????《華盛頓郵報》（the Washington Post）的收購交易再次表明，沃倫?巴菲特對報紙的興趣有限。

????巴菲特的伯克希爾哈撒韋公司（Berkshire Hathaway）是《華盛頓郵報》的最大外部投資者，已經(jīng)持股40年，目前所持股份略高于170萬股。按照周一盤后交易價格計算，亞馬遜（Amazon）首席執(zhí)行官杰夫?貝佐斯收購這份重量級報紙后，巴菲特所持股份的價值已增至4,500萬美元（2.78億元人民幣）。

????但伯克希爾哈撒韋的整體收益遠不止于此。巴菲特從1973年就開始買進《華盛頓郵報》的股份。2008年，這家公司在年報中稱，它手中的《華盛頓郵報》股票價值6.74億美元（41.59億元人民幣），持股成本1,100萬美元（6787萬元人民幣）。貝佐斯收購該報后，巴菲特所持股份的價值已達到約10億美元（61.7億元人民幣）。

????那么，如果以往業(yè)績能體現(xiàn)未來收益水平，大家可能會認為巴菲特對報紙的青睞程度稍稍上升了一些。而實際上，巴菲特最近確實頻繁表態(tài)，表明自己是多么的喜歡報紙，他還在過去兩年中收購了大概30份日報。

????但在很長一段時間內(nèi)，巴菲特一直都沒有增持《華盛頓郵報》的股票。伯克希爾哈撒韋在網(wǎng)上披露的財務數(shù)據(jù)最早可追溯到1999年。當時它持有170萬股《華盛頓郵報》股份，目前依然如此。

????《華盛頓郵報》表示，貝佐斯以個人身份收購該報之前，投行人士曾接觸過六位潛在買家。考慮到巴菲特和該報的長期淵源以及最近他一直在報紙領(lǐng)域進行收購，將巴菲特列入潛在買家的行列并不突兀。最起碼，《華盛頓郵報》首席執(zhí)行官唐納德?格雷厄姆有可能向巴菲特兜售過這份報紙，而后者可能也認為拋售這份充滿傳奇色彩的報紙的時機已經(jīng)成熟。巴菲特拒絕就《華盛頓郵報》轉(zhuǎn)讓一事發(fā)表評論。

????盡管最近收購了很多份報紙，但巴菲特對美國最主要的幾份日報一直敬而遠之。今年早些時候，巴菲特說他無意收購論壇報業(yè)集團（Tribune Co.）旗下那些待價而沽的報紙，其中包括《芝加哥論壇報》（Chicago Tribune）和《洛杉磯時報》（Los Angeles Times）。巴菲特曾經(jīng)表示，他認為專門報道當?shù)匦侣劊試烂苌鐓^(qū)為立足點的報紙具有價值。

????不過，考慮到巴菲特長期投資于《華盛頓郵報》，也許大家原以為他會為后者破例。價格似乎并不是問題所在。從平均值來看，巴菲特一直在按每位讀者500美元（3,085元人民幣）的價格收購報紙。貝佐斯收購《華盛頓郵報》的價格與之類似——每位讀者520美元（3,208.4元人民幣）。不過，考慮到貝佐斯還得到了其他幾份規(guī)模較小的報紙，按讀者數(shù)量計算的收購價可能低于這個數(shù)字。也就是說，貝佐斯的收購價完全在巴菲特可接受的范圍內(nèi)。

????相反，真正的問題似乎是，《華盛頓郵報》是美國最有影響力的報紙之一，員工隊伍大，偏愛成本昂貴的調(diào)查性報道，巴菲特是否認為買下這份報紙是筆好買賣。看來，他在評估之后給出了否定的回答。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie??

????With the sale of the Washington Post, Warren Buffett is once again showing the limits of his love affair with newspapers.

????Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) is the largest outside investor in The Washington Post Co. (WPO) and has held the stock for four decades. Berkshire holds just over 1.7 million shares. The sale of the flagship paper to Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos pushed the value of Buffett's holding in the company up $45 million in after-hours trading on Monday.

????But Berkshire's overall gain is far bigger than that. Buffett first began buying shares back in 1973. In 2008, Berkshire in its annual report said the position was worth $674 million and had a cost basis of $11 million. After the sale, Buffett's stake is now worth about a billion.

????So if past performance is an indication of future gains, you would think Buffett's heart for newspapers just grew a little fonder. And indeed, Buffett has been talking a lot recently about how much he likes newspapers, and he has bought about 30 daily newspapers in the past two years.

????But Buffett hasn't added to his stake in The Washington Post Co. in a long time. The oldest financial disclosure you can get for Berkshire Hathaway online is from 1999. Back then, the company owned 1.7 million shares of The Washington Post Co., which is the same as now.

????And The Washington Post Co. said its bankers approached six other potential buyers before making a deal with Bezos, who is buying the paper personally. Given Buffett's long history with the company and the fact that he has been buying papers recently, it's not a stretch to assume Buffett was in that group of people who passed. At the very least, it's likely that Donald Graham, the Post's CEO, ran the sale past Buffett and that the billionaire agreed it was time to let the storied paper go. Buffett declined to comment on the paper's sale.

????Despite his newspaper buying spree, Buffett has avoided the nation's biggest dailies. Earlier in the year, Buffett said he wasn't interested in buying the group of papers owned by the Tribune Co., which includes the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, which appear to be on the block. Buffett has said he sees value in newspapers in tight-knit communities that specialize in local news.

????Still, you might have expected Buffett to make an exception for The Washington Post given his long history with the paper. The problem doesn't seem to be price. On average, Buffett has been paying about $500 per customer for the papers he has bought. Bezos is paying about the same amount -- $520 per customer of the flagship paper -- but he is also getting a few smaller papers in the deal, which would bring down his cost per subscriber number. So that was well in Buffett's range.

????Instead, it appears it really came down to whether Buffett thought the business of owning one of the most influential papers in the country, with its large staff and taste for expensive investigative stories, is a good business. It appears Buffett's assessment was no.