저자: 미상 · 한국인
요약 보기
영상은 찰리 멍거의 역발상(인버전) 사고를 소개하며, 성공 추구보다 실패를 피하는 것이 투자에서 더 중요하다고 주장한다. 핵심 사례: 1845년 프랭클린 원정대는 성공만 생각해 피아노·고급 식기 등을 싣고 전원 사망한 반면, 1853년 존 레이 원정대는 생존 장비(순록 가죽, 사냥 도구, 설상화 등)에 집중해 북서항로 마지막 구간을 발견했다. 투자 관점: 찰스 엘리스의 'The Loser's Game'(1975)을 인용해, 아마추어 테니스처럼 투자에서도 실수를 줄이는 것이 승리의 핵심이라고 설명한다. 1억 원이 50% 손실 나면 원금 회복에 100% 수익이 필요하다는 점을 강조한다. SPIVA 보고서 인용: 2025년 기준 시장 평균을 상회한 액티브 펀드는 21%였고, 15년 기간으로 늘리면 10%에 그쳤다. 펀드매니저가 실패하는 이유는 지능 문제가 아니라 '무언가를 계속 해야 하는' 압박 때문이라고 본다. 멍거가 말한 투자자가 피해야 할 다섯 가지 실수: - 레버리지 사용 (멍거 인용: 똑똑한 사람이 파산하는 세 가지 방법은 술, 여자, 레버리지) - 이해하지 못하는 사업에 투자 (복잡한 재무구조, 설명하기 어려운 사업모델 기업 회피) - 군중 추종 (남들이 살 때 사고 팔 때 파는 것의 문제, 질투에서 비롯된 판단 흐림) - 단기적 사고 (잦은 매매와 거래비용 증가, 장기 보유의 중요성; 버핏·멍거가 1972년 인수한 See's Candies를 여전히 보유) - 손실 부정 (구조적 문제가 있는 기업을 반등 기대로 계속 보유하는 심리) 사례: 2015년 헤지펀드 매니저 에크먼이 발리언트 파마에 거액을 베팅했으나, 약가 인상 규제와 회계 불투명성이 드러나며 2017년 청산, 손실액 41억 달러(약 6조 원)로 헤지펀드 역사상 최대 단일 투자 손실로 기록됐다. 이후 그는 단순하고 이해 가능한 사업모델 기업(치폴레, 스타벅스, 힐튼 등)으로 포트폴리오를 재편해 손실을 회복했다. 결론: 시장에서 이기려 하기보다 '어떻게 하면 실패할 수 있는가'를 먼저 묻고 실수를 피하는 것이 장기 수익의 기반이며, 이것이 멍거와 버핏이 생존한 방식이라고 정리한다.
다듬은 글
Charlie Munger was a weather forecaster who issued flight permits to pilots during World War II . Back then, Meongeo always asked himself questions. If I want to kill as many of those pilots as possible, what is the easiest way? Munger narrowed the answer down to two options. Permission to fly at an altitude cold enough to freeze the air.
And authorizing takeoff under conditions where landing is not possible before running out of fuel . Munger dove to the death to avoid these two things and was able to protect the safety of many pilots . Munger applied this mindset exactly as it was in his life as an investor . The principle is simple.
Always think in reverse. When a problem is difficult, the approach of looking at it from a different angle or from the opposite direction is precisely reverse thinking. Rather than learning how to succeed, get rich, or hit the jackpot with investments, you should first learn how to fail, how to go broke, and how to go bankrupt through investing, and avoid work as much as possible .
This contrarian way of thinking proves particularly effective in harsh environments rife with uncertainty. In 1845, an expedition was organized to pioneer the Northwest Route across the British North to Asia . The British nuclear force was led by Admiral Franklin and accompanied by 134 members of the Declaration of Justice.
The ships were the USS Erebus and the USS Terror, which incorporated the world's best technology at the time . Because they thought only of success even before the ship was built, it was filled with cargo far removed from survival, such as pianos, various books, cameras, and high-end tableware . The most important food relied on crude canned goods .
Franklin's expedition focused on typical forward thinking, namely how to conquer harsh nature with the overwhelming civilization and technological power of a great empire. And this expedition never returned. Eight years later, another expedition team sets out again to pioneer Bukseong-ro. The captain was John Ray, a doctor on his mother's side .
He had a history of deep interaction with Inuit indigenous people while working in Canada . Thanks to that, I was able to learn how harsh the North is and how to survive in such an environment. When he organized the expedition, he thought of only one thing . Avoid verbs and starvation at all costs .
Accordingly, I did not want to focus on shipping equipment and food that would allow for survival in the Arctic region . It included lightweight deer hides, hunting tools, snowshoes, etc. John Ray's expedition, having set out in this way, succeeded in discovering the final connecting section of the Northwest Passage .
This place, where he was to be punished, came to be called Ray Strait after him . However, during this expedition, John meets Inuit natives and hears stories about Franklin's expedition that had gone missing . The ship was trapped in the ice, and Admiral Franklin and all 134 crew members died. There were also testimonies that terrible acts took place among people amidst the extreme cold and hunger.
Franklin chased spectacular success, while John Lane eliminated the conditions for failure first . The difference that separated life and death from success and failure was the direction of the question. In 1975, investment consultant Charles Ellis published a short but provocative article . The title is The Loser's Game.
This paper on the essence of investment starts with tennis. Although professional tennis and amateur tennis may look the same on the surface, the mechanisms that determine victory and defeat were fundamentally different. Professional tennis is a typical winner's game. A powerful serve that penetrates the corner precisely, and a passing shot that the opponent cannot touch.
It is a structure where the person who demonstrates superior performance and knows better wins . However, amateur tennis is different. More than 80% of points in amateur matches are scored not by great attacks, but by ridiculous mistakes . They give away points by hitting the serve into the net or sending easy balls out of bounds .
Winning in amateur matches is simple. It is simply to pass the ball quietly and make fewer mistakes. It is a loser's game where you win automatically if your opponent makes a mistake or gets tired first, even if you never play aggressively. Through this ratio, Alice conveys the idea that investing in stocks is a loser's game, like amateur tennis .
Most investors try to play the winner's game . After finishing the stocks that will rise next, I predict the timing of the lows and highs and try to find information that others do not know beforehand. I focus on continuously doing something well in the investment world. However, to make a lot of money in the actual investment market over the long term, it is important not to become a loser—that is, to avoid mistakes.
It can be proven simply mathematically. If an investor with 100 million won suffers a 50% loss, they must generate a 100% profit, not 50%, to return it to 100 million won . This applies exactly as it does in the real world of investing. The SNP Dow Jones Indices tracks and publishes the performance of active funds worldwide every year .
This is the so-called Spiva report. According to the most recently released report, 21% of funds outperformed the market average in 2025. If you extend the period to 15 years, the funds that beat the market were only 10%. As the period lengthened, the number of funds beating the market decreased. The cause of this phenomenon is simple.
It is not because Wall Street fund managers are stupid, but because they work for money. Taking the money and doing nothing is not an option. When the market wavered, I had to respond and replace the stocks in my portfolio. Big goals keep accumulating because of the pressure to keep doing something .
On the other hand, you are not a salaried fund manager . You don't have to do anything . You can stay put even if the market shakes, and if you like a stock, you can hold it for 10 or 20 years . There isn't a boss complaining about why this month's return is worse than the KOSPI . In the world of investment, a game for losers, the ability to do nothing is a weapon more powerful than anything else.
Individual investors just need to take one more step from here . Simply reducing the mistakes you make yourself lays the foundation for generating significant profits in the long run. Munger personally answered throughout his life the mistakes investors must not make. First, use leverage . Beoppit once expressed it this way, quoting Munger.
There are only three ways for a smart person to go bankrupt . Alcohol, women, and leverage. In the investment world, where even reading the book is important as a workplace, leverage allows you to lose big when you lose. If the margin runs out, you are even forced to sell . The worst-case scenario of being liquidated at the lowest price occurs frequently.
Unless you are an investment genius, you should naturally avoid leverage . If you are an investment genius, you will generate enormous profits without using leverage, so you should avoid it. Munger said this. We gained many long-term benefits. The second is investing in a business you do not understand by trying not to consistently do stupid things instead of trying to become very smart .
Munger described this as being beyond the scope of his capabilities . The most important thing is knowing what you know properly and what you don't know. A company with a complex financial structure, difficult-to-understand technology, and a business model that cannot be explained to others. Someone called these companies a very difficult basket.
I told you to just put it in that basket if you don't understand. These companies generally present an unrealistic vision of the future and give the impression that they will somehow rise. You cannot know when a business you do not understand is going wrong . It is like being tied up, not knowing when it might sink.
Third, it is to follow the crowd. Something said this to Lawpit. If people hadn't been so frequent in the month, we wouldn't have become this rich . The logic of buying when everyone buys and selling when everyone sells is simple. By the time you buy with the crowd, the good price has already passed.
The opposite is also true. If you sell when everyone else is selling, you become the seller at the lowest price. The root of the self-interest of following the crowd is not greed, but envy—the inability to tolerate what others are earning. That jealousy clouds judgment. Fourth, it is to think in the short term.
Something said this. Big money does not come from buying and selling. It comes from waiting. Repeatedly buying and selling in response to quarterly earnings. Watching the market every day and responding to small fluctuations . As these behaviors accumulate, transaction costs increase and emotional decisions are repeated.
It is one of the most foolish things to do in a loser's game . What Munger and Buffett have practiced over decades is simple. I bought a good company and held onto it for a long time . Just like how they haven't sold See's Candies, which they acquired in 1972, to this day . Fifth, it is not acknowledging losses .
Munger called this psychological denial . The inability to process psychological denial is the most common way smart people fall for it. You must admit that you are wrong when you are wrong. You should not hold onto the stock of a company with structural problems in the hope that it will eventually rise .
Because they are extremely afraid of expanding human loss, they choose to deny reality altogether. However, something said this. I rub my nose against my mistake . That is a very good mental habit. You must admit that you were wrong, correct it quickly, and move forward. Admitting mistakes and losses is not defeat.
It is the fastest way to prevent the next mistake . In early 2015, Leckman, one of the most prominent hedge fund managers on Wall Street, made a massive bet on a pharmaceutical company called Valeant Pharma. He declared publicly. Numerous institutional investors agreed with Ekman’s judgment, which he has proven with decades of outstanding reputation, that Valiant would become the next Berkshire Hathaway of the pharmaceutical industry and that its stock price would rise to $306.
But he didn't ask one serious question: How could this investment completely fail ? Valiant's business model was unique for a pharmaceutical company. It was not the development of new drugs, but rather the acquisition of patents for old medications and subsequent price hikes of tens of times . This model could only operate while remaining out of the eyes of regulatory authorities and the public .
In less than a few months, the U.S. unexpectedly began to address the issue of price gouging head-on. To make matters worse, Valiant's accounting opacity was also revealed. The stock price started to waver. Ekman's choice regarding Valiant was advocacy. They opened the investor conference and guaranteed that the stock price would rise again.
He was already trapped in the swamp of psychological denial that something had warned him of . In the end, the stock price did not rise. When Ekman liquidated all positions in 2017, the total loss at the time was $4.1 billion, equivalent to approximately 6 trillion won . This was recorded as the largest single investment loss in hedge fund history.
Emman's fund suffered a major blow not only to its assets under management but also to its credibility. Investors' funds flowed out like an ebb tide. Ekmon admitted his mistake in the annual West. It is very painful that investors have lost money . I deeply apologize. Regulation-dependent business models, opaque accounting, and difficult-to-understand business structures.
These problems could be sufficiently filtered out by asking the contrarian question: "How can one fail at investing?" However, because Eckmer had been winning for so long, he was more interested in how to win than how not to lose. Afterwards, Ekman completely restructured his portfolio. He chose to return to the principles of Buffett and [ __ ], whom he respected.
It is filled with companies that have perfectly understandable, simple, and solid business models. I discarded all complex and opaque pharmaceutical companies and short positions, and concentrated on positions in companies like Chipotle, Starbucks, and Hilton Nortel. It was a six trillion won mistake, but Eckmer rubbed the mistake's nose in the sand, just as Mun had said .
And as a result, he made a complete comeback, achieving results so overwhelming that they more than recovered all of Valiant's losses. The reason we underestimate reverse thinking is that we assume things will not happen. If you were advised to invest in a strange biotech company and refused, the ordeal you would have experienced from that investment would not actually happen.
Not going bankrupt because you didn't use leverage , and not getting stuck at the peak because you didn't follow the crowd— all of these things are invisible. It's because it didn't happen. On the other hand, spectacular profits are visible. So we choose quick thinking over reverse thinking . However, in an environment where the loser's game rules apply, thinking outside the box is essential.
The person who knows what not to do is the one who ultimately survives the game. Munger and Buffett survived like that. That has been Investor Meditation. no see .
Comments 0