저자: HowardMarks · 외국인
요약 보기
패시브 투자의 확산이 가격결정 기능을 약화시키는 역설을 지적하고, 행동주의 투자는 장기 관점이어야 하며 단기 주가 부양은 경계해야 한다고 주장. 과거 인덱스 펀드의 평균 대비 성과 우위를 근거로 제시.
다듬은 글
my question is um in regards to your recent memo titled yet again um so in the memo you wrote a lot about passive investing and how a Reliance on non-discretionary buying is taking us away from a focus on finding the right value um what are your thoughts on shareholder activism which some may see as on the opposite end of the spectrum well thanks Jason um so you know when I went to we didn't talk about this too much at at Wharton but when I went to Chicago they had done a lot of research to which showed that the average mutual fund had done worse than you would have made would have done if you just bought the S&P or the Dow or something like that so some people started saying radical things like well why don't they just buy one share of every stock in the index and there was no word for it in those days but that turned into what we call passive investing or or or or and and it it led to the creation of index funds the first prominent one of which was the Vanguard 500 Index Fund in 197 five as I recall so um you know as I mentioned before most active managers have not done as well as the index and by the way it doesn't stand to reason to think that on average everybody's going to do average before fees and below average after fees so it's only the exceptional people who can beat the index after fees not everybody not the average person but the exceptional further we talked earlier about the emotional challenges of being a contrarian and adding value and most people aren't in control of their emotions most people are by definition not contrarian so there's been a strong movement toward uh index investing uh you know it used to be something of a novelty uh back in 1975 or even 85 and today it's it's a real thing and lots of people are replacing their their active managers with with uh passive uh largely because the actives didn't didn't do any good and but as you point out uh Jason in in passive uh people just buy the same stocks in the index in the same waiting as the index now the irony of this I want to before I move on to your real question I just want to point out what I think is a supreme irony of this which is why do the stocks in the index have the waiting in the index that they have where do these indices wait waiting come from they don't come from up there they don't come from the operation of nature or physics this stock has a has a value of $80 billion that company has a value of $180 billion why partially because what the companies accomplish and partially AC because of what the investors say they worth so the the the the market weightings the prices and thus the waiting are assigned by whom by active investors and yet there's a trend to passive investment on the premise that the active investors don't really know what they're talking about and yet the the the the the mo of the passive investor is to emulate the decisions made the active investors who they think are idiots so it it doesn't make any sense anyway that that's what that's what passive is doing today and we have to wonder about the wisdom of passive investing and you know so one of my clients called up and said that that she has a new Treasurer and the new Treasurer wants to put all the the whole portfolio into an index fund all the stock fire this manager and that manager that manager not not us we don't manage thatas but put all the money into an index fund what what do I think what should she say to our Treasurer I said ask him how he feels about having all his money invested in funds where nobody is thinking about which stocks should be included or what they're worth or how they should be weighted anyway so that's I think that's a very extreme thing it used to be that the active managers did all the work of studying companies and figuring out the prices and the waiting and all that stuff and so the if a few people came along and wanted to kind of Freeride passively on their efforts they could just emulate their decisions and not pay the research bill that was a good strategy but what happens when most of the people are free riding who do they free ride off of that's that's the question that I I think you'll enjoy thinking about now that then you want to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and talked about activists so activism sounds like you know kind of like apple pie in motherhood activism isn't it good to be active well activism means people who buy material stakes in companies and present themselves as agents for Change and usually insist on either a change in the way the company operates a dividend the sale of a unit or seats for themselves on the board and so far so good you know there is when I went to Wharton one of the things I was taught was that one of the great advances in Society in economic in the economic sphere had been produced when we separated ownership from management because you know uh Jay starts a company and it's a great company and then it passes down a few generations and then his his uh limited uh you know grandson still is running it not so bright not doing a great job well guess what Jay the the grandson says you know what it's not really going so well I'm going to hire a professional manager so he steps down and a professional comes in and does a better job and now we have separated ownership from management and in general the world does better economically speaking so that was considered to be an advance in those days the problem is what happens as has turned out to be often the case when the incentives of the managers diverge from the incentives of the owners that's not a good thing you know and let's say let's say the company's doing poorly but the managers keep voting themselves big raises and you know and and and and rewarding their bad decisions Etc so that's why and and and you know most most uh investors prior to let's say the last 15 years ago were pretty passive with regard to the companies and they kind of rubber stamp the decisions of the managers including their raises and uh and reelected them and so forth and uh that that didn't seem that that satisfactory so the activist came along and he said we're going to stir things up we're going to represent the owners we're going to be active owners and we're going to require we're going to hold the manager's feet to the fire we're only going to give them raises when they earn them we're going to make them sell off under performing assets uh or or whatever it might be all sounds really good so far the the real question uh Jason is whether these activists are long-term oriented or short-term oriented I give you an example and and and long-term activism is probably a good thing if they are really long-term AR but you know there's no requirement that they hold their stock for a long time and here a great example is somebody who gets control who who who buys 2% of the stock of a drug company and he says uh you know I think that this company would would would report higher earnings next year if they close the research Department department so they close the research Buton they fire all the scientists the earnings go like this but then of course since they run out of products the earnings go like this and the company goes bankrupt 10 years later so the again the that activist had another set of interests that diverged from the those of the company or of the long-term holders so I think that activism is a good thing if they have a long-term perspective uh the goal should be to make the company better not to get the stock price up there's lots of things you can do in the short run to get the stock price up which are not good for the company and those things should not be encouraged
Comments 0