원문 보기
Welcome to Insight Markets, and today we'd like to take a closer look at the ten largest holdings of one of the most legendary investors: Peter Lynch. Peter Lynch is a US investor, born in Boston in 1944, who founded and managed the legendary Magellan fund for many years. He has since retired from active business and now only works in an advisory capacity.
However, I 'm sure his influence still shapes the investment philosophy here. From 1977 to 1990, this fund achieved an incredible 30 percent return per annum on average. It should be noted that these returns are no longer being achieved. This is, of course, also due to the fund's now very large size.
Today, we'd like to examine the ten largest holdings in this fund that are currently held here. We'll include the link to the source below the video, as always. And if we simply look at the list, we can already see quite a few old... Well-known companies like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook—all the major players—are already represented.
In addition, there are payment service providers like Visa and Google shares. Then we have a healthcare company, UnitedHealth Group, Procter & Gamble, and also Mastercard as a payment service provider. If you add up all these stocks, it represents about 30 percent of the fund. So, compared to, for example, Berkshire Hathaway, it's not a very concentrated portfolio.
At Berkshire Hathaway, the largest positions—I believe the five or six largest positions—already make up almost 60 percent of the fund. This shows that it's significantly more diversified. Now let's take a closer look at the performance of these investments, and first, let's consider a long period from 2007 to 2020.
You can see all these individual stocks here, and here you can also see the fund itself. And now we can see at a glance—and this is n't particularly surprising—that all the stocks like Apple, Amazon, Mastercard, and so on are... It has performed significantly better in the past than the stock market is now, especially Procter & Gamble.
Yes, they are at a comparable level with somewhat lower volatility, but the fund itself is performing worst. It's hanging by a thread, and why might that be? Well, these top ten holdings ultimately only make up 30 percent of the entire fund. The fund itself is very large; it naturally has a fee structure, and there will be some stocks in it that would n't beat the stock market.
Since the overall portfolio, or this top ten portfolio, only represents 30 percent of the fund, the fund isn't doing as well as one might expect. In the next step, let's look at how these stocks behaved during the crisis. Even before the financial crisis, we already saw the first characteristic: the fund's performance is very similar to the SP500, and the stocks...
well, it's no surprise that Microsoft... Google, Apple, and so on weren't quite as badly affected by the financial crisis as, for example, bank stocks are now. And of course, Procter & Gamble stands out again, as a non-cyclical stock that managed to outperform the S&P 500 with lower volatility. How about the coronavirus crisis?
The picture is somewhat more diverse, more heterogeneous. The fund and the S&P 500 are actually almost on par. However, we also have n't seen payment service providers fare so well in the coronavirus crisis. Even now, stocks like Apple, which are heavily dependent on their China business, have higher volatility, albeit with slightly better performance.
Amazon, of course, fared very well due to the strong boom in e-commerce, and Procter & Gamble also performed well as a non-cyclical stock. This analysis raises a few questions: the fund itself is only ever "on par" with the S&P 500 in all comparison periods. 500 level, although it must be said that the S&P 500 level isn't bad, the question arises before I invest in this fund now.
It certainly has a certain history and appeal, but I've seen that over this period the risk-return ratio is at least no better than the S&P 500. Therefore, I could also consider, okay, if I make such an investment now, then I could actually invest directly in a low-cost index fund. You know we're not the biggest ETF fans ourselves, but in this case, I would probably prefer that investment before dealing with the higher fee structure of this actively managed Fidelity fund.
The question now is, can I still get something out of it? And I've seen, okay, these top ten holdings aren't so strongly represented in their knowledge fund for no reason, because they are ultimately the stocks of the future, the technology stocks that have already performed very well, but behind which are also extremely high-quality companies.
These companies are simply not More comparable to these companies from the financial crisis of 2000, i.e., the dot-com bubble – there's real value behind them. These are companies that produce genuine products with extremely effective strategies and are generally debt-free or even offer a huge cashback.
Our personal takeaway from this analysis is that the fund itself is only moderately interesting. If I wanted to make a core investment, I could, for example, invest in the S&P 500 ETF and supplement this mix with a few stocks from these top ten holdings to also capture future growth in my portfolio.
In this way, I could essentially create my own Magellan fund that I can customize, where I'm not tied to the fund company and not so heavily influenced by fees. We hope you enjoyed this insight into this portfolio. Feel free to share your opinion with us; perhaps someone is already invested in it. Otherwise, we look forward to the next video. See you soon!
댓글 0