巴菲特访谈录

[shepherd17]

[shepherd17]

访谈录有一个多小时。下面是 AI 中文翻译。更准确的内容请参考音频和英文。

JOE KERNEN： 欢迎回到《Squawk Box》。让我们连线 Becky。上面写着“让我们连线在内布拉斯加州奥马哈的 Becky Quick，她身边有一位非常特别——不够，还不够，我需要更多，非常、非常、非常——”

BECKY QUICK： 一位非常、非常特别的嘉宾。

KERNEN： 非常特别。

QUICK： 需要一点仪式感，也许我们需要点音乐。

KERNEN： 音乐。沃伦•巴菲特。太久没见了，这一定会非常精彩。

QUICK： 是的，他来了。

KERNEN： 他太棒了。告诉他我说“嗨”，我爱他。

BECKY QUICK： 我会的。Joe 说“嗨”。你知道他很喜欢你，Joe。他现在正向你挥手。我们今天确实有一位非常特别的嘉宾，沃伦•巴菲特，伯克希尔哈撒韦董事长、前 CEO，这是我们自他卸任 CEO 职位后第一次坐下来采访他。沃伦，欢迎你。今天早上见到你真是太好了。

WARREN BUFFETT： 很高兴来上节目。

QUICK： 你今天来是因为一个很有意思的原因。过去 22 年里，你一直举办年度慈善午餐拍卖，为旧金山的 Glide 基金会筹款。你在 2022 年退休，不再继续举办，当时你已经筹集了超过 5000 万美元。我想你最后一次拍卖——你筹集了……

BUFFETT： 1900 万美元。

QUICK： 为 Glide 基金会筹集了 19,000,100 美元。然后你就宣布结束了。但今天你带来了一个新消息：你将重新举办一次新的拍卖，而且这次有个“新花样”。这次是沃伦•巴菲特、斯蒂芬•库里和阿耶莎•库里一起举办午餐，收益不仅捐给 Glide 基金会，也捐给库里夫妇的基金会——Eat, Learn, Play。拍卖将于 5 月 7 日晚上 7:30（太平洋时间）开始，5 月 14 日晚上 7:30 准时结束。所有收益将捐给这两个基金会：Glide 和 Eat, Learn, Play。
这是怎么发生的？你为什么“复出”了？

WARREN BUFFETT： 嗯，让我先说说我是怎么开始做这件事的。因为我的第一任妻子 Susie 当时住在旧金山，她对我说：“这个人是真的。”

QUICK： 这个人是指 Cecil。

BUFFETT： Cecil，对，Cecil Williams。他在 1963 年来到那间教堂，当时那是一间正在衰落的教堂，位于旧金山一个正在变化的社区。剩下的一百来个教友并不欢迎他。但他把它变成了一个地方——一个能给那些被世界放弃的人带来希望和生命力的地方。我那天星期天去的时候，本来预期不会看到什么特别的东西，但我看到 Cecil 的表现，我能看出他在做什么，而且他是真的。
后来 Susie 说：“你为什么不做点什么帮他筹点钱？”
我想是她提出了“慈善午餐”这个主意，然后我们就开始做了。前三次午餐每次筹到 25,000 美元，因为当时只是在本地进行。后来我们想到把它放到 eBay 上，于是开始收到来自世界各地的竞标。金额总体上一路上涨，虽然不是每年都涨，但它让我们“上了地图”。最终那次筹到了 1900 万美元。那次之所以这么高，是因为那是我宣布的最后一次。我想 NFL 的某位人士之前拍过一次，但我没有给他打电话或做任何推动。他就是被激励了。
Smith & Wollensky 也参与过，你知道的，他们有时会在纽约承办午餐。

QUICK： 你为什么停下来了？

BUFFETT： 嗯，我精力用完了。你知道，那时候我已经 93 岁了，差不多吧。身体会告诉你一些不同的信号，你就应该把事情交给别人，就像我在伯克希尔做的那样。不同的事情在不同的时间点交出去。但……我们原本以为已经安排好了延续计划，但因为各种原因，它没有继续下去。所以过去两年——我想第一年有某位董事会成员自己凑了一些钱——但基本上，这个拍卖就消失了。

QUICK： 所以基金会没有再收到资金？

BUFFETT： 对。Cecil Williams 和我年纪差不多……后来我甚至听不清他在电话里说什么了，但他唯一的愿望就是让这件事继续下去。所以我也不知道这个想法最初是谁提出来的，但我说我愿意再做一次，让它重新启动。而且让 Steph Curry 在湾区加入我们——这太自然不过了。

QUICK： 对，Stephen 和 Ayesha Curry 的 Eat, Learn, Play 基金会也在湾区。

BUFFETT： 没错。

QUICK： 对于不了解的人来说，Glide 基金会也曾在威尔•史密斯主演的电影《当幸福来敲门》中被重点呈现过。所以大家可能对它有点印象。那为什么是 Steph Curry？这怎么促成的？

BUFFETT： 嗯，我的意思是，还有谁比他更合适？他在奥克兰和孩子们一起工作，那些孩子大概 5 到 15 岁吧，他会和他们一起打篮球。他是个非常棒的人。我……我本人还没见过他。

QUICK： 但你确实和 Stephen 和 Ayesha 通了电话。

BUFFETT： 我们通了一次很长的电话。这是他的事业，他可以把它继续发扬光大。而且顺便说一句，无论今年拍卖出多少钱，我都会捐出同样的金额。我想……Steph 还不知道这件事，但我会向 Glide 和 Curry 的基金会各捐同样的金额。

QUICK： 捐给 Curry 夫妇的基金会。

BUFFETT： 对。这样它就能继续达到新的高度。Steph 是数以百万计人的英雄。所以我真的认为，这会让它继续成为 Cecil 所希望的那样。如果它就这样消失了，那会让我非常难受。Cecil 为它倾注了那么多，他相信每个人都值得被帮助。世界放弃了这些人，而他没有。他可能一开始只是给他们一点食物，但后来他在 Glide 做的事情远不止这些。他从未放弃任何人。

QUICK： 我知道你说过 Astrid （巴菲特现任妻子）也很喜欢他。

BUFFETT： 哦，是的，Astrid，我的第二任妻子。你根本不可能不喜欢他。当你看到他站在那些被世界放弃的人面前，对他们说：“我会给你食物，我会给你床位，我们会给你一个地方，我们不会放弃你。”而他真的从未放弃过任何人。

QUICK： Warren，这是我们自你卸任伯克希尔 CEO 以来第一次坐下来采访你。

BUFFETT： 是的。

QUICK： 那是一段非常长、非常成功的任期。你现在的生活有什么不同？

BUFFETT： 嗯，其实没太大不同，除了……我是说，我每天都会去办公室。

QUICK： 去办公室？

BUFFETT： 对，我每天都去办公室。我几乎没完成什么事情。我的意思是……做任何事情都比以前慢得多。而 Greg 太优秀了。他优秀得让我有点不好意思。他负责着伯克希尔旗下大约 200 家企业，而这些企业是随着时间积累起来的。我现在甚至叫不出那些经理的名字、他们妻子的名字，而且我已经很久没见过他们了。写一年一封股东信对我来说更容易，然后做我自己的事情。Greg 一天能覆盖的范围，比我巅峰时期一周能做的还多，更别说我现在的状态了。所以从很多方面来说，我本可以更早交棒，而 Greg 会比我做得更好。但……我现在仍然能贡献一点点。

QUICK： 那你现在还参与投资吗？

BUFFETT： 是的，是的。但我不会做任何 Greg 认为不对的投资。他现在开始接到一些电话，他会打给我，我们俩一样，都不喜欢那些提案。

QUICK： 你是说交易电话？

BUFFETT： 对，他会随时让我知道。是投资银行家打给他的——他们会试图把任何东西都卖给你。但我通常 10 到 15 秒就把电话挂了。他会花更多时间，但我不知道他哪来那么多时间，因为他还要陪孩子打冰球。我的意思是，他不像我当年那样狂热地管理公司，但他几乎不费力就能覆盖那么多事情。

QUICK： 说到投资，你们管理的是一大笔钱。伯克希尔现在手头有多少现金？

BUFFETT： 我不知道确切数字，但和之前差不多。所以你知道，大概超过 3500 亿美元的现金和国库券。

QUICK： 是的，所以——

BUFFETT： 我们这周买了 170 亿。

QUICK： 170 亿的国库券？

BUFFETT： 国库券。

QUICK： 伯克希尔是国库券最大的持有者吗？

BUFFETT： 我想我们可能是最大的竞标者。有点讽刺的是，我当年卷入所罗门事件，就是因为他们投标太多国库券。而现在我想财政部不会因为我们投太多而生气——不过拍卖中你不能超过 35% 的份额。当然，你是通过一级交易商投标的。我对具体机制也不是很熟，但我们办公室里有一个人负责我们买的所有股票和债券的操作。

QUICK： Mark Millard。

BUFFETT： 对，就是他。在别的地方，这种工作可能需要 25 到 30 个人。他热爱他的工作，我也喜欢他做的事情。他就在走廊 20 英尺外，大概每隔一小时或一个半小时，他就会把我们当天的操作拿给我看。

QUICK： 你是说伯克希尔当天在市场上的操作？

BUFFETT： 对。我会在开盘前打给他，因为我会看盘前发生了什么，然后可能只会调整一下限价。我不会买很多不同的股票。偶尔我会让他做点什么，然后我会每天调整价格。

QUICK： 但你在做这些之前不会先问 Greg？你只是定期和 Greg 沟通？

BUFFETT： Greg 每天都会收到那张表。

QUICK： 哦，他也会收到。

BUFFETT： 他收到的速度没我快。我可能在当天就看到，但他大概会在当天结束时收到。如果 Greg 和我在任何事情上意见不同，我们就不会做那件事。

QUICK： 但你们仍然在进行新的买入？

BUFFETT： 什么？

QUICK： 你们仍然在进行新的买入？

BUFFETT： 有一个非常小的买入，但我们找不到——其实之前也找不到——值得买的东西。

QUICK： 那我们来谈谈这个。市场已经大幅下跌。

BUFFETT： 没有“大幅”。

QUICK： 道指和纳指都进入了回调区间。这是四年来最差的季度表现。现在的估值对你来说更便宜了吗？

BUFFETT： 没有。我接管伯克希尔以来，市场有三次下跌超过 50%。如果你看市场，最糟的可能是 2007–08 年那段时期，尽管还有那天单日跌了 21% 的星期一。相比之下，现在这点算不了什么。

QUICK： 这点跌幅不会让你兴奋，不会让你觉得估值非常便宜？

BUFFETT： 如果只是便宜 5% 或 6%，那对我们没意义。我们不是为了赚 5% 或 6% 而投资的。但我们也不是大卖家。最终，我们买的是企业。有些是完全拥有，有些是部分拥有。我喜欢拥有企业。我们三分之二以上的钱都在企业里。我们 1 月 3 日买了西方石油化工（Occidental Chemical），花了 97 亿美元。对我来说，它有一些优点，也有一些缺点，相比买股票，但原则是一样的。它是一家企业，是我们预计会无限期持有的企业。

QUICK： 听起来你们也找不到想完全买下的企业，不只是买股票的一部分——毕竟你们手上有 3500 亿美元以上的现金。

BUFFETT： 是啊，我们一直接到电话，非常多的电话。但就像我说的，我只需要五秒钟就能说“不”。Greg 比我礼貌一点，但我也喜欢接这些电话，只是看看别人都在干什么。但他们没有提供任何有吸引力的价格，他们想要的是“交易”。

QUICK： 那你是在等下一次市场大跌来部署这些现金吗？如果是，你觉得什么时候会发生？

BUFFETT： 是的，如果出现大幅下跌，我们会出手。但我们出手是因为股票或企业对我们来说变得有吸引力，而不是因为我们计划下周或下个月卖掉它们。我们希望买得正确。我们持有美国运通已经 30 年——快 40 年了，35 年吧。另一方面，有些事情我会很快改变主意。但目标始终是：拥有企业。当我们买下西方石油化工时，我们预计 50 年后仍然会拥有它。当然，世界可能会发生变化，但我们买它时从未想着转手卖掉。

QUICK： 你卖掉了很多表现很好的股票，比如苹果——

BUFFETT： 嗯，我卖早了，但我买得更早。所以总体来说是赚的。我想我们在那上面赚了超过 1000 亿美元（税前）。

QUICK： 但你后悔吗？你说你卖早了？

BUFFETT： 不，不。我没有能力预测股票下周或下个月会怎样。如果它便宜，我会买。如果它非常便宜，而且我真的理解这家公司，我会买很多。苹果仍然是我们最大的单一投资。

QUICK： 而且你喜欢这样？

BUFFETT： 是的。如果我不喜欢，我可以卖掉。苹果比我们完全拥有的任何企业都要好。我们确实拥有一家价值比苹果仓位更高的铁路公司，但它们本质上都被我们视为“企业”。我认为铁路在未来 50 或 100 年里存在的可预测性更高，但它的资本回报率远远比不上苹果。苹果是一家你有一部、你孩子也有一部的企业——

QUICK： 不止一部，我们大概有 20 部。

BUFFETT： 对，设备。其实贝尔电话公司当年也是这样，但它们受监管。

QUICK： 那你担心监管会找上这些大型科技公司吗？尤其是苹果？

BUFFETT： 我认为消费者太爱它们了。我不认为华盛顿会做任何真正破坏一个所有选民都喜欢、自己也在使用的东西的事。苹果是一个了不起的产品。想想看，有什么东西能像 iPhone 一样有用？Tim Cook 把 Steve Jobs 交给他的牌打得更好。他做不了 Steve 做的事，但 Steve 也做不了 Tim 做的事。Steve 选了他。Tim 是个出色的管理者，也是个好人，而且他能和世界上所有人相处——这是我做不到的，Charlie Munger 更做不到。但我很高兴苹果是我们最大的持仓。我不高兴它曾经大到几乎比我们其他所有仓位加起来还大。

BUFFETT： 当然，如果价格合适，我会愿意让它变得那么大。苹果的价格如果跌到某个程度，我们会买很多，但不是在这个市场里。现在这种市场环境下，这不会发生。

QUICK： 那股票要跌多少，你才会觉得“真的很有吸引力”？

BUFFETT： 这取决于具体股票。现在有些股票——总体来说它们会一起动，但……我不认为我知道市场会怎么走。我认为我对企业价值有合理的判断，但我完全不知道股市会怎么走，我也不认为别人知道。

QUICK： 你并不真正关注科技公司。苹果被很多人视为科技公司，但你一直把它看作消费品公司。

BUFFETT： 它是消费品公司。

QUICK： 那你怎么看现在所有的科技股和 AI 热潮？你会去研究这些吗？你会参与这些行业吗？

BUFFETT： 不会。第一，我不擅长；第二，我太晚了。我现在学新东西学不动了。我到现在都不知道怎么用手机。但我知道你会有一部，你的孩子也会想要一部，而且它非常有用——极其有用。一个东西如果有用、全球销售，而且你还担心把照片从一个系统转到另一个系统……那就说明它有护城河。
我当年研究美国运通时也是这样。60 年前沙拉油丑闻时，大家都以为它完了。我去了奥马哈国家银行问他们：“你们的美国运通旅行支票能卖得比花旗、美国银行、巴克莱更贵吗？”答案是：能。消费者愿意为它付溢价，即使大家都担心它要倒闭。

QUICK： Warren，我想问你关于经济的问题。美联储现在有点进退两难，不知道该更担心哪一个使命：是担心通胀可能继续上升？还是担心就业市场和经济产出下滑？如果你现在在美联储，你会更担心哪一个？

BUFFETT： 如果我是美联储主席，我永远最担心的一件事是：美元是世界储备货币。
你面对的是非常聪明、非常专业的人们。美元看起来坚不可摧，我也不觉得它会出问题。但如果真的出了问题……我不想承担那种责任。

QUICK： 我的意思是——

BUFFETT： 全世界都依赖美联储的行动。2007–08 年那次危机，国会基本上觉得他们比财政部长更懂，于是第一次投票否决 TARP，把事情搞得更糟。
现在人们更明白了：美联储可以印钱。

QUICK： 美联储可以印钱，而我们现在的总统特朗普希望美联储降息。如果你现在在美联储，你会降息吗？

BUFFETT： 我不知道我会怎么做。但我认为 Jay Powell 在 2020 年疫情爆发时做得完全正确。如果他晚两三周行动，那将是灾难。一旦多米诺骨牌开始倒，它会比任何人想象的更快、更猛烈。
他做得比沃尔克还果断。他和沃尔克是我心目中最伟大的两位美联储主席。

QUICK： 他们是否把利率维持太低太久？他们说通胀是暂时的，但连 Powell 自己后来都说希望更早行动。

BUFFETT： 我希望他们的目标是 零通胀。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 一旦你说“我们容忍 2% 通胀”，那会在时间里复利增长。你等于告诉人们：如果你的钱赚不到 2%，你就在倒退。而且你还要为这 2% 交税。我不喜欢这个目标。

QUICK： 所以你更担心通胀？这是格林斯潘一直强调的。

BUFFETT： 是的，我会担心通胀。但我更担心的是 银行系统的稳定性。

QUICK： 是。

BUFFETT： 银行系统在某些方面非常强大，但在另一些方面又非常脆弱。
例如，摩根大通在最近的年报中说他们每天处理 10 万亿美元 的交易——这些都是无担保的。
他们当然知道自己在做什么，但在 2008 年那种时期，我不想持有任何一天期的无担保风险。
世界高度互联，而每个人都会恐慌。
你打电话给最大的投行，他们要么不接电话，要么说：“买价 10，卖价 20，subject（不保证）。”

QUICK： Joe 经常提到你说的那天——道指跌了 21%。他说他当时躲在桌子底下接电话。

BUFFETT： 是的。

QUICK： 因为当流动性消失，它就是彻底消失。

BUFFETT： 那天跌了 21%，而且还在继续。
当时的做市商公司大多数都破产了。他们跑去找银行说：“千万别抽贷。”
他们本来应该维持市场，但大家不断砸盘，价差越拉越大。
现在有熔断机制，但当人们恐慌时，他们就是恐慌。
你在拥挤的剧院里喊“着火了”，所有人都会跑。
而且你最好跑得比别人快，否则会被踩。
但当人们重新进入剧院时，他们是一位一位走进去的。
恐慌是瞬间的，恢复是缓慢的。

QUICK： 那现在我们应该担心的是银行系统，还是影子银行、私人信贷？

BUFFETT： 所有部分都应该担心，因为它们会互相传染。你在 2008 年已经看到过了。

QUICK： 我不想让人误解你是在评论当前的私人信贷状况。但你怎么看私人信贷？你担心它会引发传染吗？

BUFFETT： 我不认为我知道。

QUICK： 好。

BUFFETT： 我真的不知道。所以我必须为任何情况做好准备。
这就是为什么我们永远会持有现金和国库券。
我们不会持有货币市场基金，不会持有商业票据。
只有一种东西是法定货币：国库券。
财政部每周一必须卖国库券，只要他们必须卖，他们就能印钱来满足需求。

QUICK： 所以你不是因为看到什么危机，而是因为你永远想保持这种安全垫？

BUFFETT： 是的，我永远想保持现金。
我永远不会因为别人认为市场会上涨而买东西。
认为自己知道市场会怎么走——那是疯狂的。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 我的意思是，人们以为自己知道市场会怎么走，这简直太疯狂了。
他们甚至会向全世界大声宣告他们“真的知道”什么——这就像他们在自家后院发现了金子，然后跑到电视上说：“嘿，我后院这里有金子！”
你知道吗？他们是在卖东西。

QUICK： 你是说他们想让别人跟着他们做？

BUFFETT： 嗯，他们知道有一部分人——不仅在美国，在世界其他地方也是——你已经看到人们有多喜欢赌博。
基本上，你有一个令人难以置信的大教堂，叫做美国经济体系。
世界上没有任何东西像它这样。它是所有大教堂中的大教堂。
但在它旁边，还附带着一个赌场，人们可以在两者之间来回走动。
相信我，人们就是喜欢赌博。
他们在市场里赌博，而且赔率对他们不利。
如果他们——其实如果他们这么做就不算赌博了——但如果他们只是买一只股票并持有 50 年，或者买一篮子股票，他们会做得很好。
美国资本主义体系是有效的，而对赌庄下注永远不会赢。
这太简单了。
但人们就是喜欢赌博。我是说——

QUICK： 当你说“赌博”时，你是指——

BUFFETT： 我 1952 年度蜜月的时候。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： Susie 和我开着我姑妈 Alice 的车，开车经过拉斯维加斯。
我看到那些穿着体面、坐飞机飞来的人——飞了好几个小时，花了很多钱——结果就是来拉老虎机的把手，或者做一些数学上愚蠢的事情。
我当时想：
“这是机会之地。”
我告诉 Susie：
“我们会变得富有。”
因为怎么会有智商完全正常的人，争先恐后地去做愚蠢的事情？
但他们确实这么做了，而且整个行业就是建立在这种行为之上的。
现在赌博合法化了，而且越开放，人们越喜欢赌。
他们也喜欢在股市里赌。
而且在股市里，至少如果他们坚持长期持有，他们的期望收益是正的。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 但当然，如果他们是赌徒，他们不会长期持有。

QUICK： 所以，你并不喜欢预测市场、合法化体育博彩，甚至日内交易？你基本上是在表达这个意思？

BUFFETT： 嗯，我不认为——我不认为一旦你把它打开，你还能阻止它。
而且一旦各州发现他们可以用 60 美分换来 1 美元的收入——不同州有不同的制度——赌博就会扩散。
我小时候只有一个州允许赌博，而赌博已经存在几百年了。
但当其他州看到它能赚钱，他们也开始加入。
当然，富人喜欢赌博，因为他们不用付账。
州政府从那些真正需要钱的人那里收钱，实际上减轻了我和其他富人的税负。
不是直接的，但净效果就是这样。
所以我不喜欢那些把人变成“冤大头”的东西。
我不喜欢它们。
尤其是当政府来做这件事时，我更不喜欢。
我不认为政府的职能是把自己的人民当傻子。

QUICK： 我爸一直说：彩票是对愚蠢者征税。赌博也是一样吗？

BUFFETT： 它是一种税。
它是对愚蠢征税。
但我并不生那些“愚蠢的人”的气。真的，我没有。
某种程度上，人类就是这样被“设定”的，这是人类天性的一部分。
我不喜欢的是：
他们选出来的政府决定要从这种行为中获利。
我觉得这有点愤世嫉俗。
我不认为政府应该是愤世嫉俗的。
我的意思是——

QUICK： Warren，让我换个话题，问问你对中东目前局势的看法。

BUFFETT： 什么事情？

QUICK： 中东正在发生的事情。

BUFFETT： 哦。

QUICK： 这个话题可以从很多角度谈，但我们先从最直接的——对原油和能源意味着什么？伯克希尔拥有公用事业公司。油价上涨对你们意味着什么？

BUFFETT： 嗯，这意味着我们持有的两只石油股——雪佛龙和西方石油——

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 涨了很多。但这并不意味着我就能预测接下来会发生什么。我不知道明天那边会发生什么。

QUICK： 你长期参与核问题相关的倡议，我想你现在仍在资助这些项目。我知道你在慈善事业中的第一优先事项就是核问题。

BUFFETT： 我认为那是“那个问题”。
我这样说吧：当我上小学时，他们告诉我太阳会在 45 亿年后熄灭。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 我当时挺哲学地接受了这个事实，我能处理这种信息。
但现在，有九个国家拥有核武器，包括朝鲜那位领导人。
总有一天会发生点什么。
当时只有两个国家拥有核武器时，我们已经非常担心了。
而那时的领导人是肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫——他们都是相当理性的领导人，不是不稳定的人。
最终船只掉头了，但当时人们还是躲在桌子底下。
现在想想：
朝鲜已经有核武器，伊朗还想要。
这——这太可怕了。
而我没有答案。

BUFFETT： 1938 或 1939 年，我们做了正确的事。你可以去查，网上到处都有——那封“史上最重要的信”。
Leo Szilard（著名核物理学家，非常聪明，也很幽默）无法把信息传达给罗斯福。
但他知道如果爱因斯坦签字，这封信就能送到。
他最终说服爱因斯坦签了字。
那封信是在德国入侵波兰前一个月写的。
我不认为罗斯福比我更懂 U-235 是什么，但他知道：
如果爱因斯坦签了字，那就必须采取行动。
讽刺的是，他们担心的是德国会先造出核武器，但最终核武器被用在了日本。
BUFFETT： 我们至今仍没有学会如何与核武器共存。
从那以后已经 80 年了，我们经历了很多次惊险时刻。
有一次训练录像带被误放进去，差点让总统下令采取行动。
没有任何理由相信地球还能有 500 年的“预期寿命”。
当我小时候，它的预期寿命是 45 亿年。
我不是在责怪任何人。
我父亲当时在国会，他也会投票支持（曼哈顿计划）。
在对日胜利日（VJ Day），所有人都在庆祝。
但我们无法回头了。

QUICK： 今天尼基•黑利就在你之前上了《Squawk Box》。她说总统应该立即进入伊朗，找到浓缩铀。这是个非常有争议的观点。

BUFFETT： 这是有争议的，但如果我是美国总统，我会支持以某种方式处理这件事。
不过我不想当总统，因为我不想承担这种责任。
我曾经问过一位总统：
“如果苏联已经发射了核武器——它们已经在空中——而我们的政策是‘相互确保毁灭’，你会不会命令战略空军司令部发射我们的核武器？
即使你知道这只会杀死更多更多更多的人，并让大气层受到更严重的污染？”
现在我们又面临——

QUICK： 他怎么回答？

BUFFETT： 他的回答？
这位总统说：
“我每天都在想这个问题。”
因为可能会有一个军官在午夜敲门——

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 对他说：
“我们有确凿证据。这不是北极上空的大雁，也不是误放的训练录像。
我们知道它们已经在空中。
总统先生，你有 10 分钟做决定。
我该告诉战略空军司令部怎么做？
我们要不要发射？”
我以前在 SAC（战略空军司令部）顾问委员会，但那只是政治安排，他们总是想要更多预算。

QUICK： 但那位总统到底怎么回答？他的最终答案是什么？

BUFFETT： 他说：
“我在任期间每天都在想这个问题。”
他当时已经是前总统了。

QUICK： 但他有没有说，如果真的发生，他会怎么做？

BUFFETT： 他说：
“我想答案是：会。我会下令发射。因为那是美国的政策。”

QUICK： 对。所以如果你今天是总统，或者你在给总统提供建议，你会怎么说？应该去摧毁伊朗的浓缩铀吗？

BUFFETT： 我会说：无论以哪种方式，在未来 100 年——也许是 200 年，谁知道呢——但总有一天，会发生某件事，导致核武器被使用。
而我们无法收回现在已经存在的那些武器。
如果你觉得当年只有苏联和我们、而且对手还是像赫鲁晓夫这样完全理性的人都已经够危险了——肯尼迪也一样理性——那就等到你面对像朝鲜那位因为别人批评他发型就恼羞成怒的人时再说吧。
或者，我认为最危险的情况是：掌握核按钮的人本身快要死了，或者面临巨大的羞辱，他觉得“反正我要完了，不如……”

QUICK： 如果他被逼到绝境，对，被逼到绝境。

BUFFETT： 对。

QUICK： 所以这仍然是你认为最重要、最危险的问题之一？

BUFFETT： 是的。

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 只是我不知道解决办法是什么。但我知道：
如果伊朗拥有核武器，情况会比他们没有核武器更糟。

QUICK： 好，Warren，我再换个话题。
自从 2006 年你开始捐赠以来，你已经捐出了将近 600 亿美元，其中大部分捐给了比尔及梅琳达•盖茨基金会。
那你怎么看最近爱泼斯坦文件中那些与比尔•盖茨相关的邮件？

BUFFETT： 我不会具体说我对那些邮件的看法，尤其是关于比尔•盖茨的部分。
但我会说：人类的“人性”真是让我震惊。
你看，有这么一个人——一个已经被定罪的人，一个极具魅力的骗子——他能骗倒那么多人。
他能找到每个人的弱点：可能是性，可能是权力，可能是别的什么。
我无法理解怎么会有人能做到这种程度。
而且当然，这些名人之前都撒过谎——

QUICK： 你是说他们对自己与爱泼斯坦的关系撒谎？

BUFFETT： 嗯，他们以各种方式合理化自己的行为。
但现在一切都被公开了。
我非常庆幸他从来没有来过奥马哈。
或者庆幸我没有住在纽约。
如果我住在纽约，参加一些派对，我可能也会出现在某些场合。
而且总有人想和我合影，我通常都会答应。
我习惯和学生们拍搞怪照片——比如我假装偷某人的钱包，或者向某位女士求婚之类的。
谢天谢地，我从未接近过那个人。
我在 2003 年就读过《名利场》那篇文章——

QUICK： 那篇把他描绘成一个神秘又怪异人物的文章。

BUFFETT： 对，那篇文章写得已经非常谨慎了，因为他们担心被起诉。

QUICK： 它确实让他看起来像个骗子。我最近又读了一遍，就是你推荐的那篇。

BUFFETT： 有趣的是，他最初是在贝尔斯登（Bear Stearns）起家的——

QUICK： 对。

BUFFETT： 他们认识他。他们知道他在各种事情上都对他们撒过谎。
Ace Greenberg 是我的好朋友。嗯，到那时候可能是 Jimmy Cayne 在管理公司，我不太确定。
但 Ace Greenberg 一直非常警觉——他甚至雇了一个人，是我一个朋友的儿子，他的工作就是当 Ace 的“雪貂”（意指专门搜寻隐藏问题的人）。
他的任务就是去找任何被交易员塞在抽屉里、时间久了或规模很大的东西——Ace 对这些事情非常担心。
但不知怎么的，Ace 的女儿好像曾经和 Epstein 约会过。
而那家伙一定是史上最顶级的骗子。
真的——

QUICK： 但当骗子是一回事，贩卖未成年人又是另一回事。

BUFFETT： 完全正确。

QUICK： 性剥削、卖淫。

BUFFETT： 而且他还被起诉过。
尽管他设法通过某种方式摆脱了那次指控——不管当时的司法部长是谁——但他实际上并没有真正坐多少牢。
他就是有办法骗过所有人。
谁知道他给那些人提供了什么条件，让他们愿意帮他？
他能骗任何人。

QUICK： 你有没有担心——

BUFFETT： 他找到了他们的弱点。

QUICK： 你有没有担心——首先，你从爱泼斯坦文件中学到了什么吗？

BUFFETT： 当然。我自己看不太清楚，因为视力很差，但我有朋友会读给我听。
让我震惊的是：居然有人能作为骗子成功到这种程度。
不过你知道，PT Barnum 很久以前就说过：“每一分钟都会诞生一个冤大头。”
而且，人类的弱点很明显：
男人会喜欢性；
有些人喜欢逃税；
不管是什么，他总能找到他们的弱点，然后利用它们。
但这并不能为另一端的那些人开脱。
我的意思是——

QUICK： 对。那么——会有什么后果？

BUFFETT： 在我看来，后果很可能会类似 1969 年发生的事情。
当时约翰逊政府离任，福特基金会雇了一大批从政府离开的人员。
事情会发展到国会觉得：
“追查基金会对我们更有利。”
然后他们就会这么做。
基金会有大量资金，也在华盛顿拥有巨大的影响力——这其实挺让人烦的。
我们以后可以再谈这个。
但在 1969 年，我记得 Ways and Means Committee（众议院筹款委员会）的主席是 Wilbur Mills。
我不记得事情是怎么开始的，但那是基金会监管规则的一次重大修订——

QUICK： 好的。

BUFFETT： 我认为这件事会产生和当年一样的影响。

QUICK： 在爱泼斯坦文件中，你读到的（或别人读给你的）内容，有没有让你担心你捐给盖茨基金会的钱？包括你过去捐的，或未来可能捐的？

BUFFETT： 有很多事情是我之前不知道的。这一点非常清楚。

QUICK： 比如说？

BUFFETT： 嗯，我不知道很多事情。
基金会有三个受托人——

QUICK： 你、Bill 和 Melinda。

BUFFETT： 对，我是三人之一。
我们一年只开一次会。
我没有问过深入的问题。
我的意思是，如果我觉得必须问很多深入的问题，那我一开始就不会把钱捐进去。
顺便说一句，基金会的 CEO 并不一定参与所有事情，但他也不是真正的 CEO。
最终，基金会是 Bill 在管理。
我想我是在他们离婚诉讼发生时才意识到问题的，因为我是在那之后不到一个月就辞职了。

QUICK： 那你当时学到了什么，让你辞职？

BUFFETT： 我意识到：
我根本不知道基金会内部发生了什么。
这并不一定意味着有什么可怕的事情发生，但我确实不知道情况。
而且我也没有问问题。
作为基金会董事，我在 2006 年做了决定（开始捐赠），但我不认为在基金会会议上介入别人的婚姻问题是合适的。
他们在会议上讨论了一些无关紧要的小事，然后又雇了一些非常糟糕的人。
我从未见过那些人。那个家伙——

QUICK： 你是说 Boris Nikolic？

BUFFETT： 对。我甚至不知道——

QUICK： 他在爱泼斯坦文件中被频繁提到。

BUFFETT： 我从来没听说过他。
从目前披露的内容来看，他看起来是一个非常不适合被雇用的人。
当然，我也雇过糟糕的人，但我们会把他们清理掉。

QUICK： Boris Nikolic 最终也被基金会清理掉了。
那你有和 Bill Gates 谈过这些事吗？

BUFFETT： 没有。我完全没有和他谈过，自从事情曝光以来一次都没有。
我不想处在一个“知道太多”的位置。
我可能会被传唤作证。

QUICK： 那你会继续捐钱给盖茨基金会吗？
你从 2006 年以来，每年 6 月都会捐。

BUFFETT： 嗯，是的，我确实同意每年捐一次，但我大多数时候都是在 6 月 30 日左右捐。我会等等看事情如何发展。
股票不会跑掉的。
又不是说我把它们全捐出去就没了。
但我会等着看看我还能学到什么。
这些年来，我学到了一些我之前完全不知道的事情。
我也不知道他们的婚姻问题会如何发展。
我的意思是，我真的不知道。
有时候你能猜到某些人关系不太好，但那在每段婚姻里都会发生——总有时候夫妻会互相烦躁，或者发生点什么。
总之，我会继续观察。
而且文件有三百五十万页，或者不管是多少页——真的令人震惊。

QUICK： 在爱泼斯坦文件里。

BUFFETT： 对，爱泼斯坦文件。
而且有很多内容是被涂黑的。
显然，任何与爱泼斯坦有牵连的人——从他们得知这些内容将被公开的那一刻起——他们的日子就不好过了。
他们现在已经无法掩盖了，事情已经发展得太远。

QUICK： 那现在的情况是——我想你处在一个两难的位置，如果你不——

BUFFETT： ——把钱捐出去。那是肯定的。

QUICK： 对。如果你不把钱捐给盖茨基金会，你是不是违反了你当初的承诺？
但如果你继续捐，你是不是等于认可了某些行为？
而这些行为——我们可能还没有完全了解全部事实。

BUFFETT： 这就是为什么我想继续了解情况。
我今天不需要做决定，我今天也没有做决定。
但我确实在不断阅读相关内容——实际上是别人读给我听。
我一直对爱泼斯坦事件感到震惊。
但这些文件揭示了人性，以及金钱、性或其他因素如何驱动人类行为。
这个人（爱泼斯坦）找到了别人的弱点——但那些人确实做了事情。
如果你问我的个人看法：
我不认为 Bill（盖茨）参与了女孩、岛屿或类似的事情。
但在阅读这些内容时，我确实学到了很多其他事情。
而这些内容正在一个接一个地毁掉人。
让我震惊的是，人类能做出多糟糕的事情。
当然，有些事情是双方自愿的，但这个人——
一天到底有多少小时？
三百五十万页的通信记录，所有的策划、操控……
他找到了人们的弱点，而且他非常懂得如何利用它们。
他利用了那个叫 Boris 的人。
他利用了高盛的那位女性。
你看向哪里，都能看到他的操控。
我从未见过类似的事情。
而且我敢肯定，一旦把那些被涂黑的内容公开，我们会知道更多。

QUICK： 所以你在等文件里进一步披露的内容——

BUFFETT： 当然。

QUICK： ——以及可能来自国会听证会的内容？

BUFFETT： 是的。我认为他们可能会修改关于基金会的法律。

QUICK： 你认为——抱歉，你是说你认为——

BUFFETT： 我认为有很大可能性。但国会行动不会那么快。
不过我认为国会会对公众愤怒的事情做出反应，而公众会对爱泼斯坦事件感到愤怒。

QUICK： 但你刚才说，你认为他们可能会因此修改基金会相关法律？

BUFFETT： 哦，是的。我认为可能会有重大基金会听证会。

QUICK： 而这些修改可能会针对基金会，比如取消它们的免税资格？

BUFFETT： 国会会想表现出他们“正在采取行动”。
而基金会过去做了更多游说工作。
我的意思是，几乎没有任何“反基金会”的游说，但基金会本身一直在华盛顿活动，所有人都会去华盛顿。

QUICK： 你——

BUFFETT： 让我震惊的是——不，华盛顿现在真的变得非常重要。
那里决定资金怎么分配，规则怎么制定。

QUICK： 你认为基金会总体来说做了好事吗？
你认为盖茨基金会做了好事吗？

BUFFETT： 哦，我确信他们做了好事。
如果他们没做一些好事，他们根本不可能存在到现在。
问题是：规则是否会改变？
他们能做什么、他们的税收待遇是否会改变？
看看哈佛就知道了。
一旦公众舆论改变，国会就会改变——事情就是这样运作的。

QUICK： 你后悔把钱捐给盖茨基金会吗？

BUFFETT： 不，不后悔。

QUICK： 所以你仍然对这些捐赠感到满意——

BUFFETT： 是的，我的意思是，我当然希望某些事情没有发生。
但我不认为他们拿钱去中饱私囊或类似的事情。
Bill 为基金会投入了巨大的精力。
Melinda 也投入了巨大的精力。
现在的 CEO 也是如此。
他是一个我自己都会雇用的人。

QUICK： Mark Suzman。
BUFFETT： 对。我认为他实际上是他们有过的最好的 CEO。
我一点也不羡慕他的工作。
但我也认为我会继续观察。
他们现在掌控着 960 亿美元。

QUICK： 在基金会里。

BUFFETT： 对，在基金会里。没有任何基金会有这么多钱。

QUICK： 虽然 Bill 也说过，他计划在未来 20 年内迅速把这些钱花出去。

BUFFETT： 嗯，他自己还有很多钱可以继续往里加。我不知道事情最终会怎样。

QUICK： 你、Bill 和 Melinda 还共同发起了“捐赠誓言”，让全球的亿万富翁承诺捐出至少一半的财富，无论是在生前还是死后。
你们让几百人签署了这个誓言——

BUFFETT： 两百多人。

QUICK： 对，大约 250 多人签署了。

BUFFETT： 我很惊讶我们能得到这么多人。
Bill 做了一件值得称赞的事：他把这个理念带到了海外。
你实际上在改变一些社会的行为模式——虽然只是小幅度的。
美国在很多方面都是一个实验，包括私人慈善事业。
而这些小小的改变正在世界各地出现，这挑战了几百年来的传统行为。
Bill 对任何事情投入的能量都令人难以置信。
我太懒了，我不会满世界跑。
我觉得我们启动了一件好事。
而且我认为，没有任何一个签署“捐赠誓言”的人比原本会捐的更少。
我们从未告诉他们要捐给谁，也从未告诉他们什么时候捐。
这不是法律意义上的誓言。
但我们确实得到了非常强烈的回应。

QUICK： 最近有一些文章提到某些科技亿万富翁的反对，比如 Peter Thiel、Marc Andreessen，他们说他们不喜欢“捐赠誓言”，觉得它太“觉醒”（woke）。

BUFFETT： 嗯，如果他们不喜欢，他们可以退出。
他们本来也没有签署任何法律文件。
富人不喜欢其他富人，这可能有各种原因，谁知道呢。
但我可以说：
我敢打赌，没有任何人因为“捐赠誓言”而捐得更少。
而且有相当数量的人——不是巨大数量，但也不少——捐得更早或捐得更多。
最大的反对意见通常来自母亲们：
她们不想成为媒体报道的对象，不想被写成“超级富豪”。
我不能责怪她们。
但很多人还是加入了。
甚至有一个人加入，是因为他说：
“我只是想和 Becky Quick 吃顿午餐。”
我说：我觉得——但他显然没有继续跟进。

QUICK： 没有，我从来没收到他的消息。

BUFFETT： 但我的意思是——当你聚集一群亿万富翁，你会遇到各种奇怪的人。
不是说那件事奇怪——我知道我应该把这个当作对你的赞美。
让我惊讶的是我们得到的反响。
我们只是开始打电话，先从最明显的人开始。
当然，现在新增人数下降了。
我们真诚地告诉大家：
我们不评判他们的财富来源。
如果他们靠卖酒赚钱，我们也不评判。
我们只关心他们怎么使用这些钱。
我们只是说：
拜托，把至少一半捐出去。
这和一个拥有百年家族农场、计划把土地传给孩子的家庭完全不同。
但对像我这样靠股票赚钱的人来说，这不是一个情感上的决定。
所以我对“捐赠誓言”感到满意。

QUICK： 你说你没有和 Bill 谈过爱泼斯坦文件相关的事情。
你们现在还是好朋友吗？

BUFFETT： 我们一起度过了很多美好时光。
他对我的照顾可能比对任何人都好。
他安排旅行时会特别准备我喜欢的食物，甚至在中国也会准备《华尔街日报》。
他一直对我非常体贴。
但我认为在事情澄清之前，不适合多谈。
一方面，我的记忆力已经不行了。
我不想在宣誓作证时被要求回忆 20、30 年的基金会历史。
我除了捐钱之外没有参与其他事情。
你可以说我失职，但我也把钱捐给了我孩子的基金会，我也从不检查他们捐给谁。
我信任别人。
而我认为我信任的人都是好人。
但我也能理解：
如果某人的生活里出现过像爱泼斯坦这样的人，他们不想谈论这件事。
我也不会想谈。
对我来说很幸运的是：
Bill 从来没有说“来吧，我带你去见 Epstein”。
他本可以这么做，那可能会毁掉我的人生。
如果他在某次年度会议后说：“我去纽约，你一起吧，有个有趣的人你应该见见。”
我可能真的会跟他去。
所以我得感谢他没有这么做。
但你也无法否认已经发生的事情。
也无法否认基金会是一个特殊的存在——
美国长期支持慈善扣税、捐赠者建议基金等制度。
这些制度可能需要比每 30 或 40 年一次更频繁地审视。
基金会的游说基本上就是：
“请别管我们。”

QUICK： 我们节目还剩 87 秒。你还有什么想补充的吗？因为我觉得我们还没覆盖够多内容。

BUFFETT： 嗯，我觉得有趣的是：
你看，美国是世界的奇迹；
但与此同时，你也有大量的人，他们和你我一样是人类。
他们可能没有同样的智商或其他条件，但我认为差距太大了。
不过我也认为，这个体系总体上是有效的。
那么问题来了：
我们要如何在一个基本上被分成两个阵营、无论议题是什么都自动对立的体系里解决这些问题？

QUICK： 你是说民主党和共和党？

BUFFETT： 对，民主党和共和党。我的意思是——

QUICK： 我们还剩 20 秒。

BUFFETT： 党派分裂比以往任何时候都严重；
但我们也比以往任何时候都繁荣，比任何人曾经想象的都繁荣。
所以你必须承认：资本主义是有效的。
但它仍然需要——
我想我们时间到了。

QUICK： 我们结束了，还剩 3 秒。你是民主党人还是共和党人？
BUFFETT： 我两个都当过。
1960 年我甚至以共和党人身份出现在选票上。
我父亲非常共和党。
后来我转向民主党，现在我是独立人士。

QUICK： 我们就以这个答案作为结尾，下次再继续聊。Warren，非常感谢你的时间。

BUFFETT： 很开心。

[shepherd17]

英文

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett Speaks with CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/cnbc-ex ... today.html

WHEN: Tuesday, March 31, 2026

WHERE: CNBC’s “Squawk Box”

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC exclusive interview with Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”
JOE KERNEN: Welcome back to “Squawk Box.” Let’s get to Becky. It says let’s get to Becky Quick who’s in Omaha, Nebraska with a very special – that’s not enough. With a very – I need some more. Varies, maybe, very, very, very –

BECKY QUICK: A very, very, special guest.

KERNEN: Very.

QUICK: A little more pomp and circumstance. Maybe we need some music.

KERNEN: Music. Warren Buffett. It’s been so long, it’s just gonna be awesome.

QUICK: Yeah. He’s here.

KERNEN: He is awesome. Tell him I said hi and I love him.

BECKY QUICK: I will. Joe says, hi. You know he loves you, Joe. He’s waving to you right now. We do have a very special guest today, Warren Buffett, the Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, former CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and this first time that we are sitting down with him since he stepped down from that CE role – CEO role. Warren, welcome. It is wonderful to see you this morning.

WARREN BUFFETT: It is fun to be on.

QUICK: You are on for an interesting reason. For 22 years, you had been holding an annual luncheon, an auction for a luncheon, to benefit the Glide Foundation in San Francisco. You retired from that – from doing that back in 2022 after you’d raised more than $50 million I think the last auction that you raised – that you did raised –

BUFFETT: $19 million.

QUICK: $19,000,100 for the Glide Foundation. And you kind of hung it up and said that was going to be the end. You are back with a new announcement today that there is a new auction that is coming with a twist. This time it’s Warren Buffett, Stephen Curry and Ayesha Curry, and they’re going to be having a new luncheon to benefit not only the Glide Foundation, but the Curry’s foundation as well, which is, Eat, Learn, Play. And this auction is going to be held May 7. It starts at 7:30pm Pacific time. It closes on May 14, at 7:30pm exactly. And all of the benefits of that is going to go to benefit these two foundations, Glide and the Eat, Learn, Play Foundation. How did this come about? Why did you unretire from this?

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, let me tell you first how I got into it because my first wife, Susie, was living in San Francisco and she said to me, this guy is real.

QUICK: This guy being Cecil.

BUFFETT: Cecil. Yeah, Cecil Williams, who came to that church in 1963 and it was a dying church in a changing part of the neighborhood in San Francisco, and they weren’t glad to see him the 100 or so parishioners that were left. But he turned it into something that became – it gave hope and life to people that the world had given up on. And I went on Sunday still expecting something less than that, and I watched Cecil, and I could see what he was doing, and he was for real. And so Susie, at some point, said, why don’t you do something to raise some money for him? You know, and so, I think she actually selected the idea of the lunch, and then we did the lunch. The first three lunches brought $25,000 each because they were localized. And then we got the idea of going on eBay. And then we started getting bids from around the world. And it just generally kept moving up, although it wasn’t every single year, but it just – it just put us on the map. And as the final amount, 19 million was raised. Now that was kind of raised because it was the last one, I think, I was doing NFL that had bought an earlier lunch, but I didn’t make any calls to him or do anything. He just turned out to be – it inspires people. And Smith & Wollensky, as you know, covered it in New York sometimes.

QUICK: That’s often where you had the lunch with the winners of this.

BUFFETT: Yeah. And some of them wanted to be anonymous. And a couple came to Omaha along the line because they had some special thing they wanted to talk about. But I think everybody felt like they were glad they did it, and I was glad to do it.

QUICK: Why’d you stop?

BUFFETT: Well, I ran out of gas. You know, I got to be what, 93 at that time, or something like that. And it just – same reason I gave up teaching. I teach – I was – I taught every year from when I was 21 till 88 or 89, and there just came a period when your body said different things to you, and you should turn it over to somebody, just like I did at Berkshire. I mean, at different times, on different things, but I – and so we thought we had a continuation of it all set up, and then for one reason or another, it fizzled. And so the last two years, well, I think the first year, some board member made up some members – but basically the auction disappeared.

QUICK: So they haven’t had the funds coming in.

BUFFETT: No. And Cecil Williams was about my age – and it got so I couldn’t understand him on the phone or anything like that, but all he wanted was this to continue. And so I don’t know where the idea came from exactly, but I said I would do one more, just to get us started again and to have Steph Curry join us in the Bay Area. I mean, it’s just a natural.

QUICK: Right. The Eat, Learn, Play Foundation that Stephen and Ayesha Curry have set up is in the Bay Area as well.

BUFFETT: Exactly.

QUICK: So they’re locally focused on all of these things. For people who don’t know, the Glide Foundation was also, it was highlighted in the movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” with Will Smith. So people may have a little bit of an idea of what that’s about. Why Steph Curry? How did that come about?

BUFFETT: Well, I mean, who can say it better? I mean, he’s working with the kids in Oakland. I mean, these are kids between five and 15, or something like that, and he plays basketball with them. And I mean, he’s a terrific guy. I don’t – I haven’t met him personally.

QUICK: But you did talk to Stephen and Ayesha.

BUFFETT: We had a long talk on the phone. And it’s his baby, and he can carry it forth. And, incidentally, whatever is bid this year, I will make the equal contribution. I don’t think – Steph doesn’t know this yet, but I will make an equal contribution to both Glide and to Steph’s –

QUICK: To the Curry’s foundation.

BUFFETT: Yeah. And, you know, just go on to new heights. And Steph is the hero of millions and millions of people. So, I think – I really think as a reward, I think it will continue to be what Cecil hoped it to be. And it would have killed me to have it just die off. And as much what Cecil poured into it himself, he believed everybody was worthwhile. And the world had given up on these people, and he may have started giving a little bit of food to them before he got through – he was doing all these things at Glide. And he never gave up on anybody.

QUICK: And I know that you’ve said that Astrid really liked him, too.

BUFFETT: Oh yeah. Astrid, my second wife. And you couldn’t help but like him. I mean, when you watched him up there with people that the world had given up on and he says to him, I’ll feed you. I’ll have a bed for you. We’ll have a location for you. You know we’re not going to give up on you. And never did.

QUICK: Warren, this is the first time that we’re sitting down with you since you stepped down from the position of CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

BUFFETT: Yeah.

QUICK: It was a long, long run. Very successful run. How is your life different today?

BUFFETT: Well, it’s not much different, except for the – I mean, I go in every day.

QUICK: To the office?

BUFFETT: Yeah. I go in every day to the office. I don’t accomplish hardly anything. I mean, in terms of – it just takes me way longer to do things. And Greg is so good. It was kind of embarrassing how good he is, because he has covered – you know, we’ve got about 200 businesses within Berkshire, you know, that came about, and I can’t name the manager’s names or their wives names, or – and I haven’t seen them, you know, in a long time. It’s easier just to write the letter once a year and kind of do my own thing. Greg covers more ground in a day than I would in a week, even when I was at my peak, let alone my present condition. So it’s a move that in many ways, I could have done it earlier, and Greg would have been better than I was, but you know, and I can still contribute just a tiny bit.

QUICK: Well, are you still involved in making investments at all?

BUFFETT: Yeah. Yeah, but I won’t make any that Greg thinks are wrong. And he’ll run – he’s starting to get a few calls, and he’ll call me about them, and like me, he doesn’t like them, but –

QUICK: Calls for deals?

BUFFETT: He’ll keep me posted. Yeah, Well, yeah. It’s investment bankers calling him and – they will see him – you know, they will try to sell anything. But I cut them off in about 10 or 15 seconds, and he’s – he spends more time with them, but I don’t know where he gets this time, because he plays hockey with his – I mean, it isn’t like he’s as fanatic as I was in terms of running the place, but with no more apparent effort, he just covers so many bases.

QUICK: In terms of what you’re doing with investing. I mean, that’s a huge amount of money. How much cash does Berkshire have on hand at this point?

BUFFETT: I don’t know the exact number, but it’s not much different than before. So you know, it’s probably north of $350 billion in cash and treasury bills.

QUICK: Yeah. So –

BUFFETT: We bought 17 billion this week.

QUICK: 17 billion of T bills?

BUFFETT: Of T bills.

QUICK: Berkshire is the largest owner of T bills?

BUFFETT: I think we’re probably the largest bidder. And ironically, I got involved in Solomon because they bid for too many bills. And I don’t think they’d get mad at us now – we’ve been for too many but, you’re not supposed to go over 35% or something in the auction. And of course, you bid through the primary dealers. But I don’t even know the mechanics that well, but one fellow in our office handles all the mechanics of the stocks and bonds we buy.

QUICK: Mark Millard.

BUFFETT: Yeah, exactly. At anyplace else they’d have 25 or 30 people. And he loves what he does, and I love what he does. He’s down the hall about 20 feet, about every hour or hour and a half, he brings me in what we’ve done. And sometimes –

QUICK: What Berkshire has done, just in terms of the markets that day?

BUFFETT: Yeah, I call him. I call him before the market opens, because I see what’s been going on pre market, and probably change the limits only. I don’t get lots of different stocks or anything like that. Every now and then, I’ll let it do something, and I will change – prices daily.

QUICK: But you don’t do that – you don’t check with Greg before you’re doing that? You check with Greg on a regular –

BUFFETT: Well, Greg gets the sheet every day.

QUICK: Oh, he does, too.

BUFFETT: He doesn’t get it quite as fast as I get it. I mean – but he probably gets it sent over at the end of the day or something of the sort. And if Greg differed with me on anything, we wouldn’t be doing it.

QUICK: But you’re still making new purchases?

BUFFETT: Pardon me?

QUICK: You’re still making new purchases?

BUFFETT: Got one tiny purchase, but we aren’t finding things that – we weren’t finding them before.

QUICK: Well, let’s talk about that. The market has come down substantially.

BUFFETT: Not substantially.

QUICK: Well, you’ve got both the Dow and the Nasdaq in correction territory. It’s the worst performance on a quarterly basis for stocks in about four years. Do things look cheaper to you?

BUFFETT: No. Three times since I’ve taken over Berkshire, it’s gone down more than 50%. I mean, if you look at the markets, of the worst, probably was the 2007, 08′ period, although it was that one Monday, when you had 21% in a day. I mean, this is nothing. I mean—

QUICK: This is nothing to make you get excited and think there’s huge valuation—

BUFFETT: Well if they’re 5 or 6% cheaper, that doesn’t, we aren’t in it to make 5 or 6% I mean, but what a big seller either, in the end, we own businesses. Sometimes there’s only owned, sometimes they’re partly owned. That’s what I like to own. And two thirds of our money, or more is in our businesses. And we bought Occidental Chemical on January 3, that was 9.7 billion. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s got some advantages, some disadvantages, versus owning a stock, but it’s got the same principles attached to it. It is a business, and it’s a business we expect to own, you know, indefinitely. I mean—

QUICK: Are you, I mean, it doesn’t sound like you’re necessarily finding businesses that you want to own flat out either, not just purchasing portions of them if you’ve got $350 billion plus sitting around.

BUFFETT: Yeah and we get calls all the time, and there’s so many calls, but the like I said, it takes me five seconds to say no. It takes, Greg’s a little more polite than I am, but I just as soon get the calls just to see what people are doing. But they aren’t offering anything that’s at an attractive price, and what they want is a trade.

QUICK: Are you waiting for the next big drop in the market to deploy that cash, and if so, when do you see that coming?

BUFFETT: Yeah, if there is a big decline, we will deploy, I mean, but we won’t, we will deploy it because stocks are attractive or businesses are attractive to us, and we are not planning to sell them next week or next month, so we want to be right on them. And we’ve had our American Express stock 30 years without having a -- close to 40 years, 35 years. And on the other hand, there’s things I change my mind on fairly quickly, but, but the goal is own the owned businesses, and when we buy Occidental Chemical, we expect all of that 50 years from now. You know, the world can change in some way, but that we do not, we do not buy that with a thought of resale.

QUICK: You’ve sold a lot of stock that’s done very well for you, Apple—

BUFFETT: Well, I sold it too soon, but I bought it even sooner. So, it worked out. Yeah, I think we’ve made over $100 billion in that pretax.

QUICK: But you’re regretting it? You say you sold it too soon?

BUFFETT: No, no, I don’t have any ability to predict what stocks will do next week or next month and I will buy them if they’re cheap. I’ll buy a whole lot of them if they’re cheap and I think I really understand the business, and Apple is still our largest single investment.

QUICK: And you like it that way?

BUFFETT: Yeah, well, if I didn’t like it, I could sell it. Yeah, I can, I think it’s a remark -- it’s better than any business we own outright. Now, we own a railroad that’s worth more money than our Apple position, for example, they’re both looked at the same way. I mean, they’re both, they’re both businesses. I expect the, I think it’s more predictable in a certain sense, that the railroad will be around 50 or 100 years from now, but it doesn’t earn the rate remotely on capital than Apple does. I mean, Apple is a business that you’ve got one, probably and your kids have got them, and—

QUICK: Not one, we’ve got like 20 of them.

BUFFET: Yeah, devices. Actually, the Bell Telephone Company was that way at one point, but they were regulated.

QUICK: Well, do you worry about regulation coming for some of these big tech companies, in particular Apple?

BUFFETT: I think the consumers are in love with them too much. I don’t, I don’t think Washington will do anything that really destroys something that every one of their voters likes and they’re using themselves. I mean, it’s a remarkable product that way. Just think of something as useful as the Apple is. I mean, it’s, Tim Cook has done better with the hand than Steve Jobs. He couldn’t have done what Steve Jobs did, but Steve Jobs handed him a hand that Steve would not have done as well. Steve picked him. I mean, when you get right down to it, and Tim was a fantastic manager, and he’s a good guy, and somehow he gets along with everybody in the world, which is, you know, that’s, that’s a technique I wouldn’t have for example. Certainly my partner, Charlie Munger, wouldn’t have had it, but I’m very happy to have it be our largest open. I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined.

QUICK: Okay, that makes sense.

BUFFETT: Although at a price I was, and they could—

QUICK: Right. Hold it up—

BUFFETT: It’s not impossible that Apple would get to a price, we would buy a lot of it, but not in this market. I mean, it just isn’t going to happen in this market.

QUICK: How much would stocks have to come down for you to think that this is really attractive, if it’s—

BUFFETT: Well it depends on the stock. Some stocks now, generally speaking, they move together to quite a degree, but, but I don’t think I know what the market’s going to do. I do think I’ve got a reasonable idea of what a business is worth. I have no idea what the stock market’s going to do, and I don’t think anybody else does either.

QUICK: You don’t necessarily follow tech companies and Apple, people look at as a tech company, but you always looked at as a consumer company.

BUFFET: It’s a consumer.

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: Company.

QUICK: So what do you do about all of these tech stocks and the AI trends that are there? Do you try and follow any of that? Do you get involved in any of those industries?

BUFFETT: Well I don’t because A, I wouldn’t be any good at it, and besides, I’m so late to the game. I am not learning new things well. I still don’t know what to do with the phone, but I just recognize the fact that that you know you’re going to have one, and your kids are going to want one, and and it is a terribly useful, I mean, it’s incredibly useful. And you get something that’s useful and offered worldwide, and where, to some extent, you’re a little worried about maybe moving your photos from one system to another. All I had to do was go out to Nebraska Furniture Mart and talk to customers is what, that’s what I did 60 years ago at American Express when they were looked at like they were done for on the salad oil scandal. And I went down to the Omaha National Bank, and I said, are you getting a premium for American Express tickets? They can sell their traveler’s check for more than Citigroup, Bank of America, Barclays, everybody had and they were getting a premium at the same time, everybody else was worried about them getting in, getting out of business. And the same thing, when they actually started their card, they were going up against Diners Club and Carte Blanche, who had come first. And they came they came on later. And instead of coming in at a cut price, they came in at a price above the competition. That says a lot about how consumers felt about American Express.

QUICK: Warren, let me ask you about the economy because the Fed is in a bit of a quandary right now, just trying to figure out which one of its mandates it’s more worried about. Is it worried about inflation potentially rising more. Is it worried about the jobs market and, you know, potential decline in economic output? What, what of those two issues would worry you most if you were at the Fed right now?

BUFFETT: Well, if I were at the Fed, the thing I’d worry about always is, you know, you’re the reserve currency of the world. I mean, so you’ve got very smart people, very sophisticated people, the American dollar looks like nothing could happen to it. I don’t feel anything could happen to it. But if it does happen to it, I would, I would, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of running the Fed.

QUICK: But what I mean—

BUFFETT: The world will be dependent on it doing it. And last time in 2007 and 08′, you had Congress that essentially felt they knew more about it than Secretary Treasury. And so they really gummed things up when they when they turned on TARP the first time. And I mean, it was, I think now people better understand what, the Fed can print money.

QUICK: The Fed can print money, and we have a president, President Trump, who would like to see the Fed cut rates? Would you cut rates if you were there right now?

BUFFETT: I don’t know what, what I do there. I mean, I think that Jay Powell in when, when the epidemic broke out, I think he acted in March of 2020 and I think if he’d waited two or three weeks, it would have been a disaster. Once the dominoes start toppling, they just start toppling and, and, and, and that line is shorter than anybody thinks, and it topples faster. And I think he did exactly the right thing, and he, he did it even stronger than Volker did. You know, I mean, he, he and Volker are my heroes at the Fed.

QUICK: Did they keep rates low for too long? I mean, I think that’s, as they didn’t worry about inflation, as they said it was going to be transitory? Because I think even Powell himself said that he might wish he’d turned it sooner.

BUFFETT: Well, I wish they had a zero inflation target.

QUICK: Right.

BUFFETT: But, I mean, once you start saying you’re going to tolerate 2 percent, that compounds pretty dramatically over time. And you’re saying to people, if you’re getting less than 2 percent on your money, you’re going backwards. And, actually, if you pay tax, you may pay tax on the 2 percent. You know, I mean, I don’t like that particular goal. But—

QUICK: So, inflation is maybe what you’d be more concerned about? I mean, that’s what Greenspan, Alan Greenspan always said.

BUFFETT: Yes. I would be, I would care about inflation. I would compare what I really would care about is the stability of the banks.

QUICK: Yes.

BUFFETT: I mean, the banking system, in some sense is very strong, in other sense, is very fragile. I mean, JPMorgan in the last couple annual reports reported doing $10 trillion of business per day. Now, that’s an unsecured policy. Now, they know what they’re doing. Believe me. I mean, there’s nobody smarter than JP-- but I don’t want -- I didn’t want -- during the 2008 period, I didn’t want anything unsecured, you know, out there for a day. I mean, who knew? Nobody was any good. You know, I mean, it, the world is very interconnected and everybody panics. I mean, it, you know, they may say they don’t, but you can call the biggest investment banking firms and they say, well, they don’t answer the phone even if things get bad enough. And if they do answer the phone, you know, they say 10 bid, 20 offered subject.

QUICK: Yes. I mean, Joe will talk about that day that you mentioned in where the Dow was down 21 percent. I think he was, at that point, he said it himself. He was hiding under his desk for the calls that were coming in.

BUFFETT: Yes. And—

QUICK: Because when liquidity disappears, it disappears—

BUFFETT: 21 percent and that was some day, and it just kept coming. And most of the specialist firms, which then counted for more in terms of the stability of the markets. They were broke. I mean, as I remember, they went around to their banks and said, just don’t pull the loans, you know, but they, people, they were supposed to keep making markets, but people just kept hitting the bid and can widen the spread out. You got circuit breakers now, all kinds of things. But when people are scared, they’re scared. And people, if you yell fire in a crowded theater, everybody runs. Still, it still pays to beat people to the door, you know, and I can get trampled, you know, so, I will stand back there and say everybody to stay calm, you know? But that’s because I can’t run fast. On the other hand, when people come back into the theater, they come in one at a time. They know they don’t have to get into it. But when people panic, they panic.

QUICK: But is it the banking system we should be concerned about right now, or is it the shadow banking system, the private credit at this point?

BUFFETT: Well, it’s all parts of the banking system because they all affect each other and the troubles from one can spread over to another. And, well, you saw what happened, I mean, in 2008.

QUICK: But at risk of potentially, I don’t want people to say that you are commenting on what’s happening in the private credit situation right now. What do you think of the private credit situation right now? Are there enough concerning issues there that you worry that it could cause a contagion—

BUFFETT: I don’t think I know.

QUICK: Okay.

BUFFETT: I don’t, I do not think I know what, but, therefore, I want to be prepared for anything, and, therefore, we will always have, we’ll always have cash around and we’ll have treasury bills. We won’t have money market funds. We didn’t have them in 2008. We won’t have commercial paper in 2008. There’s just one thing that’s legal tender. And, you know, if you own treasury bills, and we have known, we don’t own treasury bonds way out. I mean, but every Monday, the treasury has to sell bills. And as long as they got to sell, you know, X billions worth of bills, I mean, they kind of a, they can print some money to do it, and they’ll do it.

QUICK: But just to put a fine point on it, you don’t think you know what’s happening out there. You’ve had this huge cash forward north of $350 billion. It’s just there waiting for any time. It’s not that you necessarily think that there’s something on the horizon. It’s just the longer time goes—

BUFFETT: Oh, sure. No, I always want to have—

QUICK: Yes.

BUFFETT: Yes. And I never want to buy anything just because people think the market is going up.

QUICK: Yes.

BUFFETT: I mean, the idea that people think they know what the market’s going to do is just crazy. I mean, the idea that they would shout out to the world, you know, that something they really knew, I mean, that’s like saying if they had gold -- found gold in their backyard, they’d come on television and say, here’s where the gold is in my backyard, you know? I mean, they’re selling something.

QUICK: They want other people to follow, you mean?

BUFFETT: Well, they know that there’s a certain, I mean, there’s people in the United States and other parts of the world, but you’ve seen how much they like to gamble. And, basically, you have this incredible cathedral called the American Economic System. Nobody’s seen anything like it. I mean, it’s the cathedral of all cathedrals. But attached to it is a casino and people can walk back and forth between the two. And believe me, people like to gamble. I mean, they gamble with the odds against them in the market. They can actually gamble if they -- well, they really aren’t gambling if they do it, but, I mean, if they just buy a stock and sit for 50 years, if they got a group of them, they’re going to do fine. I mean, the American capitalism system works and betting against the house does not work. I mean, it’s just -- it’s so simple. But, people like to gamble. I mean–

QUICK: When you say gamble, are you talking–

BUFFETT: I had my honeymoon in 1952.

QUICK: Yes.

BUFFETT: We went through Las – Susie and I. We just got my Aunt Alice’s car. And we drove and we went through Las Vegas at the time. And I watched all these people who were dressed well and they’d flown on jets. They’d flown, you know, for many hours, spent much money and everything else to go and pull handles, you know, or do something that was mathematically dumb. And I thought, this is the land of opportunity. I told them we were going to get rich. I mean, how can you have people who have perfectly decent IQs rushing to do dumb things, which they do, and industries build on it. Now, it’s become legalized and the more they open it up, the more people like to do it. They like to do it in the stock market. And actually in the stock market, at least they got a favorable expectancy if they just sit tight.

QUICK: Right.

BUFFETT: But they don’t sit tight, of course, if they, if they’re gamblers.

QUICK: So, you’re not – so you’re not a fan of prediction markets, of legalized sports gambling, even of day trading, is that basically what you’re saying?

BUFFETT: Well, I don’t think, I don’t think you can stop it once you open it up, and once the states found out that they could pay about 60 cents on the dollar, or something like that, whatever they may have different systems for different states. There was one state it was legal in when I was a kid, and we’ve been around for hundreds of years. But then once people saw how that was working, other places took it up. And of course, rich people love it because they don’t have to pay. I mean, to the extent that the states raise money from people who that what the dollar really means something to them, actually relieves the taxes on me or other rich people. I mean, it’s not direct. I mean it, but it’s, it’s the net effect. So I don’t like things that make a sucker out of people. I don’t like them. I particularly don’t like them when the government sponsors them. I don’t think the government should play its I don’t think the function of the government is to play its people for suckers.

QUICK: My dad has always said the lottery is a tax on the stupid gambling, same thing?

BUFFETT: It’s a tax. It’s a tax on stupidity. But it’s, it’s, but I’m not mad at the people that are stupid. No, I really am not. I mean, you can’t help it, to some extent, if you’re human beings, you’re geared that way when somehow, you know, it’s developed within the humans. I don’t like it when the government that they elect decides they’re going to profit off that sort of activity. And I particularly, I think it’s kind of cynical. I don’t think, I don’t think you should have a cynical government. I mean it’s—

QUICK: Warren, let me let me shift gears and ask a little bit about what you think that is happening, that’s happening about what’s happening in the Middle East right now.

BUFFETT: What’s happening with what?

QUICK: What’s happening in the Middle East?

BUFFETT: Oh.

QUICK: There’s a lot of ways we could go with this, but why don’t we start with just what it means for crude oil and energy in particular? Berkshire owns a utility company. What do these higher prices mean?

BUFFETT: Well, it, it means the two oil positions we have, Chevron and Occidental—

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: Go up a lot. But that doesn’t mean I can go around predicting what will happen next. I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow over there.

QUICK: Yeah. You for a long time were involved with the nuclear initiative. I think still are funding that. And I know your very first priority in philanthropy was the nuclear problem.

BUFFETT: I think it’s the problem. I think, it -- well, I’ll put it this way. When I was -- when I went to school, grammar school, they told me the sun was going to burn out in 4.5 billion years.

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: I took that pretty philosophically. I mean, I could handle that. And now, you’ve got nine countries, including, you know, a guy in North Korea. I mean, and there will be, something will happen. And we worried enormously about it when there were two. And we had perfectly, we had really pretty sane leaders in Kennedy and Khrushchev. You know, I mean, you were not dealing with unstable people or anything like that. And. You know, the ships turned around, but people were hiding under their desks with two. I mean, just think how you feel with North Korea having it and Iran wanting to get it. I mean, it -- it is -- and I don’t have an answer for that. I mean, we did the right thing in 1938 even or 1939. You can go look at it. It’s all over the Internet. The most important letter ever written. And Leo Szilard could not get the message to. He was a famous nuclear physicist. Terrific one. Very funny too. And he couldn’t get the message to Roosevelt, but he knew if Einstein signed the letter, that it would get there, and he finally got Einstein to sign the letter. And that letter was a month before the Germans started rolling into Poland. And I don’t think Roosevelt understood U-235 any better than I do. I mean, you know, but he knew if Einstein signed it, he better do something. And the funny thing is, of course, he was doing it because he was worried about the Germans getting it. And it was actually used on the Japanese. But it, we, we haven’t learned to live with it. Now, we’ve been -- we’ve gone 80 years since then. We’ve had a lot of close calls. I mean, we’ve had training tapes put in there that that almost got the president to do something. They’ve had them. I mean, there is no way that the planet has an expectancy of 500 years now when it was 4.5 billion when I was a kid and we had to do it. I’m not faulting anybody. My dad was in Congress. He would have voted for it. I mean, everybody rejoiced on VJ day. You know, I mean, it -- it -- but there was no way we could undo it.

QUICK: Well, I think the question becomes today, Nikki Haley was just on “Squawk Box” right before you. And she was saying she thinks the president should go in and find the enriched uranium in Iran right now. And that’s a controversial position.

BUFFETT: It’s a controversial but I would be, I would be for one way or another, if I were president of the United States. I don’t want to be president United States, because I don’t want that. Sorry, I, I one time asked one president. I said, you know, if, if the Soviets had launched, though they already were in the air and our policy was mutually assured destruction, would you have told Strategic Air Command, unleash ours knowing that it wasn’t going to, I mean, it was going to just kill millions and millions and millions more people and add to a super polluted atmosphere that who knows what is going to happen? I mean, it, and now we have—

QUICK: What was the answer?

BUFFETT: The answer? Well, a, the, this president said, he said, “I’ve thought about that every day.” Because some major shows up at midnight—

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: And says, we have incontrovertible. This is not -- this is not geese above the North Pole. This is not a training tape that got put in by mistake. We know they’re in the air and you’ve got 10 minutes to make a decision. Mr. President, what do I tell SAC to do? Do we unleash ours? And I used to be on the SAC advisory board, but believe it or not, the, but that was for political purposes as they put people on that truly, because they were always looking for more money. And they just figured if. And I don’t blame them.

QUICK: But what did the president say? What was his answer?

BUFFETT: He said, I thought about it every day during the time I was in office. He was an ex-president.

QUICK: But did not give an answer on what he—

BUFFETT: Actually said, I think the answer is yes. I would tell him to do it. That is the policy of the United States of America.

QUICK: Yeah. So if you were the president today or if you were advising the president today, what would you say about going after the enriched uranium in Iran?

BUFFETT: I would say that one way or another. In the next 100 years, maybe it’s 200 years, who knows? But one way or another, something will happen that cause it to be used. And we can’t take what’s out there now. And if you thought it was dangerous with the Soviets and us with Khrushchev, who was perfectly rational guy, probably Kennedy, just wait until we, wait until we’re dealing with, you know, the guy in North Korea that criticizes haircut or something, I mean, or, or I would say the most dangerous thing is actually somebody that’s got their hand on the switch who is dying themselves or is facing enormous embarrassment if he figures if I go ever—

QUICK: If you’re cornered, yeah, if you’re cornered.

BUFFETT: Yeah.

QUICK: So that’s still rises to the level of one of the most important and—

BUFFETT: It is.

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: It’s just that I don’t know the answer for it. But I do know that the -- it’ll be more difficult if Iran has the bomb than if they don’t.

QUICK: Yeah. Warren, I’m going to shift topics again. You have given away almost $60 billion since 2006 when you first started giving money away. The bulk of that has gone to the Bill Gates Foundation. What have you thought about all the emails in the Epstein files related to Bill Gates?

BUFFETT: Well, I won’t say what I thought about them, particularly related to Bill Gates, but I would say it’s astounding to me how human people are. I mean, it, here you had a guy that was a convicted guy, a sensational con man, and the percentage of people that he knocked off. I mean, whether it was, he found their weakness, it might have been sex. It might be power, it might be, whatever it might be. And I don’t see how anybody could have pulled that off. And then, and of course, all these figures think that it’s going when he dies that are, you know, they’ve, they’ve, they basically lied about it before. But I mean, you know, it—

QUICK: Lied about their associations with Epstein, you mean?

BUFFETT: Well, I mean, you know, they’ve rationalized it one way or another, but and now it’s all getting opened up and, of course. I’m just I’m so happy the guy didn’t, that he didn’t stop in Omaha ever. I mean, or that I didn’t live in New York. If I lived in New York, I had some party. I would have been at some thing I think. And more people always are asking to take a picture, and I usually do. I’m so used to doing it with students. I always do these gag pictures where I’m picking some guy’s pocket or proposing to some woman or some thing and -- and, you know, I thank heavens, I, I never, and I never came near the guy. And I had read the article in “Vanity Fair” in 2003 that—

QUICK: The one that laid out who, what a mysterious and strange figure he was.

BUFFETT: It was as far as somebody was worried about libel suits goes.

QUICK: Well, it made him sound like a fraud, for sure. Yeah, I’ve read that article recently with your suggestion.

BUFFETT: And the interesting thing is, you know, he got his start at Bear Stearns—

QUICK: Yeah.

BUFFETT: And they knew him. They knew he lied to him on all kinds of things. And. And Ace Greenberg was a good friend of mine. Well, Jimmy Cayne may have been actually running the firm by then. I’m not sure. But Ace Greenberg always was looking for -- he had a guy that the son of a friend of mine that he hired just to be his ferret. His -- and his job was to look for anything that was old or large that traders might have stuck in their desk or -- I mean, he was worried about, about people. But somehow. Ace’s daughter, I guess, was dated by -- dating Epstein or something. And that guy must have been the con man of all time. There’s—

QUICK: But it’s one thing to be a con man. It’s another thing to be trafficking minors.

BUFFETT: Absolutely.

QUICK: Sexual prostitution.

BUFFETT: And be prosecuted. And even though he managed to jiggle his way through that thing with, you know, whoever the attorney general was, then it one way or another, he did not really spend much time in his cell, you know, and -- but he had a way of conning everybody. I mean, he probably who knows what he offered the guys, you know, to do that, he could con anybody.

QUICK: Have you been concerned –

BUFFETT: He found their weakness.

QUICK: Have you been concerned – first of all, have you learned things from the Epstein files?

BUFFETT: Sure. I can’t read them myself because my eyesight are so bad, but I’ve got a friend that reads them for me, and it is astounding to me that anybody could be that successful as a con person. But you know, PT Barnum said it many years ago too, there’s one born every minute. And, you know, men are going to like sex, and some, some of them are going to like not paying taxes, and whatever it was, he figured out what their weakness was, and then he was — had the ability to prey on them. But that doesn’t excuse the people on the other end. I mean –

QUICK: Right. What – what are the consequences for what –

BUFFETT: The consequences are very likely to be, in my view, same thing that happened back in 1969 when the Johnson administration left and the Ford Foundation hired a whole bunch of people that were let go from government, and it’ll take – it takes something where Congress feels that they’re better off going after the foundations than not. And foundations have got plenty, I mean, money, and foundations have plenty of more power in Washington. It’s kind of irritating. We can talk about that later, maybe, but in ’69 I think Wilbur Mills was as head of the Ways and Means Committee. I don’t remember exactly how it came about, but that was the last – that was a big revision of what foundations could do –

QUICK: Okay.

BUFFETT: I think this is going to have the same effect.

QUICK: Is there anything that you’ve read or been read from the Epstein files that concerns you about the money that you donate to the Gates Foundation? Money you’ve given in the past or money that you may have –

BUFFETT: There was a lot I didn’t know. It was very clear.

QUICK: Like what?

BUFFETT: Well, I didn’t know a lot of things. I mean, there were three trustees of the foundation –

QUICK: You, Bill and Melinda.

BUFFETT: And I was one of the three. Now, we only met once a year. I did not ask probing questions. I mean, you know, if I had – if I thought I had to ask probing questions, I wouldn’t want to put the money into it in the first place. But – and incidentally, the guy, the CEO of the foundation, wasn’t necessarily present during all these things, but he’s not the real CEO. I mean, in the end, Bill ran the foundation. And it was – but I learned – I guess when the divorce action happened, because I resigned a month later, less than a month later, I think.

QUICK: What did you learn then that –

BUFFETT: I learned that I didn’t know what was going on, and – which didn’t mean something terrible was going on, necessarily, but I certainly didn’t know what was going on. We didn’t – and I didn’t ask the questions, either, though. I mean in terms of being on the foundation board, or it was – I made a decision on it in 2006 and and I didn’t think butting into so many marital problems or anything like that was particularly appropriate at foundation meetings. But they went through and they talked about all these little things that didn’t mean anything and and then they hired a few people that are really bad news, you know, I never met any of those people. That guy –

QUICK: You’re talking about Boris Nikolic?

BUFFETT: Yeah. I don’t even know what exactly –

QUICK: He was mentioned pretty prominently in the Epstein files.

BUFFETT: I never heard of him. That guy, so far in the proceedings, I mean, he looks like a terrible guy to employ. Now, I’ve employed terrible people, but we’ve gotten rid of them.

QUICK: Boris Nikolic eventually was gotten rid of at the foundation as well. Have you talked to Bill Gates about any of this?

BUFFETT: I haven’t. No. I haven’t talked to him at all since the whole thing was unveiled. I don’t want to be in a position where I know things at the moment. I could get called as a witness.

QUICK: Are you going to continue to give money to the Gates Foundation? You have every June since 2006.

BUFFETT: Well, yeah, actually, I agreed to do it every year, but I’ve done it around June 30 most of the time, and I’ll wait and see what unfolds. The stock isn’t going anyplace. It isn’t like I’m giving it all the way to something else or won’t have it. But I’ll wait and see what I’m learning. I’ve learned things I didn’t know about something for all these years, and I didn’t know how the marital thing would play out. I mean, I just didn’t know about it. You can guess sometimes that people aren’t getting along at a given time, but that’s true in every marriage. There are times when they get irritated with their spouse, or something like that. So in any event, I’ll just wait and see. And there’s three and a half million, or whatever it is pages – I mean, it is astounding.

QUICK: In the Epstein files.

BUFFETT: The Epstein files. And there’s a lot of redacted stuff. And obviously, anybody that was involved in Epstein, I mean, they’ve been miserable, probably from the moment they learned that things are going to get released, and they can’t bury it now. I mean, it’s gone too far.

QUICK: Are there situations – I guess you’re caught in a position where if you don’t –

BUFFETT: -- to give it away. That’s for sure.

QUICK: Right. If you don’t give the money to the Gates Foundation, are you in violation of the pledge that you made? Or if you do give the money, are you condoning the behavior that has taken place? That you may or may not – that you may not have – we haven’t learned everything potentially yet about –

BUFFETT: That’s why I want to learn. I don’t have to make that decision today, and I haven’t made it today. But I do keep reading things. I mean, I heard – somebody reads them for me, actually. I was always astounded somewhat by the Epstein thing when it was taking place. But what this reveals about humans and the degree, whether – whether it’s money or whether it’s sex or whatever. I mean, this guy found people’s weaknesses, but they did do things. I don’t think, if you ask me my personal opinion, I don’t think Bill had anything to do with girls or the island or anything like that. But I am learning things about all kinds of stuff when I read this, and it is ruining one person after another. I mean, it’s just astounding to me how bad – people always do things. I mean, there’s consensual sex and all kinds of things, but, this guy – how many hours are there in the day? I mean, three and a half million, or whatever, his communications and all the thinking that goes into – and he found people’s weaknesses, and boy, did he know how to use it. And he used, he obviously used this guy, Boris somebody. And he used the woman at Goldman Sachs, I mean, just every place you looked. I’ve never seen anything – and I’m sure that once you get rid of the redacting a few things, you’re going to learn more.

QUICK: So you’re waiting to hear what else comes from the files –

BUFFETT: Sure.

QUICK: – potentially what comes from congressional hearings?

BUFFETT: Yeah. I think they may change the law on foundations too.

QUICK: You may think – I’m sorry, you think –

BUFFETT: I think, I think there’s a good chance, but Congress doesn’t act that fast, so – but I just think that Congress reacts to whatever the public’s mad about, and they’ll be mad about the Epstein thing.

QUICK: But you said that you think they could change the law on foundations as a result.

BUFFETT: Oh yeah. I think there could be major foundation hearings.

QUICK: And the changes that would go after the foundations that would do what strip their tax status?

BUFFETT: Congress will want to look like they’re doing something about it, and foundations have done a lot more lobbying in the past. I mean, there’s been – hasn’t been any anti foundation lobbying to speak of, and there’s been foundations are there, and everybody goes to Washington.

QUICK: Do you —

BUFFETT: It’s astounding to me how – no, Washington it’s really become important. That’s where the money is doled out. That’s where the rules are doled out.

QUICK: Do you think the foundation, foundations in general, have done good work? Do you think the Gates Foundation has done good work?

BUFFETT: Oh, I’m sure they’ve done good work. I don’t think they’d be around if they hadn’t done some good work. The question is whether the rules get changed in terms of what they can do, or their taxation gets – I mean, look at Harvard. I mean, once public opinion changes, Congress changes. It’s just the way it works.

QUICK: Are you sorry you’ve given the money to the Gates Foundation?

BUFFETT: No. No.

QUICK: So you’re happy that it’s gone –

BUFFETT: Yeah, well I mean, but I wish that certain things hadn’t happened, obviously. But I don’t – but it isn’t like they’re stealing money for themselves or anything like that. I mean, Bill pours his efforts into it. Melinda poured her efforts into it, the present guy that runs it does. He’s a guy who I’d hire myself, you know, I mean it –

QUICK: Mark Suzman.

BUFFETT: Yeah. And, I think he’s actually the best CEO they’ve had, you know, and I don’t envy his job. But I also think that I’ll wait and see. They’ve got $96 billion that they’re sitting on now

QUICK: At the foundation.

BUFFETT: At the foundation. Nobody’s got anything like that.

QUICK: Although Bill has also said that he plans to spend that money down pretty rapidly over the next 20 years.

BUFFETT: Well, he’s got plenty of his own money. Add to it. I don’t know what will happen.

QUICK: There’s been – you and Bill and Melinda also created the giving pledge, where you got billionaires around the world to sign up and agree that they would give away at least half of their wealth, either while they were living or upon their death. And you got hundreds of people to sign up to that –

BUFFETT: 200 and something.

QUICK: Yeah, 250-some people to sign up to that.

BUFFETT: It’s astounded me that we’ve gotten that many. What Bill has done, on which I give him credit for, is he’s taken it abroad. And you’re changing the behavior of societies to some small degree. The United States is – now, they’ve gotten it partly by laws, the favor of two and everything else. But United States is an experiment, not only in a lot of other ways, but also actually in terms of private philanthropy and those made small little cracks in that around the world, which I think only defies centuries and centuries of behavior. So his, the energy he brings to anything he’s involved in is incredible. I mean, I’m too lazy. I’m not going to go around the world. I just, you know, I feel we launched something good, and I feel that there is no one that’s a member of the giving pledge that is giving less than they would have given otherwise. Now we never told them what to give it to. We never told them when they should give it. We didn’t make an illegal pledge, I mean, but we really got response on that.

QUICK: There have been some articles written recently about the backlash in certain sectors, technology billionaires, in particular, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, who have said that they don’t like the giving pledge, and they think it’s woke.

BUFFETT: Well, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to belong to the – they can retire from it. They didn’t make a legal pledge anyway. There may be any one of a lot of reasons why rich people don’t like other rich people, or who knows what happens, but I would say this, that – I just would bet a lot of money that nobody is giving less because of it than they would have otherwise given. And a fair number of people, not huge numbers – but not insignificant numbers either – are giving it earlier or giving more. The biggest objection that people would raise with me, and it usually was by the mother, was that they just didn’t want to become targets of articles about how rich they were, and can’t blame them for that. I mean, they’re worried about – they can be worried about anything. But a lot of people joined. One guy even joined, because he said, all I wanted is to have lunch with Becky Quick. I said, I think – and he didn’t follow through, apparently.

QUICK: No. I never heard from him.

BUFFETT: But I mean that – if you get a lot of billionaires, you get a lot of peculiar people. Not that that’s peculiar. I know I should present you with that, but it was amazing to me the reception we got. And we just started dialing and we hit the obvious. I mean, obviously it’s fallen off – the rate of additions. And obviously, you know, we made – we genuinely said we’re not judging the people. We’re not to go to the judge whether if they made their money liquor, we weren’t, you know, what counts is what they’re doing with it. You know? I mean, that’s all we’re talking about, is for God’s sakes, you know, give away half of it. And that’s so different from up for a family that’s got a family farm for 100 years, and they planned on giving it to their kids and all kinds of things, than it is for some guy like me that just made it in stocks, you know. I mean, it would be a big, emotional decision if I were like a bunch of – got certain very rich farmers, you know, that own lots of acreage, and they’ve been building it their whole life for their – to turn over to their kids, then they buy the farm next to them and everything. So I think I feel good about the giving pledge.

QUICK: You said you haven’t talked to Bill about any of the issues that have come out from the Epstein files. Are you still good friends with him?

BUFFETT: We’ve had great times together, but he’s treated me better than I think he’s probably treated anybody else. I mean, he’s arranged trips that arrange for the kinds of foods I like, to the Wall Street Journal being in China, or what I mean, he’s been terribly thoughtful with me throughout this but I think until it gets cleared up, I don’t, I just don’t think it makes sense to do a lot of talking. For one thing, I don’t want to be under, my memory is no good anymore. I don’t want to be under oath in terms of trying to remember everything over 30 years or 20 years of foundations done, or anything like that. I didn’t have anything to do with it, except I put, put the money in. But as you may say, you can, you can say, well, you’re a derelict and not in not doing it. But I’m giving money to one of my children’s foundations. I’ve never looked at what they give, either. You know, I mean, I just, I trust people. And I think I’ve trusted very good people, but I think I can see where if somebody just a guy like Epstein involved in their life, they don’t want to talk about it, you know, I wouldn’t. I mean, it’s been very useful to me that Bill ever said, come on along. I want you to meet Epstein so he he could have, he could have done things that that would have been screwed up my life. I’d have gone along with him if he’d said to me after the annual meeting or sometime and he said, you know, I’m going to New York. Why don’t you fly along? There’s this interesting guy or something. I probably would have gone, you know. And so, I got him to thank for not doing that. But you can’t get away from what happened either. And you can’t get away from the fact that foundations are a peculiar there’s something that our country has really endorsed, I mean charitable deductions, and donor advised funds and all of that sort of thing. And that’s worth looking at, probably more often than every 30 or 40 years. Foundation is just what they do is they lobby just basically leave us alone.

QUICK: We have 87 seconds left in the show. Any other thought that you’d like to throw in because I don’t think we’ve covered enough ground.

BUFFETT: Well, I think the interesting thing is, you’ve got America, which is the wonder of the world, and at the same time, you’ve got a great number of people that they’re just as much human beings as you or I. And you know, they may not, they may not have the same IQ or anything like that, but I think the differentials are too great, but I also think it’s worked. So how do you actually solve all that through an entity which is basically broken down into two sides that sort of automatically vote against each other no matter what the issue is. I mean.

QUICK: You mean Democrats and Republicans?

BUFFETT: Yeah, Democrats and Republicans. I mean—

QUICK: We have 20 seconds.

BUFFETT: It’s become more partisan than ever, and we’re more prosperous than ever, and than anybody ever dreamt. So you have to say, capitalism’s worked, but it still needs, I guess we’re finished.

QUICK: We’re finished, three seconds. Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

BUFFETT: I’ve been both, and I was actually on the ballot as a Republican in 1960 but my dad was very Republican. I went to the Democratic side, and now I’m an independent.

QUICK: We’re going to leave it on that, and that’s enough of a tease till the next time we talk with you, but Warren, thank you very much for your time.

BUFFETT: It’s a lot of fun.

QUICK: Warren Buffett. That does it for us today, Joe, I’ll see you back in studio tomorrow. Right now, it’s time for “Squawk on the Street.”