????雖然沃倫?巴菲特認為可口可樂公司（Coca-Cola）引起爭議的高管股權(quán)分配方案有過度之嫌，但上周他并沒有投票反對這項計劃。此舉給這位一直深得媒體寵愛的投資界傳奇人物、綜合型保險集團伯克希爾－哈撒韋公司（Berkshire Hathaway）首席執(zhí)行官招來了一片批評之聲?！都~約時報》（New York Times）專欄作家喬?諾切拉將巴菲特稱為懦夫?？煽诳蓸饭竟蓶|大會結(jié)束后不久，巴菲特接受了本刊采訪，解釋了自己的做法。

????雖然受到了批評，但巴菲特說，他認為自己已經(jīng)對可口可樂的高管薪酬方案采取了強烈反對的立場。此外，他說自己幾乎沒有權(quán)力阻止公司給予高管過高的酬勞。這番話和幾年前大相徑庭，當(dāng)時巴菲特曾撰文稱，沒有幾個人有可能推翻美國公司那些高得離譜的高管薪酬方案，而像他這樣的大股東就是其中之一。顯然，巴菲特以及像他這樣的人現(xiàn)在也落了下風(fēng)。

????人們普遍相信，至少目前巴菲特挑選了一位男性繼承者，對此他也予以了證實——很抱歉，特雷西?布里特?庫爾（巴菲特的女性財務(wù)助理）。

????本刊：你是否認為美國公司高管的薪酬已經(jīng)遠遠超過其他人？

????沃倫?巴菲特：我覺得和一位出色高管所能創(chuàng)造的價值相比，他們的薪酬還沒有高到離譜的境地。如果你經(jīng)營著一家數(shù)百億美元的公司，從8到10這樣的變化在價值上就存在巨大差異。我不覺得高管的收入和演藝人士或者體育明星的收入有什么不同。不過，我覺得在某些情況下對高管薪酬應(yīng)該有所限制，但這差不多只能建立在自愿的基礎(chǔ)上。

????以前你曾經(jīng)說過，高管股權(quán)分配方案是 “免費彩票”而且“完全靠運氣”；你還說，這些薪酬方案的對象是“像瑞普?范?溫克爾（華盛頓?歐文小說中的遁世者）那樣總想打個盹的管理者”。

????這些情況都有可能出現(xiàn)。

????2006年，你說改變高管薪酬過高局面的唯一途徑就是像你這樣的大股東站出來要求進行徹底變革。那你為什么不投票反對可口可樂的（股權(quán)）方案呢？

????我覺得投棄權(quán)票已經(jīng)表明了我們的立場。這是伯克希爾發(fā)出的非常強烈的信號。它顯然意味著我們不贊成這個方案。

????那你在董事人選方面為什么不投棄權(quán)票呢？

????因為實際上我覺得他們有一批很好的董事。這項計劃已經(jīng)成為歷史，別人也這么干，所以我們也會這樣做。這些公司不想對整個問題徹底進行重新探討，這樣做的可能性非常小，他們的顧問也不太可能提出這樣的建議。

????那么企業(yè)就股權(quán)分配方案做的哪些工作會把高管薪酬資本化？在今后很多年里，為這項開支出錢都將是股東。

????實際上我曾經(jīng)寫到過這個問題——我還可能把它放到明年的年報里。這是給伯克希爾董事會的一份備忘錄，內(nèi)容是對于伯克希爾下一任CEO，也就是我的繼任者，可能很敏感的股權(quán)分配方案我有什么看法。他——目前來說應(yīng)該是一位男性——將是唯一獲得股票期權(quán)的人，原因是只有他一個人負責(zé)讓這家公司取得全面成功。

????可口可樂對自身股權(quán)分配方案進行辯解的理由之一是，它不光針對最高管理層，還包括6500名員工。但你認為這條理由站不住腳。

????對，我覺得這不是什么理由。

????讓我們再回到瑞普?范?溫克爾這類CEO的問題上。按照可口可樂的方案，這家公司的回報每年可能減少10%。那么，這些高管還有資格拿幾十億美元的薪酬嗎？

????這是一筆分期支付的勞務(wù)費。

????你對托馬斯?皮凱蒂關(guān)于貧富差距的新書《21世紀的資本》（Capital in the Twenty-First Century）有什么看法？

????我大概看了六篇評論。但還沒有看這本書。

????你打算看這本書嗎？

????我不知道。我看到的評論已經(jīng)告訴我它講的是什么。我可能會看，也可能不看，但我去讀這類書的可能性比較大。

????《紐約時報》最近報道說，根據(jù)一項研究，你已經(jīng)失去了超額回報。你還記得最后一次看到超額回報是在哪里嗎？如果我找到了，我能把它據(jù)為己有嗎？

????Last week, Warren Buffett declined to vote against a controversial stock option plan for Coca-Cola's (KO) top executives that he thought was excessive. That has unleashed a wave of criticism against the legendary investor and CEO of insurance conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), typically a media darling. New York Times columnist Joe Nocera called Buffett a coward. Shortly after the Coke vote, Buffett sat down with Fortune to defend himself.

????Despite the criticism, Buffett says he believes he took a forceful stand against the Coke pay package. What's more, he says that he has little power to stop companies from handing out excessive pay. That's a big change from a few years ago, when Buffett wrote that large shareholders like himself were the only ones who could turn back runaway executive compensation within corporate America. Apparently, Buffett and others like him are outmatched as well.

????Buffett also confirmed the widely held belief that, at least for now, his picked successor is male. Sorry, Tracy Britt Cool.

????Fortune: Do you think executive compensation is out of whack with the rest of America?

????Warren Buffett: Well, I don't think it is out of whack with the value an outstanding executive could bring. If you run a multibillion-dollar company the difference between a 10 and an eight is huge in terms of value. I don't think it is out of line in terms of entertainers or sports figures. Still, almost on a voluntary basis, I think it should be somewhat restrained in some cases.

????In the past, you have said executive stock option plans are "a free lottery ticket" and "fair only by chance" and that they are compensation plans built for "managerial Rip Van Winkles who are looking to doze off."

????All of that can be true.

????In 2006, you said that the only way to change excessive executive compensation is if large shareholders like yourself take a stand -- demanding a fresh start. Why didn't you vote against the Coke [option] plan?

????I think we did take a stand in abstaining. That's a very loud voice coming from Berkshire. It obviously means we don't approve of the plan.

????Why not also abstain in the vote about the directors?

????Because I actually think they have a good bunch of directors. What was done with their plan is so much the other guys doing it so we will do the same thing. The idea of fundamentally reexamining the whole thing doesn't occur to these companies, and it's very unlikely to, and their consultants are not likely to recommend it.

????And what companies are doing with stock options is capitalizing executive compensation. It is shareholders years from now that are going to pay this expense.

????I actually have written -- I may put it in the annual report next year -- a memo to the board of directors of Berkshire as to what I think would be a sensible option plan for the CEO of Berkshire who succeeds me. And he would be -- in this case it would be a he at the present time -- the only one who would receive options because he would be the only one who is responsible for the overall success of the operation.

????One of the things Coke has said to defend its plan is that it's not just for its top executives but for its 6,500 employees. But you don't think that's a defense.

????No, I don't think that's a defense.

????And again, back to the Rip Van Winkle CEOs, according to the Coke plan, the company's return could go down 10% a year, and the executives would still qualify for billions?

????It's a royalty on time.

????Have you read the new book on inequality, Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century?

????I have read about six reviews on it. But not the book.

????Are you planning to read it?

????I don't know. I have read so many reviews I think I know what it says. I may or may not, but it is the kind of book that there is reasonable chance I will read.

????The New York Times said recently, based on a study, that you have lost your alpha. Do you remember the last place you saw it, and if I find it, can I keep it?