Super Investors Buys & Google CEO Answers Tough Questions
发布时间 2025-05-16 20:57:37 来源
Well, it's happening folks. We have the list of super investors that just reported their 13F filings. This is where we get a look inside their portfolios and see what they're doing if they're buying companies selling companies or just holding on. In this one, we have a pretty big list of super investors. We have Bill Ackman, Michael Burry. We have AKO Capital. This is a quality compounder. We have Christopher Bloomstrand, an old school value investor. We have Valley Forge Capital Management. With our own favorite DevCantissaria, we have Warren Buffett. We have Chris Hone. We talked about him in an interview, but now we actually get to see his changes and we have Terry Smith. All of them have reported what they've done with their portfolio. We're going to be looking over the new companies that they're buying, which companies are ditching and how they're managing their portfolios.
好了，大家，我们终于等到了。这些超级投资者刚刚提交了他们的13F文件，我们现在可以一窥他们的投资组合，看看他们最近的操作：是买入、卖出还是持有。这次，我们有一份相当庞大的超级投资者名单。包括比尔·阿克曼、迈克尔·巴里、AKO资本（质量投资者）、老派价值投资者克里斯托弗·布卢姆斯特兰德、以及我们喜爱的Valley Forge资本管理旗下的DevCantissaria、沃伦·巴菲特、克里斯·霍恩（我们之前采访过他，但现在可以实际看到他的投资变化）和特里·史密斯。他们都报告了自己对投资组合的调整。我们将仔细审视他们最近购买了哪些新公司、放弃了哪些公司，以及他们是如何管理自己的投资组合的。
So we have a ton to get into in this episode. Plus, we even have some more. We have the CEO of Google going on to an interview on the All-In podcast and being asked very direct questions that investors are concerned about right now in Google. Specifically stuff like what is the deal with OpenAI and ChatGPT? Is Google in the process of being disrupted? How are they dealing with this? Can Google switch from the old BlueLink economy to this new AI architecture with AI overviews? Do they monetize at the same rate? Is it too expensive to run the website this way? All these different questions that investors have on their mind, causing Google stock to trade below the S&P 500 PE ratio are being asked directly to the CEO. We're going to be looking over the answers.
在这一集节目中，我们有很多内容要讨论。此外，还有一些额外的内容。我们将谈到谷歌的CEO接受了All-In播客的采访，并被问到了一些投资者目前非常关心的问题。这些问题具体包括：谷歌和OpenAI以及ChatGPT之间的关系是什么？谷歌是否正在面临颠覆？他们如何应对这一挑战？谷歌能否从传统的“蓝链经济”转向新兴的AI架构以及AI概览中？他们的盈利模式是否依然如故？以这种方式运营网站会不会太贵？所有这些投资者心中的疑问导致谷歌的股票低于标普500的市盈率，而这些问题都被直接提问给了CEO。我们将会仔细看看这些问题的答案。
And then finally, we also have the fail of the week. This is a newer segment to the show. I've done this one time. It was talking about a Morgan Stanley analyst that got the dip completely wrong in 2025. Well, this time we have an editor at Financial Times criticizing Sam Altman about his cooking skills. That's right. Sam Altman had like a 22 second video that was released online. He talks about how he's making some pasta with garlic and he's using some olive oil. And Bryce Elder here, a Morningstar contributor, Financial Times equity contributor, is very upset at the oil that he's using for cooking. And at one point in this article stating that Sam Altman's use of this olive oil is an offense to horticulture.
最后，我们还有每周失败案例环节。这是节目中新加入的片段，我只做过一次。当时谈到了一位摩根士丹利的分析师在2025年的预测完全错误。而这次的案例是《金融时报》的一位编辑批评萨姆·阿尔特曼的厨艺。没错，萨姆·阿尔特曼发布了一个约22秒的视频，内容是他在做蒜香意面，并使用了一些橄榄油。而《早晨之星》和《金融时报》的股权撰稿人布莱斯·埃尔德对他所用的油非常不满。在文章中，他甚至说萨姆·阿尔特曼对橄榄油的使用简直是对园艺的侮辱。
We'll be going over this as well. So as always, we have a lot to get to in this episode. Let's go ahead and start off and we'll jump into the 13F filings. These of course are the filings that super investors, people that manage over $100 million of clients money, they have to reveal what they're doing every three months. Now, there's a bit of delay. For example, we'll start off with Bill Ackman here. And the delay is we get to see what happened up until March 31st. So that's the end time period to when this was reported. Now again, we start off with Bill Ackman. He manages around $12 billion. He has around 12 stocks in his portfolio.
我们也会讨论这个内容。正如往常一样，这期节目里我们有很多内容要覆盖。让我们开始吧，首先我们会跳转到13F文件。13F文件是那些超级投资者需要每三个月披露的文件，这些投资者管理着超过1亿美元的客户资金。不过，这些文件有一定的延迟。例如，我们从Bill Ackman开始，他管理着大约120亿美元的资金，并且在他的投资组合中有大约12只股票。由于这种延迟，我们看到的报告数据截至日期是3月31日。现在，回到我们的重点，Bill Ackman是我们的第一个例子。
Now it says 11 here. But remember that Dataroma only tracks US holdings. He also owns Universal Music Group, which is international. And that would be one of the top ones on his list. Now Bill Ackman's portfolio is still concentrated. When you have an investor like him that has the majority of his capital, $12 billion, and only 10 or so companies, that's a very concentrated portfolio. Every position is very meaningful. But some are even more than others. He has the top four or five positions being all above 10%. So these are massive ones, some nearing 20%. Now, if we look at the most recent changes, this is what I want to go over because I think it's important to look at what he's actually doing here. We can organize this by the biggest change.
现在，这里显示的是11项。但请记住，Dataroma只跟踪美国的持股情况。他还拥有环球音乐集团，这是一家国际公司，这将是他名单中的顶级之一。现在比尔·阿克曼的投资组合仍然很集中。当你有像他这样的一位投资者，他的大部分资本，即120亿美元，只投资于大约10家公司时，这是一个非常集中的投资组合。每个持仓都非常重要，但有些比其他的更重要。他的前四到五个持仓都超过了10%，其中一些接近20%。现在，如果我们查看最近的变化，这就是我想要讨论的，因为我认为了解他实际在做的事情很重要。我们可以根据最大的变化来整理这些信息。
At the very top, the biggest thing he did is something that we didn't find out today. But we knew this for a couple of months. He publicly released that he was buying Uber. He came out with a big thesis of it. He said the company is trading at very low valuation metrics. The company has huge network effects. And he's not too worried about Waymo or Tesla disrupting the company. So he took a big bet on Uber and so far so good. This stock has done incredibly well since he purchased it. Now, of course, this stock has had a couple catalyst. One of them is just the fact that Bill Ackman bought it. Just because of that news, it went up like 10%. And ever since then, it's gone up even more. So Uber so far has been a great buy by Bill Ackman.
在这里，他做的最大的一件事并不是我们今天才发现的，而是在几个月前我们就知道了。他公开宣布他正在购买Uber。他提出了一个重大的投资理论，认为这家公司的估值非常低，并且拥有巨大的网络效应。他并不太担心Waymo或Tesla会对这家公司构成威胁。因此，他对Uber进行了大规模投资，目前看来进展顺利。自从他购买了这只股票以来，Uber的表现非常出色。当然，这只股票有一些上涨的催化因素，其中之一就是Bill Ackman购买了它。仅因为这个消息，股价就上涨了大约10%。从那以后，该股继续上涨。因此，Uber迄今为止对Bill Ackman来说是一次非常成功的投资。
So far so good. And it's a company that I've always talked about positively. I said that I think there's maybe a 10% chance that Uber is disrupted by Waymo or Tesla. So you have to factor in some type of terminal risk with the company. But overall, I believe the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor of Uber to succeed. The network effects are very strong. You can see that even companies like Waymo and other Robotexies are integrating into their network. And they're going to become a hybrid model. So I'm bullish on this company as well.
目前为止，一切都很好。这是一家我一直持正面评价的公司。我曾经说过，Uber有可能被Waymo或特斯拉颠覆的概率大概是10%。因此，你必须考虑到公司面临的一些潜在风险。不过，总的来说，我相信Uber成功的概率非常大。它的网络效应非常强。你可以看到，甚至像Waymo和其他自动驾驶出租车公司都在整合到他们的网络中，它们将成为一种混合模式。因此，我也对这家公司持乐观态度。
Now, I get asked routinely, Joseph, why don't you buy Uber? Why don't you buy Meta? Why don't you buy all these different companies? And the simple answer is, I'm not going to own every good company. I have a very concentrated portfolio. There's going to be companies that do well that I don't own. And that's just an outcome of having only a select few positions. The important thing is the companies that I buy do well. So I don't own Uber, but it's one that I'm not bearish on. I actually think the company is going to do quite well.
现在，我经常被问到，Joseph，你为什么不买Uber的股票？为什么不买Meta的股票？为什么不投资这些不同的公司？简单的答案是，我不会拥有所有的好公司。我持有一个非常集中的投资组合，总会有一些表现不错的公司我没有投资。这只是选择少量持仓的结果。重要的是，我选择投资的公司表现得很好。所以，我虽然没有买Uber的股票，但我并不是看衰这家公司。实际上，我觉得这家公司会表现得相当不错。
We look at another thing here. The second biggest trade was that he sold 100% of his Nike position. Now, if you recall, two months ago, I made a video saying that this is going to be what everybody reports because they're not going to be paying attention. Lots of people will tweet out that Bill Ackman sold out of Nike. And that's just not the case. He even said that isn't the case two months ago. He says in early 2025, we converted our Nike common equity position to deep in the money call options.
我们在这里看到另一件事。他的第二大交易是出售了他 100% 的耐克股份。如果你还记得，两个月前我发布过一个视频说，每个人都会报道这个消息，因为他们不会关注细节。很多人会在推特上说比尔·阿克曼卖掉了耐克的股票，但事实并非如此。他两个月前就表示情况并非如此。他说，在 2025 年初，我们将耐克的普通股头寸转换为深度实值的认购期权。
The structure allows us to maintain exposure to the upside potential of owning the stock outright while unlocking capital for new investments. The positive intrinsic value of these options and their low break-even price minimizes the likelihood of a loss while the multi-year term provides duration through Nike's turnaround, which we believe will ultimately be successful, but may lead to short-term share price volatility. In a successful turnaround, the options payoff should be more than double the return from owning the common stock.
这项结构使我们能够在保持股票上涨潜力的同时，释放出资金用于新的投资。这些期权具有正的内在价值和较低的盈亏平衡点，从而降低了亏损的可能性。而且，多年的期限意味着我们可以在耐克公司转型的过程中保持持有时间。我们相信，这次转型最终将会成功，但可能会导致短期内股价波动。如果转型成功，期权的收益应该会比直接持有普通股的回报高出一倍多。
So this is what's going on. A lot of people that have been uninformed on this or haven't really looked into it, they're sending out on Twitter like crazy, that Bill Ackman sold Nike. They're saying he sold the stock. He doesn't want anything to do with Nike anymore. He's turned bearish on it. And instead now he's bullish on Uber. And that is completely false or at least halfway false. He's actually double as bullish on Nike as he was before. If you look at the language again of this press release he gave two months ago.
这是事情的真相。很多对这件事不了解或者没有深入研究的人在推特上疯狂传播，说比尔·阿克曼卖掉了耐克的股票。他们声称他已经抛售了这些股票，不再想与耐克有任何关联，转而看好优步。这些说法完全不正确，或者至少有一部分不对。如果你再次查看他两个月前发布的新闻稿，他对耐克的看好实际上比之前更加坚定。
He says in a successful Nike turnaround, the options payoff should be more than double the returns of owning the common stock. So not only is he bullish on Nike still still invested in the company through just a different structure and vehicle of options, but he's double as bullish. He'll get twice three turns if Nike does well. So he's still bullish on Nike. Other trades that he actually did, he reduced his Hilton worldwide holding by 4.5% of his portfolio that's around a 50% sale. He added to Brookfield Corporation, which doesn't surprise me.
他说，如果耐克成功实现转型，期权的回报应该会是持有普通股回报的两倍多。因此，他对耐克持乐观态度，并通过期权这样的不同结构和工具投资于公司，所以他对耐克的信心加倍。如果耐克表现良好，他将获得双倍回报。所以，他仍然对耐克持乐观态度。他还进行了其他交易，例如将其希尔顿全球的持仓减少了其投资组合的4.5%，相当于售出50%。他增持了Brookfield Corporation，这并不让我感到意外。
He's still bullish on it. And he did something odd here. He sold a bit of his Google position and then bought the different ticker symbol in Google. This is an interesting thing to see happen. When I looked at the possible reasons of him doing this, there's a couple things we can speculate. First of all, it may be price arbitrage. For example, Google for whatever reason, GOOG has been at a little bit higher of a price than GOOGL. They may have waited until there is a bigger discrepancy and then he sold a little bit of GOOG to go to GOOGL.
他仍然对这件事持乐观态度。不过，他做了一件奇怪的事情：他卖掉了一部分谷歌的股票，然后购买了谷歌的另一个股票代码。这是一个挺有趣的现象。关于他这样做的原因，我们可以有几个推测。首先，这可能是价格套利。比如说，出于某种原因，GOOG的价格比GOOGL要高一点。他可能是在等待两者价格差距加大时，卖掉了一些GOOG来买入GOOGL。
So that might be part of the reason. Another maybe potential reason is if he had a different tax basis on GOOG and wanted to swap it for GOOGL, even though you can't do this purely on a tax loss harvesting basis because they're considered the same holding by the government. So interesting to see there's some speculation of why he may do that. Now, the other thing that he did was he further reduced his position in Chipotle, a slight reduction on this one to raise capital for his other buys.
因此，这可能是部分原因。另一个可能的原因是，他在 GOOG 上有不同的税基，并想将其换成 GOOGL，尽管从税务损失收割的角度来看这种做法不成立，因为政府认为这两个是相同的持有。但很有趣的是，有人猜测他这么做的原因。除此之外，他还进一步减少了在 Chipotle 中的持仓，这次略微减持是为了为其他购买筹集资金。
He has his position in Hertz Global and he's reducing this position in Canadian Pacific by a tiny bit. Overall, with the Bill Ackman portfolio, it looks very strong. He's having a lot of success here recently. Uber in particular is leading the portfolio today. It was a great buy so far. So that one's doing wonders for his overall performance. The big one that we'll be looking at is Nike. If Nike can have a big turnaround and he can exercise those options, that will be massive.
他在赫兹全球公司持有股份，并且正在稍微减少他在加拿大太平洋铁路公司的持股。总体来看，比尔·阿克曼的投资组合表现非常强劲，最近他取得了不少成功。尤其是优步的表现突出，成为了投资组合中的领头羊，目前这项投资取得了很大收益，极大地提升了他的整体业绩。接下来我们要关注的是耐克。如果耐克能够实现大的转机并且他能行使那些期权，那将是非常重大的利好。
Bill Ackman will outperform the market by a long shot if Nike does indeed have a full recovery. Now, of course, next up we have Michael Burry, the big short investor. This one draws a lot of attention every time it's brought up. And in particular, his radical changes to his portfolio. For example, right now it looks like when we look at the activity that he basically sold everything. So he just dumped every position, all these Chinese holdings, all these different companies. And then he bought into S.D. Lauder. That's the only holding in the portfolio.
如果耐克确实全面恢复，Bill Ackman的表现将远超市场表现。当然，接下来我们要谈的是大空头投资者Michael Burry。每次提到他都会引起很多关注，特别是他对投资组合的激进调整。例如，目前看来他基本上卖掉了所有持仓，清空了所有的中国股票和其他不同公司的股票。他唯一买入的是雅诗兰黛，这也是他目前投资组合中的唯一持仓。
Now, I say this every single time I cover Michael Burry's 13F filings. I think they're less meaningful and they're less trackable. And I don't believe there's really any signal you can get here. Most of it's just noise because Michael Burry changes around his holdings so frequently that by the time we get his 13F filing of what his portfolio looked like at the end of March, he's likely changed this five more times. He could have back his entire portfolio. This could be a whole different list of holdings than it probably is. Most likely, this is not what his portfolio really looks like today.
现在，每次我讨论Michael Burry的13F文件时，我都会说这些文件的意义不大，并且不太容易追踪。我认为我们从中获取不了什么有价值的信息。因为Michael Burry变动他的持仓非常频繁，所以到我们看到他在3月底的13F文件时，他的持仓可能已经更改了五次。他甚至可能已经完全调整了他的整个投资组合。这个列表很可能与他的实际持仓完全不同。
So this is again why I warn against trying to follow Michael Burry's trades. He trades around faster than any other super investor that I know of. He's impossible to track. He's not a long-term compounding investor that holds a similar group of companies for a long period of time. My guess is that right now, Michael Burry's portfolio looks completely different than this 13F filing. Now next up, we have AKO Capital, which is a London-based investment firm. They advertise themselves as this one that does rigorous research from the ground up on their companies.
这就是为什么我再次警告不要试图追随迈克尔·伯瑞的交易。他的交易速度比我所知道的任何其他超级投资者都快，很难追踪。他不是那种长期持有一组公司进行复利增长的投资者。我猜测，现在迈克尔·伯瑞的投资组合可能已经和这份13F文件中显示的完全不同了。接下来，我们来看一家伦敦的投资公司——AKO Capital。他们自称对所投资的公司进行从头到尾的严格研究。
They buy long-term positions in high-quality businesses. So very similar to that compounding machine type of philosophy, but big difference is an outcome. Their portfolio doesn't mimic most long-term compounding investors. For example, when we look at one of their top buys here. This is the big one here. It's F-L-U-T, Flutter Entertainment. They bought this into a 7.42% position. If we look at this in their overall portfolio, it's now their third largest position right after Visa and Alcon.
他们购买高质量企业的长期股票。这种策略与复利增长理念非常相似，但区别在于结果。他们的投资组合并不模仿多数长期复利投资者的模式。例如，我们来看一下他们最大的一笔购买，这是一个很大的动作，就是F-L-U-T，Flutter Entertainment。他们以7.42%的仓位购买了这家公司股票。在整个投资组合中，这现在是他们的第三大持仓，仅次于Visa和Alcon。
Now Flutter Entertainment is a gambling company, a sports betting company in particular. They cover everything that has to do with sports betting, daily fantasy sports products, peri-mutual betting products, fixed odd games, betting products, online games, and concenos, lottery, parodapair games, including online bingo, rummy poker, business to business services, so on and so forth. If it's in the sports betting arena or territory, this company does it. So it looks like they had a sudden want to get into this type of business, in this type of sector.
现在，Flutter Entertainment 是一家赌博公司，尤其是一家体育博彩公司。他们涵盖与体育博彩相关的一切，包括每日幻想体育产品、互助投注产品、固定赔率游戏、投注产品、网络游戏、连锁店、彩票、竞猜游戏，以及在线宾果、拉米扑克、企业对企业服务等等。如果与体育博彩领域相关，这家公司都在做。因此，看起来他们突然想进入这种类型的业务和行业。
When we look at some of the highlights of this business, I'll just highlight two of them. They have a dominant US market position. The company has a leading market share in the US sports betting and eye gaming segments, with 43% and 27% gross gaming revenue share respectively. The other thing I'll highlight is this is a technology company. They have an emphasis on exclusive content in-house game studios and innovative product features such as jackpots rewards that drive customer growth and retention, with over 1 million active players in eye gaming demonstrating strong consumer appeal.
当我们回顾这家业务的一些亮点时，我会重点提到两个。首先，他们在美国市场占据主导地位。公司在美国体育博彩和线上娱乐领域拥有领先的市场份额，分别占据43%和27%的总博彩收入份额。其次，我要强调的是，这是一家技术公司。他们专注于内部游戏工作室提供的独家内容和创新的产品功能，例如推动客户增长和保留的彩金奖励，在线上娱乐领域拥有超过100万活跃玩家，显示出强大的消费者吸引力。
When they bought into this position, it was trading at a higher price than it is now. They are in the red on this position currently, which isn't a big problem, but it shows that if you're interested in looking at these type of companies, you can get a better cost-pacest than AKO capital. To fund this purchase, it looks like they trimmed a little bit of proctoring gamble, so they went from a company that's large, established, growing, slow, and highly predictable, to one that's a little bit more immature in a faster growing industry, which is online betting and gambling.
当他们买入这个仓位时，其交易价格高于现在。目前，这个仓位处于亏损状态，这并不是什么大问题，但这表明如果你对这类公司感兴趣，实际上可以以比AKO资本更低的成本进行投资。为了筹集这笔购买资金，他们似乎减少了一些他们在宝洁公司的持仓，因此他们从一个规模大、成熟、增长缓慢且高度可预测的公司，转向一个处于快速增长行业中的稍微不那么成熟的公司，而这个行业就是在线投注和赌博。
That's a lot more of a current secular trend right now than proctoring gamble. They also sold out of Warner Music Group. They sold out of MSCI. They also bought into Salesforce as a new 1.25% position. So Flutter Entertainment was the biggest one, Salesforce is the next biggest, and my assumption on this is Salesforce got beat up a little bit. They saw the price dropping. Meanwhile, Salesforce is growing moderately with moderate revenue growth and expanding margins.
这比宝洁公司当前的世俗趋势要多得多。他们还卖掉了华纳音乐集团和MSCI的股票。同时，他们又买入了Salesforce，作为一个新的1.25%的持仓。Flutter Entertainment是他们最大的持仓，Salesforce是第二大的。我认为这可能是因为Salesforce的股价稍微受到了打击，价格下跌。而与此同时，Salesforce正在以适度的速度增长，拥有适度的收入增长和扩大的利润率。
Now, in my history of investing, I rarely see companies that have long-term moderate revenue growth and expanding margins do poorly. In almost every case, the stock goes up with those companies. In the case of Salesforce, the stock was dropping as they're growing revenue and as they're expanding margins. In my opinion, that will only happen for a short amount of time. We can already see that Salesforce's stock has recovered largely from the lows. I think there's more to go. So I also like this buy as well.
在我的投资历史中，我很少见到那些收入长期保持适度增长并且利润率扩大的公司表现不佳。在几乎每一种情况下，这些公司的股票都会上涨。在Salesforce的案例中，他们的收入在增长，利润率也在扩大，但股票却在下跌。在我看来，这种情况只会持续一段时间。我们已经看到，Salesforce的股价从低谷中大幅回升。我认为还有上升空间。所以，我也看好这个购买机会。
They added to Moody's Corp, which of course is a great one. There's a lot of trading going around with this portfolio, but it's still firmly focused in these quality companies with high margins, deep modes, and moderate to fast growth. It looks like they're dumping some companies that are a little bit more mature, growing slower for the ones that are growing a bit faster.
他们增加了对穆迪公司的投资，当然这是一个很不错的选择。在这个投资组合中进行频繁的交易，但仍然坚定地专注于那些具有高利润、高壁垒和中速到快速增长的优质公司。看起来他们正在抛售一些增长较慢、已经成熟的公司，以换取增长速度更快的公司。
Next up, we have Christopher Bloomstrand with SEMPRA Augustus. He manages over $600 million. It says here that he has 36 positions, but that's a bit misleading. It gives the impression that he's not making any significant bets because yes, 36 positions. When in reality, once you get past around holding 10, the portfolio waiting or the holding waiting drops to less than 1%. For example, he has a number of holdings here that are a fraction of a percent. These are just watcher positions. He technically has them in the portfolio, but this isn't really a meaningful investment. It's very concentrated towards the top 10 positions, the biggest of which is always Berkshire Hathaway, making up a combined 36% of the portfolio.
接下来，我们有Christopher Bloomstrand和他的SEMPRA Augustus基金。他管理的资金超过6亿美元。这里写着他有36个持仓，但这有点误导人。因为看起来好像他没有下什么大的赌注，确实是36个持仓。然而，实际上，当你看到第10个持仓之后，每个持仓所占的权重就不到1%。比如，他有一些持仓比例只有不到1%。这些只是观察用的持仓。从技术上来说，虽然这些持仓在他的投资组合中，但实际上并没有太大意义。投资组合中大部分资产集中在前10大持仓上，其中最大的始终是伯克希尔·哈撒韦，占整个投资组合的36%。
Christopher Bloomstrand will tell you that of course you could invest in Berkshire yourself, but he always tries to get in at an intrinsic discount to Berkshire's trading value. If we look at his trades over the past quarter, he is still on the dollar general banwacking. This has been a bet he's made for a while. He added an additional 48% to this position, which is 4.19% of his entire portfolio. This has been a losing position for Christopher Bloomstrand for some time. If we look at his trading here, he was buying the company a lot for $2.45. He bought it more for $2.10. He bought more of it for $1.69.105. 135.153. Or $1.56. 132.84. He sold a little bit at $75. And now he bought more at $87. Overall, his trading in dollar general has not been great.
Christopher Bloomstrand会告诉你，当然你可以自己投资伯克希尔公司，但他总是试图以低于伯克希尔交易价值的内在折扣价买入。如果我们查看他过去一个季度的交易，他仍然在投资Dollar General（他一直在投资的公司）。他进一步增加了48%的持仓，这部分现在占他整个投资组合的4.19%。对于Christopher Bloomstrand来说，这个仓位已经亏损了一段时间。从他的交易情况来看，他曾以每股$2.45大批买入该公司股票，又以$2.10买入，之后还以$1.69、$1.05、$1.35、$1.53买入。他在$75时卖出了一些，现在又在$87的时候增加了仓位。总体来看，他在Dollar General的投资表现并不理想。
He's deeply in the red on this position. If I'm ever given the choice between buying a company like dollar general or one like Costco and paying up for the quality of one like Costco, I'm always going to pick the one that I believe is higher quality. Nothing against dollar general, it may be a better investment in the short term, but ultimately over long stretches of time, I believe that quality wins out. And the PE ratio of these companies can be misleading. For example, dollar general looked very cheap by the PE ratio, but that was only because the analyst estimates were way off. If you had accurate analyst estimates two years ago, dollar general would have been just as expensive as Costco.
他在这个投资上亏了很多钱。如果让我在购买像Dollar General这样的公司或像Costco这样的公司之间做选择，并且需要为Costco这样的高质量公司支付更高的价格，我总是会选择我认为质量更高的公司。并不是说Dollar General不好，它可能在短期内是个更好的投资，但从长远来看，我相信质量才是赢家。这些公司的市盈率可能会误导人。例如，Dollar General的市盈率看起来很便宜，但那只是因为分析师的预估大错特错。如果两年前有准确的分析师预估，Dollar General的价格会和Costco一样高。
That's how far the analyst estimates were off. For example, if we look at the earnings per share, look at them just get crushed. They completely collapse. So the PE ratio on a Ford basis, when you're looking at this company back in 2022, investors and analysts are expecting the earnings to go like that. So the forward PE ratio looks really cheap. When you're looking at it and the analysts, they look at it and they say, oh, the company's going to generate growing earnings. The companies that buy today because look at the PE ratio. In reality, the weakness of the business model, the poor execution, the issues that this company has qualitatively caused it to be unpredictable in its future earnings.
分析师的预测差距如此之大。例如，如果我们看每股收益，它们简直是惨不忍睹，完全崩溃。因此，当你在2022年观察这家公司的时候，按预期市盈率来看，投资者和分析师都预期收益会有所增长，因此预计市盈率看起来非常便宜。当分析师们查看这些数据时，他们认为公司将会产生增长的收益，因此建议投资者现在购买，因为市盈率看起来很划算。但实际上，由于商业模式的缺陷、执行不力以及公司存在的各种问题，导致其未来收益无法预测。
So the earnings start to trend downwards, making it so that the real PE ratio you're paying on a Ford basis was more expensive than Costco at this point in time. Whereas when you're looking at Costco, the company of course trades at a higher PE ratio, but the fact that it's more predictable in its earnings because of its subscription revenue, the company actually grows earnings faster than expected. In most cases, it's more resilient than analysts expect. It pays bigger dividends and bigger special dividends than analysts expect. And that's why this company, which looked much more expensive based on the analysis, was actually much cheaper.
因此，利润开始呈现下滑趋势，这导致以预期的市盈率来看，您实际上为福特支付的市盈率比目前的好市多还要高。而在看好市多时，尽管该公司的市盈率较高，但由于其订阅收入，使得其利润更具预测性，公司实际上比预期增长得更快。在大多数情况下，其表现比分析师预期的更加稳健。它比分析师预期支付更高的股息和特别股息。因此，这家公司虽然在分析上看似更昂贵，但实际上却更便宜。
So I have a fundamental disagreement with a lot of the decisions that Christopher Bloomstrand makes. In particular, doubling down on companies that are going through struggle, doubling down on companies that are showing poor execution, declining earnings, and ones that have real intrinsic problems with the company. I don't believe those are the companies that you should be adding to in your portfolio. Now, he's done this again with different positions here. Another one is Paramount. You know my opinion on this again. I focused on the companies I think are the higher quality in this given industry with dollar general and dollar tree, I'd rather buy Costco with Paramount, Disney, all these different streaming companies, I'd rather buy Netflix.
我对克里斯托弗·布卢姆斯特兰德所做的许多决策有根本性的分歧。特别是对于那些正在经历困难、表现不佳、盈利下降、以及本身存在重大问题的公司，他还选择加码投资。我不认为这些公司是我们应该在投资组合中增加的对象。现在，他在不同的投资中又这样做了。其中一个例子是派拉蒙。我再一次表达我的观点，我更关注在这个行业中质量更高的公司，如Dollar General和Dollar Tree，而不是派拉蒙、迪士尼等流媒体公司。在这类选择中，我更愿意投资Netflix。
Paramount has been a seismic value trap for investors. One where investors again were forecasting moderate growth and earnings and profits from the company. What they got was a company that was sub-scale. Never got to the point of making enormous free cash flow because to generate the content, they have to generate to get subscribers. They're paying a fortune on a per subscriber basis. They do not have the scale achieved that Netflix has to run a profitable streaming endeavor.
派拉蒙一直是投资者的一个巨大的价值陷阱。投资者一度预测公司会有适度的增长、收益和利润，但实际情况是公司规模不足。派拉蒙从未达到创造巨大自由现金流的地步，因为为了吸引订阅者，他们必须大量生产内容，这使得他们在每个订阅者上花费巨资。他们没有像Netflix那样达到足够的规模以运营一个有利可图的流媒体业务。
So we look at the revenue. The revenue is slowly declining with Paramount over the past five years, not growing revenue in the top line. The free cash flow continues to go down. When you look at it on a stock-based compensation adjusted basis, it looks even worse. When we look at the net income of the company or the earnings per share, it's deeply in the red now. So this company is continually struggling to survive and the stock price reflux said, it's up 11% this year over the past trailing one year. It's down 2%. Over the past five years, it's down 38%.
我们来看看收入情况。过去五年中，派拉蒙的收入在逐渐下降，未能实现总收入的增长。自由现金流也在持续减少。如果按基于股票的薪酬调整来看，情况更糟糕。公司的净收入或每股收益现在都严重亏损。因此，这家公司一直在艰难求生，而其股票价格也反映了这一点。今年股票价格上涨了11%，但在过去一年中下跌了2%。过去五年内，它的股价更是下跌了38%。
Again, at many points in time, Paramount looked cheaper than Netflix. In reality, it was much more expensive because the earnings were going down while Netflix is rapidly growing. Right now, the real highlight of the portfolio is Berkshire Hathaway. That 36% position in Berkshire is really saving this portfolio. The other value traps outside of that are dragging down the performance. They have done so for the past couple of years. And this portfolio has lagged the S&P 500 for a few years.
许多时候，派拉蒙（Paramount）看起来比奈飞（Netflix）便宜。但实际上，它要更昂贵得多，因为派拉蒙的收益在下降，而奈飞的收益却在快速增长。目前，这个投资组合中真正的亮点是伯克希尔·哈撒韦（Berkshire Hathaway）。伯克希尔所占的36%仓位确实在拯救这个投资组合。除此之外的其他投资则拖累了整体表现，并且在过去的几年中也是如此。这个投资组合已经落后于标准普尔500指数好几年了。
Now next up, we have one of my all-time favorites, which of course is Valley Forge Capital Management with DevCantissaria. He's very good at investing and he's good at sticking to his plan. That's one of the things I always respect about him is you can see it in the trades. One of the best indicators of a really great investor is underwhelming 13F filings. 13F filings that you look at and you go, oh, not much changed. Looks very similar to last quarter. That is the indication of a great investor because you don't need to change your portfolio if you originally made great decisions.
接下来，我们要介绍的是我一直以来的最爱之一，也就是由DevCantissaria领导的Valley Forge资本管理公司。他在投资方面非常出色，而且始终如一地坚持自己的计划。我一直很尊敬他的一点就是，从他的交易中可以看出这一点。真正优秀投资者的一个最佳指标就是平淡无奇的13F报告。当你查看13F报告时，如果发现变动不大，与上一季度相比变化很少，这正是伟大投资者的标志。因为如果你一开始做出了明智的决策，就不需要频繁更换投资组合。
The people that are constantly shuffling around their portfolio, finding new companies and ditching the ones they just previously held are the ones that are always making poor decisions that they need to reassess and redo all the time. So having a very high turnover ratio can be an indication of some trading strategy, but it's also likely an indication that the investor is not finding quality companies that will simply compound for long periods of time. So the fact that DevCantissaria has underwhelming 13F filings, ones that you look at and you go, there's not much going on here. That's a signal that he's doing something right.
那些经常在投资组合中频繁买进卖出的人，总是寻找新公司并抛弃之前持有的公司，他们往往做出错误的决策，不得不时常重新评估和调整。因此，如果投资组合的换手率很高，这可能代表某种交易策略，但也很可能意味着投资者没能找到能够长期增长的优质公司。所以，DevCantissaria的13F文件表现平平，让人看上去觉得没有太多动作，这实际上是他做对了一些事情的信号。
For example, when we look at the biggest trades he did, he actually just did two trades and both of them are slight reductions. He reduced his into a position by 26% and his phycoposition by 2%. Now, without any buy, I believe that this is because of redemption. And the reason that I say that is I don't think that DevCantissaria is the type of person to raise cash. He said before that he only keeps a percent or two percent of cash. He likes holding almost no cash because he believes that his companies are working so hard that the opportunity cost of having any cash is significant.
例如，当我们查看他做的最大交易时，实际上他只进行了两次交易，且这两次都是小幅减持。他将其中一个持仓减少了26%，另一个持仓减少了2%。由于没有任何买入，我认为这可能是因为赎回的原因。我之所以这么说，是因为我不认为DevCantissaria是那种喜欢持有现金的人。他曾表示过他只会保留百分之一或百分之二的现金。他喜欢几乎不持有现金，因为他认为他的公司运作得非常努力，以至于持有任何现金的机会成本都非常高。
He likes to be fully invested all the time, no matter the market. And he's come to that conclusion over years. So I'd be surprised if he changes mine on that and he was simply raising cash. More than likely someone wanted to get a little bit of money out of the portfolio and he picked two different stocks to raise cash from. My best guess of why he sold into it and a little bit of phyco is phyco, I think the clear reason why is because this has been a massive winner and it's trading on an elevated valuation.
他喜欢在任何市场情况下都保持全面投资，并且是经过多年的思考得出的这一结论。所以如果他改变了主意并仅仅是募集现金，我会感到惊讶。更有可能的是，有人想从投资组合中提取一点资金，他选择了两个不同的股票来实现变现。我猜测他之所以卖出这些股票，部分原因是这些股票表现非常好，现在估值较高。
So we trimmed a little bit of phyco and he's still incredibly bullish on it with a 32% position. Reducing around a quarter of his into a position aligns with his recent moves. I believe with the advent of AI that DevCantissaria is spooked with any type of software company. So you have companies like Google, you have companies like Adobe, you have companies like Salesforce, you have companies like Intuit. And I believe that DevCantissaria is a little bit concerned about all of them.
所以我们稍微减少了一些phyco，而他仍然非常看好它，持有32%的仓位。他减少了大约四分之一的持仓，这与他最近的操作一致。我认为，由于人工智能的兴起，DevCantissaria对所有类型的软件公司都感到有些担忧。因此，你会看到像谷歌、Adobe、Salesforce和Intuit这样的公司，我相信DevCantissaria对它们都有些顾虑。
He doesn't know how AI is going to affect those companies in particular. Now Intuit isn't exactly like Salesforce, it's not exactly like Adobe, it's a little bit more insulated from AI. But if I had a guess, I really think that's the reason why he believes that there's some type of chance that artificial intelligence will make filing taxes easier or make accounting easier and might put pressure on Intuit.
他不知道人工智能会对这些公司产生什么具体影响。Intuit 与 Salesforce 和 Adobe 有些不同，与人工智能的联系较为少一些。但是我猜测，他认为人工智能可能会让报税或会计变得更加简单，这就是他觉得 Intuit 面临压力的原因。
Maybe there's an increasing competitors that are AI startups that are increasing competitiveness with their products. And these other type of companies like S&P Global, like Moody's don't have quite as bit of direct competition yet. Even though there are some ways artificial intelligence could compete with S&P Global Moody's in particular with their risk analytics business. But overall, they're far more insulated than software companies. Now again, this is just my guess. We don't know for sure. Overall, these are still very minor changes. He is still bullish on Intuit. He's still bullish on FICO. He wouldn't have these companies in his portfolio otherwise.
也许有越来越多的AI初创公司正在通过其产品提高竞争力。而像S&P Global和Moody's这样的公司目前尚未面临直接竞争。尽管在某些方面，人工智能可能会与它们的风险分析业务展开竞争。但总体而言，它们比软件公司更具保护性。不过，这只是我的猜测，我们不能确定。这些变化总体上还是很细微的。他仍然看好Intuit和FICO，否则他不会将这些公司纳入自己的投资组合。
Now next up, we get to Warren Buffett. The name here is Warren Buffett. But I would say that a lot of this is becoming more of a Berkshire Hathaway portfolio than a Warren Buffett portfolio. Buffett's taking more of a backseat with the ongoing trades in Berkshire Hathaway. So we're now seeing different management step up and start to call the shots. When we look at the biggest trades of Berkshire, there's not a lot going on here. We have very small trades, for example, they bought constellation brands. This was exciting for a lot of people.
接下来，我们来说说沃伦·巴菲特。虽然名字是沃伦·巴菲特，但我认为 Berkshire Hathaway（伯克希尔·哈撒韦）的投资组合现在更像是公司的投资组合，而不是巴菲特个人的投资组合。巴菲特在公司持续的交易中逐渐退居幕后，所以我们现在看到其他管理层开始崭露头角并做出决策。看看伯克希尔最大的交易，会发现并不多。比如，他们买入了 Constellation Brands（星座品牌），这让很多人感到兴奋。不过这些交易都很小。
But it's a 0.45% position. And that's 0.45% of their public holdings. Remember that Berkshire has over half of their portfolio in private companies, all these energy companies and utility companies and insurance and sees candy. This is 0.45% of just the public portion. So very, very small in terms of the total Berkshire portfolio. They also bought a sliver of pool corp. I've done some analysis on that one. You can dig into on the channel. He bought a little bit of Domino's pizza, a little bit more serious XM and so on. But I want to emphasize, even though he's buying these companies, they're not game changers.
这只占了他们公开持有资产的0.45%，而这0.45%只是伯克希尔公开持有部分的比例。要记住，伯克希尔有超过一半的投资在私有公司，比如那些能源公司、公用事业公司、保险公司和糖果公司。这只是公开持有部分的0.45%，所以相对于整个伯克希尔的投资组合来说，非常非常小。此外，他们还买了一小部分Pool Corp的股票。我对这家公司做过一些分析，你可以在频道上找到相关内容。他还购买了一点达美乐披萨和一些更严肃的XM等公司的股票。但我想强调的是，即便他在买这些公司，规模也不大，不会影响大局。
These aren't moving the needle. Every single trade here is less than half a percent, except for his reduction in Bank of America. That was 0.79%. Berkshire Hathaway is clearly prioritizing having their massive cash pile, earning a lot of interest and having all of their profitable businesses generate growing operating income year over year. So they're fine, just sitting there outperforming the S&P 500, watching this giant empire of cash and business work together. They feel no pressure to swing at every pitch that's thrown to them.
这些交易并没有带来实质性的改变。这里的每一笔交易都不到0.5%，除了他减持美国银行的那笔交易，比例为0.79%。伯克希尔·哈撒韦显然更注重让他们庞大的现金储备赚取更多利息，同时让所有盈利的业务每年产生越来越多的营业收入。因此，他们很乐意坐在那里，超越标准普尔500指数，观察这个巨大的现金和业务帝国协同运作。他们并不急于针对每一个投资机会进行频繁操作。
They're the most secure of the most secure company in the world. The most diversified with the most money, the most undisruptible. So you're going to see more of that over time. We'll see if Berkshire Hathaway does another big trade in the future like they did with Apple, but right now it looks like they're still holding. Next up, we have Chris Hone from TCI Fund Management. We recently did a reaction to an interview from him and got some insight on his investment philosophy. So that gives some better context to his thought process here.
他们是世界上最安全的公司中最安全的。拥有最多样化的业务和最多的资金，几乎不可被打扰。因此，随着时间的推移，你会看到更多这样的表现。我们会看看伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司未来是否会像当初投资苹果公司那样进行另一笔大交易，但目前看来，他们仍在持有。接下来是来自TCI基金管理公司的克里斯·霍恩。我们最近对他的一次访谈做了一些反应，并对他的投资理念有了一些深入了解，这为我们理解他的思维方式提供了更好的背景。
But now we get to see his trades. We organize this by the biggest trades. The biggest one was adding the Microsoft. This is not surprising. Microsoft is a well-diversified, deeply embedded company with high barriers to entry. It has everything that he looks for the reliable income, the brand recognition, the global presence on and on and on. This is the perfect Chris Hone company. Beyond that, he did reduce his Google position slightly. When I look at this slight reduction, I do see investors becoming a little bit more cautious about Google's positioning in this changing dynamic of AI.
但现在我们能看到他的交易了。我们按照交易规模来整理，最大的一笔是增持了微软。这并不意外。微软是一家多元化经营、深度嵌入市场的公司，并且有很高的进入门槛。它具备他所寻找的一切：稳定的收入、品牌知名度、全球影响力等等。这是一家完美契合克里斯·霍恩（Chris Hone）投资标准的公司。除此之外，他稍微减少了谷歌的持仓。从这个小幅减持中，我看出投资者对谷歌在不断变化的人工智能动态中的地位变得稍微更加谨慎。
They're right in the heart of it with search as we know different investors are making informed decisions on this. And there's smart investors on both sides. You have investors like Bill Ackman and analysts like Mark Mahaney saying that Google is going to be fine to stay in the stock and it's one of his top picks. Then you have investors like Def Cantissaria. You have ones that are becoming a bit more cautious about this paradigm shift in Google. So this one has caused a bit of a disagreement.
不同的投资者正在根据信息作出决策，而他们正处于搜索领域的核心问题之中。双方各有聪明的投资者。像Bill Ackman这样的投资者和Mark Mahaney这样的分析师认为谷歌状况良好，值得继续持有，甚至是他们的首选之一。然而，也有像Def Cantissaria这样的投资者，他们对谷歌正在经历的模式转变变得更加谨慎。因此，这在投资者之间引发了一些分歧。
I'm still of the opinion that Google is going to turn out to be a good investment. This portfolio is full of high-quality compounding machines. Companies that have high barriers to entry, incredibly good economics, it's the Christopher Hone blueprint that's worked for over a decade and I believe it will work in the future. Now finally we get to Terry Smith. We get to take a look at what's going on with his portfolio. We know that he manages fun Smith, a massive fund with $21 billion just in this portfolio and he has high-quality companies but he's a little bit different.
我仍然认为谷歌将是一项不错的投资。这个投资组合中充满了高质量的复合增长型公司。这些公司有着高进入壁垒和极佳的经济效益，这是克里斯托弗·霍恩的成功蓝图，并且已经成功运作了十多年，我相信它在未来也会继续奏效。现在，我们终于要谈到特里·史密斯了。来看看他的投资组合情况。我们知道，他管理着方斯密斯基金，这是一个庞大的基金，仅在这个投资组合中就有210亿美元。他管理的公司质量很高，但他的方法有些不同。
He's not super concentrated like a lot of these investors are. He's a bit more diversified. So he has a wider range of companies that he looks at. When we look at the activity of the biggest trades that he's done, the biggest one is selling out of Pepsi. So he's selling off this consumer staple. Pepsi is a great company that has high returns on capital, very diversified business but it's on the growth curve of being a slower grower. So you're not going to get super returns from that type of company. You will have more of a defensive, slow-growing one. He also reduced meta a little bit. So we have Pat Dorsey adding to meta at the very same time that Terry Smith is reducing it.
他不像许多投资者那样过于集中，而是投资得更为分散。因此，他关注的公司种类更广泛。在我们观察到他的最大交易活动时，发现他卖掉了百事公司。也就是说，他在出售这种消费必需品。百事是一家优秀的公司，资本回报率很高，业务也很多元化，但其增长速度较缓，所以无法从这类公司中获得超高回报。这样的公司更适合作为防御型、慢速增长的选择。他还略微减少了对Meta的投资。于是我们看到，Pat Dorsey在增持Meta的同时，Terry Smith则在减少对其的投资。
Now if I had a guess which is the right call here, which one's going to turn out better, I think adding to meta right now is going to be better than selling it. Meta is very, it's in a very strong position. I realize that Terry Smith is taking gains here. He has a large position in meta. So this is only a 15% reduction, not a huge deal but I still think he should just hang on to it. He added to a company called Zodis to a 1.74% position. This is a company that is in the health care industry for animals. So it's animal medications. That's a growing industry. It has secular trends and he likes the fundamentals of that business. You can learn more about that one.
如果让我猜测这里的最佳选择是什么，以及哪个决定会更好，我认为现在增持Meta股票会比卖出更好。Meta目前处于非常强势的地位。我知道Terry Smith在这里实现了一些收益。他在Meta的持仓很大，所以他只减持了15%，并不是特别大的操作。我仍然认为他应当继续持有。他增加了一家公司叫做Zodis的持仓至1.74%。这是一家专注于动物健康护理行业的公司，也就是动物药品行业。这是一个正在增长的行业，有长期的发展趋势，而且他也看好这家公司的基本面。你可以了解更多关于这家公司的信息。
He also reduced Microsoft a little bit. Again, this feels like he's simply just trimming down for portfolio management concerns, his top positions. So he trimmed meta, which is a 10% position now. He also trimmed Microsoft, which is a 9%. I think that Terry Smith likes having bigger positions but he's not as comfortable as some investors having these 15 or 20% positions. So whenever they grow that big, he likes to take some gains and reallocate to other companies. His portfolio overall still looks relatively the same with Microsoft and meta being the two significant bets.
他也稍微减持了微软的股票。这感觉像是为了管理投资组合，他对一些主要头寸进行了调整。他减持了Meta，现在这个头寸占10%；他也减持了微软，现在占9%。我认为，Terry Smith喜欢持有较大的头寸，但不像一些投资者那样对15%或20%的大头寸感到舒适。所以每当这些投资增长到那么大时，他喜欢兑现一些收益并重新分配到其他公司。整体来看，他的投资组合仍然保持相对不变，微软和Meta仍然是两个重要的投资。
Now that concludes the super investors for now. We'll continue to look at their filings, especially going throughout this year as they're reacting to the terrorists and the April news, all the chaos that it's unfolded. Now as we jump further into this, we have an interview from Sundar Pachai. This is on the all-in podcast. One thing I like about it is he's asked very point blank about the biggest concerns that investors have for the company.
现在，这就是目前为止的超级投资者部分。我们将继续关注他们的申报，特别是在今年期间，他们会对恐怖事件和四月份的新闻以及随之而来的混乱作出反应。现在，随着我们对此进一步深入探讨，我们有一段来自桑达尔·皮查伊的采访。这是在“All-In”播客上的一段采访。我喜欢的一点是，他在采访中被直接询问投资者对公司最大的担忧。
Right now, Google's in a position where roughly half their total revenue comes from search advertising. Search is a huge portion of the business, half of it. But then on top of that, search has the highest margins. So it's half of the company with the highest margins, meaning it makes up for over half of the profits of the company. And Sundar is challenged with this task of explaining how Google's in a good position when so much of their revenue and income is based off of this revenue source of search and searches evolving and changing in such a dynamic way with Chatchy B.T. with Lama with other big competitors.
目前，谷歌大约一半的总收入来自搜索广告。搜索业务占公司业务的一大部分，占总收入的一半。而且，搜索业务的利润率是最高的。因此，它占公司超过一半的利润。 Sundar面临的挑战是，如何在这么多的收入和利润依赖于搜索这个不断变化和发展的领域时，仍然将谷歌的优势解释清楚，尤其是在Chatchy B.T.、Lama和其他大竞争者的影响下。
When he's asked about this dynamic change, the innovator's dilemma, the disruption risk. He tries to frame this question, give a bit more of a holistic answer to it. And so he explains for a while here his position and Google's view. And I think it's worth listening to all of it. So this is a bit longer of an answer, but I want to let Sundar explain his entire thought here. You know, I definitely, you know, for almost a decade, you know, one of the first things I did was to think of the company as AI first, who's very clear to us.
当有人问他关于这种动态变化、创新者的两难选择以及颠覆风险时，他努力将这个问题放在更全面的框架中来回答。所以，他花了一段时间来解释他的立场和谷歌的看法。我觉得这番话值得仔细聆听。接下来他的回答会有点长，但我希望让Sundar完整地分享他的想法。你知道吗，将近十年来，我做的第一件事情就是将公司视为以人工智能为核心，这一点对我们非常明确。
We had Google Brain underway in 2012. We acquired DeepMine in 2014, 2015 when I became the CEO, I said, look, the technology is really evolving. The reason we were excited to be approached our workers AI first is because we really felt that AI is what will drive the biggest progress in search. And so, you know, I think even the last couple of years, I viewed this as an extraordinary opportunity for search. I think if you look at how much information means to people, I think they're going to each person is going to have access to information in a way they've never had before.
在2012年，我们开始了Google Brain项目。2014年，我们收购了DeepMind。2015年，当我成为CEO时，我说，看，技术正在迅速发展。我们之所以兴奋地采用“AI优先”战略，是因为我们真正感觉到AI将推动搜索领域的最大进步。所以，过去的几年里，我一直认为这是搜索领域的一个非凡机遇。我认为，如果你看看信息对于人们的重要性，我相信每个人将以一种前所未有的方式获取信息。
So it feels very far from a zero sum construct to me. And we are seeing it empirically when people are using search. Obviously, there are a couple of major things we have done with search. You know, transformers draw some of the biggest innovations in search with Bert and Mom dramatically improved search quality. We launched AIO abuse a year ago. It's now being used by over one and a half billion users in over 150 countries. It's expanding the types of queries people can type in.
在我看来，这感觉非常不像是一个零和结构。而且，当人们在使用搜索时，我们确实看到了这一点。从搜索领域来说，我们显然做出了一些重大改变。像Bert和Mom这样的变革性技术引入，极大地提升了搜索质量。我们在一年前推出了AIO滥用防护系统，现在已经被全球超过150个国家的15亿用户所使用。这个系统正在扩展人们可以输入的查询类型。
And we see it empirically, the nature of queries is expanded for the whole new use cases coming into search. We find for queries where we trigger AIO abuse, you know, we see query growth. And the growth continues over time. You know, getting the feedback from AIO abuse, we are, you know, we recently we're testing it in labs. This whole new dedicated AI experience called AI mode coming to search will speak about it more at Google IO.
我们从实践中观察到，新的使用场景进入搜索领域，查询的性质因此得到了拓展。对于那些我们触发了AIO滥用的查询，我们发现查询量在增长，并且这种增长会持续。通过从AIO滥用中获得反馈，我们最近在实验室中进行了测试。这种全新的专用AI体验，被称为AI模式，将在搜索中推出。我们会在Google IO上详细讨论这一点。
And in AI mode, you can have a full-on AI experience in search, including follow-on conversational queries. And we're bringing our cutting edge models there where the models are actually working to answer your questions using search as a real native tool. And there the queries, people are typing in queries like literally long paragraphs. The average query length is somewhere two to three times. It's what we seen search as it existed two years ago. So we have seen people respond.
在人工智能模式下，你可以在搜索中体验完整的AI体验，包括后续的会话式查询。我们正在引入最先进的模型，这些模型可以通过搜索作为一种真正的原生工具来回答你的问题。在这种方式下，人们输入的查询就像是很长的段落。查询的平均长度大约是两到三倍于我们两年前看到的搜索模式。因此，我们观察到人们的积极响应。
In search is always from the outside people look at it and say search, oh, it kind of looks easy to do. The craft of search is very hard. Over two decades, I think we've had a real not-star of understanding what users want in search. And you know, we, you know, you've been here, we're kind of a very metric instrument company. We kind of know what works, uses our, our not-star. And, and empirically, we see that people are engaging more and using the product more, right?
寻找搜索似乎总是从外部开始，人们看着它，就会说："搜索看起来很简单。" 然而，搜索的技艺其实非常困难。经过二十多年的发展，我认为我们在理解用户对搜索的需求方面取得了显著进展。你知道，我们是一家非常注重数据和指标的公司，我们大致了解什么是有效的，这也是我们的指引方向。而且，实际数据显示人们对产品的使用和互动越来越频繁，对吧？
So, so all that to your question about innovators dilemma, I think the dilemma only exists if you treated as a dilemma, right? Like, you know, say for me, all along in technology, you have these massive periods of innovation and you lean into it as hard as you can. It's the only way to do it. You know, when mobile came, everyone was like, well, you know, it's like you're not going to have the real estate, like how all the ads work, all that stuff, you know, mobile was a transition which ended up working great.
关于您提到的创新者的两难问题，我认为这种两难只有在你把它当作两难来对待时才存在。对我来说，在科技进步的过程中，你会遇到大量的创新时期，而你需要不遗余力地去迎接这些变革，这是唯一的方法。比如，当移动互联网时代来临时，很多人都担心缺少广告展示的位置以及广告如何运行，但最终移动互联网的转型取得了巨大的成功。
I think you've great examples, right? Like TikTok has come in. YouTube has thrived since the moment TikTok has come in, right? And it was a whole new format. We, did shots when we launched shots. Shots absolutely didn't monetize anywhere in a long form. But we just leaned into the user experience and over time when we figured out monetization to follow. So, you know, to me, you don't think about it as a dilemma like, you know, because you have to innovate to stay ahead and you kind of lean in that direction.
我觉得你提到了很好的例子，对吧？比如说，TikTok的出现。自从TikTok上线后，YouTube的发展一直很好，对吧？这是一种全新的形式。我们在推出短视频的时候也做了一些尝试。短视频一开始确实没有像长视频那样带来收益。但是我们专注于用户体验，随着时间的推移，我们找到了盈利的方法。所以，对我来说，这并不是一个难题，因为为了保持领先，你必须不断创新，并向这个方向倾斜。
His answer to the innovator dilemma challenge being posed here, I think is a great answer. It's only a dilemma if you treat it as one. The answer that Sundar has every time is to lean in to the new technology. Lean into the innovation. Don't worry about potentially cannibalizing one revenue stream that you have that's existing. Now, in the interview, he talks more about the potential of cannibalization, the higher cost to run AI, the monetization of AI search against the blue link searches. So we'll get to that in a minute.
他对创新者两难问题的回答，我认为是一个很好的答案。只有你把它当作一个难题，它才会成为难题。Sundar 每次的答案都是拥抱新技术，拥抱创新。不要担心可能会侵蚀现有的收入来源。在采访中，他更详细地谈到了可能的侵蚀、运行 AI 的较高成本，以及 AI 搜索与传统蓝色链接搜索的盈利问题。我们稍后会详细讨论。
But I want to address a couple other things you mentioned here. One of the the framings of this is that Google is going to be disrupted because you have things like Chatchy BT, you have AI and it's changing the way that we consume information. So there's potential for disruption there that exists. When we look at AI or any new technology, the natural tendency for humans is to look at what exists and how it's going to replace what exists.
我想讨论一下你提到的其他几个问题。其中一种说法是，由于Chatchy BT这样的技术和人工智能正在改变我们获取信息的方式，谷歌可能会面临冲击。这种冲击的可能性是存在的。当我们观察人工智能或任何新技术时，人们通常会倾向于看已有的东西，并思考这些新技术将如何取代现有的事物。
That's what we always do. We look at what currently exists in our field of view, because that's what we know about. We know about what exists. We don't know about what what doesn't currently exist as an experience. So humans naturally look at what currently exists and how this new technology is going to replace or subjugate or do whatever to what currently exists. But what he's saying is AI is going to do things that we don't know exists right now.
这是我们一直以来的做法。我们总是关注视野中已经存在的事物，因为这是我们了解的部分。我们了解的是已经存在的事物，而无法认知那些当前还不存在的体验。所以，人们自然会关注现有的东西，以及新技术如何取代、支配或者以其他方式影响这些现有的事物。但是，他所说的是，人工智能将会做到一些我们目前不知道存在的事情。
It's going to replace things that we're not even doing. So it's not really going to be a replacement. It's going to broaden and increase the scope of what we do with information. And that's happened many times in the past. For example, you can look at the examples he gave like TikTok. TikTok came into view and did it replace anything that YouTube was doing? Not really. Did it weaken YouTube or slow down YouTube? Not really.
这将取代一些我们现在甚至还没有在做的事情。所以它并不是真正的替代，而是拓宽和增加了我们使用信息的范围。这样的情况在过去已经发生过很多次了。比如，你可以看看他提到的例子，像抖音。抖音出现后，它取代了YouTube正在做的事情吗？其实并没有。它削弱了YouTube或让YouTube的增长变慢了吗？也没有。
It added a brand new way of monetizing and creating videos, which was short form video. The scroll feed, the algorithm, the whole experience doing that, which YouTube adapted implemented into their service and now it's another growing part of YouTube, making their service overall stronger with a new fast growing competitor. Now TikTok also was growing so fast that it scared people. It was getting hundreds of millions of downloads.
它引入了一种全新的方式来实现视频的货币化和创建视频，这就是短视频。滑动浏览、算法以及整个体验，YouTube将其实现并融入到自己的服务中，如今已成为YouTube快速增长的一部分，使其整体服务更加强大，并迎战这一快速崛起的竞争对手。同时，TikTok的增长速度也令人惊讶，下载量已经达到数亿次，这让人们感到震惊。
It sounded very similar to OpenAI. Isn't that kind of the same story? This new company out of nowhere, nobody knows about all of a sudden it's growing rapidly and it competes with these companies. So it's going to damage Instagram. It's going to damage Facebook. It's going to damage YouTube. It's going to outgrow and take their customers. All of these companies have grown at the same time. TikTok just implemented a new way of consuming information.
这听起来与OpenAI非常相似，不是同样的故事吗？这家新公司突然冒出来，没人知道，但突然之间发展迅速，并且开始与这些公司竞争。它将会影响Instagram、Facebook和YouTube，吸引并抢走它们的用户。这些公司都是在同一个时期成长起来的。TikTok只是引入了一种新的信息消费方式。
You can also look at another example that he didn't list here, but one that I'll provide, which is Uber. If we look at Uber and we compare that to the taxi industry, when Uber was taking over and replacing the taxi industry, many people said this is just replacing one thing for another. Instead of just having taxis, now we have Uber's replacing them. What people didn't think of at the time was Uber eats and food delivery because taxis weren't currently doing that.
你也可以看一个他没列举的例子，但我会提供的，那就是Uber。假如我们把Uber和出租车行业进行比较，当Uber开始取代出租车行业时，许多人说这只是用一个东西替换了另一个。以前只有出租车，现在被Uber取代了。当时，人们没有想到的是Uber的外卖服务，因为当时出租车并没有提供这种服务。
You could not get on a nap and order a meal from Taco Bell or McDonald's or whatever restaurant and have it delivered to your doorstep in a couple minutes through your local taxi. The whole idea of it would have seemed crazy at the time. Nobody was thinking of that, but Uber not only replaced some of what was existing, which was the taxi service, but they added on a whole new layer of service with DoorDash and Uber now doing food delivery, which is a massive, massive industry.
你不可能在小睡的时候通过当地的出租车在几分钟内把塔可钟、麦当劳或其他餐馆的餐点送到家门口。这样的想法在当时听起来完全是疯狂的。没有人会想到这个，但是Uber不仅取代了原有的出租车服务，他们还通过DoorDash和Uber Eats引入了全新的服务层次——即食品配送，这已成为一个非常庞大的行业。
Overall, the whole pie of delivering things and moving things around of mobility in general grew. We look at instances like this with any new technology. We view it as a one-to-one replacement, but in most cases, it's going to grow things. It's going to make things bigger overall, and that's the point he made in this three-minute monologue about how Google is looking at this with a much broader perspective. They believe people are going to consume information in entirely new ways.
总体来看，物流配送和整体移动性的需求都在增长。我们在观察每一项新技术时，往往将其视为对现有技术的一对一替代，但在大多数情况下，它实际上会扩展市场，使整体规模更大。在他三分钟的独白中强调了这一点，讲述了谷歌是如何以更广阔的视角来看待这个问题的。他们相信，人们将会以全新的方式来获取信息。
Not just replacing the blue links, but adding many more search opportunities. They are on the leading edge with all the leading models, with the development, with the infrastructure, with already the know-how. He mentioned that they already have one and a half billion people using AI overviews. They have AI mode that they're pushing out to more users, which is that LLM built into Google search, very convenient, and Google has the latest models that are actually incredibly good.
不仅仅是替换蓝色链接，他们还在增加更多的搜索机会。他们在前沿位置，不论是在所有先进模型的应用上，还是在技术开发和基础设施建设上，都具备丰富的专业知识。他提到，他们已经有十五亿用户在使用AI概览功能。他们正向更多用户推广AI模式，这个模式实际上是集成到谷歌搜索中的大型语言模型，非常方便。谷歌拥有最新且性能卓越的模型。
The latest Gemini models, the AI overviews, are very accurate. So, Google is on top of this in terms of distribution and in terms of technology and performance. Now, moving along this interview, we get to this aspect of the new search queries and how expensive they are compared to the old version. A big argument that the Google Bears have made for some time is that even if Google is able to transition people over from these old searches to the new ones, they're not going to make as much money because the new ones are based on AI.
最新的Gemini模型，也就是AI的概览，具有很高的准确性。因此，在分发、技术和性能方面，谷歌处于领先地位。在这次采访中，我们继续讨论到新的搜索查询及其相较于旧版的昂贵程度。谷歌的批评者们一直以来的一个重要观点是，即便谷歌能够让用户从旧搜索转到新搜索，他们的收入可能不会像以前那么多，因为新搜索是基于AI的。
AI is very expensive to run. We've heard that over and over again so that margins are going to go down and AI is not going to be able to monetize as well because the other ones are more commercial based and these new AI searches are more informational, more learning. They're not as commercial centered. Listen to the way that Sundar addresses these concerns because I think it brings an entirely new perspective to this discussion.
运行 AI 是非常昂贵的。我们反复听到这种说法，所以利润率将会下降，AI 也无法实现盈利，因为其他 AI 更多是以商业为基础，而这些新的 AI 搜索则更侧重于信息和学习，不太以商业为中心。听听 Sundar 如何回应这些担忧，因为我认为这为这场讨论带来了全新的视角。
Look, this is something I think people are really worried about two years ago, but in a wallways felt to the extent that something is about the cost of serving it. Google with its infrastructure, I'd wager on that. And on our chances to do that better than pretty much anyone else. That's the first point. He says, anytime that there's a discussion on cost to perform something or cost to serve something, he's highly confident.
看，我觉得这是人们在两年前非常关心的事情，但从某种程度上来说，这更多是关于服务成本的问题。凭借谷歌的基础设施，我敢打赌谷歌在这方面能做到最好。无论什么时候讨论到执行某事或提供某服务的成本，他都非常有信心。
He just says anytime it's a challenge of what, oh, this will be so expensive. Who figures that out better than Google? Honestly, look at their history. You have YouTube. Could any other company imagine running YouTube profitably ever? It has to be conceivably one of the most difficult businesses ever to run profitably. YouTube, there's 20 plus million YouTube videos uploaded every single day, 20 million.
他说每当面临挑战时，总会有人说，这会很贵。“谁能比谷歌更好地解决这个问题？”说实话，看看他们的历史。你有 YouTube。还有哪家公司能想象出以盈利的方式运营 YouTube？这很可能是有史以来最难盈利的业务之一。每天都会有超过 2000 万个视频上传到 YouTube，2000 万个。
The amount of storage and server capacity to be able to run and distribute that many videos, the streaming, 4K streaming on YouTube, just imagine the server capacity, the technical challenge, the cost associated with that. Another thing that they've turned profitably like clockwork is Google Cloud. It had low margins at one point. It was money losing. Investors were saying, why are you investing so much in Google Cloud?
要运行和分发如此多的视频，包括在YouTube上的4K视频流，需要大量的存储和服务器容量。可以想象，这是一个巨大的技术挑战，成本也很高。另外，他们已经成功地让Google Cloud像时钟一般盈利。曾几何时，它的利润率很低，甚至是在亏损。投资者不解地问，为什么要在Google Cloud上投入这么多资金？
It's losing hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter. Now it's highly profitable. Bushing up 17% operating margins. The next in line is Waymo. People are complaining that Waymo isn't profitable right now. At scale, Google will make it profitable. It's what they do. They turn businesses that on the surface look very difficult to make profitable into profitable companies.
每季度亏损数亿美元的公司，现在已经获得了高额利润，营业利润率提升了17%。接下来要说的是Waymo。现在有人抱怨Waymo并不盈利。但一旦达到规模，谷歌将使其盈利。这正是谷歌擅长的事情：他们能够将表面上看起来很难盈利的业务转变为盈利的公司。
When you look at Google's search and the challenge of making AI economics work, he is highly confident in their ability to make a lot of money with AI searches. We have actually seen, for a given query, the cost to serve that query is fallen dramatically in an 18-month timeframe. What is probably more of a constrained latency, I would say? It's less the cost per query. I think our ability to serve the experience at the right latency, search has been near instant. How do you think about that frontier? It's been more. He highlights something that, again, I think is interesting. Every investor right now has been focused on the cost to serve the economics behind the query. And for Sundar and Google, it's not even like this isn't even the discussion. That's not what Google's concerned about. As far as they're concerned, they have that challenge solved. They already know it's going to be profitable.
当你关注谷歌的搜索以及让人工智能经济化运作的挑战时，他对谷歌通过人工智能搜索赚钱的能力充满信心。事实上，我们看到在过去的18个月里，每个查询的服务成本大幅下降。可能更有限制的是延迟，而不是每个查询的成本。我认为我们在合适的延迟下提供体验的能力使得搜索几乎瞬时完成。你如何看待这一前沿呢？这更重要。他提到了一个我个人也觉得有趣的点。现在每个投资者都关注于服务成本和查询背后的经济效益。而对于桑达尔和谷歌来说，这甚至不是讨论的重点。这不是谷歌所担心的事情。在他们看来，他们已经解决了这个挑战，知道这会是有利可图的。
Their big focus is making the queries fast, making it so it's as fast as the legacy ones. And that's more difficult to do with AI. The cost per query is not what I think will end up, I think we'll be able to be done the transition well. That's not a primary driver of how it'll impact things. And do you have a point of view on ad revenue per AI query? We already with AI overviews. We are at the baseline of, it's the same as without AI overviews. And so we've reached that stage. But from there, we can improve, right? And I think they're already right now today as profitable in AI queries as their previous ones. So Google has set a couple of things. First of all, the cost to serve is not an issue. It's just not a concern for them. They've already solved that and they've moved on to other challenges.
他们的重点是让查询速度更快，达到传统查询的速度。而在人工智能上做到这一点更有难度。我认为每次查询的成本最终不会是我们关注的重点，因为我们能够顺利完成过渡，这对结果的影响不是主要因素。那么你有关于每次AI查询的广告收入的看法吗？我们已经有了AI概述的基础，这与没有AI概述的情况基本相同，因此我们已经达到了这个阶段。从这里开始，我们仍然可以改进。我认为他们现在的AI查询利润已经与以前的查询一样丰厚。谷歌就此做了一些决定。首先，提供服务的成本不是问题，他们已经解决了这个问题，并且转向了其他挑战。
And the queries are monetizing at the same rate as the legacy ones. And from there, he believes there's far more upside because they're just getting started with these. Now, a lot of people again can't imagine that you can monetize AI queries as good as these previous ones. They've already done that. But he sees far more upside in monetization with these far more complex nuanced queries. The reason ads have worked well in search is because commercial information is also information. People, when they have that intent are looking for that most relevant information. So I don't see any reason why AI, just from a first principle standpoint, why won't AI do a better job there as well?
查询的变现速度与传统查询相同。他相信从这个基础上，还有更大的增长潜力，因为他们才刚刚开始。现在，很多人仍然无法想象AI查询的变现能力能与之前的查询一样好。但他们已经实现了这一点。而他认为，对于这些更复杂、更具细微差别的查询，变现还有更大的潜力。广告在搜索中效果好的原因在于，商业信息也是信息。当人们有这个需求时，他们寻找的是最相关的信息。所以我看不出任何理由，从基本原则的角度看，为什么AI在这方面不能做得更好。
And so I think we are comfortable that we can work the transition through. Some of it may take time, but all indicators that we'll be able to do it well. This may be a situation where Google is presented with this challenge, but it's actually a bigger opportunity than it is a challenge. Now, I'm not saying that definitively today, they do face greater competition, but Google does have a lot of opportunity to see this pie grow overall. The next thing I want to highlight is on the infrastructure standpoint. One of the questions being posed here is, why is Google positioning itself so strong in infrastructure? What is the purpose behind that?
因此，我认为我们有信心能够顺利完成这一过渡。有些过程可能需要时间，但所有迹象表明我们能够做好。这可能是一个谷歌面临挑战的情况，但实际上这也是一个比挑战本身更大的机遇。今天我还不能下结论说他们面临了更激烈的竞争，但谷歌确实有很大的机会看到整体市场的增长。接下来，我想强调的是基础设施方面的问题。这里提出的一个问题是，为什么谷歌在基础设施上如此有力地布局？这样做的目的是什么呢？
And he talks about how it's basically a necessity to have this level of infrastructure to be on the leading edge of technology. You just have to do it. You know, we look at the Pareto Frontier of performance and cost. Google literally is on the Pareto Frontier. So we deliver the best models at the most cost effective price point. Right? Like, you know, and I've always viewed that full stack approach, you know, deep infrastructure, foundation, fundamental R&D on top of it, and then you build an innovative on top of that. And I think that approach will serve us well over time. Google is taking this full stack vertically integrated approach where they're doing basically everything in house.
他谈到，基本上要达到这个技术前沿的水平，必须要有这样的基础设施。你必须这样做。我们看性能和成本的帕累托前沿，谷歌实际上就在这个前沿。所以我们提供的是性价比最高的最佳模型。对吧？我一直认为，那种全栈的方法，即从深层基础设施入手，进行基础性研发，然后在此基础上进行创新，这样的方法在长期内对我们是有利的。谷歌正在采用这种全栈垂直整合的方法，它们几乎所有的部分都是自己在做。
They have the hardware layer, the infrastructure. They have to know how to make this stuff be servable to the entire world. For example, he says the reason that they can deliver the best model at the cheapest price, that combination is because of their know how they've done this with YouTube. They already know how to serve a large amounts of content, rich content to lots of people across the globe simultaneously and do it at an affordable price. I think the Google CEO is being truthful when he says that this is a bigger opportunity than it is a challenge. Although it faces competition, there is so much opportunity for Google to grow here.
他们拥有硬件层，也就是基础设施。他们必须知道如何让这些东西能够为全世界提供服务。例如，他说，他们能够以最低的价格提供最佳产品的原因，是因为他们在YouTube上已经掌握了这项技能。他们已经知道如何同时为全球大量用户提供丰富的内容，并且做到价格合理。我认为谷歌CEO所说的，比起挑战，这更是一个巨大的机遇，是一句真话。尽管面临竞争，但谷歌在这一领域有着巨大的增长潜力。
So with Google, it's this continued debate that we keep having. But overall, the stock is doing a little bit better. It's now up to 167. It's making a bit of recovery. It's doing better than the market today. I'm still holding my position.
关于谷歌，我们一直在进行这个持续的讨论。但总体而言，它的股票表现稍有好转。价格现在上涨到167，正在逐步恢复。今天它的表现比市场要好。我仍然持有我的仓位。
Now moving on, as we get to our fail of the week, we have here a reaction to a video, a 15 second video. This one is of Sam Altman. It's just a 15 second clip of him cooking something. He's presumably in his own kitchen, putting together a little meal. And people thought it was a little funny, maybe a little endearing, just a bit odd to see someone that's usually in front of Congress or giving big speeches at the White House, now just in his kitchen cooking food. So let's go ahead and just watch it. It's 15 seconds long.
现在进入本周的失败环节，我们来看一个对视频的反应，这是一个15秒的视频片段。这个视频是关于Sam Altman的。只是一段他在做饭的15秒短片。据推测，他是在自己的厨房里准备一顿小餐。人们觉得这个视频有点搞笑，也许有点讨人喜欢，但对一个通常出现在国会或在白宫发表重大演讲的人来说，却显得有点奇怪。所以下面让我们一起来看这个视频，它只有15秒长。
Sam, what are you making? I don't know. It's going to be some sort of pasta and I wrote some specials on the Google sound. It's going to be garlic in the pasta somehow. It looks like an awful lot of garlic right there. I don't think I've ever seen so much garlic. But either way, that's the video.
萨姆，你在做什么？我也不太清楚。应该会是某种意大利面，我在Google上查了一些特别的做法。不管怎样，意大利面里会加上大蒜。看起来这里的大蒜特别多。我好像从来没见过这么多大蒜。不过，视频内容就是这样。
Now, most people watching this video, especially if you're a normal person, will find it rather benign, unobjectionable, nothing too provocative in that 15 second clip. It just shows him heating up a pan, putting a little oil on it, and he has a little too much garlic. That was the video. And that's most normal people's reaction to watch it and go, huh? Well, interesting to see Sam Altman there, but nothing too spectacular.
现在，大多数观看这个视频的人，尤其是普通人，会觉得它相当平淡，无可争议，这段15秒的视频中没有什么太过挑衅的内容。视频只是展示了他加热锅子，倒了一点油，然后放了有点多的大蒜。视频内容就是这样。大多数正常人的反应可能就是看了之后说，嗯？看到Sam Altman在那儿挺有趣，但也没什么特别的。
That is, of course, unless you're an editor for the Financial Times. In this case, we have this editor named Bryce Elder. He is a contributor to the Financial Times and an equity reporter since 2008 before that he wrote for Morningstar. Now, this Financial Times editor and contributor had a lot to say about this 15 second clip. In fact, you decided to publish an entire article going over what we learned about Sam Altman cooking this food.
当然，除非你是《金融时报》的编辑。在这种情况下，我们有一位名叫布莱斯·埃尔德的编辑。他是《金融时报》的撰稿人，自2008年以来一直担任股票记者。在此之前，他为晨星撰稿。现在，这位《金融时报》的编辑和撰稿人对这个15秒的视频片段有很多话要说。事实上，你还决定发表整篇文章来详细讨论我们从山姆·奥特曼做菜中学到了什么。
Now, if you already think this is crazy, just wait. It gets a lot worse. As we go through it, it outlines multiple things that Sam apparently did that were egregiously wrong during this 15 second cooking video. The first one is that he's bad at olive oil.
现在，如果你已经觉得这很疯狂，那请继续看下去。情况会更糟。在我们逐步分析这个视频时，会发现Sam在这段15秒的烹饪视频中显然做了许多明显错误的事情。首当其冲的是，他使用橄榄油的方式不当。
And I love that they freeze a video here like it's like some type of mug shot or CTV camera footage of him like mugging someone. It's just him staring blankly in the camera. And he has that olive oil bottle there. And that's a bad thing. He has the wrong olive oil bottle. It goes on to say that that's Grava. It's a trendy brand of olive oil in southern Spain, the world's olive growing capital that are sold through Whole Foods and direct. They're also in Costco. I've seen that exact bottle in Costco as well.
我很喜欢他们这里把视频冻结，像是给他拍的抓拍照或者是闭路电视拍下他抢劫似的。其实他只是呆呆地盯着镜头。而且他手里还拿着一瓶橄榄油，这是个问题，因为他拿错了橄榄油瓶。接下来还提到，那是Grava，这是一种在南西班牙――世界橄榄种植之都――非常流行的橄榄油品牌，它们通过Whole Foods和直销销售。我也在Costco看到过那一模一样的瓶子。
So again, not particularly noteworthy. It says that the cute packaging and squeeze bottle convenience has helped build Grava's following among Instagram types. But its big innovation was to split the range into easy to understand categories. There is sizzle which is advertised as being best for cooking and drizzle, which is for dipping and finishings. Altman sizzles which drizzle. That's his big egregious mistake.
再一次，这并不是特别值得注意。它提到可爱的包装和挤压瓶的便利性帮助Grava在Instagram用户中建立了追随者。但其最大的创新在于将产品系列分成易于理解的类别。有一种叫做“sizzle”，被宣传为最适合烹饪使用，而“drizzle”则用于蘸料和点缀。Altman混淆了sizzle和drizzle。这就是他最大的明显错误。
So apparently there's like two types of olive oil. One that's a finishing one you put on after the meal is cooked and the other one that you cook with. And the big sin here is that he cooked with the wrong one. The green bottle indicates it's early harvest when the olives are barely ripe. Harvesting fruit at the start of the season yields much less oil but the flavor the flavors are brighter.
显然橄榄油有两种类型。一种是用来在烹饪完成后添加的，另一种则是用来做饭时加热使用的。这次犯的“大忌”是他用错了油。他用了绿色瓶子的那种，这种橄榄油是用几乎未成熟的橄榄早期采摘生产的。虽然这样的收获量很少，但油的味道更鲜亮。
I don't know if Sam knew this or he was aware of the price of this olive oil. Maybe it slipped his mind but Grava's website charges $21 for just 500 ml of the early harvest. And it's labeled as finishing oil. Frying with early harvest is insanely wasteful and quite frankly an offense to horticulture. It's an offense to horticulture.
我不知道 Sam 是否知道这个情况，或者他是否注意到了这种橄榄油的价格。也许他忘了，但 Grava 的网站售价是500毫升的早期采摘橄榄油就要21美元。而且这种油被标注为“顶级佐料油”。用早期采摘的橄榄油来煎炸是极其浪费的，坦白说，这对园艺来说是一种冒犯。
This is what Sam is doing. That little clip you may have not known really the offense as he was doing but it's insanely wasteful. It goes on in this explicit detail of this big tragedy that Sam Altman committed in his own kitchen. Heat deodorizes the olive oil, raising its temperature, obliterating the difference between cheap and expensive oils. By driving out the fragrance compounds that make them taste fresh, spicy, sour, or bitter, the food scientist Harold McGee has shown in blind taste tests that once heat supplied oils all end up tasting the same. So here he is paying $20 for this oil. While the whole time he could have got marginally cheaper oil and had the same results. That's the waste that's going on here. That's the crime that's being committed.
这就是Sam正在做的事情。你可能没有真正了解他所犯的错误，但这真的非常浪费。故事详细描述了Sam Altman在自己厨房里犯下的一个大错误。他加热橄榄油，提高了温度，使得廉价和昂贵油品之间的区别消失。根据食品科学家Harold McGee的盲测研究，热能会去除那些让橄榄油尝起来新鲜、辛辣、酸或苦的香味成分，最终所有油加热后尝起来都是一样的。因此，Sam花了20美元买的油，实际上可以用更便宜的油获得相同的效果。这就是造成浪费的原因，这就是他犯下的“罪行”。
Now how does this guy know anything about deodorizing olive oils and the temperature and how it affects it as being an equity analyst? My guess is I would not be surprised. And I'm being honest here, I'd not be surprised if he used Chatchee BT to figure this out right the sentence. It just wouldn't surprise me if he Chatchee BT why Sam Altman was incorrect in using the wrong olive oil. Now again, this editor here seems very concerned about the value proposition of Sam Altman and him not making the right choice economically with this olive oil.
现在，这个人是如何了解除臭橄榄油及其温度影响的，作为一名股票分析师？我猜我不会感到惊讶。说实话，如果他用了ChatGPT来搞清楚，我也不会感到意外。如果他用ChatGPT来查为什么Sam Altman在橄榄油选择上是错误的，我也不会惊讶。另外，这位编辑似乎非常关心Sam Altman的价值主张，以及他在经济上是否做出了正确的橄榄油选择。
This is now sufficiently well known. To inform Grazes-Tared pricing, it charges $16 for 750 ml, the late harvest sizzle, and $14 for 750 ml of frizzle. A pulp blend advertises his best for frying because it has higher smoke point. This is contested science by the way. Through ignorance or carelessness, when presented with three choices, Altman chooses badly twice. A responsible cook would be frying with frizzle or literally any other oil for which they could expect to pay around $7 a liter. Altman's input costs are around 6 times the going rate for no discernible benefit.
这已经是众所周知的事情。为了告知Grazes-Tared的定价，他们对750毫升的晚收葡萄汁收费16美元，而750毫升的Frizzle则收费14美元。一种果浆混合物宣传自己最适合油炸，因为它的烟点较高。不过，这种说法是有争议的科学。通过无知或粗心，当面对三个选择时，Altman有两次都选错了。一个负责任的厨师会选择使用Frizzle或其他任何价格大约在每升7美元的油来炸东西。Altman的投入成本大约是市场价的6倍，却没有明显的好处。
So there you have the big tragedy of Sam Altman cooking with the wrong oil. The author here Bryce Altar again seems incredibly focused on the value proposition of the different oils. And I don't know how better to explain this than maybe just showing Bryce one thing. I'll just show him one thing that might change his mind on how much Sam pays attention to different prices of olive oils and getting the best efficiency with his dollar on the olive oil.
因此，这就是山姆·阿尔特曼错用食用油的巨大悲剧。文中的作者布莱斯·阿尔塔似乎再次格外关注不同油类的价值主张。我不知道该怎么更好地解释这一点，也许可以通过给布莱斯看一样东西来改变他的想法。我只需要向他展示一样东西，可能就会让他意识到山姆究竟有多关注橄榄油的价格差异，以及如何用钱获取橄榄油的最佳效益。
It's right here. That's the number I would put in front of him. $1.6 billion puts you into a category where it's safe to say at that point in life, you can just pick up whatever olive oil you want. It's not going to make much of a difference. And that's why this is the fail of the week, the overly critical financial times reporting on Sam Altman using the wrong olive oil. That's going to be it for this time. Hope you enjoyed. See you in the next one.
就在这里。这就是我会放在他面前的数字。16亿美元让你进入一个可以肯定说生活无忧的境地，在那个时候，你可以随便挑选任何橄榄油，而这不会对你的财务状况有太大影响。这就是本周的失败之作，那篇过于挑剔的金融时报报道的内容，批评Sam Altman用了错误的橄榄油。今天就到这里。希望你喜欢，下次再见。