????不過,，芒格也表示，他相信加強監(jiān)管能提高銀行的利潤,。如果退出高風險業(yè)務,，在市場不好的年份中銀行的牛年利潤縮水的幅度也會小一些。但如果這是事實,，芒格作為伯克希爾股東代理人不是有責任來推進這項變革嗎,？如果變革能提高銀行的利潤，伯克希爾的投資者據(jù)推測也會獲得更多盈利,，我認為答案是肯定的。

????在上周六伯克希爾的年度股東大會上,，巴菲特表示,，他認為大銀行比幾年前更安全了。但伯克希爾不持有衍生品業(yè)務比重高的摩根大通股票,。高盛（Goldman Sachs）擁有衍生品業(yè)務,，但它的傳統(tǒng)銀行存款業(yè)務比重很小。伯克希爾持有的大銀行中違反芒格標準的銀行只有美國銀行一家,。

????“你問我的問題是,，我能給美國經(jīng)濟開什么藥方，”芒格說,?！帮@然，這個藥方跟給大銀行家開的藥方不同,?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

????But Munger also said he thought more regulations could make banks more profitable. By getting out of risky businesses, banks may end up giving back much less of their bull market gains in the down years. But if that's true, then isn't Munger's fiduciary responsibility to Berkshire shareholders to push for change? If the change would make the banks more profitable, and presumably Berkshire's investors more money, I think the answer is yes.

????On Saturday at Berkshire's annual meeting, Buffett said he thought the big banks were safer than they have been in years. But Berkshire doesn't own derivative-heavy JPMorgan. Goldman Sachs (GS) has a derivatives business, but it has relatively few traditional bank deposits. The only Berkshire holding that seems to significantly break the Munger rule is Bank of America.

????"You are asking me questions about my prescription for the country," says Munger. "Well that would obviously be different from the prescription of our leading bankers."