Volatility is not a measure of risk. The problem is that those who write and teach that volatility is a measure of risk don& #39;t know how to teach a measure of risk, or they don& #39;t know how to measure risk themselves. the beta coefficient is a measure of volatility that is very mathematical, but it is wrong when it comes to measuring risk, and past volatility doesn& #39;t determine future investment risk.

波动性不是衡量风险的标准。问题在于，那些撰写和教波动性可以衡量风险的人，不知道如何教衡量风险，或者他们本身就不知道衡量风险。β系数是一个衡量波动性的指标，它很数学化，但在衡量风险方面是错误的，过去的波动性并不能决定未来的投资风险。

In the stock market, the beta coefficient came into play as stock prices fluctuated up and down every minute, and finance professors wanted to use the math they had learned to explain risk in a more technical way. But they actually took the volatility of the past and used it as a measure of all types of risk. This is nonsense, risk comes from the nature of certain businesses, there is risk in doing business, and most of that risk stems from the fact that you don& #39;t know what you& #39;re doing. If you understand the economics of the business you& #39;re in, you understand the people you& #39;re doing business with, and you know how much it& #39;s reasonable to pay, you& #39;re actually taking very little risk.

在股市中，由于股票价格每分钟都在上下波动，而金融教授想要运用他们所学的数学，以一种更技术性的方式来解释风险，β系数就出现了。但他们实际上把过去的波动性，用在对所有类型风险的衡量上了。这是无稽之谈，风险来自于某些生意的性质，做生意是有风险的，风险大多源于你不知道自己在做什么。如果你了解你所从事的生意的经济学，了解你与之做生意的人，并且你知道付出多少代价是合理的，你冒的风险其实很小。

We& #39;d be willing to lose $6 billion in a disaster, but we& #39;ve been running our disaster business for years with no risk. You know, roulette sometimes wins at 35-to-1 odds, which sounds like the roulette wheel owner is paying a ton of money, but we& #39;d much rather have a lot of roulette than bet on one number.

正如我在年度报告中指出的那样，我们愿意在一场灾难中损失60亿美元，但我们的灾难业务已经运转了多年，并且没有风险。你知道，轮盘赌有时会以35比1的赔率赢钱，这听起来像是轮盘拥有者付出了一大笔钱，但我们更愿意拥有很多轮盘赌，而不是在一个号码上下注。

以上内容节选自2007年巴菲特股东大会

由数字人巴菲特播报

本视频的文字和画面由七华软件用人工智能技术生成