2024年12月7日，李录在价北京大学光华管理学院值投资课程十周年庆典上的演讲。

英文 PDF 链接

中文 PDF 链接

因为在翻译时，没有注意到有官方的中文文档，所以本文的译文是用 Gemini 翻译过来的。方便的话，可以直接查看中文 PDF。

原文

Global Value Investing in Our Era

Li Lu

Speech at the 10th Anniversary Celebration of the Value Investing Course, Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, December 7, 2024

Thank you, Professor Jiang Guohua, Mr. Jing Chang, and all the teachers, colleagues, and students who made this course possible! This year, during Professor Jiang’s visit to the U.S., we discussed how this course has had a meaningful impact in both academia and industry over the past ten years. The number of online course applicants this year exceeded 1,000, which is a testament to its success.

Ten years ago, when we decided to collaborate with Peking University to support the establishment of this course, it was inspired by my personal experience. Thirty-five years ago, when I first arrived in the U.S., Columbia University offered a similar course, which gave me the opportunity to meet value investing guru Warren Buffett. This encounter profoundly changed the trajectory of my life over the next three decades. So, we hoped to bring such opportunities and ideas to young Chinese students as well.

Today, many friends and students are participating both in person (in Seattle) and virtually from Beijing. Thank you for being here!

Without further ado, let me dive into the topics at hand. In my first talk in 2015, I discussed “The Prospects of Value Investing in China.” Five years later, in 2019, the topic was “The Theory and Practice of Value Investing.” Earlier this year, Professor Jiang visited Seattle to discuss ideas for the 10th anniversary and invited me to speak again. Today, I would like to discuss “Global Value Investing in Our Era.”

Over the past five years, both China and the world have experienced many changes, causing significant confusion for investors. Value investing, no matter where it is practiced, must be closely tied to the era we live in. While value investing emphasizes bottom-up fundamental analysis, the companies we invest in exist in a specific era and are inevitably influenced by various macro factors. Thus, we cannot escape the times we live in. With that in mind, I would like to share some of my thoughts.

Today’s talk will revolve around four key themes:

1. The primary predicaments of our current era.
2. Thoughts on the underlying causes and nature of these predicaments.
3. The middle-income trap, how countries can overcome it, and thoughts on the current state of international relations.
4. Returning to our main topic, how we as global value investors can respond to the challenges of the current era.

These four topics are vast, so we can’t delve too deeply into them but will cover the key points of each. Please feel free to ask about any unaddressed areas during the Q&A session, and I will do my best to share some thoughts.

I. The Predicaments of the Current Era

What are the predicaments of our era? Let’s discuss them from both domestic and international perspectives.

Domestic Perspective

Domestically, the challenges are tangible, particularly for young people, who feel the pressure of employment most acutely. According to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate for youth aged 16 to 24 has reached approximately 20%. Behind the unemployment problem lies the issue of private enterprise confidence. Currently, China has about 700 to 800 million employed people, with 80-90% of jobs provided by non-state-owned enterprises and individuals, primarily private enterprises. State-owned enterprises and the government account for only about 10% of employment. Therefore, the unemployment issue mainly reflects the challenges faced by the private sector. In recent years, private entrepreneurs have faced a series of issues concerning property rights and even personal safety.

The unemployment issue also reflects a decline in consumer confidence. This is tied to the significant depreciation of wealth-based assets, particularly real estate. Real estate once accounted for about 70% of household wealth in China, still represents around 60% today, and remains as the primary source of family wealth. Consequently, sharp declines in real estate and capital market prices inevitably impact consumer confidence and expectations for the future.

Over the past few years, as economic challenges have emerged, policy responses have mainly focused on supply-side measures. However, the current problems are primarily on the demand side, leading to deflationary trends. In China, the term “involution” has gained popularity, reflecting intense competition in a deflationary environment. Under normal economic growth conditions, competition leads to upward, spiral-like growth rather than taking the extreme form of “involution.” Additionally, in today’s stricter regulatory and political environment, the bureaucratic system lacks effective positive incentives, leading to widespread “lying flat” (inaction) among government bureaucrats, which hampers policy transmission and implementation. These are some of the predicaments China faces domestically.

Over the past 40 years, China has developed to account for over 30% of the global manufacturing value-added. However, its domestic consumption represents only about half of this output, meaning that half of China’s manufactured goods must be exported to other countries, with developed nations as the largest customers. Although Southeast Asia has become China’s largest trading partner in recent years, much of this trade does not involve final consumption in Southeast Asia but rather re-export trade, with significant portions ultimately consumed in developed countries.

International Perspective

Internationally, China also faces a series of challenges, particularly in its relationships with developed nations in the U.S and Europe. Over the past five to six years, the most significant global variable has been the U.S.’s fundamental reassessment of its role in international affairs. Since World War II, the U.S. has served as a “stabilizing anchor,” maintaining peace and stability in international trade, ensuring maritime security (Freedom of the Seas), and global capital flows. It established what is known as the “American Order,” encompassing a series of systems, laws, and dispute resolution mechanisms, with the U.S. playing a core role in all aspects.

However, in recent years, Americans — from elites to the middle class to ordinary citizens – have increasingly questioned whether it is worth playing this role. The U.S. has borne about 80% of global military spending per some estimates and has served as the ultimate purchaser, currency provider, and final consumption market for the global economy, effectively stabilizing the global order. Yet, many Americans now believe that the U.S. has gained little in return. They view China’s rise as having benefited from the “American Order” while posing fundamental or even adversarial challenges to it. Whether accurate or not, this perspective has led the U.S. to reassess its role and resource allocation in maintaining this global order. This shift has not only profoundly altered U.S.-China relations but also raised fundamental questions about the future of the global order: How will it evolve? Who will provide and maintain public goods in international trade, such as peace and freedom of maritime trade? In this context, what challenges will Chinese industries face, and what role will they play?

In Summary

Both domestically and internationally, a series of issues have emerged in recent years that can be referred to as the “predicaments of our era.” These predicaments are not confined to specific times or places, nor are they short-term phenomena; instead, they reflect deep uncertainties about the future.

II. Reflections on These Predicaments: Appearances, Causes, and Essence

Next, I would like to discuss reflections on these predicaments.

These predicaments are not unique to China. Looking back at the past 500 years of world history, all countries entering the middle-income stage after industrial takeoff have gone through a transitional period. This is a universal challenge in the development process of any nation.

In my book, Civilization, Modernization, Value Investing and China, I divide the evolution of civilization into three stages: 1.0 (hunter-gatherer civilization), 2.0 (agricultural civilization), and 3.0 (modern science-technological civilization). The transitional phase between stages 2.0 and 3.0, which I call stage 2.5, is where China currently stands. Every country that has undergone industrialization, such as Germany, Japan, and some countries in South America and Asia, has faced similar challenges to those China experiences today. Some countries have successfully transitioned beyond this stage, while others are still trapped in the middle-income stage. Each country’s path is unique. Moreover, humanity has yet to establish a 3.0 model for managing international relations in the 3.0 science-technological civilization era.

Causes of the Predicaments

The essence of modernization lies in the combination of market economy and modern science and technology, which results in perpetuating, compounding, and sustainable economic growth. Compound economic growth is a striking mathematical concept. For example, since the early days of reform and opening up, China’s real economic output has multiplied by more than 45 times. Nominal growth figures are even more astonishing. However, while economic growth has compounded, social governance, human psychology, and political systems have not experienced similar compounding changes. This discrepancy arises because human nature has remained fundamentally unchanged since the emergence of Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago. In contrast, our economy has undergone three monumental leaps – from hunter-gatherer to agricultural civilization and then to modern science-technological civilization.

Thus, when the early industrial takeoff phase concludes, the gap between compound economic conditions and the slower evolution, or lack thereof, in societal, psychological, and political governance inevitably leads to significant challenges. These challenges are universal to all countries at this stage.

China’s rapid economic transformation over the past three to four decades is not entirely unique. Historically, only the United Kingdom completed industrialization and modernization independently over a relatively long span. Other countries achieved industrialization through catching up, typically over three to four decades. For instance:

• Japan transitioned from the Meiji Restoration in 1868 to defeating industrialized Russia in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese War in just over 30 years.
• Germany’s industrialization between its unification in 1871 and World War I also spanned roughly three to four decades.
• The U.S. transitioned from post-Civil War industrialization to becoming the world’s largest economy in the 1890s within a similar timeframe.
• South American nations such as Brazil and Argentina experienced rapid growth post-World War II but fell into middle-income traps by the 1980s and 1990s.

Three to four decades of compound growth can drastically transform an economy, especially during its economic takeoff stage. However, this rapid transformation creates a significant mismatch with the realities of societal governance and poses major challenges across all aspects of society. Some societies can mobilize and succeed in crossing this stage, while others need a long time to adjust, some even took the wrong paths, as evidenced by the catastrophic outcomes of World War I and II. History shows that wars themselves do not solve such issues; instead, it is often the post-war reforms that bring resolution.

Examples of Paradigm Shifts

Let me provide a few examples of how conceptual paradigms evolve during this transitional stage.

1. The Concept of Land

In the 2.0 agricultural civilization era, land and population were the primary determinants of an economy’s size. Together, they essentially defined the total output of an economy. However, agriculture imposed a ceiling to growth – known as the Malthusian trap – where population growth eventually outstrips land’s ability to support it. Consequently, territorial expansion was the paramount pursuit of societies, ethnic groups, and nations. Many historical figures are remembered for either expanding territories or defending them against invasions.

In the 3.0 science-technological civilization era, sustainable and compound economic growth is driven not by land and population but by market size and the full circulation of productive factors. The failure to reconcile these old and new paradigms was a critical cause of World War I and II.

At the outbreak of World War I, all sides expected a quick resolution. However, once war for territorial expansion begins, deeply ingrained psychological attachments to land intensify the conflict, escalating it to a global war. Industrialized Europe descended into a war that claimed tens of millions of lives and led to the collapse of all participating empires, with none achieving their objectives. Had the outcomes been foreseen, no party would have initiated or joined the war, as even the victors paid an enormous price.

World War II, in essence, was a continuation of World War I, fueled by the same entrenched territorial impulses. However, the devastation caused by industrial warfare made the outcomes even more catastrophic, with global casualties exceeding 100 million. All participating empires and nations suffered heavily.

Ironically, post-war reforms in defeated nations like Germany and Japan helped them achieve the very goals they failed to secure through war. Germany, the main instigator of both World Wars, and Japan, the main instigator of the Pacific War, pursued territorial expansion as a means to secure so-called “survival space.” Their wartime mobilization was themed around the narratives of national survival and ethnic economic development. However, what they failed to accomplish through war was achieved in the post-war peace era. After WWII, both nations found opportunities for sustainable, compound economic growth.

After its victory in WWII, the United States became the first nation in history to unconditionally return all conquered territories to their original countries. Such an act was unprecedented in prior wars. In return, the United States established a global system based on its principles, encompassing international trade, goods exchange, and capital flow. All U.S allies joined this system, which enabled “borderless” economic grow for all these countries and the U.S. The underlying cause is that in the 3.0 science-technology civilization era, land is no longer the primary driver of economic growth. Instead, the scale of the market and the free flow of economic elements, such as technology, labor, and capital, becomes the critical driver.

However, the obsession with land still resides in our nature. In the current transitional 2.5 stage, this fixation on land and territory can be dangerous, capable of igniting nationalistic fervor at any time, as this mindset has been ingrained in human brain for tens of thousands of years.

2. The Dichotomy of Virtual vs. Real Economies

In recent years, many policies in China have sought to distinguish between the “real economy” and the “virtual economy,” emphasizing support for the real economy while aiming to “redirect resources from virtual to real sectors.” This distinction holds validity during the early industrialization phase when resources are redirected from agriculture to industry. However, as economies transition into stage 2.5 and beyond, especially in mature economies, this distinction becomes obsolete and even misleading.

Take video games as an example. Are they part of the real economy or the virtual economy? Many would classify them as virtual. Yet, on today’s battlefields, such as in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a big influencing factor is not tanks, machine guns, or even non-intelligent missiles, but intelligent drones. These drones are mostly operated by skilled gamers. It is estimated that one to two million combat drones are active in this conflict, operated by individuals whose expertise originated in gaming. This demonstrates how intertwined the so-called “virtual” and “real” economies have become.

Another example is software: is it part of the real economy or the virtual economy? Software governs the global economy today, without which neither the Chinese nor the global economy could function.

Semiconductors is a sector that China has heavily invested in as part of its real economy. NVIDIA, one of the most renowned global semiconductor companies, is commonly seen as part of the real economy. Yet, since its founding in 1993, NVIDIA has not manufactured a single semiconductor wafer itself. All production has been outsourced to TSMC. NVIDIA is fundamentally a software company that designs the operational programs for semiconductors, giving it characteristics of the virtual economy. Before the advent of Al applications, NVIDIA’s products were mainly used for gaming.

Germany is often cited as a model for preserving a strong real economy foundation. Yet today, NVIDIA’s market value surpasses the combined market value of all publicly listed companies in Germany. It even surpasses the added market value of all publicly listed companies in Germany and Italy, as well as over 100 other countries. Despite potential bubbles in its valuation, NVIDIA is indispensable for the gaming, cloud computing, and Al industries. This blurs the line between virtual and real economies, making the distinction largely irrelevant.

3. The Role of Government

As economies transition, what role should governments play?

On a domestic level, during the agricultural era, centralized and decentralized governance each had their respective advantages. In a planned economy, the government functioned as a command center. With reforms, its role shifted to a guiding one. However, in a market economy, major economic decisions must be made independently by entrepreneurs with a stake in the outcomes, operating in competitive environments.

China’s $18 trillion economy consists of over 100 million enterprises that are making billions or even tens of billions of dollars’ worth of economic decisions daily. The sheer complexity and scale of these decisions are beyond the scope of any small group of individuals to plan or direct effectively.

On the international level, half of China’s production is exported globally, with China being either the largest or 2nd largest trade partner for more than 120 countries. Together, these countries account for approximately 80% of the global economy excluding China, and the everyday life of billions of people in these countries are profoundly impacted by the billions of private decisions made in China. If the Chinese government continues its command or guidance mindset in thinking and dealing with issues, it will impact not only the 1.4 billion people in China but also the lives of billions outside of China.

Today, nearly every major global media features China on its front page. This reflects the far-reaching impact of Chinese government decisions on the world, affecting the livelihoods and interests of at least several billion people. In transitioning from an agricultural to a modern science-technological economy, governments worldwide have evolved from command-and-control roles to collaborative, consultative, supportive, and service-oriented roles. This transformation aligns with the scale and complexity of modern economic systems. China, too, must adapt its governance model to its unique role in global trade and its own economic realities. To trade with every country and export half of its production overseas, the Chinese government must consider the interests, perspectives, and economic realities of these global stakeholders.

These three examples underline that as an economy enters the middle-income stage, significant gaps will occur between the compound economic progress and the slower evolution of traditions, governance structures, and human nature. These gaps manifest across all aspects of the economy. Therefore, we need to repeatedly reassess and adjust those outdated ideas that hinder economic development.

III. The Middle-Income Trap, How Countries Can Overcome It, and Thoughts on the Current International Relations

Reflecting on the last 500 years of modernization, both China and other nations have amassed a wealth of experiences and lessons that provide valuable guidance for us. On this foundation, we approach our third topic: Can China overcome the middle-income trap and how should it handle today’s international environment?

First, the perpetuating compound growth of a 3.0 economy is powered by the free exchange and circulation of all economic elements within it. Every instance of free trade and exchange generates a synergistic effect, 1+1>2, while knowledge exchange can even achieve a multiplier effect, 1+1>4. Thus, the more frequent and unrestricted the exchanges of goods, services, and ideas, the greater the incremental benefits. A truly modernized and sustainable 3.0 economy possesses this crucial trait – the complete and unobstructed circulation of all elements, without any bottlenecks.

What elements in China’s economy have not yet achieved this level of full circulation and exchange? I will highlight two examples:

First, personal consumption in China accounts for only 40% of the economy, a proportion that has been declining in recent years. At the same time, the savings rate has risen from 40% to about 50%. Most of these savings remain within the banking system, which is predominantly controlled by state-owned banks. Can this system adequately circulate these savings back into the economy?

There are no successful cases in history, either domestically or internationally. For savings to truly benefit economic growth, a modernized capital market and an efficient financial system are necessary to promote the effective allocation and circulation of capital.

Reflecting on the history of economic development, the earliest financial system emerged in Venice, which was the longest-lasting republic in human history, spanning over a thousand years from the Medieval period to the Napoleonic era. From 1000 to 1500 AD, despite having a population of just tens of thousands, Venice almost monopolized the critical trade routes between Asia and Europe, becoming the largest trade empire of its time. What was the key to Venice’s success? It invented several crucial parts of today’s modern financial system – double-entry bookkeeping, later the joint-stock company, insurance systems, and banking systems that were related to modern trade.

At that time, Venice relied primarily on finance and trade. Its narrow territorial base lacked agriculture and industry, and other nations were still in the agricultural civilization era. Thus, Venice was unable to develop a true 3.0 modern science-technological civilization, but the financial systems and tools it invented were further developed and refined in a larger nation – the Netherlands. In 1581, the Netherlands declared independence and after a long 70-year war for independence, it rose to become the most significant maritime trade empire of the 17th century, conducting about a quarter of global trade through Dutch ships. With only a few million people, not much larger than Venice, the Netherlands developed the initial version of the modern financial system, including the invention of the public limited liability company. The Dutch East India Company was the world’s first public company. The Netherlands also established a central bank and stock exchange, achieving a high level of securities market development, and even experienced the first speculative bubble in human history — Tulip Mania. These innovations led the Netherlands to far exceed other European nations in GDP per capita, and allowed it to maintain a position among the world’s top ten wealthiest countries for the next four hundred years. Today, the Netherlands remains one of the world’s largest trading nations, having maintained prosperity for over four centuries.

However, the Netherlands did not develop a standard 3.0 economy with industry, science and technology, and manufacturing – that milestone was achieved by Britain. How did Britain accomplish this? The most significant event in British history was the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution achieved two milestones. First, in governance, Britain adopted a republican and constitutional monarchy system, ensuring that the monarch was no longer an autocrat but was constrained by various powers. The second achievement, perhaps more profound, was a “merger” that resulted in the financial and economic integration between the Netherlands and Britain. At the time, William III of the Netherlands who became co-monarch of England with his wife Mary II, was effectively the leader of both the Netherlands and Britain. He transplanted the entire Dutch financial system to Britain, a “merger” at the institutional level.

This merger brought a complete modern financial system to Britain. What is the ultimate product of a complete modern capital market and a financial system?

The capital market provides not just capital but a system based on credibility. Banks can provide capital but cannot create that type of system. What is a system of credibility? Entrepreneurs must have credibility as entrepreneurs, investors with credibility as investors, and the intermediaries linking savings and investment must have their own credibility, ultimately converging into a system that transforms the small amounts of money from ordinary savers who know nothing about business and investing into a significant capital base. The result of this capital base is the creation of effective productivity, supply, demand, and profits; a virtuous process with organic, perpetuating circulation. In this process, each intermediary is an independent and professional node, not directly linked to the final outcome but highly related through a system based on credibility. Thus, an ordinary small saver can also participate by owning a small part of a successful company. Many small savers, owning even just one share, can aggregate into a powerful capital base. Throughout the process, every intermediary plays its role, based on credibility, to pool these resources into the most deserving businesses and products and services.

This process establishes a complete system of credibility, which is linked to a structure of legal system, dispute resolution, best-in-class practices, and trust. Building such a system is incredibly difficult and requires continuous trial and error. After transplanting and establishing this system, Britain never lost a war in Europe again. Previously, Britain financed wars through the royal family, putting personal assets, income, and territory on the line and assuming unlimited liability. Now, it was replaced by a modern credit system. Through this system, Britain issued debt several times its GDP, attracting global investments without ever going bankrupt or defaulting. This was the first truly modern capital market system.

When scientific and technological innovations began to emerge, this modern system enabled Britain to rapidly establish the first modern 3.0 economy capable of organic, self-perpetuated, and sustained growth. This is the very definition of a modern state.

As we discussed earlier, personal consumption today accounts for only 40% of China’s GDP, with nearly 50% going to savings, almost all controlled by the state-owned banking system, which is inefficient and incapable of establishing a system of credibility. The capital market system China has established is still in its infancy and has been shrinking in recent years. The existing system is far from a modern capital market system and lacks the capacity to convert substantial savings into potential consumption and investment to get the economy moving.

But China has a historical opportunity similar to Britain’s. What is this opportunity? Britain left China a gift - Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has all the elements of a modern capital market: a comprehensive institution with legal system, dispute resolution mechanisms, established intermediaries, and trust by the international community and investors. However, these advantages have not been fully utilized. If the relationship between the Netherlands and Britain was a merger of equals, then the relationship between China and Hong Kong is more like an acquisition, and the benefits of acquisitions are often not cherished enough – a significant difference. If Hong Kong’s advantages can be fully utilized, it could serve as an important engine to reinvigorate China’s capital market. Hong Kong and Mainland China’s capital markets could operate separately, just like the early Shenzhen Special Economic Zone did by implementing different systems that ran parallel to one another, and ultimately triggering a wave of reforms around the country. The logic is the same. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect is an important innovation, but it is just a start. If China can fully utilize the Hong Kong market system acquired through “acquisition”, it is possible to establish a modern, credibility-based capital market system. The current state is still far from this goal, and the understanding and importance placed on it are still far from sufficient. Moreover, some of the practices in recent years have threatened the foundation of Hong Kong’s existence as an independent financial market. If not corrected in time, the consequences could be immeasurable.

Therefore, China’s economy is still far from its potential true growth prospect. At present, it can only rely on policy stimulus, but stimulus is not very sustainable. Stimulus is only effective when it leads to sustainable growth. Otherwise, China would have to rely on new stimulus every year.

China often talks about “modernization with Chinese characteristics,” and this statement is correct because each country is unique. But the essence of Chinese-style modernization is still modernization, so it shares many commonalities with the countries that have already undergone modernization. China should promote modernization based on commonalities, while complementing its individuality, to achieve Chinese-style modernization.

Commonality was formed over the past few centuries based on lessons learned from failures and successful experiences, forming a consensus on what works and what doesn’t. As Mr. Munger said, common sense is rare. People usually only learn common sense after paying a heavy price for violating common sense.

The modern market economy has been operating for four to five hundred years, and some of these consensuses no longer need to be discussed, doubted, or arbitrarily criticized and denied. These consensuses were first summarized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations published in 1776. At that time, he observed that the market economy system had gradually matured from the Netherlands to Britain, having been in practice for one to two hundred years. He saw that although human nature is inherently selfish, the greatest aspect of the market economy is that through division of labor and free competition, it transforms the pursuit of individual self-interest into societal benefit. This is done by achieving the optimal allocation of social resources and promoting continuous economic growth that benefit all social classes to help promote upward mobility between classes. The ideal of “everyone for me, and I for everyone,” has actually been realized through the market economy. The market economy system, through the incentive mechanism of “everyone for me,” has achieved the social benefit of “I for everyone.”

This system is certainly not perfect, but among all the imperfect systems invented by humans, the market economy is undoubtedly the greatest system invention. This has been repeatedly proven by various successful and failed social experiments over the past few centuries. There is no need to criticize or deny these established consensuses, nor pay the price of violating common sense again.

Moreover, in the market economy, most resource allocation decisions need to be made by private individuals. As a prominent entrepreneur once said, let the soldiers on the frontlines who can hear the gunfire make the decisions, because it is difficult for the people in the rear who cannot hear the gunfire make the right decisions. Thus, the success of China’s market economy has been achieved through the government continuously relinquishing power, continuously withdrawing, and transforming from a command role to a service role. Scientific breakthroughs and technological development are also the results of a highly marketized economy, not the cause. These are not only commonplace understandings about the market economy but also widely accepted consensuses.

Basic protections for personal and property safety are also essential for private enterprises to prosper. Entrepreneurs must feel secure about their personal safety to successfully run businesses. The resolution of legal disputes requires procedural justice. The difference between “rule by law” and “rule of law” largely lies in whether government power is checked by law and whether legal procedures are justly applied. When phenomena such as “arbitrary law enforcement,” “selective law enforcement,” and “cross-jurisdictional arrests” occur, do entrepreneurs have the right to defend their legitimate interests through the legal system? Will law-breaking officials be subject to appropriate legal penalties? Will officials who condone these illegal activities be punishable by law? Can ordinary people and entrepreneurs effectively protect their interests through legal procedures, rather than just through administrative intervention by higher authorities with more power? This is what we mean by procedural justice. These are fundamental needs in social development.

At the same time, a sound and complete capital market is crucial for the full circulation of economic elements. Today, China does not have a sound, complete capital market, resulting in personal consumption accounting for only 40% of GDP, while the savings rate is close to 50%. These figures show that resources have not been fully and effectively circulated. In fact, all countries have encountered the same problems after the initial industrial development and during the intermediate adjustment period; this is not a problem unique to China. Some countries have successfully passed this stage; some have experienced tragic consequences by instigating devastating wars, but eventually got out of the predicament because of their failure in war; others are still struggling through this process. How does China power past this? China must maintain the commonalities of the market economy while also respecting its individuality endowed by Chinese traditions to achieve true Chinese-style modernization. Achieving this goal ultimately depends on trial and error and continuous correction. There is no fixed formula for achieving modernization that can be copied.

Reflecting on the beginning of the reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping said that practice is the criterion for testing truth, and whether it works depends on the results. He also said to continuously explore, “crossing the river by feeling the stones,” without any fixed rules. At this stage, many high-level policies are often not applicable and need to be continuously adjusted through practice. What is the key performance indicator (KPI) of practice? It is to achieve true modernization. True modernization means China can rely on its own organic, self-perpetuating forces to produce sustainable economic growth; organic, self-perpetuated, sustainable economic growth is the ultimate KPI.

The biggest driving force comes from the proportion of personal consumption in GDP. This is the most organic, self-perpetuated, sustainable economic growth driver; everything else serves it and is not sustainable. What is sustainable are people’s continuous, increasing, and new desires. That is the most enduring, most innate, and always limitless growth driver in the market economy. Today, personal consumption in China accounts for only 40% of GDP, but up to 50% savings can be converted into fuel to power economic development, into new services, new products, and the birth of new enterprises. China has the best entrepreneurs, the best engineers, the largest unified demand and supply market, credible investors, and the ability to attract global professional institutions on the credit system supply chain. These advantages provide enormous potential to achieve organic and sustainable economic growth.

By contrast, personal consumption in India accounts for 60% of GDP, ensuring sustainable growth; in the United States, this proportion exceeds 70%, and its growth is also sustainable. Once China enters this stage, its growth will also become sustainable. But currently, it has not yet entered this phase. This is both China’s current challenge and an important opportunity.

To reignite economic growth from the current slump, China needs to find a starting point. But if it tries to grasp all aspects, it will be difficult to succeed; it is difficult to achieve “not only this but also that,” so China must focus to have breakthroughs. Where should China focus to break through?

The economy is a chain of interconnected nodes, involving many elements – the spirit of entrepreneurs, consumer confidence, motivating incentives in the bureaucratic system, the trust of foreign capital, the improvement of U.S.-China relations, changes in the international trade environment, and the use of Hong Kong’s capital market, protecting its independence and restoring its momentum, and so on. All of these nodes on the chain are interconnected. So, the question is, which one is the chicken, and which one is the egg? Where does China start? The answer is simple, every node is both “chicken” and “egg,” and all can “lay eggs.” Any of these nodes can start a chain reaction because they all interact with each other. Stimulating any node can ignite the entire economic chain. But China’s current problem is that all nodes are extinguished, and the entire chain is stagnant, which is a predicament it faces in the current time.

But since September 2024, China has seen a notable shift in policy. As long as China adheres to the principle that practice is the criterion for testing truth, continue to conduct trial and error and persist, it will eventually ignite a node in the economic chain. Once one node is ignited, then it will set off other nodes, because all the nodes on the chain are interconnected to form a whole, with each node being both cause and effect for the others, both “chicken” and “egg.” So, there is no need to stick to one fixed direction. For a huge economy like China, as long as the environment is relatively relaxed, significant breakthroughs often happen by chance. For example, at the beginning of the reform and opening up, who could have predicted that a simple measure like dozens of farmers’ blood pact to start implementing the household responsibility system would ignite China’s 40 years of magnificent reforms? This measure solved China’s food and clothing problems within a year, at least in some regions. Similarly, the reforms in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone quickly sparked a nationwide wave of reforms, solving decades-old problems in a short time. Facts prove that significant changes do not need to be planned in advance, nor can they be, because China is simply too large.

China’s potential is still great, and the problems it is currently encountering are not unique to China but common to all countries that have experienced industrial takeoff. These problems are largely due to society’s deeply ingrained beliefs – beliefs formed during the agricultural civilization era, or even earlier – that have resulted in a huge divergence with the realities of tremendous, compounding economy growth. China needs to re-examine past concepts within the context of this divergence, and test which are right, and which are wrong. In practice, I believe Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s methodology is correct – resolutely replicate proven practices and avoid those that have proven unfeasible. This is a very simple yet profound principle of governance. In the end, China must still adhere to the principle that practice is the criterion for testing truth, using the results from trial and error to examine its ideas and methods. At the current stage of development, the most important practice is to promote China’s organic, self-perpetuated, sustainable economic growth, and the key variable is the proportion of personal consumption in GDP. If this proportion can be raised from the current 40% to India’s 60%, then China will have substantial development space and prospects in sustainable economic growth.

In this process, it is essential to reignite, activate, and connect the various elements on the economic chain. There are many nodes on this chain, including entrepreneurs, consumers, effective government officials, foreign capital, investors, professional institutions with credibility, as well as U.S.-China relations, China-Europe relations, China’s relations with Southeast Asia, China’s relations with all other trading partners, etc. These nodes are all “chickens” and also “eggs,” all are “egg-laying chickens,” and any node ignited can reinvigorate the entire chain. But the current problem is that the whole chain is relatively static and has not yet started moving, including the special gift to China that we just talked about, Hong Kong, which is equivalent to the gift the Netherlands gave to Britain many years ago.

The system of credibility generated by the modern capital market is something a state-controlled banking system cannot provide, and it is not something banks can or should do. Banks cannot take on the role of making risk investments; if banks were to do risk investments, people would not feel secure putting their money in banks, and then banks would not exist. Public companies like NVIDIA are able to be born and grow because of modern capital markets, which aggregate small savings into capital through a system of intermediary institutions with credibility. This system also incorporates legal systems, best practices, dispute resolution mechanisms, historical practices, and long-accumulated trust. Currently, in China, only Hong Kong’s capital market has all the elements of a modern financial market system. If the market’s independence cannot be ensured, then it cannot operate effectively. The reason Shenzhen was successful back then was because of its independence as a special economic zone. To make good use of Hong Kong, at least in the capital market and legal areas, the promise of “fifty years of no change” must be honored. Credibility and trust in a system take a long time to build but can be broken quickly by only a few actions. Hong Kong’s market and system need to be cherished and protected, but the premise is to understand its importance.

IV. How Should Global Value Investors Respond to the Challenges of the Times?

Why have I spent so much time on the previous topics? Because the biggest change since my last speech is that everyone’s confusion and anxiety have visibly increased. It is extremely difficult to hold stocks steadfastly and truly practice long-term investing with such confusion and anxiety. This brings us to the fourth theme as global value investors, how should we respond to the changes in today’s international and domestic situations? How should we invest?

Firstly, our fundamental attitude as a value investor is that the macro environment exists objectively; we can only accept it, while the micro level is where we can make a difference. The world exists objectively and does not change due to our desires, imaginations, or subjective judgments. In investing, we must take the world as it is, not what we wish it to be or what we want it to be. It is what it is, take it. With this premise, we can make a difference at the micro level on specific companies.

The question is, under such confusion on the macro level, can we truly hold these companies firmly? Even after thorough research and analysis, can we remain confident in the companies?

Can we continue to hold them? After providing the macro background, this is precisely the core issue we need to address today.

To answer this question, we first need to define what true wealth means in the context of the world’s long, large-scale evolution from an agricultural to a modern civilization. The fundamental goal of investing is to preserve and increase wealth, so we must first answer the question: What is wealth? Why do we invest and what should we invest in?

For example, in the agricultural era, wealth was land and population. But is land still considered wealth today? Looking at world history, especially in Europe, the feudal system lasted roughly several hundreds of years. Many countries’ feudal systems disintegrated due to revolutions, with one exception Britain. Over these centuries, Britain did not experience a major revolution, and many nobles retained their land and grand castles. In the past, these nobles were the wealthiest. Are they still the wealthiest today? The answer is no. Most nobles who only own land and castles are no longer wealthy; in fact, they have become relatively poor. Only a few nobles remain wealthy because they made other investments, not just relying on their original land and castles.

Why is this the case? Because maintaining land and castles requires a lot of manpower. A large castle typically needs dozens or even hundreds of people to maintain. However, over the past few centuries, the cost of labor has risen significantly, making it difficult for today’s nobles to afford so many people. Similarly, land needs people to farm, but while the labor cost has increased significantly, the output from the land itself has increased relatively less. The value of rural properties has increased little, while maintenance costs are high. Thus, these land and castles that have not been converted for industrial or commercial uses have become liabilities rather than assets for the nobles. Today, British nobles who still maintain their land and castles mostly do so by opening their castles to the public for a fee. For example, they turn castles into parks and charge a five-pound entry fee per person. I believe many of you have traveled to Britain, visited such castles, or even rented castles for birthday parties, company events, weddings, etc. This is an example of the relative value change between land and labor.

Another example is cash. Of course, cash has value, but is cash wealth? Younger students probably do not remember, but older people should recall a term from the early days of reform and opening up, the “ten-thousand yuan households,” and having ten thousand yuan was a remarkable achievement. “Ten-thousand yuan households” were considered the wealthiest at that time. However, suppose someone had deposited this ten thousand yuan in a bank back then, with interest included, would it still make them wealthy today? Obviously not. Today, many people earn more than this amount in a month. So, if you just save cash, then as time passes, it no longer represents wealth.

Thus, whether it is land, cash, or real estate (especially those requiring many people to maintain), none can become lasting wealth. Then, what is wealth in modern society? What is the function

of wealth? The essence of wealth is for consumption. The total size of an economy ultimately comes down to its total production or consumption. Thus, wealth is the proportion of your purchasing power within the entire economy. In the agricultural era, unit economic output barely grew, and there was a “ceiling” on the total economic size. Under such circumstances, an individual’s share of purchasing power in the economy was relatively fixed, mainly achieved through land, population, and real estate, which constituted wealth.

When the economy enters a stage of sustained compound growth, the long-term trend is unidirectional growth, despite fluctuations in the short term. If your wealth is static, it will gradually diminish relative to the economic growth. The faster the economic growth, the faster your wealth shrinks. Over the past forty-plus years, China’s nominal GDP has increased by more than 340 times, so the “ten-thousand yuan households” are no longer wealthy. Similarly, in the United States, being a millionaire was once a remarkable achievement, but a few days ago, Buffett mentioned in a letter that millionaires of the past are roughly equivalent to billionaires today. It shows that static wealth, carried in cash, cannot achieve sustainable, compound growth. When the economy enters an era of sustained compound growth, real wealth should be measured by your share of purchasing power in the entire economy. And your effective wealth is the proportion of your purchasing power in the economy where you mainly choose to consume.

Thus, the fundamental purpose of investing is to preserve and increase your purchasing power. The measure of wealth is your percentage share in the economy, not the absolute number. One person is wealthier than another because their share of purchasing power in the economy is larger. Having ten thousand yuan today no longer has the significance of a “ten-thousand yuan household” forty years ago, as the real purchasing power has changed exponentially since then. Real wealth is your share in the overall economy. As long as you maintain your share, you retain your wealth, even if the overall economic pie shrinks due to factors like war; if your share increases, your wealth grows. However, after entering modern civilization, the pie will grow in a wave-like, sustainable, compound manner, which is the most fundamental and defining feature of the modern economy.

Today, of the eight billion people worldwide, approximately 10% have entered a stage of organic, self-perpetuated, sustainable growth. About 50% are in a transitional state, including China. The remaining population is still in the early stages of transitioning from an agricultural economy to industrial takeoff. This centuries-long, continuous process is a paradigm shift in human civilization and no individual will can reverse it. Therefore, as a value investor, you must understand what value is, what real wealth to pursue, protect, and grow that is your share of purchasing power in the economy. For global value investors like Himalaya Capital, as fiduciaries of other peoples’ capital, our responsibility is to maintain and increase our share of purchasing power globally. Specifically, this means as a representative of investors, to find the most dynamic, creative companies in the world’s most vibrant economies, and secure our purchasing power by owning their stocks.

Thus, as the entire economy grows, your wealth naturally increases. If your share increases, it means your growth exceeds the average. Even if the entire economy shrinks for various reasons, your wealth continues to grow as long as your share increases. With this understanding of wealth, you will better comprehend this statement: the macro is what we must accept; the micro is where we can and should make a difference. Maintaining this awareness allows you to calmly hold shares of the most creative and excellent companies without being shaken by macroeconomic fluctuations. Being able to sleep at night enables you to firmly hold your stakes, your purchasing power. This is why we first discussed the macroeconomic topics, but ultimately, we return to the core of investing.

Additionally, after the civilization paradigm shift, the global economy will continue to grow. That trend does not shift with the will of any country. Those countries stuck at the middle-income stage, if unable to cross it, will gradually see their economic share decrease. Take South America as an example, at the end of the 19th century, Brazil and Argentina were the most promising developing countries. However, they attempted several times and failed to successfully cross the “middle-income trap.” After World War II, they had another opportunity but their growth stagnated again after the 1980s. Meanwhile, the global economy continued to grow. These two countries were once among the leading global economies but are now hard to find on that list. This is because, as they stagnated, other countries and the global economy continued to grow rapidly, causing their share in the global economy to continually slide. This is why China must maintain a sense of urgency.

As global investors, you need to invest in the most dynamic economies you believe in, but also pay attention to your actual needs so you can maintain your purchasing power where you consume. For global investors like Himalaya Capital, our goal is to select the most dynamic, creative, and competitive companies within the world’s most vibrant economies, own their shares, and thus achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing wealth globally. However, for individual investors, you need to maintain your purchasing power in the economy where you are willing and need to consume, as that is your real wealth. For example, many Chinese investors’ main purchasing needs are in China, and they may not need purchasing power in Europe or South America.

Can this goal be achieved under today’s conditions? Let’s revisit the origins of value investing. Value investing was born during a period of extreme macroeconomic turbulence and confusion. The concept of value investing was first comprehensively articulated by Ben Graham, Warren Buffett’s teacher. When did Graham start to understand and practice value investing? He began investing in 1926, and like many investors, he experienced the “Roaring Twenties” in his first three years and engaged in many speculative investments. However, during the Great Depression from 1929 to 1932, his investment partnership lost up to 70% of its market value. After deep reflection, he truly began to practice value investing and successfully recovered the previous losses from

1932 to 1935. In 1936, he founded a new closed-end fund, which operated until 1956, achieving extraordinary returns over twenty years. During this time, he published The Intelligent Investor in 1949, where he fully explained the three most important concepts of value investing for the first time.

The founder of value investing, Ben Graham, discovered the methodology of value investing during a time of tremendous macroeconomic challenges. The challenges he faced during that era were much more difficult than what we face today. At that time, the U.S. unemployment rate reached 25%, and the economy shrank by about one-third to one-half, depending on different assessments. People felt hopeless, as if the world was coming to an end. By the time he broke even and started a new fund, the world had plunged into a global war initiated by the fascists, which ultimately led to the deaths of hundreds of millions, injuries to hundreds of millions more, and the utter destruction of most industrial systems in the world. In such an era, he generated outstanding investment performance.

Looking at our era today, compared to the thirty years when Graham pioneered and practiced value investing, which period would you choose to start your career? In such turbulent, confusing macro environments, value investing can particularly highlight its advantages and play its role. But you must understand what you need to protect and what your investment goals are.

Another important contributor to the theory and practice of value investing was economist John Maynard Keynes. Many are familiar with Keynes’s macroeconomic theories and his contributions to the design of the post-war Bretton Woods system and global financial system, but few know that he was also an excellent value investor. From 1921 until his death in 1946, Keynes managed the most important endowment fund of King’s College at Cambridge University, accumulating exceptional investment performance over 25 years. Keynes also had many speculative experiences early on, but through continuous lessons, he began to summarize the core concepts of value investing. Keynes’s career trajectory highly overlapped with Graham’s, both experiencing the “Roaring Twenties,” the Great Depression, and World War II. However, unlike Graham, Keynes was in Britain during the war and at the forefront of the conflict, while Graham was in the U.S. and relatively removed from the direct impact of the war, making Keynes’s achievements during this time even more remarkable.

Keynes and Graham shared many conceptual similarities, but Keynes emphasized more on the quality of the companies themselves. Buffett and Munger later coincided with him and further promoted this concept in their investment practices over more than sixty years from 1957 to today.

Another key figure was John Templeton, who played a significant role in value investing and spreading it to other countries. In 1939, during the war, when many U.S. stocks fell below one dollar, Templeton adhered to the principle that “cheap is the hard truth” by buying 100 shares of

every stock trading below one dollar on the U.S. stock market, investing a total of ten thousand dollars. Four years later, when he sold them, 100 out of 104 stocks had significantly increased in value. In 1954, he created the Templeton Fund and began to spread the concepts of value investing to many other countries. By 1992, after 38 years of navigating through various market changes, the fund had achieved returns of more than tenfold.

I founded Himalaya Capital in 1997. Before that, I bought my first stock in 1993, starting with cheap companies. In the process of investing in cheap companies, I gradually built my circle of competence, slowly transitioning from seeking cheap companies to seeking quality yet cheap companies. When the fund was established in 1997, I experienced the Asian Financial Crisis. Over the past few years, the Chinese market has experienced significant capital and asset price declines, with many people suffering from declines in real estate, stocks, and other securities prices. However, the scale of this downturn is still incomparable to the Asian Financial Crisis. During that time, the markets in major Asian countries fell by more than 70%, with the most severe dropping by more than 90%. Our fund also faced tremendous challenges and experienced considerable volatility, but the accumulative performance during those years happened to be a period of high returns for us, as the market was literally littered with gold.

I will share a funny story. At that time, I was in New York exchanging views with several fund managers, one of whom was a Korean American. We discussed our investments, and he mentioned his interest in South Korea. I said I was also interested. At that time, the South Korean stock market had fallen by 80-90% in dollar terms, because not only did the stock market decline, but the Korean won also depreciated by 40-50%. He mentioned that he was making a transaction: buying POSCO, as its P/E ratio was only two, while simultaneously short-selling Samsung Electronics, because its P/E ratio was as high as three. He described this transaction as fantastic, the best investment opportunity he could find. This may sound crazy today, but it vividly reflected the mainstream Wall Street thinking back then and what went on outside of value investing. By the way, this person later became infamous by almost causing Credit Suisse to go bankrupt due to fraud, and he was recently sentenced to eighteen years in prison by a U.S. court.

This is why true value investors can achieve good long-term returns in the market. No market is completely efficient because the market is not an abstract concept but composed of many individuals. Many may think the U.S. market is very efficient, but having been in this industry for 30 years and managing Himalaya Capital for 27 years, I have personally experienced the U.S. stock market fall by more than 50% several times. During the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the U.S. stock market fell more sharply than China’s, and at the time, people feared the global financial system might completely collapse. When the COVID pandemic began, the U.S. stock market dropped by about 30%. In fact, such significant downturns occur almost every few years. During the 2001- 2002 internet bubble burst, companies such as Amazon plummeted by 90%. The U.S. already has the world’s most mature and efficient market, yet it still cannot avoid such substantial fluctuations.

So, based on my thirty-odd years of practice, the fundamental principles of value investing are definitely feasible. Other investors discovered and practiced the fundamental principles of value investing when faced with unprecedented macroeconomic challenges. Here, I summarize their most important contributions.

Ben Graham outlined three key principles. First, a stock is not just a tradable piece of paper; it is a legal proof of ownership in a company. As we discussed earlier, during sustainable economic growth, equity can protect your purchasing power, which is essential because the goal of investing is to protect and grow purchasing power. Second, the market is composed of individuals, and human nature tends to seek short-term profits, so people often treat stocks as chips for short- term trading, overlooking that they represent long-term ownership in a company. You can think of the market as “Mr. Market,” a very neurotic person. His role is not to tell you a company’s true intrinsic value but only to provide buying and selling prices. These prices are often far lower or higher than the value. For value investors, Mr. Market is here to serve, not to guide. Third, the future is difficult to predict, and cheap price is a hard truth. It is essential to have substantial margin of safety, because you may not fully understand a company or clearly predict its future. But if you buy at a sufficiently low price, leaving ample margin of safety, then you will be able to sleep soundly at night, and you will be more able to hold it for the long term.

For example, the Chinese stock market experienced a significant rise from 2005 to 2007, followed by a sharp decline for seven to eight consecutive years, entering a prolonged bear market. This rise and fall were highly related to the U.S. stock market and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, but during that period, the Chinese economy performed relatively well, and many companies also showed good fundamentals. After seven to eight years of bear market, the market was arguably littered with gold, and many excellent companies’ stock prices had fallen to levels that offered large margins of safety. Therefore, when everyone else is fearful, you can often find many opportunities. Whether or not you can seize these opportunities with substantial margins of safety largely determines whether you’re able to truly create wealth.

Buffett and Munger, through sixty years of practice, further contributed to the concepts of value investing, offering another principle for value investing: long-term investment returns largely come from the value created by excellent companies through their long-term operating performance. Excellent companies can continuously increase their intrinsic value, which matches well with the essence of the modern economy, that is, a company’s intrinsic value can compound indefinitely along with the economy’s compounding growth. These exceptional companies have long-term capital returns that are higher than the industry average and their competitors. Therefore, investing in such companies can grow your wealth at a rate that also exceeds the market average. However, identifying and understanding these companies is not easy, so investors need to build their own circle of competence, clearly knowing what they understand, what they do not, and the boundaries of their circle of competence. Then they will only invest within the scope of their competence in those exceptional companies they understand and hold them for the long term. The concept of circle of competence is an important contribution from Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger. Indeed, Keynes had already practiced this principle in his era.

The fifth principle is Mr. Munger’s contribution. I had a twenty-year friendship with Mr. Munger; he is both a friend and a partner to me, as well as my teacher and family. Mr. Munger and his family spend every summer on a small island in Minnesota called Star Island, vacationing and fishing, which is one of his favorite activities. My wife, kids, and I have joined him for many of the past twenty years. Minnesota has over ten thousand lakes, and Star Island sits in the middle of a large one. Interestingly, every time we went fishing, Mr. Munger would take us to different places. We would take a boat from Star Island to the shore, switch to a truck towing a fishing boat, then drive for an hour to another lake to fish, and each time the location was different. Later, I asked him, “Charlie, there’s such a large lake next to Star Island. Why not just fish there?” He said, “You can try it.” I did try once, only to find almost no fish in the lake, making it very difficult to catch any. However, the smaller lakes we went to always yielded good fishing.

I later discovered that Mr. Munger didn’t know in advance which island we would be going to for fishing. Instead, a fishing guide led the way. His name is Donnie, and his family has operated a bait business called Leroy’s for two generations, so he often searches for bait in different lakes year-round. Through looking for bait, he knows which lakes have fish, the different types, sizes, and seasonality of fish, and even the specific locations within each lake. That is his proprietary knowledge. Many people buy bait from him just to find out where the fish are. Mr. Munger always let Donnie lead the way, and we always caught many fish. I initially thought that all lakes had many fish, but my unsuccessful experience on the Star Island lake made me realize that indeed, not all lakes are the same.

Thus, Mr. Munger summarized the fifth principle: investing is like fishing; you must fish where the fish are. He says there are two rules to fishing: the first is to fish where the fish are, and the second rule is to never forget the first rule. This fifth point is also very important for investors. Minnesota has over ten thousand lakes, but we don’t need to fish in the largest one. The same applies to individual and institutional investors. China’s GDP is $18 trillion, with many industries and companies. Some perform poorly, but there are also many excellent companies, companies not fully understood by everyone, and that are completely mispriced. Investors don’t need to understand every company, don’t need to master all macroeconomic parameters, government macro policies, nor do they need to accurately predict the next ten years. The key is to find that “lake” where you can catch fish. So, Mr. Munger’s advice to fish where the fish is to emphasize the importance of selection. I also noticed that every time we went fishing with Donnie, we were the only group on the lake all day, ensuring we would catch the most and biggest fish. Lack of competition is an important reason for mispricing.

Therefore, investors don’t need to overly research the macro environment, don’t need to understand all ten thousand lakes in Minnesota, nor do they need to thoroughly research the Chinese economy or the world economy. They need to find which lakes have fish, where there is a lack of competition, where they have good knowledge and an advantage. This is where they can establish their circle of competence, just like Donnie. Donnie, through finding and cultivating bait, built a unique ability to locate little-known, fish-rich lakes. Once everyone knows where the fish are, it becomes hard to catch them; this is his unique circle of competence.

The sixth principle is what I’m sharing with you today, a conclusion based on the paradigm shift in civilization: the essence of wealth is the proportion of purchasing power in the economy, and the goal of value investing is to hold shares of the most dynamic companies in the most vibrant economies, thereby preserving and growing wealth. This principle is also the experience and contribution based on our practice at Himalaya Capital over the past thirty years.

I have been obsessively thinking and researching the phenomenon of modernization for over forty years. I have come to realize that what each country has experienced over the past few centuries is not a unique phenomenon but part of a broader paradigm shift in human civilization. This shift is not influenced by any country, individual, or small group. The global economy exhibits a unidirectional, wave-like growth, with short-term ups and downs, even cyclical fluctuations, but the long-term trend is unidirectional continuous growth. Even if the global economic pie shrinks at times, you can preserve your wealth by maintaining your proportion of purchasing power. Then, when the economy begins to grow again and the pie enlarges, you can preserve and continue to increase your wealth. This principle is my personal contribution. I hope to prove or disprove it through future practice.

Let me repeat these six basic principles of value investing:

1. A stock is not just a tradable piece of paper; it represents part ownership of a company.
2. Mr. Market is here to serve value investors, not guide.
3. Investments must have sufficient margin of safety.
4. Investors should have a clear circle of competence.
5. Fish where the fish are.
6. Wealth is the proportion of purchasing power in the economy. The goal of value investing is to hold shares of the most dynamic companies in the most vibrant economies to preserve and grow wealth.

My personal experience over the past thirty years also serves as an illustration of these principles. When I first arrived in America, I had nothing but debt. To reach where I am today and being able to share our experiences with everyone is indeed due to our practice of value investing. The philosophy of value investing can be applied in practice, and it can be successfully and sustainably implemented over the long-term. I hope to continue practicing value investing like Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger for another thirty years. Today, thirty years later, I am still as passionate about this industry. It is a way to breathe in sync with the times and grow together with it, which makes it incredibly appealing.

Finally, let me share another little story. Everyone knows that Mr. Munger invested in very few stocks throughout his life, but he insisted on doing research. He once shared that he read Barron’s for fifty years and found only one investment idea. Yet that single idea brought him returns of dozens, even over one hundred times. First, he earned nearly a tenfold return on that investment, and then he reinvested the proceeds into our fund, earning another tenfold-plus return. At 99 years old, Mr. Munger found another very interesting stock. It was a bit “politically incorrect” and grossly mispriced, so he made his only stock purchase in nearly ten years and lived to see the stock price double.

Today marks just over a year since Mr. Munger’s passing. Last Thanksgiving, Charlie spent Thursday dining with his family and felt unwell during dessert, so he excused himself early to rest. The next morning, Friday, Mr. Munger was hospitalized. By Saturday, Charlie regained consciousness, said his final goodbyes to his family and passed away peacefully on Sunday. Until the last moment, his life remained calm and focused, dedicated to the work he loved most and he never stopped. Such a life is inspiring and uplifting for us all. Mr. Munger, through his life and over sixty years of investment success, taught us an important lesson: the macro environment is what we must accept, and the micro environment is where we can and should make a significant difference. Engaging in value investing allows us to breathe in sync with the times and grow alongside it. I firmly believe that those who are passionate about value investing, no matter their location or the challenges they face, can achieve meaningful results. I sincerely hope that everyone will continue to devote themselves to this wonderful endeavor.

Thank you!

Question & Answer:

Question 1: In the process of holding high-quality companies, if the market offers a clearly overvalued price, to what extent would you consider reducing your holdings? Question 2: Very few people can hold high-quality companies long-term and achieve sustained gains. Does this relate to luck and courage? How should young people make investment decisions amid uncertainty and insufficient information? When should they overturn their own understanding? Did you face such predicaments when you were young?

Regarding selling, my considerations are as follows. First, if I realize I have made a mistake, I will sell immediately. Second, when there are better investment targets available that offer a superior risk-reward ratio and downside-upside ratio, I would opt to switch. Third, when the market exhibits bubble-like extreme overvaluation. However, valuation is often a concept of timing and largely depends on the company’s long-term growth potential. A common human flaw is to amplify short-term factors and diminish or overlook long-term elements. Therefore, it’s crucial to develop your own circle of competence; the deeper your research, the more thorough your understanding. Short-term overvaluation is less significant compared to long-term growth. But finding and understanding companies that can grow in the long term is extremely challenging. Such companies possess enduring competitive advantages over their competitors, vast growth potential, and excellent capital return rates. These companies are rare gems; hence we refer to them as the “holy grail.” The best investments are often in these companies with long-term competitive strength and growth potential. Once you truly find and understand such a company, I generally advise against hastily selling it. Because if you sell it thinking it’s overvalued, and later try to buy it back, you’ll face the same issue that it’s still overvalued, and you’re back to waiting for it to be cheaper. During that waiting period, its growth could far exceed your original valuation estimates. If it’s a truly superior company, this scenario is even more likely. If it’s not a superior company, then it’s a different issue.

Finding such companies in a lifetime of investing is not easy because they are inherently rare. A great company that you’ve thoroughly researched and also happens to be cheap is a very rare opportunity. In my 30 years of investing, I’ve only encountered such opportunities a few times. Equally important is being able to hold such a company long-term. No matter how long you hold it, you must continue learning about it.

Take Berkshire Hathaway as an example; we regard it as a fortress-like company, managed by some of the world’s best investors, standing strong for over 60 years. Yet, its stock price has also dropped by more than 50% three or four times. Whether you can continue holding at such times largely depends on your deep understanding of the assets owned by the company. This depth of understanding is not easy, as Berkshire has many excellent assets and subsidiaries, and truly understanding them requires long-term research and knowledge accumulation.

Another example is BYD, which we’ve held for 22 years. During this time, its stock has dropped by more than 50% at least six times, once even by more than 80%. Each significant price drop tests the boundaries of your circle of competence. Do you really understand it? Do you truly know its value and how much value it has created? In one year, BYD might have increased its value, yet its stock fell by 70%. Only then is your circle of competence truly tested; touching its boundaries confirms its existence. During the time we’ve held it, BYD’s sales grew from one billion yuan to nearly one trillion yuan, and it hasn’t reached its limit; it continues to grow and create value. This is the intriguing part of investing.

Therefore, the length of time you hold a stock and the timing of when to sell largely depend on whether your circle of competence is real and whether you truly understand a company. Investing is not as simple as buying a stock and then resting easy. If it were that easy, everyone would be wealthy. Investing is not easy, but it is a fascinating and challenging job.

The fourth scenario occurs when, as fiduciaries to others’ capital, we sometimes have to sell out of necessity. If we’re fully invested and face redemption requests, since our fundamental principle is not to borrow, we may need to sell some holdings. We adhere to the principle of not borrowing because only by doing so can we withstand a drop of 50% in the entire investment portfolio. Significant stock declines are a normal part of investing. If you haven’t been through such tests several times in your investing career, it’s hard to clarify whether your circle of competence is real or not, whether you truly understand, are truly brave, or just reckless and lucky.

The stock market truly tests human nature. If you don’t understand your investment targets, sooner or later, the market will defeat you. So, it’s crucial to gain true understanding, continuously deepen and expand your circle of competence, and commit to lifelong learning. As I shared at the end of my talk, Mr. Munger bought a stock at 99 years old after having researched its industry for at least sixty or seventy years. Importantly, your knowledge can indeed compound. When you’re young, you can start with the basics, such as buying the cheapest stocks. Because only if the price is low enough can you comfortably hold long-term, giving you ample time to understand the business and the company. Only then should you own those truly excellent companies. The premise for long-term holding is true understanding, not just for the sake of holding long-term. The core of value investing is understanding value. You pay a price to buy value, ideally a continuously growing value, at a price far below its intrinsic value. Build your circle of competence gradually. There’s no need to rush.

Question 3: How do you view the path to the 3.0 era for the United States? Apart from referencing the development of Hong Kong, can China also draw from some of the experiences of America’s rise? Additionally, in the process of reform and rise, to what extent do high-level decisions determine the success of economic development?

From a long-term perspective, what we see today is a paradigm shift of civilization. It is not swayed by any individual or any country’s will, and it is determined by the laws of sustainable, compound economic growth in the modern science-technological civilization. If a country remains stagnant, it will fall behind, as other countries continue to grow. For example, in recent years, where China’s economy has actually shrunk relative to the United States. Sometimes we also need to observe whether the nation is successful, whether people are still seriously trying to get things done. Today, China affects not just the domestic population of over a billion people but also about two and a half billion people worldwide. We are a community of shared destiny.

The emergence of the 3.0 economy in our era resulted from many coincidental factors, with the biggest coincidence being the establishment of the United States. The U.S. indeed has unique advantages, such as its vast geography, multiculturalism, the capacity to accommodate a large multi-ethnic population, and they continue to be true today. Therefore, the practices of the U.S. are not only the practices of the country itself but also the collective exploration of 3.0 civilization by various ethnic groups. These practices have broad implications for the world. Currently, about 10% of the global population has entered the 3.0 civilization, but international relations have not reached this stage. The iron law of modern economic development is that the largest market will eventually become the only market. Although there are many barriers, tariffs, and restrictions between markets, in reality, through third parties, the entire market will still connect and circulate; no one can do anything without anyone else, and temporary wars and conflicts will eventually end.

Today, humanity’s organizational method is still based on governments and nation-states. Although economically, a common global market has formed, in terms of international relations, it remains a loosely organized system based on nation-states, without a formal international political organizational structure. The fundamental reason lies in the long-lasting gap between the rapid compound growth of the 3.0 economy and the slow or even stagnant evolution of human nature, organizational structure, psychology, culture and religious beliefs. Changes in international relations or national governance are very lengthy processes. If you study the modernization processes of other countries, you’ll realize that many of the difficulties China faces today are not unsolvable. Looking back at China’s modernization ups and downs since 1840 and comparing them to the challenges of the past few years, you’ll find that current difficulties are only minor in the historical context and not worth overly worrying about. As investors, the key is to find that lake with fish where few people are fishing. You don’t need to clarify everything, nor do you need to compete with the crowds on the largest lake. This is the beauty of value investing.

Question 4: How do we understand what a “cheap” company is? Do we look at the P/E ratio? The P/E of a company varies and is related to the growth rate; how should we interpret?

“Cheap” is a multidimensional concept, related to relative value. In Benjamin Graham’s era, he focused on tangible asset value, looking only at assets that could be quickly liquidated like cash equivalents, tradable securities, readily recoverable accounts receivable, and even real estate. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, many such stocks were available. In 1993-1994, when I began investing, there were also very cheap stocks in the U.S. market. My first “ten-bagger” had a market value of $300 million and a book value of $500 million, $400 million of which were shares in a publicly listed company, TCI, which later became the largest cable TV company in the U.S. At that time, I did not look at P/E ratios, nor did I understand the remaining $100 million in assets. Later, I discovered that this $100 million in assets were very valuable, consisting of licenses for satellite communications and wireless networks that are fundamental to America’s earliest wireless communication systems. I did not understand this initially and stumbled upon it by accident. After buying the stock, I resolved to study cable TV companies deeply, only then realizing the true value of the wireless network licenses. Thus, buying cheap can sometimes bring unexpected gains, but you must research deeply after buying. The more you understand, the more value you can gain.

Using P/E as a metric to measure a company’s value requires a deep understanding of the quality of its earnings. For instance, are the earnings cyclical? If the P/E is low, is it because it is at the peak of the cycle, because the earnings include many one-time or cyclical elements, or because the earnings are genuinely long-term, stable, and sustainable? Only after clarifying the quality of the earnings can you assess the company’s long-term growth prospects. Each company’s value is somewhat unique, and you must understand exactly what you are investing in.

Question 5: What are the characteristics of excellent entrepreneurs? Is there a commonality?

This question is very interesting. Over 30 years, I’ve met many successful entrepreneurs. If you have enough experience, you’ll realize that these successful individuals, in the early days, were just like you, starting from nothing. When I met Jeff Bezos, he was, like me, a founder of a startup, and we hit it off immediately. He invited me to speak at Amazon when the company had just over a hundred people and had just rented its first warehouse. Every generation has its own success stories, and every era brings forth new talents.

There are many similarities and differences among outstanding entrepreneurs of each generation; they cannot be uniformly categorized. If there is a common trait, it might be their persistent optimism. Everything in the world is either bottle half full or half empty — no bottle is completely full or empty. Successful entrepreneurs choose to see the full half. Because founding a business always involves endless difficulties and challenges. If you focus on the half-empty part, always dwelling on negativity, how can you find partners? Rational analysis is necessary, but entrepreneurs must choose to believe in the power of belief. The future is not easy to predict, and often, you have to choose to believe. Belief is particularly useful in the shift to a 3.0 civilization because a rising tide lifts all boats — the economy itself is growing, rewarding those who choose to believe. So never admitting defeat is the first step to success. All successful people possess traits of never giving up, maintaining optimism, and believing in the future.

The advantage of the market economy is that it doesn’t predetermine who can succeed; it doesn’t care who succeeds. Elon Musk might have a hard time succeeding in China. Whether Jack Ma could still succeed today is also unknown. A highly inclusive society allows everyone to use their talents to the fullest because success in the market economy is determined by competitive results, not predetermined fate. No one knows which type of person is especially suited for success, and standards for success differ over time. Thus, freedom is crucial, providing flexibility is crucial, and different people ultimately have opportunities in the market economy. This is why the market economy ultimately transforms from “everyone for me ” to “I for everyone,” starting from serving self-interest to achieving great public good. It circulates all economic elements — no amount of talent is ever enough in a market economy. Continuous learning and self-enrichment are essential; even successful entrepreneurs must keep learning, or they can only succeed temporarily. Maintaining optimism, never giving up, continuous learning, trustworthiness, and integrity are all important. But beyond that, it really is about creating an inclusive environment where everyone can give their best and talents can be recruited without sticking to rigid standards.

Question 6: What is the meaning of investing? While individual investors’ understanding and circle of competence can improve, leading to investment returns, what other value is there?

Finally, I’ll answer this somewhat philosophical question: are investors parasites, or do they benefit society? Especially since value investing emphasizes buying cheap, and each purchase implies someone else is selling. Does that mean your investment gain is sourced from another person’s loss? The answer is no, value investors are definitely not parasites. As I mentioned, modern capital markets are a necessary prerequisite and cornerstone of modern economics. The existence of capital markets is the most important guarantee that all economic elements can circulate effectively. For capital markets to be efficient, they must allocate money to the most productive companies that can provide the products and services the market needs most. Suppose an ordinary person earns a thousand dollars a month and saves five hundred, intending to invest in the best companies. This requires a long chain, and each node in the chain is crucial, indispensable, building up to the capital markets, the public stock markets, whose most important function is that they can price companies correctly over the long term. Correct pricing means that the ultimate price roughly corresponds with value.

We say that capital markets are not always efficient, meaning sometimes they are ineffective in the short term. In the long run, market prices will fluctuate with value, with value as their anchor — only then is the market effective. Moving prices from short-term inefficiency to long-term efficiency is crucially dependent on fundamental investors, value investors. Value investing enables the market’s price discovery function and is the most important node connecting the most valuable companies with non-professional individual savers. Each component of the capital market is important, including lawyers, brokers, analysts, managers, etc. Do not lightly assume that anyone working in finance on any node has original sin. These professionals and institutions provide credibility. Of course, there are parasites in this industry. Only those truly deserving of fiduciary responsibility can generate credibility, and only when every node on the chain has credible intermediaries can the overall financial market have credibility. Free competition, survival of the fittest, along with legal regulation and long-term practice, can produce a truly efficient, credible financial market.

I generally don’t talk about holdings, but since everyone knows about our investment in BYD, let’s use it as an example. We’ve owned it for 22 years, during which its stock price fell by 50% at least six times, once by more than 80%. If there weren’t value investors like us, BYD might have faced a capital chain break during some crises. For example, many high-growth companies experienced capital breaks this year. If we hadn’t introduced a reputable investor like Berkshire in 2008, BYD’s success would have faced more challenges. It’s not that BYD wouldn’t have succeeded as it has today, but it would have faced more challenges. This is a frank statement, a very clear example. Without value investors, the capital market loses its price discovery function, becomes ineffective, and can no longer turn savings into effective societal resources. Thus, excellent value investors, who earn what they deserve, are indispensable partners to outstanding enterprises.

This is why, when I first heard Warren Buffett speak, I decided to enter this industry; he answered the very question you asked. Personally, I’ve always been more interested in ethics and social justice than in making money, especially when I was younger. My earliest perception of Wall Street, like the cunning parasites portrayed in the Chinese play Sunrise with their secretive machinations and collusion, disgusted me. But Buffett made me realize that the essence of value investing is win-win. Investors are indeed an important part of a company’s growth. I’ve also made some venture investments in my early career, helping more than a dozen companies successfully establish and grow as an angel investor. For VCs and PEs, the role of investors is even more apparent. A truly reputable, creditworthy public market investor plays a similarly important role in endorsing companies long-term. Moreover, the existence of public companies is crucial for converting savings into effective social resources, which are essential for these companies to grow. This is the most important node for our modern economy to enter self-sustaining, sustainable long-term growth. So, everyone on the chain plays an extremely important role.

These are common sense, yet rare. Your question is important, and grasping the knowledge to answer this question takes time. This is why we offer this course, why we discuss these topics, and why Mr. Chang, Professor Jiang, teaching assistants, and volunteers dedicate so much time to education. The goal is to turn common sense into consensus, so society won’t demonize those working in the financial industry or impose original sin on the industry. Without such consensus, a country can be trapped in the middle-income stage, unable to form a positive cycle. An increase from 40% to 50% in personal savings rates effectively means a 10% reduction in GDP. A decrease in GDP lowers expectations for the future, further reducing consumption, causing companies to lay off workers. When the economy starts to contract, it keeps contracting more; when it expands, it keeps expanding more. So, bailouts and stimulus are necessary. But problems on the consumer end can’t be resolved by increasing supply. We need to increase real, sustainable demand. These are the basics of modern economics and are scarce common sense. The most important goal of education is to truly turn this common sense into consensus, allowing the economy to continue to develop on this foundation. But this scarcity is also natural; we’ve evolved over tens of thousands of years from an agricultural civilization, and most people’s view of wealth is static. We think anyone who makes money is unrighteous. The static view of wealth is rooted from the 2.0 era. I named hunter-gatherer civilization, agricultural civilization, and science-technological civilization as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, to distinctly differentiate them, because our concepts often linger in the previous civilization state and we have a hard time comprehending compound economic growth and compound wealth growth. The examples of British nobility and the ten-thousand- households can help you understand this point. Many of our outdated concepts need to change.

Today we also use this question to end our lecture, that true value investors have a fiduciary gene, have made important contributions to enterprises and the capital market, and are an indispensable part of modern economic development. I hope every practitioner in this field truly lives up to this responsibility. Thank you!

译文

全球价值投资的时代

李录

在价值投资课程十周年庆典上的演讲，北京大学光华管理学院，2024年12月7日

感谢姜国华教授、常劲先生以及所有为这门课程做出贡献的老师、同事和同学们！今年，在姜教授访问美国期间，我们讨论了这门课程在过去十年中对学术界和产业界产生的意义深远的影响。今年在线课程的申请人数超过1000人，这证明了它的成功。

十年前，当我们决定与北京大学合作支持这门课程的建立时，灵感来自于我的个人经历。三十五年前，当我第一次来到美国时，哥伦比亚大学提供了一门类似的课程，这让我有机会结识了价值投资大师沃伦·巴菲特。这次相遇深刻地改变了我未来三十年的生活轨迹。因此，我们也希望给年轻的中国学生带来这样的机会和想法。

今天，许多朋友和学生以现场（在西雅图）和虚拟（在北京）的方式参与其中。感谢大家的到来！

闲话少说，让我们进入正题。在2015年的第一次演讲中，我讨论了“价值投资在中国的展望”。五年后，在2019年，主题是“价值投资的理论与实践”。今年早些时候，姜教授访问了西雅图，讨论了十周年庆典的想法，并邀请我再次发言。今天，我想讨论“全球价值投资的时代”。

在过去的五年里，中国和世界都经历了许多变化，给投资者带来了很大的困惑。无论在哪里实践，价值投资都必须与我们所处的时代紧密相连。虽然价值投资强调自下而上的基本面分析，但我们投资的公司存在于特定的时代，并且不可避免地受到各种宏观因素的影响。因此，我们无法逃避我们所处的时代。考虑到这一点，我想分享一些我的想法。

今天的演讲将围绕四个关键主题展开：

1. 我们当前时代的主要困境。
2. 对这些困境的根本原因和本质的思考。
3. 中等收入陷阱，各国如何克服它，以及对当前国际关系的思考。
4. 回到我们的主题，作为全球价值投资者，我们如何应对当前时代的挑战。

这四个主题非常广泛，因此我们无法深入探讨，但将涵盖每个主题的关键点。请随时在问答环节中提出任何未解决的问题，我将尽力分享一些想法。

一、当前时代的困境

我们时代的困境是什么？让我们从国内和国际两个角度来讨论。

国内视角

在国内，挑战是显而易见的，特别是对于年轻人来说，他们最能感受到就业的压力。根据国家统计局的数据，16至24岁青年的失业率已达到约20%。失业问题背后是民营企业信心的问题。目前，中国约有7亿至8亿就业人口，其中80-90%的就业岗位由非国有企业和个人提供，主要是民营企业。国有企业和政府仅占约10%的就业。因此，失业问题主要反映了民营企业面临的挑战。近年来，民营企业家面临着一系列关于产权甚至人身安全的问题。

失业问题也反映了消费者信心的下降。这与以财富为基础的资产，特别是房地产的大幅贬值有关。房地产曾经占中国家庭财富的约70%，今天仍然占60%左右，并且仍然是家庭财富的主要来源。因此，房地产和资本市场价格的急剧下跌不可避免地影响消费者信心和对未来的预期。

在过去的几年里，随着经济挑战的出现，政策应对主要集中在供给侧措施上。然而，当前的问题主要在需求侧，导致通货紧缩的趋势。在中国，“内卷”一词越来越流行，反映了通货紧缩环境下的激烈竞争。在正常的经济增长条件下，竞争会带来向上、螺旋式的增长，而不是采取“内卷”的极端形式。此外，在今天更加严格的监管和政治环境下，官僚体系缺乏有效的积极激励，导致政府官员中普遍存在“躺平”（不作为）现象，这阻碍了政策的传递和实施。这些是中国在国内面临的一些困境。

在过去的40年里，中国的发展占全球制造业增加值的30%以上。然而，国内消费只占这一产出的一半左右，这意味着中国一半的制成品必须出口到其他国家，其中发达国家是最大的客户。虽然近年来东南亚已成为中国最大的贸易伙伴，但大部分贸易并不涉及东南亚的最终消费，而是再出口贸易，其中很大一部分最终在发达国家消费。

国际视角

在国际上，中国也面临着一系列挑战，特别是在与美国和欧洲等发达国家的关系中。在过去的五到六年里，最重要的全球变量是美国对其在国际事务中的角色的根本性重新评估。自二战以来，美国一直扮演着“稳定锚”的角色，维护国际贸易的和平与稳定，确保海上安全（海洋自由）和全球资本流动。它建立了所谓的“美国秩序”，包括一系列的体系、法律和争端解决机制，美国在所有方面都发挥着核心作用。

然而，近年来，美国人——从精英到中产阶级再到普通公民——越来越质疑扮演这个角色是否值得。据估计，美国承担了全球约80%的军事开支，并充当全球经济的最终购买者、货币提供者和最终消费市场，有效地稳定了全球秩序。然而，许多美国人现在认为美国的回报甚微。他们认为中国的崛起受益于“美国秩序”，同时对其构成了根本甚至是对抗性的挑战。无论这种观点是否准确，它都导致美国重新评估其在维护全球秩序中的作用和资源分配。这种转变不仅深刻地改变了美中关系，而且引发了关于全球秩序未来的根本性问题：它将如何演变？谁将提供和维护国际贸易中的公共产品，如和平和海上贸易自由？在这种背景下，中国产业将面临什么挑战，又将扮演什么角色？

总结

无论在国内还是国际上，近年来都出现了一系列问题，可以被称为“我们时代的困境”。这些困境并不局限于特定的时间和地点，也不是短期的现象；相反，它们反映了对未来的深刻不确定性。

二、对这些困境的思考：表象、原因和本质

接下来，我想讨论对这些困境的思考。

这些困境并非中国独有。回顾过去500年的世界历史，所有在工业起飞后进入中等收入阶段的国家都经历了一个过渡时期。这是任何国家在发展过程中面临的普遍挑战。

在我的书《文明、现代化、价值投资与中国》中，我将文明的演进分为三个阶段：1.0（狩猎采集文明）、2.0（农业文明）和3.0（现代科技文明）。2.0阶段和3.0阶段之间的过渡阶段，我称之为2.5阶段，是中国目前所处的阶段。每个经历过工业化的国家，如德国、日本以及南美和亚洲的一些国家，都面临着与中国今天所经历的类似的挑战。一些国家已经成功地超越了这个阶段，而另一些国家仍然深陷中等收入阶段。每个国家的发展道路都是独一无二的。此外，人类尚未建立一个在3.0科技文明时代管理国际关系的3.0模式。

困境的原因

现代化的本质在于市场经济与现代科技的结合，从而实现持久、复合和可持续的经济增长。复合经济增长是一个引人注目的数学概念。例如，自改革开放初期以来，中国的实际经济产出增长了45倍以上。名义增长数字甚至更加惊人。然而，虽然经济增长是复合的，但社会治理、人类心理和政治制度却没有经历类似的复合变化。这种差异的出现是因为自20万年前智人出现以来，人性一直没有发生根本性的变化。相比之下，我们的经济经历了三个里程碑式的飞跃——从狩猎采集到农业文明，再到现代科技文明。

因此，当早期的工业起飞阶段结束时，复合经济状况与社会、心理和政治治理的较慢演变（或缺乏演变）之间的差距不可避免地导致了重大挑战。这些挑战对于处于这个阶段的所有国家来说都是普遍存在的。

中国在过去三到四十年里的快速经济转型并非完全独特。从历史上看，只有英国独立地在相对较长的时间内完成了工业化和现代化。其他国家通过赶超实现了工业化，通常需要三到四十年。例如：

• 日本从1868年的明治维新到1905年日俄战争中击败工业化的俄罗斯，仅仅用了30多年的时间。
• 德国从1871年统一到第一次世界大战的工业化也大约经历了三到四十年。
• 美国在相似的时间框架内，从内战后的工业化过渡到1890年代成为世界最大的经济体。
• 巴西和阿根廷等南美国家在二战后经历了快速增长，但在1980年代和1990年代陷入了中等收入陷阱。

三到四十年复合增长可以彻底改变一个经济体，特别是在其经济起飞阶段。然而，这种快速转型与社会治理的现实产生了巨大的不匹配，并在社会各个方面带来了重大挑战。一些社会能够动员起来并成功地跨越这个阶段，而另一些社会则需要很长时间来调整，有些甚至走了错误的道路，正如第一次和第二次世界大战的灾难性结果所证明的那样。历史表明，战争本身并不能解决这些问题；相反，往往是战后的改革带来了解决方案。

范式转变的例子

让我提供几个关于概念范式如何在这个过渡阶段演变的例子。

1. 土地的概念

在2.0农业文明时代，土地和人口是决定一个经济体规模的主要因素。它们共同定义了一个经济体的总产出。然而，农业对增长施加了一个上限——被称为马尔萨斯陷阱——人口增长最终超过了土地的支撑能力。因此，领土扩张成为社会、族群和国家的首要追求。许多历史人物因扩张领土或抵御入侵而被人们铭记。

在3.0科技文明时代，可持续和复合的经济增长不是由土地和人口驱动，而是由市场规模和生产要素的充分流通驱动。未能调和这些新旧范式是第一次和第二次世界大战的关键原因。

在第一次世界大战爆发时，所有各方都期望迅速解决。然而，一旦领土扩张的战争开始，对土地根深蒂固的心理依恋就会加剧冲突，使其升级为全球战争。工业化的欧洲陷入了一场夺走数千万人生命的战争，并导致所有参与帝国的崩溃，没有一方实现其目标。如果结果可以预见，任何一方都不会发动或加入战争，因为即使是胜利者也付出了巨大的代价。

第二次世界大战本质上是第一次世界大战的延续，由同样的根深蒂固的领土冲动所驱动。然而，工业战争造成的破坏使结果更加灾难性，全球伤亡人数超过1亿。所有参与的帝国和国家都遭受了沉重的打击。

具有讽刺意味的是，德国和日本等战败国家的战后改革帮助他们实现了通过战争未能实现的目标。德国是两次世界大战的主要发起者，日本是太平洋战争的主要发起者，他们都将领土扩张作为确保所谓的“生存空间”的手段。他们的战时动员以民族生存和民族经济发展的叙事为主题。然而，他们通过战争未能完成的事情在战后的和平时代实现了。二战后，两国都找到了可持续的、复合经济增长的机会。

二战胜利后，美国成为历史上第一个无条件地将所有征服的领土归还给其原籍国的国家。这种行为在之前的战争中是前所未有的。作为回报，美国建立了一个基于其原则的全球体系，包括国际贸易、商品交换和资本流动。所有美国的盟友都加入了这个体系，这使得所有这些国家和美国都能够实现“无国界”的经济增长。根本原因是，在3.0科技文明时代，土地不再是经济增长的主要驱动力。相反，市场规模和经济要素（如技术、劳动力和资本）的自由流动成为关键驱动力。

然而，对土地的痴迷仍然存在于我们的本性中。在当前的2.5过渡阶段，这种对土地和领土的执着可能是危险的，随时可能点燃民族主义热情，因为这种心态已经在人类大脑中根深蒂固了数万年。

2. 虚拟经济与实体经济的二分法

近年来，中国的许多政策都试图区分“实体经济”和“虚拟经济”，强调支持实体经济，同时旨在“将资源从虚拟部门转移到实体部门”。这种区分在早期工业化阶段是有效的，当时资源从农业转移到工业。然而，随着经济向2.5阶段及以后过渡，特别是在成熟经济体中，这种区分变得过时甚至具有误导性。

以电子游戏为例。它们是实体经济的一部分还是虚拟经济的一部分？许多人会将其归类为虚拟经济。然而，在今天的战场上，例如在俄罗斯-乌克兰冲突中，一个重要的影响因素不是坦克、机关枪，甚至不是非智能导弹，而是智能无人机。这些无人机大多由熟练的游戏玩家操作。据估计，在这场冲突中活跃着100万到200万架战斗无人机，由其专业知识源于游戏的人员操作。这表明了所谓的“虚拟”经济和“实体”经济是如何交织在一起的。

另一个例子是软件：它是实体经济的一部分还是虚拟经济的一部分？软件今天管理着全球经济，没有它，中国经济和全球经济都无法运转。

半导体是中国大力投资的实体经济的一部分。英伟达（NVIDIA）是全球最著名的半导体公司之一，通常被认为是实体经济的一部分。然而，自1993年成立以来，英伟达没有生产过任何一块半导体晶圆。所有生产都外包给了台积电（TSMC）。英伟达从根本上说是一家软件公司，它设计半导体的运营程序，赋予它虚拟经济的特征。在人工智能应用出现之前，英伟达的产品主要用于游戏。

德国经常被誉为保持强大实体经济基础的典范。然而今天，英伟达的市值超过了德国所有上市公司市值的总和。它甚至超过了德国和意大利所有上市公司市值的总和，以及其他100多个国家。尽管其估值可能存在泡沫，但英伟达对于游戏、云计算和人工智能行业来说是不可或缺的。这模糊了虚拟经济和实体经济之间的界限，使得这种区分在很大程度上变得无关紧要。

3. 政府的角色

随着经济转型，政府应该扮演什么角色？

在国内层面，在农业时代，中央集权和地方分权各有优势。在计划经济中，政府充当指挥中心。随着改革，其角色转变为指导角色。然而，在市场经济中，主要的经济决策必须由对结果有切身利益的企业家独立做出，并在竞争环境中运作。

中国18万亿美元的经济体由超过1亿家企业组成，它们每天做出价值数十亿甚至数百亿美元的经济决策。这些决策的复杂性和规模超出了任何一小群人有效计划或指导的范围。

在国际层面，中国一半的产量出口到全球，中国是120多个国家的最大或第二大贸易伙伴。这些国家加起来约占全球经济的80%（不包括中国），这些国家数十亿人的日常生活受到中国做出的数十亿私人决策的深刻影响。如果中国政府继续以其指挥或指导的心态来思考和处理问题，它不仅会影响中国的14亿人口，还会影响中国以外数十亿人的生活。

今天，几乎每一家主要的全球媒体都在头版报道中国。这反映了中国政府决策对世界的深远影响，影响着至少数十亿人的生计和利益。在从农业经济向现代科技经济转型的过程中，世界各国政府已经从指挥控制的角色演变为协作、咨询、支持和服务导向的角色。这种转变与现代经济体系的规模和复杂性相一致。中国也必须调整其治理模式，以适应其在全球贸易中的独特角色和自身的经济现实。为了与每个国家进行贸易并将一半的产量出口到海外，中国政府必须考虑这些全球利益相关者的利益、观点和经济现实。

这三个例子强调，当一个经济体进入中等收入阶段时，复合经济进步与传统、治理结构和人性的较慢演变之间将出现显著差距。这些差距体现在经济的各个方面。因此，我们需要反复重新评估和调整那些阻碍经济发展的过时观念。

三、中等收入陷阱、各国如何克服它以及对当前国际关系的思考

回顾过去500年的现代化进程，中国和其他国家积累了大量的经验和教训，为我们提供了宝贵的指导。在此基础上，我们探讨第三个主题：中国能否克服中等收入陷阱，又应该如何处理当今的国际环境？

首先，3.0经济体中持久的复合增长是由所有经济要素在其内部的自由交换和流通所驱动的。每一次自由贸易和交换都会产生协同效应，1+1>2，而知识交换甚至可以实现倍增效应，1+1>4。因此，商品、服务和思想的交换越频繁和不受限制，增量收益就越大。一个真正现代化和可持续的3.0经济体拥有这一关键特征——所有要素的完全和畅通无阻的流通，没有任何瓶颈。

中国经济中哪些要素尚未达到这种充分流通和交换的水平？我将重点介绍两个例子：

首先，中国的个人消费仅占经济总量的40%，这一比例近年来一直在下降。与此同时，储蓄率已从40%上升到50%左右。这些储蓄大部分仍留在银行体系内，而银行体系主要由国有银行控制。这个体系能否充分地将这些储蓄循环回经济中？

历史上没有成功的案例，无论是在国内还是在国际上。为了使储蓄真正有利于经济增长，一个现代化的资本市场和一个高效的金融体系对于促进资本的有效配置和流通是必不可少的。

回顾经济发展的历史，最早的金融体系出现在威尼斯，它是人类历史上持续时间最长的共和国，从中世纪到拿破仑时代，跨越了一千多年。从公元1000年到1500年，尽管人口只有数万，但威尼斯几乎垄断了亚洲和欧洲之间的关键贸易路线，成为当时最大的贸易帝国。威尼斯成功的关键是什么？它发明了当今现代金融体系的几个关键部分——复式簿记，后来是股份公司、保险系统和与现代贸易相关的银行系统。

当时，威尼斯主要依靠金融和贸易。其狭窄的领土基础缺乏农业和工业，其他国家仍处于农业文明时代。因此，威尼斯未能发展出真正的3.0现代科技文明，但它发明的金融体系和工具在一个更大的国家——荷兰——得到了进一步的发展和完善。1581年，荷兰宣布独立，经过长达70年的独立战争，它崛起成为17世纪最重要的海上贸易帝国，通过荷兰船只进行着全球约四分之一的贸易。荷兰只有几百万人口，比威尼斯大不了多少，它开发了现代金融体系的初始版本，包括发明了公共有限责任公司。荷兰东印度公司是世界上第一家上市公司。荷兰还建立了中央银行和证券交易所，实现了高水平的证券市场发展，甚至经历了人类历史上第一个投机泡沫——郁金香狂热。这些创新使得荷兰在人均GDP方面远远超过了其他欧洲国家，并使其能够在未来四百年中保持在世界十大最富裕国家之列。今天，荷兰仍然是世界上最大的贸易国之一，已经保持了四个多世纪的繁荣。

然而，荷兰并没有发展出一个标准的3.0经济体，拥有工业、科学技术和制造业——这一里程碑是由英国实现的。英国是如何实现这一目标的？英国历史上最重要的事件是1688年的光荣革命。这场革命实现了两个里程碑。首先，在治理方面，英国采用了共和制和君主立宪制，确保君主不再是独裁者，而是受到各种权力的制约。第二个成就，也许更为深刻，是促成了一场“合并”，导致荷兰和英国之间的金融和经济一体化。当时，荷兰的威廉三世与他的妻子玛丽二世共同成为英国的共同君主，实际上是荷兰和英国的领导人。他将整个荷兰金融体系移植到了英国，这是一场制度层面的“合并”。

这场合并给英国带来了一个完整的现代金融体系。一个完整的现代资本市场和金融体系的最终产品是什么？

资本市场提供的不仅仅是资本，而是一个基于信用的体系。银行可以提供资本，但不能创造那种体系。什么是信用体系？企业家必须具有作为企业家的信用，投资者必须具有作为投资者的信用，连接储蓄和投资的中介机构必须有自己的信用，最终汇聚成一个体系，将不了解商业和投资的普通储户的小额资金转化为重要的资本基础。这个资本基础的结果是创造有效的生产力、供给、需求和利润；一个具有有机、永续循环的良性过程。在这个过程中，每个中介机构都是一个独立的和专业的节点，不直接与最终结果相关联，而是通过一个基于信用的体系高度相关。因此，一个普通的储户也可以通过拥有一家成功公司的一小部分来参与其中。许多小储户，即使只拥有一股，也可以汇聚成一个强大的资本基础。在整个过程中，每个中介机构都基于信用发挥其作用，将这些资源汇集到最值得的企业以及产品和服务中。

这个过程建立了一个完整的信用体系，它与法律体系、争端解决、最佳实践和信任的结构相连。建立这样一个体系是非常困难的，需要不断的尝试和纠错。在移植和建立这个体系之后，英国再也没有在欧洲输掉一场战争。以前，英国通过王室来资助战争，将个人资产、收入和领土置于风险之中，并承担无限责任。现在，它被一个现代信贷体系所取代。通过这个体系，英国发行了数倍于其GDP的债务，吸引了全球投资，而从未破产或违约。这是第一个真正的现代资本市场体系。

当科学和技术创新开始出现时，这个现代体系使得英国能够迅速建立第一个能够实现有机、自我延续和可持续增长的现代3.0经济体。这是一个现代国家的确切定义。

正如我们之前讨论的，今天的个人消费仅占中国GDP的40%，而近50%用于储蓄，几乎全部由国有银行体系控制，这种体系效率低下，无法建立信用体系。中国建立的资本市场体系仍处于起步阶段，近年来一直在萎缩。现有的体系远非一个现代资本市场体系，缺乏将大量储蓄转化为潜在消费和投资的能力，从而推动经济发展。

但是中国有一个类似于英国的历史机遇。这个机会是什么？英国留给中国一份礼物——香港。

香港拥有现代资本市场的所有要素：一个拥有法律体系、争端解决机制、已建立的中介机构以及国际社会和投资者信任的综合机构。然而，这些优势尚未得到充分利用。如果说荷兰和英国之间的关系是平等的合并，那么中国和香港之间的关系更像是一场收购，而收购的好处往往没有得到足够的珍惜——这是一个显著的差异。如果香港的优势能够得到充分利用，它就可以成为重振中国资本市场的重要引擎。香港和中国大陆的资本市场可以分开运作，就像早期的深圳经济特区那样，通过实施并行运行的不同体系，并最终引发全国范围内的改革浪潮。逻辑是一样的。沪港通是一项重要的创新，但这仅仅是一个开始。如果中国能够充分利用通过“收购”获得的香港市场体系，就有可能建立一个现代的、基于信用的资本市场体系。目前的状态距离这个目标还很远，对其重要性的理解和重视仍然不够。此外，近年来的一些做法已经威胁到香港作为独立金融市场存在的基础。如果不及时纠正，后果将是不可估量的。

因此，中国经济仍然远未达到其潜在的真正增长前景。目前，它只能依靠政策刺激，但刺激措施的可持续性不强。只有当刺激措施能够带来可持续增长时，它们才是有效的。否则，中国将不得不每年都依赖新的刺激措施。

中国经常谈论“具有中国特色的现代化”，这种说法是正确的，因为每个国家都是独一无二的。但中国式现代化的本质仍然是现代化，因此它与已经实现现代化的国家有着许多共同点。中国应该在共性的基础上促进现代化，同时补充其个性，以实现具有中国特色的现代化。

共性是在过去几个世纪中，基于从失败和成功经验中吸取的教训而形成的，从而形成了对什么有效和什么无效的共识。正如芒格先生所说，常识是罕见的。人们通常只有在为违反常识付出沉重的代价后才能学会常识。

现代市场经济已经运行了四到五百年，其中一些共识不再需要讨论、怀疑或随意批评和否定。这些共识首先由亚当·斯密在1776年出版的《国富论》中总结出来。当时，他观察到市场经济体系已经从荷兰逐渐成熟到英国，已经实践了一到两百年。他认为，尽管人性本质上是自私的，但市场经济最伟大的方面在于，通过劳动分工和自由竞争，它将追求个人私利转化为社会利益。这是通过实现社会资源的优化配置和促进所有社会阶层的持续经济增长，以帮助促进阶层之间的向上流动来实现的。“人人为我，我为人人”的理想，实际上是通过市场经济实现的。市场经济体系，通过“人人为我”的激励机制，实现了“我为人人”的社会利益。

这个体系当然并不完美，但在人类发明的所有不完美的体系中，市场经济无疑是最伟大的体系发明。在过去的几个世纪里，各种成功和失败的社会实验已经反复证明了这一点。没有必要批评或否定这些既定的共识，也不要为再次违反常识付出代价。

此外，在市场经济中，大多数资源配置决策需要由私人个体做出。正如一位杰出的企业家曾经说过的那样，让能够听到枪声的前线士兵做出决定，因为后方听不到枪声的人很难做出正确的决定。因此，中国市场经济的成功是通过政府不断放权、不断退出，并从指挥角色转变为服务角色来实现的。科学突破和技术发展也是高度市场化的经济的结果，而不是原因。这些不仅是关于市场经济的普遍理解，也是广泛接受的共识。

对人身和财产安全的基本保护对于民营企业的繁荣也至关重要。企业家必须对他们的人身安全感到有保障，才能成功地经营企业。法律纠纷的解决需要程序正义。“法治”与“依法治理”的区别主要在于政府权力是否受到法律的制约，以及法律程序是否得到公正的适用。当诸如“随意执法”、“选择性执法”和“跨司法管辖区逮捕”等现象发生时，企业家是否有权通过法律体系捍卫其合法权益？违反法律的官员是否会受到适当的处罚？纵容这些非法活动的官员是否会受到法律的惩罚？普通民众和企业家能否通过法律程序有效地保护自己的利益，而不是仅仅通过更高权力机关的行政干预？这就是我们所说的程序正义。这些是社会发展中的基本需求。

与此同时，一个健全和完整的资本市场对于经济要素的充分流通至关重要。今天，中国没有一个健全和完整的资本市场，导致个人消费仅占GDP的40%，而储蓄率接近50%。这些数字表明资源尚未得到充分和有效的流通。事实上，所有国家在最初的工业发展之后和中间调整期都遇到了同样的问题；这不是中国独有的问题。一些国家已经成功地通过了这个阶段；一些国家通过煽动毁灭性的战争经历了悲惨的后果，但最终因为他们在战争中的失败而摆脱了困境；另一些国家仍在为此挣扎。中国如何战胜这一点？中国必须保持市场经济的共性，同时尊重中国传统赋予的个性，以实现真正的中国式现代化。实现这一目标最终取决于试错和不断纠正。没有可以复制的实现现代化的固定公式。

回顾改革开放之初，邓小平说过，实践是检验真理的唯一标准，是否有效取决于结果。他还说要不断探索，“摸着石头过河”，没有任何固定的规则。在这个阶段，许多高层政策往往不适用，需要通过实践不断调整。实践的关键绩效指标（KPI）是什么？是实现真正的现代化。真正的现代化意味着中国可以依靠自身有机的、自我延续的力量来产生可持续的经济增长；有机的、自我延续的、可持续的经济增长是最终的KPI。

最大的驱动力来自个人消费在GDP中的比例。这是最有机、自我延续、可持续的经济增长驱动力；其他一切都为它服务，并且是不可持续的。什么是可持续的？是人们持续的、增长的和新的欲望。这是市场经济中最持久、最内在和永远无限的增长驱动力。今天，中国的个人消费仅占GDP的40%，但高达50%的储蓄可以转化为推动经济发展的燃料，转化为新的服务、新的产品和新企业的诞生。中国拥有最好的企业家、最好的工程师、最大的统一需求和供应市场、可信的投资者以及吸引信贷体系供应链上全球专业机构的能力。这些优势为实现有机和可持续的经济增长提供了巨大的潜力。

相比之下，印度的个人消费占GDP的60%，确保了可持续增长；在美国，这一比例超过70%，其增长也是可持续的。一旦中国进入这个阶段，其增长也将变得可持续。但目前，它尚未进入这个阶段。这既是中国当前的挑战，也是一个重要的机遇。

为了从当前的低迷中重新点燃经济增长，中国需要找到一个起点。但如果试图抓住各个方面，将很难成功；很难实现“不仅如此，而且如此”，因此中国必须专注于取得突破。中国应该在哪里集中精力取得突破？

经济是一条相互连接的节点链，涉及许多要素——企业家的精神、消费者信心、官僚体系中的激励机制、外国资本的信任、中美关系的改善、国际贸易环境的变化，以及利用香港的资本市场，保护其独立性和恢复其势头等等。这条链上的所有节点都是相互连接的。因此，问题是，哪个是鸡，哪个是蛋？中国从哪里开始？答案很简单，每个节点既是“鸡”又是“蛋”，都可以“下蛋”。这些节点中的任何一个都可以启动连锁反应，因为它们都相互作用。刺激任何一个节点都可以点燃整个经济链。但中国目前的问题是所有节点都已熄灭，整个链条都处于停滞状态，这是它目前面临的困境。

但自2024年9月以来，中国的政策出现了一个显著的转变。只要中国坚持实践是检验真理的唯一标准，继续进行试错并坚持下去，它最终将点燃经济链中的一个节点。一旦一个节点被点燃，它就会引发其他节点，因为链条上的所有节点都相互连接形成一个整体，每个节点既是其他节点的原因又是结果，既是“鸡”又是“蛋”。因此，没有必要坚持一个固定的方向。对于像中国这样庞大的经济体来说，只要环境相对宽松，重大的突破往往会偶然发生。例如，在改革开放之初，谁能预料到像几十个农民的血书契约这样简单的措施来启动家庭联产承包责任制会点燃中国40年的辉煌改革？这项措施在一年内解决了中国的食品和服装问题，至少在一些地区是这样。同样，深圳经济特区的改革迅速引发了全国范围内的改革浪潮，在短时间内解决了数十年来的问题。事实证明，重大的变化不需要提前计划，也不能提前计划，因为中国实在太大了。

中国的潜力仍然很大，而且它目前遇到的问题并非中国独有，而是所有经历过工业起飞的国家所共有的。这些问题很大程度上是由于社会根深蒂固的信仰——在农业文明时代甚至更早形成的信仰——导致与巨大的、复合的经济增长的现实产生了巨大的分歧。中国需要在这种分歧的背景下重新审视过去的概念，并测试哪些是对的，哪些是错的。在实践中，我相信李光耀先生的方法论是正确的——坚决复制经过验证的做法，避免那些已被证明不可行的做法。这是一个非常简单但深刻的治理原则。最后，中国仍然必须坚持实践是检验真理的唯一标准，利用试错的结果来检验其思想和方法。在当前的发展阶段，最重要的实践是促进中国有机的、自我延续的、可持续的经济增长，关键变量是个人消费占GDP的比例。如果这个比例能够从目前的40%提高到印度的60%，那么中国将在可持续经济增长方面拥有巨大的发展空间和前景。

在这个过程中，至关重要的是重新点燃、激活和连接经济链上的各种要素。这条链上有许多节点，包括企业家、消费者、有效的政府官员、外国资本、投资者、具有信用的专业机构，以及中美关系、中欧关系、中国与东南亚国家的关系等等。

中国与所有其他贸易伙伴的关系等等。这些节点都是“鸡”，也是“蛋”，都是“下蛋的鸡”，任何被点燃的节点都可以重振整个链条。但目前的问题是整个链条相对静态，还没有开始移动，包括我们刚才谈到的给中国的特殊礼物——香港，它相当于荷兰多年前给英国的礼物。

现代资本市场产生的信用体系是国家控制的银行体系无法提供的，也不是银行可以或应该做的事情。银行不能承担风险投资的角色；如果银行进行风险投资，人们就不会觉得把钱放在银行里是安全的，那么银行就不会存在。像英伟达这样的上市公司之所以能够诞生和成长，是因为现代资本市场，它通过具有信用的中介机构体系将小额储蓄汇集成资本。该体系还包括法律体系、最佳实践、争端解决机制、历史惯例和长期积累的信任。目前，在中国，只有香港的资本市场拥有现代金融市场体系的所有要素。如果不能确保市场的独立性，那么它就无法有效地运作。深圳当年之所以成功，是因为它作为一个经济特区的独立性。为了充分利用香港，至少在资本市场和法律领域，必须遵守“五十年不变”的承诺。一个体系的信用和信任需要很长时间才能建立，但只需几个行动就可以迅速打破。香港的市场和体系需要被珍惜和保护，但前提是要理解它的重要性。

四、全球价值投资者如何应对时代的挑战？

为什么我在前面的主题上花费了这么多时间？因为自从我上次演讲以来，最大的变化是每个人的困惑和焦虑都明显增加了。在这种困惑和焦虑中，坚定地持有股票并真正实践长期投资是极其困难的。这就引出了第四个主题——作为全球价值投资者，我们应该如何应对当今国际和国内局势的变化？我们应该如何投资？

首先，我们作为价值投资者的根本态度是，宏观环境是客观存在的；我们只能接受它，而微观层面才是我们可以发挥作用的地方。世界客观存在，不会因为我们的愿望、想象或主观判断而改变。在投资中，我们必须接受世界的本来面目，而不是我们希望它成为的样子或我们想要的样子。它就是它，接受它。有了这个前提，我们才能在特定公司的微观层面发挥作用。

问题是，在这种宏观层面的困惑下，我们能否真正坚定地持有这些公司？即使经过彻底的研究和分析，我们能否对这些公司保持信心？

我们还能继续持有它们吗？在提供了宏观背景之后，这正是我们今天需要解决的核心问题。

为了回答这个问题，我们首先需要定义在世界从农业文明向现代文明的长期、大规模演变中，真正的财富意味着什么。投资的根本目标是保值和增值，所以我们必须首先回答这个问题：什么是财富？我们为什么要投资，我们应该投资什么？

例如，在农业时代，财富是土地和人口。但今天土地还被认为是财富吗？纵观世界历史，特别是在欧洲，封建制度大约持续了几百年。许多国家的封建制度因革命而瓦解，但英国除外。在这几个世纪里，英国没有经历过重大革命，许多贵族保留了他们的土地和宏伟的城堡。在过去，这些贵族是最富有的。他们今天仍然是最富有的吗？答案是否定的。大多数只拥有土地和城堡的贵族不再富有；事实上，他们已经变得相对贫穷。只有少数贵族仍然富有，因为他们进行了其他投资，而不仅仅是依靠他们最初的土地和城堡。

为什么会这样？因为维护土地和城堡需要大量的人力。一座大型城堡通常需要几十甚至几百人来维护。然而，在过去的几个世纪里，劳动力成本大幅上升，使得今天的贵族难以负担这么多人。同样，土地需要人们耕种，但虽然劳动力成本大幅上升，但土地本身的产出却相对较少地增加。农村地产的价值几乎没有增加，而维护成本很高。因此，这些尚未转化为工业或商业用途的土地和城堡已经成为贵族的负债，而不是资产。今天，仍然维护其土地和城堡的英国贵族大多通过向公众收费开放他们的城堡来做到这一点。例如，他们将城堡变成公园，并收取每人5英镑的入场费。我相信你们很多人都去过英国，参观过这样的城堡，甚至租用城堡举办生日派对、公司活动、婚礼等。这是一个土地和劳动力之间相对价值变化的例子。

另一个例子是现金。好的，这是剩余部分的翻译：

当然，现金有价值，但现金是财富吗？年轻的学生可能不记得了，但年长的人应该记得改革开放初期的一个术语，“万元户”，拥有1万元人民币是一项了不起的成就。“万元户”在当时被认为是富人。然而，假设有人当时把这1万元人民币存入银行，包括利息在内，今天还会让他们富有吗？显然不会。今天，许多人一个月的收入都超过了这个数额。因此，如果你只是存现金，那么随着时间的推移，它就不再代表财富了。

因此，无论是土地、现金还是房地产（特别是那些需要很多人维护的），都不能成为持久的财富。那么，在现代社会中，什么是财富？财富的本质是为了消费。一个经济体的总规模最终取决于其总生产或消费。因此，财富是你在整个经济体中的购买力比例。在农业时代，单位经济产出几乎没有增长，整个经济规模有一个“天花板”。在这种情况下，个人在经济中的购买力份额相对固定，主要通过土地、人口和房地产来实现，这些构成了财富。

当经济进入持续复合增长的阶段时，长期趋势是单向增长，尽管短期内会有波动。如果你的财富是静态的，它将逐渐相对于经济增长而减少。经济增长越快，你的财富缩水的速度就越快。在过去的40多年里，中国的名义GDP增长了340多倍，因此“万元户”不再富有。同样，在美国，成为百万富翁曾经是一项了不起的成就，但几天前，巴菲特在一封信中提到，过去的百万富翁大致相当于今天的亿万富翁。这表明，以现金形式持有的静态财富无法实现可持续的复合增长。当经济进入持续复合增长的时代时，真正的财富应该用你在整个经济体中的购买力份额来衡量。而你的有效财富是你主要选择消费的经济体中的购买力比例。

因此，投资的根本目的是保值和增值你的购买力。衡量财富的标准是你在经济中的百分比份额，而不是绝对数字。一个人比另一个人更富有，因为他们在经济中的购买力份额更大。今天拥有一万元人民币不再具有40年前“万元户”的意义，因为实际购买力自那时起呈指数级变化。真正的财富是你在整个经济中的份额。只要你保持你的份额，你就能保住你的财富，即使由于战争等因素导致整体经济规模缩小；如果你的份额增加，你的财富就会增长。然而，在进入现代文明之后，经济规模将以波浪式、可持续的、复合的方式增长，这是现代经济最根本和最显著的特征。

今天，在全球80亿人口中，大约有10%的人口已经进入了有机、自我延续、可持续增长的阶段。大约50%的人口处于过渡状态，包括中国。其余人口仍处于从农业经济向工业起飞过渡的早期阶段。这个持续了几个世纪的连续过程是人类文明的范式转变，任何个人意志都无法逆转它。因此，作为价值投资者，你必须理解什么是价值，什么是真正的财富，以追求、保护和增长——即你在经济中的购买力份额。对于像喜马拉雅资本这样的全球价值投资者来说，作为他人资本的受托人，我们的责任是维护和增加我们在全球范围内的购买力份额。具体来说，这意味着作为投资者的代表，找到世界上最具活力经济体中最具活力、最具创造力的公司，并通过拥有它们的股票来确保我们的购买力。

因此，随着整个经济的增长，你的财富自然会增加。如果你的份额增加，这意味着你的增长超过了平均水平。即使整个经济由于各种原因而萎缩，只要你的份额增加，你的财富就会继续增长。有了对财富的这种理解，你就会更好地理解这句话：宏观是我们必须接受的；微观是我们能够而且应该有所作为的地方。保持这种意识使你能够平静地持有最具创造力和优秀公司的股票，而不会受到宏观经济波动的影响。能够安然入睡使你能够牢牢地持有你的股份，你的购买力。这就是为什么我们首先讨论了宏观经济主题，但最终，我们回到了投资的核心。

此外，在文明范式转变之后，全球经济将继续增长。这种趋势不会随着任何国家的意志而改变。那些陷入中等收入阶段的国家，如果无法跨越它，将逐渐看到它们的经济份额下降。以南美洲为例，在19世纪末，巴西和阿根廷是最有希望的发展中国家。然而，他们多次尝试，但未能成功跨越“中等收入陷阱”。二战后，他们又有一次机会，但他们的增长在1980年代后再次停滞。与此同时，全球经济继续增长。这两个国家曾经是全球领先的经济体之一，但现在很难在榜单上找到它们。这是因为，当他们停滞不前时，其他国家和全球经济继续快速增长，导致他们在全球经济中的份额不断下滑。这就是为什么中国必须保持紧迫感。

作为全球投资者，你需要投资于你认为最具活力的经济体，但也要关注你的实际需求，以便在你消费的地方保持你的购买力。对于像喜马拉雅资本这样的全球投资者来说，我们的目标是选择世界上最具活力经济体中最具活力、最具创造力和竞争力的公司，拥有它们的股份，从而实现全球范围内维护和增加财富的目标。然而，对于个人投资者来说，你需要在你愿意并且需要消费的经济体中保持你的购买力，因为那是你真正的财富。例如，许多中国投资者的主要购买需求在中国，他们可能不需要在欧洲或南美洲的购买力。

在今天的条件下，这个目标能够实现吗？让我们重新审视价值投资的起源。价值投资诞生于一个宏观经济极度动荡和混乱的时期。价值投资的概念最初由本杰明·格雷厄姆（沃伦·巴菲特的老师）全面阐述。格雷厄姆是什么时候开始理解和实践价值投资的？他于1926年开始投资，和许多投资者一样，他在最初的三年里经历了“咆哮的二十年代”，并参与了许多投机性投资。然而，在1929年至1932年的大萧条期间，他的投资合伙企业损失了高达70%的市场价值。经过深刻的反思，他真正开始实践价值投资，并成功地从1932年到1935年弥补了之前的损失。1936年，他成立了一只新的封闭式基金，该基金一直运营到1956年，取得了超过20年的非凡回报。在此期间，他于1949年出版了《聪明的投资者》，他在书中全面解释了价值投资的三个最重要的概念。

价值投资的创始人本杰明·格雷厄姆，在巨大的宏观经济挑战时期发现了价值投资的方法。他那个时代面临的挑战比我们今天面临的困难得多。当时，美国的失业率达到了25%，经济萎缩了大约三分之一到一半，这取决于不同的评估。人们感到绝望，仿佛世界末日即将来临。在他收支平衡并开始一个新的基金时，世界已经陷入了由法西斯分子发起的全球战争，最终导致数亿人死亡，数亿人受伤，以及世界上大多数工业体系的彻底破坏。在这样一个时代，他产生了杰出的投资业绩。

看看我们今天的时代，与格雷厄姆开创和实践价值投资的三十年相比，你会选择哪个时期开始你的职业生涯？在如此动荡、令人困惑的宏观环境下，价值投资可以特别突出其优势并发挥其作用。但你必须了解你需要保护什么以及你的投资目标是什么。

价值投资理论和实践的另一位重要贡献者是经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯。许多人熟悉凯恩斯的宏观经济理论和他对战后布雷顿森林体系和全球金融体系的设计所做的贡献，但很少有人知道他也是一位优秀的价值投资者。从1921年到1946年去世，凯恩斯管理着剑桥大学国王学院最重要的捐赠基金，在超过25年的时间里积累了卓越的投资业绩。凯恩斯早期也有许多投机经历，但通过不断的教训，他开始总结价值投资的核心概念。凯恩斯的职业轨迹与格雷厄姆的职业轨迹高度重叠，两人都经历了“咆哮的二十年代”、大萧条和第二次世界大战。然而，与格雷厄姆不同的是，凯恩斯在战争期间身处英国，并且处于冲突的最前沿，而格雷厄姆则在美国，并且相对远离战争的直接影响，这使得凯恩斯在这一时期的成就更加引人注目。

凯恩斯和格雷厄姆有着许多概念上的相似之处，但凯恩斯更强调公司本身的质量。巴菲特和芒格后来与他一致，并在他们从1957年至今的六十多年的投资实践中进一步推广了这个概念。

另一位关键人物是约翰·邓普顿，他在价值投资和将其传播到其他国家方面发挥了重要作用。1939年，在战争期间，当许多美国股票跌破1美元时，邓普顿坚持“便宜是硬道理”的原则，购买了100股交易价格低于1美元的美国股市股票，总投资额为1万美元。四年后，当他卖掉它们时，104只股票中有100只的价值显著增加。1954年，他创建了邓普顿基金，并开始向许多其他国家传播价值投资的概念。到1992年，经过38年的各种市场变化，该基金的回报率超过了十倍。

我于1997年创立了喜马拉雅资本。在那之前，我在1993年购买了我的第一只股票，从廉价公司开始。在投资廉价公司的过程中，我逐渐建立了我的能力圈，慢慢地从寻找廉价公司过渡到寻找优质但廉价的公司。当该基金于1997年成立时，我经历了亚洲金融危机。在过去的几年里，中国市场经历了显著的资本和资产价格下跌，许多人遭受了房地产、股票和其他证券价格下跌的痛苦。然而，这种低迷的规模仍然无法与亚洲金融危机相提并论。当时，亚洲主要国家的市场下跌了70%以上，最严重的下跌了90%以上。我们的基金也面临着巨大的挑战，并经历了相当大的波动，但那些年累积的业绩恰好是我们高回报的时期，因为市场简直遍地是黄金。

我将分享一个有趣的故事。当时，我在纽约与几位基金经理交流观点，其中一位是韩裔美国人。我们讨论了我们的投资，他提到他对韩国感兴趣。我说我也感兴趣。当时，韩国股市以美元计价下跌了80-90%，因为不仅股市下跌，韩元也贬值了40-50%。他提到他正在进行一笔交易：购买浦项制铁（POSCO），因为其市盈率仅为2倍，同时做空三星电子，因为其市盈率高达3倍。他将这笔交易描述为太棒了，是他能找到的最好的投资机会。这在今天听起来可能很疯狂，但它生动地反映了当时华尔街的主流思维以及价值投资之外发生的事情。顺便说一句，这个人后来因几乎导致瑞士信贷破产的欺诈行为而声名狼藉，最近被美国法院判处18年监禁。

这就是为什么真正的价值投资者可以在市场上获得良好的长期回报。没有哪个市场是完全有效的，因为市场不是一个抽象的概念，而是由许多个体组成。许多人可能认为美国市场非常有效，但在这个行业工作了30年并管理喜马拉雅资本27年后，我亲身经历了美国股市下跌超过50%的几次。在2008-2009年的金融危机期间，美国股市的跌幅超过了中国，当时，人们担心全球金融体系可能会彻底崩溃。当COVID疫情开始时，美国股市下跌了约30%。事实上，这种显著的下跌几乎每隔几年就会发生一次。在2001-2002年的互联网泡沫破裂期间，亚马逊等公司的股价暴跌了90%。美国已经拥有世界上最成熟和高效的市场，但它仍然无法避免如此巨大的波动。

因此，根据我30多年的实践，价值投资的基本原则绝对是可行的。其他投资者在面临前所未有的宏观经济挑战时发现了并实践了价值投资的基本原则。在这里，我总结了他们最重要的贡献。

本杰明·格雷厄姆概述了三个关键原则。首先，股票不仅仅是一张可交易的纸；它是公司所有权的合法证明。正如我们之前讨论的，在可持续经济增长期间，股权可以保护你的购买力，这至关重要，因为投资的目标是保护和增长购买力。其次，市场由个体组成，人性倾向于寻求短期利润，因此人们经常将股票视为短期交易的筹码，而忽略了它们代表着对公司的长期所有权。你可以把市场想象成“市场先生”，一个非常神经质的人。他的作用不是告诉你公司的真正内在价值，而是只提供买卖价格。这些价格通常远低于或高于价值。对于价值投资者来说，市场先生是来服务的，而不是来指导的。第三，未来难以预测，廉价的价格是硬道理。拥有足够的安全边际至关重要，因为你可能无法完全理解一家公司或清楚地预测它的未来。但如果你以足够低的价格购买，留下充足的安全边际，那么你就能在晚上睡个好觉，并且你将更有能力长期持有它。

例如，中国股市在2005年至2007年经历了显著的上涨，随后连续七到八年大幅下跌，进入了漫长的熊市。这种上涨和下跌与美国股市和2008年全球金融危机高度相关，但在那段时间里，中国经济表现相对良好，许多公司也表现出良好的基本面。经过七到八年的熊市，市场可以说遍地是黄金，许多优秀公司的股价跌至提供了很大的安全边际的水平。因此，当其他人都感到恐惧时，你通常可以找到许多机会。你是否能够抓住这些具有足够安全边际的机会在很大程度上决定了你是否能够真正创造财富。

巴菲特和芒格通过六十多年的实践，进一步贡献了价值投资的概念，为价值投资提供了另一个原则：长期投资回报主要来自优秀公司通过其长期运营业绩创造的价值。优秀的公司可以不断提高其内在价值，这与现代经济的本质非常吻合，也就是说，公司的内在价值可以随着经济的复合增长而无限期地复合增长。这些杰出的公司拥有高于行业平均水平及其竞争对手的长期资本回报。因此，投资于此类公司可以以超过市场平均水平的速度增长你的财富。然而，识别和理解这些公司并不容易，因此投资者需要建立自己的能力圈，清楚地知道他们理解什么，他们不理解什么，以及他们的能力圈的边界。然后他们只会投资于他们理解的那些杰出公司的能力范围内，并长期持有它们。能力圈的概念是巴菲特先生和芒格先生的一项重要贡献。事实上，凯恩斯已经在他的时代实践了这个原则。

第五个原则是芒格先生的贡献。我和芒格先生有20年的友谊；他既是我的朋友，也是我的合作伙伴，也是我的老师和家人。芒格先生和他的家人每年夏天都会在明尼苏达州的一个叫做星岛的小岛上度假和钓鱼，这是他最喜欢的活动之一。我的妻子、孩子和我过去二十多年都和他一起去过。明尼苏达州有超过1万个湖泊，星岛坐落在一个大湖的中央。有趣的是，每次我们去钓鱼，芒格先生都会带我们去不同的地方。我们会从星岛乘船到岸边，换成一辆拖着渔船的卡车，然后开车一个小时到另一个湖去钓鱼，而且每次的位置都不一样。后来，我问他：“查理，星岛旁边有一个这么大的湖。为什么不在那里钓鱼呢？”他说：“你可以试试。”我试过一次，结果发现湖里几乎没有鱼，很难钓到。然而，我们去的较小的湖泊总是能钓到好鱼。

后来我发现，芒格先生事先并不知道我们会去哪个岛屿钓鱼。相反，一位渔导带路。他的名字叫唐尼，他的家人经营一家叫做勒罗伊的诱饵公司已有两代人了，所以他经常全年在不同的湖泊中寻找诱饵。通过寻找诱饵，他知道哪些湖泊有鱼，鱼的种类、大小和季节性，甚至知道每个湖泊内的具体位置。那是他的专有知识。许多人从他那里购买诱饵只是为了找出鱼在哪里。芒格先生总是让唐尼带路，我们总是能钓到很多鱼。我最初认为所有湖泊都有很多鱼，但我在星岛湖上的不成功经历让我意识到，的确，并非所有湖泊都是一样的。

因此，芒格先生总结了第五个原则：投资就像钓鱼；你必须在有鱼的地方钓鱼。他说钓鱼有两条规则：第一条是在有鱼的地方钓鱼，第二条是永远不要忘记第一条规则。第五点对于投资者来说也非常重要。明尼苏达州有超过1万个湖泊，但我们不需要在最大的湖泊里钓鱼。这同样适用于个人和机构投资者。中国的GDP是18万亿美元，有许多行业和公司。有些表现不佳，但也有许多优秀的公司，这些公司没有被所有人完全理解，而且定价完全错误。投资者不需要理解每一家公司，不需要掌握所有的宏观经济参数、政府宏观政策，也不需要准确预测未来十年。关键是找到你可以钓到鱼的“湖泊”。因此，芒格先生建议在有鱼的地方钓鱼，以强调选择的重要性。我还注意到，每次我们和唐尼一起去钓鱼，我们都是整天湖上唯一的团体，确保我们可以钓到最多和最大的鱼。缺乏竞争是定价错误的一个重要原因。

因此，投资者不需要过度研究宏观环境，不需要了解明尼苏达州的所有1万个湖泊，也不需要彻底研究中国经济或世界经济。他们需要找到哪些湖泊有鱼，哪里缺乏竞争，哪里有良好的知识和优势。这就是他们可以建立自己的能力圈的地方，就像唐尼一样。唐尼通过寻找和培育诱饵，建立了一种独特的定位鲜为人知、鱼类丰富的湖泊的能力。一旦每个人都知道鱼在哪里，就很难捕到它们；这是他独特的能力圈。

第六个原则是我今天与大家分享的，这是基于文明范式转变得出的结论：财富的本质是经济中的购买力比例，价值投资的目标是持有最具活力经济体中最具活力的公司的股份，从而保值和增值财富。这个原则也是基于我们在喜马拉雅资本过去30年实践中的经验和贡献。

40多年来，我一直在痴迷地思考和研究现代化现象。我逐渐意识到，每个国家在过去几个世纪里所经历的不是一种独特的现象，而是人类文明更广泛的范式转变的一部分。这种转变不受任何国家、个人或小团体的影响。全球经济呈现出单向的、波浪式的增长，短期内会有起伏，甚至是周期性的波动，但长期趋势是单向的持续增长。即使全球经济规模有时会缩小，你也可以通过维持你的购买力比例来保住你的财富。然后，当经济再次开始增长，规模扩大时，你就可以保住并继续增加你的财富。这个原则是我的个人贡献。我希望通过未来的实践来证明或反驳它。

让我重复这六个价值投资的基本原则：

1. 股票不仅仅是一张可交易的纸；它代表着公司的一部分所有权。
2. 市场先生是来为价值投资者服务的，而不是来指导的。
3. 投资必须有足够的安全边际。
4. 投资者应该有一个清晰的能力圈。
5. 在有鱼的地方钓鱼。
6. 财富是经济中的购买力比例。价值投资的目标是持有最具活力经济体中最具活力的公司的股份，以保值和增值财富。

我在过去30多年的个人经历也说明了这些原则。当我第一次来到美国时，我一无所有，只有债务。能够到达今天的位置，并能够与大家分享我们的经验，确实是由于我们对价值投资的实践。价值投资的理念可以在实践中应用，并且可以长期成功和可持续地实施。我希望像巴菲特先生和芒格先生一样继续实践价值投资30年。今天，30年后，我仍然对这个行业充满热情。这是一种与时代同步呼吸并与之共同成长的方式，这使得它极具吸引力。

最后，让我分享另一个小故事。每个人都知道，芒格先生一生中投资的股票很少，但他坚持做研究。他曾经分享说，他阅读《巴伦周刊》50年，只发现了一个投资理念。然而，这一个想法给他带来了数十倍，甚至超过一百倍的回报。首先，他从这项投资中获得了近十倍的回报，然后他将收益再投资到我们的基金中，又获得了十倍以上的回报。在99岁时，芒格先生找到了另一只非常有趣的股票。这有点“政治不正确”而且定价严重错误，所以他做了近十年来的唯一一次股票购买，并且亲眼目睹了股价翻了一番。

今天标志着芒格先生去世一年多。去年感恩节，查理与家人共进晚餐，在甜点时感到不适，所以他提前告辞休息。第二天早上，星期五，芒格先生住院了。到星期六，查理恢复了意识，向他的家人道别，并在星期天平静地去世了。直到最后一刻，他的生活仍然平静而专注，致力于他最热爱的工作，而且他从未停止过。这样的人生激励和鼓舞着我们所有人。芒格先生通过他的人生和超过60年的投资成功，教会了我们一个重要的教训：宏观环境是我们必须接受的，而微观环境是我们能够而且应该做出重大改变的地方。参与价值投资使我们能够与时代同步呼吸并与之共同成长。我坚信，那些对价值投资充满热情的人，无论他们身在何处，无论他们面临什么挑战，都能取得有意义的成果。我真诚地希望每个人都能继续致力于这项美好的事业。

谢谢大家！

问题与解答：

问题1：在持有优质公司的过程中，如果市场提供了一个明显高估的价格，你会考虑在多大程度上减少你的持股？问题2：很少有人能长期持有优质公司并取得持续的收益。这与运气和勇气有关吗？年轻人应该如何在不确定性和信息不足的情况下做出投资决策？他们应该在什么时候推翻自己的理解？你年轻的时候是否面临过这样的困境？

关于卖出，我的考虑如下。首先，如果我意识到我犯了一个错误，我会立即卖出。其次，当有更好的投资目标可用，提供更高的风险回报率和下行-上行比率时，我会选择转换。第三，当市场表现出泡沫式的极端高估时。然而，估值通常是一个时机选择的概念，很大程度上取决于公司的长期增长潜力。常见的人性缺陷是放大短期因素，缩小或忽略长期因素。因此，至关重要的是发展你自己的能力圈；你的研究越深入，你的理解就越透彻。与长期增长相比，短期高估并不重要。但是找到和理解能够在长期内增长的公司是极其具有挑战性的。这些公司拥有超越竞争对手的持久竞争优势、巨大的增长潜力和卓越的资本回报率。这些公司是稀世珍宝；因此，我们称它们为“圣杯”。最好的投资往往是在这些具有长期竞争实力和增长潜力的公司中。一旦你真正找到并理解了这样一家公司，我通常建议不要轻易卖出。因为如果你卖出它，认为它被高估了，并且稍后试图买回来，你将面临它仍然被高估的同样问题，你又回到了等待它更便宜的状态。在那个等待期间，它的增长可能会远远超过你最初的估值估计。如果它是一家真正卓越的公司，这种情况更有可能发生。如果它不是一家卓越的公司，那么这就是另一个问题。

在投资的一生中找到这样的公司并不容易，因为它们本质上是罕见的。一家你彻底研究过的伟大的公司，而且恰好很便宜，这是一个非常难得的机会。在我30年的投资生涯中，我只遇到过几次这样的机会。同样重要的是能够长期持有这样一家公司。无论你持有它多久，你都必须继续学习它。

以伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司为例；我们认为它是一家堡垒般的公司，由一些世界上最好的投资者管理，屹立了60多年。然而，它的股价也下跌了50%以上三四次。你是否能够在这样的时刻继续持有，很大程度上取决于你对公司拥有的资产的深刻理解。这种深刻的理解并不容易，因为伯克希尔拥有许多优秀的资产和子公司，而真正理解它们需要长期的研究和知识积累。

另一个例子是比亚迪，我们已经持有了22年。在此期间，它的股票至少下跌了6次超过50%，有一次甚至超过80%。每一次显著的价格下跌都会测试你能力圈的边界。你真的了解它吗？你真的知道它的价值以及它创造了多少价值吗？在一年内，比亚迪的价值可能会增加，但其股价却下跌了70%。只有这样，你的能力圈才能得到真正的检验；触及其边界才能证实它的存在。在我们持有它的这段时间里，比亚迪的销售额从10亿元增长到近1万亿元，而且还没有达到极限；它继续增长和创造价值。这是投资中令人着迷的部分。

因此，你持有股票的时间长短以及何时卖出很大程度上取决于你的能力圈是否真实，以及你是否真正理解一家公司。投资不像买入一只股票然后安心休息那么简单。如果那么容易，每个人都会富有。投资并不容易，但这是一项引人入胜且具有挑战性的工作。

第四种情况发生在当我们作为他人的资本的受托人时，我们有时不得不出于必要而卖出。如果我们已经完全投资并且面临赎回请求，因为我们的基本原则是不借款，我们可能需要出售一些持股。我们坚持不借款的原则，因为只有这样做，我们才能承受整个投资组合下跌50%的风险。显著的股票下跌是投资的正常组成部分。如果你在你的投资生涯中没有经历过这样的考验几次，就很难澄清你的能力圈是否真实，你是否真正理解，是真正勇敢，还是只是鲁莽和幸运。

股市真正考验人性。如果你不了解你的投资目标，迟早市场会击败你。因此，至关重要的是获得真正的理解，不断加深和扩大你的能力圈，并致力于终身学习。正如我在演讲结束时分享的那样，芒格先生在99岁时购买了一只股票，此前他已经研究了该行业至少60或70年。重要的是，你的知识确实可以复合增长。当你年轻的时候，你可以从基础开始，比如购买最便宜的股票。因为只有当价格足够低时，你才能舒适地长期持有，给你充足的时间来理解业务和公司。只有这样，你才应该拥有那些真正卓越的公司。长期持有的前提是真正的理解，而不仅仅是为了长期持有而持有。价值投资的核心是理解价值。你付出代价购买价值，理想情况下是以远低于其内在价值的价格购买持续增长的价值。逐步建立你的能力圈。没有必要着急。

问题3：你如何看待美国通往3.0时代的道路？除了参考香港的发展，中国还可以从美国的崛起中汲取一些经验吗？此外，在改革和崛起的过程中，高层决策在多大程度上决定了经济发展的成功？

从长远来看，我们今天所看到的文明的范式转变。它不受任何个人或任何国家的意志的影响，它是由现代科技文明中可持续的、复合的经济增长规律决定的。如果一个国家停滞不前，它就会落后，因为其他国家会继续增长。例如，近年来，中国的经济相对于美国实际上有所萎缩。有时我们还需要观察这个国家是否成功，人们是否仍在认真地做事。今天，中国不仅影响着超过10亿的国内人口，还影响着全球约25亿人口。我们是一个命运共同体。

我们这个时代3.0经济的出现是许多巧合因素造成的，其中最大的巧合是美国的建立。美国确实拥有独特的优势，例如其广阔的地理位置、多元文化、容纳大量多民族人口的能力，而且这些优势在今天仍然真实。因此，美国的实践不仅是该国本身的实践，也是各个民族对3.0文明的集体探索。这些实践对世界有着广泛的影响。目前，全球约10%的人口已经进入了3.0文明，但国际关系尚未达到这个阶段。现代经济发展的铁律是，最大的市场最终将成为唯一的市场。尽管市场之间存在许多壁垒、关税和限制，但实际上，通过第三方，整个市场仍然会连接和流通；没有人可以脱离他人做任何事情，暂时的战争和冲突最终会结束。

今天，人类的组织方法仍然基于政府和民族国家。虽然在经济上已经形成了一个共同的全球市场，但在国际关系方面，它仍然是一个基于民族国家的松散组织体系，没有正式的国际政治组织结构。根本原因在于3.0经济的快速复合增长与人性的缓慢甚至停滞的演变、组织结构、心理学、文化和宗教信仰之间的长期差距。国际关系或国家治理的变化是非常漫长的过程。如果你研究其他国家的现代化进程，你会意识到中国今天面临的许多困难并非无法解决。回顾中国自1840年以来的现代化起伏，并将它们与过去几年的挑战进行比较，你会发现当前的困难在历史背景下只是微不足道的，不值得过度担心。作为投资者，关键是找到很少有人钓鱼的那个有鱼的湖泊。你不需要澄清一切，也不需要与最大湖泊上的人群竞争。这就是价值投资的美妙之处。

问题4：我们如何理解什么是“便宜”的公司？我们是否看市盈率？公司的市盈率各不相同，并且与增长率相关；我们应该如何解读？

“便宜”是一个多维的概念，与相对价值有关。在本杰明·格雷厄姆的时代，他专注于有形资产价值，只关注可以快速清算的资产，比如现金等价物、可交易证券、容易收回的应收账款，甚至房地产。在1930年代的大萧条时期，有很多这样的股票。在1993-1994年，当我开始投资时，美国市场也有非常便宜的股票。我的第一个“十倍股”的市值为3亿美元，账面价值为5亿美元，其中4亿美元是上市公司TCI的股份，该公司后来成为美国最大的有线电视公司。当时，我不看市盈率，也不了解剩余的1亿美元资产。后来，我发现这1亿美元的资产非常有价值，包括卫星通信和无线网络的许可证，这些许可证是美国最早的无线通信系统的基础。我最初并不理解这一点，并且偶然地发现了它。在购买股票后，我下定决心深入研究有线电视公司，直到那时才意识到无线网络许可证的真正价值。因此，购买便宜的股票有时会带来意想不到的收获，但你必须在购买后深入研究。你理解得越多，你能获得的价值就越多。

使用市盈率作为衡量公司价值的指标需要对公司收益质量的深刻理解。例如，收益是否具有周期性？如果市盈率很低，是因为它处于周期的顶峰，因为收益包括许多一次性或周期性因素，还是因为收益是真正长期的、稳定的和可持续的？只有在澄清了收益的质量之后，你才能评估公司的长期增长前景。每家公司的价值都有点独特，你必须准确地了解你投资的是什么。

问题5：优秀的企业家有哪些特点？有共性吗？

这个问题很有意思。30多年来，我遇到了许多成功的企业家。如果你有足够的经验，你就会意识到，这些成功人士在早期和你一样，从零开始。当我遇到杰夫·贝佐斯时，他和我一样，是一家初创公司的创始人，我们一拍即合。他邀请我在亚马逊公司发言，当时该公司只有一百多人，并且刚刚租用了它的第一个仓库。每一代人都有自己的成功故事，每一个时代都会涌现出新的才华。

每一代杰出企业家之间都有许多相似之处和不同之处；他们不能被统一归类。如果说有什么共同点，那就是他们持久的乐观主义。世界上的一切要么是半满的瓶子，要么是半空的瓶子——没有哪个瓶子是完全满的或空的。成功的企业家选择看到满的那一半。因为创办企业总是涉及无尽的困难和挑战。如果你专注于空的那一半，总是沉溺于消极情绪，你如何找到合作伙伴？理性分析是必要的，但企业家必须选择相信信念的力量。未来不容易预测，而且通常，你必须选择相信。信念在向3.0文明转变中尤其有用，因为水涨船高——经济本身正在增长，奖励那些选择相信的人。因此，永不承认失败是成功的第一步。所有成功人士都具备永不放弃、保持乐观和相信未来的特质。

市场经济的优势在于它不会预先决定谁能成功；它不关心谁成功。埃隆·马斯克可能很难在中国取得成功。今天杰克·马是否还能成功也是未知的。一个高度包容的社会允许每个人充分发挥他们的才能，因为市场经济中的成功是由竞争结果决定的，而不是预先注定的命运。没有人知道哪种类型的人特别适合成功，而且成功的标准随着时间的推移而变化。因此，自由至关重要，提供灵活性至关重要，不同的人最终在市场经济中拥有机会。这就是为什么市场经济最终会从“人人为我”转变为“我为人人”，从服务于自身利益开始，到实现伟大的公共利益。它循环着所有的经济要素——无论多少才能在市场经济中都是不够的。持续学习和自我充实是必不可少的；即使是成功的企业家也必须不断学习，否则他们只能暂时成功。保持乐观、永不放弃、持续学习、值得信赖和正直都很重要。但除此之外，它实际上是关于创造一个包容的环境，让每个人都能发挥他们最好的才能，并且可以招募这些才能，而不会拘泥于刻板的标准。

问题6：投资的意义是什么？虽然个人投资者的理解和能力圈可以提高，从而带来投资回报，但还有什么其他的价值？

最后，我将回答这个有点哲学的问题：投资者是寄生虫，还是他们造福社会？特别是由于价值投资强调买入便宜，而每次购买都意味着其他人正在卖出。这是否意味着你的投资收益来自另一个人的损失？答案是否定的，价值投资者绝对不是寄生虫。正如我提到的，现代资本市场是现代经济的必要先决条件和基石。资本市场的存在是所有经济要素能够有效流通的最重要保证。为了使资本市场有效率，它们必须将资金分配给能够提供市场最需要的产品和服务的最具生产力的公司。假设一个普通人每月挣1000美元，并节省500美元，打算投资于最好的公司。这需要一个漫长的链条，链条中的每个节点都至关重要、不可或缺，最终形成资本市场、公共股票市场，其最重要的功能是它们可以在长期内正确地为公司定价。正确的定价意味着最终价格大致与价值相对应。

我们说资本市场并不总是有效率的，这意味着有时它们在短期内是无效的。从长远来看，市场价格会随着价值而波动，以价值作为它们的锚——只有这样，市场才是有效的。将价格从短期无效性转移到长期有效性，关键取决于基本面投资者，价值投资者。价值投资使市场能够发挥其价格发现功能，并且是将最有价值的公司与非专业个人储户联系起来的最重要节点。资本市场的每个组成部分都很重要，包括律师、经纪人、分析师、经理等。不要轻易假设在任何节点上从事金融工作的人都有原罪。这些专业人士和机构提供信誉。当然，这个行业里也有寄生虫。只有那些真正值得信赖的受托责任才能产生信誉，只有当链条上的每个节点都有可信的中介机构时，整个金融市场才能拥有信誉。自由竞争、适者生存，以及法律监管和长期实践，可以产生一个真正高效、可信的金融市场。

我通常不谈论持股，但既然每个人都知道我们对比亚迪的投资，让我们用它作为一个例子。我们已经拥有它22年了，在此期间，它的股价至少下跌了6次50%，有一次下跌了超过80%。如果没有像我们这样的价值投资者，比亚迪可能在一些危机期间面临资本链断裂。例如，许多高增长公司今年经历了资本断裂。如果我们在2008年没有引入像伯克希尔这样声誉卓著的投资者，比亚迪的成功会面临更多的挑战。并不是说比亚迪不会像今天这样成功，而是它会面临更多的挑战。这是一个坦率的声明，一个非常清晰的例子。如果没有价值投资者，资本市场就会失去其价格发现功能，变得无效，并且无法再将储蓄转化为有效的社会资源。因此，优秀的价值投资者，他们获得他们应得的，是杰出企业不可或缺的合作伙伴。

这就是为什么，当我第一次听到沃伦·巴菲特讲话时，我决定进入这个行业；他回答了你问的这个问题。就个人而言，我一直对伦理和社会正义比赚钱更感兴趣，尤其是在我年轻的时候。我对华尔街的最初印象，就像中国戏剧《日出》中描绘的那些狡猾的寄生虫，他们秘密的阴谋和勾结让我感到厌恶。但巴菲特让我意识到，价值投资的本质是双赢。投资者确实是公司增长的重要组成部分。我在早期的职业生涯中也做了一些风险投资，帮助十几家公司成功地建立和成长为天使投资者。对于风险投资和私募股权投资来说，投资者的作用更为明显。一个真正有信誉、值得信赖的公开市场投资者在长期内对公司的认可起着类似的重要作用。此外，上市公司的存在对于将储蓄转化为有效的社会资源至关重要，这对于这些公司的增长至关重要。这是我们的现代经济进入自我维持、可持续长期增长的最重要节点。因此，链条上的每个人都扮演着极其重要的角色。

这些是常识，但却很罕见。你的问题很重要，掌握回答这个问题所需的知识需要时间。这就是我们提供这门课程的原因，这就是我们讨论这些主题的原因，这就是常劲先生、姜教授、助教和志愿者们投入这么多时间进行教育的原因。目标是将常识转化为共识，这样社会就不会妖魔化那些在金融行业工作的人，也不会给这个行业强加原罪。没有这样的共识，一个国家可能会陷入中等收入阶段，无法形成良性循环。个人储蓄率从40%增加到50%实际上意味着GDP减少了10%。GDP的减少降低了对未来的预期，进一步减少了消费，导致公司裁员。当经济开始收缩时，它会继续收缩；当它扩张时，它会继续扩张。因此，救助和刺激是必要的。但是，消费者方面的问题不能通过增加供给来解决。我们需要增加真正的、可持续的需求。这些是现代经济学的基础，也是稀缺的常识。教育最重要的目标是将这种常识真正转化为共识，使经济能够继续在这个基础上发展。但是，这种稀缺性也是自然的；我们已经从农业文明进化了数万年，大多数人对财富的看法是静态的。我们认为任何赚钱的人都是不义的。这种对财富的静态看法根植于2.0时代。我将狩猎采集文明、农业文明和科技文明分别命名为1.0、2.0、3.0，以明确区分它们，因为我们的概念往往停留在之前的文明状态，我们很难理解复合经济增长和复合财富增长。英国贵族和万元户的例子可以帮助你理解这一点。我们的许多过时的概念需要改变。

今天，我们也用这个问题来结束我们的讲座，即真正的价值投资者拥有受托基因，为企业和资本市场做出了重要贡献，并且是现代经济发展不可或缺的一部分。我希望这个领域的每一位从业者都能真正担负起这份责任。谢谢大家！