저자: BillAckman · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 빌 애크먼은 2020년 6월 시점에서 단기 시장 방향을 특정하지 않으며, 대형 우량주 중심의 장기 투자 원칙을 강조한다. 코로나 시장 변동성: 시장은 하루 1000포인트씩 오르내리는 높은 변동성을 보였다. 애크먼은 시장이 미래 추정치를 반영하는 할인 메커니즘이며, 단기적으로는 감정 지수에 가깝다고 설명했다. 위기 기간과 정상화 시점에 대한 불확실성이 분석 모델의 입력값을 흔들고 있다고 봤다. 경기와 주식시장 괴리: 경기는 꽤 깊은 침체인데 S&P500은 침체 직전 수준에 가깝다. 애크먼은 S&P500이 시가총액 가중 지수이므로 아마존 등 대형 우량 기업이 지수를 떠받친다고 설명했다. 아마존은 45% 상승했고 S&P500에서 약 10%를 차지하며, 구글·페이스북은 장기 수혜주로 봤다. 반면 중소기업·비상장·레버리지가 높은 기업의 지수는 50~80% 하락했을 것이라고 언급했다. 신용스프레드 헤지(CDS 성격): 신용스프레드가 역사상 가장 타이트한 상태에서 스프레드 확대에 베팅했고, 비용은 제한적이었다. 2.6억 달러 이익이 아니라 2,700만 달러 투입 후 약 26억 달러 가치로 설명했으며, 실제로는 연 5억 달러 지급 구조로 과장이 있었다고 정정했다. 3월 12일부터 헤지를 해소하며 공격적으로 주식을 매수했고, 3월 18일 CNBC 출연 때는 강세 입장이었다고 주장했다. 비관론 비판에 대해서는 전체 28분 중 짧은 발췌만 방송됐다고 반박했다. 투자 원칙: 단순·예측가능·독점적 지위의 대형주, 높은 진입장벽, 높은 자본수익률, 외부 리스크 노출 제한, 강한 재무구조, 우수한 경영·지배구조를 제시했다. 2015~2016년 큰 손실은 이 원칙에서 벗어난 투자 때문이었다고 복기했다. 언급 종목: 아마존(상승 평가·지수 기여), 구글·페이스북(장기 수혜), 버크셔해서웨이(지분 매도 언급). 출연자 전망: 명시적 1~3개월 가격 방향 예측 없음. 장기 관점에서 우량 대형주 보유 입장.
다듬은 글
Bill Ackman is one of the greatest and most controversial investors of all time he is considered by many an active contrarian who takes bold bets against the consensus as the founder and CEO of Pershing Square capital he is worth an estimated 1.5 billion dollars recent times Bill Ackman has turned 27 million dollars into 2.6 billion dollars by predicting that the global health crisis will cause the stock market to crash moreover Ackman recently sold his shares in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway so his own investing firm could be more nimble and take advantage of a potential stock market crash again so it seems Bill Ackman has no issue making bold bets against the consensus but what gives him this confidence you so the market also seems to gyrate more than normally we have market going up a thousand points down a thousand points is that because of computerized trading or why is the market gyrating so much Oh again the market is a discounting mechanism and people's estimates of the future have been very volatile how long is the crisis going to go on for when we get back to a normal life you know these things affect the input of the model that analysts are using to value securities I think the other issue is the market in the short-term is very much a sentiment index it's a way for people to express their emotions and there's been a lot of emotions mature when that happens there's a corresponding degree of volatility but I don't think the market is dramatically wrong you know when you look at the market on a company by company basis we look at the companies we own you know different businesses have been affected differently some you know many businesses have been will be long-term beneficiaries so I seem to be extrange of somebody who's not following them that quite the way that you do the economy seems to be in a recession a fairly deep recession yet the market is almost where it was when we started this recession can you explain that why the market seems to be so much higher than the economy is sure so you know when people talk about the market they talk about either the Dow or the S&P 500 and the S&P 500 is a market cap weighted index and what's interesting or fortunate and unfortunate about the crisis is it affects different companies differently and the more dominant large cap you know companies the more stronger the balance sheet the stronger the market position those businesses are huge beneficiaries of the crisis and with the current what the market does not reflect our small businesses private companies more levered businesses that don't have access to capital don't have the same dominance of the public market so a business like Amazon which is a very big component of the the market is you know is up 45 percent that does a lot obviously for the averages it's probably something approaching almost 10% of the ESPY index today my guess is you know six seven percentage points the index businesses like Google Facebook I think long term beneficiaries and ultimately the value of a business is the kasher generates over its life and even if the cash flows are disrupted in the short-term if they're greater in the long-term the values will be higher so I think the stock market is a snapshot of a portion of the economy if it were if you had an index of smaller businesses the market would be down 50 60 70 80 % not long ago you made a very spectacular investment as I remember it was 27 million dollars you put on a hedge in effect and it became worth more or less 2.6 billion something like that about a hundred times your money so I don't know if you've done a lot of those hundred times your money deals but was that something that you expected that would go up that much and you were later criticized by some for having gone on CNBC and and kind of talked down the market at the time when you had a short position can you explain why you made the investment and why the criticism might not have been fair sure so what we did is we bet that credit spreads would widen which I thought was a very very low-risk bet in the sense that credit spreads were at the all-time tightest levels ever going into what I thought would be a pretty serious economic crisis if we were wrong about the economic impact of a crisis we would have paid again a relatively modest amount of premium you know to be wrong so it was a very asymmetric bet and you know unfortunately things played out the way we expected in terms of the economic impact of the crisis you know if you actually watch my CNBC segment all twenty-eight minutes of it which I think a lot of people didn't do as opposed to the snippets that CNBC advertised after my presentation I actually gave a well I say well look we're at a fork in the road if we go down one fork its doom and damnation and that fork was a one in which we did not an effect shut down the country briefly I'm carefully reopen the country went down just let the virus go roughshod I felt it would have very dramatic economic and health implications that was the part I was most concerned about but as I said in my 20-minute presentation that I was actually quite bullish because I was very confident that the government would in effect shut down the country and that would you know stunt the growth of Varis allow us to reopen the economy and when I said on CNBC that's why I'm buying socks and I made we went bullish we were very bearish going into March March 12 and on the 12th we started buying stocks very aggressively and we started unwinding our hedge as quickly as possible I went on CNBC on the 18th by the 18th I had 3.3 billion more exposure than I did in the 12 and I was really in a way I was talking my book and my book was bullish I was betting that the country would be shut down and and fortunately I think for the country California initiated the shutdown within 24 hours and then New York State and then the rest of the states have have largely followed and that's why you're gonna have the opportunity for an economic recovery and the virus will kill you know only 150,000 people instead of you know what could have been millions but the yeah the unfortunate part is the you know CNBC brand you know 30-second segments where I talked about the fork in the road were doom and damnation and they didn't run the segment's where I'm saying actually I'm bullish so if you go back and watch you'll come away with a very different impression than some people perceive on short snippets well do you have anymore hundred times your money bets that you might be able to give to us where somebody might be able to make a hundred times their money and then not too distant future any good bets you might recommend sure so the the it's a bit of an overstatement to say you know we ended up you know spending 27 million dollars on the insurance policy on which we collected 2.6 billion but we had to you know the way that bet is entered into is you commit to pay five hundred million dollars per year for five years and the longer you keep it on the more you can lose so it's a little bit different than someone who can scrape together you know ten thousand dollars and make a hundred times so it was it it's a bit of an overstatement to say we made a hundred times but it was it was a very good hedge and we were able to invest the money in the market and protect our investors capital so we felt good about it sure so there's sort of eight principles that have driven our investment success and when we have veered from those eight principles we've lost money and after the 2000 went through a very difficult period circa 2015-2016 the two investments you men were big drivers of that it was a you know if you will experiences making mistakes and learning from them and it was a moment in for reflection for the firm and I went back to the core principles that have driven our success for the first 12 years and I had a member of the investment team literally engraved them in a stone tablet not dissimilar from Moses his 10 commandments and I had that stone tablet put you know what you might call a deal toy said something everyone's desk in the office and we've adhered to those principles you know ever since and you know we've been fortunate to return to the success we had for the first dozen years so I think it's about keeping to your principles are basically one of that's in simple predictable free casual genitive dominant companies with large barriers to entry that are in high returns on capital that have limited exposure to extrinsic risks we can't control strong balance sheets don't need access to capital to survive have excellent management good governance sounds logical but you know occasionally we've diverged and there's those times you know there's a certain discipline that comes with investments and there always seems to be a countervailing quality that caused us to diverge but it really each case we've compromised on business quality or complexity we've been harmed from the investment standpoint so which a bill up means rules resonated the most with you comment your favorite below et as a baby Ruby's brother bed yeah yeah yeah coming down yeah let's I just wonder way
Comments 0