💵 TERRY SMITH: La estrategia más SIMPLE para hacerte RICO invirtiendo a largo plazo

요약 보기

한줄 결론: 장기 보유 가능한 우량기업(강력한 브랜드·설치기반·유통 통제력)을 적정 이상 가격에 사서 오래 들고 가는 것이 최선의 장기 투자 전략이라는 주장. 핵심 주장: 강한 브랜드는 마케팅·광고·개발을 유지하면 무기한 지속되며, 유통·공급망을 장악한 기업은 신규 진입자가 넘기 어렵다. 근거 사례: 다지오·페르노리카·바카디의 유통 장악, 네슬레·다논의 냉장 공급망, 오티스·쉰들러 엘리베이터는 특허 만료 후에도 1위 유지 및 유지보수 계약으로 수익 창출. 설치기반 개념: 장비·소프트웨어 공급 후 유지보수·부품·서비스로 지속 매출이 발생하며 교체가 어려움. 데이터: 1933~2019년 MSCI 세계지수 연환산 수익률 6.2%, 우량 기업 바스켓은 PE를 시장 대비 약 4배까지 지불해도 30년간 손익분기 가능하다는 분석, 연 7% 복리 사례 제시. 가치투자 비판: 저평가주를 사서 재평가를 기다리는 방식은 평균 성과가 낮고, 매번 새 종목을 찾아야 해 거래비용이 증가함. 우량 기업은 장기 복리로 가치가 꾸준히 쌓여 비싸 보여도 저렴해질 수 있음. 복리 예시: 1,000파운드를 30년 투자 시 10%면 약 17,000, 12.5%면 34,000, 15%면 68,000파운드. 리스크: 우량주도 고평가 상태에서 하락할 수 있으며, 시장 정점 대비 2배 가격이면 비싸다고 본다는 점을 인정함. 다만 장기 관점에서는 괜찮을 수 있다는 입장. 대상 자산 방향 예측: 구체적인 개별 종목·지수에 대한 1~3개월 방향 예측 발언 없음(장기 견해만 존재).

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. he says great businesses not only have great returns and source of growth they're the most that we get around the castle to protect them from this attack what constitutes the most brands are pretty good oats um you know strong Brands can last indefinitely if you maintain with marketing uh and with advertising with promotion and with development and uh you know you will pay more for a brand and non-branded because you will pay more for a primary brand than you will for a tertiary right uh control of distribution and supply chain it's not just Brands if you come up with something new if you came up with a new vodka during the course of this call rather than listening to me um well great but I'm not sure how you're going to get it in bars and and restaurants and shops because the distribution is already controlled by people like Diageo and perno Ricard and Bacardi who owns things like Smirnoff and and absolute uh and so on you know this is already at Great Goose these are these are people who have already got a very big control sometimes it's control of supply chain as well if you want to compete with some of the modern Dairy companies particularly in the emerging world people like Nestle and Danone you're going to have to go and find your own deer at fast to convert the dairy farms and build the refrigerated supply chain and processing and you're going to have to put your own fridges into the shops that hold this stuff you can't put your your goods into a Nestle fridge so you know that's good install basis of equipment or software people who Supply things and once they've supplied them you are reliant upon them for maintenance spares service and it's difficult to change in terms of equipment things like elevators and escalators once you've bought a cone or a Schindler or an Otis Elevator escalator 75 chance you'll sign the maintenance contract with it that's where the real money is made software people who make software that goes into your computer to run your operating system or to run your uh conference call like we've got now people who make Airline reservation software hotel reservation software payroll processing software etc etc once you've got this stuff it becomes very embedded very difficult to type change and give you a tank right and lastly patterns patterns obviously to some degree ward off competition they're our least like form of competitive Advantage actually because they do expire opposite patterns to expire a good example of a competitive advantage that you can get with a brand and install base long after a patent it expires will be things like Otis in elevators it's the world's biggest elevator company uh Mr Otis patented the safety elevator in about 1858 and his patented expired by the 1870s yet it's still got the number one position basically so we think actually the development of Brands and install based far more important than that is foreign foreign uh things are consume the state of stocks in particular you can see how many represented years and it looks at the PE you could have paid if you bought these stocks at the beginning of 1933 and held them through to 2019 so a pretty long period a period with uh inflation and then deflation uh with a number of recessions and prices of various also a pretty long sweep of investment history and it says during that period the msci world index delivered a return of 6.2 gram and what we've got here is someone who's gone back and computed what PE or Price earnings ratio you could have paid for some of these stocks and beaten that index what could you have paid and got a seven percent compound annual growth rate in the value of your Investments it's still at the top of the charts and cagr yes considerations one of the things that some value fund managers say is the way they're able to make returns for you is by buying significantly cheaper stocks and waiting for that re-rating is there a risk then with your strategy that you're paying over the odds that these stocks are expensive yeah you're right that's how some value fund managers seek to do it um I have to say looking at the average results of the industry not very many of them seem to manage to achieve our performance with that and one of the problems with that strategy is this if you buy your poor company apart from the fact that it does destroy value whilst you wait if you get the your timing roughly right yeah it'll make some value for you it'll create it'll create some performance for you the problem is then you have to go find another one whereas with our companies if we select them right we never have to go and find a new company we can sit there not deal and as a result cut down the cost of running the portfolio um are they too expensive one of the things that we're really bad at as investors is judging the outcome of differential rates of compounding if you have a thousand pounds that you invest for 30 years so an investment lifetime I would say roughly and you invested at 10 you'd have 17 000 pounds at the end if you invested at just two and a half percent more twelve nine percent you'd have thirty four thousand pounds and twice as much if you invested at fifteen percent only five percent more you have sixty eight thousand pounds four times as much the secret to the companies we have if there is a secret is that they actually compound in value more consistently in the market as well over long periods of time not because they grow faster but because they don't really have a downturn and that's what makes them relatively inexpensive over time because people find that hard to figure out so we did some work on 30 years of investment looking at baskets of companies of the salt we invest in and said well on average what could you pay for those companies in terms of a PE versus the market and still break even over that 30 years versus the market and you know on average you could pay nearly four times the market B and still break even now if my funder was sitting here today on twice the market Peak which it isn't I think you'd say it's too expensive your value investors would say that I'd probably say that but the reality is it might not be if you take a long-term views foreign foreign foreign