我相信市场上存在着许多没有效率的现象。这些来自于“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资人成功地掌握了价格与价值之间的缺口。华尔街的“群众”可以影响股票价格，当最情绪化的人、最贪婪的或最沮丧的人肆意驱动股价时，我们很难辩称市场价格是理性的产物。事实上，市场经常是不合理的。

　　I would like to say one important thing about risk and reward. Sometimes risk and reward are correlated in a positive fashion. If someone were to say to me， “I have here a six-shooter and I have slipped one cartridge into it. Why don't you just spin it and pull it once？ If you survive， I will give you $1 million.” I would decline —— perhaps stating that $1 million is not enough. Then he might offer me $5 million to pull the trigger twice —— now that would be a positive correlation between risk and reward！

　　我想提出有关报酬与风险之间的重要关系。在某些情况下，报酬与风险之间存在着正向关系。如果有人告诉我“我有一支六发弹装的左轮枪，并且填装一发子弹。你可以任意地拨动转轮，然后朝自己扣一次扳机。如果你能够逃过一功，我就赏你100万美元。”我将会拒绝这项提议——或许我的理由是100万美元太少了。然后，他可能建议将奖金提高为500万美元，但必须扣两次扳机 ——这便是报酬与风险之间的正向关系！

　　The exact opposite is true with value investing. If you buy a dollar bill for 60 cents， it's riskier than if you buy a dollar bill for 40 cents， but the expectation of reward is greater in the latter case. The greater the potential for reward in the value portfolio， the less risk there is.

　　在价值投资法当中，情况恰巧相反。如果你以60美分买进一美元的纸钞，其风险大于以40美分买进一美元的纸钞，但后者报酬的期望值却比较高。以价值为导向的投资组合，其报酬的潜力愈高，风险愈低。

　　One quick example： The Washington Post Company in 1973 was selling for $80 million in the market. At the time， that day， you could have sold the assets to any one of ten buyers for not less than $400 million， probably appreciably more. The company owned the Post ， Newsweek ， plus several television stations in major markets. Those same properties are worth $2 billion now， so the person who would have paid $400 million would not have been crazy.

　　我可以举一个简单的例子：在1973年，华盛顿邮报公司的总市值为8千万美元。在这一天，你可以将其资产卖给十位买家之一，而且价格不低于4亿美元，甚至还能更高。该公司拥有华盛顿邮报、商业周刊以及数家重要的电视台。这些资产目前的价值为4亿美元，因此愿意支付4亿美元的买家并非疯子。

　　Now， if the stock had declined even further to a price that made the valuation $40 million instead of $80 million， its beta would have been greater. And to people that think beta measures risk， the cheaper price would have made it look riskier. This is truly Alice in Wonderland. I have never been able to figure out why it's riskier to buy $400 million worth of properties for $40 million than $80 million. And， as a matter of fact， if you buy a group of such securities and you know anything at all about business valuation， there is essentially no risk in buying $400 million for $80 million， particularly if you do it by buying ten $40 million piles of $8 million each. Since you don't have your hands on the $400 million， you want to be sure you are in with honest and reasonably competent people， but that's not a difficult job.

　　现在，如果股价继续下跌，该企业的市值从8千万美元跌到4 千万美元，其bate值也上升。对于用bate值衡量风险的人来说，更低的价格使它受得更有风险。这真是仙境中的爱丽丝。我永远无法了解，用4千万美元，而非8千万美元购买价值4亿美元的资产，其风险竟然更高。事实上，如果你买进一堆这样的证券，而且稍微了解所谓的企业评价，则用8千万美元的价格买进4亿美元的资产，这笔交易基本上没有风险，尤其是分别以800万美元的价格买进10种价值4000万美元的资产，其风险更低。因为你不拥有4亿美元，所以你希望能够确实找到诚实而有能力的人，这并不困难。

　　You also have to have the knowledge to enable you to make a very general estimate about the value of the underlying businesses. But you do not cut it close. That is what Ben Graham meant by having a margin of safety. You don't try and buy businesses worth $83 million for $80 million. You leave yourself an enormous margin. When you build a bridge， you insist it can carry 30，000 pounds， but you only drive 10，000 pound trucks across it. And that same principle works in investing.

　　另外，你必须有知识，而且能够粗略地估计企业的价值。但是，你不需要精密的评价知识。这便是本杰明·葛拉厄姆所谓的安全边际。你不必试图以8000万美元的价格购买价值8300万美元的企业。你必须让自己保有相当的缓冲。架设桥梁时，你坚持载重量为3万磅，但你只准许1万磅的卡车穿梭其间。相同的原则也适用于投资领域。

　　In conclusion， some of the more commercially minded among you may wonder why I am writing this article. Adding many converts to the value approach will perforce narrow the spreads between price and value. I can only tell you that the secret has been out for 50 years， ever since Ben Graham and Dave Dodd wrote Security Analysis ， yet I have seen no trend toward value investing in the 35 years that I've practiced it. There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult. The academic world， if anything， has actually backed away from the teaching of value investing over the last 30 years. It's likely to continue that way. Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish. There will continue to be wide discrepancies between price and value in the marketplace， and those who read their Graham & Dodd will continue to prosper.

　　有些具备商业头脑的人可能会怀疑我撰写本文的动机：更多人皈依价值投资法，将会缩小价值与价格之间的差距。我只能够如此告诉各位，自从本杰明·格雷厄姆与大卫 ·多德出版《证券分析》，这个秘密已经流传了50年，在我奉行这项投资理论的35年中，我不曾目睹价值投资法蔚然成风。人的天性中似乎存在着偏执的特色，喜欢把简单的事情弄得更复杂。最近30年来，学术界如果有任何作为的话，乃完全背离了价值投资的教训。它很可能继续如此。船只将环绕地球而行。但地平之说仍会畅行无阻。在市场上，价格与价值之间还会存在着宽广的差值，而奉行格雷厄姆与多德理论的人也会繁荣不绝。