巴菲特芒格劝你远离银行股

巴菲特迷都喜欢用富国银行作例子，尤其是银粉+巴菲特粉，特别是把富国银行对标招商银行的招银粉，但是实际上，巴菲特和芒格可能会劝在银行业没有信息优势、并且不了解银行管理层的人远离银行股。
以下是对话译文：
问：你买了富国银行，为什么那是一个好的投资？
答：我们回到巴郡买富国银行的时候。那时世界似乎即将崩溃，而房地产正是混乱的源头。富国面临巨大的风险暴露。但是我们知道富国银行的信贷官员可不是一般银行的信贷官员，他们是心智成熟的人，对事物持怀疑和谨慎小心的态度，而这些都是经营一家银行的正确方式。
并且我们知道富国会更好，我们知道富国不会损失太多，因为富国有更好的选择和管理。因此，我们有信息优势，知道富国有那种专业能力，因此我们重仓买入。
其次，当the Daily Journal买富国的时候，我们知道富国的银行家比一般的银行家们更理性，是一种非同寻常的理性和优秀。我们不认为一个人应该购买银行股，除非他对银行家有些感觉。银行业，对投资者来说是一个危险的地方，若没有深度洞察力，要远离银行。

注：按此观点，其实银粉对银行的关注重点应该在银行谨慎甚至保守的经营风格上，不然的话，胜利99次也可能在最后一次亏损完，招商银行合格吗？也许，按此标准，中国哪一家银行都不合格。$招商银行(SH600036)$   $招商银行(03968)$   

（注：你可以反驳我的观点，但请勿乱喷，毕竟我辛苦翻译出来也没收你家钱

）

Questioner 12: You bought Wells Fargo. Why was that a good investment?
Charlie Munger: Well I’ll take you back to when Berkshire bought Wells. The world was coming apart. Real estate was the source of the chaos. Wells Fargo had a huge exposure. But we knew that the lending officers at Wells Fargo were not normal bank lending officers. They were grownups, and they had a somewhat cynical view, and they were appropriately careful and it was the right way to run a bank.
And we knew they were better, and we knew they wouldn’t lose at much because they chose better and managed better. So we had an informational advantage. We were aware they had that special capacity, so we bought heavily.
Secondly when the Daily Journal bought Wells we again knew that bankers at Wells were more rational than normal. It’s a different kind of superiority and rationality. I don’t think anyone should buy a bank if they don’t have a feel for the bankers. Banking is a business that is a very dangerous place for an investor. Without deep insight, stay away.