2017年2月23日 星期四

【大師理念學習系列】茅台03語錄﹝轉載﹞

引用自:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6441f6930101as94.html

 (2013-01-04 16:01:08)

茅台03兄是淘股吧最厲害的投資大師,過去9年取得了93%的年復利回報,對消費行業的洞察力無與倫比。


    對大部分股票來說,股市就是一場游戲,明白玩法往往比其他什麼更重要。而趨勢、預期還有參與者的交易行為無疑是其中最重要的幾個。趨勢和預期決定中長線、交易行為決定短線,它們互相影響並相互強化和改變,大部分時候你分不清楚誰更重要或更占據主導地位,但有的時候,一方演化的足夠強大就可以改變另一方並最終影響自己,對這樣的循環與反饋進行理解將會對我們的游戲參與帶來莫大的幫助。為方便邏輯闡述,下面會用簡單化的數據來表達,但這不代表該比方具備現實的適用性,因為不同股票的評價方法會有很大出入,所以聲明下以免誤導。
       
           先談趨勢和預期,一般來說,趨勢是由預期決定,但預期可以由趨勢強化並反過來再影響到趨勢上,形成正反饋直至極限。在形成期,預期是最重要的因素,在演變強化期,趨勢是最關鍵的方面,而轉折期,則往往是雙方極限值共振的結果,考慮到趨勢的多樣性和變化性特征,預期極限值的作用會更大也更容易判斷一點。在我看來,技術分析主要是找出趨勢和預期同向運動並強化的機會,價值分析則可以在反向運動但最終會被預期改變的機會上下注。另外,不管是預期還是趨勢,它都應包含自身和環境兩方面的衡量,這也就是很多人說的,大盤不好不做個股的道理,因為大制小、小印大,個體一般都會受整體的壓制和影響,並在大部分時候會最終服從於整體,當然有些先於整體走好的個體則說明其靜態預期就已足以抵消整體的壓制,若環境壓制不進一步加強則比較容易先走出行情來。
       
           舉例來講,比如業績在1元、增長率在不同條件設定下可以有正負20%甚至極限到50%的股票,考慮到事實的顯現有一個漫長的時間過程,在這期間決定增長預期的選擇除了基本面還有就是市場的階段性情緒。我過去曾經說過,對股票買賣區域的設定一定要考慮牛熊市的前提,比如20元是這個票在不考慮條件值變化下的合理估算的話,牛市應該在20之上買入,熊市應該在20之下賣出,因為牛市中大家會往好的方向想,總認為未來會更好,這樣往往等不到合理估值區域就應該買入,而熊市中如果20是合理的話,這個價格反而是賣點,因為事情總是在不斷變壞,這樣合理估值點就容易成頂部。然後再考慮到條件值選擇導致的增長預期變化,那麼買賣範圍就可以擴大到75到10元上下,也就是說75以上買乃至10以下賣都有其合理性的解釋。

           在階段性投機中,有兩種機會,一是漲出來的、一是跌出來的,就我個人的偏好來說,我不太喜歡後者,因為空間是由跌出來的幅度決定,相對有限。而前者呢,就是我們經常說的那種越漲越低估的股票,因為在20進入的時候,我們的預期是不到20%的增長,這樣的目標價一般在30元,也就是50個點不到的空間,而一旦漲到30以上的時候,由於趨勢加強導致對預期的更樂觀推動,市場開始憧憬50%的增長速度,估值定價往往可以到75乃至100以上,這樣就變成了原先50個點的利潤目標在漲了以後反而擴大到2到3倍以上,而且由於趨勢與預期的加強和明朗,後期目標的實現往往比前期更迅速快捷。當然,任何事物的發展都會有個極限值,在75目標實現後,理智的人會發現,如果說20%到50%增長率在理論上有實現可能的話,超過50%的增長則是很難預期的,這樣在沒有新增預期來推動趨勢繼續加強的情況下,趨勢就會變的相對平緩,從而在技術上呈現頂部特征,繼而引發重新思考和趨勢與預期的反向共振,負反饋就開始發生。所以說,能否產生新增的更高預期來維持趨勢進一步強化是我們參與游戲的關鍵。就像前段時間有朋友對我說,通貨膨脹這麼厲害,他也想入市保值,我回復說,你過去已經犯了不入市的錯誤,現在就別再犯入市的錯誤了,因為當全世界都想通過股市來對抗通貨膨脹的時候,也許拿著現金讓其自然貶值會是更好的選擇,除非你能找到明確的新增預期,否則憑什麼指望別人以更高的價錢來購買已經給他人提供過保值機會的資產呢。當然,如果你選擇的企業足夠好,能夠用時間換來更高的預期則另當別論,但這和之前信奉的理由又是兩回事了。
       
(點評:茅台03兄對索羅斯的反身性理論做了生動的解釋。)

           再談下參與者的交易行為,這是比較容易影響人持倉或空倉心態的方面,很多朋友對我說,自己是真的看多或看空,但有的時候看見無數堅決的買單或賣盤的時候就總受影響以至無法堅持,否則為什麼那麼多資金在堅決地做和自己判斷相反的事情呢。我覺得不斷審視並隨時准備修正自己是非常好的習慣,但為了讓自己不過於敏感就必須把短期行為放到大情景下去理解,牛市裡的賣出是為了更好的買入,熊市中的買入是為了更好的賣出,牛市的阻力位與熊市的支撐位都是最容易坑害人的陷阱,同樣行為後面的動機和後續補救是完全不同的,你只看到了他買的時候堅決,也許之後賣的會更堅決呢,所謂看大勢掙大錢、辨別牛熊再投資是非常正確的經驗之談,這樣可以不為細節所遮蔽。當然,有人會說牛熊的判斷才是最難的方面,其實只要看這個市場大部分股票是否已透支其極限預期就好了,不過這樣需要對整個市場都有良好的認識,如果不具備這樣能力的話,那麼我的建議就是只關注確定性高成長的票,它們在牛熊中都不會有太壞的預期,主要取決於其自身的成長率和時間,與市場估值關系不大,這樣比較省心但要考慮錯判後的風險承受問題。我認為,資產就是金錢在不同時間下的不同屬性,本質就是現在的錢和未來的錢之間進行交換,買入是用現在換未來,賣出則是把未來換現在,關鍵要想明白未來和現在誰更值錢就好了,牛熊市就是這樣的一個判斷依據,當然,對極少數的優異公司來說,未來總是會強過現在的,這就是比牛熊大勢更大的大勢。


  舒越秋兄好,我對安全邊際的理解在之前賣出條件的討論貼中已有詳細的解釋,對格雷厄姆的方法,我覺得應該吸收他的理念而不是簡單接受他的觀點,畢竟他生活的年代是現在的錢比未來更好的悲觀年代,而我們是用現在換未來的發展時代,所以估值容忍度完全不同,但他安全邊際的思考方式是非常重要的,這是我們需要融合的地方。另外預期的闡述,我覺得關鍵是要了解其變化的過程以及因應,這樣才能從理論落實到我們的操作中來。


(點評:贊同這個觀點,安全邊際固然要考慮,但是現在這個時代,紙幣越來越泛濫,這是趨勢,無法改變,人類再也無法回到金本位,所以格雷厄姆那個時代的低估現在很難重現了。另外也要看行業,消費行業的PB很少有低於1PB的時候,例如2003年時貴州茅台歷史最低PB 1.83倍,1998年張裕B最低PB 0.7,雲南白藥最低PB 1994年1.2倍,東阿阿膠2005年最低PB 1.95,片仔癀2004年最低PB 2.59倍。)

           石景山兄好,我是個務虛的人,加上自己主要只做一兩只股票,熟悉的不多,所以就不亂舉實例了,這裡的越漲越低估是個心理上的相對概念,比如20的時候你覺得值30,低估50%,但30的時候你卻覺得值60,那不就是低估100%嗎,這是個心理上的感覺,也許不客觀,但對認識市場很有幫助。跌的時候也是一樣,不同情緒下擇選的條件值會輸出很大的差異,可以幫助我們認識和理解市場。你的比方很好,但投資還沒有革命那樣的殘酷性和命運性,如果你不負債,生活上又不需要依靠短期收益的話,活到成功的時候並不難,對偏執的人來說,堅持恐怕也不是難事,難的是如何看清大勢,或者說看清的大勢變化了怎麼辦,所以說,你上面的前提和問題反過來看會比較好。


   首先感謝盛情邀請,本來是謝絕了這次的話題,但剛得知訪談公告還是有自己的名字,也許是因為溝通中的差錯,既如此那就隨緣好了。為方便觀點表達,我還是集中寫寫吧。
       
           熟悉我的網友應該知道我在去年底就放棄了白酒轉投醫藥,主要是我感覺白酒的主導邏輯在發生改變,從整體來看,未來一段時期內的成長速度和確定性都會有下降風險,個體發展邏輯還應會存在,畢竟這是個性行業,集中度也不很高,經營得當的企業總可以找到生存空間的,所以這裡我只對整體進行闡述。
       
           先看高端酒,我注意到很多人都是從內在要素的角度去總結並以此證明繼續超長期持有的合理,比如品牌、定價權、壁壘、輕資產等等,其實這些只是助推器和安全墊,並不是高回報的全部主因,如果僅從這些方面著眼容易固執、會忽略大環境及時機,就像茅台,大家現在所贊美的一切特質過去都一直存在,但如果你是在20年前去投資它,前10年想必會比較郁悶,為什麼呢,因為沒有給予它特質發揮的環境,我經常和朋友打趣說別捧著金飯碗討飯,就是怕他們過於注重內在要素而忽略所需要的激發環境,當然,這指的是過分決定論而非否認它們在長期投資中的關鍵作用。
       
           其實高端酒要素的激活應是加入世貿後開始,之前消費者對品牌及價格並沒有現在這樣的接受度,而世貿後經濟提升引致的政商活動增加才使其需求加速,而供給由於工藝因素等不能及時同步,導致缺口加大引致價量齊升,這個期間投資者不太需要選股,找到高檔酒占主要比重的公司即可收獲高額回報,是屬於整體型機遇,具體是老窖、水井或是茅台在04到07年間差別都不是很大,關鍵是緊抓高檔酒思路。但到08年初的時候,高檔陣營分化,水井銷售呈現疲態,這個時候就需要警覺,如果還要把高檔行情吃完的話就需要以選股為重,只能挑茅台這樣的王者。我過去常和朋友講一個非周期行業投資理論,就是投資好股關注差股,當一個行業裡最差的那個都很好時(不是泡末效應尾聲那種突然的好),就說明這個行業正處於高速發展期,可以樂觀遲鈍點,但當它們難過時,則有可能要進入平穩增長期,因為需求方有挑剔和選擇的余地了。
       
           中檔酒當時的情況又不同,大致晚高檔3年左右出現局部供需缺口,一是因為高檔價格上移後的補位 ,再就是之前的經濟發展逐步下沉惠致百姓以及城鎮化所帶來的消費力提升、品牌意識覺醒和營銷傳播與渠道滲透的改變,我們可以看到,08年後所有二線白酒都是以驚人的速度增長並超過任何高檔酒回報,這個時候只要把投資思路轉換過來,不用怎麼去挑選和思量,隨便選一個就可以獲得遠超同期茅台的回報,不需要費力精選亦不用操心估值等方面的論證。
       
           從上面我們可以看出,股票選擇不應光是對企業唯美唯優,對時機的認識也不可缺少,要先看需求供給的關系及變化特點,再看要素特性和資本參與形態,前面決定利基和時長,後面決定經濟要素間利益分配及資本表現形式與回報效率。而白酒行業過去之所以有比其他行業更長的景氣長度就是因為其優質供給被需求拉動時有比較長的時滯,再加上其需求內有一定的結構層次,供給又有個性化和低集中度等特點,使得這個行業總可以維持整體或局部的景氣繁榮,因此會給有些人可以永遠超越周期的錯覺。不過凡事有度,經過這麼多年的發展至少在一定的階段內,供需矛盾已不是白酒主流,有朋友從宏觀經濟及政策以及白酒與腐敗或固定資產投資的角度來分析,我覺得值得借鑒,但這些東西過於復雜龐大超出了我的把握範圍,我只能從簡單的介入點來觀察,就是市場零售價和渠道行為,去年底我曾寫過對茅台冷思考一文就是從這些點入手,本意不全在茅台,而是以其為觀測口對整個行業的狀態和玩法進行思考,當時的一些判斷現已逐步得到驗證,如果這些邏輯繼續正確的話,那未來的情況可能是,高檔整體停滯,中檔寄望於個體奇跡,且要面臨過程中的不確定與修正,投資難度肯定會加大。當然指望這個行業出現斷崖般的需求下降也不現實,供應面雖有峰值般上升,但畢竟是輕資產行業,前期投入占比不會太大,即便閑置對行業也不會有傷筋動骨的損失,去庫存的方式也不會很極端,只是利弊相隨,這些優勢也會耽誤它之後的景氣恢復速度。投資理論一般都講要找簡單易懂好把握的公司,時機選擇也一樣,先不論未來情況究竟是如何,至少今年來的密集爭論已充分說明這不是一個容易被人辨清的時機,而任何長期投資都會有漫長的堅持與考驗過程,期間的難度亦是須考慮的一環,否則不太容易堅持到收獲時刻,我們應有非後驗心態,就易拒難,無關多空。當然,不同投資者間的機會選擇和收益預期不同、對事物難易程度的感知也不盡相同,不存在分辨輸贏的基礎,各自分享思路參考下即可。另外我才知此次的時間表,明日已作其他安排,就提前把自己的想法表述下,未展開之處因過去已有相關陳述就不再重復,有興趣的把我博客和跟貼裡回復的相關內容找出來看下即可。再有,考慮到我已有近一年沒有白酒艙位,關注度理解力必然下降,為免誤導大家,就不在這個的問題上進行交流和回復了,望大家理解,最後再次感謝邀請,謝謝大家。

(點評:茅台03兄前面提過,不管是預期還是趨勢,它都應包含自身和環境兩方面的衡量,看大勢掙大錢、辨別牛熊再投資,而在分析具體公司時,也強調要把握大環境和時機,也就是天時,這個說法很對,來得早不如來得巧,太早的人往往都成烈士了,所以,投資個股時不要忽視行業的整體環境。對於行業內的高中低檔產品的周期,也需要有深刻認識,不管是白酒,房地產,其他消費品,甚至一線股,二線股,三線股,輪動都是有規律的)

 地產我以前在跟貼裡好像講過思路,這兩年真的沒怎麼看,不過便宜的心態我覺得不能要,中線邏輯和長線理論上不應有不同,唯一區別就是長線必須是真邏輯,中線只要市場認為真就行了,其他方面我覺得都該一樣,都是要從預期延展和扭轉方面下手。 @stephenyan  

     @stephenyan  是你要有充分的理由和邏輯判斷市場會有延續或扭轉的可能,如果是長線你可以作出判斷後就進入,等待市場按你預想的路徑走,但這樣你會承擔更多的不確定,所以要確定邏輯為真才行,而中線是市場先有跡像出現,然後你理解了市場的邏輯,當然這個跡像未必一定是走勢,但走勢是個比較重要的參照。另外,我沒有針對你問的行業,只是務虛的說下,我平時比較懶,覆蓋的方面很少,地產好久沒看,但我覺得終歸要到毛利率(樓價只是一方面,地價有時更重要)、周轉(銷量也只是一方面,如果有太多囤積那也不好)、費用(這方面其實也和景氣相關)、資本結構(這個行業和其他領域不同,我不會在負債率下降的時候來看這個行業,我認為地產業一定要在企業負債率大幅度上升的時候看,這點很多人會不理解,其實這個行業不高負債就不會有高回報,如果你要回避高負債帶來的風險,那麼你就一定在景氣上升的時候做,稍微有點不確定就不用看了,低負債的地產再好都不會有什麼特別大回報的)。

        @stephenyan  你誤會我的意思了,我是從整個行業的時機上來談的,不是針對個體。就個體來說,自然應該選擇經營相對穩健的品種,我05年選招商地產 的時候它在行業裡負債率就不高,並且也有不少租賃業務呢。另外我不否認階段性的邏輯和波動,但我不喜歡跟著小利走的感覺,小艙位做做中短線打發時間可以,大艙位的話我還是喜歡在行業大勢更清楚的領域裡,這樣會比較省心。我覺得好的機會應該是用很簡單的方法就能辨別出來,盡量不讓自己做高難度的判斷。我們不是分析師,沒必要挑戰自己做別人弄不出來的分析,只要能找到更簡單容易的地方就行了。除非是自己有非常清晰的認識、且會對應非常巨大的回報,否則一般不去市場有爭議的領域,我雖然經常提早買入,但從思想上,我是非常害怕對抗市場的。
       
        @雄渾青山  你說的對,每個行業的屬性不同觀測點也應該不同,地產在周轉和杠杆上應該多關注下,其他方面更多的是誘因和催化。

(點評:長線的邏輯一定要正確,中線則是先有跡像出現,所以只要市場認可就行了。關於行業邏輯這一塊,其實是很難的,每個行業的本質都不一樣,郎鹹平也出了本質系列的書,當然他的書比較快餐,不過他對於行業本質的重視確實是對的,不管你是企業家,還是投資者,沒有把握行業本質,往往都會南轅北轍。所以,需要努力去學習和研究各個行業的商業本質。另外,商業本質也會不斷變化,例如零售,過去都是線下,那麼和線上的零售本質可能就有差異,不能想當然的把線下經驗套用到線上,這也是很多中國的傳統企業目前做電商很失敗的原因,都把電商看成了一個渠道而已)

    看的多了自然就曉得要關注什麼了,不用抱著一定要學到什麼的想法,讀書應該是輕松愉悅的,目的性不用太強,熟能生巧,其他方面是自自然然的結果。至於你問的第2點,我覺得主要是個順序問題,個人覺得先讀傳記和案例再讀理論書為好,否則就容易教條,也吃不透理論,先有故事底子,再學理論的過程就容易串聯引申,比較容易產生效果。現在的很多專家一般都是科班教育出來的,學歷比較高,他們往往是先學理論再聯系實際,自然框框就比較多,也生硬些,我接觸過一些人也是這樣,很聰明、學習能力也強,你一說就都懂,也會模仿,但就沒有自己的創見,我覺得這是我們的教育決定的,理論是總結升華的東西,看上去效果出來的快,但容易脫離實際,沒有底子的情況下容易困縛思維,但放到最後學卻可以起到點撥和頓悟的效果,所以我一向是建議別人先學史再學哲的

(點評:中國很多投資者是老巴粉絲,說白了,已經被洗腦了,連老巴自己都不斷革自己的命,投資了IBM這種IT科技公司股票。時代不斷變化,很多強者都紛紛倒下,被層出不窮的破壞性創新給擊倒。投資也需要與時俱進。當然,基本的思路必須要清晰,而且不能教條,例如,追求成長並不等於不強調安全邊際,追求逆向投資也不等於專買夕陽行業股票)


    很多朋友喜歡問我對某些白酒公司的看法,其實對其中大部分企業的觀點在過去兩個汾酒貼的回復裡都陸續有提過,所以就不想重復做答了,這裡就只談談行業的特點吧。
       
       
       1、 行業屬性。行業有共性與個性的區分,我過去提過,共性行業應選行業最低成本和較高管理能力的龍頭企業,個性行業可以接受非龍頭和低管理,但必須對其贏利能力和回報前景以及占屬市場的發展有較高的要求。雙方各有優劣。一般來說,共性行業的防御低進攻性強,比較適合優勢企業迅速發展,個性行業防御高進攻性弱,但不容易快速擴大。所幸的是,白酒業兼具了共性與個性的雙重特點。品牌及產品內涵上具備獨特的個性,但從生產與流通的角度上又具備比其他消費品更強的共性,比較容易大規模生產和遠途奔襲,相對與其他食品領域,白酒單位價值高的特點更適合長途運輸,瓶裝材料較塑料和紙質包裝損耗更少且適合大規模倉儲,無保質期的約束適合多環節和大面積的市場滲透、更方便廠家對渠道的管理、減少營銷或生產失誤對市場的衝擊和後遺症發生,相對高的銷期貨期比重以及更大的渠道空間更使困擾普通消費品近地周轉高率導致的產地渠道壁壘不復存在。也就是說,大部分的消費品是明處競爭激烈暗處步步為營導致的毛利不高費用高、攻城難守城更難的話,白酒正好全部反了過來。這種在消費者識別上的個性與生產營銷上的共性結合起來,就成就了白酒業完美的商業屬性。
       
(點評:對行業本質的洞察很關鍵。很多行業是同質性的共性行業,例如房地產,碼頭,鐵路,大部分制造業等,還有食用油,運動鞋等消費行業,港股的李寧匹克為什麼讓這麼多人中招,我想最大的原因還是大家沒有意識到這個行業的本質,同質化,不可能有太大差異,還有銀行股也一樣,很難差異化經營,富國銀行畢竟只有一個。白酒行業確實是中國特色的最好投資行業,茅台03兄對於白酒行業的共性和個性完美結合做了最深刻的解釋。這也是白酒行業牛股層出不窮的主要原因。)

       2、 行業體量與集中度。在行業選擇中,我最重視的就是體量大小與集中度高低了。這意味著潛在發展空間和安全邊際。體量決定企業未來的發展空間,而食品飲料業最大分支就是白酒,數千億的收入規模足以支撐巨型公司的形成。低集中度則令行業內的優勢企業不容易受景氣和宏觀經濟與行業政策的影響。對行業影響的任何因素都有可能演變為優勢企業的利好,因為壞的因素總是最早作用於弱勢企業,使之進一步喪失與優勢企業的抗衡能力。就像白酒業最嚴峻期間從800萬噸縮減到300萬噸過程中恰恰是主要企業大發展並奠定地位的時期,當然,上面數據也可能是因為統計口徑變化造成的失真,像最近幾年的高增長實際上是統計內企業的增長而非白酒實際消費量的變化一樣,但不管如何,白酒業沒有任何一家企業超過2%的占有率決定了這個行業擁有任何消費品業都不具備的歷史性機遇,而這是屬於所有已上市白酒企業的共同機遇,在這樣的集中度面前,白酒業還遠沒有到達面對面拼刺刀的階段。那什麼時候需要警惕呢,我認為,最簡單的就是看省份產量排行,在山東與河南這樣不擁有主流品牌的省份產量退出前三名之前都無需多慮。當然,還需特別提出的是,行業特點並不代表所有子類。比如高端酒這塊的集中度倒可能是快銷品中最高的,體量規模也相對較小,或許不久就會進入到拼刺刀階段,因為這個子類整體只有5萬噸的需求,而茅台一家的遠景規劃就高達4萬噸乃至以上,這也是我之前從茅台轉換到汾酒上的主要原因。另外從市場分類中我們也可以看到,南方也擁有遠高於北方市場的集中度,當然,從經濟的角度上看,南方市場的回報和可操作性暫時也高過北方不少,但我相信,隨著時間的推移,北方這個白酒最大消費區域和最低集中度的市場才是中國白酒的未來,這期間一定會誕生出遠超過茅台市值數倍的公司,當然,它一定是在更大容量和更低集中度的中檔酒類產生,尋找出它是誰才是我們未來白酒投資的關鍵。
       
(點評:對於行業的研究,市場空間和市場集中度是最關鍵的幾個要素之一)

       3、 產品附加值。在剛剛接觸投資的時候,朋友教我,要找高科技的公司,因為別人做不了就可以擁有很高的加值空間,我當時開玩笑說,那茅台這類的白酒企業豈不是世界上最高科技的公司了,因為就算它的技術你能掌握,離開了那個地方也生產不出來。玩笑之後我又在想,消費者願意對什麼東西來支付更高的價格呢,答案應該有很多,但情感附加一定是最重要的,極端情況下人可以為了情感付出生命,可以看出能夠承載情感元素的產品就能夠獲取這個世界上最高的附加值,而所有優勢白酒企業的背後都承載著相應的文化和情感屬性,這就是它們整體擁有A股最高毛利率的原因所在,並且值得注意的是,隨著時間的推移,這種附加是不斷增加而非減少的。也正因為此,白酒業具備了大部分生意都沒有的彈性操作空間,競爭的焦點不在價格上,對於投資來說該是多麼愜意的事啊。
       
(毛利率,品牌屬性。董寶珍等人總結過,全世界禮品行業是最容易有定價權的。巴菲特的喜詩糖果也是禮品,所以可以年年提價。另外,以情感因素為主的品牌具有定價權,可以享受高毛利率。所以香煙,白酒,奢侈品這些品牌,都是基於情感需求,心理需求,用來炫耀,用來分享,用來虛榮的,所以只買貴的不買對的,而很多必須消費品例如食用油,運動鞋等,就是生理需求為主,靠性價比取勝。)

       4、 產品安全性。對於食品領域的企業來說,安全性是最大的潛在風險,這方面的任何疏漏都可能是致命性的,也是最容易出現黑天鵝的領域,而白酒恰恰是所有食品生產中最具穩定性和安全性的那種,難道有比酒精更無菌的食品嗎。
       
       5、 資本結構。對大部分上市公司來說,股東支付的價格往往比看上去的高很多,因為企業的價值是由未來現金流貼現決定的,而我們知道,債權人有著比股東有更優先的索取權。所以我們看到的市值並不是你實際支付的價格,要完全擁有它還必須進行債務扣減和相應息稅的調整。也就是說,有的票看上去是15倍實際上或許都超過25倍了。當然,也許有人會說,我只管自己能得到多少回報就好了,但要知道,沒有發生不代表沒有風險和相應的支付,所以大部分白酒的零生息負債使其成為最干淨估值的板塊。另外,很多偉大企業的誕生並不伴隨的偉大投資機遇,就是因為它們的發展機遇被許多新增股東分享了,而白酒行業近乎沒有的增發確保機遇留在了自己手中,對大部分人來說,自己權益的增長遠比公司的偉大更具實際意義吧。
       
           以上我們可以看出,從整體上,白酒業仍然是食品飲料裡最適合資本投資的領域,過去是未來仍舊是,僅從集中度贏利性和安全性角度上看,乳業、啤酒乃至紅酒從整體上都不具備與白酒抗衡的優勢,這也是我多年來最關注這個領域的原因所在。最後要聲明的是,以上只是交流本人過去的思路和看法,並非推薦,因為這個世界是高度不確定的,市場不會給我承諾什麼,我又怎麼可以去承諾和建議別人呢。
       
       
           注:解釋下近地周轉率高導致的產地渠道壁壘概念,比如A產品的經銷商有3%的利潤空間,B產品給它6%的空間亦未必會令其轉向,因為B產品遠地發車皮加上車站排期需15天以上到達,而A產品近地汽運當天可達,這樣從渠道的資金周轉角度上看,A產品利潤雖低但資金效率高,B產品要達到同樣效果可能要付出數倍以上的加價空間方可,而對大部分產品都不可能實現高過競品這麼高的渠道利潤,而白酒由於其銷期相對貨期比重高,且加價率相對普通快銷品大,因此周轉敏感度也會低一些。


  中國石油兄好,消費方式確實會改變,但它是逐漸的,也許整個行業會有縮減,但具體到企業上就未必,這就是集中度低給優勢企業帶來的保護。之前的禁酒駕駛就衝擊很大,但我們在上市公司的數據中就沒有任何感受,這就是失之東隅收之桑榆吧。你談的洋河確實是抓住了部分機遇,市場也對其營銷成長能力給予了很多寄托,能否價值投資好像與走勢沒有太大關系吧,當然我也沒有任何推薦介入的意思,帖子裡只是交流與展望,我的風格很少牽涉投資判斷的,請大家明白。
       思與學兄好,確實都不便宜,我是交流思維過程,能幫助到大家的思考從而形成自己的判斷就好,與市場表現無關。
           學習者兄好,張裕也是我一直以來的心愛,雖然看了7年都沒買。這個行業目前主要是集中度太高,張裕一家好像就占了快一半的利潤吧,不過考慮到行業景氣度高,發展快,分享行業增長應該就足夠了。
           四段兄好,紅酒的空間當然很大,只是依靠行業景氣度的分析方法要偏動態些,不像分析集中度這樣靜態方法可以解決的,分析難度不同帶來的賠率就不一樣嘛。
           ywzq兄、超級水星人兄,高檔白酒產量只占全行業1%不到的規模,請不要用它們來代表整個行業,這是個資本逐利的市場,貼道德標簽不太妥當吧。何況廣大中低檔酒的發展是能提升老百姓的精神感受的,這總符合社會發展方向吧。

(之前我也是過於擔心白酒由於老齡化,政府廉潔化,人們健康意識提高,紅酒消費習慣替代等引起的消費萎縮問題,一直都對白酒敬而遠之,其實,這都是屬於思維盲點。人類的需求是多樣化的,煙酒都是不健康的,但是全世界幾千年來都消費旺盛,人們對於健康的追求和和對刺激、虛榮、分享的追求都同時存在。另外,對於市場份額集中度的問題沒有深刻思考。總量和結構是兩碼事,我們常常只看到這兩者裡的一個方面,例如就是白酒行業總量萎縮了,它的結構呢,高檔品牌和中低檔品牌的情況不一定一樣,也許中高檔品牌在行業萎縮的時候反而能夠加速擴張呢?說白了,我們的分析思考不能過於靜態。例如一個行業歸類為夕陽行業,那就一棒子打倒,一個行業歸類為朝陽行業,那就個個看成10倍牛股。林奇不喜歡找蕭條行業的剩者牛股嗎?醫藥是朝陽行業,可惜,中國恐怕也難以出幾個輝瑞,雅培吧。所以,關鍵在於,需要具體情況具體分析,不要僅僅用一個角度來以偏概全。對於醫藥股,現在很多人也分成兩派,中藥派和西藥派,一天到晚在網上罵仗不休,有必要嗎?)

原帖由茅台03在2010-12-16 18:08發表
           這段時間老婆休產假在家不讓我出去,逛論壇比較多,看大家這麼熱鬧也來自爆下,對很多人來說論壇可能是虛擬的,但對有些人不是,像我身邊的熟人也都會來論壇,說假話沒有任何好處,誰不清楚誰呢,所以名ID的自爆可信度會高很多,因為他身邊的人一般也會知道其網絡身份的。有人懷疑海海入市時間短不能寫出好文章,但如果是先完成了知識積累再入市的呢,畢竟不是所有人都那麼盲目的,我個人在受部分網友青睞的時候也完全是個股市新手。至於實證兄依靠推薦統計來判斷,我覺得不見得有效。大家都知道,找出股票和掙錢完全是兩碼事,就我個人來說,07年是找出階段好股最多的一年也是個人收益最失敗的一年,因為那一年沒有白酒長倉,所以大艙位參與了中短線,找出來的其他票雖然短期表現都很好,但總因為各種原因做丟了,思源電器、滬東重機、長圓新材、宜華木業、廣船國際、基金裕陽等等都是買入後1到2個月就有數倍的上漲,但我都沒有掙到什麼,像這兩年的中線票也是這個毛病,獐子島、中恆集團、科大訊飛、古井貢B也是向朋友推薦自己也個別參與了,但同樣沒有太多收益,05到06年選的票像蘇寧電器金發科技招商地產江淮汽車也是如此,都沒真正意義上掙到大錢,為什麼呢,推薦是一回事,看好是一回事,但深入骨髓裡的自信與信仰沒有,加上性格上的浮躁就讓自己丟掉了無數次機遇。這麼多年以來,我持股超過6個月的票只有茅台、汾酒、五糧液認購權證和鹽湖鉀肥4只,鉀肥時間最短只有半年,沒有享受到最大的部分,五糧液認購權證持有一年、艙位不高但回報最快,茅台時間最長有近4年,汾酒因為做過2次,加起來也有3年時間,也就是說,刨開茅台、汾酒和五糧液認購權證的話,我投資道路上的回報非常平庸,短線的操作就更是羞於啟齒,這也是我對自己未來最擔心之處,能力圈的狹小令自己就算找到機遇也把握不住它。很多東西能看懂敢推薦不代表自己能享受到,因為永遠都有不確定和各種變化著的預期干擾你。那為什麼白酒能握住呢,說來好笑,一開始完全是因為散戶心態造成,我03年入市買的第一只股票是TCL通訊,就是現在這個TCL吸收合並的前身,很簡單,就是看它是市場最高的權益報酬率才買的,掙了一點就出了,結果大半年漲了9倍,而主倉茅台跌了半年,氣的不行,心理會計就開始幫忙了,結果茅台後來怎麼漲自己都不高興,加上以前做過快消品的銷售,對這種行業的認識還有點自信,就握成了習慣,然後在這個過程中再不斷學習,逐步領會了更多的方面,所以,開始的運氣好或者不好往往對投資者來說非常關鍵。就大家爭論他的回報是否真實的問題,我覺得,首先別人沒有說完全自有資金帶來的增長,其次,別人真實的交易也許並不完全是推薦的那些,也許有幾筆特別大的亮點沒有提及呢,我就有很多票由於沒有形成有別於他人的認識就沒有單獨拿出來說,當然這也與我的個性有關,更看重思維過程而非結果。總之,我相信這個市場不缺牛人更不缺運氣,回報率更高的人我也親身接觸過,沒有什麼好質疑的,還是把精力放在學習和運氣上來的現實些,呵呵。

 把晚飯前在別人貼裡寫的跟貼轉過來吧,其中談到自己的投資過程就當作過去網友相關詢問的答復吧。總之,和大家一樣,不是誰一開始就擁有握股的自信與定力的,關鍵不在性格,而在你是否真正了解和掌握了這個企業,我很贊成索羅斯講的背痛就賣掉的主張,因為一個票讓你不舒服的時候,不是它有問題,就是你的鑽研還不夠、是在你的能力圈之外。所以要麼擴大自己的能力圈,要麼就不眼紅它的高額利潤,投資需要有個立身之本,找到自己最擅長的領域比發現各種牛股更重要,握不住的股票再牛都於己無益,找到少掙點但一定能掙到的票比超級大牛更有意義。所以,我們在投資的時候首先不是比較誰會更牛,而是你更能握住的是哪一個,不想擁有三年的企業連三分鐘也不要擁有,這句名言我用了很久才深刻體會到。

(點評:這個話太對了,不要眼紅牛股,因為即使告訴你牛股,你也拿不住,你自己沒有研究,沒有研究就沒有信心。幾鳥在林,不如一鳥在手。林奇也說過,不要過於相信企業的遠景規劃,畫大餅誰都會畫。林奇說號稱成為某某第二的基本都失敗了。少即是多,慢即是快。穩定的幾十個點利潤比可能賠50%,也可能賺5倍更好。當你開始追求高收益的時候,忘記了風險,往往就面臨危機了。時刻把握安全邊際原則才是關鍵。)

 福海兄好,剛剛才看到你的留言,好久沒見。雖然不明白你的依據,但我部分同意你的結論。高檔白酒的好日子不會太長,在此影響下部分中檔酒的生態環境亦會發生一些變化,這個時間可能會在2年左右。當然個別企業也許能度過衝擊活的更好,但從整體上應該大致如此。很多人和我爭執高檔酒的市場潛力和空間會比我想像的要大,具體的數據爭執我不想糾纏,但我們可以從最簡單的方法下手來看,一般來說個性化行業如果處於發展空間很大的階段,那麼它的邊緣企業一定會有比較滋養的日子,就像近兩年在中檔酒中我們可以看到一些非名優酒的崛起,但高檔酒裡像水井坊從08年就開始進入艱苦階段,與它在前幾年行業景氣發展時的快活日子相差甚遠,這已經很明顯的表示高端供需缺口的減少,等行業大老們的規劃產能變為現實的時候,這個行業的缺口會完全倒置過來,由此產生的對全行業衝擊將會是我們過去經驗很難想像的。另外有人會預期行業結構的比例會發生變化,我認為要有變化也可能是在中低檔的分配上,超高端由於其奢侈品的消費特性注定了其有個剛性的占比,1%這個線應該不容易突破,這是人性決定的。關於行業變局方面我在前兩年就和朋友經常探討,並假想出很多可能的變化。不過要從對行業發展最健康有利的角度去看的話,我認為讓某些酒走下神壇並被消費者從新認識會對行業整體格局發展更有好處。這需要契機和代價。其實酒行業的發展一直都存在起伏與切換,如果我們對全世界各酒種的生產工藝和發展與接受演變的歷史都了解的話會比較容易來認識它的規率,但要說透可能需要太長的論述,現在不太有精神去寫這些,有空再交流吧。

(通過同行業個股之間來比較,發現行業的發展階段,是很好的做法。當有競爭對手日子不好過的時候,對於其他的選手也有必要評估考察,它有什麼獨特的優勢可以脫穎而出,木秀於林?很大可能,當別人裸泳的時候,你也快了,因為中國的企業沒有幾個是有核心競爭力的,都是偽品牌。如果把偽品牌當成真品牌,那麼很可能就把自己套住了)

   白純裡緒兄好,我同意啤酒將迎來回報期的這個判斷,事實上我也一直在關注著它,只是其一直未通過我對回報的要求,從生意的角度來說,啤酒在飲料行業是個相對高投入低產出的子類,我之前看過它在各地分廠的投資規模及預計產出時就很驚訝於其投入產出效率之低,當然如果能有大規模的漲價自然可以扭轉這點,但考慮到目前的低水平,僅靠溫和漲價,那還需時日方能通過臨界點,並且這個行業能否支撐大的價格調整邏輯還未可知,需要市場與企業互動後我們再謹慎觀察。目前在主投入期結束且行業格局良性改變後或許會迎來中產出期,這種情況下則最好能有次大的股價下跌機會,如此應該會有令人滿意的回報,否則僅具理財投資功能,對追逐暴利的朋友或許還未到時候。

 herb兄的發言很精彩,能夠用簡單清晰的語言來描述產業特性及要素只有相當專業的行業投資者才能做到。其實醫藥品的前瞻邏輯和消費品有一點類似,就是可以從現有的增長來推測未來,只是在前置速率上會有所不同,體現在消費品先以大增長突破為前提、醫藥品則由溫和醞釀至加速。因為消費品的增長邏輯為消費習慣的接觸、培養到擴散,有競爭力產品強度推廣所帶來的大增長意味著消費者的全面接觸,啟動時的增長越大則表示接觸面和消費培養基礎越大,之後帶來的重復及擴散增長也會越穩定,在收入數據上則會體現為大增長後的穩健持續增長。而醫藥產品由於之前的用藥習慣和醫生開新處方的謹慎,往往體現為溫和增長後的加速確認和再加速,不過這有個基礎門檻,在我國目前消費品以10億,醫藥品以1億來衡量增長基數為妥,低於這種規模的增長率則不具備推導性。當然關於醫藥品的論斷有一點我的臆斷,只是我從其他醫藥企業的增長速率上的觀察總結,如果這個規律成真的話,那麼我們在大市場品種的定性完成後可以根據其最近的速率來推導未來,特別是其剛剛進入加速周期的時候,不知這樣算不算過分樂觀。

(茅台兄對於消費品的成長曲線有深刻了解。一般來說,滲透率超過10%的時候市場才會進入加速爆發階段。另外,對於飲料,一般來說10億元年銷量是一個門檻,如果過了這個門檻,也許就能加速爆發了。)

   財迷88:不同市場本來就應該保持不同的估值差異,我一向不贊成同股同價的說法,不同市場的投資者組成和需求完全不同,對資產的回報率要求及風險偏好自然就不一樣。高儲蓄國家不需要很高的回報率就可以吸引大家來保值增殖,高消費國家則要加大回報率方能吸引民眾節省消費轉向投資。記得當初投資的時候有個朋友也學經典價值書籍的,總和我抱怨沒有書上那麼便宜的機會,我說你看格老的書都什麼時候寫的,那時候誰有余錢啊,都在為基本消費奔波發愁,PE不低到7倍以下怎麼吸引人呢,所以我讓他把注意力放在經典書籍中的邏輯中,而不要按圖索驥般的尋找投資對像,並且我說既然你認為中國的估值比較高,那就要徹底放棄低估值票的研究,把精力放在成長股上,這也是我這麼多年來從不看收入負增長票的主要原因,因為所有的低估都是我們這個高估體系裡的相對低估,這樣的低估沒有絕對意義,因此只有兼具相對低估和絕對成長的票才值得我們多花精力。

(茅台兄追求相對低估的成長股,也許這是中國這個市場的投資王道。A股很難適用低估值的逆向投資方式,1 PB之下的股票少之又少。)

   parastone兄好,估值沒有一定之規,我一般從兩個角度下手,先看絕對估值,看能否滿足最基本的回報要求,然後看相對估值,後者難度會大很多,因為這不是簡單的數值比較,而是要把個體的差別綜合考慮,要理解整個估值體系,比如說行業內的估值差異體現在哪方面,這個行業與其他行業的估值差異是什麼,這種差異是否具備合理性及可改善性。我在投一個票之前我會把整個行業的公司都調出來看,體會造成其差異的市場邏輯,然後去判斷這種市場邏輯大致持續或發展的方向、設想可能會導致其改變的因素是什麼、大致會以怎樣的形式和時間發生改變,這裡面不用拘泥於單個指標,可以大廣度的去看,思考越周詳越好,兵無常形,但前提是你要睜開眼看世界,不能僅注意自己的那些票,投資是機會收益的選擇與比較,所以它一定是動態的思考以及動態的修正。另外謝謝你提供的信息,為什麼說試劑業務不看好呢,曾經要賣掉不是理由,很多好業務曾經都有賤賣不出去的時候,這不說明什麼的,還有其他原因嗎。

(茅台兄的思考方式很正確,首先格局要大。有因才有果,先分析條件限制,再來討論結果。不能報果求因。之前茅台03兄曾在回復中指出我這個毛病,我相信大部分人也一樣,都是屁股決定腦袋,結果出來了,再去找證據。真正的分析,應該是先看清楚當前發展結果的條件是什麼,條件未來會如何改變。對於這個分析,歸江采用的國際比較方法是很好的做法,先看看國際上同類行業和公司的數據,同時結合中外各自的本土特色進行思考分析。分析思考時要理性,很多人看好銀行,幾乎哪個銀行股都有人看10倍成長,這可能嗎?美國才一個富國銀行,它的市值也才1萬億人民幣而已,中國的銀行股難道能夠個個都是幾萬億市值?醫藥股也一樣,中國能出輝瑞的概率都有多大?微乎其微。所以,中國特色中藥股說不定更有投資價值。當然,如果片面的看好中藥股而把西藥股一棍打死,這也是典型的屁股決定腦袋,不可取。只能說,不同的子行業,公司,我們需要應用合適的邏輯,這個邏輯可能是不同的,例如中藥和西藥,醫藥和醫療器械,醫藥和醫療服務,不能說看好醫藥行業,就盲目看好各個子行業,差異大著呢)

  兄好,偽麻轉處方藥雖是在我們買入之後,但之前就已有憑身份證購買的要求,這方面的利好在10月份就應該認識到,而不是等到轉處方政策的宣布。它OTC部分雖多為老產品,但正天丸和胃泰因進醫保的因素已再續增長,今年都有近30%的成長,而皮膚藥在收購順峰後也有很好增速,雖然收購價格比當時企業自身估值都高,但企業卻將產品充分發揮快速擴大效益,說明企業有很強的運營能力及平台,這是我喜歡的並購模式,比起很多企業靠二級市場估值優勢去相對低價收購實業資產以取悅資本市場的方式,我更喜歡高價收購從更充分的經營中要效益,這樣可以確保收購產品和資產的高質量,是一種可持續的外延發展模式。而注射劑部分,像華蟾素這幾個產品今年就有很耀眼的增長速度,它也是同類產品中唯一一個甲類品種,加上與同類相比更小的基數,我相信它的成長會比同類有更明確的預期。至於你擔心的黑天鵝事件,考慮到它的比重及產品多樣化特點,即便發生也不會對該企業造成毀滅性打擊,何況在這個領域裡該產品的品質是最高的,如果這都需要擔心,那其他的企業不更惶惶不可終日了。我們可以看到,三九的處方藥和配方顆粒未來都可以有30到50個點的增長預期,這部分占比已到4成,而OTC方面,除感冒藥外都可以保持15到30個點的成長可能,而之前我考慮到感冒藥第一第二品牌都出現了身份證購買的限制,作為第三品牌理應享受最好的替補效益,所以我相信應該能出現比今年更好的增長,即便不能,只要不負增長,那依靠其他業務部分,三九依然可以錄得2位數的整體增長。並且,不知大家是否有注意到,今年三九的廣告投放非常多,它的費用率也一直在醫藥行業內最高的行列之中,我之前就說過,其他醫藥企業主要是臨床費用,沒有規模效益,而類消費品企業卻是具備規模效應的,我們有理由相信這方面的盈利能力還可以有比較大的提升空間。並且,隨著主品牌的不斷提升,三九具備越來越明顯的平台整合及提升能力,結合到其一直以來非常成功的高價收購高質量的以產品為中心的並購戰略,我們有理由對其未來進行展望。再說句不靠譜的話,像它這樣的皮膚藥第一品牌形像,未來推出皮膚護理等日化類產品也未必是不可能的,總比化妝品公司的美膚產品讓人放心吧,當然這些都是玩笑話,但事在人為,就像當年沒有人會想到白藥做牙膏能這麼成功一樣,三九這些年體現出來的優質經營及拓展能力有理由讓我對其未來充滿信任。並且國家計劃推行城鎮化,其實城鎮化對醫療需求的提升同樣很大,人口聚集了容易生病也便於醫治,很多在鄉村會放棄治療的人群也會加入醫療需求人群,加上第三終端的推進,小品牌靠高利潤率在第二終端滲透的方式不再適用於第三終端,這個領域肯定是大品牌更有機會些,再加上自療比例提升的大趨勢,我不認為三九的OTC部分會沒有活力。而既然它各個產品都有相對明確的成長可能,那麼對應這樣的估值應該是相對安全的,這就是我之前說21元的三九比35元的麗珠更讓我舒服和確定的原因。至於你說和我過去的風格不一致的問題,其實這也是無奈之舉,誰不希望永遠保持高回報率呢,過去9年我取得了93%的年復利回報,有部分原因是我始終緊扣高成長思路,但更重要的是過去的經濟給予了我這樣的機會,並且恰好是在我能理解的領域裡,而未來如果我不能確定自己還能以相對安全的方式去捕捉高成長,那就只能采取溫和進攻的方式,畢竟防御是無論任何時候都應該首要考慮的方面。 @菜瓜  

(不得不佩服茅台兄的眼光。華潤三九這個股票,說實話我一直沒有特別關注。但是現在看起來,這個股票確實是攻守兼備的。醫藥OTC品牌其實是個護城河,特別是三九在部分領域已經是王者。之前研究仙琚制藥的時候,發現三九已經擴展皮膚病藥物品類到999糠酸莫米松乳膏、999曲安奈德益康唑乳膏等上面,這樣對於仙琚制藥這後來者就造成很大的競爭壓力。相比之下,華潤三九比起仁和藥業這種OTC企業又更有壁壘,因為三九已經是走集團軍路線,針對某一類產品建立了一系列產品組合,協同作戰,而仁和的子品牌都是獨立的,每個品牌下邊都是單一產品。茅台兄在強調進攻的同時重視防御,也證明了安全邊際永遠是很關鍵的,即使是對於成長股。當然,這個安全邊際要到什麼程度?對於穩健成長的消費股,20倍PE應該是有安全邊際的)

2017年2月13日 星期一

才華用於刀口上 by 張總﹝轉載﹞

信報 2017年2月9日

西方管理大師Drucker論才華,謂才華本身本無用,一定要應用於實踐當中,即用在刀口上。很多有才華的人,終其一生碌碌無為,只因將才華視為結果,而自嘆懷才不遇。不過歷史又不一定是如此,太有才華的人結局總是不太好,尤其是在亂世,有才華的人總遇上妒才的上司和同僚,而又有「失節」之譏。

現代社會,轉工是閒事,封建社會則有「失節」的危險。以明末為例,朱姓皇帝由萬曆天啟崇禎三個都是混蛋,最佳出路是賦閒在家,否則隨時有斬首之危,國亡時又不能轉工。

且看明亡的江左3大家,錢謙益、龔鼎孳與吳梅村,3人都「失節」降清,3人都因與明末江左名妓而聞名,錢益謙娶柳如是,龔鼎孳娶顧眉,吳梅村卻是負了卞玉京,吳梅村更因寫陳圓圓的詩「慟哭六軍俱縞素,衝冠一怒為紅顏」而名留後世。3人降清,至今已鮮為人知,但錢益謙是東林黨領袖,投降後很快就退隱,甚至允許柳如是以家產資助抗清義軍,但既是不為清政府所知,當然未能翻案。

龔鼎孳在多爾袞時大起大落,後為順治賞識,官至刑兵禮三部尚書,於康熙十二年還得謚號,不知何故,百年後被乾隆取消,乾隆同時將和江左三大家同期的黃道周列為「古今完人」。這位在徐霞客筆下「字畫第一,文章第一,人品第一,古今第一」的人物,在南明諸帝時代,任兵部尚書,卻無一兵一卒,自行募兵,和洪承疇這位大漢奸對壘,文人帶兵,才華無用,兵敗被擄,不屈而死,才華用不到地方也!

2017年1月25日 星期三

心理醫生:"富二代"不為人知的自卑心理﹝轉載﹞

引用自:http://jtjy.china.com.cn/2011-09/06/content_4461336.htm

從頭到腳穿戴名牌,兩輛好車輪流著開,除了工作收入外父母每月還給一萬元生活費……這樣一位擁有眾人羨慕的生活的富二代女孩,卻這樣對心理醫生說:「我除了錢一無所有,我要去死了,我活著就是為了我的寵物狗。」

條件這麼優越的女孩,怎麼會說出這麼可怕的話來?

心理咨詢醫生在溝通過程中發現,女孩存在性格缺陷,而造成她問題的是父母從小到大都只給她錢卻不給她愛,導致她現在變得極端又自私,對愛情、婚姻和家庭沒有絲毫信任感。

寵物狗是她活下去的依靠

小芳(化名)今年32歲,父母覺得她情緒不好,懷疑是不是得了抑鬱症,陪著她來看心理咨詢門診。小芳說自己在一家單位從事出納工作,除了上班時間,很少出門。

小芳在家裡的大部分時間是玩遊戲,每次有新遊戲出來的時候,她都會特別興奮,因為又有一段時間好忙碌了。只是當她把遊戲打通關的時候,她不像一般人那樣會有成就感,而是非常失落,因為她不知道自己又該幹點什麼。

小芳說:「我每天都很不開心,甚至經常想著要死,因為我覺得每個人都虛偽自私,根本沒什麼真正能交朋友的人。要是我沒有錢的話,別人肯定不願意跟我交往,只有我的寵物狗對我最忠誠,它現在是支撐我活下去的依靠。」

父母只給她錢卻沒給她愛

小芳在家也曾多次在父母面前說過類似的話語。每次聽到,父母的心裡都會無比傷心和擔憂。

「為了讓她能生活得好一點,我們倆一直忙著生意,陪她的時間確實比較少,但我們盡量在物質上補償她。尤其是從大學開始,每月都給她一萬元的生活費,基本上她要什麼就給她買什麼。」小芳的媽媽說。

但在小芳看來,爸爸媽媽能給她錢是好的,但沒給她愛卻讓她十分厭惡。畢業後,她在父母的安排下談了五六次戀愛,每次相處時間很短,因為她覺得對方是衝著她的錢而來,最終都以分手告終。隨著時間一天天過去,她越來越不相信別人,甚至厭惡這個社會,只敢親近不會說話的寵物狗。

家長勿忽略孩子性格的培養

現在很多家長都開玩笑說「男孩子要窮養,女孩子要富養」,但從小芳的經歷中可以看出,不管是男孩還是女孩,除了要給予物質的滿足外,家長更需要給孩子心靈的慰藉與呵護。

心理醫生說:「像小芳一樣小時候缺乏愛的孩子,長大以後或多或少會存在性格缺陷。現在孩子還小的家長,千萬別忽略了對孩子性格的培養。」

家長再忙也要挪出時間陪孩子,多聽聽孩子的想法,多溝通,多指引,盡量給孩子營造一個良好的家庭氛圍。爸爸們要花更多時間跟孩子一起玩,以培養孩子堅忍的性格。同時,也不要什麼東西都幫孩子準備好,這樣孩子懂事後會覺得自己沒有選擇權,應該適當放養。

對於現在已經成年的孩子,諸醫生建議要多從不同的角度看待問題,多從父母的角度理解父母,用行動來改善性格,多交朋友,尤其是交1~2個知心朋友,多交流,讓心靈多幾條宣洩的途徑,走出自己狹小的生活空間和思維空間。

2017年1月7日 星期六

為官當如牧羊狗 by 何華真﹝轉載﹞

中環醫企 信報 2016.12.31

前一期(2016年12月17日)說到西方的人員管理(PEOPLE MANAGEMENT)有三個階段:1.0 是人事管理Personnel Management,2.0是人資管理Human Resource Management,3.0是人才管理Talent Management。有讀者意猶未足,望筆者再添幾筆,狼王在門生聚會日聽罷,突然跳出來,要mutate突變這三步曲:「這三部曲只不過是西方粗卑虛偽的役人說法,實由古代的育兒略開始,有三級哺育方,哺出不同的人應運於不同形態的機構。

最上級是育人,育個仁人,甚至育個大俠超人出來,無論是堅版尼采或流版唐吉訶德都是超人;第二級是育狗;第三級是育羊。以前有套紀錄片叫《狗陰真經》,意指狼與狗本自同一祖先,但歷史發展到某一點,某群狼就因貪圖飽暖,接受人類豢養,於是變成狗人同住,既然得受人類恩惠,當然要向人類付出代價,於是就擔當不同崗位,例如牧羊、工作、寵物、狩獵、格鬥等。

門生甲:嘩!狼王,你竟然數落眾父母以育狗方式育兒已經夠離奇,還有什麼是育羊?

狼王:如果你看過成龍的電影《新宿事件》,那堆早期在中國農村的平民,原來的父母肯定是將他們世世代代育成馴順的羊,可惜有部分太餓太慘,不堪受辱,於是偷渡出境,成為日本黑市居民,未偷渡前的這一群不就是羊嗎?偷渡後,為了生活,做地盤工、垃圾工、坑渠工,仍然是羊!到部分想要改變謀生方式,如范冰冰當風月女,就成寵物狗,一眾華人成為黑社會的分支人員,即是工作狗。

而現代人不斷將女兒送去學音樂、芭蕾舞、外語等,坦白的父母希望女子嫁得好人家,不就是寵物狗式培育;送去高校出來當官的就是牧羊狗,一般行政人員是工作狗,入到金融圈坐盤房dealing room就是鬥牛梗,成為企業家的左右手就是獵狗。

非主流式培育

門生乙:那有沒有父母不以犬養法培育的?

狼王:當然有。若你兩代三餐不愁,何須用犬養法,由得下一代自行選擇人生方向,不就是育人嗎!若加上培育下一代帶領地球向前走,就是大俠超人。

門生丙:那我們不少特首高官都由警察宿舍這特殊地方培育出來的?又是個什麼說法。

狼王:這種早期當警察的父(母),大部分是由羊升為狗的一群,自然希望自己的子女再度成狗,於是一般的採用英犬式培養,這堆父母與其他界別的人不同,通常以權術(權力鬥爭)教導子女,例如怎樣在工作環境中得勝,繼而得利。若學校不輔以適當的德育,容易造成過度好鬥/貪利/爭勝不知輸的惡習,所以宗哲熏陶是非常重要的;若念教會學校,品格上灌輸過自我修正系統,淪為極惡的機率就會較低。

門生丁:那做官即是做什麼狗?

狼王:做官是做牧羊狗,保民官、牧民官與牧羊狗異曲同工,牧羊狗的智慧要求最高,你要讓羊群(人民)有一定程度自由移動性,羊群能自行「搵食」才經濟健康,但又不能走散走失,若發現缺口出亂子,要牧羊狗快速堵截,否則散局。然而快準之餘,不能過狠,過度兇狠,就由狗變回狼。牧羊狗絕不應傷害羊群,若牧羊狗忘記了自己的身份,變身鬥牛梗咬羊,主人就要其馬上下崗或人道毀滅。可惜一般父母只知教導子女當狗謀生,不曉教清當不同狗種時的仔細分別,不是教得兒女過度搖尾乞憐,就變得過度兇狠。人狗同途,在其位就要懂謀其政之巧,否則就變成一隻不稱職的衰狗,衰狗比過街老鼠更乞上大人憎,因為搞亂牧群。所以能牧定新疆、西藏等地的必定是好狗,得以扶搖直上。

門生戊:那哥基咁得意一定是寵物狗。

狼王:范冰冰飾演的歌姬就是寵物狗,真實的哥基Corgi狗是工作狗甚至是牧羊狗,最聰明的狗是邊境牧羊狗Border Collie,智商相等於七歲小孩。

門生戊:那某些人的智商不就……

(上期誤寫dd成革職詳查,實為盡職詳查,謹此更正)

作者為MASTERMIND大承諮詢有限公司CEO、教授
davidkho@mastermind.com.hk
WeChat ID︰davidkho

2016年1月10日 星期日

USC Law Commencement Speech by Charlie Munger

http://genius.com/Charlie-munger-usc-law-commencement-speech-annotated

the speech was a bit long. I like these words of wisdom most: 

the safest way to try and get what you want, is to try and deserve what you want.

problems frequently get easier and I would even say usually are easier to solve if you turn around in reverse.
In other words if you want to help India, the question you should ask is not "how can I help India?", you think "what's doing the worst damage in India? What would automatically do the worst damage and how do I avoid it?"

envy, resentment, revenge and self pity are disastrous modes of thought

I suggest that every time you find you're drifting into self pity, I don't care what the cause your child could be dying of cancer, self-pity is not going to improve the situation, just give yourself one of those cards.

every mischance in life was an opportunity to behave well, every mischance in life was an opportunity to learn something and your duty was not to be submerged in self-pity but to utilize the terrible blow in a constructive fashion.

if you want to persuade appeal to interest not to reason.

------------------------------------

Well no doubt many of you are wondering why the speaker is so old,
well the answer is obviously he hasn't died yet.
And why was the speaker chosen? Well I don't know that either. I like to think that the development department had nothing to do with it.
Whatever the reason I think it's very fitting that I'm sitting here because I see one crowd of faces in the rear not wearing robes, and I know, from having educated an army of descendants, who really deserves a lot of the honors that are being given are the people here upfront.
The sacrifice and the wisdom and the value transfer that comes from one generation to the next can never be underrated.
And that gives me enormous pleasure as I look at this sea of Asian faces to my left.
All my life I've admired Confucius. I like the idea of filial piety, the idea that there are values that are taught and duties that come naturally and all that should be passed on to the next generation.
And you people who don't think there's anything in this idea, please note how fast these Asian faces are rising in American life.
I think they have something.

All right, I scratched out a few notes and I'm going to try and just give an account of some ideas and attitudes that have worked well for me.
I don't claim that they are perfect for everybody.
Although I think many of them are pretty close to Universal values and many of them are can't fail ideas.
What are the core ideas that have helped me?
Well luckily I got at a very early age, the idea that the safest way to try and get what you want, is to try and deserve what you want.
It's such a simple idea, it's the golden rule so to speak.
You want to deliver to the world what you would buy if you were on the other end.
There is no ethos in my opinion, that is better for any lawyer or any other person to have.
By and large the people who have this ethos win in life and they don't win just money, just honors *unclear*.
They win the respect, the deserved trust, of the people they deal with, and there is huge pleasure in life to be obtained from getting deserved trust.
And so the way to get it is to deliver what you'd want to buy if the circumstances were reversed.
Occasionally you find a perfect rogue of a person, who dies rich and widely known.
But mostly these people are fully understood by the surrounding civilization, and when the cathedral is full of people at the funeral ceremony, most of them are there to celebrate the fact that the person is dead.
And, that reminds me of the story of the time when one of these people died and the minister said, "it's now time for someone to say something nice about the deceased".
And nobody came forward.
And nobody came forward.
And nobody came forward.
And finally one man came up and he said, "well, his brother was worse".
That is not where you want to go! That's not the kind of funeral you want to have you'll leave entirely the wrong example.

A second idea that I got very early was that there is no love that's so right as admiration based love, and that love should include the instructive dead.
Somehow I got that idea and I lived with it all my life and it's been very very useful to me.
A love like that celebrated by Somerset Maugham and his book "Of Human Bondage" that's a sick kind of love, it's a disease. And if you find yourself in a disease like that my advice to you is turn around and fix it. Eliminate it.

Another idea that I got and this may remind you of Confucius too, is that wisdom acquisition is a moral duty, it's not something you do just to advance in life. Wisdom acquisition is a moral duty.
And there's a corollary to that proposition which is very important, it means that you're hooked for lifetime learning, and without lifetime learning you people are not going to do very well.
You are not going to get very far in life based on what you already know.
You're going to advance in life by what you're going to learn after you leave here.
If you take Berkshire Hathaway which is certainly one of the best regarded corporations in the world and may have the best long-term investment record in the entire history of civilization. The skill that got Berkshire through one decade would not have sufficed to get it through the next decade with the achievements made.
Without Warren Buffett being a learning machine, a continuous learning machine, the record would have been absolutely impossible.
The same is true at lower walks of life. I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines, they go to bed every night a little wiser than when they got up and boy does that help particularly when you have a long run ahead of you.

Alfred North Whitehead said it one time that "the rapid advance of civilization came only when man invented the method of invention", and of course he was referring to the huge growth of GDP per capita and all the other good things that we now take for granted which started a few hundred years ago and before that all was stasis.
So if civilization can progress only when it invents the method of invention, you can progress only when you learn the method of learning.
I was very lucky. I came to law school having learned the method of learning and nothing has served me better in my long life than continuous learning.
And if you take Warren Buffett and watched him with a time clock, I would say half of all the time he spends is sitting on his ass and reading. And a big chunk of the rest of the time is spent talking one on one either on the telephone or personally with highly gifted people whom he trusts and who trust him.
In other words it looks quite academic all this worldly success.

Academia has many wonderful values in it. I came across such a value not too long ago. It was several years ago.
In my capacity as a hospital board chairman I was dealing with a medical school academic. And this man over years of hard work had made himself know more about bone tumor pathology than almost anybody else in the world. And he wanted to pass this knowledge on to the rest of us.
And how was he going to do it? Well he decided to write a textbook that would be very useful to other people.
And I don't think a textbook like this sells two thousand copies if those two thousand copies are in all the major cancer centers in the world.
He took a year sabbatical, he sat down in his computer and he had all the slides because he saved them and organized them and filed them. He worked 17 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a year and that was his sabbatical. At the end of the year he had one of the great bone tumor pathology textbooks in the world.
When you're around values like that, you want to pick up as much as you can.

Another idea that was hugely useful to me was that I listened in law school when some wag said, "A legal mind is a mind that when two things are all twisted up together and interacting, it's feasible to think responsibly about one thing and not the other."
Well I could see from that one sentence that that was perfectly ridiculous, and it pushed me further into my natural drift, which was into learning all the big ideas and all the big disciplines. So I wouldn't be a perfect damn fool who was trying to think about one aspect of something that couldn't be removed from the totality of the situation in a constructive fashion.
And what I noted since the really big ideas carry 95% of the *unclear*, it wasn't at all hard for me to pick up all the big ideas and all the big disciplines and make them a standard part of my mental routines.
Once you have the ideas of course they are no good if you don't practice. You don't practice you lose it.
So I went through life constantly practicing this model of disciplinary approach. Well I can't tell you what that's done for me, it's made life more fun, it's made me more constructive, it's made me more helpful to others, it's made me enormously rich, you name it, that attitude really helps.
Now there are dangers there, because it works so well, that if you do it, you will frequently find you are sitting in the presence of some other expert, maybe even an expert that's superior to you, supervising you. And you will know more than he does about his own specialty, a lot more. You will see the correct answer when he's missed it.
That is a very dangerous position to be in. You can cause enormous offense by helpfully being right in a way that causes somebody else to lose face. And I never found a perfect way to solve that problem.
I was a great poker player when I was young but I wasn't a good enough poker player so people failed to sense that I thought I knew more than they did about their subjects and it gave a lot of offense. Now I'm just regarded as eccentric but it was a difficult period to go through.
And my advice to you is to learn sometimes to keep your light under a bushel.
One of my colleagues, also number one in his class in law school, a great success in life worked for the supreme court etc… He knew a lot and he tended to show it as a very young lawyer and one day the senior partner called him in and said, "listen Chuck, I want to explain something to you. Your duty under any circumstances is to behave in such a way that the client thinks he's the smartest person in the world. If you have any little energy and insight available after that, use it to make your senior partner look like the smartest person in the world. And only after you've satisfied those two obligations do you want your light to shine at all".
Well, that may be very good advice for rising in a large firm. It wasn't what I did I always obeyed the drift of my nature and if other people didn't like it I didn't need to be adored by everybody.

Another idea, and by the way when I talk about this multidisciplinary attitude I'm really following a very key idea of the greatest lawyer of antiquity, Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Cicero is famous for saying, "a man who doesn't know what happened before he was born goes through life like a child". That is a very correct idea of Cicero's. And he's right to ridicule somebody so foolish as not to know what happened before he was born.
But if you generalize Cicero as I think one should, there are all these other things that you should know in addition to history and those other things are the big ideas in all the other disciplines. And it doesn't help you just to know them enough just so you can *unclear* them back on an exam and get an A. You have to learn these things in such a way that they're in a mental latticework in your head and you automatically use them for the rest of your life.
If you do that I solemnly promise you that one day you'll be walking down the street and look to your right and left and think, "my heavenly days! I'm now one of the few most competent people of my whole age forward."
If you don't do it, many of the brightest of you will live in the middle ranks or in the shallows.

Another idea that I got, and it was encapsulated by that story the Dean recounted about the man who wanted to know where he was going to die and he wouldn't go there, that rustic let that idea have a profound truth in his hand.
The way complex adaptive systems work and the way mental constructs work; problems frequently get easier and I would even say usually are easier to solve if you turn around in reverse.
In other words if you want to help India, the question you should ask is not "how can I help India?", you think "what's doing the worst damage in India? What would automatically do the worst damage and how do I avoid it?"
You'd think they are logically the same thing, they're not.
Those of you who have mastered algebra know that inversion frequently will solve problems which nothing else will solve.
And in life, unless you're more gifted than Einstein, inversion will help you solve problems that you can't solve in other ways.
But to use a little inversion now, what will really fail in life? What do you want to avoid? Such an easy answer;
sloth and unreliability.
If you're unreliable it doesn't matter what your virtues are, you're going to crater immediately.
So doing what you have faithfully engaged to do should be an automatic part of your conduct. You want to avoid sloth and unreliability.

Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology because it cabbages up one's mind.
You've seen that. You see a lot of it on TV you know preachers for instance, you know they've all got different ideas about theology and a lot of them have minds that are made of cabbage.
But that can happen with political ideology. And if you're young it's easy to drift in to loyalties and when you announce that you're a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out what you're doing is pounding it in, pounding it in and you're gradually ruining your mind so you want to be very careful with this ideology. It's a big danger.
In my mind I got a little example I use whenever I think about ideology and it's these Scandinavian canoeists who succeeded in taming all the rapids of Scandinavia and they thought they would tackle the whirlpools in the Aaron Rapids here in the United States. The death rate was 100%.
A big whirlpool is not something you want to go into and I think the same is true about a really deep ideology.
I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another. And that is I say "I'm not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people do who are supporting it. I think only when I reach that stage am I qualified to speak."
Now you can say that's too much of an iron discipline, it's not too much of an iron discipline, it's not even that hard to do. It sounds a lot like the iron prescription of Ferdinand the Great, "it's not necessary to hope in order to persevere."
That probably is too tough for most people, I don't think it's too tough for me but it's too tough for most people.
But this business of not drifting into extreme ideology is a very very important thing in life if you want to have more correct knowledge and be wiser than other people. A heavy ideology is very likely to do you in.

Another thing of course that does one in is the self serving bias to which we are all subject.
You think that your little me is entitled to do what it wants to do, and for instance why shouldn't the true little me overspend my income?
Well, there once was a man who became the most famous composer in the world but he was utterly miserable most of the time and one of the reasons was he always overspent his income, that was Mozart.
If Mozart can't get by with this kind of asinine conduct, I don't think you should try it.

Generally speaking, envy, resentment, revenge and self pity are disastrous modes of thought, self-pity gets pretty close to paranoia, and paranoia is one of the very hardest things to reverse, you do not want to drift into self-pity.
I have a friend who carried a big stack of linen cards about this thick, and when somebody would make a comment that reflected self pity, he would take out one of the cards, take the top one off the stack and hand it to the person, and the card said, "your story has touched my heart, never have I heard of anyone with as many misfortunes as you". Well you can say that's waggery, but I suggest that every time you find you're drifting into self pity, I don't care what the cause your child could be dying of cancer, self-pity is not going to improve the situation, just give yourself one of those cards.
It's a ridiculous way to behave, and when you avoid it you get a great advantage over everybody else, almost everybody else, because self-pity is a standard condition and yet you can train yourself out of it.
And of course a self serving bias, you want to get out of yourself, thinking that what's good for you is good for the wider civilization and rationalizing all these ridiculous conclusions based on the subconscious tendency to serve one's self.
It's a terribly inaccurate way to think and of course you want to drive that out of yourself because you want to be wise not foolish.
You also have to allow for the self serving bias of everybody else, because most people are not gonna remove it all that successfully, the only condition being what it is. If you don't allow for self serving bias in your conduct, again you're a fool.
I watched the brilliant Harvard law Review trained general counsel of *unclear* lose his career, and what he did was when the CEO was aware some underling has done something wrong the general counsel said "gee we don't have any legal duty to report this but I think it's what we should do it's our moral duty."
Of course the general counsel was totally correct but of course it didn't work it was a very unpleasant thing for the CEO to do and he put it off and put if off and of course everything erode into a major scandal and down went the CEO and the general counsel with him.
The correct answer in situations like that was given by Ben Franklin, he said "if you want to persuade appeal to interest not to reason." The self serving bias is so extreme.
If the general counsel said, "look this is going to erupt, it's something that will destroy you take away your money, take away your status it's a perfect disaster", it would have worked!
You want to appeal to interest, you want to do it of lofty motives, but you should not avoid appealing to interest.

Another thing, perverse incentives. You don't want to be in a perverse incentive system that's causing you to behave more and more foolishly or worse and worse.
Incentives are too powerful a controller of human cognition and human behavior and one of the things you are going to find in some modern law firms is billable hour quotas and I could not have lived under a billable hour quota of $2,400 a year. That would have caused serious problems for me I wouldn't have done it and I don't have a solution for you for that you have to figure it out for yourself but it's a significant problem.

Perverse associations, also to be avoided. You particularly want to avoid working directly under somebody you really don't admire and don't want to be like.
It's very dangerous we are all subject to control to some extent our authority figures strictly authority figures that are rewarding us.
And that requires some talent, the way I solved that is I figured out the people I did admire and I maneuvered cleverly without criticizing anybody so I was working entirely under people I admired. And a lot of law firms will permit that if you're shrewd enough to work it out and your outcome in life will be way more satisfactory and way better if you work under people you really admire, the alternative is not a good idea.

Objectivity maintenance.
Well we all remember that Darwin paid special attention to disconfirming evidence particularly to disconfirm something he believed and loved.
Well objectivity maintenance routines are totally required in life if you're going to be a correct thinker. And they were talking about Darwin's attitude, special attention to the disconfirming evidence, and also to checklist routines.
Checklist routines avoid a lot of errors. You should have all this elementary wisdom and then you should go through and have a checklist in order to use it. There is no other procedure that will work as well.

A last idea that I found very important is I realized very early that non-egality would work better in the parts of the world I wanted to inhabit. What do I mean by non-egality? I mean John Wood when he was the number one basketball coach in the world, he just said to the bottom five players, "you don't get to play your spurring partners", the top seven did the whole playing. Well the top seven learned more, remember the learning machine, because they were doing all the playing. And when he got to that system Wood won more than he'd ever won before.
I think the game of life in many respects is getting a lot of practice into the hands of the people that have the most aptitude to learn and the most tendency to be learning machines. And if you want the very highest reaches of human civilization that's where you have to go.
You do not want to choose a brain surgeon for your child among fifty applicants all of them just take turns during the procedure.
You don't want your airplanes designed that way.
You don't want your Berkshire Hathaway's run that way.
You want to get the power into the right people.
I frequently tell the story of Max Planck when he won the Nobel prize and went around Germany giving lectures on quantum mechanics, and the chauffeur gradually memorized the lecture and he said, "would you mind professor Planck just, it's so boring staying on our routines, would you mind if I gave the lecture this time and you just sat in front with my chauffeur's hat?" And Planck said sure.
And the chauffeur got up and gave this long lecture on quantum mechanics after which a physics professor stood up in the rear and asked a perfectly ghastly question and the chauffeur said, "well I'm surprised that in an advanced city like Munich I get such an elementary question, I'm going to ask my chauffeur to reply."
Well the reason I tell that story is not entirely to celebrate the quick wittiness of the protagonist.
In this world we have two kinds of knowledge, one is Planck knowledge, the people who really know, they paid the dues they have the aptitude.
Then we got chauffeur knowledge, they have learned to travel the talk. They have a big head of hair, they have a fine temper in the voice, they make a hell of an impression, but in the end they've got chauffeur knowledge… I think I've just described practically every politician in the United States.
And you are gonna have the problem in your life of getting the responsibility into the people of the Planck knowledge in a way for the people who have the chauffeur knowledge, and there are huge forces working against you.
My generation has failed you to some extent. We are delivering to you in California a legislature where only the certified nuts from the left and the certified nuts from the right are allowed to serve and none of them are removable.
That's what my generation has done for you, but you wouldn't like it to be too easy would you?

Another thing that I found is an intense interest of the subject is indispensable if you are really going to excel. I could force myself to be fairly good in a lot of things, but I couldn't be really good in anything where I didn't have an intense interest, so to some extent you're going to have to follow me.
If at all feasible you want to drift into doing something in which you really have a natural interest.

Another thing you have to do of course is have a lot of assiduity. I like that word because it means sit down in your ass until you do it.
I've had marvelous partners all my life. I think I got them partly because I tried to deserve them and partly because I was wise enough to select them and partly maybe it was some luck.
But two partners that I chose for one little phase of my life had the following rule and they created a little designed build, construction team. And they sat down and said, 2 man partnership, divide everything equally, here's the rule; "whenever we're behind in our commitments to other people we will both work 14 hours a day until we caught up."
Well needless to say that firm didn't fail! The people died rich. It's such a simple idea.

Another thing of course is life will have terrible blows, horrible blows, unfair blows, doesn't matter. And some people recover and others don't. And there I think the attitude of Epictetus is the best. He thought that every mischance in life was an opportunity to behave well, every mischance in life was an opportunity to learn something and your duty was not to be submerged in self-pity but to utilize the terrible blow in a constructive fashion. That is a very good idea.
You may remember the epitaph which Epictetus left for himself, "Here lies Epictetus, a slave maimed in body, the ultimate in poverty, and favored of the gods".
Well that's the way Epictetus is now remembered. He said big consequences. And he was favorite of the Gods! He was favored because he became wise, and he became manly. Very good idea.

I got a final little idea because I'm all for prudence as well as opportunism.
My grandfather was the only federal judge in his city for nearly forty years and I really admired him. I'm his namesake.
And I'm Confucian enough that even now I sit here and I'm saying, "well, Judge Munger would be pleased to see me here."
So I'm Confucian enough all these years after my grandfather is dead to carry the torch for my grandfather's values.
And grandfather Munger was a federal judge at the time and there were no pensions for widows of federal judges so he didn't save from his income while my grandmother *unclear*. And being the kind of man he was he underspent his income all his life and left her in comfortable circumstances.
Along the way in the thirties my uncle's bank failed and couldn't reopen and my grandfather saved the bank by taking over a third of his assets, good assets, and putting them into the bank and taking up horrible assets in exchange.
And of course it did save the bank and while my grandfather took a loss he got most of his money back eventually.
But I've always remembered the example. And so when I got to college and I came across Houseman, I remember the little poem from Houseman that went something like this:

"The thoughts of others
were light and fleeting,
of lovers' meeting
Luck or fame.
Mine were of trouble,
And mine were steady,
And I was ready
When trouble came."

You can say, "who wants to go through life anticipating trouble?". Well I did! All my life I've gone through life anticipating trouble and here I am well along on my 84th year and like Epictetus I've had a favored life.
It didn't make me unhappy to anticipate trouble all the time and be ready to perform adequately if trouble came. It didn't hurt me at all. In fact it helped me. So I quick claim to you Houseman and Judge Munger.

The last idea that I want to give you as you go out into a profession that frequently puts a lot of procedure and a lot of precautions and a lot of mumbo jumbo into what it does, this is not a fast form which civilization can reach. A fast form which civilization can reach is a seamless web of deserved trust. Not much procedure just totally reliable people correctly trusting one another. That's the way an operating room works at the Mayo clinic.
If a bunch of lawyers working *unclear* process the patients would all die.
So never forget when you're a lawyer that you may be rewarded for selling this stuff but you don't have to buy it.
In your own life what you want is a seamless web of deserved trust. And if your proposed marriage contract has 47 pages my suggestion is do not enter.

Well that's enough for one graduation.
I hope these ruminations of an old man are useful to you. In the end I'm like the Old Valiant-for-Truth in The Pilgrim's Progress;
"My sword I leave to him who can wear it."

彭浩翔記俞琤的二三事

來源:
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/entertainment/art/20160109/19444663

『會議期間,俞琤讓我學懂了一件事︰在沒有想到比現有版本更好的情況下,別去隨便踢人家的創意,因為純粹批評是沒有意義的,除非你不在創作當中。...在電影中,要是沒有改善現有製作的方法,而只是評論着,那你的角色只是一個影評人,而不是真正的創作人。

她想要一個東西,總有辦法拿到。她曾經跟我說︰「不要只想着希望得到甚麼,要先問一下自己,為甚麼別人要給你。」...同理心能讓你懂得逆位思考,然後開出一個讓對方較易接受的交易條件。

記得有天跟俞琤約了十一點開會,我慣常又遲了半小時,在步入商台大堂時,頓感充斥着一股詭異氣氛,接待處的人都看着我,然後望了望前面。我隨着她們的目光看過去,原來俞琤正在大堂等我,憑她的坐姿可以猜得出,應該已有一段時間了。我知道同事們可能在想︰為甚麼俞琤會坐在這裏呢?啊~原來在等一個約了她開會卻遲到的年輕人。
於是我馬上跟她說抱歉(當然,那只是表面功夫,這個我早已習慣)。她不但沒說甚麼,還拉我去吃早餐,我說不用了,她反過來驚訝的問我是否吃了。我被她這樣一問,嚇得不敢再回話,只好跟她一起去吃早餐。在整個早餐裏,她甚麼也沒說,只是這種沉默,卻比指摘來得更有力。自此,我再沒有遲到,不只是約了她,其他活動亦然。』

2015年11月30日 星期一

太子爺如何搞彎一間公司 by CK﹝轉載﹞

引用自:https://thestandnews.com/society/太子爺如何搞彎-一間公司/

呢幾日睇新聞,諗起件唔多關係嘅舊事。

好幾年前,認識的一位前輩,將佢自己間公司,交咗捧俾佢果位響外國讀飽書回流嘅寶貝仔打理。太子爺接手之後,認為公司裡面嘅夥計,大部份都響度hea做,於是推出咗一系列評核員工表現嘅方案出嚟,仲跟足啲國際大企業既做法,將每年評核結果最差嗰10%嘅人炒魷。

前輩同個仔講,咁樣唔掂㗎,會逼死班夥計,但太子爺認為老豆咁諗就過時了。今時今日競爭激烈,唔願意競爭只代表你應該被淘汰,所以一意孤行要推行新嘅評核制度。

冇人喜歡改變,最初聽到要評核既時候,班夥計梗係媽媽叉叉。但係打工既,除非唔撈架遮,否則新老細話要咁,佢地又可以點?於是乎,大家都只能默默接受,並努力做得好啲,但求唔好變成最差嗰10%,保住飯碗。

這個評核制度,頭一年得到很好既效果,同事既業績同效率真係有明顯既提升。太子爺自不然也沾沾自喜。我仲記得佢同我講過:「就係因為公司有評核制度,而家加人工減人工炒人魷魚,對同事既一切賞罰,皆變得理直氣壯,唔似以前老豆揸旗嗰陣咁,咁人治,乜都要拍膊頭。」我不以為然,只知道,現實世界嘅事情,同MBA課程裡面那些case study,往往有好大出入。

過咗頭一年之後,情況開始改變了。一班夥計們,開始適應嗰個評核既制度,而工作嘅重心,亦從幫公司揾錢,變成聚焦響「點樣響個評核制度上拿高啲分」。以Sales Team為例,佢地要避免成為業績最差既10%員工,理論上佢地應該努力跑數,總之努力啲,努力啲,再努力啲去保住飯碗,呢個係老闆嘅如意算盤。但班員工後來發覺,要避免自己成為最差嘅10%,除咗自己加油外,原來還可以靠「搞衰」你同事條數,等佢幫你墊底,咁一樣可以響個評核制度之下力保飯碗。評核制度既第二年開始,類似既「破壞」行為,響佢公司裡面變得越來越流行,特別係市道唔好既日子,大家都要保飯碗,揾生意又難,於是「搞衰同事」變成公司裡既主流生存方法。結果係點?當然係變成公司到處都係politics,而且整體業績大跌。

前輩終於忍唔住,問太子爺點解會搞成咁:「早就叫你唔好搞咩評核架啦!」

太子爺既反應,亦係意料之內:「老豆,你唔明,根本就唔係個制度有問題,而係制度之下,呢班夥計自己既態度有問題。佢地本來就應該努力啲做好自己,而唔係斷章取義咁去面對呢個制度。」

對此,我既解讀係,商業機構對員工既所有制度,都有一個引導性的。這個制度會引導出怎樣既行為,係管理層既責任。冇可能話,係班員工take it with a wrong attitude,就可以推卸制度失誤這個責任。

評核制度是否有存在需要,我傾向不能一概而論地下判斷。但我個人經驗是,評核制度最大的好處,是「方便管理」多於「提升效能」。很多時候,沒有評核的壓力,長遠而言會有更大效益。

又,假若決定評核制度有存在必要的話,制度的策劃人,應該早有心理準備,任何制度都會變質,人性是,為了得到更多利益/避免失去既有利益的前提下,會因應制度去改變工作的重心。所以要確保制度有效,是要有大量的maintenance,並且不斷優化制度,好讓它不會變質。

太子爺的公司,在問題爆發以至業績大跌的兩年間,同事的表現早就有端倪,顯示制度嚴重變質,大禍可期。為何真係要去到業績大跌嘅時候,先至識得開始去思考應對方法?這個責任,在員工,還是在管理層?

仆街既管理人員,總係習慣將問題推卸落去,話員工用不當態度去應對上面壓落去既policy。不斷強調「當初」制度原意係「好」,絕對係無意義,只會更加顯示出,這個管理人唔夠班。

重要既,永遠都係「現在」,而唔係「當初」。