NHỜ BBT GIẢI THÍCH THÊM VỀ CÂU NÓI NỔI TIẾNG CỦA AESOP MÀ BUFFETT THƯỜNG MƯỢN ĐỂ DẠY MỌI NGƯỜI VỀ ĐẦU TƯ.

Vâng cám ơn câu hỏi rất hay của anh, chúng tôi háo hức được biết quý danh của anh:

Đúng như anh đã nhớ chính xác câu thành ngữ của triết gia Aesop và đoạn văn của ngài Buffett về câu thành ngữ nầy, chính xác là trong bức thư thường niên gửi cổ đông Berkshire Hathaway năm 2000 (linK: https://newslettervietnam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TGN-2000-Berkshire-Hathaway-letter.pdf), ngài Buffett đã nói rằng – chúng tôi xin trích nguyên văn bằng Anh ngữ:

“The oracle was Aesop and his enduring, though somewhat incomplete, investment insight was “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” To flesh out this principle, you must answer only three questions:

(1) How certain are you that there are indeed birds in the bush?
(2) When will they emerge and how many will there be?
(3) What is the risk-free interest rate (which we consider to be the yield on long-term U.S. bonds)?

If you can answer these three questions, you will know the maximum value of the bush ¾ and the maximum number of the birds you now possess that should be offered for it. And, of course, don’t literally think birds. Think dollars. Aesop’s investment axiom, thus expanded and converted into dollars, is immutable. It applies to outlays for farms, oil royalties, bonds, stocks, lottery tickets, and manufacturing plants. And neither the advent of the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity nor the creation of the automobile changed the formula one iota — nor will the Internet. Just insert the correct numbers, and you can rank the attractiveness of all possible uses of capital throughout the universe.

Common yardsticks such as dividend yield, the ratio of price to earnings or to book value, and even growth rates have nothing to do with valuation except to the extent they provide clues to the amount and timing of cash flows into and from the business. Indeed, growth can destroy value if it requires cash inputs in the early years of a project or enterprise that exceed the discounted value of the cash that those assets will generate in later years.

Market commentators and investment managers who glibly refer to “growth” and “value” styles as contrasting approaches to investment are displaying their ignorance, not their sophistication. Growth is simply a component ¾ usually a plus, sometimes a minus ¾ in the value equation. Alas, though Aesop’s proposition and the third variable ¾ that is, interest rates ¾ are simple, plugging in numbers for the other two variables is a difficult task. Using precise numbers is, in fact, foolish; working with a range of possibilities is the better approach.
Usually, the range must be so wide that no useful conclusion can be reached. Occasionally, though, even very conservative estimates about the future emergence of birds reveal that the price quoted is startlingly low in relation to value. (Let’s call this phenomenon the IBT ¾ Inefficient Bush Theory.) To be sure, an investor needs some general understanding of business economics as well as the ability to think independently to reach a well-founded positive conclusion. But the investor does not need brilliance nor blinding insights.

At the other extreme, there are many times when the most brilliant of investors can’t muster a conviction about the birds to emerge, not even when a very broad range of estimates is employed. This kind of uncertainty frequently occurs when new businesses and rapidly changing industries are under examination. In cases of this sort, any capital commitment must be labeled speculative.

Now, speculation — in which the focus is not on what an asset will produce but rather on what the next fellow will pay for it — is neither illegal, immoral nor un-American. But it is not a game in which Charlie and I wish to play. We bring nothing to the party, so why should we expect to take anything home?”