译文：
伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司
新闻稿
即时发布
2024年11月25日
内布拉斯加州奥马哈（股票代码：BRK.A; BRK.B）
今天，沃伦·巴菲特将1,600股A类股转换为2,400,000股B类股，并将这些B类股捐赠给四个家族基金会：其中1,500,000股给苏珊·汤普森·巴菲特基金会，其余各300,000股分别给谢伍德基金会、霍华德·G·巴菲特基金会和NoVo基金会。
（译者注：
以下是巴菲特致全体股东的评述：
* * * * * * * * * * * *
本次捐赠后，我持有的伯克希尔A类股将减少至206,363股，比2006年我宣布捐赠承诺时减少了56.6%。2004年，在我第一任妻子苏珊去世前，我们共同拥有508,998股A类股。多年来，我们都以为她会比我长寿，并会负责分配我们的大部分财富。但事与愿违。
（译者注：2006年是巴菲特慈善事业的一个重要转折点。那一年，他宣布了一个历史性承诺：计划将其持有的伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司的约85%股份（当时价值约370亿美元）捐赠给慈善事业。最大部分捐给盖茨基金会（Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation），其余部分捐给四个家族基金会，并承诺将分年度逐步完成捐赠。当时他持有约475,000股A类股）
苏珊去世时留下约30亿美金遗产，其中96%捐给了我们的基金会。此外，她给我们的三个孩子每人留下1000万美元，这是我们第一次给予孩子们如此大额馈赠。这体现了我们的理念：富有父母应该给子女留下足够追求理想的财富，但不能多到让他们无所事事。
我们一直鼓励子女从事小规模慈善活动，他们表现出的热情、勤勉，和已经取得的成果，都让我们倍感欣慰。虽然在苏珊去世时，他们还没准备好处理如此庞大的财富，但在2006年我作出终身捐赠承诺后（后来承诺规模有所扩大），他们的慈善活动规模也大幅增长。
现在，孩子们已完全证明了自己的能力。我去世后，他们将全权负责逐步分配我所有的伯克希尔股份，这些股份占我财富的99.5%。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
时光老人永远是赢家，只是他全凭心意行事，甚至有些残酷。有时他在人们刚出生或不久后就带走人们的生命，但有时人们却要花上百年才等来他的到访。至今，我一直很幸运，但不久后，他也一样会找上我。
然而我躲过他的造访也有些负面影响。自我2006年作出承诺以来，我的子女的剩余预期寿命已明显缩短。他们现在分别71岁、69岁和66岁了。
我从未想要建立家族王朝，或者制定任何超出子女这一代范围的计划。我了解这三个孩子，也完全信任他们。但后世子孙完全是另一回事。谁能预见，在可能完全不同的慈善环境下，后代会用何种智慧、忠诚度和优先考虑，去处理这笔巨额财富呢？尽管如此，可能子女这代的剩余寿命已不够分配我积累的庞大财富。而且，明天的决策由三个活着且方向明确的头脑做出，可能比靠死后遗嘱更好。
因此，我们已经指定了三位潜在的继任受托人。我的子女熟知他们每个人，这个安排对我们所有人都说得通。他们的年龄也比我的孩子小一些。
但这些继任者只是候补。我希望苏珊、霍华德和彼得能亲自分配我的所有资产。
子女们都尊重我的愿望，处置伯克希尔股份的计划绝不能辜负伯克希尔股东对查理·芒格和我的特殊信任。2006-2024年间，我有机会观察每个子女的行动，他们也学到了很多关于大规模慈善和人类行为的知识。他们每个人都长年管理着20-30人的团队，也观察到了慈善组织独特的用人规律。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
富有的朋友们对我给予子女和可能继任者的非凡信任感到好奇。他们对我要求所有基金会行动都需要一致投票特别惊讶。这怎么行得通？
我解释说，我的子女将永远面临来自诚挚的朋友和其他人的恳切请求。另一个现实是：收到大额慈善捐赠请求后，对潜在受赠者说“不”，经常促使他们改头换面再试一次。再找另一个“诚挚的朋友”牵线搭桥、改换申报项目，诸如此类。能分配巨额资金的人永远被视为"机会目标"。在这个位置上，这种不愉快在所难免。
因此就有了"一致决定"的规定。这条限制，使我的子女能立即给寻求资助者一个最终答复："这不是我们三兄妹会一致同意的事情。"这个答案能减少他们很多生活困扰。
当然，我的“一致决定”条款并非万能，假若你有九个、十个子女或继子女，这显然行不通。它也无法解决如何每年明智分配数十亿美金的艰巨问题。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
还有个给所有父母的建议，无论你们的财富适中还是大到惊人。当你的子女成熟了，在你签署遗嘱前先让他们阅读。
确保每个子女都理解你的决定逻辑和他们将在你去世后需承担的责任。如果他们有任何问题或建议，你应该认真倾听并采纳合理建议。你不会希望当自己无法再回应时，你的孩子们还在对遗嘱安排问"为什么？"。
多年来，我的三个孩子都向我提出过很多问题和看法，我也经常采纳他们的建议。为自己的想法辩护并没什么不对。我父亲和我也用同样的方式沟通。
每隔几年我都会修改下遗嘱，通常只做些很小的改动，并尽量保持简单。多年来，查理和我看到许多家庭在执行遗嘱后分崩离析，因为受益人感到困惑，有时甚至是愤怒。嫉妒心，伴随着童年时期或真实或想象的轻视，被放大，特别是当儿子在金钱或重要职位方面比女儿得到更多青睐时，更是如此。
查理和我也见证了另外一些案例，富有父母的遗嘱在去世前得到充分讨论，家庭关系因此变得更加紧密。还有什么比这更让人满意的呢？
* * * * * * * * * * * *
写下这篇文字时，我仍然延续着1930年代美国白人男性，一出生就开始的好运。当然，我的两个姐妹在1920年第19号修正案通过时，就得到明确承诺，她们将受到与男性平等的对待。毕竟，这也正是在1776年美国独立宣言中，我们十三个殖民地想要表达的。
然而，当我在1930年出生时，这个国家还未能实现其建国初期的理想。直到1970年代，在比利·简·金、桑德拉·戴·奥康纳、露丝·巴德·金斯伯格和无数先驱的努力下，情况才开始改变。
（译者注：文中提到的三位女性先驱，都是美国性别平等运动的重要推动者，在各自领域为女性权益的提升做出了重大贡献。
由于我的男性身份优势，我很早就相信自己会变得富有。但我或其他任何人都没想到在过去几十年里美国能够实现如此财富规模。其令人震惊程度，超出了福特、卡内基、摩根甚至洛克菲勒的想象。过去财富以百万计，如今都是以十亿计了。
我在大萧条伊始出生，那时前景暗淡。人生真正的复利效应是在我最后二十年才显现的。靠着这些年来不栽跟头，我现在94岁了仍能继续工作，并且拥有巨额储蓄。这些钱，姑且称之'待用消费单位'，实际上是我留给其他人在将来使用的钱，可以转移给那些一出生就命运不济的人。
很幸运的是，我的慈善理念得到了两任妻子的热情支持并在她们的努力下不断丰富。无论是我、苏珊还是阿斯特里德，都不相信世袭财富。
相反，我们都认为机会平等应该从出生开始，至于那些极度张扬的生活方式虽然合法但并不值得赞赏。作为一个家庭，我们为拥有所需和所喜的一切而高兴，但绝不会因他人羡慕我们的财富而得意。
特别令我高兴的是，许多早期伯克希尔股东也自发形成了类似观点。他们积累财富，过着好日子，照顾好家人。这些财富经过长期复利增长，成为数量可观、甚至是巨额资产，最终全部回馈给社会。他们的这些'提款券'正惠及那些运气欠佳的人。
* * * * * * * * * * * *
怀着这些理念，我从二十多岁起就过上了我想要的生活，现在我也看到了我的孩子们成长为优秀且颇有建树的公民。很多时候，他们与我以及他们各自之间的观点都不同，但他们有着坚定不移的共同价值观。
小苏珊、霍华德和彼得，每个人直接帮助他人的时间都远超过我。他们享受经济上的舒适，但并不执着于占有财富。这些价值观源自孩子母亲的教导，他们的妈妈一定会为他们感到自豪。
我也一样。
关于伯克希尔
伯克希尔·哈撒韦及其子公司从事多元化业务，包括保险和再保险、公用事业和能源、铁路货运、制造业、服务业和零售业。公司普通股在纽约证券交易所上市，股票代码为BRK.A和BRK.B。
— 完 —
联系人
Marc D. Hamburg
402-346-1400
译后记：
本篇新闻稿详细描述了巴菲特遗嘱分配的细节，再次阐述了他的人生理念。读起来虽有些伤感，但也有事如所料，一切皆在掌握的淡然和充盈。
走一步看三步，赚取了大量金钱之后，还需要做些什么？这些都需要在真正开始持续创造财富的早期想的通透。不明白这点，就还没有走在天道上，无法完成人与社会、人与世界、人与自然的和睦相处，即使赚了再多，也会凭本事亏回去。
很多人诟病巴老过于传统，在股市丰年，人们嘲笑他老了，赚的不够多；在股市灾年，愤恨他没有真金白银的投资那些人类前沿的高风险行业。巴菲特曾经说过，生意就是生意，投资的关键不在于评估一个行业将如何影响社会，或者它会有多大的增长，而在于判断一家公司的竞争优势，尤其是这种优势的持久性。
以自己的能力圈为基础，恪守对社会有益的原则，是巴菲特的生财之道。对于那些对人类有益，而巴老自己不擅长的领域，他选择以慈善的形式，让更合适的人去做合适的事。
知己有界，行大道；言传身教，信子女之德行、智慧与选择。
英文原文：
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 25, 2024
Omaha, NE (BRK.A; BRK.B)
Today, Warren E. Buffett will convert 1,600 A shares into 2,400,000 B shares in order to give these B shares to four family foundations: 1,500,000 shares to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and 300,000 shares to each of The Sherwood Foundation, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and NoVo Foundation.
Mr. Buffett’s comments to his fellow shareholders follow:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The gifts I am making today reduce my holdings of Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares to 206,363, a 56.6% decrease since my 2006 pledge. In 2004, before Susie, my first wife, died, the two of us owned 508,998 Class A shares. For decades, we had both thought that she would outlive me and subsequently distribute the vast majority of our large fortune. That was not to be.
When Susie died, her estate was roughly $3 billion, with about 96% of this sum going to our foundation. Additionally, she left $10 million to each of our three children, the first large gift we had given to any of them. These bequests reflected our belief that hugely wealthy parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything but not enough that they can do nothing.
Susie and I had long encouraged our children in small philanthropic activities and had been pleased with their enthusiasm, diligence and results. At her death, however, they were not ready to handle the staggering wealth that Berkshire shares had generated. Nevertheless, their philanthropic activities were dramatically increased by the 2006 lifetime pledge that I subsequently made and later expanded.
The children have now more than justified our hopes and, upon my death, will have full responsibility for gradually distributing all of my Berkshire holdings. These now account for 99½% of my wealth.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Father time always wins. But he can be fickle – indeed unfair and even cruel – sometimes ending life at birth or soon thereafter while, at other times, waiting a century or so before paying a visit. To date, I’ve been very lucky, but, before long, he will get around to me.
There is, however, a downside to my good fortune in avoiding his notice. The expected life span of my children has materially diminished since the 2006 pledge. They are now 71, 69 and 66.
I’ve never wished to create a dynasty or pursue any plan that extended beyond the children. I know the three well and trust them completely. Future generations are another matter. Who can foresee the priorities, intelligence and fidelity of successive generations to deal with the distribution of extraordinary wealth amid what may be a far different philanthropic landscape? Still, the massive wealth I’ve collected may take longer to deploy than my children live. And tomorrow’s decisions are likely to be better made by three live and well-directed brains than by a dead hand.
As such, three potential successor trustees have been designated. Each is well known to my children and makes sense to all of us. They are also somewhat younger than my children.
But these successors are on the wait list. I hope Susie, Howie and Peter themselves disburse all of my assets.
Each respects my wish that the disposition program for my holdings of Berkshire shares in no way betrays the exceptional trust Berkshire shareholders bestowed upon Charlie Munger and me. The 2006-2024 period gave me the chance to observe each of my children in action and they have learned much about large-scale philanthropy and human behavior. Each has overseen teams of 20-30 for many years and has observed the unique employment dynamics affecting philanthropic organizations.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Wealthy friends have been curious about the extraordinary confidence I have in my children and their possible alternates. They express particular surprise at my requirement that all foundation actions will require a unanimous vote. How can this be workable?
I’ve explained that my children will forever be besieged with earnest requests from very sincere friends and others. A second reality: When large philanthropic gifts are requested, a “no” frequently prompts would-be grantees to ponder a different approach – another friend, a different project, whatever. Those who can distribute huge sums are forever regarded as “targets of opportunity.” This unpleasant reality comes with the territory.
Hence, the “unanimous decision” provision. That restriction enables an immediate and final reply to grant-seekers: “It’s not something that would ever receive my brother’s consent.” And that answer will improve the lives of my children.
My unanimity clause, of course, is not a panacea – it clearly isn’t workable if you have nine or ten children or stepchildren. And it doesn’t solve the daunting problem of intelligently distributing many billions annually.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
I have one further suggestion for all parents, whether they are of modest or staggering wealth. When your children are mature, have them read your will before you sign it.
Be sure each child understands both the logic for your decisions and the responsibilities they will encounter upon your death. If any have questions or suggestions, listen carefully and adopt those found sensible. You don’t want your children asking “Why?” in respect to testamentary decisions when you are no longer able to respond.
Over the years, I have had questions or commentary from all three of my children and have often adopted their suggestions. There is nothing wrong with my having to defend my thoughts. My dad did the same with me.
I change my will every couple of years – often only in very minor ways – and keep things simple. Over the years, Charlie and I saw many families driven apart after the posthumous dictates of the will left beneficiaries confused and sometimes angry. Jealousies, along with actual or imagined slights during childhood, became magnified, particularly when sons were favored over daughters, either in monetary ways or by positions of importance.
Charlie and I also witnessed a few cases where a wealthy parent’s will that was fully discussed before death helped the family become closer. What could be more satisfying?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
As I write this, I continue my lucky streak that began in 1930 with my birth in the United States as a white male. My two sisters had, of course, been explicitly promised by the 19th Amendment’s enactment in 1920 that they would be treated equally with males. This, after all, had been the message of our thirteen colonies in 1776.
In 1930, however, I emerged in a country that hadn’t yet gotten around to fulfilling its earlier aspirations. Aided by Billie Jean King, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and countless others, things began changing in the 1970s.
So favored by my male status, very early on I had confidence that I would become rich. But in no way did I, or anyone else, dream of the fortunes that have become attainable in America during the last few decades. It has been mind-blowing – beyond the imaginations of Ford, Carnegie, Morgan or even Rockefeller. Billions became the new millions.
Things didn’t look great when I arrived at the beginning of The Great Depression. But the real action from compounding takes place in the final twenty years of a lifetime. By not stepping on any banana peels, I now remain in circulation at 94 with huge sums in savings – call these units of deferred consumption – that can be passed along to others who were given a very short straw at birth.
I am also lucky that my philanthropic philosophy has been enthusiastically embraced – and widened – by both of my wives. Neither I, Susie Sr. nor Astrid, who succeeded her, believed in dynastic wealth.
Instead, we shared a view that equal opportunity should begin at birth and extreme “look-atme” styles of living should be legal but not admirable. As a family, we have had everything we needed or simply liked, but we have not sought enjoyment from the fact that others craved what we had.
It also has been a particular pleasure to me that so many early Berkshire shareholders have independently arrived at a similar view. They have saved – lived well – taken good care of their families – and by extended compounding of their savings passed along large, sometimes huge, sums back into society. Their “claim checks” are being widely distributed to others less lucky.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
With this philosophy, I have lived the way I wanted to live since my late 20s, and I have now watched my children grow into good and productive citizens. They have different views in many cases from both me and their siblings but have common values that are unwavering.
Susie Jr., Howie and Peter have each spent far more time directly helping others than I have. They enjoy being comfortable financially, but they are not preoccupied with wealth. Their mother, from whom they learned these values, would be very proud of them.
As am I.
About Berkshire
Berkshire Hathaway and its subsidiaries engage in diverse business activities including insurance and reinsurance, utilities and energy, freight rail transportation, manufacturing, services and retailing. Common stock of the company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, trading symbols BRK.A and BRK.B.
— END —
Contact
Marc D. Hamburg
402-346-1400
～完～
相关文章：