂的数学。
And of course, like I say, Tim Cook can do simple math, and he'd probably do very complicated math too.
所以，他们回购股票这件事，我们是非常赞同的。
So we very much approve of them repurchasing shares.
Charlie？
Charlie?