+Follow
笨笨Sun
No personal profile
24
Follow
4
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
笨笨Sun
2022-04-16
Good
Munger really sold Ali?
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3572876388981994","uuid":"3572876388981994","gmtCreate":1609782365623,"gmtModify":1623480255656,"name":"笨笨Sun","pinyin":"bbsunbenbensun","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11f8c3614b16f0c715f943266651d703","hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a8758340a08196056f8bc1e54805193","hatId":"ca_profile_frame_Lm11L6","hatName":"","vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":4,"headSize":24,"tweetSize":109,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":3,"name":"书生虎","nameTw":"書生虎","represent":"努力向上","factor":"发布10条非转发主帖,其中5条获得他人回复或点赞","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":1,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-3","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":" Tiger Idol","description":"Join the tiger community for 1500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.02.13","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-2","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Executive Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $300,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"80.38%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"80.77%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"80.62%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":9083009179,"gmtCreate":1650039446774,"gmtModify":1676534634662,"author":{"id":"3572876388981994","authorId":"3572876388981994","name":"笨笨Sun","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11f8c3614b16f0c715f943266651d703","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572876388981994","idStr":"3572876388981994"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9083009179","repostId":"1145962631","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145962631","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1650029102,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1145962631?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-04-15 21:25","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"Munger really sold Ali?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145962631","media":"e公司","summary":"于是，芒格大幅卖出亏损股、98岁芒格兵败阿里、芒格廉颇老矣尚能饭否，如此这般的标题，立即充斥了资本市场。2021年一季度，芒格主导下的每日期刊公司，首次买入阿里巴巴ADR。在几乎直线的下跌中，每日期刊公司在2021年三季度和四季度加仓了阿里巴巴。随后，在2022年2月的每日期刊公司年会上，芒格夸赞了阿里巴巴公司，说它是合适的投资标的，投资这个公司让他感到舒适。两种可能那么，芒格真的卖了阿里巴巴吗？","content":"<p><html><head></head><body><b>Munger's resignation was on March 28, while the announcement filed by the Daily Journal Company on April 11 showed the position data as of March 31. Over a period of 3 days, for<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BABA\">Alibaba</a>For such an actively traded ADR, Munger's successor has enough time to cut his position by half. This possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b><b>As Warren Buffett's lifelong partner, Charlie Munger's alternate identity, born in 1924, was the chairman of the Daily Journal. Munger spent 45 busy years in the role, from taking office in 1977 at the age of 53 to resigning in 2022 at the age of 98.</b></p><p>As Buffett's partner, Munger's investment method is also authentic value investment, but it is different from Buffett's in details. Simply put, Munger's investment style is to hold shares more concentrated, and he doesn't pay much attention to valuation, but he is more concerned about the long-term prospects of enterprises. This investment method leads to greater short-term volatility in the portfolio, while the long-term yield may also be higher.</p><p>Because Buffett is not involved in the investment of the Daily Journal Company, people can often find out about Munger's stock investment from the investment position of the Daily Journal Company.</p><p><b>However, the flowers have a reblooming day, and the characters are teenagers. No matter how good an investment career is, it will end one day after all. On March 28, 2022, at the age of 98, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company.</b></p><p><b>However, just two weeks later, on April 11th, a big news broke in the market: In the first quarter of 2022, Daily Journal Company sold 50% of its ADR (American Depositary Receipt) holdings in Alibaba, making a big loss.</b></p><p>As a result, Munger sold a lot of loss-making stocks, at the age of 98, Munger defeated Ali, and Munger was so old that he could still eat. Such headlines immediately flooded the capital market.</p><p><b>But, did Munger really sell Ali?</b></p><p><b>What happened?</b></p><p>In the first quarter of 2021, Daily Journal Company, led by Munger, bought Alibaba ADR for the first time. Subsequently, Alibaba's stock price dropped all the way, from around $250 in the first quarter of 2021 to around $100 in the first quarter of 2022.</p><p>In an almost straight-line decline, the Daily Journal Company added positions to Alibaba in the third and fourth quarters of 2021. Then, at the Daily Journal Company's annual meeting in February 2022, Munger praised Alibaba, saying that it was the right investment target and that investing in this company made him feel comfortable.</p><p>But, by March 28, 2022, for some unannounced reason, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company and only remained as a director of the company. On April 11, the Daily Journal company announcement showed that as of March 31, 2022, the company's Alibaba ADR was only half of its previous position.</p><p><b>Two possibilities</b></p><p>So, did Munger really sell Alibaba? Careful readers will find that this matter is actually possible in two ways.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"521\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Photo courtesy: Zhao Naiyu</p><p>The first possibility is that Munger is really old and confused, and he lightened his position after the stock suffered a big loss. We can't deny this possibility. After all, the wise Munger himself once said, \"Don't be superstitious about those excellent people. No matter how good people are, they sometimes make mistakes\". You know, even Napoleon lost battles. This first possibility, we will call it \"Munger is stupid\".</p><p>However, beyond the first possibility, there is another possibility that will make us think that the \"Munger is foolish\" we see is completely not the truth of the matter.</p><p>Careful readers must have discovered that from the timeline described above, Munger's resignation was on March 28th, while the announcement submitted by the Daily Journal Company on April 11th showed the position data of March 31st.</p><p><b>In 3 days, Munger's successor had enough time to cut his position by half for an ADR like Alibaba, which was very actively traded. This second possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b></p><p>So, does the liquidity of the US market support this trade of \"cutting positions in half in 3 days\"? According to the data disclosed by Daily Journal Company, its Alibaba ADR holdings reached a maximum of 600,000 shares before reducing its positions, and at the end of the first quarter of 2022, it was 300,000 shares, reducing its holdings by 300,000 shares.</p><p>Can Alibaba's ADR volume accommodate the reduction of 300,000 units in 3 days? In the first quarter of 2022, the average daily trading volume of Alibaba ADRs was 32.12 million. In the three trading days after Munger left office (March 29th to 31st), the total turnover was 87.68 million copies. Anyone who has traded knows that for such a huge trading volume, it is easy to reduce your holdings by 300,000 shares in 3 days. Therefore, the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\" is fully present.</p><p><b>Munger being stupid?</b></p><p>Whether the reason behind why the daily journal company lightened its position in Alibaba is \"Munger is stupid\" or \"the daily journal company has changed\", unless there is a statement from the daily journal company or Munger himself, this matter may always be a mystery.</p><p>Subjectively, I personally prefer the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\", because \"Munger is stupid\" is not common sense. It is hard for me to believe that an investor who has been smart and has a long-term vision all his life will suddenly become a person who \"said he was optimistic about the company in February and sold his stock in March\" after nearly a hundred years of doing so. But, based on the available announcements, I also have no evidence to completely disprove the possibility of \"Munger being stupid\".</p><p>But why did so many people immediately believe \"Munger was stupid\" after the news broke? There are two reasons for this. The first is that people are not meticulous and don't find the difference between Munger's resignation date and the announcement date (although only 3 days). The second reason is even deeper.</p><p><b>For many people, the idea of \"taking a long view, not looking at the short term\" advocated by value investing is contrary to their hobby of speculation. But the worst thing is that value investors such as Buffett and Munger keep making money, and at the same time, speculation is difficult to bring long-term profits.</b></p><p>At this time, smart people will let go of their speculation and follow in the footsteps of value investing. But for those who indulge their feelings, they prefer to believe that their speculation is right and the idea of value investing is wrong. At this time, the news that \"Munger is stupid\" just caters to the psychology of these people: the concept of value investment is wrong, and I should continue to speculate is the right way. It was just the right amount of psychological massage, so to speak.</p><p><b>What you see is real?</b></p><p>The Daily Journal Company reduced its holdings in Alibaba ADR, and when this was first seen by careless people, they immediately trusted their judgment \"Munger was stupid\" without thinking carefully about another possibility \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\". Here, people mistakenly assume, \"What I see is true\".</p><p>However, what is seen is not necessarily true. In China's capital markets, I have experienced another time that what I saw was not the truth. In that experience, the truth is more obscure than Munger's sale of Ali: from the public information, we can't even see the possibility of the truth.</p><p>In the transition from the big bull market in 2007 to the big bear market in 2008, a value investor I know didn't make too many lightening operations when the market was extremely expensive in 2007, so that he suffered heavy losses in 2008. According to the announcement, he has been the fund manager of the fund. Then, the apex of the bull market in 2007 was so expensive, and stocks with hundreds of times PE abounded. As a value investor who values valuation, how could he not sell it?</p><p>The actual situation is more complicated than the announcement shows. Although this investor is an investment manager, his leaders, that is, the company's investment director and general manager, like to direct his investment decisions at a leapfrog level. As a result, most of the transactions from 2007 to 2008 were not intended by him at all.</p><p>Therefore, in the capital market, when we think we have seen an event, a financial statement and an announcement clearly, we must be mindful and ask ourselves whether this is reasonable. If the answer is no, then even if we see something ourselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that we see the truth of the matter.</p><p>However, after all, people rely on their senses to experience the world, and the idea of \"seeing is believing\" is deeply embedded in our genes. Even Confucius, a sage in Chinese history, once lamented that \"what I saw was actually not true\". Here, let's take a look at a story recorded in Lu Shi Chun Qiu.</p><p>Once, when Confucius and his disciples were traveling between the nations, they were unlucky enough to find no food to eat, and they could not follow the next meal. They had no food to eat for seven days. At this moment, Yan Hui, the most virtuous disciple of Confucius, found a little rice from nowhere. Everyone was very happy, so Yan Hui took the rice and went to cook.</p><p>As a result, Yan Hui was busy cooking alone. When the rice was almost cooked, Confucius happened to pass by and saw Yan Hui fishing his own rice from the pot. In Confucian etiquette, such \"eat yourself first and don't care about everyone\" behavior is very immoral.</p><p>Logically speaking, such a thing wouldn't happen to Yan Hui, who was famous for his moral character? However, this is what Confucius saw with his own eyes, how can it not be true? However, after all, everyone has been hungry for many days. Maybe Yan Hui can't keep his own moral principles, so it is faster to eat first?</p><p>After eating, Confucius tactfully asked Yan Hui what was going on, and then he knew the truth of the matter. It turned out that when Yan Hui was cooking, he found a piece of coal ash flying into the rice. It would be a pity to throw away this piece of dust-stained rice, but it would be bad to bring it out for everyone to eat. So, Yan Hui simply took out the dirty piece of rice and ate it himself. Unexpectedly, it happened to be seen by Confucius.</p><p>After learning the reason for the matter, Confucius sighed greatly: \"What we believe is the eyes, but the eyes are still untrustworthy. What we rely on is the heart, but the heart is still not enough to rely on. Disciple remember: It is not easy to know people.\" What we see with our eyes is not necessarily true, and what we want to understand in our hearts is not necessarily right. We must remember that it is too difficult to understand the truth!</p><p>When false is true, true is also false, and there is nothing in inaction. As a generation of value investment gurus, Munger has left many wise ideas for people. To these thoughts he often liked to say a summary: \"My sword is reserved only for those who can wield it.\"</p><p><b>Now, what do you think, my dear reader, when confronted with the two possible truths of \"Munger was stupid\" and \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\"? Which kind of thinking can make us swing Munger's sword?</b></p><p></body></html></p>","source":"LHCJ1","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Munger really sold Ali?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMunger really sold Ali?\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">e公司</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2022-04-15 21:25</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body><b>Munger's resignation was on March 28, while the announcement filed by the Daily Journal Company on April 11 showed the position data as of March 31. Over a period of 3 days, for<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BABA\">Alibaba</a>For such an actively traded ADR, Munger's successor has enough time to cut his position by half. This possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b><b>As Warren Buffett's lifelong partner, Charlie Munger's alternate identity, born in 1924, was the chairman of the Daily Journal. Munger spent 45 busy years in the role, from taking office in 1977 at the age of 53 to resigning in 2022 at the age of 98.</b></p><p>As Buffett's partner, Munger's investment method is also authentic value investment, but it is different from Buffett's in details. Simply put, Munger's investment style is to hold shares more concentrated, and he doesn't pay much attention to valuation, but he is more concerned about the long-term prospects of enterprises. This investment method leads to greater short-term volatility in the portfolio, while the long-term yield may also be higher.</p><p>Because Buffett is not involved in the investment of the Daily Journal Company, people can often find out about Munger's stock investment from the investment position of the Daily Journal Company.</p><p><b>However, the flowers have a reblooming day, and the characters are teenagers. No matter how good an investment career is, it will end one day after all. On March 28, 2022, at the age of 98, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company.</b></p><p><b>However, just two weeks later, on April 11th, a big news broke in the market: In the first quarter of 2022, Daily Journal Company sold 50% of its ADR (American Depositary Receipt) holdings in Alibaba, making a big loss.</b></p><p>As a result, Munger sold a lot of loss-making stocks, at the age of 98, Munger defeated Ali, and Munger was so old that he could still eat. Such headlines immediately flooded the capital market.</p><p><b>But, did Munger really sell Ali?</b></p><p><b>What happened?</b></p><p>In the first quarter of 2021, Daily Journal Company, led by Munger, bought Alibaba ADR for the first time. Subsequently, Alibaba's stock price dropped all the way, from around $250 in the first quarter of 2021 to around $100 in the first quarter of 2022.</p><p>In an almost straight-line decline, the Daily Journal Company added positions to Alibaba in the third and fourth quarters of 2021. Then, at the Daily Journal Company's annual meeting in February 2022, Munger praised Alibaba, saying that it was the right investment target and that investing in this company made him feel comfortable.</p><p>But, by March 28, 2022, for some unannounced reason, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company and only remained as a director of the company. On April 11, the Daily Journal company announcement showed that as of March 31, 2022, the company's Alibaba ADR was only half of its previous position.</p><p><b>Two possibilities</b></p><p>So, did Munger really sell Alibaba? Careful readers will find that this matter is actually possible in two ways.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"521\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Photo courtesy: Zhao Naiyu</p><p>The first possibility is that Munger is really old and confused, and he lightened his position after the stock suffered a big loss. We can't deny this possibility. After all, the wise Munger himself once said, \"Don't be superstitious about those excellent people. No matter how good people are, they sometimes make mistakes\". You know, even Napoleon lost battles. This first possibility, we will call it \"Munger is stupid\".</p><p>However, beyond the first possibility, there is another possibility that will make us think that the \"Munger is foolish\" we see is completely not the truth of the matter.</p><p>Careful readers must have discovered that from the timeline described above, Munger's resignation was on March 28th, while the announcement submitted by the Daily Journal Company on April 11th showed the position data of March 31st.</p><p><b>In 3 days, Munger's successor had enough time to cut his position by half for an ADR like Alibaba, which was very actively traded. This second possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b></p><p>So, does the liquidity of the US market support this trade of \"cutting positions in half in 3 days\"? According to the data disclosed by Daily Journal Company, its Alibaba ADR holdings reached a maximum of 600,000 shares before reducing its positions, and at the end of the first quarter of 2022, it was 300,000 shares, reducing its holdings by 300,000 shares.</p><p>Can Alibaba's ADR volume accommodate the reduction of 300,000 units in 3 days? In the first quarter of 2022, the average daily trading volume of Alibaba ADRs was 32.12 million. In the three trading days after Munger left office (March 29th to 31st), the total turnover was 87.68 million copies. Anyone who has traded knows that for such a huge trading volume, it is easy to reduce your holdings by 300,000 shares in 3 days. Therefore, the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\" is fully present.</p><p><b>Munger being stupid?</b></p><p>Whether the reason behind why the daily journal company lightened its position in Alibaba is \"Munger is stupid\" or \"the daily journal company has changed\", unless there is a statement from the daily journal company or Munger himself, this matter may always be a mystery.</p><p>Subjectively, I personally prefer the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\", because \"Munger is stupid\" is not common sense. It is hard for me to believe that an investor who has been smart and has a long-term vision all his life will suddenly become a person who \"said he was optimistic about the company in February and sold his stock in March\" after nearly a hundred years of doing so. But, based on the available announcements, I also have no evidence to completely disprove the possibility of \"Munger being stupid\".</p><p>But why did so many people immediately believe \"Munger was stupid\" after the news broke? There are two reasons for this. The first is that people are not meticulous and don't find the difference between Munger's resignation date and the announcement date (although only 3 days). The second reason is even deeper.</p><p><b>For many people, the idea of \"taking a long view, not looking at the short term\" advocated by value investing is contrary to their hobby of speculation. But the worst thing is that value investors such as Buffett and Munger keep making money, and at the same time, speculation is difficult to bring long-term profits.</b></p><p>At this time, smart people will let go of their speculation and follow in the footsteps of value investing. But for those who indulge their feelings, they prefer to believe that their speculation is right and the idea of value investing is wrong. At this time, the news that \"Munger is stupid\" just caters to the psychology of these people: the concept of value investment is wrong, and I should continue to speculate is the right way. It was just the right amount of psychological massage, so to speak.</p><p><b>What you see is real?</b></p><p>The Daily Journal Company reduced its holdings in Alibaba ADR, and when this was first seen by careless people, they immediately trusted their judgment \"Munger was stupid\" without thinking carefully about another possibility \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\". Here, people mistakenly assume, \"What I see is true\".</p><p>However, what is seen is not necessarily true. In China's capital markets, I have experienced another time that what I saw was not the truth. In that experience, the truth is more obscure than Munger's sale of Ali: from the public information, we can't even see the possibility of the truth.</p><p>In the transition from the big bull market in 2007 to the big bear market in 2008, a value investor I know didn't make too many lightening operations when the market was extremely expensive in 2007, so that he suffered heavy losses in 2008. According to the announcement, he has been the fund manager of the fund. Then, the apex of the bull market in 2007 was so expensive, and stocks with hundreds of times PE abounded. As a value investor who values valuation, how could he not sell it?</p><p>The actual situation is more complicated than the announcement shows. Although this investor is an investment manager, his leaders, that is, the company's investment director and general manager, like to direct his investment decisions at a leapfrog level. As a result, most of the transactions from 2007 to 2008 were not intended by him at all.</p><p>Therefore, in the capital market, when we think we have seen an event, a financial statement and an announcement clearly, we must be mindful and ask ourselves whether this is reasonable. If the answer is no, then even if we see something ourselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that we see the truth of the matter.</p><p>However, after all, people rely on their senses to experience the world, and the idea of \"seeing is believing\" is deeply embedded in our genes. Even Confucius, a sage in Chinese history, once lamented that \"what I saw was actually not true\". Here, let's take a look at a story recorded in Lu Shi Chun Qiu.</p><p>Once, when Confucius and his disciples were traveling between the nations, they were unlucky enough to find no food to eat, and they could not follow the next meal. They had no food to eat for seven days. At this moment, Yan Hui, the most virtuous disciple of Confucius, found a little rice from nowhere. Everyone was very happy, so Yan Hui took the rice and went to cook.</p><p>As a result, Yan Hui was busy cooking alone. When the rice was almost cooked, Confucius happened to pass by and saw Yan Hui fishing his own rice from the pot. In Confucian etiquette, such \"eat yourself first and don't care about everyone\" behavior is very immoral.</p><p>Logically speaking, such a thing wouldn't happen to Yan Hui, who was famous for his moral character? However, this is what Confucius saw with his own eyes, how can it not be true? However, after all, everyone has been hungry for many days. Maybe Yan Hui can't keep his own moral principles, so it is faster to eat first?</p><p>After eating, Confucius tactfully asked Yan Hui what was going on, and then he knew the truth of the matter. It turned out that when Yan Hui was cooking, he found a piece of coal ash flying into the rice. It would be a pity to throw away this piece of dust-stained rice, but it would be bad to bring it out for everyone to eat. So, Yan Hui simply took out the dirty piece of rice and ate it himself. Unexpectedly, it happened to be seen by Confucius.</p><p>After learning the reason for the matter, Confucius sighed greatly: \"What we believe is the eyes, but the eyes are still untrustworthy. What we rely on is the heart, but the heart is still not enough to rely on. Disciple remember: It is not easy to know people.\" What we see with our eyes is not necessarily true, and what we want to understand in our hearts is not necessarily right. We must remember that it is too difficult to understand the truth!</p><p>When false is true, true is also false, and there is nothing in inaction. As a generation of value investment gurus, Munger has left many wise ideas for people. To these thoughts he often liked to say a summary: \"My sword is reserved only for those who can wield it.\"</p><p><b>Now, what do you think, my dear reader, when confronted with the two possible truths of \"Munger was stupid\" and \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\"? Which kind of thinking can make us swing Munger's sword?</b></p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SgyrrtKXXnDeioPtpTMGcw\">e公司</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0","relate_stocks":{"09988":"阿里巴巴-W","BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SgyrrtKXXnDeioPtpTMGcw","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145962631","content_text":"芒格辞职的时间是3月28日，而4月11日每日期刊公司提交的公告，显示的是3月31日的持仓数据。在3天的时间里，对于阿里巴巴这样一只交易非常活跃的ADR来说，芒格的继任者有足够的时间，把仓位砍掉一半。这种可能性，我们将它称为“每日期刊公司变了”。作为沃伦·巴菲特一生的搭档，出生于1924年的查理·芒格的另一个身份，是每日期刊公司（Daily Journal）董事长。从1977年53岁上任，到2022年98岁辞职，芒格在这个职位上忙碌了45年。作为巴菲特的搭档，芒格的投资方法虽然也是正宗的价值投资，但是在细节上和巴菲特不尽相同。简单来说，芒格的投资风格就是持股更加集中，对估值不是很看重，但对企业长期前景比较关心。这种投资方法，导致投资组合的短期波动更大，同时长期收益率可能也更高。由于巴菲特并没有参与每日期刊公司的投资，因此从每日期刊公司的投资头寸上，人们往往能对芒格的股票投资一探究竟。不过，花有重开日，人物再少年。再好的投资职业生涯，也终究有结束的一天。2022年3月28日，98岁高龄的芒格辞去了每日期刊公司董事长职务。然而，就在两周以后的4月11日，市场上爆出了一个大新闻：每日期刊公司在2022年一季度，卖出了50%的阿里巴巴ADR（美国存托凭证）持股，出现大幅亏损。于是，芒格大幅卖出亏损股、98岁芒格兵败阿里、芒格廉颇老矣尚能饭否，如此这般的标题，立即充斥了资本市场。但是，芒格真的卖了阿里吗？发生了什么？2021年一季度，芒格主导下的每日期刊公司，首次买入阿里巴巴ADR。随后，阿里巴巴股价一路下跌，从2021年一季度的250美元附近，一直跌到了2022年一季度的100美元附近。在几乎直线的下跌中，每日期刊公司在2021年三季度和四季度加仓了阿里巴巴。随后，在2022年2月的每日期刊公司年会上，芒格夸赞了阿里巴巴公司，说它是合适的投资标的，投资这个公司让他感到舒适。但是，到了2022年3月28日，由于某种未公告的原因，芒格辞去了每日期刊公司董事长职务，仅继续担任公司董事。到了4月11日，每日期刊公司公告显示，截至2022年3月31日，公司所持有的阿里巴巴ADR，仅有之前持仓的一半。两种可能那么，芒格真的卖了阿里巴巴吗？细心的读者会发现，这件事其实有两种可能。供图：赵乃育第一种可能，是芒格确实老糊涂了，在股票大幅亏损后就减仓了。我们不能否定这种可能，毕竟智慧的芒格自己就曾经说过，“不要迷信那些优秀的人，再优秀的人都有犯错的时候”。要知道，即使是拿破仑也曾打过败仗。这第一种可能，我们将它称为“芒格犯傻了”。但是，在第一种可能之外，还有一种可能，会让我们以为自己看到的“芒格犯傻了”，完全不是事情的真相。细心的读者一定已经发现，从以上描述的时间线里，芒格辞职的时间是3月28日，而4月11日每日期刊公司提交的公告，显示的是3月31日的持仓数据。在3天的时间里，对于阿里巴巴这样一只交易非常活跃的ADR来说，芒格的继任者有足够的时间，把仓位砍掉一半。这第二种可能性，我们将它称为“每日期刊公司变了”。那么，美国市场的流动性，支持这种“3天砍仓一半”的交易吗？根据每日期刊公司披露的数据，其持有的阿里巴巴ADR，在减仓之前最高达到60万份，在2022年一季度末则为30万份，减持了30万份。对于3天30万份的减持量，阿里巴巴的ADR交易量能够容纳吗？在2022年一季度，阿里巴巴ADR的日均成交量，是3212万份。而在芒格卸任以后的3个交易日（3月29日到31日），总成交量是8768万份。做过交易的人都知道，对于如此巨大的交易量，想要在3天里减持30万份，易如反掌。所以，“每日期刊公司变了”这种可能性，是完全存在的。芒格犯傻了？每日期刊公司为什么减仓阿里巴巴，背后的原因到底是“芒格犯傻了”还是“每日期刊公司变了”，除非有每日期刊公司或者芒格自己的声明，否则这件事也许会永远成为一个难解之谜。从主观上，我个人更偏向“每日期刊公司变了”这种可能，因为“芒格犯傻了”不符合常理。我很难相信一位一辈子聪明、目光长远的投资者，居然在如此行事近百年以后，会突然变成一个“2月份还说看好公司、3月份就卖出股票”的人。但是，根据现有的公告，我也没有证据完全否定“芒格犯傻了”的可能性。但是，为什么在新闻发生以后，许多人会立即相信“芒格犯傻了”？这里面有两个原因，第一是人们不细致，没有发现芒格辞职日期和公告日期之差（尽管只有3天）。第二个原因，则更加深刻。对于许多人来说，价值投资所倡导的“目光放长远、不要看短期”的理念，是和他们喜欢投机的爱好相违背的。但是糟糕的是，巴菲特、芒格这些价值投资者不停的赚钱，同时投机又很难带来长期收益。这时候，聪明的人会放下自己的投机，跟随价值投资的脚步。但是对于那些放纵自己感受的人来说，他们更愿意相信自己的投机是对的、价值投资的理念才是错的。在这时候，“芒格犯傻了”的新闻，恰好迎合了这些人的心理：价值投资的理念不对，我应该继续投机才是正道。可以说，这是一场恰到好处的心理按摩。看见的就是真的？每日期刊公司减持阿里巴巴ADR，当这件事被粗心的人们第一眼看到时，他们立即相信自己的判断“芒格犯傻了”，而没有仔细思考另一种可能“每日期刊公司变了”。在这里，人们错误地认为，“我看到的就是真的”。但是，看到的并不一定是真的。在中国的资本市场上，我曾经亲身经历过另一次所见并非真相。那次经历，真相比芒格卖阿里更加隐晦：从公开的信息，我们甚至看不到真相存在的可能。在2007年大牛市到2008年大熊市的转换中，我认识的一位价值投资者，居然没有在2007年市场极其昂贵的时候，做出太多的减仓操作，以至于在2008年损失惨重。根据公告，他一直是基金的基金经理。那么，2007年牛市的顶点那么贵，上百倍PE的股票比比皆是，作为重视估值的价值投资者，他怎么会不卖呢？实际上的情况，比公告显示出来的更加复杂。这位投资者虽然是投资经理，但是他的领导——也就是公司的投资总监和总经理，却喜欢越级指挥他的投资决策。结果，2007年到2008年的交易，其实大多根本不是出自他的本意。所以说，在资本市场上，当我们以为自己看清楚了一个事件、一张财务报表、一个公告的时候，一定要长个心眼，问问自己这件事合理吗？如果答案是否定的，那么即使我们自己看到了某件事，也不一定代表我们就看清了事情的真相。不过，人毕竟是依靠感官体验世界的，“眼见为实”的思想深深刻在我们的基因里。连中国历史上的圣人孔子，都曾经感叹“看到的事情居然不是真的”。这里，就让我们来看一个《吕氏春秋》中记载的故事。有一次，孔子和弟子们在列国之间穿行时，倒霉找不到粮食吃，上顿接不上下顿，七天都没有饭吃。正在这时，孔子弟子中品德第一的颜回，不知道从哪里找来了一点米。大家很开心，颜回就拿着米去做饭。结果，颜回一个人忙做饭，饭快熟的时候孔子正好路过，看到颜回从锅里自己捞饭吃。在儒家的礼仪中，这样“自己先吃不管大家”的行为，是非常不道德的。按理说，这样的事情不会发生在以品德著称的颜回身上啊？但是，这又是孔子亲眼所见，怎能不真呢？不过，大家毕竟都饿了好多天，也许颜回也守不住自己的道德准绳，先吃为快了？等到吃完饭，孔子委婉地问颜回是怎么回事，这才知道事情的真相。原来，颜回煮饭的时候，发现一块煤灰飞到了饭里。把这块沾了灰的饭扔了吧，实在可惜，可是端出来给大家吃吧，又会让人糟心。于是，颜回干脆自己把脏的那块饭拿出来吃掉。没曾想，正好给路过的孔子看见。得知事情原由后，孔子大为感叹：“所信者目也，而目犹不可信。所恃者心也，而心犹不足恃。弟子记之：知人固不易矣。”我们眼睛看到的不一定是真的，心里想明白的不一定是对的，我们要牢记，把真相搞明白实在是太难了啊！假作真时真亦假，无为有处有还无。作为一代价值投资大师，芒格给人们留下过许许多多睿智的思想。对于这些思想，他经常喜欢说一句总结性的话：“我的剑只留给能挥舞它的人。”现在，当面对“芒格犯傻了”和“每日期刊公司变了”两个可能的真相时，我亲爱的读者，你是怎样想的呢？究竟哪一种想法，才能让我们挥舞起芒格的剑呢？","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"BABA":0.9,"09988":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2325,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":9083009179,"gmtCreate":1650039446774,"gmtModify":1676534634662,"author":{"id":"3572876388981994","authorId":"3572876388981994","name":"笨笨Sun","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11f8c3614b16f0c715f943266651d703","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572876388981994","idStr":"3572876388981994"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9083009179","repostId":"1145962631","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145962631","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1650029102,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1145962631?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-04-15 21:25","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"Munger really sold Ali?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145962631","media":"e公司","summary":"于是，芒格大幅卖出亏损股、98岁芒格兵败阿里、芒格廉颇老矣尚能饭否，如此这般的标题，立即充斥了资本市场。2021年一季度，芒格主导下的每日期刊公司，首次买入阿里巴巴ADR。在几乎直线的下跌中，每日期刊公司在2021年三季度和四季度加仓了阿里巴巴。随后，在2022年2月的每日期刊公司年会上，芒格夸赞了阿里巴巴公司，说它是合适的投资标的，投资这个公司让他感到舒适。两种可能那么，芒格真的卖了阿里巴巴吗？","content":"<p><html><head></head><body><b>Munger's resignation was on March 28, while the announcement filed by the Daily Journal Company on April 11 showed the position data as of March 31. Over a period of 3 days, for<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BABA\">Alibaba</a>For such an actively traded ADR, Munger's successor has enough time to cut his position by half. This possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b><b>As Warren Buffett's lifelong partner, Charlie Munger's alternate identity, born in 1924, was the chairman of the Daily Journal. Munger spent 45 busy years in the role, from taking office in 1977 at the age of 53 to resigning in 2022 at the age of 98.</b></p><p>As Buffett's partner, Munger's investment method is also authentic value investment, but it is different from Buffett's in details. Simply put, Munger's investment style is to hold shares more concentrated, and he doesn't pay much attention to valuation, but he is more concerned about the long-term prospects of enterprises. This investment method leads to greater short-term volatility in the portfolio, while the long-term yield may also be higher.</p><p>Because Buffett is not involved in the investment of the Daily Journal Company, people can often find out about Munger's stock investment from the investment position of the Daily Journal Company.</p><p><b>However, the flowers have a reblooming day, and the characters are teenagers. No matter how good an investment career is, it will end one day after all. On March 28, 2022, at the age of 98, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company.</b></p><p><b>However, just two weeks later, on April 11th, a big news broke in the market: In the first quarter of 2022, Daily Journal Company sold 50% of its ADR (American Depositary Receipt) holdings in Alibaba, making a big loss.</b></p><p>As a result, Munger sold a lot of loss-making stocks, at the age of 98, Munger defeated Ali, and Munger was so old that he could still eat. Such headlines immediately flooded the capital market.</p><p><b>But, did Munger really sell Ali?</b></p><p><b>What happened?</b></p><p>In the first quarter of 2021, Daily Journal Company, led by Munger, bought Alibaba ADR for the first time. Subsequently, Alibaba's stock price dropped all the way, from around $250 in the first quarter of 2021 to around $100 in the first quarter of 2022.</p><p>In an almost straight-line decline, the Daily Journal Company added positions to Alibaba in the third and fourth quarters of 2021. Then, at the Daily Journal Company's annual meeting in February 2022, Munger praised Alibaba, saying that it was the right investment target and that investing in this company made him feel comfortable.</p><p>But, by March 28, 2022, for some unannounced reason, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company and only remained as a director of the company. On April 11, the Daily Journal company announcement showed that as of March 31, 2022, the company's Alibaba ADR was only half of its previous position.</p><p><b>Two possibilities</b></p><p>So, did Munger really sell Alibaba? Careful readers will find that this matter is actually possible in two ways.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"521\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Photo courtesy: Zhao Naiyu</p><p>The first possibility is that Munger is really old and confused, and he lightened his position after the stock suffered a big loss. We can't deny this possibility. After all, the wise Munger himself once said, \"Don't be superstitious about those excellent people. No matter how good people are, they sometimes make mistakes\". You know, even Napoleon lost battles. This first possibility, we will call it \"Munger is stupid\".</p><p>However, beyond the first possibility, there is another possibility that will make us think that the \"Munger is foolish\" we see is completely not the truth of the matter.</p><p>Careful readers must have discovered that from the timeline described above, Munger's resignation was on March 28th, while the announcement submitted by the Daily Journal Company on April 11th showed the position data of March 31st.</p><p><b>In 3 days, Munger's successor had enough time to cut his position by half for an ADR like Alibaba, which was very actively traded. This second possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b></p><p>So, does the liquidity of the US market support this trade of \"cutting positions in half in 3 days\"? According to the data disclosed by Daily Journal Company, its Alibaba ADR holdings reached a maximum of 600,000 shares before reducing its positions, and at the end of the first quarter of 2022, it was 300,000 shares, reducing its holdings by 300,000 shares.</p><p>Can Alibaba's ADR volume accommodate the reduction of 300,000 units in 3 days? In the first quarter of 2022, the average daily trading volume of Alibaba ADRs was 32.12 million. In the three trading days after Munger left office (March 29th to 31st), the total turnover was 87.68 million copies. Anyone who has traded knows that for such a huge trading volume, it is easy to reduce your holdings by 300,000 shares in 3 days. Therefore, the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\" is fully present.</p><p><b>Munger being stupid?</b></p><p>Whether the reason behind why the daily journal company lightened its position in Alibaba is \"Munger is stupid\" or \"the daily journal company has changed\", unless there is a statement from the daily journal company or Munger himself, this matter may always be a mystery.</p><p>Subjectively, I personally prefer the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\", because \"Munger is stupid\" is not common sense. It is hard for me to believe that an investor who has been smart and has a long-term vision all his life will suddenly become a person who \"said he was optimistic about the company in February and sold his stock in March\" after nearly a hundred years of doing so. But, based on the available announcements, I also have no evidence to completely disprove the possibility of \"Munger being stupid\".</p><p>But why did so many people immediately believe \"Munger was stupid\" after the news broke? There are two reasons for this. The first is that people are not meticulous and don't find the difference between Munger's resignation date and the announcement date (although only 3 days). The second reason is even deeper.</p><p><b>For many people, the idea of \"taking a long view, not looking at the short term\" advocated by value investing is contrary to their hobby of speculation. But the worst thing is that value investors such as Buffett and Munger keep making money, and at the same time, speculation is difficult to bring long-term profits.</b></p><p>At this time, smart people will let go of their speculation and follow in the footsteps of value investing. But for those who indulge their feelings, they prefer to believe that their speculation is right and the idea of value investing is wrong. At this time, the news that \"Munger is stupid\" just caters to the psychology of these people: the concept of value investment is wrong, and I should continue to speculate is the right way. It was just the right amount of psychological massage, so to speak.</p><p><b>What you see is real?</b></p><p>The Daily Journal Company reduced its holdings in Alibaba ADR, and when this was first seen by careless people, they immediately trusted their judgment \"Munger was stupid\" without thinking carefully about another possibility \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\". Here, people mistakenly assume, \"What I see is true\".</p><p>However, what is seen is not necessarily true. In China's capital markets, I have experienced another time that what I saw was not the truth. In that experience, the truth is more obscure than Munger's sale of Ali: from the public information, we can't even see the possibility of the truth.</p><p>In the transition from the big bull market in 2007 to the big bear market in 2008, a value investor I know didn't make too many lightening operations when the market was extremely expensive in 2007, so that he suffered heavy losses in 2008. According to the announcement, he has been the fund manager of the fund. Then, the apex of the bull market in 2007 was so expensive, and stocks with hundreds of times PE abounded. As a value investor who values valuation, how could he not sell it?</p><p>The actual situation is more complicated than the announcement shows. Although this investor is an investment manager, his leaders, that is, the company's investment director and general manager, like to direct his investment decisions at a leapfrog level. As a result, most of the transactions from 2007 to 2008 were not intended by him at all.</p><p>Therefore, in the capital market, when we think we have seen an event, a financial statement and an announcement clearly, we must be mindful and ask ourselves whether this is reasonable. If the answer is no, then even if we see something ourselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that we see the truth of the matter.</p><p>However, after all, people rely on their senses to experience the world, and the idea of \"seeing is believing\" is deeply embedded in our genes. Even Confucius, a sage in Chinese history, once lamented that \"what I saw was actually not true\". Here, let's take a look at a story recorded in Lu Shi Chun Qiu.</p><p>Once, when Confucius and his disciples were traveling between the nations, they were unlucky enough to find no food to eat, and they could not follow the next meal. They had no food to eat for seven days. At this moment, Yan Hui, the most virtuous disciple of Confucius, found a little rice from nowhere. Everyone was very happy, so Yan Hui took the rice and went to cook.</p><p>As a result, Yan Hui was busy cooking alone. When the rice was almost cooked, Confucius happened to pass by and saw Yan Hui fishing his own rice from the pot. In Confucian etiquette, such \"eat yourself first and don't care about everyone\" behavior is very immoral.</p><p>Logically speaking, such a thing wouldn't happen to Yan Hui, who was famous for his moral character? However, this is what Confucius saw with his own eyes, how can it not be true? However, after all, everyone has been hungry for many days. Maybe Yan Hui can't keep his own moral principles, so it is faster to eat first?</p><p>After eating, Confucius tactfully asked Yan Hui what was going on, and then he knew the truth of the matter. It turned out that when Yan Hui was cooking, he found a piece of coal ash flying into the rice. It would be a pity to throw away this piece of dust-stained rice, but it would be bad to bring it out for everyone to eat. So, Yan Hui simply took out the dirty piece of rice and ate it himself. Unexpectedly, it happened to be seen by Confucius.</p><p>After learning the reason for the matter, Confucius sighed greatly: \"What we believe is the eyes, but the eyes are still untrustworthy. What we rely on is the heart, but the heart is still not enough to rely on. Disciple remember: It is not easy to know people.\" What we see with our eyes is not necessarily true, and what we want to understand in our hearts is not necessarily right. We must remember that it is too difficult to understand the truth!</p><p>When false is true, true is also false, and there is nothing in inaction. As a generation of value investment gurus, Munger has left many wise ideas for people. To these thoughts he often liked to say a summary: \"My sword is reserved only for those who can wield it.\"</p><p><b>Now, what do you think, my dear reader, when confronted with the two possible truths of \"Munger was stupid\" and \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\"? Which kind of thinking can make us swing Munger's sword?</b></p><p></body></html></p>","source":"LHCJ1","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Munger really sold Ali?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMunger really sold Ali?\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">e公司</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2022-04-15 21:25</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body><b>Munger's resignation was on March 28, while the announcement filed by the Daily Journal Company on April 11 showed the position data as of March 31. Over a period of 3 days, for<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BABA\">Alibaba</a>For such an actively traded ADR, Munger's successor has enough time to cut his position by half. This possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b><b>As Warren Buffett's lifelong partner, Charlie Munger's alternate identity, born in 1924, was the chairman of the Daily Journal. Munger spent 45 busy years in the role, from taking office in 1977 at the age of 53 to resigning in 2022 at the age of 98.</b></p><p>As Buffett's partner, Munger's investment method is also authentic value investment, but it is different from Buffett's in details. Simply put, Munger's investment style is to hold shares more concentrated, and he doesn't pay much attention to valuation, but he is more concerned about the long-term prospects of enterprises. This investment method leads to greater short-term volatility in the portfolio, while the long-term yield may also be higher.</p><p>Because Buffett is not involved in the investment of the Daily Journal Company, people can often find out about Munger's stock investment from the investment position of the Daily Journal Company.</p><p><b>However, the flowers have a reblooming day, and the characters are teenagers. No matter how good an investment career is, it will end one day after all. On March 28, 2022, at the age of 98, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company.</b></p><p><b>However, just two weeks later, on April 11th, a big news broke in the market: In the first quarter of 2022, Daily Journal Company sold 50% of its ADR (American Depositary Receipt) holdings in Alibaba, making a big loss.</b></p><p>As a result, Munger sold a lot of loss-making stocks, at the age of 98, Munger defeated Ali, and Munger was so old that he could still eat. Such headlines immediately flooded the capital market.</p><p><b>But, did Munger really sell Ali?</b></p><p><b>What happened?</b></p><p>In the first quarter of 2021, Daily Journal Company, led by Munger, bought Alibaba ADR for the first time. Subsequently, Alibaba's stock price dropped all the way, from around $250 in the first quarter of 2021 to around $100 in the first quarter of 2022.</p><p>In an almost straight-line decline, the Daily Journal Company added positions to Alibaba in the third and fourth quarters of 2021. Then, at the Daily Journal Company's annual meeting in February 2022, Munger praised Alibaba, saying that it was the right investment target and that investing in this company made him feel comfortable.</p><p>But, by March 28, 2022, for some unannounced reason, Munger resigned as chairman of the Daily Journal Company and only remained as a director of the company. On April 11, the Daily Journal company announcement showed that as of March 31, 2022, the company's Alibaba ADR was only half of its previous position.</p><p><b>Two possibilities</b></p><p>So, did Munger really sell Alibaba? Careful readers will find that this matter is actually possible in two ways.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"521\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Photo courtesy: Zhao Naiyu</p><p>The first possibility is that Munger is really old and confused, and he lightened his position after the stock suffered a big loss. We can't deny this possibility. After all, the wise Munger himself once said, \"Don't be superstitious about those excellent people. No matter how good people are, they sometimes make mistakes\". You know, even Napoleon lost battles. This first possibility, we will call it \"Munger is stupid\".</p><p>However, beyond the first possibility, there is another possibility that will make us think that the \"Munger is foolish\" we see is completely not the truth of the matter.</p><p>Careful readers must have discovered that from the timeline described above, Munger's resignation was on March 28th, while the announcement submitted by the Daily Journal Company on April 11th showed the position data of March 31st.</p><p><b>In 3 days, Munger's successor had enough time to cut his position by half for an ADR like Alibaba, which was very actively traded. This second possibility, we call it \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\".</b></p><p>So, does the liquidity of the US market support this trade of \"cutting positions in half in 3 days\"? According to the data disclosed by Daily Journal Company, its Alibaba ADR holdings reached a maximum of 600,000 shares before reducing its positions, and at the end of the first quarter of 2022, it was 300,000 shares, reducing its holdings by 300,000 shares.</p><p>Can Alibaba's ADR volume accommodate the reduction of 300,000 units in 3 days? In the first quarter of 2022, the average daily trading volume of Alibaba ADRs was 32.12 million. In the three trading days after Munger left office (March 29th to 31st), the total turnover was 87.68 million copies. Anyone who has traded knows that for such a huge trading volume, it is easy to reduce your holdings by 300,000 shares in 3 days. Therefore, the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\" is fully present.</p><p><b>Munger being stupid?</b></p><p>Whether the reason behind why the daily journal company lightened its position in Alibaba is \"Munger is stupid\" or \"the daily journal company has changed\", unless there is a statement from the daily journal company or Munger himself, this matter may always be a mystery.</p><p>Subjectively, I personally prefer the possibility that \"the Daily Journal Company has changed\", because \"Munger is stupid\" is not common sense. It is hard for me to believe that an investor who has been smart and has a long-term vision all his life will suddenly become a person who \"said he was optimistic about the company in February and sold his stock in March\" after nearly a hundred years of doing so. But, based on the available announcements, I also have no evidence to completely disprove the possibility of \"Munger being stupid\".</p><p>But why did so many people immediately believe \"Munger was stupid\" after the news broke? There are two reasons for this. The first is that people are not meticulous and don't find the difference between Munger's resignation date and the announcement date (although only 3 days). The second reason is even deeper.</p><p><b>For many people, the idea of \"taking a long view, not looking at the short term\" advocated by value investing is contrary to their hobby of speculation. But the worst thing is that value investors such as Buffett and Munger keep making money, and at the same time, speculation is difficult to bring long-term profits.</b></p><p>At this time, smart people will let go of their speculation and follow in the footsteps of value investing. But for those who indulge their feelings, they prefer to believe that their speculation is right and the idea of value investing is wrong. At this time, the news that \"Munger is stupid\" just caters to the psychology of these people: the concept of value investment is wrong, and I should continue to speculate is the right way. It was just the right amount of psychological massage, so to speak.</p><p><b>What you see is real?</b></p><p>The Daily Journal Company reduced its holdings in Alibaba ADR, and when this was first seen by careless people, they immediately trusted their judgment \"Munger was stupid\" without thinking carefully about another possibility \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\". Here, people mistakenly assume, \"What I see is true\".</p><p>However, what is seen is not necessarily true. In China's capital markets, I have experienced another time that what I saw was not the truth. In that experience, the truth is more obscure than Munger's sale of Ali: from the public information, we can't even see the possibility of the truth.</p><p>In the transition from the big bull market in 2007 to the big bear market in 2008, a value investor I know didn't make too many lightening operations when the market was extremely expensive in 2007, so that he suffered heavy losses in 2008. According to the announcement, he has been the fund manager of the fund. Then, the apex of the bull market in 2007 was so expensive, and stocks with hundreds of times PE abounded. As a value investor who values valuation, how could he not sell it?</p><p>The actual situation is more complicated than the announcement shows. Although this investor is an investment manager, his leaders, that is, the company's investment director and general manager, like to direct his investment decisions at a leapfrog level. As a result, most of the transactions from 2007 to 2008 were not intended by him at all.</p><p>Therefore, in the capital market, when we think we have seen an event, a financial statement and an announcement clearly, we must be mindful and ask ourselves whether this is reasonable. If the answer is no, then even if we see something ourselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that we see the truth of the matter.</p><p>However, after all, people rely on their senses to experience the world, and the idea of \"seeing is believing\" is deeply embedded in our genes. Even Confucius, a sage in Chinese history, once lamented that \"what I saw was actually not true\". Here, let's take a look at a story recorded in Lu Shi Chun Qiu.</p><p>Once, when Confucius and his disciples were traveling between the nations, they were unlucky enough to find no food to eat, and they could not follow the next meal. They had no food to eat for seven days. At this moment, Yan Hui, the most virtuous disciple of Confucius, found a little rice from nowhere. Everyone was very happy, so Yan Hui took the rice and went to cook.</p><p>As a result, Yan Hui was busy cooking alone. When the rice was almost cooked, Confucius happened to pass by and saw Yan Hui fishing his own rice from the pot. In Confucian etiquette, such \"eat yourself first and don't care about everyone\" behavior is very immoral.</p><p>Logically speaking, such a thing wouldn't happen to Yan Hui, who was famous for his moral character? However, this is what Confucius saw with his own eyes, how can it not be true? However, after all, everyone has been hungry for many days. Maybe Yan Hui can't keep his own moral principles, so it is faster to eat first?</p><p>After eating, Confucius tactfully asked Yan Hui what was going on, and then he knew the truth of the matter. It turned out that when Yan Hui was cooking, he found a piece of coal ash flying into the rice. It would be a pity to throw away this piece of dust-stained rice, but it would be bad to bring it out for everyone to eat. So, Yan Hui simply took out the dirty piece of rice and ate it himself. Unexpectedly, it happened to be seen by Confucius.</p><p>After learning the reason for the matter, Confucius sighed greatly: \"What we believe is the eyes, but the eyes are still untrustworthy. What we rely on is the heart, but the heart is still not enough to rely on. Disciple remember: It is not easy to know people.\" What we see with our eyes is not necessarily true, and what we want to understand in our hearts is not necessarily right. We must remember that it is too difficult to understand the truth!</p><p>When false is true, true is also false, and there is nothing in inaction. As a generation of value investment gurus, Munger has left many wise ideas for people. To these thoughts he often liked to say a summary: \"My sword is reserved only for those who can wield it.\"</p><p><b>Now, what do you think, my dear reader, when confronted with the two possible truths of \"Munger was stupid\" and \"The Daily Journal Company has changed\"? Which kind of thinking can make us swing Munger's sword?</b></p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SgyrrtKXXnDeioPtpTMGcw\">e公司</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/72da4b29cb471c1d0f387e4b471ba5b0","relate_stocks":{"09988":"阿里巴巴-W","BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SgyrrtKXXnDeioPtpTMGcw","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145962631","content_text":"芒格辞职的时间是3月28日，而4月11日每日期刊公司提交的公告，显示的是3月31日的持仓数据。在3天的时间里，对于阿里巴巴这样一只交易非常活跃的ADR来说，芒格的继任者有足够的时间，把仓位砍掉一半。这种可能性，我们将它称为“每日期刊公司变了”。作为沃伦·巴菲特一生的搭档，出生于1924年的查理·芒格的另一个身份，是每日期刊公司（Daily Journal）董事长。从1977年53岁上任，到2022年98岁辞职，芒格在这个职位上忙碌了45年。作为巴菲特的搭档，芒格的投资方法虽然也是正宗的价值投资，但是在细节上和巴菲特不尽相同。简单来说，芒格的投资风格就是持股更加集中，对估值不是很看重，但对企业长期前景比较关心。这种投资方法，导致投资组合的短期波动更大，同时长期收益率可能也更高。由于巴菲特并没有参与每日期刊公司的投资，因此从每日期刊公司的投资头寸上，人们往往能对芒格的股票投资一探究竟。不过，花有重开日，人物再少年。再好的投资职业生涯，也终究有结束的一天。2022年3月28日，98岁高龄的芒格辞去了每日期刊公司董事长职务。然而，就在两周以后的4月11日，市场上爆出了一个大新闻：每日期刊公司在2022年一季度，卖出了50%的阿里巴巴ADR（美国存托凭证）持股，出现大幅亏损。于是，芒格大幅卖出亏损股、98岁芒格兵败阿里、芒格廉颇老矣尚能饭否，如此这般的标题，立即充斥了资本市场。但是，芒格真的卖了阿里吗？发生了什么？2021年一季度，芒格主导下的每日期刊公司，首次买入阿里巴巴ADR。随后，阿里巴巴股价一路下跌，从2021年一季度的250美元附近，一直跌到了2022年一季度的100美元附近。在几乎直线的下跌中，每日期刊公司在2021年三季度和四季度加仓了阿里巴巴。随后，在2022年2月的每日期刊公司年会上，芒格夸赞了阿里巴巴公司，说它是合适的投资标的，投资这个公司让他感到舒适。但是，到了2022年3月28日，由于某种未公告的原因，芒格辞去了每日期刊公司董事长职务，仅继续担任公司董事。到了4月11日，每日期刊公司公告显示，截至2022年3月31日，公司所持有的阿里巴巴ADR，仅有之前持仓的一半。两种可能那么，芒格真的卖了阿里巴巴吗？细心的读者会发现，这件事其实有两种可能。供图：赵乃育第一种可能，是芒格确实老糊涂了，在股票大幅亏损后就减仓了。我们不能否定这种可能，毕竟智慧的芒格自己就曾经说过，“不要迷信那些优秀的人，再优秀的人都有犯错的时候”。要知道，即使是拿破仑也曾打过败仗。这第一种可能，我们将它称为“芒格犯傻了”。但是，在第一种可能之外，还有一种可能，会让我们以为自己看到的“芒格犯傻了”，完全不是事情的真相。细心的读者一定已经发现，从以上描述的时间线里，芒格辞职的时间是3月28日，而4月11日每日期刊公司提交的公告，显示的是3月31日的持仓数据。在3天的时间里，对于阿里巴巴这样一只交易非常活跃的ADR来说，芒格的继任者有足够的时间，把仓位砍掉一半。这第二种可能性，我们将它称为“每日期刊公司变了”。那么，美国市场的流动性，支持这种“3天砍仓一半”的交易吗？根据每日期刊公司披露的数据，其持有的阿里巴巴ADR，在减仓之前最高达到60万份，在2022年一季度末则为30万份，减持了30万份。对于3天30万份的减持量，阿里巴巴的ADR交易量能够容纳吗？在2022年一季度，阿里巴巴ADR的日均成交量，是3212万份。而在芒格卸任以后的3个交易日（3月29日到31日），总成交量是8768万份。做过交易的人都知道，对于如此巨大的交易量，想要在3天里减持30万份，易如反掌。所以，“每日期刊公司变了”这种可能性，是完全存在的。芒格犯傻了？每日期刊公司为什么减仓阿里巴巴，背后的原因到底是“芒格犯傻了”还是“每日期刊公司变了”，除非有每日期刊公司或者芒格自己的声明，否则这件事也许会永远成为一个难解之谜。从主观上，我个人更偏向“每日期刊公司变了”这种可能，因为“芒格犯傻了”不符合常理。我很难相信一位一辈子聪明、目光长远的投资者，居然在如此行事近百年以后，会突然变成一个“2月份还说看好公司、3月份就卖出股票”的人。但是，根据现有的公告，我也没有证据完全否定“芒格犯傻了”的可能性。但是，为什么在新闻发生以后，许多人会立即相信“芒格犯傻了”？这里面有两个原因，第一是人们不细致，没有发现芒格辞职日期和公告日期之差（尽管只有3天）。第二个原因，则更加深刻。对于许多人来说，价值投资所倡导的“目光放长远、不要看短期”的理念，是和他们喜欢投机的爱好相违背的。但是糟糕的是，巴菲特、芒格这些价值投资者不停的赚钱，同时投机又很难带来长期收益。这时候，聪明的人会放下自己的投机，跟随价值投资的脚步。但是对于那些放纵自己感受的人来说，他们更愿意相信自己的投机是对的、价值投资的理念才是错的。在这时候，“芒格犯傻了”的新闻，恰好迎合了这些人的心理：价值投资的理念不对，我应该继续投机才是正道。可以说，这是一场恰到好处的心理按摩。看见的就是真的？每日期刊公司减持阿里巴巴ADR，当这件事被粗心的人们第一眼看到时，他们立即相信自己的判断“芒格犯傻了”，而没有仔细思考另一种可能“每日期刊公司变了”。在这里，人们错误地认为，“我看到的就是真的”。但是，看到的并不一定是真的。在中国的资本市场上，我曾经亲身经历过另一次所见并非真相。那次经历，真相比芒格卖阿里更加隐晦：从公开的信息，我们甚至看不到真相存在的可能。在2007年大牛市到2008年大熊市的转换中，我认识的一位价值投资者，居然没有在2007年市场极其昂贵的时候，做出太多的减仓操作，以至于在2008年损失惨重。根据公告，他一直是基金的基金经理。那么，2007年牛市的顶点那么贵，上百倍PE的股票比比皆是，作为重视估值的价值投资者，他怎么会不卖呢？实际上的情况，比公告显示出来的更加复杂。这位投资者虽然是投资经理，但是他的领导——也就是公司的投资总监和总经理，却喜欢越级指挥他的投资决策。结果，2007年到2008年的交易，其实大多根本不是出自他的本意。所以说，在资本市场上，当我们以为自己看清楚了一个事件、一张财务报表、一个公告的时候，一定要长个心眼，问问自己这件事合理吗？如果答案是否定的，那么即使我们自己看到了某件事，也不一定代表我们就看清了事情的真相。不过，人毕竟是依靠感官体验世界的，“眼见为实”的思想深深刻在我们的基因里。连中国历史上的圣人孔子，都曾经感叹“看到的事情居然不是真的”。这里，就让我们来看一个《吕氏春秋》中记载的故事。有一次，孔子和弟子们在列国之间穿行时，倒霉找不到粮食吃，上顿接不上下顿，七天都没有饭吃。正在这时，孔子弟子中品德第一的颜回，不知道从哪里找来了一点米。大家很开心，颜回就拿着米去做饭。结果，颜回一个人忙做饭，饭快熟的时候孔子正好路过，看到颜回从锅里自己捞饭吃。在儒家的礼仪中，这样“自己先吃不管大家”的行为，是非常不道德的。按理说，这样的事情不会发生在以品德著称的颜回身上啊？但是，这又是孔子亲眼所见，怎能不真呢？不过，大家毕竟都饿了好多天，也许颜回也守不住自己的道德准绳，先吃为快了？等到吃完饭，孔子委婉地问颜回是怎么回事，这才知道事情的真相。原来，颜回煮饭的时候，发现一块煤灰飞到了饭里。把这块沾了灰的饭扔了吧，实在可惜，可是端出来给大家吃吧，又会让人糟心。于是，颜回干脆自己把脏的那块饭拿出来吃掉。没曾想，正好给路过的孔子看见。得知事情原由后，孔子大为感叹：“所信者目也，而目犹不可信。所恃者心也，而心犹不足恃。弟子记之：知人固不易矣。”我们眼睛看到的不一定是真的，心里想明白的不一定是对的，我们要牢记，把真相搞明白实在是太难了啊！假作真时真亦假，无为有处有还无。作为一代价值投资大师，芒格给人们留下过许许多多睿智的思想。对于这些思想，他经常喜欢说一句总结性的话：“我的剑只留给能挥舞它的人。”现在，当面对“芒格犯傻了”和“每日期刊公司变了”两个可能的真相时，我亲爱的读者，你是怎样想的呢？究竟哪一种想法，才能让我们挥舞起芒格的剑呢？","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"BABA":0.9,"09988":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2325,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
