BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

ªi§J®L®ü·æ´QªÑ¥÷¦³­­¤½¥q

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:

­P©Ò¦³ªÑªF:

¡@

Last year we made a prediction: "A reduction [in Berkshire's net worth]
is almost certain in at least one of the next three years." During much
of 1990's second half, we were on the road to quickly proving that
forecast accurate. But some strengthening in stock prices late in the
year enabled us to close 1990 with net worth up by $362 million, or
7.3%. Over the last 26 years (that is, since present management took
over) our per-share book value has grown from $19.46 to $4,612.06,
or at a rate of 23.2% compounded annually.

¡@

¥h¦~§Ú­Ì´¿¸g¹w´ú¹L¡ABerkshireªº²b­È¦b¥¼¨Óªº¤T¦~¤º¦³¥i¯à·|´î¤Ö¡Aµ²ªG¦b
1990¦~ªº¤U¥b¦~§Ú­Ì®tÂI´NÃÒ©ú¤F³o¶µ¹w´úªº¯u¹ê©Ê¡AÁÙ¦n¦~©³«eªÑ²¼»ù®æªº
¤Wº¦¨Ï±o§Ú­Ì¤½¥qªº²b­È¡AÁÙ¬O¸û«e¤@­Ó¦~«×¼W¥[7.3%¡A¬ù3.62»õ¬ü¤¸¡F¦Ó
Á`­p¹L¥h26¦~¥H¨Ó(¤]´N¬O¦Û±q²{¦³¸gÀç¶¥¼h±µ¤â«á)¡A¨CªÑ²b­È±q19¤¸¦¨ªø
¨ì²{¦bªº4,612¬ü¤¸¡A¦~½Æ¦X¦¨ªø²v¬ù¬°23.2%¡C


¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@
Our growth rate was lackluster in 1990 because our four major
common stock holdings, in aggregate, showed little change in market
value. Last year I told you that though these companies - Capital
Cities/ABC, Coca-Cola, GEICO, and Washington Post - had fine
businesses and superb managements, widespread recognition of these
attributes had pushed the stock prices of the four to lofty levels. The
market prices of the two media companies have since fallen
significantly - for good reasons relating to evolutionary industry
developments that I will discuss later - and the price of Coca-Cola
stock has increased significantly for what I also believe are good
reasons. Overall, yearend 1990 prices of our "permanent four," though
far from enticing, were a bit more appealing than they were a year
earlier.

1990¦~¦¨ªø¤§©Ò¥H´î½wªº­ì¦]¥D­n¬O¦]¬°§Ú­Ì¥|­Ó¥D­nªºªÑ²¼§ë¸ê¥«­È¥[Á`
¨Ã¨S¦³¦h¤jªºÅܰʩҭP¡A¥h¦~§Ú´¿¦V¦U¦ìªí¥Ü¡AÁöµM³o¨Ç¤½¥q-¸ê¥»«°/ABC¡B¥i
¤f¥i¼Ö¡BGEICO«OÀI»PµØ²±¹y¶l³øµ¥¡A¾Ö¦³¨}¦nªº¥ø·~Åé½è»P¸gÀç¶¥¼h¡A¦ý¬O
¦]¬°³o¨Ç¯SÂI²{¦b¤w¼s¬°§ë¸ê¤j²³©Ò»{¦P¡A©Ò¥H¤]«P¨Ï¤½¥qªÑ»ù±À¤É¨ì¤@­Ó»á°ª
ªº»ù¦ì¡F¥t¥~¨ä¤¤¨â®a´CÅ鍯·~¤§«áªºªÑ»ù¤S¤j´T·Æ¸¨¡A­ì¦]¦b©ó«á­±§Ú·|¦A¸Ô
²Ó±Ô­z¸Ó²£·~­²©R©Êªººt¶i¡A¥t¥~¥i¤f¥i¼ÖªºªÑ»ù¤]¦]¬°§Ú­Ó¤H¤]¬Û·í»{¦Pªº­ì
¦]¬°¤j²³©Ò±µ¨ü¦Ó¤jº¦¡A¤£¹LÁ`ªº¨Ó»¡¡A¥Ø«e³o¥|¤j¤Ñ¤ýªºªÑ»ù¡AÁöµM¤£°÷§l¤Þ
¤H¡A¦ý¤ñ°_¤@¦~¥H«e¨Ó»¡¡A­nºâ¬O¦X²zªº¦h¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Berkshire's 26-year record is meaningless in forecasting future
results; so also, we hope, is the one-year record. We continue to aim
for a 15% average annual gain in intrinsic value. But, as we never tire
of telling you, this goal becomes ever more difficult to reach as our
equity base, now $5.3 billion, increases.


Berkshire¹L¥h26¦~¨Ó½÷·×ªº°O¿ý¨Ã¤£¨¬¥H½T«O¥¼¨Ó¤]·|¦p¦¹µo®i¡A·íµM§Ú­Ì
¤]§Æ±æ¹L¥h¤@¦~ºGµhªº°O¿ý¤]¤£¯à¥Nªí¥¼¨Óªºµ²ªG´N¬O¦p¦¹¡A§Ú­ÌÁÙ¬O¨Ì±N¥Ø
¼Ð­q¦b¨C¦~15%ªº¹ê½è»ù­È¦¨ªø²v¡A¥u¬OÁÙ¦³¤@ÂI¬O¹L¥h±q¥¼¦V¦U¦ì³ø§iªº¡A
¥H§Ú­Ì²{¦bªºªÑÅv³W¼Ò¡A­n§¹¦¨³o¶µ¥ô°ÈªºªùÂe¬O53»õ¬üª÷!


¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@
If we do attain that 15% average, our shareholders should fare well.
However, Berkshire's corporate gains will produce an identical gain for
a specific shareholder only if he eventually sells his shares at the same
relationship to intrinsic value that existed when he bought them. For
example, if you buy at a 10% premium to intrinsic value; if intrinsic
value subsequently grows at 15% a year; and if you then sell at a 10%
premium, your own return will correspondingly be 15% compounded.
(The calculation assumes that no dividends are paid.) If, however, you
buy at a premium and sell at a smaller premium, your results will be
somewhat inferior to those achieved by the company.

­n¬O§Ú­Ì¯uªº¯à°÷¹F¨ì³o¼Ëªº¥Ø¼Ð¡A¨º»ò§Ú­ÌªºªÑªF¤@©wÁȽ¤F¡A¦]¬°
Berkshireªº¥ø·~Àò§Q±N·|¬°¨º¨Ç¶R½æ»ù®æ»P¤½¥q¹ê½è»ù­È¤@­Pªº§ë¸ê¤H³Ð³y
¬Û¦PªºÀò§Q¡AÁ|¨Ò¨Ó»¡¡A¦pªG§A¥H¹ê½è»ù­È10%ªº·¸»ù¶R¶iBerkshireªÑ¥÷¡A
°²³]«á¨Ó¤½¥q¹ê½è»ù­È¨C¦~¦¨ªø¤F15%¡A¦Ó¤§«á§A¦P¼Ë¥H¹ê½è»ù­È10%ªº·¸»ù
½æ¥X©Ò«ù¦³ªºªÑ¥÷¡A«h§Aªº§ë¸ê¦~³ø¹S²vÀ³¸Ó¤]·|¬O15%(³o­Ó¨Ò¤l°²³]´Á¶¡¤½
¥q¨Ã¥¼µo©ñ¥ô¦óªÑ§Q)¡A·íµM­n¬O«á¨Ó§A¥H§C©ó10%ªº·¸»ù½æ¥XªÑ¥÷ªº¸Ü¡A¨º»ò
§A³Ì«á©Ò±o¨ìªº§ë¸ê³ø¹S²v¥i¯à´N·|§C©ó¤½¥q¦P´Á¶¡15%ªº³ø¹S²v¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Ideally, the results of every Berkshire shareholder would closely
mirror those of the company during his period of ownership. That is
why Charlie Munger, Berkshire's Vice Chairman and my partner, and I
hope for Berkshire to sell consistently at about intrinsic value. We
prefer such steadiness to the value-ignoring volatility of the past two
years: In 1989 intrinsic value grew less than did book value, which was
up 44%, while the market price rose 85%; in 1990 book value and
intrinsic value increased by a small amount, while the market price fell
23%.

¦b²z·Qªº±¡ªp¤U¡ABerkshire©Ò¦³ªºªÑªFªº§ë¸ê³ø¹S¡A¦b¨ä¾Ö¦³¤½¥q³¡¥÷©Ò¦³Åv
ªº´Á¶¡¡AÀ³¸Ó·|»P¤½¥q¥»¨­ªº¸gÀ禨ªG¬Û²Å¡A³o¤]¬O¬°¤°»ò¬d²z©s®æ-Berkshire
ªº°Æ¥D®u¡A¤]¬O¥D­nªº¦X¹Ù¤H¡A©M§Ú¥»¨­³£§Æ±æBerkshireªºªÑ»ù¯à»P¨ä©Ò¥Nªí
ªº¹ê½è»ù­Èºû«ù¤@©wÃö«Yªº­ì¦]¡A¬Û¸û©ó¹L¥h¨â¦~ªÑ¥«Àqµø»ù­Èªº¥ô·Nªi°Ê¡A§Ú
­Ì¹çÄ@BerkshireªÑ»ùí©w¤@ÂI¡A1989¦~ªº¹ê½è»ù­È¬ù¦¨ªø´T«×»·§C©ó±b­±»ù
­È44%ªº¼W¥[´T«×¡A»PªÑ»ù85%ªº¤jº¦¡F¨ì¤F1990¦~¡A±b­±»ù­È»P¹ê½è»ù­È
³£²¤·L¼W¥[¡A¦ý¦P´Á¶¡ªº¥»¤½¥qªºªÑ²¼»ù®æ«o¤U¶^¤F23%¡C¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Berkshire's intrinsic value continues to exceed book value by a
substantial margin. We can't tell you the exact differential because
intrinsic value is necessarily an estimate; Charlie and I might, in fact,
differ by 10% in our appraisals. We do know, however, that we own
some exceptional businesses that are worth considerably more than
the values at which they are carried on our books.

ºI¦Ü¥Ø«e¬°¤î¡ABerkshireªº¹ê½è»ù­È¤´»P±b­±»ù­È¤´¦³¤@¬q¤£¤pªº®t¶Z¡A¤£¹L
§Ú­ÌµLªk§i¶D§A¹ê»Úªº¼Æ¦r¬O¦h¤Ö¡A¦]¬°¹ê½è»ù­È¥»¨­´N¬O¤@­Ó¦ô­p¼Æ¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W
¥ú¬O¬d²z»P§Ú¦Û¤v¥»¨­©Ò¦ô¥X¨Óªº¼Æ¦r´N¥i¯à¦³¶W¹L10%ªº®t¶Z¡A¤£¹L¥i¥H½T
«Hªº¬O¡A§Ú­Ì©Ò¾Ö¦³¤@¨ÇÀu¨qªº¥ø·~¨ä¹ê»Úªº»ù­È»·°ª©ó¦C¥Ü¦b¤½¥q±b¤Wªº§ë¸ê
¦¨¥»¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Much of the extra value that exists in our businesses has been
created by the managers now running them. Charlie and I feel free to
brag about this group because we had nothing to do with developing
the skills they possess: These superstars just came that way. Our job is
merely to identify talented managers and provide an environment in
which they can do their stuff. Having done it, they send their cash to
headquarters and we face our only other task: the intelligent
deployment of these funds.

§Ú­Ìªº³Q§ë¸ê¤½¥q¤§©Ò¥H¯à°÷¾Ö¦³³o»ò¦hÃB¥~ªº»ù­È¡A§¹¥þ­nÂk¥\©ó¸gÀ祦­Ìªº
³o§åÀu¨q¸g²z¤H¡A¬d²z¸ò§Ú¥i¥H«Ü¦Û¦b¦a¸ØÄ£³o¤ä¹Î¶¤¡A¦]¬°¥L­Ì¤§©Ò¥H¯à°÷¾Ö
¦³³o¨Ç¤~¯à»P§Ú­Ì¤@ÂIÃö«Y³£¨S¦³¡A³o¨Ç¶W¯Å¸g²z¤H¤@ª½³£¬O¦p¦¹¡A¦Ó§Ú­Ìªº¤u
§@¥u¤£¹L¬Oµo±¸³o¨Ç¦³¤~¯àªº¸g²z¤H¦P®É´£¨Ñ¤@­ÓÀô¹Ò¡AÅý¥L­Ì¥i¥H¦n¦n¦aµo
´§¡A´N³o¼Ë¥L­Ì´N·|±N²{ª÷·½·½¤£µ´¦a°e¦^Á`³¡¡A±µ¤U¨Ó§Ú­Ì´N·|­±Á{¥t¤@¶µ­«
­nªº¥ô°È-¦p¦ó¦³®Ä¦a¹B¥Î³o¨Ç¸êª÷¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ My own role in operations may best be illustrated by a small tale
concerning my granddaughter, Emily, and her fourth birthday party
last fall. Attending were other children, adoring relatives, and Beemer
the Clown, a local entertainer who includes magic tricks in his act.

§Ú­Ó¤H¦bÀç¹B¤W§êºtªº¨¤¦â¥i¥Ñ§Ú®]¤kEmilyªº¤@­Ó¤p¬G¨Æ¨Ó°µ»¡©ú¡A¥h¦~¬î¤Ñ
¦b¦o¥|·³ªº¥Í¤é®b·|¤W¡A°Ñ¥[ªº¤H°£¤F¤pªB¤Í»P¯k·R¦oªº®a¤H¤§¥~¡AÁÙ¦³¤@¦ì¤p
¤¡ºt­ûBeemer¡A®u¶¡¥LÁÙ¯S¦a¬°¤j®aªíºt¤F¤@¬qÅ]³N¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Beginning these, Beemer asked Emily to help him by waving a
"magic wand" over "the box of wonders." Green handkerchiefs went
into the box, Emily waved the wand, and Beemer removed blue ones.
Loose handkerchiefs went in and, upon a magisterial wave by Emily,
emerged knotted. After four such transformations, each more amazing
than its predecessor, Emily was unable to contain herself. Her face
aglow, she exulted: "Gee, I'm really good at this."

¤@¶}©lBeemer½ÐEmilyÀ°¥L®³¤@¤ä¯«©_ªºÅ]´Î¦b¤@­ÓÄ_¨©½c¤W´§»R¡Aºñ¦âªº
¤â©¬©ñ¶i½c¤l¸Ì¡A¦bEmily´§¤F´Î¤l¤@¤U¤§«á¡A¶]¥X¨ÓÂŦ⪺¤â©¬¡F±µµÛ¤S©ñ¶i
¤@±ø¤â©¬¡AEmily¤S´§¤F¤@¤U¡A³o¦^¶]¥X¤@±ø¥´µ²ªº¤â©¬¡A¸g¹L¥|¦^¦X¤@¦¸¤ñ¤@
¦¸ºë±mªºªíºt¤§«á¡AEmily³ß¤£¦Û³Ó¡AÁy¤Wµo¥úªgªg¦Û³ßªº¤j¥s¡A¡u§Ú¹ê¦b¬O¤Ó
¼F®`¤F!¡v

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ And that sums up my contribution to the performance of
Berkshire's business magicians - the Blumkins, the Friedman family,
Mike Goldberg, the Heldmans, Chuck Huggins, Stan Lipsey and Ralph
Schey. They deserve your applause.

³o´N¬O§Ú¦bBerkshireªº©Ò¦³°^Äm¡A·PÁºX¤U¥ø·~©Ò¦³ªºÅ]³N®v- Blumkins®a
±Ú¡BFriedman ®a±Ú¡BMike Goldberg¡Bthe Heldmans¡BChuck Huggins¡B
Stan Lipsey»PRalph Scheyµ¥¤H¡A½Ð¬°³o¨Ç¤Hºë±mªººt¥Xµ¹¤©¼ö¯Pªº´xÁn¡C


Sources of Reported Earnings

±b¦C¬Õ¾lªº¨Ó·½

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The table below shows the major sources of Berkshire's reported
earnings. In this presentation, amortization of Goodwill and other
major purchase-price accounting adjustments are not charged against
the specific businesses to which they apply, but are instead
aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the
earnings of our businesses as they would have been reported had we
not purchased them. I've explained in past reports why this form of
presentation seems to us to be more useful to investors and managers
than one utilizing generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP),
which require purchase-price adjustments to be made on a
business-by-business basis. The total net earnings we show in the
table are, of course, identical to the GAAP total in our audited financial
statements.

¤UªíÅã¥ÜBerkshire±b¦C¬Õ¾lªº¥D­n¨Ó·½¡A¦b³o±iªí¤¤°ÓÅAªºÅu¾P¼Æ»PÁʶRªk·|
­p½Õ¾ã¼Æ·|±q­Ó§O³Q§ë¸ê¤½¥q¤ÀÂ÷¥X¨Ó¡A³æ¿W¥[Á`¦C¥Ü¡A¤§©Ò¥H³o¼Ë°µ¬O¬°¤FÅý
ºX¤U¦U¨Æ·~ªº¬Õ¾lª¬ªp¡A¤£¦]§Ú­Ìªº§ë¸ê¦Ó¦³©Ò¼vÅT¡A¹L¥h§Ú¤@¦A¦a±j½Õ§Ú­Ì»{
¬°³o¼Ëªºªí¹F¤è¦¡¡A¸û¤§¤@¯ë¤½»{·|­p­ì«h­n¨D¥H­Ó§O¥ø·~°ò¦°µ½Õ¾ã¡A¤£ºÞ¬O
¹ï§ë¸êªÌ©Î¬OºÞ²zªÌ¨Ó»¡¡A§ó¦³À°§U¡A·íµM³Ì«á·l¯q¥[Á`ªº¼Æ¦r¤´µM·|»P¸g·|­p
®v¬d®Öªº¼Æ¦r¤@­P¡C

¡@

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Much additional information about these businesses is given on
pages 39-46, where you also will find our segment earnings reported
on a GAAP basis. For information on Wesco's businesses, I urge you to
read Charlie Munger's letter, which starts on page 56. His letter also
contains the clearest and most insightful discussion of the banking
industry that I have seen.

¦~³ø¤¤ÁÙ¦³¥ø·~­Ó§O³¡ªùªº¸ê°T¡A¦³ÃöWesco¤½¥qªº¸ê°T¡A§Ú±j¯P«ØÄ³¤j®a¥i
¥H¬Ý¬Ý¬d²z©s®æ©Ò¼gªº¦~³ø¡A¸ÌÀY¥]§t§Ú¬Ý¹L¹ï»È¦æ²£·~¼gªº³Ì¸ÔºÉºëÅPªº¤À
ªR¡C

(000s omitted)

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

Berkshire's Share

of Net Earnings

(after taxes and

Pre-Tax Earnings minority interests)

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

1990 1989 1990 1989

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

Operating Earnings:

Insurance Group:

Underwriting ................ $(26,647) $(24,400) $(14,936) $(12,259)

Net Investment Income ....... 327,048 243,599 282,613 213,642

Buffalo News .................. 43,954 46,047 25,981 27,771

Fechheimer .................... 12,450 12,621 6,605 6,789

Kirby ......................... 27,445 26,114 17,613 16,803

Nebraska Furniture Mart ....... 17,248 17,070 8,485 8,441

Scott Fetzer Manufacturing Group 30,378 33,165 18,458 19,996

See's Candies ................. 39,580 34,235 23,892 20,626

Wesco - other than Insurance .. 12,441 13,008 9,676 9,810

World Book .................... 31,896 25,583 20,420 16,372

Amortization of Goodwill ...... (3,476) (3,387) (3,461) (3,372)

Other Purchase-Price

Accounting Charges ......... (5,951) (5,740) (6,856) (6,668)

Interest Expense* ............. (76,374) (42,389) (49,726) (27,098)

Shareholder-Designated

Contributions .............. (5,824) (5,867) (3,801) (3,814)

Other ......................... 58,309 23,755 35,782 12,863

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

Operating Earnings .............. 482,477 393,414 370,745 299,902

Sales of Securities ............. 33,989 223,810 23,348 147,575

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

Total Earnings - All Entities $516,466 $617,224 $394,093 $447,477

====== ====== ===== =======

*Excludes interest expense of Scott Fetzer Financial Group and Mutual Savings & Loan.

*¤£¥]§t¥v¦Ò¯S­¸¯÷»PÁp¦XÀx¶Uªº§Q®§¶O¥Î

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We refer you also to pages 47-53, where we have rearranged
Berkshire's financial data into four segments. These correspond to the
way Charlie and I think about the business and should help you more
in estimating Berkshire's intrinsic value than consolidated figures
would do. Shown on these pages are balance sheets and earnings
statements for: (1) our insurance operations, with their major
investment positions itemized; (2) our manufacturing, publishing and
retailing businesses, leaving aside certain non- operating assets and
purchase-price accounting adjustments; (3) our subsidiaries engaged
in finance-type operations, which are Mutual Savings and Scott Fetzer
Financial; and (4) an all-other category that includes the
non-operating assets (primarily marketable securities) held by the
companies in segment (2), all purchase- price accounting adjustments,
and various assets and debts of the Wesco and Berkshire parent
companies.

¥Ø«e§Ú­Ì¤w±NBerkshireªº°]°È¸ê°T­«·s¤ÀÃþ¬°¥|¤j³¡ªù¡A³o¬O¬d²z¸ò§Ú»{¬°³Ì
¥i¥HÀ°§U¤j®a­pºâ¥»¤½¥q¹ê½è»ù­Èªº³Ì¦n¤è¦¡¡A¥H¤Uªº¸ê²£­t¶Åªí»P¬Õ¾lªí´N¬O
¨Ì¦¹¤ÀÃþªí¥Ü(1)«OÀI¨Æ·~¡A¥t±N¥D­n§ë¸ê³¡¦ìÂkÃþ(2)»s³y¡B¥Xª©»P¹s°â¨Æ·~¡A
¦©°£«D¥»·~¸ê²£»PÁʶRªkªº·|­p½Õ¾ã(3)ª÷¿Ä·~ªº¤l¤½¥q-½Ñ¦pÁp¦XÀx¶U»P¥v¦Ò
¯S­¸¯÷°]°È¤½¥q(4)¨ä¥L¶µ¥Ø¡A¥]§t«e­z«DÀç·~¸ê²£(¥D­n¬O¦³»ùÃÒ¨é§ë¸ê)»PÁʶR
ªk½Õ¾ã¡AÁÙ¦³Wesco»PBerkshire¥À¤½¥q¤@¨Ç¨ä¥Lªº¸ê²£»P­t¶Å¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ If you combine the earnings and net worths of these four
segments, you will derive totals matching those shown on our GAAP
statements. However, I want to emphasize that this four-category
presentation does not fall within the purview of our auditors, who in
no way bless it.

¦pªG§A±N³o¥|­Ó³¡ªùªº¬Õ¾l»P²b­È¥[Á`¡A·|±o¨ì»P¸g·|­p®v¨Ì¤@¯ë¤½»{·|­p­ì«h
¬d®Ö¤@­Pªº¼Æ¦r¡AµM¦Ó§ÚÁÙ¬O¥²¶·±j½Õ³oºØªí¹F¤è¦¡¨Ã¥¼¸g¹L·|­p®vªºÀ˵ø¡A§Ú
·Q¥L¹ç¥i¿ï¾Ü¤£­n¬Ýªº¦n¡C


"Look-Through" Earnings

³zµø¬Õ¾l

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The term "earnings" has a precise ring to it. And when an earnings
figure is accompanied by an unqualified auditor's certificate, a naive
reader might think it comparable in certitude to pi, calculated to
dozens of decimal places.

¬Õ¾l³o­Ó¦Wµü¦³¤@­Ó©ú½Tªº©w¸q¡A¦Ó·í¬Õ¾l¼Æ¦r¦A¥[¤W·|­p®vµL«O¯d·N¨£ªº­I®Ñ
«á¡A³æ¯Âªº§ë¸ê¤H¥i¯à´N·|¥H¬°¥¦¬O¹³¶ê©P²v¤@¼Ë¸g¹L­pºâ¡A¥i¥H¨ì¦n´X­Ó¤p¼Æ
ÂI¯ëºë½T¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In reality, however, earnings can be as pliable as putty when a
charlatan heads the company reporting them. Eventually truth will
surface, but in the meantime a lot of money can change hands. Indeed,
some important American fortunes have been created by the
monetization of accounting mirages.

µM¦Ó¨Æ¹ê¤W¡A·í¤½¥q¬Õ¾l¼Æ¦r¬O¥ÑÄF®{©Ò¥D¾É®É¡A¬Õ¾l¥i¯à¹³ªo¦Ç¤@¼Ë¦a¯Ü®z¡A
·íµM¨ì³Ì«á¯u¬Û¤@©w·|¤j¥Õ¡A¦ý¦b¦¹¦P®É¤@¤jµ§°]´I¥i¯à¤w¸g´«¤â¡A½T¹ê³\¦h¬ü
°ê°]´I¶Ç©_´N¬O¾aµÛ³oºØ·|­p¼Æ¦r°²¶H©Ò³Ð³y¥X¨Óªº¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Funny business in accounting is not new. For connoisseurs of
chicanery, I have attached as Appendix A on page 22 a previously
unpublished satire on accounting practices written by Ben Graham in
1936. Alas, excesses similar to those he then lampooned have many
times since found their way into the financial statements of major
American corporations and been duly certified by big-name auditors.
Clearly, investors must always keep their guard up and use accounting
numbers as a beginning, not an end, in their attempts to calculate true
"economic earnings" accruing to them.

¦³½ìªº¥ø·~·|­p¨Ã¤£¬O¥ó·sÂA¨Æ¡A¹ï©ó¥ø·~¶BÄFªº±M®a¡A§Ú¯S§Oªþ¤W¯Z­õ©ú¸¯©Ô
¨u¦b1936¦~©Ò¼g¥¼¸g¥Xª©¦³Ãö·|­p°µ±bªº¿Ø¨ë©Ê¤å³¹¡A¦Û¦¹¤§«á¡A§Ú­Ì¥i¥Hµo
²{³oºØ¸¯©Ô¨u©Ò´y¼gªº¤èªk´²¨£©ó¦U¤j¬ü°ê¥ø·~°]°È³øªí¤¤¡A¦Ó¥B¥þ³¡³£¸g¹L¦U
¤j·|­p®v¨Æ°È©ÒñÃÒ­I®Ñ¡A©Ò¥H¹ï¦¹§ë¸ê¤H¥²¶·¯S§O´£°ªÄµ§Ù¡A­n¤F¸Ñ¦b­pºâ¤@
®a¤½¥qªº¹ê½èªº¸gÀÙ¬Õ¾l®É¡A·|­p¼Æ¦r¥u¤£¹L¬O­Ó¥XµoÂI¡A¦Óµ´«D¬O³Ì«áªºµ²ªG¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Berkshire's own reported earnings are misleading in a different,
but important, way: We have huge investments in companies
("investees") whose earnings far exceed their dividends and in which
we record our share of earnings only to the extent of the dividends we
receive. The extreme case is Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. Our 17% share of
the company's earnings amounted to more than $83 million last year.
Yet only about $530,000 ($600,000 of dividends it paid us less some
$70,000 of tax) is counted in Berkshire's GAAP earnings. The residual
$82 million-plus stayed with Cap Cities as retained earnings, which
work for our benefit but go unrecorded on our books.

Berkshire¥»¨­ªº¬Õ¾l¦b¬Y¨Ç­«­nªº¤è­±¤]¦³©Ò»~¾É¡A­º¥ý§Ú­Ì¥D­nªº³Q§ë¸ê¤½
¥q¨ä¹ê»Ú¬Õ¾l»·°ª©ó«á¨Óµo©ñªºªÑ§Q¡A¦ÓBerkshire±b¦Cªº¬Õ¾l¤]¶È­­©ó³o¨Ç¤w
µo©ñªºªÑ§Q¦¬¤J¡A³Ì©úÅ㪺¨Ò¤l´N¬O¸ê¥»«°/ABC¤½¥q¡A­Y¨Ì·Ó§Ú­Ì«ùªÑ17%ªº
¤ñ¨Ò¡A¥h¦~¥i¤À±oªº§Q¼í¬O8,300¸U¬ü¤¸¡A¦ýBerkshire¨Ì·Ó¤@¯ë¤½»{·|­p­ì
«h©Ò»{¦Cªº§ë¸ê§Q¯q«o¥u¦³53¸U¬ü¤¸(¥ç§Y60¸UªÑ§Q¦¬¤J¦©°£7¸U¬ü¤¸ªºµ|
­t)¡A³Ñ¤U8,200¦h¸Uªº¬Õ¾l«h«O¯d¦b¸Ó¤½¥qªº±b¤W¡AÁöµM¹ê»Ú¤W¹ï§Ú­Ì¤j¦³¯q
³B¡A¦ý¦b§Ú­Ì¤½¥qªº±b¤W«o¤@ÂIÂܸñ³£¨S¦³¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Our perspective on such "forgotten-but-not-gone" earnings is
simple: The way they are accounted for is of no importance, but their
ownership and subsequent utilization is all-important. We care not
whether the auditors hear a tree fall in the forest; we do care who
owns the tree and what's next done with it.

§Ú­Ì¹ï©ó³oºØ³Q¿ò§Ñ¦ý«o¦s¦bªº¬Õ¾lªººA«×«Ü²³æ¡A¨ì©³»{¤£»{¦C¼Æ¦r¤@ÂI³£¤£
­«­n¡A³Ì­«­nªº¬O§Ú­Ì¥i¥H½T©w³o¨Ç¬Õ¾l¥i¥H¬°§Ú­Ì©Ò¦³¥B·|³Q¥R¤À¥[¥H¹B¥Î¡A
§Ú­Ì¤£¦b¥GÅ¥¨ì·|­p®v»¡´ËªL¤¤¦³¤@´Ê¾ð³Q¬å­Ë¤F¡A§Ú­Ì¦b¥Gªº¬O³o´Ê¾ð¬O¤£¬O
ÄÝ©ó§Ú­Ìªº¡A¥H¤Î¤§«á­n¦p¦ó¨Ó³B²z¥¦¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ When Coca-Cola uses retained earnings to repurchase its shares,
the company increases our percentage ownership in what I regard to
be the most valuable franchise in the world. (Coke also, of course,
uses retained earnings in many other value-enhancing ways.) Instead
of repurchasing stock, Coca-Cola could pay those funds to us in
dividends, which we could then use to purchase more Coke shares.
That would be a less efficient scenario: Because of taxes we would pay
on dividend income, we would not be able to increase our
proportionate ownership to the degree that Coke can, acting for us. If
this less efficient procedure were followed, however, Berkshire would
report far greater "earnings."

·í¥i¤f¥i¼Ö§Q¥Î«O¯d¬Õ¾l¨Ó¶R¦^¦Û®aªÑ¥÷¡A¸Ó¤½¥qµ¥©ó¶¡±µ¼W¥[§Ú­Ìªº«ùªÑ¤ñ
¨Ò¡A¤]´N¬O¦¹Á|Åý§Ú»{©w³o®a¤½¥q¬O¥þ¥@¬É³Ì¦nªº¥ø·~(·íµM¥i¤f¥i¼ÖÁÙ±N¸êª÷
¹B¥Î¦b«Ü¦h¥[±j¤½¥q§Q¯qªº¦a¤è¤W)¡A°£¤F¶R¦^ªÑ¥÷¡A¥i¤f¥i¼Ö¤]¥i¥H±N³o¨Ç¸ê
ª÷¥HªÑ§Qªº¤è¦¡°hÁÙµ¹ªÑªF¡AµM«á§Ú­Ì¦P¼Ë¥i¥H§Q¥Î³oµ§¿ú¶R¶i§ó¦h¥i¤f¥i¼Öªº
ªÑ²¼¡A¥u¬O«á­±³oºØ°µªk¤ñ¸û¨S¦³®Ä²v¡A¦]¬°¦p¦¹ÁÙ­n¤ä¥IÃB¥~ªº©Ò±oµ|¡A¨Ï±o
³Ì«á©Ò±o¨ìªº«ùªÑ¤ñ¨Ò¤ñ«e­±ªº¤è¦¡¤Ö¤@ÂI¡A¦Ó¿Ø¨ëªº¬O­n¬O§Q¥Î«á­±ªº¨ººØ°µ
ªk¡ABerkshireªº±b­±¬Õ¾l¥i¯àÁÙ·|§ó¦n¬Ý¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ I believe the best way to think about our earnings is in terms of
"look-through" results, calculated as follows: Take $250 million, which
is roughly our share of the 1990 operating earnings retained by our
investees; subtract $30 million, for the incremental taxes we would
have owed had that $250 million been paid to us in dividends; and add
the remainder, $220 million, to our reported operating earnings of
$371 million. Thus our 1990 "look-through earnings" were about
$590 million.

§Ú­Ó¤H¬Û«H³Ì¦nªº¤è¦¡¬O§Q¥Î³zµøªº¤èªk¨Ó¿Å¶qBerkshireªº¬Õ¾l¡A2»õ5,000
¸U¬ü¤¸¤j·§¬O§Ú­Ì¦b1990¦~¥i¥H±q³Q§ë¸ê¤½¥q¨ºÃ䥼¤À°t¨ìªºÀç·~§Q¼í¡A¦©°£
3,000¸UªºÃB¥~ªÑ§Q©Ò±oµ|¡A¦A±N³Ñ¤Uªº2»õ2,000¸U¬ü¤¸¥[¨ì¥»¨Óªº±b¦C¬Õ
¾l3»õ7,100¸U¡A©Ò±oªº5»õ9,000¸U¤j·§´N¬O§Ú­Ì¸g¹L³zµøªº¯u¥¿¬Õ¾l¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ As I mentioned last year, we hope to have look-through earnings
grow about 15% annually. In 1990 we substantially exceeded that rate
but in 1991 we will fall far short of it. Our Gillette preferred has been
called and we will convert it into common stock on April 1. This will
reduce reported earnings by about $35 million annually and
look-through earnings by a much smaller, but still significant, amount.
Additionally, our media earnings - both direct and look-through -
appear sure to decline. Whatever the results, we will post you annually
on how we are doing on a look-through basis.


´N¹³§Ú¥h¦~´¿¸g´£¨ìªº¡A§Ú§Æ±æ§Ú­Ìªº³zµø¬Õ¾l¨C¦~³£¯à°÷¦¨ªø15%¡A¦b1990
¦~§Ú­Ì½T¹ê¤j´T¶W¶V³o­Ó¤ñ²v¡A¦ý1991¦~µ²ªG«o®t«Ü¦h¡A§Ú­Ì¦b¦N¦Cªº¥iÂà´«
¯S§OªÑ§ë¸ê¤w¸g³QÅ«¦^¡A§Ú­Ì±N¦b4¤ë1¤é§â¥¦­ÌÂର´¶³qªÑ§ë¸ê¡AÁöµM³o±N
·|¨Ï±o§Ú­Ì¨C¦~ªº±b­±¬Õ¾l´î¤Ö3,500¸U¡A³zµø¬Õ¾l¤]·|¸òµÛ´î¤Ö¡A¥t¥~§Ú­Ì
¦b´CÅ鍯·~ªºª½±µ»P³zµø¬Õ¾l¤]¥i¯à¤U·Æ¡A¦ý¤£½×¦p¦ó¡A§Ú­Ì¨C¦~ÁÙ¬O·|¦V¤j®a
³ø§i³zµø¬Õ¾lªº­pºâµ²ªG¡C


Non-Insurance Operations

«D«OÀIÀç¹B

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Take another look at the figures on page 51, which aggregate the
earnings and balance sheets of our non-insurance operations.
After-tax earnings on average equity in 1990 were 51%, a result that
would have placed the group about 20th on the 1989 Fortune 500.

¬Ý¬Ý52­¶ªº¨º¨Ç¼Æ¦r¡A¥ç§Y§Ú­Ì«D«OÀI¨Æ·~ªº¬Õ¾l»P¸ê²£­t¶Å¥[Á`¡A1990¦~
ªº¥­§¡ªÑªFÅv¯q³ø¹S²v¬O51%¡A³o­ÓÀò§Q¯à¤O¦b1989¦~ªº°]¬P¤­¦Ê¤j¥i¥H±Æ
¦b«e20¦W¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Two factors make this return even more remarkable. First,
leverage did not produce it: Almost all our major facilities are owned,
not leased, and such small debt as these operations have is basically
offset by cash they hold. In fact, if the measurement was return on
assets - a calculation that eliminates the effect of debt upon returns -
our group would rank in Fortune's top ten.

ÁÙ¦³¨â¶µ¦]¯À¨Ï±o³o¼Ëªº¦¨ÁZÅã±o§ó¬°¥X¦â¡A²Ä¤@¥¦­Ì§¹¥þ¤£¾a¿Ä¸êºb±ì¡A´X¥G
©Ò¦³ªº¥D­n³]³Æ³£¬O¦Û¦³¦Ó¤£¬O¦V¥~­±¯²ªº¡A¶È¦³ªº­t¶Å¥i¥H¥Ñ¦Û¦³ªº²{ª÷§¹¥þ
©è¾P¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W­YÁ¿¨ì¸ê²£³ø¹S²v¡A¥ç§Y¦©°£­t¶Å¹ï©ó¬Õ¾lªº¼vÅT¡A§Ú­Ì«D«OÀI¨Æ
·~¬Æ¦Ü¥i¥H±Æ¦b«e10¦W¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Equally important, our return was not earned from industries, such
as cigarettes or network television stations, possessing spectacular
economics for all participating in them. Instead it came from a group
of businesses operating in such prosaic fields as furniture retailing,
candy, vacuum cleaners, and even steel warehousing. The explanation
is clear: Our extraordinary returns flow from outstanding operating
managers, not fortuitous industry economics.


¦P¼Ë­«­nªº¬O§Ú­ÌªºÀò§Q¨Ã¤£¬O¨Ó¦Û©ó¹³­»·Ï©Î¬O¹qµø¥x³o¨Ç¾Ö¦³¯S®í¸gÀÙ«¬
ºAªº²£·~¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a¥¦­Ì¬O¨Ó¦Û©ó¤@¨Ç¦A¥­¤Z¤£¹Lªº²£·~¡A½Ñ¦p³Ã¨ã¹s°â¡B¿}ªG¡B
§l¹Ð¾¹¬Æ¦Ü¬O¿ûÅK­ÜÀxµ¥¡A³o¼Ëªº¸ÑÄÀ«Ü©ú¥Õ¡A§Ú­Ì±o¨Ó¤£©öªº³ø¹S¥D­n¬O¾aÀu
¨q³Ç¥Xªº¸g²z¤H«á¤Ñªº§V¤O¦Ó«D¥ý¤Ñªº²£·~Àô¹ÒÀu¶Õ¡C


Let's look at the larger operations:

Åý§Ú­Ì¨Ó¬Ý¬Ý¨ä¤¤¤ñ¸û¤jªºÀç¹B

o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It was a poor year for retailing - particularly for big-ticket items
- but someone forgot to tell Ike Friedman at Borsheim's. Sales were up
18%. That's both a same-stores and all-stores percentage, since
Borsheim's operates but one establishment.

¥h¦~¹ï¹s°â·~¨Ó»¡ºâ¬O¬Û·íºG²Hªº¤@¦~¡A¤×¨ä¬O³æ»ù°ªªºªF¦è¡A¤£¹L¤j®a¥i¯à¬O
§Ñ¤F´£¿ô¦bªi¥P¯]Ä_©±Ike Friedman³o¶µ¨Æ¹ê¡A¾É­P¥L©±¸Ìªº·~ÁZ°f¶Õ¦¨ªø¤F
18%¡A³o¬O³æ©±¤]¬O¥þ©±ªº¼Æ¦r¡A¦Û±qªi¥P¶È¦¹¤@®a§OµL¤À¸¹ªº¦Ñ©±¶}¹õ¥H¨Ó´N
¬O¦p¦¹¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ But, oh, what an establishment! We can't be sure about the fact
(because most fine-jewelry retailers are privately owned) but we
believe that this jewelry store does more volume than any other in the
U.S., except for Tiffany's New York store.

³á!¶W¼F®`ªº¤@®a©±¡A§Ú­Ì¹ê¦b¤£¤Ó´±¬Û«H³o¬O¨Æ¹ê¡A(¦]¬°¤j³¡¤À³Ì°ª¯Åªº¯]Ä_
©±¦h¬O¨p¤H¾Ö¦³)¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì«o¬Û«H³o®a©±°£¤F¯Ã¬ùªºTiffany¤§¥~¡A¥þ¬ü¨ä¥L©Ò
¦³ªº¯]Ä_©±¨S¦³¤@®a¤ñ±o¤W¥¦¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Borsheim's could not do nearly that well if our customers came
only from the Omaha metropolitan area, whose population is about
600,000. We have long had a huge percentage of greater Omaha's
jewelry business, so growth in that market is necessarily limited. But
every year business from non-Midwest customers grows dramatically.
Many visit the store in person. A large number of others, however, buy
through the mail in a manner you will find interesting.

ªi¥Pªº«È¤á¸s­Y¥u¦³¤j¶øº¿«¢³£·|°Ï600¸U¤H¤fªº¸Ü¡A¥Í·N¥i¯à¨S¦³¿ìªk°µªº
¨º»ò¤j¡Aªø¤[¥H¨Ó§Ú­Ì¦b¶øº¿«¢¦a°Ïªº¦û¦³²v¤@ª½´N«Ü°ª¡A¤£¹L³o³¡¥÷ªº¦¨ªø¼ç
¤O¹ê¦b¬O¦³­­¡A©Ò©¯¨C¦~¨Ó¦Û«D¤¤¦è³¡¦a°Ïªº¥Í·N³£¤j´T¦¨ªø¡A«Ü¦h³£¬O«È¤á¦Û
¤v¼}¦W¦Ó¨Ó³æ¿W¤Wªù¡A¦ýÁÙ¦³¤@¤j³¡¤À¬O³z¹L¬Û·í¦³½ìªº¶lÁʤ覡ÁʶR§Ú­Ìªº²£
«~¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ These customers request a jewelry selection of a certain type and
value - say, emeralds in the $10,000 -$20,000 range - and we then
send them five to ten items meeting their specifications and from
which they can pick. Last year we mailed about 1,500 assortments of
all kinds, carrying values ranging from under $1,000 to hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

³o¨Ç«È¤á¤j¦h«ü©w­n¤@©w«~½è»P»ù¦ìªº¯]Ä_¡A¨Ò¦p1¸U¨ì2¸U¬ü¤¸ªººñÄ_¥Û¡A
¤§«á§Ú­Ì·|°e¤W¤­¨ì¤Q­Ó²Å¦X¥L­Ì­n¨Dªº¼Ë«~¨Ñ¥L­Ì°µ¬D¿ï¡A¥h¦~§Ú­ÌÁ`¦@±H¥X
¶W¹L1,500ºØ²Õ¦X¡A¨CºØ²Õ¦Xªº»ù­È±q1,000¬ü¤¸¨ì´X¤Q¸U¬ü¤¸¤£µ¥¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The selections are sent all over the country, some to people no
one at Borsheim's has ever met. (They must always have been well
recommended, however.) While the number of mailings in 1990 was a
record, Ike has been sending merchandise far and wide for decades.
Misanthropes will be crushed to learn how well our "honor-system"
works: We have yet to experience a loss from customer dishonesty.

³o¨Ç²£«~³Q¤À°e¨ì¥þ¬ü¦U¦a¡A¦³¨Ç¤H¬Oªi¥P¯À¥¼¿Ñ­±ªº¡A(·íµM¥L­Ì¥²¶·­n¸g¹L
§O¤H¾G­«ªº±ÀÂË)¡AÁöµM³o­Ó¼Æ¶q¦b1990¦~¹F¨ì°ª®p¡A¦ý¨Æ¹êIke¦b´X¤Q¦~¥H
«e´N¶}©l³o¼Ëªº³ÐÁ|¡A¹½¥@ªÌ¦b±oª¾§Ú­Ì©Ò¹ê¬IªººaÅA¨î«×¥i¯à·|±Y¼ì¡AºI¦Ü¥Ø
«e¬°¤î§Ú­ÌÁÙ¨S¦³¦]¬°«È¤áªº¤£¸Û¹ê¦Ó¾D¨ü·l¥¢¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We attract business nationwide because we have several
advantages that competitors can't match. The most important item in
the equation is our operating costs, which run about 18% of sales
compared to 40% or so at the typical competitor. (Included in the 18%
are occupancy and buying costs, which some public companies include
in "cost of goods sold.") Just as Wal-Mart, with its 15% operating costs,
sells at prices that high-cost competitors can't touch and thereby
constantly increases its market share, so does Borsheim's. What works
with diapers works with diamonds.

§Ú­Ì¤§©Ò¥H¯à°÷§l¤Þ¥þ¬ü¦U¦aªº¥Í·N¤Wªù¥D­n¬O¦]¬°§Ú­Ì¦³´X¶µÀu¶Õ¬O¨ä¥LÄv
ª§¹ï¤â©ÒµLªk¤ñÀÀªº¡A¨ä¤¤³Ì­«­nªº¤@¶µ´N¬O¸gÀ窺¦¨¥»¡A¬Û¸û©ó¦P·~ªº40%
ªº°ª¤ñ²v¡Aªi¥PªºÀç·~¦¨¥»¤j·§¬OÀç·~ÃBªº18%(³o¥]§t«ù¦³»P¶R¶i¦¨¥»¡A¦³¨Ç
¤½¶}µo¦æªº¤j¤½¥qÁÙ§â¥L­Ì¦C¦b¾P³f¦¨¥»¶µ¤U)¡A´N¹³¬OWal-MartªºÀç·~¶O¥Î
²v¥u¦³15%¡A¦]¦¹¥i¥H¥H¨ä¥L°ª¦¨¥»Ävª§ªÌµLªk¹F¨ìªº»ù¦ì¾P°â¡A±q¦Ó«ùÄò¦a
¼W¥[¨ä¥«³õ¦û¦³²v¡Aªi¥P¤]¬O¦p¦¹¡A¦P¼Ëªº¤è¦¡°£¤F½æ§¿¥¬¥H¥~¡A´«°µ©ó½æÆp¥Û
¤@¼ËºÞ¥Î¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Our low prices create huge volume that in turn allows us to carry
an extraordinarily broad inventory of goods, running ten or more
times the size of that at the typical fine-jewelry store. Couple our
breadth of selection and low prices with superb service and you can
understand how Ike and his family have built a national jewelry
phenomenon from an Omaha location.

¥Ñ©ó»ù®æ§C·G©Ò¥H¾P°â¼Æ¶q¤]¬Û·í¤j¡A¦]¦¹§Ú­Ì¥i¥H³Æ¦³¦U¦¡¦U¼Ëªº²£«~¦s³f¡A
¤ñ°_¨ä¥L©±³W¼Ò»P¼Æ¶q¬Æ¦Ü¶W¹L¤Q­¿¤§¦h¡A°£¤FºØÃþ»ô¥þ¡B»ù®æ§C·G¤§¥~¡A¦A¥[
¤W§Ú­Ì¶K¤ßªºªA°È¡A³o¤]¬O¬°¤°»òIke»P¥Lªº®a®x¥i¥H¦b¶øº¿«¢³o­Ó¤p¦a¤è³Ð³y
¥X¥þ¬ü»D¦Wªº¯]Ä_¶Ç©_¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ And family it is. Ike's crew always includes son Alan and
sons-in-law Marvin Cohn and Donald Yale. And when things are busy
- that's often - they are joined by Ike's wife, Roz, and his daughters,
Janis and Susie. In addition, Fran Blumkin, wife of Louie (Chairman of
Nebraska Furniture Mart and Ike's cousin), regularly pitches in. Finally,
you'll find Ike's 89-year-old mother, Rebecca, in the store most
afternoons, Wall Street Journal in hand. Given a family commitment
like this, is it any surprise that Borsheim's runs rings around
competitors whose managers are thinking about how soon 5 o'clock
will arrive?


¯u¬Oªê¤÷µL¤ü¤l¡AIkeªº¹Î¶¤Á`¤Ö¤£¤F¥L¨à¤lAlan»P¤k´BMarvin©MDonald¡A
¦Ó¥B­n¬O¥Í·N¦£¤£¹L¨Óªº¸Ü¡AIkeªº¦Ñ±CRoz¸ò¥Lªº¤k¨à­ÌJanis»PSusieÁÙ·|
¸õ¶i¨ÓÀ°¦£¡A¥t¥~Fran Blumkin-Louieªº¦Ñ±C(¤º¥¬©Ô´µ¥[³Ã¨ã©±ªº¦ÑÁó-Ike
ªºË»¤l)¡A¦³®É¤]·|´¡ªáÀ°¦£¡A³Ì«á¤j®aµ´¹ï¤£­n§Ñ¤FÁÙ¦³°ªÄÖ89·³ªº¦Ñ¯ª¥À
Rebecca¡A¨C¤Ñ¤U¤È³£·|¤â®³µØº¸µó¤é³ø§¤Âí©±¸Ì¡A¯à°÷¦³¤@­Ó®a±Ú¹³³o¼Ëªº§ë
¤J¡A¤]Ãø©Ç¥L­Ì¥i¥H»´ÃPÀ»±Ñ¨º¨Ç¥Ñ¨C¤Ñ¥uµ¥¤­ÂI¤U¯Zªº±M·~¸g²z¤H©Ò¸gÀ窺
©±¡C


o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ While Fran Blumkin was helping the Friedman family set records
at Borsheim's, her sons, Irv and Ron, along with husband Louie, were
setting records at The Nebraska Furniture Mart. Sales at our
one-and-only location were $159 million, up 4% from 1989. Though
again the fact can't be conclusively proved, we believe NFM does close
to double the volume of any other home furnishings store in the
country.

·íFran BlumkinÀ°§UFriedman®a±Ú³Ð³yªi¥P¯]Ä_©±ªº°O¿ý®É¡A¦oªº¥ý¥Í
Louie¦A·f°t¨à¤lIrv»PRon¡A¦P®É¤]¦b¤º¥¬©Ô´µ¥[³Ã¨ã©±³Ð³y°O¿ý¡A1990¦~
³æ©±ªºÀç·~ÃB1.59»õ¬ü¤¸¡A¸û«e¤@¦~«×¼W¥[4%¡AÁöµM¨S¦³ºë½Tªº²Î­p¼Æ¦r¡A
¦ý§Ú­Ì¬Û«HNFMªº¾P°â¶q³Ì¤Ö¬O¥þ¬ü¨ä¥L¦P·~ªº¨â­¿¥H¤W¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The NFM formula for success parallels that of Borsheim's. First,
operating costs are rock-bottom - 15% in 1990 against about 40% for
Levitz, the country's largest furniture retailer, and 25% for Circuit City
Stores, the leading discount retailer of electronics and appliances.
Second, NFM's low costs allow the business to price well below all
competitors. Indeed, major chains, knowing what they will face, steer
clear of Omaha. Third, the huge volume generated by our bargain
prices allows us to carry the broadest selection of merchandise
available anywhere.

NFM¦¨¥\ªº¤èµ{¦¡»Pªi¥P¤Q¤Àªº¬Ûªñ¡A­º¥ý¸gÀ禨¥»¹ê¦b¬O¦³°÷§C¡A1990¦~
¬Û¸û©ó¥þ¬ü³Ì¤j³Ã¨ã¹s°â°ÓLevitzªº40%»P®a¥Î¹q¾¹§é¦©¶q³c©±Circuit City
ªº25%¡ANFM³º¥u¦³15%¡A²Ä¤G¤]¥Ñ©ó¦¨¥»§C¡A©Ò¥HNFMªº²£«~­q»ù´N¥i¥H
¤ñÄvª§¦P·~§C³\¦h¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W³\¦h³q¸ô°Ó¤]«Ü²M·¡³o¤@ÂI¡A©Ò¥H¥L­Ì°ß¤@ªº°µªk´N
¬OºÉ¶q»·Â÷¶øº¿«¢¦a°Ï¡A²Ä¤T«K©yªº»ù®æ¾É­P¾P¶q¤j¦n¡A±q¦Ó¥i¥HÅý§Ú­Ì³Æ¦³§ó
¦h§O³B©Ò¬Ý¤£¨ì¡AºØÃþ»ô¥þªº²£«~¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Some idea of NFM's merchandising power can be gleaned from a
recent report of consumer behavior in Des Moines, which showed that
NFM was Number 3 in popularity among 20 furniture retailers serving
that city. That may sound like no big deal until you consider that 19 of
those retailers are located in Des Moines, whereas our store is 130
miles away. This leaves customers driving a distance equal to that
between Washington and Philadelphia in order to shop with us, even
though they have a multitude of alternatives next door. In effect, NFM,
like Borsheim's, has dramatically expanded the territory it serves - not
by the traditional method of opening new stores but rather by creating
an irresistible magnet that employs price and selection to pull in the
crowds.

¦³ÃöNFMªº°Ó«~Å]¤O¥i¥H±q³ÌªñDes Moines¦a°Ïªº®ø¶OªÌ¦æ¬°½Õ¬d³ø§i¤¤¬Ý
¥XºÝ­Ù¡ANFM¦b¸Ó¦a°Ï©Ò¦³ªº20®a³Ã¨ã¹s°â°Ó·í¤¤±Æ¦W²Ä¤T¡A³o°T®§¥EÅ¥¤§
¤U©Î³\¨S¤°»ò¤F¤£±o¡A¦ý§A¥iª¾¹D¨ä¥L19®a³£¦ì¦bDes Moines¡A°£¤FNFM
Â÷¸Ó¦a°Ï¨¬¨¬¦³130­^­ù»·¡A³o¶ZÂ÷¥Nªí·í¦aªº©~¥ÁÁöµM¦bªþªñ¦³§ó¦hªº¿ï
¾Ü¡A«oÁÙ¬O±¡Ä@¤j¦Ñ»·¶}¨®¨«¬Û·í±qµØ²±¹y¨ì¶O«°ªº¶ZÂ÷¡A¥u¬°¤F¶R§Ú­Ìªº²£
«~¡A¨Æ¹ê¤WNFM´N¹³ªi¥P¤@¼Ë¡A«æ³t¦aÂX±i¨äª©¹Ï½d³ò¡A¾aªº¤£¬O¶Ç²Î¦a®i©±
¼Ò¦¡¡A¦Ó¬O§Q¥Î»ù®æ»PºØÃþ´²µo¥X±j¯PªººÏ³õ¡A§l¤Þ«È¤á»·¹D¦Ó¨Ó¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Last year at the Mart there occurred an historic event: I
experienced a counterrevelation. Regular readers of this report know
that I have long scorned the boasts of corporate executives about
synergy, deriding such claims as the last refuge of scoundrels
defending foolish acquisitions. But now I know better: In Berkshire's
first synergistic explosion, NFM put a See's candy cart in the store late
last year and sold more candy than that moved by some of the
full-fledged stores See's operates in California. This success
contradicts all tenets of retailing. With the Blumkins, though, the
impossible is routine.

¥h¦~¦b³Ã¨ã©±µo¥Í¤F¤@¥ó­«¤jªº¾ú¥v¨Æ¥ó¡A¨Ï§Ú¸g¾ú¤F¤@¦¸¦Û§Ú¤Ï¬Ù¡A¸g±`¾\Ū
§Ú­Ì¦~³øªºÅªªÌÀ³¸Ó³£ª¾¹Dªø¤[¥H¨Ó§Ú¹ï©ó¥ø·~¥DºÞ°Ê¤£°Ê´N±j½Õªº¥ø·~ºî®Ä
¶½¤§¥H»ó¡A»{¬°³o¤£¹L¬O¸gÀç¶¥¼h¹ï©ó·MÄøÁʨ֮שҧ@ªº±À¦«¤§µü¡A¤£¹L²{¦b§Ú
¾Ç¨Ä¤F¡A¦bBerkshire§Ú­Ì³Ð³y¥X²Ä¤@­Ó¥ø·~ºî®Ä¡ANFM¦b¥h¦~©³¨M©w¦b©±¤º
Â\³]³ß´µªº¿}ªG¨®¡Aµ²ªG©Ò½æ¥Xªº¿}ªG¬Æ¦Ü¤ñ¥[¦{ªººXÄ¥©±ÁÙ­n¦h¡A³o¦¸ªº¦¨¥\
¥´¯}¤F©Ò¦³¹s°â·~ªº©w«ß¡A¦³B¤Ó¤Ó®a±Ú¦b¡A©Ò¦³¤£¥i¯àªº¨Æ³£Åܦ¨®a±`«K¶º¡C


o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At See's, physical volume set a record in 1990 - but only barely
and only because of good sales early in the year. After the invasion of
Kuwait, mall traffic in the West fell. Our poundage volume at Christmas
dropped slightly, though our dollar sales were up because of a 5%
price increase.

´£¨ì³ß´µ¿}ªG¡A1990¦~ªº¾P°â¼Æ¶q¤S³Ð·s°ª¡A¤£¹L¦¨ªø¬Û·í¦³­­¥B¥D­n¬O«ô¦~
ªì·~ÁZ¤j¦n©Ò­P¡A¦b¥ì©Ô§J¤J«I¬ì«Â¯S¤§«á¡A¦è¤è¥@¬Éªº¥æ³q¬¡°Ê¤j´î¡A¨Ï±o¸t
½Ï¸`ªº¾P°â¼Æ¶qµy·L¤U·Æ¡AÁöµM¦]¬°½Õ¾ã»ù®æªºÃö«Y¡A¨Ï±o§Ú­ÌªºÀ禬¦¨ªø¤F
5%¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ That increase, and better control of expenses, improved profit
margins. Against the backdrop of a weak retailing environment, Chuck
Huggins delivered outstanding results, as he has in each of the
nineteen years we have owned See's. Chuck's imprint on the business
- a virtual fanaticism about quality and service - is visible at all of our
225 stores.

¾P°âª÷ÃB¼W¥[¥[¤WÀç·~¶O¥Î±±¨î±o·í¡AÀò§Q¤]¦³©Ò§ïµ½¡A­±¹ï¹s°â·~¤jÀô¹Ò¤£¨Î
ªºµ~¹Ò¡A´N¦p¦P¹L¥h¥L±µ¤â«áªº19¦~¡AChuck HugginsÁÙ¬O¤@¦p©¹±`»¼¥Xº}
«Gªº¦¨ÁZ³æ¡AChuck¹ï©ó«~½è»PªA°Èªº°í«ù¡A¦b§Ú­Ì©Ò¦³225®a¤À©±¤¤³£¬Ý±o
¨ì¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ One happening in 1990 illustrates the close bond between See's
and its customers. After 15 years of operation, our store in
Albuquerque was endangered: The landlord would not renew our lease,
wanting us instead to move to an inferior location in the mall and even
so to pay a much higher rent. These changes would have wiped out
the store's profit. After extended negotiations got us nowhere, we set
a date for closing the store.

1990¦~©Òµo¥Íªº¤@¥ó¨Æ³Ì¨¬¥H»¡©ú³ß´µ¿}ªG»P«È¤á¤§¶¡ºò±KªºÃö«Y¡A¸g¹L15
¦~ªºÀç¹B¡A§Ú­Ì¦bAlbuquerqueªº¤À©±¸gÀçµo¥Í¦M¾÷¡A¦a¥D¤£Ä@»P§Ú­ÌÄ~Äòñ
­q¯²¬ù¡A¤Ï¦Ó§Æ±æ§Ú­Ì·h¨ìÁʪ«°Ó³õ¦aÂI¸û®tªºÅu¦ì¡A¨Ã¥BÁÙ­n½Õº¦¯²ª÷¡A¦p¦¹
¤@¨Ó±N·|§â§Ú­Ì¶È¦³ªº§Q¼íµ¹¦Y¥ú¡A¸g¹L¨ó½Õ¤£¦¨¡A­¢¤£±o¤w§Ú­Ì¶K¥Xªº§Y±N°±
·~ªº§i¥Ü¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ On her own, the store's manager, Ann Filkins, then took action,
urging customers to protest the closing. Some 263 responded by
sending letters and making phone calls to See's headquarters in San
Francisco, in some cases threatening to boycott the mall. An alert
reporter at the Albuquerque paper picked up the story. Supplied with
this evidence of a consumer uprising, our landlord offered us a
satisfactory deal. (He, too, proved susceptible to a counterrevelation.)

¤§«á¾aµÛ©±¸g²zAnn Filkins­Ó¤Hªº§V¤O¡A±Ä¨ú¦æ°Ê´°«P«È¤á­Ì¹³©ÐªFªí¹F§Ü
ij¡AÁ`­p¦³263¦ì«È¤á¼g«H©Î¥´¹q¸Ü¨ì³ß´µ¦ì©óª÷¤sªºÁ`³¡¡A¦³ªº¬Æ¦Ü´­¨¥
­n©è¨îÁʪ«°Ó³õ¡A¬Æ¦Ü¤Þ°_·í¦a°OªÌªºª`·N¡A¤j´T¥Z¸ü³o¶µ®ø®§¡A¦³¤F²³¦h«È¤á
ªº¤ä«ù¡A©ÐªF³Ì«á²×©ó§´¨ó¡A´£¨Ñ¤@­Ó¥O§Ú­Ìº¡·Nªº±ø¥ó(§Ú·Q¥LÀ³¸Ó¤]±o¨ì¤@
­Ó¦Û§Ú¤Ï¬Ùªº¾÷·|±Ð¨|)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Chuck subsequently wrote personal letters of thanks to every
loyalist and sent each a gift certificate. He repeated his thanks in a
newspaper ad that listed the names of all 263. The sequel: Christmas
sales in Albuquerque were up substantially.

¨Æ«áChuck¹ï³ß´µ©Ò¦³©¾¹êªº¤ä«ùªÌ¤@¤@¼gµ¹¨C­Ó¤H¿Ëµ§ªº·PÁ¨ç¡A¨Ã¦b³ø¯È
¤W¥Zµn©Ò¦³263¦ì«È¤á¦W³æ¡A«áÄòªºµo®i¬O§Ú­Ì¦bAlbuquerque¤À©±ªº·~ÁZ
¤j´T¦¨ªø¡C


o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Charlie and I were surprised at developments this past year in the
media industry, including newspapers such as our Buffalo News. The
business showed far more vulnerability to the early stages of a
recession than has been the case in the past. The question is whether
this erosion is just part of an aberrational cycle - to be fully made up
in the next upturn - or whether the business has slipped in a way that
permanently reduces intrinsic business values.

¬d²z¸ò§Ú¹ï©ó¹L¥h´X¦~´CÅ鍯·~ªºµo®i·P¨ì¬Û·íªº·N¥~¡A¥]§t¤ô¤û«°¤é³øµ¥³ø¯È
¦b¤º¡A³o­Ó²£·~²{¦b¦]¬°¸gÀÙ°I°h©Ò¨ü¨ìªº¶Ë®`¡A­n¤ñ¹L¥hªº¸gÅç­n¨ÓªºÄY­«³\
¦h¡A°ÝÃD¬O³oºØ°h¤Æ¥u¬O¦]¬°´º®ð´`Àôªº¼È®É¥¢½Õ©O? (·N¨ýµÛ¤U¦¸´º®ð½´­·|¦A
¦^´_)¡A©Î¬O¦³¥i¯à¤@¥h¤£´_ªð¡A¥ø·~ªº»ù­È´N¦¹¥Ã»·¦a¬y¥¢±¼¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Since I didn't predict what has happened, you may question the
value of my prediction about what will happen. Nevertheless, I'll
proffer a judgment: While many media businesses will remain
economic marvels in comparison with American industry generally,
they will prove considerably less marvelous than I, the industry, or
lenders thought would be the case only a few years ago.

¦]¬°§Ú¨S¯à¹w®Æ¨ì¤w¸gµo¥Íªº¨Æ¡A©Ò¥H§A¥i¯à·|½èºÃ§Ú¹w´ú¥¼¨Óªº¯à¤O¡AºÉºÞ¦p
¦¹§ÚÁÙ¬O´£¨Ñ­Ó¤Hªº§PÂ_¨Ñ¤j®a°Ñ¦Ò¡AÁöµM¬Û¸û©ó¬ü°ê¨ä¥L²£·~¡A´CÅ鍯·~¤´µM
ºû«ù¤@­Ó¤£¿ùªº¸gÀÙºa´º¡A¤£¹LÁÙ¬O»·¤£¦p§Ú­Ó¤H¡B²£·~¬É©Î¬O­É´Ú¤H´X¦~«eªº
¹w´Á¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The reason media businesses have been so outstanding in the
past was not physical growth, but rather the unusual pricing power
that most participants wielded. Now, however, advertising dollars are
growing slowly. In addition, retailers that do little or no media
advertising (though they sometimes use the Postal Service) have
gradually taken market share in certain merchandise categories. Most
important of all, the number of both print and electronic advertising
channels has substantially increased. As a consequence, advertising
dollars are more widely dispersed and the pricing power of ad vendors
has diminished. These circumstances materially reduce the intrinsic
value of our major media investments and also the value of our
operating unit, Buffalo News - though all remain fine businesses.

´CÅ鍯·~¹L¥h¥u©Ò¥H¯à¦³¦p¦¹Àu²§ªºªí²{¡A¨Ã¤£¬O¦]¬°¾P°â¼Æ¶q¤Wªº¦¨ªø¡A¦Ó¥D
­n¬O¾a©Ò¦³ªº·~ªÌ¹B¥Î«D¤ñ´M±`ªº»ù®æ¥D¾É¤O¶q¡A¤£¹L®É¦Ü¤µ¤é¡A¼s§i¹wºâ¦¨ªø
¤w¤j¤£¦p«e¡A¦¹¥~³vº¥¨ú±o°Ó«~¾P°â¥«³õ¦û¦³²vªº¤@¯ë¹s°â³q¸ô°Ó®Ú¥»´N¤£°µ´C
Åé¼s§i(ÁöµM¦³®É¥L­Ì·|°µ¶lÁʪA°È)¡A³Ì­«­nªº¬O¦L¨ê»P¹q¤l¼s§i´CÅé³q¸ô¤j´T
¼W¥[¡A¦]¦¹¼s§i¹wºâ³Q¤j´T«×¦a¤À´²µ}ÄÀ¡A¼s§i°ÓªºÄ³»ù¯à¤O³vº¥³à¥¢¬pºÉ¡A³o
ºØªº²{¶H¤j¤j¦a´î§C§Ú­Ì©Ò«ù¦³´X­Ó¥D­n´CÅ鍯·~§ë¸ê»P¤ô¤û«°³ø¯Èªº¹ê»Ú»ù
­È¡AÁöµM¤jÅé¦Ó¨¥¡A¥L­Ì³£ÁÙºâ¬O¤£¿ùªº¥ø·~¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Notwithstanding the problems, Stan Lipsey's management of the
News continues to be superb. During 1990, our earnings held up
much better than those of most metropolitan papers, falling only 5%.
In the last few months of the year, however, the rate of decrease was
far greater.

¤£¬Ý³o¨Ç°ÝÃD¡AStan Lipseyªº·s»D¨Æ·~¸gÀçÁÙ¬O¬Û·í¦a³Ç¥X¡A1990¦~§Ú­Ìªº
¬Õ¾l¤ñ°_¨ä¥L¥D­n³£·|¦a°Ïªº³ø¯È­n¦nªº¦h¡A¤j·§¥u¤U·Æ¤F5%¡AÁöµM¥h¦~¦³´X
­Ó¤ë¥÷¡A´î¤Öªº´T«×µy·L¤j¤F¤@ÂI¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ I can safely make two promises about the News in 1991: (1) Stan
will again rank at the top among newspaper publishers; and (2)
earnings will fall substantially. Despite a slowdown in the demand for
newsprint, the price per ton will average significantly more in 1991
and the paper's labor costs will also be considerably higher. Since
revenues may meanwhile be down, we face a real squeeze.

®i±æ1991¦~§Ú¥i¥H«Ü¦w¤ß¦a¦V¤j®a°µ¥X¨â­Ó«OÃÒ(1)Stan±N·|Ä~Äò¦b©Ò¦³ªº¥D
­n·s»D¥Xª©ªÌ·í¤¤¦W¦C«e­T(2)¬Õ¾l¤@©w·|¤j´TÁY¤ô¡A¦]¬°ÁöµM·s»D¦L¨ê»Ý¨D¤j
´TÁY¤ô¡A¦ý¨C¾·¦L¨ê¦¨¥»»P³Ò¤u¦¨¥»ÁÙ¬O·|¤j´T¼W¥[¡A¦A¥[¤WÀ禬¤U­°¡A­±Á{¨â
ÀYÀ½À£ªºµ~¹Ò¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Profits may be off but our pride in the product remains. We
continue to have a larger "news hole" - the portion of the paper
devoted to news - than any comparable paper. In 1990, the proportion
rose to 52.3% against 50.1% in 1989. Alas, the increase resulted from
a decline in advertising pages rather than from a gain in news pages.
Regardless of earnings pressures, we will maintain at least a 50% news
hole. Cutting product quality is not a proper response to adversity.

Àò§QÁöµMÁY¤ô¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì¹ï©ó²£«~¨ÌµM·P¨ìź¶Æ¡A¤ñ°_¨ä¥L¬Û¦P³W¼Òªº³ø¯È¡A§Ú­Ì
¾Ö¦³¶W°ªªº·s»D¤ñ²v-·s»D¦û³ø¯È©Ò¦³ª©­±ªº¤ñ²v¡A±q1989¦~ªº50.1%¼W¥[¬°
52.3%¡A¥u¥i±¤¼W¥[ªº­ì¦]¬O¦]¬°¼s§i¶qªº´î¤Ö¡A¦Ó¤£¬O·s»Dª©­±ªº¼W¥[¡AÁöµM
¨ü¨ì¬Õ¾l¤£¤pªºÀ£¤O¡A¦ý§Ú­ÌÁÙ¬O·|°í«ù50%ªº·s»D¤ñ²v¡A­°§C²£«~ªº«~½è¤£
¬O¨­³B°f¹Ò³Ì¦nªºÀ³¹ï¤è¦¡¡C


o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The news at Fechheimer, our manufacturer and retailer of
uniforms, is all good with one exception: George Heldman, at 69, has
decided to retire. I tried to talk him out of it but he had one irrefutable
argument: With four other Heldmans - Bob, Fred, Gary and Roger - to
carry on, he was leaving us with an abundance of managerial talent.

±µ¤U¨Ó¬O§Ú­Ì¨îªAªº»s³y»P¾P°â°Ó¶O°Ï®üÀqªº¦n®ø®§¡A°£¤F¤@­ÓÃa®ø®§¤§¥~¡A¨º
´N¬O69·³ªºGeorge Heldman¨M©w­n°h¥ð¡A§Ú´¿¸g¸ÕµÛ»¡ªA¥L¡A¤£¹L¥L¦³¤@
¶µ¥O¤HµLªk©Úµ´ªº²z¥Ñ¡A¦]¬°¥L¯d¤U¤F¨ä¥L¥|¦ìHeldmans®a±Úªº¦¨­û-Bob¡B
Fred¡BGary»PRoger°µ±µ¯Z¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Fechheimer's operating performance improved considerably in
1990, as many of the problems we encountered in integrating the
large acquisition we made in 1988 were moderated or solved. However,
several unusual items caused the earnings reported in the "Sources"
table to be flat. In the retail operation, we continue to add stores and
now have 42 in 22 states. Overall, prospects appear excellent for
Fechheimer.

¶O°Ï®üÀqªº¸gÀçÁZ®Ä¦b1990¦~¤S¤j´T¼W¶i¡A¦]¬°¥ý«e¦b1988¦~¤j«¬ªºÁʨ֩Ò
²£¥Íªº°ÝÃD¤w³vº¥Àò±o¸Ñ¨M¡AµM¦Ó¥Ñ©ó´X­Ó¯S®íªº¨Æ¥ó¨Ï±o§Ú­Ì¤µ¦~ªº¬Õ¾lªí²{
¥­¥­¡A¦b¹s°âªº³¡¥÷¡A§Ú­Ì«ùÄò¦a©Ý®i©±­±¡A¥Ø«e¦b¥þ¬ü22­Ó¦{¾Ö¦³42®a©±¡A
Á`¨¥¤§¡A§Ú­Ì¹ï©ó¶O°Ï®üÀqªº«e´º¤´µM¬Û·í¬Ý¦n¡C


o¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At Scott Fetzer, Ralph Schey runs 19 businesses with a mastery
few bring to running one. In addition to overseeing three entities listed
on page 6 - World Book, Kirby, and Scott Fetzer Manufacturing - Ralph
directs a finance operation that earned a record $12.2 million pre-tax
in 1990.

½ü¨ì¥v¦Ò¯S­¸¯÷¡ARalph Schey¸gÀç19®a¥ø·~ªº¤âªk¤ñ°_¤@¯ë¤H¸gÀç¤@­ÓÁÙ¼_
¼ô¡A°£¤F«á­±©Ò±Ô­zªº¤T®a¥ø·~-¥@¬É¦Ê¬ì¥þ®Ñ¡B±F¤ñ§l¹Ð¾¹»P¥v¦Ò¯S­¸¯÷»s³y
¤½¥q¤§¥~¡ARalph¬Æ¦ÜÁÙ´xºÞ¤@®a¦~µ|«eÀò§Q1,220¸U¬ü¤¸ªº°]°È¤½¥q¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Were Scott Fetzer an independent company, it would rank close to
the top of the Fortune 500 in terms of return on equity, although it is
not in businesses that one would expect to be economic champs. The
superior results are directly attributable to Ralph.

¦pªG¥v¦Ò¯S­¸¯÷¬O¤@­Ó¿W¥ßªº¶°¹Î¡A¥¦¦b°]´I¤­¦Ê¤jªÑªFÅv¯q³ø¹S²vªº±Æ¦W¤@©w
¯à¦W¦C«e­T¡AÁöµM¥¦©Ò³Bªº²£·~«ÜÃø¥X²{Ä£²´ªº©ú¬P¡A¦ý³o¨ÇÃø±oªº¦¨ÁZ¥þ³£­n
Âk¥\©óRalph¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At World Book, earnings improved on a small decrease in unit
volume. The costs of our decentralization move were considerably less
in 1990 than 1989 and the benefits of decentralization are being
realized. World Book remains far and away the leader in United States
encyclopedia sales and we are growing internationally, though from a
small base.

¥@¬É¦Ê¬ì¥þ®Ñ¡AÁöµM¾P°â¼Æ¶q²¤·L¤U·Æ¡A¦ý¬Õ¾l«oÅܨΡA1990¦~¦]¤À´²¨Mµ¦¤¤
¤ßªº°µªk©Ò¶·­t¾áªº¦¨¥»¸û1989¦~´î¤Ö¡A¦Ó¨ä©Ò±a¨Óªº®Ä¯q«o³vº¥Åã²{¡A¥@¬É
¦Ê¬ì¥þ®Ñ¦b¥þ¬ü¦Ê¬ì¥þ®Ñ¾P°â¤¤¨Ì¿W¥eÆRÀY¡A¦Ü©ó®ü¥~¥«³õ¤è­±ÁöµM°ò¦³W¼Ò
¸û¤p¡A¦ý«o«ùÄò¦a¦¨ªø¤¤¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Kirby unit volume grew substantially in 1990 with the help of our
new vacuum cleaner, The Generation 3, which was an unqualified
success. Earnings did not grow as fast as sales because of both
start-up expenditures and "learning-curve" problems we encountered
in manufacturing the new product. International business, whose
dramatic growth I described last year, had a further 20% sales gain in
1990. With the aid of a recent price increase, we expect excellent
earnings at Kirby in 1991.

¨ü´f©ó·s´Úªº¯uªÅ§l¹Ð¾¹¡A±F¤ñ¦b1990¦~ªº¾P°â¼Æ¶q¤j¼W¡A²Ä¤T¥Nªº±À¥XµLºÃ
¬O¤@¤j³Ó§Q¡A¥Ñ©ó¥ý´Á¶}µo¦¨¥»»P·s²£«~»s³y©Ò­±Á{ªº¾Ç²ß¦±½u°ÝÃD¡A¨Ï±oÀò§Q
¼W¥[¤£­YÀ禬¦¨ªøªº´T«×¡A®ü¥~¥«³õ¤è­±¬Û¸û©ó¥h¦~Ãz¬µ©Êªº¦¨ªø¡A¤µ¦~¦A«×¦³
20%ªº¦¨ªø¡A¦Ó¥Ñ©ó³Ìªñ²£«~»ù®æ¦A«×½Õº¦¡A§Ú­Ì¹w´Á±F¤ñ¦b1991¦~ªºÀò§QÀ³
¸Ó·|§ó¦n¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Within the Scott Fetzer Manufacturing Group, Campbell Hausfeld,
its largest unit, had a particularly fine year. This company, the
country's leading producer of small and medium-sized air
compressors, achieved record sales of $109 million, more than 30% of
which came from products introduced during the last five years.

¦Ü©ó¥v¦Ò¯S­¸¯÷»s³y¤½¥q³¡¥÷¡A³Ì¤jªº³æ¦ìCampbell Hausfeld¤µ¦~ªºªí²{¯S
§O¦n¡A¥¦¬O¥þ¬ü¤¤¤p«¬ªÅ®ðÀ£ÁY¾÷ªº»â¾É«~µP¡A¦~«×Àç·~ÃB³Ð¤U1.09»õ¬ü¤¸ªº
·s°ª¡A¨ä¤¤¦³30%ªºÀ禬«Y¨Ó¦Û©ó³Ìªñ¤­¦~·s±À¥Xªº²£«~¡C

* * * * * * * * * * * *

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In looking at the figures for our non-insurance operations, you
will see that net worth increased by only $47 million in 1990 although
earnings were $133 million. This does not mean that our managers are
in any way skimping on investments that strengthen their business
franchises or that promote growth. Indeed, they diligently pursue both
goals.

¦b¬Ý§Ú­Ì«D«OÀI·~ªºÀç¹B¼Æ¦r®É¡A¤j®a¥i¯à·|¦n©_¬°¦ó§Ú­Ì¦~«×ªº¬Õ¾l¦³1.33
»õ¬ü¤¸¡A¦ý²b­È«o¥u¼W¥[¤F4,700¸U¬ü¤¸©O? ³o¨Ã¤£¥Nªí§Ú­Ìªº¸g²z¤H¥Î¥ô¦ó
¤èªk¨Ó±»»\¨ä¤½¥qªº¸gÀÙ¹ê¤O©Î¦¨ªø¼ç¤O¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W¥L­ÌµL¤£§V¤O°l¨D³o¨Ç¥Ø¼Ð¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ But they also never deploy capital without good reason. The result:
In the past five years they have funneled well over 80% of their
earnings to Charlie and me for use in new business and investment
opportunities.

¤£¹L¥L­Ì¤]±q¤£·|²@µL²z¥Ñ¦a®ö¶O¸êª÷¡A¹L¥h¤­¦~¥H¨Ó¥L­Ì±N©ÒÁȱoªº80%¬Õ
¾l°e¦^¥À¤½¥q¡A¥æµ¹¬d²z¸ò§Ú¹B¥Î¦b·sªº¨Æ·~»P§ë¸ê¾÷·|¤§¤W¡C


Insurance Operations

«OÀI·~Àç¹B

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Shown below is an updated version of our usual table presenting
key figures for the property-casualty insurance industry:

¤Uªí¬O²£ª«·N¥~ÀI·~ªº³Ì·sªº´X¶µ­«­n«ü¼Æ

Yearly Change Combined Ratio Yearly Change Inflation Rate

in Premiums After Policyholder in Incurred Measured by

Written (%) Dividends Losses (%) GNP Deflator (%)

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

1981 ..... 3.8 106.0 6.5 9.6

1982 ..... 3.7 109.6 8.4 6.5

1983 ..... 5.0 112.0 6.8 3.8

1984 ..... 8.5 118.0 16.9 3.8

1985 ..... 22.1 116.3 16.1 3.0

1986 ..... 22.2 108.0 13.5 2.6

1987 ..... 9.4 104.6 7.8 3.1

1988 ..... 4.4 105.4 5.5 3.3

1989 (Revised) 3.2 109.2 7.7 4.1

1990(Est.) 4.5 109.8 5.0 4.1

Source: A.M. Best Co.

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The combined ratio represents total insurance costs (losses
incurred plus expenses) compared to revenue from premiums: A ratio
below 100 indicates an underwriting profit, and one above 100
indicates a loss. The higher the ratio, the worse the year. When the
investment income that an insurer earns from holding policyholders'
funds ("the float") is taken into account, a combined ratio in the 107 -
111 range typically produces an overall breakeven result, exclusive of
earnings on the funds provided by shareholders.

ºî¦X¤ñ²v¥Nªí«OÀIªºÁ`¦¨¥»(²z½ß·l¥¢¥[¤W¶O¥Î)¦û«O¶O¦¬¤Jªº¤ñ¨Ò¡A¤ñ²v¦b100
¥H¤U¥Nªí¦³©Ó«Oªº·l¥¢¡A¦b
100¥H¤W«h¥Nªí¦³©Ó«OªºÀò§Qºî¦X¤ñ²v¥Nªíªº¬O«O
ÀIªºÁ`¦¨¥»
(·l¥¢¥[¤W¶O¥Î)¦û«O¶O¦¬¤Jªº¤ñ²v¡A100¥H¤U¥Nªí·|¦³©Ó¾P§Q¯q¡A100
¥H¤W¥Nªí·|¦³©Ó¾P·l¥¢¡A­Y§â«ù¦³«O¶O¦¬¤J¯B¦sª÷(¦©°£ªÑªFÅv¯q³¡¥÷©Ò²£¥Íªº
¬Õ¾l
)©Ò²£¥Íªº§ë¸ê¦¬¯q¦C¤J¦Ò¶q¡A·l¯q¨â¥­ªº½d³ò¤j·§¬O¦b107-111¤§¶¡¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ For the reasons laid out in previous reports, we expect the
industry's incurred losses to grow at an average of 10% annually, even
in periods when general inflation runs considerably lower. (Over the
last 25 years, incurred losses have in reality grown at a still faster rate,
11%.) If premium growth meanwhile materially lags that 10% rate,
underwriting losses will mount, though the industry's tendency to
under-reserve when business turns bad may obscure their size for a
time.

°ò©ó«e´X¦¸¦~³ø©Ò»¡©úªº²z¥Ñ¡A§Y¨Ï¬O³q³f¿±µÈ¦b³o´X¦~¨Ó¬Û¹ï·Å©M¡A§Ú­Ì¹w´Á
«OÀI·~¨C¦~·l¥¢¼W¥[ªº¤ñ²v¬ù¦b
10%¥ª¥k¡A­Y¬O«O¶O¦¬¤J¦¨ªø¨S¦³¨ì¹F10%¥H
¤W¡A·l¥¢¤@©w·|¼W¥[¡A
(¨Æ¹ê¤W¹L¥h25¦~¥H¨Ó¡A²z½ß·l¥¢«Y¥H11%ªº³t«×¦b¦¨
ªø
)¡AÁöµM«OÀI¤½¥q¦b´º®ð¤£¦n®É¡A·|²ßºD©Ê¦a±N·l¥¢¼È®ÉÁôÂð_¨Ó¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Last year premium growth fell far short of the required 10% and
underwriting results therefore worsened. (In our table, however, the
severity of the deterioration in 1990 is masked because the industry's
1989 losses from Hurricane Hugo caused the ratio for that year to be
somewhat above trendline.) The combined ratio will again increase in
1991, probably by about two points.

¥h¦~«O¶O¦¬¤Jªº¦¨ªø»·§C©ó³Ì°ò¥»ªº10%­n¨D¡A©Ó«O¦¨ÁZ¥i·Q¦Óª¾·|Ä~Äò´c¤Æ¡A
(¤£¹L¦b³o±iªí¤W¡A1990¦~´c¤Æªºµ{«×¦]¬°1989¦~µo¥ÍHugoÁü­·¹dÃB·l¥¢
¦Ó³Q²¤·L±»»\)¡A1991¦~ªººî¦X¤ñ²v±N·|¦A«×´c¤Æ¡A¦³¥i¯à·|¼W¥[2­Ó¦Ê¤ÀÂI
¥H¤W¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Results will improve only when most insurance managements
become so fearful that they run from business, even though it can be
done at much higher prices than now exist. At some point these
managements will indeed get the message: The most important thing
to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But so far
that point hasn't gotten across: Insurance managers continue to dig -
sullenly but vigorously.

ÁöµM¥H²{¦bªº¥«³õª¬ªp«OÀI·~ªÌ¤j¥i¥H¥Î¤ñ²{¦b§ó°ªªº»ù®æ¨Ó§@¥Í·N¡A¦ýÀç¹Bµ²
ªG«o¥u¥i¯à¦b©Ò¦³ªº«OÀI¤½¥q¥DºÞ¦]¬°®£Äߦӻ·Â÷¥«³õ®É¤~¦³¥i¯à¦nÂà¡A´N¬YºØ
µ{«×¦Ó¨¥¡A³o¨Ç¸g²z¤HÀ³¸Ó¤w¸g¦¬¨ì¤F¤@¨Ç°T®§¡A·í§Aµo²{¦Û¤v²`³´¬}¤¤³Ì­«­n
ªº¤@¥ó¨Æ´N¬O¤£­n¦A«õ¤F¡A¤£¹L³o­ÓÁ{¬ÉÂIÅãµMÁÙ¨S¨ì¡A³\¦h«OÀI¤½¥qÁöµM¤£¥Ì
Ä@¦ýÁÙ¬O¥Î¤O¦a¦b«õ¬}¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The picture would change quickly if a major physical or financial
catastrophe were to occur. Absent such a shock, one to two years will
likely pass before underwriting losses become large enough to raise
management fear to a level that would spur major price increases.
When that moment arrives, Berkshire will be ready - both financially
and psychologically - to write huge amounts of business.

ÁÙ¦n³oºØ±¡ªp¥i¯à¦bµo¥Í­«¤jªº¤ÑµM¨a®`©Îª÷¿Ä­·¼É«á«Ü§Ö¦a§ïÅÜ¡A¦ý­Y¬O¨S¦³
³oÃþ¨Æ¥óµo¥Í¡A¥i¯àÁÙ­n¦Aµ¥¤@¡B¨â¦~¡Aª½¨ì©Ò¦³ªº«OÀI¤½¥q¨ü¤£¤F¹dÃBªº©Ó«O
·l¥¢¡A¤~¦³¥i¯à­¢¨Ï¸g²z¤H¤j´T´£°ª«O¶O¡A¦Óµ¥¨º­Ó®É¨è¨ì¨Ó®É¡ABerkshire¤@
©w·|§@¦n·Ç³Æ¡A¤£½×¬O¦b°]°È¤W©Î¬O¤ß²z¤W¡Aµ¥µÛ±µ¤U¤jµ§¤jµ§ªº«O³æ¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In the meantime, our insurance volume continues to be small but
satisfactory. In the next section of this report we will give you a
framework for evaluating insurance results. From that discussion, you
will gain an understanding of why I am so enthusiastic about the
performance of our insurance manager, Mike Goldberg, and his cadre
of stars, Rod Eldred, Dinos Iordanou, Ajit Jain, and Don Wurster.

¦b¦¹¦P®É¡A§Ú­Ìªº«O¶O¦¬¤JÁöµM«Ü¤Ö¦ýÁÙ¬O³B©ó¥i¥H±µ¨üªº½d³ò¡A¦b¤U¤@¬q³ø§i
¤¤§Ú·|§i¶D¤j®a¦p¦ó¥h¿Å¶q«OÀI¤½¥qªºÁZ®Äªí²{¡A¬Ý§¹¤§«á§A´N·|©úÁA¡A¬°¦ó§Ú
¹ï§Ú­Ìªº«OÀI¨Æ·~¸g²z¤H¡A¥]§tMike Goldberg»P¥Lªº©ú¬P¹Î¶¤Rod Eldred¡B
Dinos Lordanou¡BAjit Jalin»PDon Wursterªºªí²{·|·P¨ì¦p¦¹º¡·N¤F¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In assessing our insurance results over the next few years, you
should be aware of one type of business we are pursuing that could
cause them to be unusually volatile. If this line of business expands, as
it may, our underwriting experience will deviate from the trendline you
might expect: In most years we will somewhat exceed expectations
and in an occasional year we will fall far below them.

¦b¿Å¶q§Ú­Ì«OÀI¨Æ·~¹L¥h´X¦~ªº¸gÀçÁZ®Ä®É¡A¤j®a¥²¶·¯S§Oª`·N¦]¬°§Ú­Ì©Ò°l¨D
ªº¥Í·N§ÎºA¦Ó³y¦¨¸gÀçµ²ªGªºªi°Ê¡A­Y¬O³oÃþ«¬ªº¥Í·NÂX±i¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W³o«Ü¦³¥i
¯à¡A«h§Ú­Ìªº©Ó«Oµ²ªG¥i¯à·|»P¤@¯ë²£·~ÁͶզ³«Ü¤jªº®t²§¡A¤j³¡¤Àªº®É­Ô¡A§Ú
­Ìªº¦¨ÁZ·|¶W¥G¤j®aªº¹w´Á¡A¦ý«Ü¦³¥i¯à¦b¬Y¤@¦~«×¤S¤j´T¸¨«á¦b²£·~¼Ð·Ç¤§
¤U¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The volatility I predict reflects the fact that we have become a
large seller of insurance against truly major catastrophes
("super-cats"), which could for example be hurricanes, windstorms or
earthquakes. The buyers of these policies are reinsurance companies
that themselves are in the business of writing catastrophe coverage for
primary insurers and that wish to "lay off," or rid themselves, of part of
their exposure to catastrophes of special severity. Because the need
for these buyers to collect on such a policy will only arise at times of
extreme stress - perhaps even chaos - in the insurance business, they
seek financially strong sellers. And here we have a major competitive
advantage: In the industry, our strength is unmatched.

§Ú¹w¦ôªºªi°Ê¥D­n¬O¤ÏÀ³¦b§Ú­Ì§Y±N¦¨¬°¯u¥¿¶W¤j«¬·N¥~¨a®`«O³æ(¤SºÙÅRÆE¿ß)
©Ó«O¤Hªº¨Æ¹ê¤§¤W¡A³o¨Ç¨a®`¦³¥i¯à¬OÁü­·¡B­·¼É©Î¬O¦a¾_¡A³oÃþ«O³æªºÁʶRªÌ
¤j¦h¬O±µ¨ü¤@¯ë«OÀI·~ªÌ¤À´²­·ÀIªº¦A«O¤½¥q¡A¥Ñ©ó¥L­Ì¦Û¤v¥»¨­¤]­n¤À´²©Î¬O
¨ø¤U³¡¥÷³æ¤@­«­n¨a®`ªº­·ÀI¡A¦Ó¥Ñ©ó³o¨Ç«OÀI¤½¥q¥D­n¬O§Æ±æ¦bµo¥Í­Y¤z­«¤j
ªº·N¥~«á¡A¦b¤@¤ù²V¶Ã¤§¤¤Áٯ঳¥i¥H¨Ì¾aªº¹ï¶H¡A©Ò¥H¦b¿ï¾Ü§ë«O¹ï¶H®É¡A­º
­«ªº´N¬O°]°È¹ê¤O¡A¦Ó³o¥¿¬O§Ú­Ì³Ì¥D­nªºÄvª§Àu¶Õ¡A¦b³o­Ó·~¬É¡A§Ú­Ì°í±jªº
¹ê¤O¬O§O¤H©Ò¤ñ¤£¤Wªº¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A typical super-cat contract is complicated. But in a plain- vanilla
instance we might write a one-year, $10 million policy providing that
the buyer, a reinsurer, would be paid that sum only if a catastrophe
caused two results: (1) specific losses for the reinsurer above a
threshold amount; and (2) aggregate losses for the insurance industry
of, say, more than $5 billion. Under virtually all circumstances, loss
levels that satisfy the second condition will also have caused the first
to be met.

¨å«¬ªºÅRÆE¿ß¦X¬ù¬Û·íªº½ÆÂø¡A¤£¹L¥H¤@­Ó³Ì²³æªº¨Ò¤l¨Ó»¡¡A§Ú­Ì¥i¯àñ¤U¤@
¦~´Á¡A1,000¸U¬ü¤¸ªº«O³æ¡A¨ä¤¤³W©w¦A«O¤½¥q¦b¨a®`³y¦¨¨âºØª¬ªp¤U¤~¦³¥i¯à
±o¨ì²z½ß¡A(1)¦A«O¤½¥qªº·l¥¢¶W¹L¤@©wªºªùÂe(2)¾ã­Ó«OÀI·~¬ÉªºÁ`·l¥¢¶W¹L¤@
©wªºªùÂe¡A°²³]¬O50»õ¬ü¤¸¡A¥u¬O³q±`¦b²Ä¤GºØ±ø¥ó²Å¦X®É¡A²Ä¤@­Ó±ø¥ó¤]·|
¹F¨ì¼Ð·Ç¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ For this $10 million policy, we might receive a premium of, say, $3
million. Say, also, that we take in annual premiums of $100 million
from super-cat policies of all kinds. In that case we are very likely in
any given year to report either a profit of close to $100 million or a
loss of well over $200 million. Note that we are not spreading risk as
insurers typically do; we are concentrating it. Therefore, our yearly
combined ratio on this business will almost never fall in the industry
range of 100 - 120, but will instead be close to either zero or 300%.

¹ï©ó³oºØ1,000¸Uªº«O³æ¡A§Ú­Ì¦¬¨úªº«O¶O¥i¯à·|¦b300¸U¥ª¥k¡A°²³]§Ú­Ì¤@
¦~¦¬¨ì©Ò¦³ªºÅRÆE¿ß«O¶O¦¬¤J¬°1»õ¬ü¤¸¡A«h¦³¥i¯à¬Y¨Ç¦~«×§Ú­Ì¥i¥H»{¦C±N
ªñ1»õ¬ü¤¸ªº§Q¯q¡A¦ý¤]¦³¥i¯à¦b³æ¤@¦~«×­n»{¦C2»õ¬ü¤¸ªº·l¥¢¡A­È±oª`·N
ªº¬O§Ú­Ì¤£¹³¨ä¥L«OÀI¤½¥q¬O¦b¤À´²­·ÀI¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a§Ú­Ì¬O±N­·ÀI¶°¤¤¡A¦]¦¹¦b³o
¤@³¡¥÷¡A§Ú­Ìªººî¦X¤ñ²v¤£¹³¤@¯ë·~ªÌ·|¤¶©ó100-120¤§¶¡¡A¦Ó¬O¦³¥i¯à·|¤¶
©ó0-300¤§¶¡¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Most insurers are financially unable to tolerate such swings. And if
they have the ability to do so, they often lack the desire. They may
back away, for example, because they write gobs of primary property
insurance that would deliver them dismal results at the very time they
would be experiencing major losses on super- cat reinsurance. In
addition, most corporate managements believe that their shareholders
dislike volatility in results.

·íµM¦³³\¦h·~ªÌµLªk©Ó¨ü³o¼Ë¤j´TªºÅܰʡA¦Ó¥B´Nºâ¦³¯à¤O¥i¥H°µ¨ì¡A¥L­Ìªº·N
Ä@¤]¤£·|¤Ó°ª¡A¥L­Ì«Ü¥i¯à¦b¦Y¤U¤@¤jµ§«O³æ¤§«á¡A¦]¬°¨a®`µo¥Í¤@®É¥²¶·©Ó¾á
¤jÃBªº·l¥¢¦Ó³QÀ~¶]¡A¦¹¥~¤j³¡¤Àªº¥ø·~ºÞ²z¶¥¼h·|»{¬°¥L­Ì­I«áªºªÑªFÀ³¸Ó¤£
³ßÅwÅܰʤӤj¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We can take a different tack: Our business in primary property
insurance is small and we believe that Berkshire shareholders, if
properly informed, can handle unusual volatility in profits so long as
the swings carry with them the prospect of superior long-term results.
(Charlie and I always have preferred a lumpy 15% return to a smooth
12%.)

¤£¹L§Ú­Ì±Ä¨úªº¤è¦V´N¤£¦P¤F¡A§Ú­Ì¦bªì¯Å²£ÀI¥«³õªº·~°È¬Û·í¤Ö¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì¬Û«H
BerkshireªºªÑªF¡A­Y¨Æ¥ý¸g¹L·¾³q¡AÀ³¸Ó¥i¥H±µ¨ü³oºØÀò§Qªi°Ê¸û¤j¡A¥u­n³Ì
«áªø´Áªºµ²ªG¯à°÷¥O¤Hº¡·N´N¥i¥Hªº¸gÀçµ²ªG¡A(¬d²z¸ò§ÚÁ`¬O³ßÅwÅܰʪº15%
§ó³Ó©ó©T©wªº12%)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We want to emphasize three points: (1) While we expect our
super-cat business to produce satisfactory results over, say, a decade,
we're sure it will produce absolutely terrible results in at least an
occasional year; (2) Our expectations can be based on little more than
subjective judgments - for this kind of insurance, historical loss data
are of very limited value to us as we decide what rates to charge today;
and (3) Though we expect to write significant quantities of super-cat
business, we will do so only at prices we believe to be commensurate
with risk. If competitors become optimistic, our volume will fall. This
insurance has, in fact, tended in recent years to be woefully
underpriced; most sellers have left the field on stretchers.

§Ú­Ì¦³¤TÂI¥²¶·­n±j½Õ(1)§Ú­Ì¹w´ÁÅRÆE¿ßªº·~°Èªø´Á¨ÓÁ¿¡A°²³]¥H10¦~¬°´Á¡A
À³¸Ó¥i¥HÀò±o¥O¤Hº¡·Nªºµ²ªG¡A·íµM§Ú­Ì¤]ª¾¹D¦b³o¨ä¤¤ªº¬Y¨Ç¦~«×¦¨ÁZ¥i¯à·|
«ÜºG(2)§Ú­Ì³o¼Ëªº¹w´Á¨Ã«D¬O°ò©ó«ÈÆ[ªº§PÂ_¡A¹ï©ó³o¼Ëªº«OÀI·~°È¡A¾ú¥vªº
¸ê®Æ¹ï©ó§Ú­Ì¦b°µ­q»ù¨Mµ¦®É¨Ã¨S¦³¤Ó¤jªº°Ñ¦Ò»ù­È(3)ÁöµM§Ú­Ì·Ç³ÆÃ±¤U¤j¶q
ªºÅRÆE¿ß«O³æ¡A¦ý¦³¤@­Ó«Ü­«­nªº«e´£¨º´N¬O»ù®æ¥²¶·­n¯à°÷»P©Ò©Ó¾áªº­·ÀI¬Û
·í¡A©Ò¥H­Y§Ú­ÌªºÄvª§¹ï¤âÅܱo¼ÖÆ[¿n·¥¡A¨º»ò§Ú­Ìªº¶q´N·|°¨¤W´î¤Ö¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W
¹L¥h´X¦~¥«³õ»ù®æ¦³ÂI§CªºÂ÷ÃСA³o¨Ï±o¤j³¡¤Àªº°Ñ»PªÌ³£³Q¥Î¾á¬[©ïÂ÷³õ¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At the moment, we believe Berkshire to be the largest U.S. writer
of super-cat business. So when a major quake occurs in an urban area
or a winter storm rages across Europe, light a candle for us.

¦b¦¹¦P®É¡A§Ú­Ì¬Û«HBerkshire±N·|¦¨¬°¥þ¬ü³Ì¤jªºÅRÆE¿ß©Ó«O¤½¥q¡A©Ò¥H­n¬O
¨º¤Ñ³£·|¦a°Ïµo¥Í¤j¦a¾_©Î¬Oµo¥Í®u±²¼Ú³°¦a°Ïªº­·¼É®É¡A½ÐÂI«GÄúÀ묰§Ú­Ì¬è
ë¡C


Measuring Insurance Performance

¿Å¶q«OÀI·~ªºªí²{

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In the previous section I mentioned "float," the funds of others
that insurers, in the conduct of their business, temporarily hold.
Because these funds are available to be invested, the typical
property-casualty insurer can absorb losses and expenses that exceed
premiums by 7% to 11% and still be able to break even on its business.
Again, this calculation excludes the earnings the insurer realizes on
net worth - that is, on the funds provided by shareholders.

¦b«e¬q¤å³¹§Ú´¿´£¨ì¯B¦sª÷-¤]´N¬O«OÀI·~ªÌ¦b±q¨Æ·~°È®É¡A©Ò¼È®É«ù¦³ªº¸ê
ª÷¡A¦]¬°³o¨Ç¸êª÷¥i¥H¥Î¦b§ë¸ê¤§¤W¡A©Ò¥H²£ª«·N¥~ÀI¤½¥q§Y¨Ï¦b·l¥¢»P¶O¥Î¶W
¹L«O¶O¦¬¤J7%¨ì11%¡A¤´¯à¦Û¦æ§l¦¬¹F¨ì·l¯q¨â¥­¡A·íµM³o­n¦©°£«OÀI·~ªÌ¥»
¨­ªº²b­È¡A¤]´N¬OªÑªF¦Û¦³¸êª÷©Ò²£¥ÍªºÀò§Q¡A¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ However, many exceptions to this 7% to 11% range exist. For
example, insurance covering losses to crops from hail damage
produces virtually no float at all. Premiums on this kind of business
are paid to the insurer just prior to the time hailstorms are a threat,
and if a farmer sustains a loss he will be paid almost immediately.
Thus, a combined ratio of 100 for crop hail insurance produces no
profit for the insurer.

·íµM7%¨ì11%ªº½d³òÁÙ¬O¦³³\¦h¨Ò¥~±¡ªp¡A¨Ò¦p«OÀI·~ªÌ©Ó«O½\ª«¦B¹r¶Ë®`·l
¥¢´X¥G¨S¦³¯B¦sª÷ªº°^Äm¡A«OÀI·~ªÌ³q±`¬O¦b¦B¹r§Y±N¨ÓÁ{¤§«e¤~¦¬¨ì«O¶O¦¬
¤J¡A¦Ó¥u­n¨ä¤¤¦³¥ô¦ó¤@¦ì¹A¤Òµo¥Í·l¥¢´N­n°¨¤W¤ä¥I½ßÀvª÷¡A¦]¦¹§Y¨Ï½\ª«¦B
¹r«OÀIªººî¦X¤ñ²v¬°100¡A«OÀI·~ªÌ¤]ÁȤ£¤F¥b¤ò¿ú¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At the other extreme, malpractice insurance covering the potential
liabilities of doctors, lawyers and accountants produces a very high
amount of float compared to annual premium volume. The float
materializes because claims are often brought long after the alleged
wrongdoing takes place and because their payment may be still further
delayed by lengthy litigation. The industry calls malpractice and
certain other kinds of liability insurance "long- tail" business, in
recognition of the extended period during which insurers get to hold
large sums that in the end will go to claimants and their lawyers (and
to the insurer's lawyers as well).

¥t¥~¤@­Ó·¥ºÝªº¨Ò¤l¡A°õ¦æ·~°È¹L¥¢«OÀI-¤@ºØ±Mªù´£¨Ñµ¹Âå®v¡B«ß®v»P·|­p®v
¤À´²¥i¯à³d¥ô­·ÀIªº«OÀI¡A¸û¤§¨C¦~¦¬¨ìªº«O¶O¦¬¤J¡A³o³¡¥÷ÀIºØªº¯B¦sª÷´N«Ü
°ª¡A³oºØ¯B¦sª÷¤§©Ò¥H«Ü­«­nªº­ì¦]¦b©ó²z½ß¥Ó½Ð®×³q±`·|¦b·~°È¹L¥¢µo¥Í«Üªø
¤@¬q®É¶¡¤§«á¤~·|´£¥X¡A¦Ó¥B¯u¥¿²z½ßªº®ÉÂI¤]·|¦]¤¾ªøªºªk«ß¶D³^µ{§Çµ²§ô«á
¤~·|°õ¦æ¡A«OÀI·~¬É²ÎºÙ·~°È¹L¥¢«OÀI»P¨ä¥L¯S©wºØÃþªº³d¥ô«OÀI¬°"ªø§À¤Ú·~
°È"·N«ä¬O»¡«OÀI·~ªÌ¦b±N²z½ßª÷¤ä¥Iµ¹¥Ó½Ð¤H¸ò¥Lªº«ß®v(©Î¬Æ¦Ü¬O«OÀI¤½¥q
ªº«ß®v)¤§«e¡A¥i¥H«ù¦³³o¤@¤jµ§ªº¸êª÷¬Û·íªøªº¤@¬q®É¶¡¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In long-tail situations a combined ratio of 115 (or even more) can
prove profitable, since earnings produced by the float will exceed the
15% by which claims and expenses overrun premiums. The catch,
though, is that "long-tail" means exactly that: Liability business written
in a given year and presumed at first to have produced a combined
ratio of 115 may eventually smack the insurer with 200, 300 or worse
when the years have rolled by and all claims have finally been settled.

¹³³oºØªø§À¤Ú·~°È¡A³q±`§Y¨Ïºî¦X¤ñ²v°ª¹F115(©Î§ó°ª)³£ÁÙ¥i¯à¦³Àò§Q¡A¦]¬°
¦b¯Á½ß»P¶O¥Îµo¥Í¤§«eªº¨º¤@¬q®É¶¡§Q¥Î¯B¦sª÷©ÒÁȪº§Q¼í¬Æ¦Ü·|¶W¹L15%¡A
¦ý­«ÂI¬O©Ò¿×ªºªø§À¤ÚÅU¦W«ä¸q¡A´N¬O¦b¬Y¤@¦~«×©Ó±µªº³d¥ô«OÀI«O³æ¤§®É¡A°²
³]·|¦³115ªººî¦X¤ñ²v¡A¦ýµ²ªG¨ì³Ì«á§À¤j¤£±¼¡A¸g¹L¦h¦~ªºªÈÄñ¡A²×©ó©M¸Ñ
ªºµ²ªG¡A¦³¥i¯àÅý«OÀI·~ªÌ©Ó¾á200¡B300©Î¬O§óÁVªººî¦X¤ñ²v¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The pitfalls of this business mandate an operating principle that
too often is ignored: Though certain long-tail lines may prove
profitable at combined ratios of 110 or 115, insurers will invariably
find it unprofitable to price using those ratios as targets. Instead,
prices must provide a healthy margin of safety against the societal
trends that are forever springing expensive surprises on the insurance
industry. Setting a target of 100 can itself result in heavy losses;
aiming for 110 - 115 is business suicide.

³o¶µ·~°È¤@©w­n¯S§Oª`·N¤@¶µ®É±`¥O¤H©¿²¤ªº¸gÀç­ì«hªº³´¨À¡AÁöµM³¡¥÷ªø§À¤Ú
·~°È¦b110¨ì115ªººî¦X¤ñ²v¤§¶¡¤´¥i¥HÀò§Q¡A¦ý­Y¬O«OÀI·~ªÌ¨Ì¦¹¤ñ²v¨Ó­q
©w«O¶O»ù®æªº¸Ü«Ü¥i¯à·|Á«¤j¿ú¡A©Ò¥H«O¶O»ù®æ¥²¶·­n¦³¤@­Ó¦w¥þªºÃä»ÚªÅ¶¡¥H
¨¾¤î·í¤µÁ`¬O·|Åý«OÀI·~¦³©ù¶Qªº·N¥~ÂÛ¥X¨ÓªºªÀ·|ÁͶաA±Nºî¦X¤ñ²v³]¦b100
¤@©w·|²£¥Í­«¤jªº·l¥¢¡A±N¥Ø¼ÐÂê©w¦b110-115¤§¶¡«hµL²§¬O¦Û±þªº¦æ¬°¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ All of that said, what should the measure of an insurer's
profitability be? Analysts and managers customarily look to the
combined ratio - and it's true that this yardstick usually is a good
indicator of where a company ranks in profitability. We believe a better
measure, however, to be a comparison of underwriting loss to float
developed.

»¡¤F¨º»ò¦h¡A¨ì©³¸Ó¦p¦ó¿Å¶q¤@®a«OÀI¤½¥qªºÀò§Q¯à¤O©O? ¤ÀªR®v»P¸g²z¤H³q±`
²ßºD©Êªº·|¥h¬Ýºî¦X¤ñ²v¡A·íµM¦b§Ú­Ì­n¬Ý¤@®a«OÀI¤½¥q¬O§_ÁÈ¿ú®É¡A³o¶µ¤ñ²v
¬O¤@­Ó«Ü¦nªº¥¿½T«ü¼Ð¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì»{¬°ÁÙ¦³¤@¶µ¼Æ¦r¬O§ó¦nªº¿Å¶q¼Ð·Ç¡A¨º´N¬O©Ó
«O·l¥¢»P¯B¦sª÷ªº¤ñ²v¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ This loss/float ratio, like any statistic used in evaluating insurance
results, is meaningless over short time periods: Quarterly underwriting
figures and even annual ones are too heavily based on estimates to be
much good. But when the ratio takes in a period of years, it gives a
rough indication of the cost of funds generated by insurance
operations. A low cost of funds signifies a good business; a high cost
translates into a poor business.

³oºØ·l¥¢/¯B¦sª÷¤ñ²v¸ò¨ä¥L«OÀI·~±`¥ÎªºÁZ®Ä¿Å¶q²Î­p¼Æ¦r¤@¼Ë¡A¥²¶·­n¦³¤@
¬q¬Û·íªøªº®É¶¡¤~¦³·N¸q¡A³æ©u©Î¬Æ¦Ü¬O³æ¤@¦~«×ªº¼Æ¦r¡A·|¦]¬°¦ô­pªº¦¨¥÷¤Ó
¿@¦ÓµL°Ñ¦Ò»ù­È¡A¦ý¬O¥u­n®É¶¡¤@©Ôªø¡A³o­Ó¤ñ²v´N¥i¥H§i¶D§Ú­Ì«OÀIÀç¹B©Ò²£
¥Í¯B¦sª÷ªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»¡A­Y¸êª÷¦¨¥»§C´N¥Nªí³o¬O¤@®a¦n¤½¥q¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a´N¬O¤@®aÄê
¤½¥q¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ On the next page we show the underwriting loss, if any, of our
insurance group in each year since we entered the business and relate
that bottom line to the average float we have held during the year.
From this data we have computed a "cost of funds developed from
insurance."

¤U¤@­¶¬O§Ú­Ì¶i¤J«OÀI·~«á¡A¨C¦~ªº©Ó«O·l¥¢²Î­p(­Y¦³ªº¸Ü)¡A¥H¤Î¨C¦~¥­§¡«ù
¦³ªº¯B¦sª÷¼Æ¶q¡A±q³o­Óªí§Ú­Ì¥i¥H«Ü»´©ö¦aºâ¥X«OÀI¨Æ·~©Ò²£¥Íªº¯B¦sª÷¨ä¸ê
ª÷¦¨¥»¬O¦h¤Ö¡C

(1) (2) Yearend Yield

Underwriting Approximate on Long-Term

Loss Average Float Cost of Funds Govt. Bonds

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

(In $ Millions) (Ratio of 1 to 2)

1967 ......... profit $17.3 less than zero 5.50%

1968 ......... profit 19.9 less than zero 5.90%

1969 ......... profit 23.4 less than zero 6.79%

1970 ......... $0.37 32.4 1.14% 6.25%

1971 ......... profit 52.5 less than zero 5.81%

1972 ......... profit 69.5 less than zero 5.82%

1973 ......... profit 73.3 less than zero 7.27%

1974 ......... 7.36 79.1 9.30% 8.13%

1975 ......... 11.35 87.6 12.96% 8.03%

1976 ......... profit 102.6 less than zero 7.30%

1977 ......... profit 139.0 less than zero 7.97%

1978 ......... profit 190.4 less than zero 8.93%

1979 ......... profit 227.3 less than zero 10.08%

1980 ......... profit 237.0 less than zero 11.94%

1981 ......... profit 228.4 less than zero 13.61%

1982 ......... 21.56 220.6 9.77% 10.64%

1983 ......... 33.87 231.3 14.64% 11.84%

1984 ......... 48.06 253.2 18.98% 11.58%

1985 ......... 44.23 390.2 11.34% 9.34%

1986 ......... 55.84 797.5 7.00% 7.60%

1987 ......... 55.43 1,266.7 4.38% 8.95%

1988 ......... 11.08 1,497.7 0.74% 9.00%

1989 ......... 24.40 1,541.3 1.58% 7.97%

1990 ......... 26.65 1,637.3 1.63% 8.24%

¡@

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The float figures are derived from the total of loss reserves, loss
adjustment expense reserves and unearned premium reserves minus
agents' balances, prepaid acquisition costs and deferred charges
applicable to assumed reinsurance. At some insurers other items
should enter into the calculation, but in our case these are
unimportant and have been ignored.

¯B¦sª÷ªº¼Æ¦r¬O±N©Ò¦³ªº·l¥¢·Ç³Æ¡B·l¥¢¶O¥Î½Õ¾ã·Ç³Æ»P¥¼ÁȨú«O¶O¥[Á`«á¡A¦A
¦©°£À³¥I¦þª÷¡B¹w¥IÁʨ֦¨¥»¤Î¬ÛÃö¦A«O»¼©µ¶O¥Î¡A­Y¬O§Oªº«OÀI·~ªÌ¥i¯àÁÙ¦³
¨ä¥L¶µ¥Ø»Ý­n¦C¤J°µ­pºâ¡A¦ý¦]¬°³o¨Ç¬ì¥Ø¦bBerkshire¨Ã¤£­«­n¡A©Ò¥H¤©¥H¬Ù
²¤¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ During 1990 we held about $1.6 billion of float slated eventually
to find its way into the hands of others. The underwriting loss we
sustained during the year was $27 million and thus our insurance
operation produced funds for us at a cost of about 1.6%. As the table
shows, we managed in some years to underwrite at a profit and in
those instances our cost of funds was less than zero. In other years,
such as 1984, we paid a very high price for float. In 19 years out of the
24 we have been in insurance, though, we have developed funds at a
cost below that paid by the government.

¦b1990¦~§Ú­Ì¤j·§«ù¦³16»õ¬ü¤¸ªº¯B¦sª÷¡A³o¨Ç¿ú·|ºCºC¦a¬y¨ì¨ä¥L¤Hªº¤â
¤¤¡A·í¦~«×ªº©Ó«O·l¥¢¬ù¬°2,600¸U¬ü¤¸¡A¦]¦¹§Ú­Ì±q«OÀIÀç¹B©ÒÀò±oªº¸êª÷¡A
¨ä¦¨¥»¬ù¬°1.6%¡A¦Ó´N¦p¦P³o±iªí©ÒÅã¥Üªº¡A¦³¨Ç¦~«×§Ú­Ì¦³©Ó«OÀò§Q¡A©Ò¥H
§Ú­Ìªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»¬Æ¦Ü§C©ó¹s¡A¦ý¬O¤]¦³¨Ç¦~«×¡A¹³1984¦~§Ú­Ì¥²¶·¬°¯B¦sª÷¤ä
¥I¬Û·í°ªªº¦¨¥»¡A¦ý¬OÁ`­p¦Ü¤µ24­Ó¦~«×·í¤¤¦³19­Ó¦~«×¡A§Ú­Ì­t¾áªº¸êª÷
¦¨¥»¬Æ¦Ü¤ñ¬ü°ê¬F©²µo¦æ¶Å¨éªº¦¨¥»ÁÙ§C¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ There are two important qualifications to this calculation. First, the
fat lady has yet to gargle, let alone sing, and we won't know our true
1967 - 1990 cost of funds until all losses from this period have been
settled many decades from now. Second, the value of the float to
shareholders is somewhat undercut by the fact that they must put up
their own funds to support the insurance operation and are subject to
double taxation on the investment income these funds earn. Direct
investments would be more tax-efficient.

³o¶µ­pºâ¦¡¦³¨â­Ó­«­nªº­n¨D¡A­º¥ý­D¤k¤Hº¤¤f³£«ÜÃøÅ¥¤F¡A§ó¦óªpÁÙ­n¦o°Û
ºq¡A°£«Dµ¥¨ì³o®É¶¡©Òµo¥Íªº·l¥¢³£¤w½T©w¸Ñ¨M¡A§_«h§Ú­Ì¤£¯à½T©w1967¦~
-1990¦~ªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»¨ì©³¬O¦h¤Ö¡A²Ä¤G¯B¦sª÷¹ï©óªÑªFªº»ù­È¦³ÂI¥´§é¡A¦]¬°
ªÑªF­ÌÁÙ¥²¶·§ë¤J¬Û¹ïªº¸êª÷¨Ó¤ä«ù«OÀI¨Æ·~ªºÀç¹B¡A¦P®É³o¨Ç¸êª÷©ÒÁȨúªº§ë
¸ê¦¬¯q¤S¥²¶·­±Á{Âù­«ªº½Òµ|¡A¬Û¸û¤§¤Uª½±µ§ë¸êªºµ|­t´N¤Ö¦h¤F¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The tax penalty that indirect investments impose on shareholders
is in fact substantial. Though the calculation is necessarily imprecise, I
would estimate that the owners of the average insurance company
would find the tax penalty adds about one percentage point to their
cost of float. I also think that approximates the correct figure for
Berkshire.

¶¡±µ§ë¸ê¥[½Ñ¦bªÑªF¨­¤Wªº¯²µ|Ãg»@¨Æ¹ê¤W¬O¬Û·í­«ªº¡AÁöµM­pºâ¤½¦¡ÅK©w¨S¿ì
ªk°µªº«Üºë½T¡A¦ý§Ú¦ô­p¹ï©ó³o¨Ç«OÀI¨Æ·~ªº©Ò¦³ªÌ¨Ó»¡¡A¯²µ|Ãg»@¦Ü¤ÖÅý¥L­Ì
¼W¥[¤@­Ó¦Ê¤ÀÂI¥H¤Wªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»¡A§Ú·Q³o­Ó¼Æ¦r¤]¾A¥Î©óBerkshire¤§¤W¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Figuring a cost of funds for an insurance business allows anyone
analyzing it to determine whether the operation has a positive or
negative value for shareholders. If this cost (including the tax penalty)
is higher than that applying to alternative sources of funds, the value
is negative. If the cost is lower, the value is positive - and if the cost is
significantly lower, the insurance business qualifies as a very valuable
asset.

¤ÀªR«OÀI¨Æ·~ªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»¨Ï±o¥ô¦ó¤H³£¥i¥H¾Ú¦¹§PÂ_³o®a¤½¥qªºÀç¹B¹ï©óªÑªF
¨ì©³¬O¥¿­±ªºÁÙ¬O­t­±ªº¡A­Y¬O³o¶µ¦¨¥»(¥]§t¯²µ|Ãg»@)°ª©ó¨ä¥L´À¥N©Êªº¸êª÷
¨Ó·½¡A¨ä»ù­È´N¬O­tªº¡A­Y¬O¦¨¥»§ó§C¡A¨º»ò¹ïªÑªF«K¯à²£¥Í¥¿­±ªº»ù­È¡A¦Ó­Y
¬O¦¨¥»»·§C©ó¤@¯ë¤ô·Ç¡A¨º»ò³o­Ó¨Æ·~´N¬O¤@¶µ¬Û·í¦³»ù­Èªº¸ê²£¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ So far Berkshire has fallen into the significantly-lower camp. Even
more dramatic are the numbers at GEICO, in which our ownership
interest is now 48% and which customarily operates at an underwriting
profit. GEICO's growth has generated an ever-larger amount of funds
for investment that have an effective cost of considerably less than
zero. Essentially, GEICO's policyholders, in aggregate, pay the
company interest on the float rather than the other way around. (But
handsome is as handsome does: GEICO's unusual profitability results
from its extraordinary operating efficiency and its careful classification
of risks, a package that in turn allows rock-bottom prices for
policyholders.)

¨ì¥Ø«e¬°¤î¡ABerkshireºâ¬O¸êª÷¦¨¥»¬Û·í§Cªº¨ºÃþ¡AÁöµM§Ú­Ì¾Ö¦³48%ªÑÅvªº
GEICOªº¤ñ²v§ó¦n¡A¥B³q±`¨C¦~³£¨É¦³©Ó«OÀò§Q¡AGEICOÂǥѤ£Â_¦a¦¨ªø´£¨Ñ
¶V¨Ó¶V¦hªº¸êª÷¥H¨Ñ§ë¸ê¡A¦Ó¥B¥¦ªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»ÁÙ»·§C©ó¹s¦¨¥»¥H¤U¡A·N«ä¬O»¡
GEICOªº«O³æ«ù¦³¤H¤£¦ý­n¥ý¥I«O¶Oµ¹¤½¥q¦Ó¥BÁÙ­n¤ä¥I§Q®§¡A(¦ý´N¹³¦³¤H¤S
«Ó¤S¦³¤~·F¡AGEICO«D¤ZªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¾É¦]©ó¤½¥q¸gÀ窺®Ä²v»P¹ï­·ÀIªºÄY®æ¤À
Ãþ¡A¦p¦¹¨Ï±o«O¤á¤]¥i¨É¨ü¶W§C»ù®æªº«O³æ)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Many well-known insurance companies, on the other hand, incur
an underwriting loss/float cost that, combined with the tax penalty,
produces negative results for owners. In addition, these companies,
like all others in the industry, are vulnerable to catastrophe losses that
could exceed their reinsurance protection and take their cost of float
right off the chart. Unless these companies can materially improve
their underwriting performance - and history indicates that is an
almost impossible task - their shareholders will experience results
similar to those borne by the owners of a bank that pays a higher rate
of interest on deposits than it receives on loans.

¦b¥t¥~¤@¤è­±¡A³\¦hª¾¦Wªº«OÀI¤½¥q¡A¦b¦Ò¶q©Ó«O·l¥¢/¯B¦sª÷¦¨¥»¡A¦A¥[¤W¯²
µ|Ãg»@¤§«á¡A¨Æ¹ê¤WÅýªÑªF²£¥Í­tªº³ø¹S¡A¦¹¥~³o¨Ç¤½¥q¹³¨ä¥L·~ªÌ¤@¼Ë¡A¬Û·í
®e©ö¨ü¨ì¤j«¬¨a®`ªº¶Ë®`¡A¦b¦©°£¦A«O³¡¥÷©Ò±o¨ìªº«OÅ@¤§«á¡A¸êª÷¦¨¥»²vÁÙ¬O
¦³¥i¯à¤É°ª¨ìµL¥H´_¥[ªº¦a¨B¡A¦Ó°£«D³o¨Ç¤½¥q¯à°÷¤j´T§ïµ½¨ä©Ó«Oªº¦¨ÁZ¡A¾ú
¥vªº¸gÅçÅã¥Ü³o¬O¶µ¤£¥i¯àªº¥ô°È¡A³o¨ÇªÑªF«Ü¥i¯à·|©M§l¦¬¸û°ªªº¦s´Ú§Q®§¤ä
¥X¡A«o¥u¯à¦¬¨ì¸û§Cªº­É´Ú§Q®§¦¬¤Jªº»È¦æªÑªF¤@¼Ëªº¤U³õ¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ All in all, the insurance business has treated us very well. We have
expanded our float at a cost that on the average is reasonable, and we
have further prospered because we have earned good returns on these
low-cost funds. Our shareholders, true, have incurred extra taxes, but
they have been more than compensated for this cost (so far) by the
benefits produced by the float.

Á`ªº¨Ó»¡¡A«OÀIÀç¹Bµ¹§Ú­Ìªº¦^³øºâ¬O¬Û·í¤£¿ùªº¤F¡A§Ú­Ìªº«OÀI¯B¦sª÷¥H¦X²z
ªº¸êª÷¦¨¥»²v«ùÄò¼W¥[¡A¦Ó¾aµÛ³o¨Ç§C¦¨¥»ªº¸êª÷ÁȨú§ó°ªªº§ë¸ê³ø¹S¨Ï§Ú­Ìªº
¨Æ·~»]»]¤é¤W¡A½T¹ê§Ú­ÌªºªÑªF¥²¶·­t¾áÃB¥~ªºµ|­t¡A¦ý¤j®a±q³o¼Ë§Cªº¸êª÷¦¨
¥»©ÒÀò±oªº§Q¯q«o¸É¦^§ó¦h(¦Ü¤Ö¨ì¥Ø«e¬°¤î¬O¦p¦¹)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A particularly encouraging point about our record is that it was
achieved despite some colossal mistakes made by your Chairman prior
to Mike Goldberg's arrival. Insurance offers a host of opportunities for
error, and when opportunity knocked, too often I answered. Many
years later, the bills keep arriving for these mistakes: In the insurance
business, there is no statute of limitations on stupidity.

¤×¨ä¦³§ó¥O¤H®¶¾Äªº¤@ÂI¡A³o¨Ç°O¿ýÁÙ¥]§t¥»¤H¤§«e©Ò¥Ç¤U¤@¨Ç­«¤jªº¿ù»~¡A¦b
Mike Goldberg±µ¤â«á¡AÀ³¸Ó·|¦³§ó¦nªº¦¨ÁZ¡A«OÀI©¹©¹·|¦³¤@¤j°ïÅý§Aµo¥Í
¿ù»~ªº¾÷·|¡A¦Ó³q±`¦b³o¨Ç¾÷·|ºVªù®É¡A§Ú³£·|¦^À³¡A¥H­P©ó¸g¹L¨º»ò¦h¦~¤§«á¡A
¨ì²{¦b§Ú­ÌÁÙ¥²¶·¬°§Ú¥H«e©Ò¥Çªº¨º¨Ç¿ù»~¥I¥X¥N»ù¡A¦b«OÀI·~·MÄøªºµ{«×¬O¨S
¦³¤W­­ªº¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The intrinsic value of our insurance business will always be far
more difficult to calculate than the value of, say, our candy or
newspaper companies. By any measure, however, the business is
worth far more than its carrying value. Furthermore, despite the
problems this operation periodically hands us, it is the one - among
all the fine businesses we own - that has the greatest potential.

§Ú­Ì«OÀI¨Æ·~ªº¹ê»Ú»ù­È¥Ã»·¤ñ¨ä¥L¨Æ·~¦p¿}ªG©Î¬O³ø¯È¨Æ·~Ãø¥H¦ô­p¡A¦ý¬O¤£
ºÞ¥Î¥ô¦ó­pºâ¤èªk¡A«OÀI¨Æ·~ªº»ù­È¤@©w»·°ª©ó¨ä±b­±»ù­È¡A§ó­«­nªº¬OÁöµM«O
ÀI·~Åý§Ú­Ì¤T¤£¤­®É·|¥Xª¬ªp¡A¦ý³o¦æ·~«o¬O§Ú­Ì²{¦b©Ò¦³¤£¿ùªº¨Æ·~·í¤¤¡A³Ì
¦³¦¨ªø¼ç¤Oªº¡C


Marketable Securities

¦³»ùÃÒ¨é§ë¸ê

Below we list our common stock holdings having a value of over
$100 million. A small portion of these investments belongs to
subsidiaries of which Berkshire owns less than 100%.


¤Uªí¬O§Ú­Ì¶W¹L¤@»õ¬ü¤¸¥H¤Wªº´¶³qªÑ§ë¸ê¡A¤@³¡¥÷ªº§ë¸ê«YÄÝ©óBerkshireÃö
«Y¥ø·~©Ò«ù¦³
)¡C

12/31/90

Shares Company Cost Market

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

(000s omitted)

3,000,000 Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. ............ $ 517,500 $1,377,375

46,700,000 The Coca-Cola Co. ................... 1,023,920 2,171,550

2,400,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. ... 71,729 117,000

6,850,000 GEICO Corp. ......................... 45,713 1,110,556

1,727,765 The Washington Post Company ......... 9,731 342,097

5,000,000 Wells Fargo & Company ............... 289,431 289,375

Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our
investment style: This year we neither bought nor sold a share of five
of our six major holdings. The exception was Wells Fargo, a
superbly-managed, high-return banking operation in which we
increased our ownership to just under 10%, the most we can own
without the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. About one-sixth of
our position was bought in 1989, the rest in 1990.

¾ðÃu¤Ñ¥Í¯S¦³ªºÃi´²¥¿¥NªíµÛ§Ú­Ìªº§ë¸ê¼Ò¦¡¡A¤µ¦~§Ú­Ì¨S¦³¼W¥[¤]¨S¦³³B¤À¥ô
¦ó«ùªÑ¡A°£¤FWells Fargo³o®a¾Ö¦³¨}¦nªº¸gÀç¹Î¶¤¡A¨Ã¨É¦³¬Û·í°ªªºªÑªFÅv¯q
³ø¹S²vªº»È¦æ¡A©Ò¥H§Ú­Ì±N«ùªÑ¤ñ²v¼W¥[¨ì10%¥ª¥k¡A³o¬O§Ú­Ì¥i¥H¤£¥²¦VÁp
·Ç·|¥Ó³øªº³Ì°ª¤W­­¡A¨ä¤¤¤»¤À¤§¤@¬O¦b1989¦~¶R¶i¡A³Ñ¤Uªº³¡¥÷«h¬O¦b1990
¦~¼W¥[¡C

The banking business is no favorite of ours. When assets are
twenty times equity - a common ratio in this industry - mistakes that
involve only a small portion of assets can destroy a major portion of
equity. And mistakes have been the rule rather than the exception at
many major banks. Most have resulted from a managerial failing that
we described last year when discussing the "institutional imperative:"
the tendency of executives to mindlessly imitate the behavior of their
peers, no matter how foolish it may be to do so. In their lending, many
bankers played follow-the-leader with lemming-like zeal; now they
are experiencing a lemming-like fate.

»È¦æ·~¨Ã¤£¬O§Ú­Ìªº³Ì·R¡A¦]¬°³o­Ó¦æ·~ªº¯S©Ê¬O¸ê²£¬ù¬°ªÑÅvªº20­¿¡A³o¥N
ªí¥u­n¸ê²£µo¥Í¤@ÂI°ÝÃD´N¦³¥i¯à§âªÑªFÅv¯qÁ«¥ú¥ú¡A¦Ó°¾°¾¤j»È¦æ¥X°ÝÃD¦­¤w
Åܦ¨¬O±`ºA¦Ó«D¯S¨Ò¡A³\¦h±¡ªp¬OºÞ²z·í§½ªº²¨¥¢¡A´N¹³¬O¥h¦~«×§Ú­Ì´¿´£¨ìªº
¨t²Î³W½d-¤]´N¬O¸gÀç¥DºÞ·|¤£¦Û¥Dªº¼Ò¥é¨ä¥L¦P·~ªº°µªk¡A¤£ºÞ³o¨Ç¦æ¬°¦³¦h
·MÄø¡A¦b±q¨Æ©ñ´Ú·~°È®É¡A³\¦h»È¦æ·~ªÌ¤]³£¦³®È¹«¨ººØ°lÀH»â¾ÉªÌªº¦æ¬°¶É
¦V¡A©Ò¥H²{¦b¥L­Ì¤]¥²¶·©Ó¾á¹³®È¹«¤@¼Ëªº©R¹B¡C

Because leverage of 20:1 magnifies the effects of managerial
strengths and weaknesses, we have no interest in purchasing shares of
a poorly-managed bank at a "cheap" price. Instead, our only interest is
in buying into well-managed banks at fair prices.

¦]¬°20¤ñ1ªº¤ñ²v¡A¨Ï±o©Ò¦³ªºÀu¶Õ»P¯ÊÂI©Ò³y¦¨ªº¼vÅT¹ï·|³Q©ñ¤j¡A§Ú­Ì¹ï
©ó¥Î«K©yªº»ù®æ¶R¤U¸gÀ礣µ½ªº»È¦æ¤@ÂI¿³½ì³£¨S¦³¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a§Ú­Ì§Æ±æ¯à°÷¥H¦X
²zªº»ù®æ¶R¶i¤@¨Ç¸gÀç¨}¦nªº»È¦æ¡C

With Wells Fargo, we think we have obtained the best managers
in the business, Carl Reichardt and Paul Hazen. In many ways the
combination of Carl and Paul reminds me of another - Tom Murphy
and Dan Burke at Capital Cities/ABC. First, each pair is stronger than
the sum of its parts because each partner understands, trusts and
admires the other. Second, both managerial teams pay able people
well, but abhor having a bigger head count than is needed. Third, both
attack costs as vigorously when profits are at record levels as when
they are under pressure. Finally, both stick with what they understand
and let their abilities, not their egos, determine what they attempt.
(Thomas J. Watson Sr. of IBM followed the same rule: "I'm no genius,"
he said. "I'm smart in spots - but I stay around those spots.")

¦bWells Fargo¡A§Ú·Q§Ú­Ì§ä¨ì»È¦æ¬É³Ì¦nªº¸g²z¤HCarl Reichardt»PPaul
Hazen¡A¦b³\¦h¤è­±³o¨â­Ó¤Hªº²Õ¦X¨Ï§ÚÁp·Q¨ì¥t¥~¤@¹ï·fÀÉ¡A¨º´N¬O¸ê¥»«°
/ABCªºTom Murphy»PDan Burke¡A­º¥ý¨â­Ó¤H¥[°_¨Óªº¤O¶q³£¤j©ó­Ó§O³æ
¥´¿W°«¡A¦]¬°¨C­Ó¤H³£¤F¸Ñ¡B«H¥ô¨Ã´L·q¹ï¤è¡A¨ä¦¸¥L­Ì¹ï©ó¦³¤~¯àªº¤H±q¤£§[
¶Þ¡A¦ý¤]¦P®É¹½´c¤¾­û¹L¦h¡A²Ä¤T¾¨ºÞ¤½¥qÀò§Q¦A¦n¡A¥L­Ì±±¨î¦¨¥»ªº§V¤O¤£´¿
µy´î¡A³Ì«á¨âªÌ³£°í«ù¦Û¤v©Ò¼ô±xªº¡AÅý¥L­Ìªº¯à¤O¦Ó«D¦Û´L¨Ó¨M©w¦¨±Ñ¡A´N¹³
IBMªºThomas Watson´¿»¡:¡u§Ú¤£¬O¤Ñ¤~¡A§Ú¥u¬O¦³ÂI¤pÁo©ú¡A¤£¹L§Ú«o¥R
¤À¹B¥Î³o¨Ç¤pÁo©ú¡C¡v

Our purchases of Wells Fargo in 1990 were helped by a chaotic
market in bank stocks. The disarray was appropriate: Month by month
the foolish loan decisions of once well-regarded banks were put on
public display. As one huge loss after another was unveiled - often on
the heels of managerial assurances that all was well - investors
understandably concluded that no bank's numbers were to be trusted.
Aided by their flight from bank stocks, we purchased our 10% interest
in Wells Fargo for $290 million, less than five times after-tax earnings,
and less than three times pre-tax earnings.

§Ú­Ì¬O¦b1990¦~»È¦æªÑ¤@¤ù²V¶Ã¤§¶¡¶R¶iWells FargoªºªÑ¥÷ªº¡A³oºØ¥¢§Çªº
²{¶H¬O«Ü¦X²zªº¡A´X­Ó¤ë¨Ó¦³¨Ç­ì¥»¸gÀç¦WÁn¤£¿ùªº»È¦æ¡A¨ä¿ù»~ªº¶U´Ú¨M©w«o
¤@¤@³Q´CÅé´¦ÅS¡AÀHµÛ¤@¦¸¤S¤@¦¸Ãe¤jªº·l¥¢¼Æ¦r³Q¤½§G¡A»È¦æ·~ªº¸Û«H»P«OÃÒ
¤]¤@¦¸¤S¤@¦¸¦a³Q½î½ñ¡Aº¥º¥¦a§ë¸ê¤H¶V¨Ó¶V¤£´±¬Û«H»È¦æªº°]°È³øªí¼Æ¦r¡A¶X
µÛ¤j®a¥X²æ»È¦æªÑ¤§»Ú¡A§Ú­Ì«o°f¶Õ¥H2.9»õ¬ü¤¸¡A¤­­¿¤£¨ìªº¥»¯q¤ñ(­Y¬O¥H
µ|«eÀò§Q­pºâ¡A«h¥»¯q¤ñ¬Æ¦Ü¤£¨ì¤T­¿)¡A¶R¶iWells Fargo 10%ªºªÑ¥÷¡C

Wells Fargo is big - it has $56 billion in assets - and has been
earning more than 20% on equity and 1.25% on assets. Our purchase
of one-tenth of the bank may be thought of as roughly equivalent to
our buying 100% of a $5 billion bank with identical financial
characteristics. But were we to make such a purchase, we would have
to pay about twice the $290 million we paid for Wells Fargo. Moreover,
that $5 billion bank, commanding a premium price, would present us
with another problem: We would not be able to find a Carl Reichardt to
run it. In recent years, Wells Fargo executives have been more avidly
recruited than any others in the banking business; no one, however,
has been able to hire the dean.

Wells Fargo¹ê¦b¬O¬Û·íªº¤j¡A±b­±¸ê²£°ª¹F560»õ¬ü¤¸¡AªÑªFÅv¯q³ø¹S²v°ª
¹F20%¡A¸ê²£³ø¹S²v«h¬°1.25%¡A¶R¤U¥L10%ªºªÑÅv¬Û·í©ó¥H¶R¤U¤@®a50»õ
¬ü¤¸¸ê²£100%ªÑÅv¡A¦ý¬O¯u­n¦³³o¼Ë±ø¥óªº»È¦æ¡A¨ä»ù½X¥i¯à·|¬O2.9»õ¬ü¤¸
ªº¤@­¿¥H¤W¡A¦¹¥~´Nºâ¯uªº¥i¥H¶R±o¨ì¡A§Ú­Ì¦P¼Ë¤]­n­±Á{¥t¥~¤@­Ó°ÝÃD¡A¨º´N
¬O§ä¤£¨ì¹³Carl Reichardt³o¼Ëªº¤H¤~¨Ó¸gÀç¡Aªñ´X¦~¨Ó¡A±qWells Fargo¥X
¨­ªº¸g²z¤H¤@ª½¼s¨ü¦U®a»È¦æ¦P·~©ÒÅwªï¡A¦ý·Q­n½Ð¨ì³o®a»È¦æªº¦Ñ©v®v¥i´N¤£
¬O¤@¥ó®e©öªº¨Æ¤F¡C

Of course, ownership of a bank - or about any other business -
is far from riskless. California banks face the specific risk of a major
earthquake, which might wreak enough havoc on borrowers to in turn
destroy the banks lending to them. A second risk is systemic - the
possibility of a business contraction or financial panic so severe that it
would endanger almost every highly-leveraged institution, no matter
how intelligently run. Finally, the market's major fear of the moment is
that West Coast real estate values will tumble because of overbuilding
and deliver huge losses to banks that have financed the expansion.
Because it is a leading real estate lender, Wells Fargo is thought to be
particularly vulnerable.

·íµM¾Ö¦³¤@®a»È¦æªºªÑÅv¡A©Î¬O¨ä¥L¥ø·~¤]¤@¼Ë¡Aµ´«D¨S¦³­·ÀI¡A¹³¥[¦{ªº»È¦æ
´N¦]¬°¦ì©ó¦a¾_±a¦Ó¥²¶·©Ó¾á«È¤á¨ü¨ì¤j¦a¾_¼vÅT¦ÓÁÙ¤£¥X­É´Úªº­·ÀI¡A²Ä¤G­Ó
­·ÀI¬OÄÝ©ó¨t²Î©Êªº¡A¤]´N¬OÄY­«ªº¥ø·~¿½±ø©Î¬O°]°È­·¼É¾É­P³o¨Ç°ª°]°Èºb±ì
¸gÀ窺ª÷¿Ä¾÷ºc¡A¤£ºÞ¸gÀ窺¦A¦n³£¦³¬Û·íªº¦M¾÷¡A³Ì«á¥«³õ·í®É¥D­nªº¦Ò¼{ÂI
¬O¬ü°ê¦è©¤ªº©Ð¦a²£¦]¬°¨Ñµ¹¹L¦h¦Ó±Y½Lªº­·ÀI¡A³s±a¨Ï±o¿Ä¸êµ¹³o¨ÇÂX±i«Ø®×
ªº»È¦æ©Ó¾á¹dÃBªº·l¥¢¡A¦Ó¤]¦]¬°Wells Fargo´N¬O¥«³õ¤W³Ì¤jªº¤£°Ê²£­É´Ú»È
¦æ¡A¤@¯ë«w»{¥¦³Ì®e©ö¨ü¨ì¶Ë®`¡C

None of these eventualities can be ruled out. The probability of
the first two occurring, however, is low and even a meaningful drop in
real estate values is unlikely to cause major problems for
well-managed institutions. Consider some mathematics: Wells Fargo
currently earns well over $1 billion pre-tax annually after expensing
more than $300 million for loan losses. If 10% of all $48 billion of the
bank's loans - not just its real estate loans - were hit by problems in
1991, and these produced losses (including foregone interest)
averaging 30% of principal, the company would roughly break even.

¥H¤W©Ò´£¨ìªº­·ÀI³£«ÜÃø¥[¥H±Æ°£¡A·íµM²Ä¤@ÂI»P²Ä¤GÂIªº¥i¯à©Ê¬Û·í§C¡A¦Ó¥B
§Y¨Ï¬O©Ð¦a²£¤j´Tªº¤U¶^¡A¹ï©ó¸gÀçÁZ®Ä¨}¦nªº»È¦æ¤]¤£­P³y¦¨¤Ó¤jªº°ÝÃD¡A§Ú
­Ì¥i¥H²³æ¦aºâ¤@¤U¡AWells Fargo²{¦b¤@¦~¦b´£¦C3»õ¬ü¤¸ªº·l¥¢·Ç³Æ¤§«á¡A
µ|«eÁÙ¥i¥HÁÈ10»õ¬ü¤¸¥H¤W¡A¤µ¤Ñ°²­Y¸Ó»È¦æ©Ò¦³ªº480»õ­É´Ú¤¤¦³10%¦b
1991¦~µo¥Í°ÝÃD¡A¥B¦ô­p¨ä¤¤¦³30%ªº¥»ª÷±N¦¬¤£¦^¨Ó¡A¥²¶·¥þ³¡Âର·l¥¢(¥]
§t¦¬¤£¦^¨Óªº§Q®§)¡A«h¦b³oºØ±¡ªp¤U¡A³o®a»È¦æÁÙ¬O¥i¥H·l¯q¨â¥­¡C

A year like that - which we consider only a low-level possibility,
not a likelihood - would not distress us. In fact, at Berkshire we would
love to acquire businesses or invest in capital projects that produced
no return for a year, but that could then be expected to earn 20% on
growing equity. Nevertheless, fears of a California real estate disaster
similar to that experienced in New England caused the price of Wells
Fargo stock to fall almost 50% within a few months during 1990. Even
though we had bought some shares at the prices prevailing before the
fall, we welcomed the decline because it allowed us to pick up many
more shares at the new, panic prices.

­Y¬O¯u¦³¤@¦~¦p¦¹¡AÁöµM§Ú­Ì»{¬°³oºØ±¡ªpµo¥Íªº¥i¯à©Ê¬Û·í§C¡A§Ú­ÌÀ³¸ÓÁÙ¥i
¥H§Ô¨ü¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W¦bBerkshire¿ï¾ÜÁʨ֩άO§ë¸ê¤@®a¤½¥q¡AÀY¤@¦~¤£ÁÈ¿ú¨S¦³Ãö
«Y¡A¥u­n¥H«á¨C¦~¯à°÷¦³20%ªºªÑªFÅv¯q³ø¹S²v¡A¾¨ºÞ¦p¦¹¡A¥[¦{¤j¦a¾_¨Ï±o
§ë¸ê¤H®`©È·s­^®æÄõ¦a°Ï¤]·|¦³¦P¼Ëªº¦MÀI¡A¾É­PWells Fargo¦b1990¦~´X­Ó
¤ë¶¡¤j¶^50%¥H¤W¡AÁöµM¦bªÑ»ù¤U¶^«e§Ú­Ì¤w¶R¶i¤@¨ÇªÑ¥÷¡A¦ýªÑ»ù¤U¶^¨Ï§Ú
­Ì¥i¥H¶}¤ß¦a¥Î§ó§Cªº»ù®æ¾ß¨ì§ó¦hªºªÑ¥÷¡C

Investors who expect to be ongoing buyers of investments
throughout their lifetimes should adopt a similar attitude toward
market fluctuations; instead many illogically become euphoric when
stock prices rise and unhappy when they fall. They show no such
confusion in their reaction to food prices: Knowing they are forever
going to be buyers of food, they welcome falling prices and deplore
price increases. (It's the seller of food who doesn't like declining
prices.) Similarly, at the Buffalo News we would cheer lower prices for
newsprint - even though it would mean marking down the value of the
large inventory of newsprint we always keep on hand - because we
know we are going to be perpetually buying the product.

¥Hªø´Á§ë¸ê§@¬°²×¥Í¥Ø¼Ðªº§ë¸ê¤H¹ï©óªÑ¥«ªi°Ê¤]À³¸Ó±Ä¨ú¦P¼ËªººA«×¡A¤d¸U¤£
­n¦]¬°ªÑ¥«º¦´NªY³ß­Y¨g¡AªÑ¥«¶^´N¦p³à¦Ò§­¡A©_©Çªº¬O¥L­Ì¹ï©ó­¹ª«ªº»ù®æ´N
¤@ÂI³£¤£·|·d¿ù¡A«Ü²M·¡ª¾¹D¦Û¤v¨C¤Ñ¤@©w·|¶R­¹ª«¡A·í­¹ª«»ù®æ¤U¶^®É¡A¥L­Ì
¥i°ª¿³ªº«Ü¡A(­n·Ð´oªºÀ³¸Ó¬O½æ­¹ª«ªº¤H)¡A¦P¼Ëªº¦b¤ô¤û«°³ø¯È§Ú­Ì´Á±æ¦L¨ê
¦¨¥»¯à°÷­°§C¡AÁöµM³o¥Nªí§Ú­Ì¥²¶·±N±b¦Cªº·s»D¦L¨ê¦s³f»ù­È¦V¤U½Õ¾ã¡A¦]¬°
§Ú­Ì«Ü²M·¡¡A§Ú­Ì¥²¶·¤@ª½¶R¶i³o¨Ç²£«~¡C

Identical reasoning guides our thinking about Berkshire's
investments. We will be buying businesses - or small parts of
businesses, called stocks - year in, year out as long as I live (and
longer, if Berkshire's directors attend the seances I have scheduled).
Given these intentions, declining prices for businesses benefit us, and
rising prices hurt us.

¦P¼Ëªº­ì«h¤]¾A¥Î¦bBerkshireªº§ë¸ê¤§¤W¡A¥u­n§ÚÁÙ°·¦b(­Y§Ú¦º«á¡ABerkshire
ªº¸³¨Æ·|Ä@·N³z¹L§Ú©Ò¦w±Æªº­°¯«·|±µ¨ü§Úªº«ü¥Ü¡A«h´Á¶¡©Î³\§óªø¤[)¡A§Ú­Ì
·|¦~´_¤@¦~¶R¤U¥ø·~©Î¬O¥ø·~ªº¤@³¡¥÷-¤]´N¬OªÑ²¼¡A¤]¦]¦¹¥ø·~ªº»ù®æ¤U¶^¹ï
§Ú­Ì·|§ó¦³§Q¡A¤Ï¤§«h¥i¯à·|¹ï§Ú­Ì¤£§Q¡C

The most common cause of low prices is pessimism - some
times pervasive, some times specific to a company or industry. We
want to do business in such an environment, not because we like
pessimism but because we like the prices it produces. It's optimism
that is the enemy of the rational buyer.

ªÑ»ù¤£®¶³Ì¥D­nªº­ì¦]¬O´dÆ[ªº±¡ºü¡A¦³®É¬O¥þ­±©Êªº¡A¦³®É«h¶È­­©ó³¡¥÷²£·~
©Î¬O¤½¥q¡A§Ú­Ì«Ü´Á±æ¯à°÷¦b³oºØÀô¹Ò¤U°µ¥Í·N¡A¤£¬O¦]¬°§Ú­Ì¤Ñ¥Í³ßÅw´dÆ[¡A
¦Ó¬O¦p¦¹¥i¥H±o¨ì«K©yªº»ù®æ¶R¶i§ó¦h¦nªº¤½¥q¡A¼ÖÆ[¬O²z©Ê§ë¸ê¤H³Ì¤jªº¼Ä
¤H¡C

None of this means, however, that a business or stock is an
intelligent purchase simply because it is unpopular; a contrarian
approach is just as foolish as a follow-the-crowd strategy. What's
required is thinking rather than polling. Unfortunately, Bertrand
Russell's observation about life in general applies with unusual force in
the financial world: "Most men would rather die than think. Many do."

·íµM¥H¤W©Ò­z¨Ã¤£¥Nªí¤£¨üÅwªï©Îª`·NªºªÑ²¼©Î¥ø·~´N¬O¦nªº§ë¸ê¼Ðªº¡A¤Ï¦V¾Þ
§@¦³¥i¯à»P¸s²³¤ß²z¤@¼Ëªº·MÄø¡A¯u¥¿­«­nªº¬O¿W¥ß«ä¦Ò¦Ó¤£¬O§ë²¼ªí¨M¡A¤£©¯
ªº¬OBertrand Russell¹ï©ó¤H©ÊªºÆ[¹î¦P¼Ë¦a¤]¾A¥Î©ó°]°È§ë¸ê¤§¤W¡A¡u¤j¦h
¼Æªº¤H¹ç¦º¤]¤£Ä@·N¥h«ä¦Ò¡I¡v¡C

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Our other major portfolio change last year was large additions to
our holdings of RJR Nabisco bonds, securities that we first bought in
late 1989. At yearend 1990 we had $440 million invested in these
securities, an amount that approximated market value. (As I write this,
however, their market value has risen by more than $150 million.)

§Ú­Ì¥h¦~¨ä¥L¥D­nªº§ë¸ê²Õ¦XªºÅܰʴN¬O¼W¥[RJR Nabiscoªº¶Å¨é¡A§Ú­Ì¬O¦b
1989¦~¶}©l¶R¶i³oºØ¦³»ùÃÒ¨é¡A¨ì¤F1990¦~©³§Ú­Ìªº§ë¸êª÷ÃB¬ù¬°4.4»õ¬ü
¤¸¡A»P¥Ø«eªº¥«»ù¬Û·í(¤£¹L¦b¼¶¼g¦~³øªº¦P®É¡A¥L­Ìªº¥«»ù¤w¼W¥[¤F1.5»õ¬ü
¤¸)¡C

Just as buying into the banking business is unusual for us, so is
the purchase of below-investment-grade bonds. But opportunities
that interest us and that are also large enough to have a worthwhile
impact on Berkshire's results are rare. Therefore, we will look at any
category of investment, so long as we understand the business we're
buying into and believe that price and value may differ significantly.
(Woody Allen, in another context, pointed out the advantage of
open-mindedness: "I can't understand why more people aren't
bi-sexual because it doubles your chances for a date on Saturday
night.")

´N¹³§Ú­Ì«Ü¤Ö¶R¶i»È¦æªÑ¡A¦P¼Ë¦a§Ú­Ì¤]«Ü¤Ö¶R¶i§ë¸êµ¥¯Å¥H¤Uªº¶Å¨é¡A¤£¹L¯à
°÷¤Þ°_§Ú­Ì¿³½ìªº§ë¸ê¾÷·|¡A¦P®É³W¼Ò¤j¨ì¨¬¥H¹ïBerkshire¦³¬Û·í¼vÅT¤Oªº§ë
¸ê¾÷·|¹ê¦b¬O¤£¦h¡A¦]¦¹§Ú­ÌÄ@·N¹Á¸Õ¦UºØ¤£¦Pªº§ë¸ê¤u¨ã¡A¥u­n§Ú­Ì¹ï©ó§Y±N
¶R¶iªº§ë¸ê¼Ðªº¦³¬Û·íªº¤F¸Ñ¡A¦P®É»ù®æ»P»ù­È¦³¬Û·í¤jªº®t¶Z(¥î­}¦ã­Û¤]¥t
¤@¥y¥xµü¥Î¨Ó§Î®e¶}©úªº¦n³B¡J¡u§Ú¹ê¦b¤£¤F¸Ñ¬°¤°»ò¦³¨º»ò¦h¤H±Æ¥¸Âù©ÊÅÊ¡A
¤H­Ì¦b¬P´Á¤»©]±ß¦Ü¤Ö¥i¥H¦³¦h¤@­¿ªº¾÷·|¯à°÷¬ù·|¡H¡v)¡C

In the past we have bought a few below-investment-grade
bonds with success, though these were all old-fashioned "fallen
angels" - bonds that were initially of investment grade but that were
downgraded when the issuers fell on bad times. In the 1984 annual
report we described our rationale for buying one fallen angel, the
Washington Public Power Supply System.

¦b¹L¥h§Ú­Ì¤]´¿¦¨¥\¦a§ë¸ê¤F¦n´X¦¸§ë¸êµ¥¯Å¥H¤Uªº¶Å¨é¡AÁöµM¥L­Ì¦h¬O¶Ç²Î¤W
©Ò¿×ªº¥¢Álªº¤Ñ¨Ï¡A·N«ä¬O«ü­ì¥ýµo¦æ®ÉÄÝ©ó§ë¸êµ¥¯Å¦ý«á¨Ó¦]¬°¤½¥q¥X²{°ÝÃD
¦Ó³Q­°µ¥¡A¦b1984¦~ªº¦~³ø¤¤§Ú­Ì¤]´¿¸g´£¨ì¹L¶R¶iµØ²±¹y¤½¥Î¹q¤O¨t²Î¶Å¨é
ªº­ì¦]¡C

A kind of bastardized fallen angel burst onto the investment
scene in the 1980s - "junk bonds" that were far below investment-
grade when issued. As the decade progressed, new offerings of
manufactured junk became ever junkier and ultimately the predictable
outcome occurred: Junk bonds lived up to their name. In 1990 - even
before the recession dealt its blows - the financial sky became dark
with the bodies of failing corporations.

¤£¹L¨ì¤F1980¦~¥N¤j¶q°²«_ªº¥¢Álªº¤Ñ¨Ï¥R¥¸µÛ¾ã­Ó§ë¸ê¬É¡A¤]´N¬O©Ò¿×ªº©U
§£¶Å¨é¡A³o¨Ç¶Å¨é¦bµo¦æ®É¥ø·~¥»¨­ªº«H¥Îµûµ¥´N¤£¨Î¡A¤Q´X¦~¤U¨Ó©U§£¶Å¨é¶V
¨Ó¶V©U§£¡A³Ì«á¯uªºÅܦ¨¦W²Å¨ä¹êªº©U§£¡A¨ì¤F1990¦~¥N¦b¸gÀÙ°I°h¤Þµo¶ÅÅv
¦M¾÷¤§«e¡A¾ã­Ó§ë¸ê¬Éªº¤ÑªÅ¤w§Gº¡µÛ³o¨Ç°²«_¥¢Ál¤Ñ¨Ïªº«ÍÅé¡C

The disciples of debt assured us that this collapse wouldn't
happen: Huge debt, we were told, would cause operating managers to
focus their efforts as never before, much as a dagger mounted on the
steering wheel of a car could be expected to make its driver proceed
with intensified care. We'll acknowledge that such an attention-getter
would produce a very alert driver. But another certain consequence
would be a deadly - and unnecessary - accident if the car hit even the
tiniest pothole or sliver of ice. The roads of business are riddled with
potholes; a plan that requires dodging them all is a plan for disaster.

°g«H³o¨Ç¶Å¨éªºªù®{¤@¦A±j½Õ¤£¥i¯àµo¥Í±Y½Lªº¦M¾÷¡A¹dÃBªº¶Å°È·|­¢¨Ï¤½¥q¸g
²z¤H§ó±Mª`©ó¸gÀç¡A´N¹³¬O¤@¦ì¾r¾p¶}µÛ¤@½ø½ü­L¤W´¡µÛ¤@°¦¤P­ºªº¯}¨®¡A¤j®a
¥i¥H½T©w³o¦ì¾r¾p¤@©w·|¤p¤ßÁlÁl¦a¶}¨®¡A·íµM§Ú­Ìµ´¹ï¬Û«H³o¦ì¾r¾p¤@©w·|¬Û
·í¤p¤ßÂÔ·V¡A¦ý¬O¥t¥~«oÁÙ¦³¤@­ÓÅܼƥ²¶·§JªA¡A¨º´N¬O¥u­n¨®¤l¸I¨ì¤@­Ó¤p§|
¬}©Î¬O¤@¤p¤ù³·´N¥i¯à³y¦¨­P©Rªº¨®º×¡A¦Ó°¾°¾¦b°Ó·~ªº¹D¸ô¤W¡A¹M§GµÛ¦UºØ§|
§|¬}¬}¡A¤@­Ó­n¨D¥²¶·Á×¶}©Ò¦³§|¬}ªº­pµe¹ê¦b¬O¤@­Ó¬Û·í¦MÀIªº­pµe¡C

In the final chapter of The Intelligent Investor Ben Graham
forcefully rejected the dagger thesis: "Confronted with a challenge to
distill the secret of sound investment into three words, we venture the
motto, Margin of Safety." Forty-two years after reading that, I still
think those are the right three words. The failure of investors to heed
this simple message caused them staggering losses as the 1990s
began.

¦b¸¯©Ô¨u´¼¼z«¬§ë¸ê¤Hªº³Ì«á¤@³¹¤¤¡A«Ü±j¯P¦a»é¥¸³oºØ¤P­º²z½×¡A¦pªG­n±Ní
°·ªº§ë¸ê¿@ÁY¦¨¤T¦r½e¨¥¡A¨º´N¬O¦w¥þÃä»Ú¡A¦bŪ¨ì³o½g¤å³¹ªº42¦~«á¡A§Ú¤´
²`²`¬Û«H³o¤T­Ó¦r¡A¨S¯àª`·N¨ì³o­Ó²³æ­ì«hªº§ë¸ê¤H¦b1990¦~¥N¶}©l´N·|ºC
ºCÀ|¨ì·l¥¢ªºµh­W¡C

At the height of the debt mania, capital structures were
concocted that guaranteed failure: In some cases, so much debt was
issued that even highly favorable business results could not produce
the funds to service it. One particularly egregious "kill- 'em-at-birth"
case a few years back involved the purchase of a mature television
station in Tampa, bought with so much debt that the interest on it
exceeded the station's gross revenues. Even if you assume that all
labor, programs and services were donated rather than purchased, this
capital structure required revenues to explode - or else the station
was doomed to go broke. (Many of the bonds that financed the
purchase were sold to now-failed savings and loan associations; as a
taxpayer, you are picking up the tab for this folly.)

¦b¶Å°È®£·W³Ì°ªÂIªº®É­Ô¡A¸ê¥»µ²ºcµù©w¾É­P¥¢±Ñªºµo¥Í¡A¦³¨Ç¤½¥qªº¿Ä¸êºb±ì
°ª¨ì§Y¨Ï¬O¦A¦nªº¥ø·~¤]µLªk­t¾á¡A¦³¤@­Ó¯S§OºG¡B¤@¥X¥Í´N¤Ô§éªº®×¨Ò¡A´N¬O
¤@­Ó©Z©¬ÆW¦a¤è¹qµø¥xªºÁʨ֮סA³o­Ó®×¤l¤@¦~ªº§Q®§­t¾á¬Æ¦ÜÁÙ¶W¹L¥L¤@¾ã¦~
ªºÀ禬¡A¤]´N¬O»¡§Y¨Ï©Ò¦³ªº¤H¤u¡B¸`¥Ø»PªA°È³£¤£¶·¦¨¥»¡A¥BÀ禬¤]¯à¦³Ãz¬µ
©Êªº¦¨ªø¡A³o®a¹qµø¥xÁÙ¬O·|¨B¤W­Ë³¬ªº©R¹B¡A(³\¦h¶Å¨é³£¬O¥Ñ²{¦b¤j¦h­Ë³¬
ªºÀx¶U¾÷ºc¶R¶i¡A©Ò¥H¨­¬°¯Çµ|¸q°È¤Hªº§A¡Aµ¥©ó¶¡±µ´À³o¨Ç·MÄøªº¦æ¬°¶R³æ)¡C

All of this seems impossible now. When these misdeeds were
done, however, dagger-selling investment bankers pointed to the
"scholarly" research of academics, which reported that over the years
the higher interest rates received from low-grade bonds had more
than compensated for their higher rate of default. Thus, said the
friendly salesmen, a diversified portfolio of junk bonds would produce
greater net returns than would a portfolio of high-grade bonds.
(Beware of past-performance "proofs" in finance: If history books
were the key to riches, the Forbes 400 would consist of librarians.)

²{¦b¬Ý°_¨Ó³oºØ±¡ªp·íµM¤£¤Ó¥i¯à¦Aµo¥Í¡A·í³o¨Ç¿ù»~ªº¦æ¬°µo¥Í®É¡A±Mªù³c½æ
¤P­ºªº§ë¸ê»È¦æ®a¯É¯É§â³d¥ô±Àµ¹¾Ç³N³æ¦ì¡Aªí¥Ü¬ã¨sÅã¥Ü§Cµ¥¯Å¶Å¨é©Ò¦¬¨ìªº
§Q®§¦¬¤JÀ³¸Ó¥i¥HÀ±¸É§ë¸ê¤H©Ò©Ó¾á¥i¯à¦¬¤£¦^¥»ª÷ªº­·ÀI¡A¦]¦¹±ÀÂ_»¡¦n¤ßªº
·~°È­û©Ò¤¶²Ðµ¹«È¤áªº°ª¦¬¯q¶Å¨é±Nµ¹«È¤á±a¨Ó¤ñ°ªµ¥¯Å¶Å¨é§ó¦nªº¦¬¯q¡A(¯S
§O­n¤p¤ß°]°È¾Ç¤W¹L¥hªº²Î­p¸ê®Æ¹êÃÒ¡A­Y¾ú¥v¸ê®Æ¬O­P´I¤§Æ_¡A¨º»ò´I¤ñ¤h¥|
¦Ê¤j´I»¨¤£³£À³¸Ó¬O¹Ï®ÑÀ]­û¶Ü?)

There was a flaw in the salesmen's logic - one that a first- year
student in statistics is taught to recognize. An assumption was being
made that the universe of newly-minted junk bonds was identical to
the universe of low-grade fallen angels and that, therefore, the default
experience of the latter group was meaningful in predicting the default
experience of the new issues. (That was an error similar to checking
the historical death rate from Kool-Aid before drinking the version
served at Jonestown.)

¤£¹L³o¨Ç·~°È­ûªºÅ޿観¤@­Óº|¬}¡A³o¬O²Î­p¨tªº·s¥Í³£ª¾¹Dªº¡A¨º´N¬O°²³]©Ò
¦³·sµo¦æªº©U§£¶Å¨é³£»P¥H«eªº¥¢Ál¤Ñ¨Ï¤@¼Ë¡A¤]´N¬O»¡«eªÌÁÙ¤£¥X¥»ª÷ªº¾÷²v
»P«áªÌ¬O¤@¼Ëªº¡A(³oºØ¿ù»~´N¹³¬O¦b³ÜJonestownªº¬rÃĤ§«e¡A¥H¹L¥hªº¦º¤`
²v¬°°Ñ¦Ò)¡C

The universes were of course dissimilar in several vital respects.
For openers, the manager of a fallen angel almost invariably yearned
to regain investment-grade status and worked toward that goal. The
junk-bond operator was usually an entirely different breed. Behaving
much as a heroin user might, he devoted his energies not to finding a
cure for his debt-ridden condition, but rather to finding another fix.
Additionally, the fiduciary sensitivities of the executives managing the
typical fallen angel were often, though not always, more finely
developed than were those of the junk-bond-issuing financiopath.

³o­Ó¥@¬É¦b³\¦h¤è­±·íµM¦³«Ü¤jªº¤£¦P¡A¹ï©ó¶}©ÝªÌ¨Ó»¡¡A¥¢Ál¤Ñ¨Ïªº¸g²z¤HµL
¤£´÷±æ­«·s¨ì§ë¸êµ¥¯Åªº¦W³æ¤§¤W¡A¡A¦ý¬O©U§£¶Å¨éªº¸gÀçªÌ´N¥þµM¤£¬O¨º»ò¤@
¦^¨Æ¤F¡A¤£«ä¸Ñ¨M¨ä¬°¶Å°È©Ò­Wªº§x¹Ò¡A¤Ï¦Ó°¾¦n¹B¥Î­^¶¯¦¡ªº¦æ®|¡A´M§ä¼È®É
¸Ñ²æ¤§¹D¡A¦¹¥~¥¢Ál¤Ñ¨Ï©¾¸Ûªº±Ó·P¯S½è³q±`¤ñ¨º¨Ç©U§£¶Å¨é¸gÀçªÌ­n¨Óªº¦nªº
¦h¡C

Wall Street cared little for such distinctions. As usual, the Street's
enthusiasm for an idea was proportional not to its merit, but rather to
the revenue it would produce. Mountains of junk bonds were sold by
those who didn't care to those who didn't think - and there was no
shortage of either.

µØº¸µó¹ï©ó³o¼Ëªº®t²§®Ú¥»´N¤£¦b¥G¡A³q±`µØº¸µóÃö¤ßªº¤£¬O¥¦¨ì©³¦³¦h¤ÖÀu¯Ê
ÂI¡A¦Ó¬O¥¦¥i¥H²£¥Í¦h¤Ö¦¬¤J¡A¦¨¤d¤W¸Uªº©U§£¶Å¨é´N¬O¥Ñ³oÀ°¤£¦b¥Gªº¤H½æµ¹
¨º¨Ç¤£À´±o«ä¦Ò¤§¤H¡C

Junk bonds remain a mine field, even at prices that today are
often a small fraction of issue price. As we said last year, we have
never bought a new issue of a junk bond. (The only time to buy these
is on a day with no "y" in it.) We are, however, willing to look at the
field, now that it is in disarray.

§Y¨Ï²{¦b©U§£¶Å¨éªº¥«³õ»ù®æ¥u¦³µo¦æ»ù®æªº¤@ÂIÂI¡A¥¦ÁÙ¬O­Ó¦a¹p°Ï¡A´N¹³¬O
¥h¦~§Ú­Ì´¿¸g»¡¹Lªº¡A§Ú­Ì±q¨Ó¤£¶R·sµo¦æªº©U§£¶Å¨é¡A(°ß¤@·|¶R¶iªº®ÉÂI¬O
¨S¦³y¤§®É)¡A¤£¹L¶X²{¦b¥«³õ¤@¹M²V¶Ã¡A§Ú­Ì­Ë¬OÄ@·NªáÂI®É¶¡¬Ý¬Ý¡C

In the case of RJR Nabisco, we feel the Company's credit is
considerably better than was generally perceived for a while and that
the yield we receive, as well as the potential for capital gain, more than
compensates for the risk we incur (though that is far from nil). RJR has
made asset sales at favorable prices, has added major amounts of
equity, and in general is being run well.

¦bRJR Nabisco³o­Ó®×¤l§Ú­Ì»{¬°³o®a¤½¥qªº¶Å«H­n¤ñ¥~¬É·Q¹³¤¤¦n¤@ÂI¡A¦P
®É§Ú­Ì·Pı¼ç¦bªº§Q¯q¡AÀ³¸Ó¥i¥HÀ±¸É§Ú­Ì­n©Ó¾áªº­·ÀI(ÁöµMµ´«DµL­·ÀI)¡ARJR
¸ê²£³B¥÷ªº»ù®æÁٺ⤣¿ù¡AªÑªFÅv¯q¼W¥[¤F³\¦h¡A²{¦b¸gÀç¤]º¥¤W­y¹D¤F¡C

However, as we survey the field, most low-grade bonds still look
unattractive. The handiwork of the Wall Street of the 1980s is even
worse than we had thought: Many important businesses have been
mortally wounded. We will, though, keep looking for opportunities as
the junk market continues to unravel.

µM¦Ó¦b§Ú­Ì¬Ý¤F¥«³õ¥H«áµo²{¡A¤j³¡¤À§Cµ¥¯Åªº¶Å¨éÁÙ¬O¤£¨ã§l¤Þ¤O¡AµØº¸µó
1980¦~¥Nªº§Þ³N¤ñ§Ú­Ì·Q¹³¤¤®t¦h¤F¡A³\¦h­«­n¥Í·N³£¤j¨ü¼vÅT¡A¤£¹L§Ú­ÌÁÙ
¬O·|Ä~Äò¦b©U§£¶Å¨é¥«³õ¤¤´M§ä¦nªº§ë¸ê¾÷·|¡C


Convertible Preferred Stocks

¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑ

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We continue to hold the convertible preferred stocks described in
earlier reports: $700 million of Salomon Inc, $600 million of The
Gillette Company, $358 million of USAir Group, Inc. and $300 million
of Champion International Corp. Our Gillette holdings will be
converted into 12 million shares of common stock on April 1.
Weighing interest rates, credit quality and prices of the related
common stocks, we can assess our holdings in Salomon and
Champion at yearend 1990 as worth about what we paid, Gillette as
worth somewhat more, and USAir as worth substantially less.

§Ú­Ì«ùÄò«ù¦³¥ý«e¦V¦U¦ì³ø§i¹Lªº¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑ¡A¥]¬A©Òùªù7»õ¬üª÷¡B¦N¦C6
»õ¬üª÷¡B¬ü°ê¯èªÅ3.58»õ¬üª÷»P«a­x¥ø·~3»õ¬üª÷¡C§Ú­Ì¦N¦Cªº¯S§OªÑ±N·|¦b
4¤ë1¤éÂà´«¬°1,200¸UªÑªº´¶³qªÑ¡A¦b¿Å¶q§Q²v¡B¶Å«H»P´¶³qªÑªº»ù®æ¤§«á¡A
§Ú­Ì¥i¥H½T«H¦b©Òùªù»P«a­x¥ø·~ªº§ë¸ê²{­ÈÀ³¸Ó»P§Ú­Ì·íªìªº¦¨¥»®t¤£¦h¡A¦N
¦Cªº»ù­È¤ñ¦¨¥»°ª¡A¦Ü©ó¬ü°ê¯èªÅªº»ù­È«h»·§C©ó·íªìªº§ë¸ê¦¨¥»¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@ In making the USAir purchase, your Chairman displayed exquisite
timing: I plunged into the business at almost the exact moment that it
ran into severe problems. (No one pushed me; in tennis parlance, I
committed an "unforced error.") The company's troubles were brought
on both by industry conditions and by the post-merger difficulties it
encountered in integrating Piedmont, an affliction I should have
expected since almost all airline mergers have been followed by
operational turmoil.

¦b§ë¸ê¬ü°ê¯èªÅ®É¡A¥»¤H¦b¤U§Ú¯u¬O§ì¹ï¤F®ÉÂI¡A§Ú´X¥G¬O¦b¯èªÅ·~ÃzµoÄY­«ªº
°ÝÃD¤§«e¡A¸õ¶i¥h³o­Ó²£·~¡A(¨S¦³¤H±j­¢§Ú¡A¦p¦P¦bºô²y³õ¤W¡A§Ú§â¥¦§Î®e°µ
¬O«D¨ü­¢©Ê¥¢»~)¡A¬ü°ê¯èªÅ°ÝÃDªºµo¥Í¡A¾É¦]©ó²£·~¥»¨­ªºª¬ªp»P¹ïPiedmont
Áʨ֫á©Ò²£¥Íªº«á¿ò¯g¡A³oÂI§ÚÀ³¸Ó­n¦­¸Ó¹w®Æ¨ì¡A¦]¬°´X¥G©Ò¦³ªº¯èªÅ·~ÁʨÖ
®×³Ì«áªºµ²ªG³£¬O¤@¹Î²V¶Ã¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In short order, Ed Colodny and Seth Schofield resolved the second
problem: The airline now gets excellent marks for service.
Industry-wide problems have proved to be far more serious. Since our
purchase, the economics of the airline industry have deteriorated at an
alarming pace, accelerated by the kamikaze pricing tactics of certain
carriers. The trouble this pricing has produced for all carriers
illustrates an important truth: In a business selling a commodity-type
product, it's impossible to be a lot smarter than your dumbest
competitor.

¦b³o¤£¤[¤§«á¡AEd Colodny»PSeth Schofield¸Ñ¨M¤F²Ä¤G­ÓÃøÃD¡A¬ü°ê¯èªÅ²{
¦bªºªA°È¨ü¨ì¦nµû¡A¤£¹L¾ã­Ó²£·~©Ò­±Á{ªº°ÝÃD«o¶V¨Ó¶VÄY­«¡A¦Û±q§Ú­Ì¶}©l§ë
¸ê¤§«á¡A¯èªÅ·~ªºª¬ªp«K«Ü«æÁئa´c¤Æ¡A¤×¨ä¦A¥[¤W¬Y¨Ç·~ªÌ¦Û±þ©Êªº±þ»ùÄv
ª§¡A³o¼Ëªºµ²ªG¾É­P©Ò¦³ªº¯èªÅ·~ªÌ³£­±Á{¤@¶µ´Ý»Åªº¨Æ¹ê¡A¦b¾P°â¨î¦¡¤Æ°Ó«~
ªº²£·~¤§¤¤¡A§A«ÜÃø¤ñ³Ì²ÂªºÄvª§¹ï¤âÁo©ú¨ì­þ¸Ì¥h¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ However, unless the industry is decimated during the next few
years, our USAir investment should work out all right. Ed and Seth
have decisively addressed the current turbulence by making major
changes in operations. Even so, our investment is now less secure than
at the time I made it.

¤£¹L°£«D¦b¥¼¨Ó´X¦~¤º¡A¯èªÅ·~¥þ­±¦a±Y¼ì¡A§_«h§Ú­Ì¦b¬ü°ê¯èªÅªº§ë¸êÀ³¸Ó¯à
°÷½T«O¦w¥þµL¸·¡AEd»PSeth«ÜªG¨M¦a¦bÀç¹B¤W°µ¤F¤@¨Ç­«¤jªº§ïÅܨӸѨM¥Ø«e
Àç¹B©Ò­±Á{ªº°ÝÃD¡AÁöµM¦p¦¹¡A§Ú­Ìªº§ë¸ê²{¦bªº±¡ªp¤ñ°_·íªìÁÙ¬O®t¤F¤@ÂI¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Our convertible preferred stocks are relatively simple securities,
yet I should warn you that, if the past is any guide, you may from time
to time read inaccurate or misleading statements about them. Last
year, for example, several members of the press calculated the value
of all our preferreds as equal to that of the common stock into which
they are convertible. By their logic, that is, our Salomon preferred,
convertible into common at $38, would be worth 60% of face value if
Salomon common were selling at $22.80. But there is a small problem
with this line of reasoning: Using it, one must conclude that all of the
value of a convertible preferred resides in the conversion privilege and
that the value of a non-convertible preferred of Salomon would be
zero, no matter what its coupon or terms for redemption.

§Ú­Ìªº¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑºâ¬O¬Û·í³æ¯Âªº§ë¸ê¤u¨ã¡A¤£¹L§ÚÁÙ¬O¥²¶·Äµ§i¦U¦ì¡A­Y¬O
¹L¥hªº¸gÅ禳¥ô¦ó°Ñ¦Ò»ù­È¡A¤j®a¥i¯àÁÙ¬O·|Ū¨ì¤@¨Ç¤£¥¿½T©Î¬O»~¾Éªº°T®§¡A
Á|¨Ò¨Ó»¡¹³¥h¦~¡A¦³´X®a³ø³¹Âø»x¿ù»~¦a±N¥¦­Ìªº»ù­È»P¥i¥HÂà´«ªº´¶³qªÑ»ù®æ
²V¬°¤@½Í¡A§Ú­Ìªº©Òùªù¯S§OªÑÂà´«»ù®æ¬°38¬ü¤¸¡A®Ú¾Ú¥¦­ÌªºÅÞ¿è¡A¥Ñ©ó©Ò
ùªù´¶³qªÑªº²{»ù¬°22.8¬ü¤¸¡A©Ò¥H¨ä¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑªº»ù­È¥u¦³­±ÃBªº60%¡A
¦ý³o¼Ëªº±À½×«o¦³¤@­Óª¼ÂI¡A¦]¬°³o¼Ëªº»¡ªkªí¥Ü©Ò¦³ªº¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑ¡A¨ä»ù­È
¥u¦b¨ä©Ò¾Ö¦³ªºÂà´«Åv§Q¡A¦Ü©ó©Òùªù¤£¥iÂà´«ªº¶Å¨é»ù­È«h¬°¹s¡A¤£ºÞ¥¦©Ò¾Ö
¦³ªºÅ«¦^±ø¥ó¬°¦ó¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The point you should keep in mind is that most of the value of our
convertible preferreds is derived from their fixed-income
characteristics. That means the securities cannot be worth less than
the value they would possess as non-convertible preferreds and may
be worth more because of their conversion options.

¤j®a¥²¶·¯S§O°O¦íªº¤@ÂI¬O§Ú­Ì¥iÂà´«¯S§OªÑ¤j³¡¤Àªº»ù­È¨ä¹ê¬O¨Ó¦Û©ó©T©w
¦¬¯qªº¯S©Ê¡A³o·N«ä¬O»¡³o¨Ç¦³»ùÃҨ骺»ù­È¤£¥i¯à§C©ó¤@¯ë¤£¨ãÂà´«Åvªº¯S§O
ªÑ¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a·|¦]¬°¥¦­Ì¾Ö¦³¥iÂà´«ªº¿ï¾ÜÅv¦Ó¨ã¦³§ó°ªªº»ù­È¡C

* * * * * * * * * * * *

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ I deeply regret having to end this section of the report with a note
about my friend, Colman Mockler, Jr., CEO of Gillette, who died in
January. No description better fitted Colman than "gentleman" - a
word signifying integrity, courage and modesty. Couple these qualities
with the humor and exceptional business ability that Colman
possessed and you can understand why I thought it an undiluted
pleasure to work with him and why I, and all others who knew him, will
miss Colman so much.

«Ü¿ò¾Ñ§Ú¥²¶·¦b³ø§i¥½¬q¥H§Úªº¦nªB¤ÍColman Mockler-¦N¦CªºCEO¦b¤µ¦~
¤@¤ë¹L¥@°µ¬°µ²§À¡A°£¤F¡u²Ô¤h¡v³o­Ó¥Nªí«~®æ¡B«i®ð»PÁ¾©Mªº¦r¡A¨S¦³¨ä¥L¦r
§ó¯à¶K¤Á§Î®eColman³o­Ó¤H¡A°£¤F³o¨Ç¯S½è¤§¥~¡A¦A¥[¤W¥L©Ò¾Ö¦³ªº«ÕÀq»P
¶W¤Zªº¸gÀç¯à¤O¡A©Ò¥H¤j®aÀ³¸Ó¥i¥H·Q¹³»P¥L¦@¨Æ¬O¦h»ò¥O¤H·P¨ì´r§Öªº¤@¥ó
¨Æ¡A³o¤]¬O¬°¦ó¥]§t§Ú¦b¤ºªº³\¦h¤H¡A·|¹ï¥L·P¨ì¯S§OÃh©Àªº½t¬G¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A few days before Colman died, Gillette was richly praised in a
Forbes cover story. Its theme was simple: The company's success in
shaving products has come not from marketing savvy (though it
exhibits that talent repeatedly) but has instead resulted from its
devotion to quality. This mind-set has caused it to consistently focus
its energies on coming up with something better, even though its
existing products already ranked as the class of the field. In so
depicting Gillette, Forbes in fact painted a portrait of Colman.

¦bColman¦º¤§«e´X¤Ñ¡A¦N¦C¨ü¨ì´I¤ñ¤h¥H«Ê­±¬G¨Æ¤j¥[Æg´­¡A¼ÐÃD«Ü²³æ¡A
³o®a¤½¥q¦b¨íÄG¤M²£·~ªº¦¨¥\¡A¤£³æ³æ¥u¾a¦æ¾P¤â¬q(ÁöµM¥L­Ì¤@¦A®i²{³o¤è­±
ªº¯à¤O)¡A¦P®É§ó·½¦Û©ó¥L­Ì¹ï©ó«~½èªº°l¨D¡A³oºØ¤ß²z«Ø³]¨Ï±o¥L­Ì«ùÄò±Nºë
¤OÂ\¦b±À¥X§ó·s§ó¦nªº²£«~¤§¤W¡AÁöµM²{¦³ªº²£«~¤w¬O¥«³õ¤W³Ì¸g¨åªº¡A´I¤ñ¤h
¹ï©ó¦N¦Cªº§Î®e¡A´N¦n¹³¬O¦b´y­zColman¥»¤H¤@¼Ë¡C


Help! Help!

±Ï©R!±Ï©R!

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Regular readers know that I shamelessly utilize the annual letter in
an attempt to acquire businesses for Berkshire. And, as we constantly
preach at the Buffalo News, advertising does work: Several businesses
have knocked on our door because someone has read in these pages
of our interest in making acquisitions. (Any good ad salesman will tell
you that trying to sell something without advertising is like winking at
a girl in the dark.)

¼ô±xªºÅªªÌ³£ª¾¹D§Ú¸g±`§Q¥Î¦~³ø¤£ÅU·G®¢¦a´ÀBerkshire´M§ä¦X¾Aªº§ë¸ê¼Ð
ªº¡A¦¹¥~§Ú­Ì¤]±`±`¦b¤ô¤û«°³ø¯È¥Zµn¼s§i¼x¨D§ë¸ê¼Ðªº¡A¦Ó¦p¦¹ªº«Å¶Ç°µªk½T
¹ê¤]¦¬¨ì®ÄªG¡A¦³¦n´X®a¥ø·~¦¬¨ì§Ú­Ì¬ÛÃöªº°T®§«á¡A¤Wªù«e¨Ó(¥ô¦ó¦nªº·~°È
¾P°â¤H­û³£·|§i¶D§A¤£¾a¼s§i½æªF¦è´N¦n¹³¬O¦b¶Â©]¸Ì¹ï©ó¤k«Ä¤ã²´¤@¼Ë¨S¦³
¥Î)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In Appendix B (on pages 26-27) I've reproduced the essence of a
letter I wrote a few years back to the owner/manager of a desirable
business. If you have no personal connection with a business that
might be of interest to us but have a friend who does, perhaps you can
pass this report along to him.

ªþ¿ýB¬O§Ú¦^«Hµ¹¤@¦ì¥i¯àªº½æ¤èªººK­n¡A­Y¬O§Aª¾¹D¨º®a¥ø·~¥i¯à·|¬O§Ú­Ì¦³
¿³½ìªº¼Ðªº¡A¦P®É§A¦³»{ÃѪºªB¤Í¦b¨º®a¥ø·~¡AÅwªï§Aª½±µ±N³o¥÷¸ê®Æ°eµ¹¥L°Ñ
¦Ò¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Here's the sort of business we are looking for:

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (1) Large purchases (at least $10 million of after-tax earnings),

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (2) Demonstrated consistent earning power (future projections are
of little interest to us, nor are "turnaround" situations),

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (3) Businesses earning good returns on equity while employing
little or no debt,

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (4) Management in place (we can't supply it),

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (5) Simple businesses (if there's lots of technology, we won't
understand it),

¡@¡@¡@¡@ (6) An offering price (we don't want to waste our time or that of
the seller by talking, even preliminarily, about a transaction when price
is unknown).

¡@

¥H¤U´N¬O§Ú­Ì·Q­n§äªº¥ø·~±ø¥ó

(1)¹dÃB¥æ©ö(¨C¦~µ|«á¬Õ¾l¦Ü¤Ö¦³¤@¤d¸U¬ü¤¸)
(2)
«ùÄòí©wÀò§Q(§Ú­Ì¹ï¦³»·´º©Î¨ãÂà¾÷ªº¤½¥q¨S¿³½ì)
(3)
°ªªÑªF³ø¹S²v(¨Ã¥B¬Æ¤ÖÁ|¶Å)
(4)
¨ã³ÆºÞ²z¶¥¼h(§Ú­ÌµLªk´£¨Ñ)
(5)
²³æªº¥ø·~(­Y²o¯A¨ì¤Ó¦h°ª¬ì§Þ¡A§Ú­Ì§Ë¤£À´)
(6)
¦X²zªº»ù®æ(¦b»ù®æ¤£½T©w«e¡A§Ú­Ì¤£§Æ±æ®ö¶O¦Û¤v»P¹ï¤è¤Ó¦h®É¶¡)

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We will not engage in unfriendly takeovers. We can promise
complete confidentiality and a very fast answer - customarily within
five minutes - as to whether we're interested. We prefer to buy for
cash, but will consider issuing stock when we receive as much in
intrinsic business value as we give.

¡@

§Ú­Ì¤£·|¶i¦æ¼Ä·NªºÁʨ֡A¨Ã©Ó¿Õ§¹¥þ«O±K¨Ã¾¨§ÖµªÂЬO§_·P¿³½ì(³q±`¤£¶W¹L
¤­¤ÀÄÁ
) ¡A§Ú­Ì¶É¦V±Ä²{ª÷¥æ©ö¡A°£«D§Ú­Ì©Ò´«±oªº¤º§t»ù­È¸ò§Ú­Ì¥I¥Xªº¤@¼Ë
¦h¡A§_«h¤£¦Ò¼{µo¦æªÑ¥÷¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Our favorite form of purchase is one fitting the Blumkin-
Friedman-Heldman mold. In cases like these, the company's owner-
managers wish to generate significant amounts of cash, sometimes for
themselves, but often for their families or inactive shareholders. At the
same time, these managers wish to remain significant owners who
continue to run their companies just as they have in the past. We think
we offer a particularly good fit for owners with such objectives. We
invite potential sellers to check us out by contacting people with whom
we have done business in the past.

§Ú­Ì³Ì³ßÅwªº¥æ©ö¹ï¶H¤§¤@¬O¹³B¤Ó¤Ó- Heldman®a±Ú¨º¼Ë¡A¤½¥q¸gÀçªÌ§Æ±æ
¯à°¨¤W¦³¤@¤jµ§²{ª÷¡A¤£ºÞ¬Oµ¹¦Û¤v¡B®a¤H©Î¬O¨ä¥LªÑªF¡A³Ì¦n³o¨Ç¸gÀçªÌ¦p©¹
±`¤@¼Ë¯à°÷Ä~Äò¯d¦b¤½¥q¡A§Ú·Q§Ú­Ì¥i¥H´£¨Ñ¨ã¦³¥H¤W·Qªkªº¸gÀçªÌ¡A¤@­Óº¡·N
ªº¤è¦¡¡A§Ú­Ì¤]Åwªï¥i¯àªº½æ¤è»P¨º¨Ç¹L¥h»P§Ú­Ì¦X§@¹Lªº¹ï¶H¥´Å¥¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Charlie and I frequently get approached about acquisitions that
don't come close to meeting our tests: We've found that if you
advertise an interest in buying collies, a lot of people will call hoping
to sell you their cocker spaniels. A line from a country song expresses
our feeling about new ventures, turnarounds, or auction-like sales:
"When the phone don't ring, you'll know it's me."

¥t¤@¤è­±¬d²z¸ò§Ú¤]±`±`±µ¨ì¤@¨Ç¤£²Å¦X§Ú­Ì±ø¥óªº¸ß°Ý¡A¥]¬A·s¨Æ·~¡BÂà¾÷
ªÑ¡B©ç½æ®×¥H¤Î³Ì±`¨£ªº¥ò¤¶®×¡C§Ú­Ìµo²{¦pªG§Aµn¼s§i­n¶Rªª¦Ï¤ü¡Aµ²ªG«o¦³
¤@¤j°ï¤H¥´¹q¸Ü¨Ó­n½æ§Aªø¦ÕÂy¤ü¡A¹ï©ó³oÃþªº¨Æ·~¡A¦³­º¶m§øºq¦±¨ä¤¤ªº¤@¥y

ºqµü³Ì¯à´y­z§Ú­Ìªº·Pı¡A¡u­Y¹q¸Ü¤£ÅT¡A§A´Nª¾¹D¨º¬O§Ú¡v¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Besides being interested in the purchase of businesses as
described above, we are also interested in the negotiated purchase of
large, but not controlling, blocks of stock comparable to those we hold
in Capital Cities, Salomon, Gillette, USAir, and Champion. We are not
interested, however, in receiving suggestions about purchases we
might make in the general stock market.

°£¤F¥H¤W¶R¤U¾ã®a¤½¥qªºÁʨ֮ץ~¡A§Ú­Ì¤]·|¦Ò¼{¶R¶i¤@¤j³¡¥÷¤£¨ã±±¨îÅvªºªÑ
¥÷¡A´N¹³§Ú­Ì¦b¸ê¥»«°¡B©Òùªù¡B¦N¦C¡B¬ü°ê¯èªÅ»P«a­x¥ø·~³o´X­Ó
Case¤@¼Ë
ªº¤½¥q¡A¤£¹L¹ï©ó¤@¯ëª½±µ±qªÑ²¼¥«³õ¤W¶R¶iªÑ¥÷ªº«ØÄ³§Ú­Ì¡A«h¤@ÂI¿³½ì³£¨S

¦³¡C


Miscellaneous

¨ä¥L¨Æ¶µ

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Ken Chace has decided not to stand for reelection as a director at
our upcoming annual meeting. We have no mandatory retirement age
for directors at Berkshire (and won't!), but Ken, at 75 and living in
Maine, simply decided to cut back his activities.

Ken Chace¨M©w±q¤µ¦~ªÑªF·|°_¤£¦A¾á¥ô¥»¤½¥qªº¸³¨Æ¡A¦bBerkshire§Ú­Ì¨S
¦³±j¨î¸³¨Æ°h¥ðªº¦~ÄÖ­­¨î(¥H«áµ´¹ï¤]¤£·|¦³)¡A¦ý¬O¦í¦b½q¦]¦{75·³ªºKen
ÁÙ¬O¨M©w´î¤Ö¦Û¤v¦bBerkshireªº¬¡°Ê¶q¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Ken was my immediate choice to run the textile operation after
Buffett Partnership, Ltd. assumed control of Berkshire early in 1965.
Although I made an economic mistake in sticking with the textile
business, I made no mistake in choosing Ken: He ran the operation
well, he was always 100% straight with me about its problems, and he
generated the funds that allowed us to diversify into insurance.

Ken¬O§Ú¦b1965¦~³z¹L¤Úµá¯S¦X¹Ù¤J¥DBerkshire®É¡A¿ï¾Ü¸gÀ篼´¨Æ·~ªº
²Ä¤@¤H¿ï¡AÁöµM§Ú¦b°í«ù¯¼Â´¨Æ·~Ä~Äò¸gÀç¤W°µ¤F¿ù»~ªº¨Mµ¦¡A¦ý¿ï¾ÜKen«o
¬O¥¿½Tªº¨M©w¡A¥L§â¤½¥q¸gÀ窺«D±`¦n¡A¹ï©ó©Ò­±Á{ªº°ÝÃD¤]¬O¦Ê¤À¤§¦Ê¦a©Z
¸Û¡A§ó­«­nªº¬O¥L²£¥Í¥X¨¬°÷Åý§Ú­Ì¶i­x«OÀI·~ªº¸êª÷¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ My wife, Susan, will be nominated to succeed Ken. She is now the
second largest shareholder of Berkshire and if she outlives me will
inherit all of my stock and effectively control the company. She knows,
and agrees, with my thoughts on successor management and also
shares my view that neither Berkshire nor its subsidiary businesses
and important investments should be sold simply because some very
high bid is received for one or all.

§Úªº¤º¤HSusan±N·|³Q´£¦W±µ´ÀKen¾á¥ô¸³¨Æ¡A¦o­Ó¤H²{¦b¬OBerkshire²Ä¤G
¤jªÑªF¡A¦Ó¥B­n¬O¦o¬¡ªº¤ñ§Ú¤[ªº¸Ü¡AÁÙ·|Ä~©Ó§Ú­Ó¤H©Ò«ù¦³ªºªÑ¥÷¡A¶i¦Ó¨ú±o
¤½¥qªº±±¨îÅv¡A¦o©úÁA¤]§¹¥þ¦P·N§Ú­Ó¤H¹ï©ó¥i¯à±µ´À¤H¿ïªº·Qªk¡A¦P®É¤]»{¦P
¤£ºÞ¬OBerkshire¥»¨­©Î¬OºX¤U¨Æ·~»P¥D­nªº§ë¸ê¡A³£¤£·|³æ¯Â¦a¦]¬°¦³¤H¥X°ª
»ù­n¶R¡A«K»´©ö¦a¹ï¥~¥X°â¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ I feel strongly that the fate of our businesses and their managers
should not depend on my health - which, it should be added, is
excellent - and I have planned accordingly. Neither my estate plan nor
that of my wife is designed to preserve the family fortune; instead,
both are aimed at preserving the character of Berkshire and returning
the fortune to society.

§Ú±j¯P¦a·PıBerkshire¥ø·~»P¸g²z¤Hªº©R¹B¤£À³¸Ó¨Ì¿à¦b§Ú­Ó¤Hªº°·±d¤§
¤W¡A·íµM­Y¬O¦]¦¹¥i¥H¥[¤À·|§ó¦n¡A¬°¦¹§Ú¤w°µ¦nªº¸U¥þªº­pµe¡A¤£ºÞ¬O§Ú­Ó¤H
©Î¬O§Ú¤º¤Hªº¿òÅñ³£¤£¥´ºâ±N³o¨Ç°]²£¯dµ¹®a±Ú¡A¬Û¤Ï¦a­«ÂI·|©ñ¦b¦p¦ó«O«ù
Berkshireªº¯S½è¡A¨Ã±N©Ò¦³ªº°]´I¦^Âkµ¹ªÀ·|¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Were I to die tomorrow, you could be sure of three things: (1)
None of my stock would have to be sold; (2) Both a controlling
shareholder and a manager with philosophies similar to mine would
follow me; and (3) Berkshire's earnings would increase by $1 million
annually, since Charlie would immediately sell our corporate jet, The
Indefensible (ignoring my wish that it be buried with me).

©Ò¥H¸U¤@­n¬O©ú¤Ñ§Ú¬ðµM¦º¤F¡A¤j®a¥i¥H½T©w¤T¥ó¨Æ(1)§Ú¦bBerkshireªºªÑ¥÷¡A
¤@ªÑ³£¤£·|½æ(2)Ä~©Ó§Úªº©Ò¦³Åv¤H»P¸g²z¤H¤@©w·|¿í´`§Úªº§ë¸ê­õ¾Ç
(3)Berkshireªº¬Õ¾l·|¦]¬°¥X°â§Ú­Ó¤Hªº±M¥Î­¸¾÷-µL¥iÅG¸Ñ¸¹¡A¨C¦~¥i¼W¥[
100¸U¬ü¤¸(¤£­nºÞ§Ú§Æ±æÅý¦o³­¸®ªº¿òÄ@)¡C

* * * * * * * * * * * *

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ About 97.3% of all eligible shares participated in Berkshire's 1990
shareholder-designated contributions program. Contributions made
through the program were $5.8 million, and 2,600 charities were
recipients.

¤j¬ù¦³97.3%ªº¦³®ÄªÑÅv°Ñ»P1990¦~ªºªÑªF«ü©w®½ÃØ­p¹º¡AÁ`­p¬ù580¸U¬ü
¤¸®½¥Xªº´Ú¶µ¤À°tµ¹
2,600®a·Oµ½¾÷ºc¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We suggest that new shareholders read the description of our
shareholder-designated contributions program that appears on pages
54-55. To participate in future programs, you must make sure your
shares are registered in the name of the actual owner, not in the
nominee name of a broker, bank or depository. Shares not so
registered on August 31, 1991 will be ineligible for the 1991 program.

§Ú­Ì´°«P·s¥[¤JªºªÑªF¡A¥J²Ó¾\Ū¦~³ø¤W¦³ÃöªÑªF®½ÃØ­pµeªº¸Ô²Ó¤º®e¡A¦pªG¦b
¥¼¨Ó¦~«×¤º¡A§A·Q­n°Ñ¥[³oÃþªº­pµe¡A§Ú­Ì±j¯P«ØÄ³§A±NªÑ¥÷µn°O¦b¦Û¤v¦Ó¤£¬O
¨ü°U¤Hªº¦W¤U¡A¥²¶·¦b
1991¦~8¤ë31¤é¤§«e§¹¦¨µn°O¡A¤~¦³Åv§Q°Ñ»P1991
¦~ªº®½ÃØ­pµe¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In addition to the shareholder-designated contributions that
Berkshire distributes, managers of our operating businesses make
contributions, including merchandise, averaging about $1.5 million
annually. These contributions support local charities, such as The
United Way, and produce roughly commensurate benefits for our
businesses.

Berkshire°£¤F³z¹LªÑªF«ü©w®½ÃØ­pµe¹ï¥~®½Ãؤ§¥~¡A§Ú­ÌºX¤U¨Æ·~ªº¸g²z¤H¨C
¦~¤]·|³z¹L¤½¥q¹ï¥~®½ÃØ¡A¥]§t°Ó«~¦b¤º¨C¦~¥­§¡ª÷ÃB¬ù¦b150¸U¬ü¤¸¥ª¥k¡C
³o¨Ç®½ÃØ¥D­n¬OÃÙ§U·í¦a¹³¬OÁp¦XÄU¶Òµ¥·Oµ½¹ÎÅé¡A©Ò±oªº®Ä¯qÀ³¸Ó»P§Ú­Ì©Ò®½
¥Xªº¬Û·í¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ However, neither our operating managers nor officers of the
parent company use Berkshire funds to make contributions to broad
national programs or charitable activities of special personal interest
to them, except to the extent they do so as shareholders. If your
employees, including your CEO, wish to give to their alma maters or
other institutions to which they feel a personal attachment, we believe
they should use their own money, not yours.

µM¦Ó¤£ºÞ¬OºX¤U¨Æ·~©Î¬O¥À¤½¥qªº¸g²z¤H¦b§Q¥ÎBerkshireªº¸êª÷¹ï¥~®½Ãص¹
¥þ°ê©Ê²Õ´©Î¯S§O§Q¯q¹ÎÅé®É¡A³£¬O¥H¯¸¦bªÑªF§Q¯q¥ß³õ©ÒÀ³¸Ó°µªº¡A¬Û¹ï¦a­Y
¬O§Aªº­û¤u¤]¥]§tCEO¦b¤º¡A·Q­n»P¨ä®Õ¤Í·|©Î¨ä¥L¤H«Ø¥ß­Ó¤HÃö«Yªº¡A§Ú­Ì
»{¬°¥L­Ì³Ì¦n¬O¥Î¦Û¤vªº¿ú¡A¦Ó¤£¬O±q§Aªº¤f³U¸Ì±Ç¿ú¡C

* * * * * * * * * * * *

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The annual meeting this year will be held at the Orpheum Theater
in downtown Omaha at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, April 29, 1991.
Attendance last year grew to a record 1,300, about a 100-fold
increase from ten years ago.

¤µ¦~ªºªÑªF·|¹w­p¦b1991¦~4¤ë29¤é¡A¬P´Á¤@¦­¤W9ÂI30¤ÀÁ|¦æ¦b
Orpheum¤¤¤ß¥l¶}¡A¥h¦~ªÑªF·|°Ñ¥[¤H¼Æ¬ð¯}1,300¤H¡A¤j·§¬O¤Q¦~«eªº¤@
¦Ê­¿¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We recommend getting your hotel reservations early at one of
these hotels: (1) The Radisson-Redick Tower, a small (88 rooms) but
nice hotel across the street from the Orpheum; (2) the much larger Red
Lion Hotel, located about a five-minute walk from the Orpheum; or (3)
the Marriott, located in West Omaha about 100 yards from Borsheim's
and a twenty minute drive from downtown. We will have buses at the
Marriott that will leave at 8:30 and 8:45 for the meeting, and return
after it ends.

§Ú­Ì«ØÄ³¤j®a³Ì¦n¥ý¦V¥H¤U®ÈÀ]¹w­q©Ð¶¡(1)Radisson-Redick®ÈÀ]-´N¦ì¦b
Orpheum¤¤¤ß¹ïµó¾Ö¦³88­Ó©Ð¶¡ªº¤@®a¤p®ÈÀ](2)¸û¤j¤@ÂIªºRed Lion®ÈÀ]
-Â÷Orpheum¤¤¤ß¬ù¤­¤ÀÄÁ¸ôµ{¡A©Î¬O(3)Marriott¦ì¦b¶øº¿«¢¦è°Ï¡AÂ÷ªi¥P¯]
Ä_©±¬ù100¤½¤Ø¡A¶}¨®¨ì¥«¤¤¤ß¬ù»Ý20¤ÀÄÁ¡A©¡®É±N·|¦³¤Ú¤h±µ°e¤j®a©¹ªð
ªÑªF·|·|³õ¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Charlie and I always enjoy the meeting, and we hope you can
make it. The quality of our shareholders is reflected in the quality of
the questions we get: We have never attended an annual meeting
anywhere that features such a consistently high level of intelligent,
owner-related questions.

¬d²z¸ò§Ú¤@ª½³£«Ü³ßÅw¶}ªÑªF·|¡A§Ú¤]§Æ±æ¤j®a¯à°÷¨Ó°Ñ¥[¡A§Ú­ÌªÑªFªº¯À½è¥i
¥Ñ¤j®a©Ò´£¥Xªº°ÝÃD¬Ý±o¥X¨Ó¡A§Ú­Ì°Ñ¥[¹L«Ü¦hªÑªF·|¡A¦ý±q¨Ó¨S¦³§Oªº¤½¥qªº
ªÑªF¹³
BerkshireªºªÑªF¤@¼Ë¥Ñ°ª´¼¼z¤ô·Ç»P¸gÀçªÌºa¬\»P¦@ªºªÑªF²Õ¦X¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ An attachment to our proxy material explains how you can obtain
the card you will need for admission to the meeting. Because weekday
parking can be tight around the Orpheum, we have lined up a number
of nearby lots for our shareholders to use. The attachment also
contains information about them.

«á­±ªþ¦³ªÑªF·|¶}·|§ë²¼ªº¬ÛÃö¸ê®Æ¡A¸ò¦U¦ì¸ÑÄÀ¦p¦ó®³¨ì¤J³õ©Ò³\ªºÃѧOÃÒ¡A
¦]¬°¶}·|·í¤Ñ·|³õ¤£¦n°±¨®¡A§Ú­Ì¯S¦a¬°¤j®a¹w¯d¤F¤@¨Ç¦ì¸m¡Aªþ¥ó¤]¦³¬ÛÃö»¡
©ú¨Ñ¤j®a°Ñ¦Ò¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ As usual, we will have buses to take you to Nebraska Furniture
Mart and Borsheim's after the meeting and to take you to downtown
hotels or to the airport later. I hope that you will allow plenty of time
to fully explore the attractions of both stores. Those of you arriving
early can visit the Furniture Mart any day of the week; it is open from
10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and from noon to 5:30 p.m. on
Sundays. While there, stop at the See's Candy cart and see for yourself
the dawn of synergism at Berkshire.

¤@¦p©¹±`¡A·|«á§Ú­Ì³Æ¦³¤Ú¤h±a¤j®a¨ì¤º¥¬©Ô´µ¥[³Ã¨ã©±»Pªi¥P¯]Ä_©±©Î¬O¨ì¶º
©±»P¾÷³õ¡A§Ú§Æ±æ¤j®a¯à¦³¦h¤@ÂIªº®É¶¡¦n¦n±´¯Á³o¨â®a©±ªº¶ø§®¡A·íµM¦­´X¤Ñ
¨ìªºªÑªF¤]¥i§Q¥Î°²¤é³}³}³Ã¨ã©±¡A¬P´Á¤»±q¦­¤W
10ÂI¨ì¤U¤È5ÂI30¤À¡A¬P
´Á¤é«h±q¤¤¤È¶}¨ì¤U¤È
5ÂI30¤À¡A¨ì¨º¸Ì®É°O±o¨ì³ß´µ¿}ªGÅu³}³}¡A¬Ý¬Ý
Berkshire¥ø·~ºî®Äªºªì¨B¦¨ªG¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Borsheim's normally is closed on Sunday, but we will open for
shareholders and their guests from noon to 6 p.m. on Sunday, April 28.
At our Sunday opening last year you made Ike very happy: After
totaling the day's volume, he suggested to me that we start holding
annual meetings quarterly. Join us at Borsheim's even if you just come
to watch; it's a show you shouldn't miss.

ªi¥P¬P´Á¤Ñ³q±`¤£¶}ªùÀç·~¡A¦ý¦bªÑªF·|´Á¶¡¯S§O¯}¨Ò¡A4¤ë28¤é¬P´Á¤Ñ±q¤¤
¤È¶}¨ì¤U¤È
6ÂI¡A¥h¦~¥Ñ©ó¤j®aªº½æ¤Oªí²{ÅýIke¬Û·íªº¶}¤ß¡A¦b¬Ý¹L¨º¤Ñªº·~
ÁZ¼Æ¦r¤§«á¡A¥L«ØÄ³§Ú­Ì³Ì¦n¯à°÷¨C¤@©u³£¥l¶}ªÑªF·|¡A¤µ¦~°O±o¨ìªi¥P¥h¬Ý
¬Ý¡A´Nºâ¤£¶R¤]¨S¦³Ãö«Y¡A¨º¬O¤@³õ§A¤£¯à¿ù¹Lªº¨q¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Last year the first question at the annual meeting was asked by
11-year-old Nicholas Kenner, a third-generation shareholder from
New York City. Nicholas plays rough: "How come the stock is down?"
he fired at me. My answer was not memorable.

¥h¦~ªÑªF·|²Ä¤@­Ó°ÝÃD¬O¥Ñ¨Ó¦Û¯Ã¬ù11·³ªºNicholas Kenner©Ò´£¥X¡A¥L­Ì
¤@®a¤T¥N³£¬OBerkshireªºªÑªF¡A¤@¶}³õNicholas´N¨Óµwªº¡A¡G¡u¬°¤°»òªÑ»ù
·|¤U¶^?¡v­±¹ï¦p¦¹±j¤jªº¤õ¤O¡A§Úªº¦^µª«o¤£¬Æ¤F¤F¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We hope that other business engagements won't keep Nicholas
away from this year's meeting. If he attends, he will be offered the
chance to again ask the first question; Charlie and I want to tackle him
while we're fresh. This year, however, it's Charlie's turn to answer.

§Ú§Æ±æ¤µ¦~Nicholas³Ì¦n¦³¨ä¥Lªº¨Æ­n¦£¡A¤£­n¨Ó°Ñ¥[¤µ¦~ªºªÑªF·|¡A­Y¥L¯u
ªº¥X®u¤F¡A¥L¥i¯à¦³¾÷·|¦A´£¥X²Ä¤@­Ó°ÝÃD¡A¬d²z¸ò§Ú³£§Æ±æºÉ¶q¤£­n¸I¨ì¥L¡A
ÁÙ¦n¤µ¦~½ü¨ì¬d²z¥ý¦^µª¡C

March 1, 1991

Warren E. Buffett
Chairman of the Board

µØ­Û¡D¤Úµá¯S

¸³¨Æ·|¥D®u

1991¦~3¤ë1¤é

¡@

¡@

APPENDIX A

U. S. STEEL ANNOUNCES SWEEPING MODERNIZATION SCHEME*

* An unpublished satire by Ben Graham, written in 1936 and given by the author to Warren Buffett in 1954.

ªþ¿ýA

¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤½¥q«Å§G¥þ­±§ó·s­pµe

¥»¤å¬O¸¯©Ô¨u©ó1936¦~©Ò¼g¥¼¹ï¥~¤½¶}ªº¿Ø¨ë©Ê¤å³¹¡A¥Ñ¤Úµá¯S©ó1954¦~´£¨Ñ

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Myron C. Taylor, Chairman of U. S. Steel Corporation, today
announced the long awaited plan for completely modernizing the
world's largest industrial enterprise. Contrary to expectations, no
changes will be made in the company's manufacturing or selling
policies. Instead, the bookkeeping system is to be entirely revamped.
By adopting and further improving a number of modern accounting
and financial devices the corporation's earning power will be
amazingly transformed. Even under the subnormal conditions of 1935,
it is estimated that the new bookkeeping methods would have yielded
a reported profit of close to $50 per share on the common stock. The
scheme of improvement is the result of a comprehensive survey made
by Messrs. Price, Bacon, Guthrie & Colpitts; it includes the following
six points:

Myron C. Taylor-¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤½¥qªº¸³¨Æªø¡A¤µ¤Ñ«Å§G¥O¤H´Á«Ý¤w¤[¡A¦³Ãö¥þ¥@
¬É³Ì¤jªº»s³y¤½¥qªº¥þ­±§ó·s­pµe¡A»P¹w´Á¬Û¤Ïªº¡A¤½¥qªº»s³y©Î¬O¾P°â¬Fµ¦¥þ
³¡¨S¦³ÅܰʡA¤Ï¦Ó¬O·|­p±b°È¨t²Î°µ¤F¤j´T«×ªº½Õ¾ã¡A¦b±Ä¨ú¤@¨t¦C³Ì·s³Ì¦nªº
²{¥N·|­p»P°]°È±¹¬I¤§«á¡A¤½¥qªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¦]¦Ó¤j´T¼W¶i¡A§Y¨Ï¬O¦b´º®ð¤£¨Îªº
1935¦~¡A¦b±Ä¥Î·sªº·|­p¨î«×¤U¡A¦ô­p¨CªÑ¬Õ¾lÁÙ¬O¥i¥H¹F¨ì50¬ü¤¸ªº¤ô·Ç¡A
³o¶µ§ï³y­pµe¬O¸g¥ÑMessrsµ¥¤H¸g¹L¼sªxªº¬ã¨s½Õ¬d«á¨î©wªº¡A¨ä¤¤¥D­n¥]§t
¤»¤jÂI¡G

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ 1. Writing down of Plant Account to Minus $1,000,000,000.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ 2. Par value of common stock to be reduced to 1¢F.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ 3. Payment of all wages and salaries in option warrants.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ 4. Inventories to be carried at $1.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ 5. Preferred Stock to be replaced by non-interest bearing bonds
redeemable at 50% discount.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ 6. A $1,000,000,000 Contingency Reserve to be established.

(1)±N¼t©Ð»ù­È´î¤Ö¨ì­tªº10»õ¬ü¤¸

(2)´¶³qªÑ¨CªÑ­±ÃB´î¨ì¤@¬ü¤À

(3)¥H»{ªÑÅvªº¤è¦¡¤ä¥I©Ò¦³ªºÁ~¤ô»P¼úª÷

(4)¦s³fªº±b­±»ù­È´î¬°1¬ü¤¸

(5)­ì¦³¯S§OªÑ§ï¦¨¤£¥²°¨¤W¤ä¥I§Q®§50%§é»ùµo¦æªº¤½¥q¶Å

(6)«Ø¥ß10»õ¬ü¤¸ªº©Î¦³·Ç³Æ

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The official statement of this extraordinary Modernization Plan
follows in full:

¥H¤U´N¬O³o¶µ¥þ­±§ó·s­pµeªº©x¤è§¹¾ãÁn©ú

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Board of Directors of U. S. Steel Corporation is pleased to
announce that after intensive study of the problems arising from
changed conditions in the industry, it has approved a comprehensive
plan for remodeling the Corporation's accounting methods. A survey
by a Special Committee, aided and abetted by Messrs. Price, Bacon,
Guthrie & Colpitts, revealed that our company has lagged somewhat
behind other American business enterprises in utilizing certain
advanced bookkeeping methods, by means of which the earning power
may be phenomenally enhanced without requiring any cash outlay or
any changes in operating or sales conditions. It has been decided not
only to adopt these newer methods, but to develop them to a still
higher stage of perfection. The changes adopted by the Board may be
summarized under six heads, as follows:

¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤½¥qªº¸³¨Æ·|«Ü°ª¿³¦V¤j®a«Å§G¡A¦b¸g¹L¹ï²£·~¬É©Ò­±Á{ªº°ÝÃD¼sªx¦a
¬ã¨s¤§«á¡A§Ú­Ì¤w¸g®Ö­ã¤F¤@¶µ­«·s¶ì³y¤½¥q·|­p¨î«×ªº¤è®×¡A¤@¶µ¥Ñ¯S§O©e­û
·|¥D¾É¨Ã¸gMessrsµ¥¤H¨ó§U¤§¤U§¹¦¨ªº½Õ¬dÅã¥Ü¡A§Ú­Ì¤½¥q¦b¹B¥Î³Ì¥ý¶iªº·|
­p¨î«×¤è­±»·»·¸¨«á©ó¨ä¥L¬ü°ê¥ø·~¡A³z¹L³o¼Ëªº°µªk¡A¤½¥q¤£¥²­t¾áÃB¥~ªº¤ä
¥X¡BÀç·~»P¾P°â¬Fµ¦¤]¤£¥²§ïÅÜ¡A´N¥i¥H¤£¶O§j¦Ç¤§¤O¦a¤j¤j§ïµ½Àò§Q¯à¤O¡A©Ò
¥H¤j®a¤@­P¨M©w¤£¦ý­n¥ß§Y¸ò¶i±Ä¥Î¡A¦Ó¥BÁÙ­n±N³o¶µ§Þ³Nµo®i¨ì²OºvºÉ­Pªº¹Ò
¬É¡A¸³¨Æ·|©Ò±Ä¥Îªº°µªk¡A¥D­n¥i¥HÂk¯Ç¬°¥H¤U¤»ÂI¡G

1. Fixed Assets to be written down to Minus $1,000,000,000.

©T©w¸ê²£´î¬°­tªº10»õ¬ü¤¸

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Many representative companies have relieved their income
accounts of all charges for depreciation by writing down their plant
account to $1. The Special Committee points out that if their plants
are worth only $1, the fixed assets of U. S. Steel Corporation are worth
a good deal less than that sum. It is now a well-recognized fact that
many plants are in reality a liability rather than an asset, entailing not
only depreciation charges, but taxes, maintenance, and other
expenditures. Accordingly, the Board has decided to extend the
write-down policy initiated in the 1935 report, and to mark down the
Fixed Assets from $1,338,522,858.96 to a round Minus
$1,000,000,000.

³\¦h¥Nªí¤½¥q³£¤w±N¨ä±b¦C¼t©Ð»ù­È´î¬°¶H¼x©Êªº1¬ü¤¸¡A¦nÅý¨ä·l¯qªí§K©ó
§é¶O¥Î¨H­«ªº­t¾á¡A¯S§O©e­û·|«ü¥X¦pªG¥¦­Ìªº¼t©Ð¥u­È1¬ü¤¸¡A¨º»ò¬ü°ê
¿ûÅKªºªº©T©w¸ê²£¤ñ°_¥¦­Ì¨Ó»¡ÁÙ­n¤Ö«Ü¦h¡A¨Æ¹ê¤Wªñ¨Ó¤j®a³£©Ó»{¤@¶µ¨Æ¹ê¡A
³\¦h¼t©Ð¹ï¤½¥q¨Ó»¡¹ê»Ú¤W¬O¤@ºØ­t¶Å¦Ó¤£¬O¸ê²£¡A°£¤F­nÅu´£§é¤§¥~¡AÁÙ­n
­t¾áµ|ª÷¡Bºû­×¤Î¨ä¥L¶}¤ä¡A¦]¦¹¸³¨Æ·|¨M©w­n±q1935¦~¶}©l±N¸ê²£¥´¾P¡A±q
­ì¥ý±b¦C1,338,522,858.96¬ü¤¸´î¤Ö¬°­tªº1,000,000,000¬ü¤¸¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The advantages of this move should be evident. As the plant wears
out, the liability becomes correspondingly reduced. Hence, instead of
the present depreciation charge of some $47,000,000 yearly there will
be an annual appreciation credit of 5%, or $50,000,000. This will
increase earnings by no less than $97,000,000 per annum.

³o¼Ë°µªkªº®Ä¯q¬Û·í©úÅã¡AÀHµÛ¤u¼t³vº¥§é´î¡A©Ò¥Nªíªº­t¶Å¤]¬Û¹ï¦a´î¤Ö¡A¦]
¦¹¥H©¹¨C¦~4,700¸Uªº§é¶O¥Î¤£¦ý¥i¥H§K°£¡A¥H«á¨C¦~ÁÙ¥i¥H¦³5,000¸U¬ü
¤¸ªº§é§Q¯q¡A¤@¨Ó¤@©¹µ¥©óÅý¤½¥qªºÀò§Q¦Ü¤Ö¼W¥[9,700¸U¬ü¤¸¡C

2. Reduction of Par Value of Common Stock to 1¢F, and

±N´¶³qªÑ­±ÃB´î¤Ö¨ì1¬ü¤À¡C

3. Payment of Salaries and Wages in Option Warrants.

©Ò¦³ªºÁ~¸ê»P¼úª÷¤@«ß¥H»{ªÑÅvªº¤è¦¡µo©ñ¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Many corporations have been able to reduce their overhead
expenses substantially by paying a large part of their executive
salaries in the form of options to buy stock, which carry no charge
against earnings. The full possibilities of this modern device have
apparently not been adequately realized. The Board of Directors has
adopted the following advanced form of this idea:

³\¦h¥ø·~¦­¤w±N¥»¨ÓÀ³¸Ó¤ä¥Iµ¹¸gÀç¥DºÞÁ~¤ô¼úª÷ªº¤jµ§¤ä¥X§ï¥H¤£¥²»{¦C¶O
¥ÎªºªÑ²¼»{ªÑÅv¤è¦¡¨ú¥N¡A³oºØ²{¥N¤Æªº³Ð·s°µªk«Ü©úÅã¦aÁÙ¨S¦³³Q¥R¤À¹B¥Î¡A
©Ò¥H¸³¨Æ·|¨M©w±Ä¨ú¤@¶µ§ó¥ý¶iªº°µªk¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The entire personnel of the Corporation are to receive their
compensation in the form of rights to buy common stock at $50 per
share, at the rate of one purchase right for each $50 of salary and/or
wages in their present amounts. The par value of the common stock is
to be reduced to 1¢F.

¥ø·~©Ò¦³ªº­û¤u±Nµoµ¹»{ÁÊ»ù¬°50¬ü¤¸ªº»{ªÑÅv§@¬°Á~¸êªº´À¥N¡A¦Ó´¶³qªÑ­±
ÃB«h´î¤Ö¨ì1¬ü¤À¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The almost incredible advantages of this new plan are evident
from the following:

³o¶µ­pµe«Ü©úÅ㪺¦³¤U¦C¦n³B¡G

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A. The payroll of the Corporation will be entirely eliminated, a
saving of $250,000,000 per annum, based on 1935 operations.


A¤½¥q±N¤£¦A¦³¥ô¦óªºÁ~¸ê¤ä¥X¡A°Ñ¦Ò1935¦~ªº±¡ªp¡A¨C¦~¦ô­p±N¦]¦¹¬Ù¤U
2.5»õ¬ü¤¸¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ B. At the same time, the effective compensation of all our
employees will be increased severalfold. Because of the large earnings
per share to be shown on our common stock under the new methods,
it is certain that the shares will command a price in the market far
above the option level of $50 per share, making the readily realizable
value of these option warrants greatly in excess of the present cash
wages that they will replace.

B¦P®É¡A©Ò¦³­û¤uªº³ø¹S±N¦]¦¹¼W¥[¦n´X­¿¡A¦]¬°¦b·sªº·|­p­ì«h¤§¤U¤½¥q±b¤W
Åã¥Üªº¨CªÑ¬Õ¾l±N¦]¦¹¤j¼W¡A±q¦Ó¨Ï±o¤½¥qªºªÑ»ù»·°ª©ó»{ªÑÅv©Ò³]©wªº50¬ü
¤¸»{ÁÊ»ù¡A©ó¬O©Ò¦³ªº­û¤u³£±N¦]¬°»{ªÑÅvªº¦æ¨Ï¦Ó¨ü´f¡A©Ò±o¨ìªº³ø¹S±N»·¤ñ
¥L­Ì­ì¨Ó»âªº²{ª÷¦¬¤J­n°ªªº¦h¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ C. The Corporation will realize an additional large annual profit
through the exercise of these warrants. Since the par value of the
common stock will be fixed at 1¢F, there will be a gain of $49.99 on
each share subscribed for. In the interest of conservative accounting,
however, this profit will not be included in the income account, but will
be shown separately as a credit to Capital Surplus.

C³z¹L³o¨Ç»{ªÑÅvªº¦æ¨Ï¡A¤½¥q¦]¦¹ÁÙ¥i¥H¹ê²{ÃB¥~¯S§Oªº¦~«×§Q¯q¡A¦Ó¥Ñ©ó§Ú
­Ì±N´¶³qªÑ­±ÃB³]©w¬°1¬ü¤À¡A¦]¦¹¨C»{Áʤ@ªÑ«K¯à²£¥Í49.99¬ü¤¸ªº§Q¯q¡A
ÁöµM´N·|­p¾Ç«O¦uªº¥ß³õ¡A³o¨Ç§Q¯q¥i¯àµLªkÅã²{¦b·l¯qªí¤§¤W¡A¦ý«o¥i¥H¦b¸ê
²£­t¶Åªí¤W¥H¸ê¥»·¸»ùªº¤è¦¡³æ¿W¦C¥Ü¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ D. The Corporation's cash position will be enormously
strengthened. In place of the present annual cash outgo of
$250,000,000 for wages (1935 basis), there will be annual cash inflow
of $250,000,000 through exercise of the subscription warrants for
5,000,000 shares of common stock. The Company's large earnings
and strong cash position will permit the payment of a liberal dividend
which, in turn, will result in the exercise of these option warrants
immediately after issuance which, in turn, will further improve the cash
position which, in turn, will permit a higher dividend rate -- and so on,
indefinitely.

D¥ø·~ªº²{ª÷³¡¦ì¤]·|¦]¦¹¤j¤j¦a¼W±j¡A¨C¦~¤£¦ý¤£¦A¦³2.5»õ¬ü¤¸ªºÁ~¸ê¬y
¥X¡A³z¹L¦æ¨Ï500¸UªÑ»{ªÑÅvªº°µªk¡A¨C¦~ÁÙ¥i¥H³Ð³y2.5»õ¬ü¤¸ªº²{ª÷¬y¤J¡A
¤½¥qÅå¤HªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¥[¤W°í±jªº²{ª÷³¡¦ì±N¨Ï±o§Ú­Ì¥i¥HÀH¤ß©Ò±ý¦a°tµoªÑ
§Q¡AµM«á§Ú­Ì¤S¥i¥H³z¹L¦æ¨Ï»{ªÑÅvªº¤è¦¡¸É±j²{ª÷¹ê¤O¡A¤§«á¤S¥i¥H¦³§ó°ªªº
°tªÑ¯à¤O¡A¦p¦¹¤@ª½´`Àô¤U¥h¡C

4. Inventories to be carried at $1.

4.±b¦C¦s³f»ù­È½Õ¬°1¬ü¤¸

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Serious losses have been taken during the depression due to the
necessity of adjusting inventory value to market. Various enterprises
-- notably in the metal and cotton-textile fields -- have successfully
dealt with this problem by carrying all or part of their inventories at
extremely low unit prices. The U. S. Steel Corporation has decided to
adopt a still more progressive policy, and to carry its entire inventory
at $1. This will be effected by an appropriate write-down at the end of
each year, the amount of said write-down to be charged to the
Contingency Reserve hereinafter referred to.

¦b¸gÀÙ°I°h®É¦]¬°¥²¶·±N¦s³f»ù­È½Õ¾ã¦Ü¥«»ù¡A¤½¥q¥i¯à·|¦]¦¹»X¨ü¹dÃBªº·l
¥¢¡A¦]¦¹³\¦h¤½¥q¡A¤×¨ä¬O¿ûÅK»P¯¼Â´¤½¥q¯É¯É±N¨ä±b¦C¦s³f»ù­ÈÀ£¨ì¬Û·í§Cªº
µ{«×¡A¦Ó¦¨¥\¦a¸Ñ¨M³o¤è­±ªº°ÝÃD¡A¦³Å²©ó¦¹¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤½¥q¨M©w±Ä¥Î¤@ºØ§ó¿n·¥
ªº°µªk¡A¥´ºâ±N¦s³f»ù­È¤@Á|À£§C¨ì1¬ü¤¸ªº³Ì§C­­«×¡A¦b¨C¦~©³³£·|¶i¦æ³o
¼Ëªº°Ê§@¡A±N¦s³f¤©¥H½Õ¾ã¡A®t²§ªº¼Æ¦r«h¥þ³¡Â\¨ì«e­±©Ò´£¨ìªº©Î¦³·Ç³Æ¬ì¥Ø
¶µ¤U¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The benefits to be derived from this new method are very great.
Not only will it obviate all possibility of inventory depreciation, but it
will substantially enhance the annual earnings of the Corporation. The
inventory on hand at the beginning of the year, valued at $1, will be
sold during the year at an excellent profit. It is estimated that our
income will be increased by means of this method to the extent of at
least $150,000,000 per annum which, by a coincidence, will about
equal the amount of the write-down to be made each year against
Contingency Reserve.

³oºØ·s°µªkªº¦n³B¬Û·íªº¤j¡A¤£¦ý¥i¥H®ø°£¦s³f¯Ó·lªº¥i¯à©Ê¡A¦P®É¤]¥i¤j¤j¦a
¼W¶i¤½¥q¨C¦~ªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¡A¨C¦~ªì¦s³f¦]¬°±b¦C»ù­È¥u¦³1¬ü¤¸¡A©Ò¥H±N¦]¥X
°â¦ÓÀò±o¤jµ§ªº§Q¯q¡A¸g¦ô­p³z¹L³oºØ·s·|­p¤èªkªº¹B¥Î±N¥i¨Ï§Ú­Ì¨C¦~¦Ü¤Ö¼W
¥[1.5»õ¬ü¤¸ªº¦¬¯q¡A¦Ó¸I¥©ªº¬O³o­Ó¼Æ¦r»P§Ú­Ì¨C¦~¨R¾Pªº©Î³\·Ç³Æª÷ÃB¬Û
·í¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A minority report of the Special Committee recommends that
Accounts Receivable and Cash also be written down to $1, in the
interest of consistency and to gain additional advantages similar to
those just discussed. This proposal has been rejected for the time
being because our auditors still require that any recoveries of
receivables and cash so charged off be credited to surplus instead of
to the year's income. It is expected, however, that this auditing rule --
which is rather reminiscent of the horse-and-buggy days -- will soon
be changed in line with modern tendencies. Should this occur, the
minority report will be given further and favorable consideration.

¯S§O©e­û·|ªº¤@¶µ³ø§i«ØÄ³¬°¤Fºû«ù¤@­P©Ê¡AÀ³¦¬±b´Ú»P¬ù·í²{ª÷³Ì¦n¤]¯à°÷±N
±b­±¼Æ¦r½Õ¾ã¬°1¬ü¤¸¡A¦P®É¤]¤@¼Ë¥i¥H¦³¥ý«e©Ò´£ªº¦n³B¡A¦ý³o¼Ë¤lªº´£®×
²{¦b³Q»é¦^¡A¦]¬°§Ú­ÌªºÃ±ÃÒ·|­p®v»{¬°¡A¥ô¦óÀ³¦¬±b´Ú©Î¬ù·í²{ª÷­Y¨R¦^¡A³Ì
¦nÁÙ¬O¥ý¶U°O­ì¦³¬ì¥Ø¡A¦Ó¤£¬Oª½±µ§@¬°·l¯qªí¤Wªº¦¬¤J¡A¦ý¬O§Ú­Ì¤]¹w´Á³oºØ
¦Ñ±¼¤úªº·|­p­ì«hÀ³¸Ó«Ü§Ö·|§ó·s¡A¦n»P²{¥NÁͶհµ±µ­y¡A¦Óµ¥·s­ì«h¤@³q¹L¤§
«á¡A§Ú­Ì¤@©w·|°¨¤W±N³o¥÷³ø§iªº«ØÄ³¦C¬°Àu¥ý°õ¦æªº¤è®×¡C

5. Replacement of Preferred Stock by Non-Interest-Bearing Bonds
Redeemable at 50% Discount.

5.±N²{¦³¯S§OªÑ§ï¦¨¤£¥²°¨¤W¤ä¥I§Q®§50%§é»ùµo¦æªº¤½¥q¶Å¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ During the recent depression many companies have been able to
offset their operating losses by including in income profits arising
from repurchases of their own bonds at a substantial discount from
par. Unfortunately the credit of U. S. Steel Corporation has always
stood so high that this lucrative source of revenue has not hitherto
been available to it. The Modernization Scheme will remedy this
condition.

¹L¥h³\¦h¤½¥q¦b­±Á{´º®ð¤£¨Îªº®É­Ô¡A¤j³£§Q¥Î¶R¦^¦Û¤v­ì¥ýµo¦æ¤j´T§é»ùªº¶Å
¨é¨ÓÀ±¸É¨äÀç·~¤Wªº·l¥¢¡A¤£©¯ªº¬O¥Ñ©ó¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤½¥qªº¶Å«H¤@¦V³£Áٺ⤣¿ù¡A
©Ò¥H¨S¦³Ãþ¦ü³o¼Ëªºªo¤ô¥i¥H¶X¾÷¼´¤@µ§¡A¦ý²{¥N§ó·s­pµe¸Ñ¨M¤F³o¼ËªºÃøÃD¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It is proposed that each share of preferred stock be exchanged for
$300 face value of non-interest-bearing sinking-fund notes,
redeemable by lot at 50% of face value in 10 equal annual installments.
This will require the issuance of $1,080,000,000 of new notes, of
which $108,000,000 will be retired each year at a cost to the
Corporation of only $54,000,000, thus creating an annual profit of the
same amount.

³ø§i«ØÄ³­ì¥ýµo¦æªº¨C¤@ªÑ¯S§OªÑ¥þ³¡´«¦¨­±ÃB300¬ü¤¸¤£¥²¤ä¥I§Q®§ªº¶Å
¨é¡A¨Ã¥B¥i¤À¬°¤Q´Á¥H­±ÃBªº50%Å«¦^¡AÁ`­p±N­nµo¦æ­±ÃB10.8»õ¬ü¤¸ªº¶Å¨é¡A
¨C¦~¦³1.08»õ¬ü¤¸¨ì´Á¡A¨Ã¥Ñ¤½¥q¥H5,400¸U¬ü¤¸ªº»ù®æÅ«¦^¡A¦P®É¤½¥q¨C¦~
±N¥i¦]¦¹¼W¥[5,400¸U¬ü¤¸ªºÀò§Q¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Like the wage-and/or-salary plan described under 3. above, this
arrangement will benefit both the Corporation and its preferred
stockholders. The latter are assured payment for their present shares
at 150% of par value over an average period of five years. Since
short-term securities yield practically no return at present, the
non-interest-bearing feature is of no real importance. The Corporation
will convert its present annual charge of $25,000,000 for preferred
dividends into an annual bond-retirement profit of $54,000,000 -- an
aggregate yearly gain of $79,000,000.

´N¹³¬O²Ä3±ø©Ò­zªºÁ~¸ê¼úª÷­pµe¡A³o¼Ëªº¦w±Æ±N¥i¥HÅý¤½¥q»P¨ä¯S§OªÑªÑªF
¤@Åé¨ü´f¡A«áªÌ¥i¥H½T©w¦b¤­¦~¤º¦¬¦^²{¦³¯S§OªÑ­±ÃBªº150%¡A¦]¬°µu´Áªº¦³
»ùÃÒ¨é¹ê¦b¬O¨S¦³¦h¤Ö³ø¹S²v¡A©Ò¥H¤£¥²¥I®§ªº¯SÂIºâ¬OµLÃöºò­n¡A¦p¦¹¤@¨Ó¤½
¥q¨C¦~±N¥i¥H´î¤Ö2,500¸Uªº¯S§OªÑªÑ®§¡A¦A¥[¤W¨C¦~¦h¥X5,400¸U¬ü¤¸ªºÀò
§Q¡A¥[Á`¤§«á±N¥iÀò±o¨C¦~7,900¸Uªº§Q¯q¡C

6. Establishment of a Contingency Reserve of $1,000,000,000.

¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Directors are confident that the improvements hereinbefore
described will assure the Corporation of a satisfactory earning power
under all conditions in the future. Under modern accounting methods,
however, it is unnecessary to incur the slightest risk of loss through
adverse business developments of any sort, since all these may be
provided for in advance by means of a Contingency Reserve.

6.«Ø¥ß10»õ¬ü¤¸ªº©Î¦³­t¶Å·Ç³Æ

¸³¨Æ­Ì¦³«H¤ß¸g¹L¤W­zªº¦w±Æ¡A¤½¥q¥¼¨Ó¤£ºÞ¦b¥ô¦ó±¡ªp¤U¡A³£¥i¥H½T«O¾Ö¦³¥O
¤Hº¡·NªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¡AµM¦Ó¦b²{¤µªº·|­p­ì«h¤U¡A¤½¥q³Ì¦n¤£­n©Ó¾á¥ô¦ó¥i¯àªº¼ç
¦b·l¥¢ªº­·ÀI¡A¦]¬°³Ì¦n¯à°÷¨Æ¥ý¥ý«Ø¥ß¤@­Ó©Î¦³·l¥¢­t¶Å·Ç³Æ¥H¯÷¦]À³¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Special Committee has recommended that the Corporation
create such a Contingency Reserve in the fairly substantial amount of
$1,000,000,000. As previously set forth, the annual write-down of
inventory to $1 will be absorbed by this reserve. To prevent eventual
exhaustion of the Contingency Reserve, it has been further decided
that it be replenished each year by transfer of an appropriate sum
from Capital Surplus. Since the latter is expected to increase each year
by not less than $250,000,000 through the exercise of the Stock
Option Warrants (see 3. above), it will readily make good any drains on
the Contingency Reserve.

¯S§O©e­û·|¦]¦¹«ØÄ³¤½¥q¥i¥H«Ø¥ß¤@­Ó10»õ¬ü¤¸ªº©Î¦³­t¶Å·Ç³Æ¡A´N¹³¬O¥ý«e
©Ò­zªº¡A¦s³f»ù­È½Õ¾ã¬°1¬ü¤¸ªº®t²§±N¥Ñ³o­Ó·Ç³Æ¨Ó§l¦¬¡A¦P®É¬°¤F©È±N¨Ó
©Î¦³·Ç³Æ®ø¯Ó¬pºÉ¡A¨C¦~ÁÙ±N©T©w¥Ñ¸ê¥»¤½¿n´£¼·¸É¥R¡A¦]¬°«áªÌ³z¹LªÑ²¼¿ï¾Ü
Åvªº¹B¥Î¨C¦~±N¦Ü¤Ö¥i¥H¼W¥[2.5»õ¬ü¤¸(¨£«e­±²Ä3ÂI)¡A©Ò¥HÀH®É·Ç³Æ¦n¥i¨Ñ
©Î¦³·Ç³Æ¸É¥R¤§¥Î¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In setting up this arrangement, the Board of Directors must
confess regretfully that they have been unable to improve upon the
devices already employed by important corporations in transferring
large sums between Capital, Capital Surplus, Contingency Reserves
and other Balance Sheet Accounts. In fact, it must be admitted that our
entries will be somewhat too simple, and will lack that element of
extreme mystification that characterizes the most advanced procedure
in this field. The Board of Directors, however, have insisted upon
clarity and simplicity in framing their Modernization Plan, even at the
sacrifice of possible advantage to the Corporation's earning power.

³z¹L³o¼Ëªº¦w±Æ¡A¸³¨Æ·|¥²¶·©Z©Ó¥L­Ì«Ü¿ò¾ÑÁÙ¤£¯à°÷¦V¨ä¥L¬ü°ê¤j¥ø·~¤@¼Ë¡A
¥R¤À¦a¹B¥Î¦UºØ¤èªk¡AÅýªÑ¥»¡B¸ê¥»¤½¿n¡B©Î¦³­t¶Å»P¸ê²£­t¶Åªí¨ä¥L¬ì¥Ø¤¬³q
¦³µL¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W§Ú­Ì¥²¶·©Ó»{¡A¥Ø«e§Ú­Ì¤½¥q©Ò§@ªº¤À¿ýÁÙ¹L©ó²³æ¡A®Ú¥»¨S¦³¹F
¨ì¤@¯ë·~¬É¨º¼Ë¯à°÷§Q¥Î³Ì¥ý¶iªº¤âªk¡AÅý¾ã­Ó·|­pµ{§Ç¯«¯¦½ÆÂø¤Æ¡AµM¦Ó¹ï¦¹
¸³¨Æ·|ÁÙ¬O±j½Õ¦b³W¹º­²·s¤è®×®É¡AÁÙ¬O¥²¶·°í«ù²M·¡©úÁAªº­ì«h¡AÁöµM³o¼Ë°µ
·|¹ï¤½¥qªºÀò§Q¯à¤O¦³©Ò¼vÅT¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In order to show the combined effect of the new proposals upon
the Corporation's earning power, we submit herewith a condensed
Income Account for 1935 on two bases, viz:

¬°¤FÅã¥Ü·s¤è®×¹ï©ó¤½¥qÀò§Q¯à¤Oªº¼vÅT¨ì©³¦³¦h¤j? §Ú­Ì¯S§O¦C¥X1935¦~
¤À§O¦b¨âºØ¤£¦P°ò¦¤Uªº·l¯qª¬ªp¡G

¡@

¡@

B. Pro-Forma
Giving Effect to
Changes Proposed
Herewith

¡@

¡@

¡@

A. As Reported

Gross Receipts from all Sources (Including Inter-Company)

$765,000,000

$765,000,000

Salaries and Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251,000,000

--

Other Operating Expenses and Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

461,000,000

311,000,000

Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47,000,000

(50,000,000)

Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,000,000

5,000,000

Discount on Bonds Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--

(54,000,000)

Preferred Dividends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25,000,000

--

Balance for Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(24,000,000)

553,000,000

Average Shares Outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,703,252

11,203,252

Earned Per Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

($2.76)

$49.80

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In accordance with a somewhat antiquated custom there is
appended herewith a condensed pro-forma Balance Sheet of the U. S.
Steel Corporation as of December 31, 1935, after giving effect to
proposed changes in asset and liability accounts.

¬°¤F°t¦X¦³ÂI¦Ñªº·|­p­ì«h¡Aªþ¥ó¬O¬ü°ê¿ûÅK1935¦~12¤ë31¤éÀÀ¨î©Êªº
¦X¨Ö¸ê²£­t¶Åªí¡A¦b¸g¹L½Õ¾ã«áªº¸ê²£­t¶Å¬ì¥Øª¬ªp¡C

ASSETS

Fixed Assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

($1,000,000,000)

Cash Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

142,000,000

Receivables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56,000,000

Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Miscellaneous Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27,000,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

($774,999,999)

LIABILITIES

Common Stock Par 1¢F (Par Value $87,032.52) Stated Value*

($3,500,000,000)

Subsidiaries' Bonds and Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113,000,000

New Sinking Fund Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,080,000,000

Current Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69,000,000

Contingency Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,000,000,000

Other Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74,000,000

Initial Surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

389,000,001

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

($774,999,999)

*Given a Stated Value differing from Par Value, in accordance with the laws of the
State of Virginia, where the company will be re-incorporated.

¦³§O©ó­ì¥ýªº©T©w­±ÃB¡A²{¦bªºªÑ¥»§ï¬°¤£©T©w­±ÃB¡A®Ú¾Úºû¦N¥§¨È¦{ªºªk¥O¡A¤½¥q¥²¶·­«·s³]
¥ß¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It is perhaps unnecessary to point out to our stockholders that
modern accounting methods give rise to balance sheets differing
somewhat in appearance from those of a less advanced period. In view
of the very large earning power that will result from these changes in
the Corporation's Balance Sheet, it is not expected that undue
attention will be paid to the details of assets and liabilities.

¹ê¦b¬O¤£¥²­n¸ò¦U¦ìªÑªF³ø§i¡A§ó·s¹L«áªº¸ê²£­t¶Åªí»P­ì¥ýªº³øªí±N·|¦³«Ü¤j
ªº¤£¦P¡A§Ú·Q¬°¤FÅý¤½¥qªºÀò§Q¤j¼W¦]¦¹¥²¶·´N¸ê²£­t¶Å¬ì¥Ø°µ«Ü¤jªº½Õ¾ã¡A¤j
®aÀ³¸Ó¤£·|¹ï¦¹¦³¤Ó¦hªº·N¨£¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In conclusion, the Board desires to point out that the combined
procedure, whereby plant will be carried at a minus figure, our wage
bill will be eliminated, and inventory will stand on our books at
virtually nothing, will give U. S. Steel Corporation an enormous
competitive advantage in the industry. We shall be able to sell our
products at exceedingly low prices and still show a handsome margin
of profit. It is the considered view of the Board of Directors that under
the Modernization Scheme we shall be able to undersell all
competitors to such a point that the anti-trust laws will constitute the
only barrier to 100% domination of the industry.

Á`¦Ó¨¥¤§¡A¸³¨Æ·|³o¤@³s¦ê±¹¬I¡A¥]§t±N¼t©Ð»ù­È½Õ¬°­t¼Æ¡BÁ~¤ô§R±¼¡B¦s³f­°
¨ì´X¥G¬°¹s¡A±N¥i¨Ï¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¦b²£·~ªºÄvª§¤O¤j¬°¼W¥[¡A§Ú­Ì±N¥i¥H¦]¦¹¥H«D±`
§Cªº»ù®æ¾P°â§Ú­Ì©Ò¥Í²£ªº²£«~¡A¦P®ÉÁÙ¥i¥H«O¦³«Ü¦nªºÀò§Q¡A¸³¨Æ·|¤]»{¬°¦b
³o¶µ§ó·s­pµe¤§¤U¡A§Ú­Ì±N¥i¥H¹ý©³¥´±ÑÄvª§¹ï¤â¡Aª½¨ì§Ú­Ì¹F¨ì¤Ï¦«©Ô´µªk
100%¥«³õ¦û¦³²vªº³Ì°ª¤W­­¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In making this statement, the Board is not unmindful of the
possibility that some of our competitors may seek to offset our new
advantages by adopting similar accounting improvements. We are
confident, however, that U. S. Steel will be able to retain the loyalty of
its customers, old and new, through the unique prestige that will
accrue to it as the originator and pioneer in these new fields of service
to the user of steel. Should necessity arise, moreover, we believe we
shall be able to maintain our deserved superiority by introducing still
more advanced bookkeeping methods, which are even now under
development in our Experimental Accounting Laboratory.

·íµM¦b·Ç³Æ³o¥÷³ø§i®É¡A¸³¨Æ·|¤£¬O¤£ª¾¹D¦P·~¤]¦³¥i¯à¥é®Ä§Ú­Ì³oÃþªº°µªk¡A
¨Ï±o§Ú­Ì³o¼Ë°µªº®Ä¯q¤j¥´§é¦©¡A¦ý¬O§Ú­Ì¦³«H¤ß¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¨­¬°´£¨Ñ¿ûÅK¥Î¤á³o
Ãþ·s¦¡ªA°Èªº¥ýÅX»â¯èªÌ¡A¤@©w¯à°÷ºû«ù¦í«È¤áªº©¾¸Û«×¡A¤£½×¬O¦Ñ«È¤á©Î¬O·s
«È¤á¡A·íµM­Y¬O¦³¥ô¦ó·N¥~¡A¬ü°ê¿ûÅK¤´±N³z¹L§Ú­Ì·s³]¥ßªº·|­p¬ã¨s¹êÅç«Ç¡A
­P¤O©ó¬ãµo¥X§ó·sªº·|­p°µ±b­ì«h¡A¥HÄ~Äò«O«ù§Ú­ÌªºÀu¶Õ¦a¦ì¡C

APPENDIX B

ªþ¿ýB

Some Thoughts on Selling Your Business*

¹ï©ó»Õ¤U¦³·N¥X°â¤½¥qªº¤@¨Ç·Qªk

*This is an edited version of a letter I sent some years ago to a man who had
indicated that he might want to sell his family business. I present it here because it is
a message I would like to convey to other prospective sellers. -- W.E.B.

³o¬O´X¦~«e§Ú¼gµ¹¤@¦ì¦³·N¥X°â¨ä®a±Ú¨Æ·~µ¹§Ú­Ìªº¤H¤h¡A¦b¸g¹L­×¥¿«á¡A§Ú¯S¦a§â³o«Ê«HÂ\¦b
³o¸Ì¡A¦]¬°³o¥¿¬O§Ú·Q¶Ç¹Fµ¹¨ä¥L¦³·N¥X°â¨Æ·~ªÌªº°T®§-µØ­Û¤Úµá¯S

Dear _____________:

¡@¡@¡@¡@ Here are a few thoughts pursuant to our conversation of the other
day.

±z¦n

¥H¤U¬O¦b«e´X¤Ñ§Ú­Ìªº½Í¸Ü«á¡A§Ú­Ó¤Hªº¤@¨Ç·Qªk¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Most business owners spend the better part of their lifetimes
building their businesses. By experience built upon endless repetition,
they sharpen their skills in merchandising, purchasing, personnel
selection, etc. It's a learning process, and mistakes made in one year
often contribute to competence and success in succeeding years.

¤j³¡¤Àªº¥ø·~¦ÑÁóµL¤£²×¨ä¤@¥Í§V¤O¦a«Ø¥ß¦Û¤vªº¥ø·~¤ý°ê¡A¸g¹L¤£Â_¦a§V¤OÚX
Áå¡A¥L­Ì¦b¦æ¾P¡B±ÄÁÊ»P¤H¨ÆºÞ²z¤Wªº¸gÅç³£¯à«ùÄò¦aºë¶i¡A³o¬O¤@­Ó¾Ç²ßªº¹L
µ{¡A¥ý«e¤@®Éªº®À±Ñ³q±`·|¦¨´N«á¨Óªº¦¨¥\¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In contrast, owner-managers sell their business only once --
frequently in an emotionally-charged atmosphere with a multitude of
pressures coming from different directions. Often, much of the
pressure comes from brokers whose compensation is contingent upon
consummation of a sale, regardless of its consequences for both buyer
and seller. The fact that the decision is so important, both financially
and personally, to the owner can make the process more, rather than
less, prone to error. And, mistakes made in the once-in-a-lifetime
sale of a business are not reversible.

¬Û¹ï¦a¡A¦Û¤v·í¦ÑÁ󪺸g²z¤H¦b­±¹ï¨Ó¦Û¦U¤èªºÀ£¤O¡A°¸º¸·|¦b¤@®É½Ä°Êªº±¡ªp
¤U¡A¦Ò¼{¥X°â¦Û¤v¾Ö¦³ªº¨Æ·~¡A³q±`¬O¦]¬°¤¤¶¡¤H¬°¤FÁȨú¦¨¥æªº¦þª÷¤£ÅU¶R½æ
Âù¤èªº§Q¯q¦Ó¼£±v¦ÑÁó»°§Ö°µ¨M©w¡A¨Æ¹ê¤W°µ³o¼Ëªº¨Mµ¦²o¯A­«¤j¡A¤£ºÞ¬O¦b°]
°È©Î¬O­Ó¤H¤è­±¬Ò¬O¦p¦¹¡A­Ü«P¦a¨M©w¥i¯à¨Ï±o¦ÑÁó°µ¥X¿ù»~¦Ó¤£¬O¥¿½Tªº¨M
µ¦¡A¦Ó¥B¤@¥¹µo¥Í¥i´N¬O¤@½ú¤lµLªk®¾¦^ªº¿ù»~¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@ Price is very important, but often is not the most critical aspect of
the sale. You and your family have an extraordinary business -- one of
a kind in your field -- and any buyer is going to recognize that. It's
also a business that is going to get more valuable as the years go by.
So if you decide not to sell now, you are very likely to realize more
money later on. With that knowledge you can deal from strength and
take the time required to select the buyer you want.

»ù®æ·íµM«Ü­«­n¡A¦ý¬O³q±`¥¦¨Ã¤£¬O¾ã­Ó¥æ©ö³ÌÃöÁ䪺¦]¯À¡A§A¸ò§Aªº®a±Ú¾Ö¦³
·~¬É³Ì´Îªº¥ø·~¡A©Ò¦³ªº¼ç¦b¶R®a·íµM³£ª¾¹D³o¤@ÂI¡A¦ÓÀHµÛ®É¶¡ªººt¶i¡A§Aªº
¨Æ·~¤]·|Åܱo§ó¦³»ù­È¡A©Ò¥H­Y§A²{¦b¨M©w¤£½æ¤F¡A³o¥Nªí¥H«á§A¥i¯à¥i¥HÁȧó
¦hªº¿ú¡A¦Ó¦³¤F³o¼Ëªº»{ª¾¡A§A¤j¥i¥H±q®e¥H¹ï¡AºCºC¦a´M§ä§A§Æ±æªº¶R¥D¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ If you should decide to sell, I think Berkshire Hathaway offers
some advantages that most other buyers do not. Practically all of these
buyers will fall into one of two categories:

¦ý¬O­n¬O§A¯uªº¨M©w­n½æ¡A§Ú¬Û«HBerkshireµ´¹ï¥i¥H´£¨Ñ¤ñ§O¤H§ó¦nªº±ø¥ó¡A
°ò¥»¤W¥i¯àªº¶R¥D¥i¥H¤À¬°¨â¤jÃþ¡J

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ (1) A company located elsewhere but operating in your business or
in a business somewhat akin to yours. Such a buyer -- no matter what
promises are made -- will usually have managers who feel they know
how to run your business operations and, sooner or later, will want to
apply some hands-on "help." If the acquiring company is much larger,
it often will have squads of managers, recruited over the years in part
by promises that they will get to run future acquisitions. They will have
their own way of doing things and, even though your business record
undoubtedly will be far better than theirs, human nature will at some
point cause them to believe that their methods of operating are
superior. You and your family probably have friends who have sold
their businesses to larger companies, and I suspect that their
experiences will confirm the tendency of parent companies to take
over the running of their subsidiaries, particularly when the parent
knows the industry, or thinks it does.


(1)²Ä¤@ºØ¬O§Aªº¦P·~©Î¬O»P§Aªº©Ò³Bªº²£·~¬Ûªñªº·~ªÌ¡A³oºØ¶R®a¤£ºÞ¥Lµ¹§A
«ç»ò¼Ëªº©Ó¿Õ¡A³q±`·|Åý§A·Pı¨ì¦n¹³¥L¤ñ§AÀ´±o¦p¦ó¨Ó¸gÀç§Aªº¨Æ·~¡A¦Ó¦­±ß
¦³¤@¤Ñ¥L·|·Q­n´¡¤â¨ÓÀ°¦£§AªºÀç¹B¡A¦Ó­Y¬O¶R¤è¦A¤j¤@ÂI¡A³q±`ÁÙ·|À³¼x¤@¤j
°ï¸g²z¤H¶i¨Ó¡AÂǤfªí¥Ü¥H«áÁÙ·|¦³§ó¦hªºÁʨ֮סA¥L­Ì¤@©w·|¦³¦Û¤vªº¤@®M°µ
¨Æ¤èªk¡AÁöµM§A¹L¥hªº¸gÀç°O¿ý©úÅã¦a¤ñ¥L­Ì¦n¤Ó¦h¡A¦ý¤H©Êªº¬Y¤@­±ÁÙ¬O¨Ï¥L
­Ìı±o¥L­Ì°µ¨Æªº¤èªk¤~¬O¹ïªº¡A§A¸ò§A®a¤HªºªB¤Í¤j·§¤]¦³¤H´¿¸g±N¤½¥q½æµ¹
¤j¥ø·~ªº¡A§Ú·Q¥L­ÌÀ³¸Ó¤]¦³³o¤è­±ªº¸gÅç¡A¥i¥HÃÒ¹ê¤j¤½¥q¦³¶É¦V±N¤l¤½¥qªº
·~°È±µ¹L¥hºÞ²z¡A¤×¨ä¬O¥L­Ì¹ï³o¦æ¤]«Ü¤º¦æ©Î¦Û»{«Ü¤º¦æ®É¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ (2) A financial maneuverer, invariably operating with large
amounts of borrowed money, who plans to resell either to the public
or to another corporation as soon as the time is favorable. Frequently,
this buyer's major contribution will be to change accounting methods
so that earnings can be presented in the most favorable light just prior
to his bailing out. I'm enclosing a recent article that describes this sort
of transaction, which is becoming much more frequent because of a
rising stock market and the great supply of funds available for such
transactions.

(2)²Ä¤GÃþªº¤½¥q¬O°]°È¤½¥q¡A¤j¶q¹B¥Î©Ò­É¨Óªº¸êª÷¡A¥u­n®É¾÷±o·í¡AÁ`¬O·Ç
³ÆÀH®É±N¤½¥q¦A½æµ¹§ë¸ê¤j²³©Î¬O§Oªº¤j¥ø·~¡A³q±`³oÃþ¶R¥D¹ï¤½¥q³Ì¤jªº°^Äm
´N¬O§ïÅܤ½¥qªº·|­p¬Fµ¦¡A¨Ï±o¤½¥q¬Õ¾l¤ñ¥H«e¬Ý°_¨Ó¦n¬Ý¤@ÂI¡A¦p¦¹¤@¨Ó¨Ï¥L
±o¥H¥Î§ó¦nªº»ù®æ²æ¤â¦Ó¥X¡Aªþ¥ó¬O³Ìªñ¤@½g¦³Ãö³oÃþ¥æ©öªº¤å³¹³ø¾É¡A¥Ñ©ó³Ì
ªñªÑ¥«¼öµ¸©Ò¥H³oÃþªº¬¡°Ê¤]¬Û·íÀWÁc¡A¦P®É³oÃþªº¸êª÷¤]¬Û·í¥R¨K¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ If the sole motive of the present owners is to cash their chips and
put the business behind them -- and plenty of sellers fall in this
category -- either type of buyer that I've just described is satisfactory.
But if the sellers' business represents the creative work of a lifetime
and forms an integral part of their personality and sense of being,
buyers of either type have serious flaws.

¦pªG¤½¥q²{¦bªº¾Ö¦³¤H°ß¤@ªº¥Ø¼Ð¥u¬OÀH®É·Ç³Æ±N¥ø·~«Ý»ù¦Óªf¡A±ó¥ø·~¾ãÅ骺
§Q¯q©ó¤£ÅU¡A«Ü¦hªº½æ¥D½T¹êÄÝ©ó³oÃþ«¬¡A¨º»ò¥ý«e©Ò´y­zªº¶R¤èÀ³¸Ó³£¥i¥H¬°
½æ¤è©Ò±µ¨ü¡A¦ý¬O­n¬O½æ¤è©Ò­n¥X°âªº¤½¥q¬O¥L¤@½ú¤lªº¤ß¦åµ²´¹¡A¬Æ¦Ü¤w¸g¦¨
¬°¨ä¤H®æ»P¥Í©Rªº¤@³¡¥÷¡A¨º»ò³o¨âÃþªº¶R¤è¥i¯à³£¤£¯à²Å¦X§Aªº¼Ð·Ç¡C¡@

¡@¡@¡@¡@ Berkshire is another kind of buyer -- a rather unusual one. We buy
to keep, but we don't have, and don't expect to have, operating people
in our parent organization. All of the businesses we own are run
autonomously to an extraordinary degree. In most cases, the
managers of important businesses we have owned for many years have
not been to Omaha or even met each other. When we buy a business,
the sellers go on running it just as they did before the sale; we adapt
to their methods rather than vice versa.

¦Ü©óBerkshire«hÄÝ©ó¥t¥~¤@Ãþ«¬ªº¶R¥D¡A¦Ó¥Bµ´¹ï¬O»P²³¤£¦Pªº¡A§Ú­Ì¶R¶i¬O
¬°¤F¾Ö¦³¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì¤£­n¡A¤]¤£§Æ±æ¤½¥qªºÀç¹B¥DºÞ¥Ñ¥À¤½¥q«ü¬£¡A§Ú­ÌºX¤U©Ò¦³
ªº¨Æ·~³£¯à°÷¬Û·í¿W¥ß¦Û¥D¦aÀç¹B¡A¤j³¡¤Àªº±¡ªp¤U¡A§Ú­Ì©Ò¾Ö¦³ªº­«­n¨Æ·~ºÞ
²z¤H±q¨Ó´N¨S¦³¨Ó¹L¶øº¿«¢¡A¬Æ¦Ü©óÂù¤è³s­±³£¨S¸I¹L¡A·í§Ú­Ì¶R¤U¤@¶¡¤½¥q¤§
«á¡A½æ¤è¨ÌÂÂÁÙ¬O·Ó­ì¨Óªº¼Ë¤l¸gÀ礽¥q¡A¬O§Ú­Ì­n¥h¾AÀ³¥L­Ì¡A¤£¬O¥L­Ì­n¨Ó
¾AÀ³§Ú­Ì¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ We have no one -- family, recently recruited MBAs, etc. -- to
whom we have promised a chance to run businesses we have bought
from owner-managers. And we won't have.

§Ú­Ì¨S¦³¥ô¦ó®a±Ú¦¨­û©Î¬O·s¶i¸u¥Îªº¥øºÞºÓ¤h¡A·Ç³Æ­n¨Ó¸gÀç§Ú­Ì¶R¤Uªº¥ô¦ó
¥ø·~¡A§Ú·Q¥H«á¤]¤£·|¦³³oºØ±¡ªp¡C¡@

¡@¡@¡@¡@ You know of some of our past purchases. I'm enclosing a list of
everyone from whom we have ever bought a business, and I invite you
to check with them as to our performance versus our promises. You
should be particularly interested in checking with the few whose
businesses did not do well in order to ascertain how we behaved under
difficult conditions.

¦pªG§Aª¾¹D§Ú­Ì¹L¥hªºÁʨ֮סA§Ú·|ªþ¤W¹L¥h§Ú­ÌÁʶR¥ø·~ªº¦W³æ¡A§Ú«ØÄ³§A¥i
¥H¥´­Ó¹q¸Ücheck¬Ý¬Ý¡A§Ú­Ì¬O¤£¬O»¡¨ì°µ¨ì¡A¯S§O¬O§A¥i¥H°Ý°Ý¤Ö¼Æ´X®a¸g
À礣¬Æ²z·Qªº¤½¥q¡A¬Ý¬Ý¦bÁ}Ãøªºª¬ªp¤U¡A§Ú­Ì¤S·|±Ä¨ú«ç¼Ëªº°µªk¡C¡@

¡@¡@¡@¡@ Any buyer will tell you that he needs you personally -- and if he
has any brains, he most certainly does need you. But a great many
buyers, for the reasons mentioned above, don't match their
subsequent actions to their earlier words. We will behave exactly as
promised, both because we have so promised, and because we need to
in order to achieve the best business results.

¥ô¦ó¶R¥D³£·|§i¶D§A¡A¨p©³¤U¥L«Ü»Ý­n§Aªº¨ó§U¡A·íµM­Y¥L¯uªº¦³¤j¸£¡A¥L´N·|
ª¾¹D¥L¯uªº¬O»Ý­n§A¡A¦ý¤j¦h¼Æªº¶R¥D¡A°ò©ó¥ý«e©Ò´£ªº´X­Ó²z¥Ñ¡A¤j³£¤£·|¿í
¦u¥ý«e©Ò§@ªº©Ó¿Õ¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì¤£¤@¼Ë¡Aµ´¹ï¬O»¡¨ì°µ¨ì¡A¦]¬°¤@¤è­±§Ú­Ì¤w°µ¥X©Ó
¿Õ¡A¥t¤@¤è­±§Ú­Ì¤]¬O¬°¤F¦³§ó¦³ªº¸gÀ禨ªG¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ This need explains why we would want the operating members of
your family to retain a 20% interest in the business. We need 80% to
consolidate earnings for tax purposes, which is a step important to us.
It is equally important to us that the family members who run the
business remain as owners. Very simply, we would not want to buy
unless we felt key members of present management would stay on as
our partners. Contracts cannot guarantee your continued interest; we
would simply rely on your word.

³o¼Ëªº»Ý¨D¥i¥H»¡©ú¬°¦ó§Ú­Ì§Æ±æ­ì¦³ªº¸gÀç¹Î¶¤³Ì¦n¯à°÷«O¯d20%ªºªÑ¥÷¡A
°ò©ó¯²µ|³W¹º§Ú­Ì»Ý­n80%¥H¤WªºªÑÅv¡A³oÂI«Ü­«­n¡A¦ý¦P®É§Ú­Ì¤]§Æ±æÄ~Äò
¯d¤U¨ÓºÞ²zªº®a±Ú¦¨­û¤]¯à°÷¦Û¤v·í¦ÑÁó¡A©Ò¥H«Ü²³æ¡A°£«D§Ú­Ì½T©w­ì¦³ªº¥D
­n¸g²z¤HÁÙ·|Ä~Äò¯d¤U¨Ó¦¨¬°§Ú­Ìªº¦X¹Ù¤H¡A§_«h§Ú­Ì¤£·|¦Ò¼{¶R¤U¤½¥q¡A¦X¬ù
¨Ã¤£¯à«OÃÒ§A·|Ä~Äò§ë¤J¡A§Ú­Ì¬Û«Hªº¬O§A©Ó¿Õªº¨C¤@­Ó¦r¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The areas I get involved in are capital allocation and selection and
compensation of the top man. Other personnel decisions, operating
strategies, etc. are his bailiwick. Some Berkshire managers talk over
some of their decisions with me; some don't. It depends upon their
personalities and, to an extent, upon their own personal relationship
with me.

§Ú­Ì·|¤¶¤Jªº»â°ì¬O¸êª÷ªº³W¹º»P°t¸m¡A¥H¤Î°ª¶¥¤H­ûªº¥ô©R»P³ø¹S¡A¨ä¾lªº¤H
¨Æ¡BÀç¹Bµ¦²¤µ¥¨º´N¬O§A¦Û¤vªº¨Æ¡A¦³¨ÇBerkshireºX¤U¨Æ·~ªº¸g²z¤H·|§â¥L­Ì
©Ò§@ªº¤@¨Ç°Ó·~¨M©w¦V§Ú³ø§i¡A¦³¨Ç«h¤£·|¡A³o¥D­n¬Oµø¥L­Ì¥»¨­ªº­Ó©Ê¡A¥H¤Î
»P§Ú­Ó¤Hªº¨p¤HÃö«Y¦Ó©w¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ If you should decide to do business with Berkshire, we would pay
in cash. Your business would not be used as collateral for any loan by
Berkshire. There would be no brokers involved.

¦pªG§A¨M©w­n¸òBerkshire¤@°_°µ¥Í·N¡A§Ú­Ì·|¥H²{ª÷ªº¤è¦¡µ¹¤©³ø¹S¡A§Aªº¥ø
·~¸ê²£¤]¤£·|³QBerkshire®³¨Ó·í§@­É´Úªº©è©ã«~¡A¤]¤£·|¦³Õz«È²o¯A¨ä¤¤¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Furthermore, there would be no chance that a deal would be
announced and that the buyer would then back off or start suggesting
adjustments (with apologies, of course, and with an explanation that
banks, lawyers, boards of directors, etc. were to be blamed). And
finally, you would know exactly with whom you are dealing. You would
not have one executive negotiate the deal only to have someone else
in charge a few years later, or have the president regretfully tell you
that his board of directors required this change or that (or possibly
required sale of your business to finance some new interest of the
parent's).

¥t¥~¦b¥æ©ö¦¨¥æ«á¡A§Ú­Ì¤]¤£·|Á{®É«Å§G°h¥X¤£ª±¡A©Î¬O´£¥X­n°µ½Õ¾ãªº­n¨D¡A
(·íµM­n¬O»È¦æ¡B«ß®v¡B¸³¨Æ·|µ¥¤è­±ªº¥Xª¬ªp¡A§Ú­Ì¤]·|°µ¥X¹Dºp»P¦X²zªº¸Ñ
ÄÀ)¡A§A¤£·|¸I¨ì´X¦~«e»P§A½Í§Pªº¥DºÞ¬ðµM¨«¤H¡A¤§«á·s¤W¥ôªº¥DºÞ¤@·§¤£»{
±b¡A©Î¬O¤½¥qÁ`µô«Ü¿ò¾Ñ¦a¸ò§A»¡¡A¥L­I«áªº¸³¨Æ·|­n¨D§A³o¼Ë©Î­n¨D§A¨º¼Ë¡A
(©Î¬Æ¦Ü·Q­n¦A§â§Aªº¤½¥q½æ±¼¥H¤äÀ³¥À¤½¥q·sªº¸êª÷»Ý¨D)¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It's only fair to tell you that you would be no richer after the sale
than now. The ownership of your business already makes you wealthy
and soundly invested. A sale would change the form of your wealth,
but it wouldn't change its amount. If you sell, you will have exchanged
a 100%-owned valuable asset that you understand for another valuable
asset -- cash -- that will probably be invested in small pieces (stocks)
of other businesses that you understand less well. There is often a
sound reason to sell but, if the transaction is a fair one, the reason is
not so that the seller can become wealthier.

¥t¥~¤]¥²¶·­n´£¿ô§A¦b¥æ©ö§¹¦¨«á¡A§A¨Ã¤£·|¤ñ­ì¨ÓÁÙ´I¦³¡A¦]¬°¾Ö¦³­ì¨Óªº¨Æ
·~¤w¸gÅý§A¥Î³Ì¦³§Qªº§ë¸ê¤è¦¡ÁȤF«Ü¦h¿ú¡A¾ã­Ó¥æ©ö¥u·|Åý§Aªº°]´I§Î¦¡¦³©Ò
§ïÅÜ¡A¦ý°ò¥»¤Wª÷ÃB¼Æ¶q¨Ã¤£·|§ïÅÜ¡A­Y§A­n½æ¡A§A¥i¥H½T©w±N¯à°÷§â­ì¦³100%
«ù¦³¥B¼ô±xªº¸ê²£¡A´«±o¥t¥~¤@ºØ¸ê²£-²{ª÷¡A©Î¦A¥[¤W¤@¤p³¡¥÷§A¤ñ¸û¤£¼ô±x
ªº¥ø·~ªÑ¥÷¡A­n°µ¥X¥X°âªº¨M©wÁ`¦³³\¦h²z¥Ñ¡A¦ý­Y¾ã­Ó¥æ©ö¬O¤½¥­¦X²zªº¸Ü¡A
³o­Ó²z¥Ñµ´¹ï¤£¬O½æ¤è¦]¦¹¥i¥HÅܱo§ó´I¦³¡C

¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ I will not pester you; if you have any possible interest in selling, I
would appreciate your call. I would be extraordinarily proud to have
Berkshire, along with the key members of your family, own _______; I
believe we would do very well financially; and I believe you would have
just as much fun running the business over the next 20 years as you
have had during the past 20.

§Ú¤£·|¨è·NªÈÄñ§A¡A¦ý­Y§A¦³¥ô¦óªº·NÄ@·Q­n¥X°âªº¸Ü¡A§Ú·|«Ü¼Ö·N±µ¨ì§Aªº¹q
¸Ü¡A§Ú«Üºa©¯¯à°÷ÅýBerkshire»P§Aªº®a±Ú¦¨­û¤@°_¾Ö¦³³o¥÷¨Æ·~¡F§Ú¬Û«H¤½¥q
¦b°]°È¤W¤@©w·|Åܱo§ó¦n¡A¦Ó§Ú¤]¬Û«H¦b¥¼¨Óªº20¦~¤º¡A§A¤]·|¹³¹L¥h20¦~
¨Ó¤@¼Ë¡A´r§Ö¦aÄ~Äò¸gÀç³o¥÷¨Æ·~¡C

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1