Diversify, Especially If You Don't Know What You Are Doing!
一定要保持多樣化,尤其是在你不知道自己在做什么時!

In the words of famed e conomist John Maynard Keynes, diversification is insurance against ignorance.?
著名經濟學家John Maynard Keynes說過多樣化是戰勝無知的保證。

He believed that risk could actually be reduced by holding fewer investments and getting to know them extraordinarily well.?
他相信少做幾種投資并且非常了解這些投資真的能降低風險。

Of course, the man was one of the most brilliant financial minds of the past century so this philosophy isn’t sound policy for most investors, especially if they can’t analyze financial statements or don’t know the difference between the Dow Jones Industrial Average and a Dodo.
當然他是過去一個世紀中最杰出的金融人才之一,所以這種說法對于大多數投資者來說聽起來并不是明智的選擇,尤其是有些人并不能分析財務報表或不知道道瓊斯工業平均指數和Dodo之間差別。

These days, widespread diversification can be had at a fraction of the cost of what was possible even a few decades ago. With index funds, mutual funds, and dividend reinvestment programs, the frictional expenses of owning shares in hundreds of different companies have largely been eliminated or, at the very least, substantially reduced.?
現在即使只賺到幾十年前能賺到的錢數你就能利用日益普遍的多樣化的方法。隨著指數基金、共同基金和股息再投資計劃的興起,擁有數百家不同公司股份的摩擦費用已經被大大消除了,或者至少大幅下降了。

This can help protect you against permanent loss by spreading your assets out over enough companies that if one or even a few of them go belly-up, you won’t be harmed. ?
這可以保護你免受不可逆的損失,把你的資產分散到足夠多的公司中,如果其中一家甚至幾家公司破產,你也不會遭受損失。

In fact, due to a phenomenon is known as the mathematics of diversification, it will probably result in higher overall compounding returns on a risk-adjusted basis.
其實由于多樣化數學現象的存在,很有可能會在風險調整的基礎上產生更高的綜合復利。

One thing you want to watch for is correlation. Specifically, you want to look for uncorrelated risks so that your holdings are constantly offsetting each other to even out economic and business cycles.?
你要注意的就是關聯問題,具體來說就是你想要找到沒有關聯的風險,以便你所持的股票總能彼此補償,在經濟和商業周期內持平。

When I first wrote the predecessor to this piece almost fifteen years ago, I warned that it wasn't enough to own thirty different stocks if half of them consisted of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Fifth Third Bancorp, et cetera, because you may have owned a lot of shares in several different companies but you were not diversified; that a "systematic shock such as massive real estate loan failure could send shockwaves through the banking system, effectively hurting all of your positions", which is precisely what happened during the 2007-2009 collapse.?
差不多在15年前我第一次寫下這個方法的上一個版本時就警告過,如果你持有的股票中有一半是美洲銀行、摩根大通、富國銀行、美國合眾銀行、五三銀行這樣的股票的話,那你擁有30家不同的股票都不夠,因為你可能在不同的公司擁有大量股份,但并沒有做到多樣化,而且像大規模房地產貸款失敗這樣的系統沖擊會給整個銀行系統帶來沖擊,實際上你所有的股票都會遭受損失,2007-2009年金融危機期間就發生了這樣的事。

Of course, the stronger firms such as U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Company did just fine despite a period when they had declined 80% on paper peak-to-trough, especially if you reinvested your dividends and were dollar cost averaging into them; a reminder that it's often better to focus on strength first and foremost.?
當然美國合眾銀行和富國銀行這樣更強一些的公司,也有過從表面上看從高峰期到低谷期下跌了80%的時期。但尤其是當你要重新投資股利并按購入證券的美元價格平均計算時,它們確實是不錯的選擇。還要提醒你一下,最好首要關注一下公司實力。

Behavioral economics, on the other hand, has proven most people are emotionally incapable of focusing on the underlying business, instead of panicking and liquidating at the least opportune moment.
而另一方面,行為經濟學證明,在情感上,大多數人很難做到只關注基礎業務而不在最不合適時慌張拋售。

But beside all these, just remember: Stick to Stocks Within Your "Circle of Competence"
但除了這些之外,你只需記得:堅持買你“能力范圍內”的股票。

In investing, as in life, success is just as much about avoiding mistakes as it is about making intelligent decisions.?
投資就像生活一樣,成功在于盡可能避免犯錯,也在于做出明智的決定。

If you are a scientist who works at Pfizer, you are going to have a very strong competitive advantage in determining the relative attractiveness of pharmaceutical stocks compared to someone who works in the oil sector.?
如果你是輝瑞公司的一名科學家,在確定制藥股票的相對吸引力方面你就要比石油行業的人擁有很強的競爭優勢。

Likewise, a person in the oil sector is going to probably have a much bigger advantage over you in understanding the oil majors than you are.
同樣,石油行業的人在對大型石油公司的了解上就比你有更大的優勢。

Peter Lynch was a big proponent of the “invest in what you know” philosophy.?
Peter Lynch就非常支持“投資你所了解的行業”這一說法。

In fact, many of his most successful investments were a result of following his wife and teenage kids around the shopping mall or driving through town eating Dunkin’ Doughnuts.?
其實他最成功的一些投資都是受了妻子和商場附近青少年的啟發,或開車橫穿城市去Dunkin’ Doughnuts吃飯時產生的。

There is a legendary story in old-school value investing circles about a man who became such an expert in American water companies that he literally knew the profit in a tub full of bathwater or the average toilet flush, building a fortune by trading a specific stock. ?
老派價值投資法中有一個傳奇的故事,說的是一個人在美國自來水公司成為了專家,毫不夸張地說他能知道裝滿水的浴缸或普通馬桶刷的利潤,他通過交易一只特定的股票就賺了一大筆錢。

One caveat: You must be honest with yourself. Just because you worked the counter at Chicken Mary's as a teenager doesn't mean you are automatically going to have an advantage when analyzing a poultry company like Tyson Chicken.?
警告:你必須要對自己誠實。僅僅是十多歲時在Chicken Mary's站過柜臺并不意味著在分析Tyson Chicken這樣的家禽公司時你就有優勢了。

A good test is to ask yourself if you know enough about a given industry to take over a business in that field and be successful. If the answer is "yes", you may have found your niche. If not, keep studying.
一個很好的測試方法就是問問自己是否對某一行業足夠了解,能在那個領域接管一家公司還能做得成功。如果答案是肯定的,那你可能發現了商機;如果不行那就繼續學習吧。

?

翻譯:菲菲