저자: WarrenBuffett&CharlieMunger-명시소속기준추정,제목기반 · 외국인
요약 보기
첫 줄 결론: 과열된 하이테크·인터넷 투기는 결국 가치(현금창출력)로 수렴하지만, 그 시점과 경제 전체 파급은 예측 불가하다. 버핏의 핵심 논리: 벤 그레이엄 인용대로 단기는 투표기계, 장기는 저울이다. 기업 가치는 결국 미래 현금창출력이 결정하며, 이익을 내지 못하는 기업이 100억~200억 달러에 거래되면 부의 창출이 아니라 참여자 간 부의 재분배일 뿐이다. 피라미드·다단계 비유: 초기 참여자만 돈을 벌고 전체 투자자 집단은 수수료·거래비용만큼 손실을 본다. 이 과정에서 투자자들은 자신이 부유해졌다고 느끼지만 집단적으로는 기업이 실제 가치를 만들어내야만 부가 늘어난다. 역사적 사례: 20년 전 네브래스카 농지 투기 사례를 들어, 연 10% 금리에서 에이커당 70~80달러 토지가 2,000달러에 거래된 것은 계산상 파멸적이었고 이를 따라 대출한 지역 은행도 무너졌다. 과열 기간에는 '전월보다 비싸게 팔린다'는 관성이 자기 확신이 된다. 파급 전망: 이번 거품 붕괴가 1920년대 말처럼 경제 전체에 영향을 줄지, 특정 산업에 국한될지는 불확실하며 5~10년 후에야 판명될 것이라고 답함. 멍거 발언: 인터넷 같은 정당한 발전과 네트워크 마케팅·폰지식 과열을 섞으면 좋은 결과와 나쁜 결과가 섞인 불합리한 결과가 나온다는 취지. 구체 종목·지수 가격 방향 예측 발언은 없음. 이 영상은 1999~2000년 닷컴 거품 붕괴 시기의 과거 회고형 Q&A이며, 현재 시점의 투자 추천이 아님.
다듬은 글
Good morning, gentlemen . Wayne Peters. Um, where I come from, they call women "birds." And I'm sure many of them would trade one of these in their hands for two in the bushes . Regardless of the interest rate. Uh-huh . I have two quick questions. First, given the speculation, some would say wild speculation, in the high-tech and Internet sectors, could you share your thoughts on the possible consequences of this speculation for the economy as a whole?
And secondly, how long did it take you to hone that twisted ball? Uh, and will we see him tonight? I don't think I want to reveal any secrets to my pitches today. Ernie, Ernie Banks might be in the room. I know he's in town and I just, I just can't afford it. But you will see it tonight and you can describe it however you want.
Regarding the question about high-tech stocks and possible consequences. Uh-huh. Whenever there were real bursts of speculation in the market. You know, everything gets fixed in the end . Ben Graham was right when he said that in the short term it's a voting machine, but in the long term it's a weighing machine .
Sooner or later, the amount of cash a business can generate in the future determines its value. The one that the stock has on the market. But this can take a long time. And, I mean, it's a very interesting proposition. For example, if you take a company that ultimately never makes a profit, but its shares change hands at a valuation of $10 or $20 billion over a period of time, no wealth is created.
There is a huge redistribution of wealth. And I think when we look back on this era, we will see it as a period of enormous redistribution of wealth. But ultimately, the only wealth creation comes from what the business itself creates. There is no magic in this. If a company that is worth nothing is sold for $20 billion, and 5% of its shares are transferred to other hands, someone is simply taking a billion dollars from someone else.
But, investors generally receive nothing. They all feel richer. It's a very interesting phenomenon, but they can't get richer as a group unless the company makes them so. And this is the same principle as in a financial pyramid. That is, if you are at the very beginning of the pyramid, you can make money.
Pyramid schemes do not create money. In fact, there are operating costs for envelopes, postage, and things like that. So, in the end, some of the money is lost a little bit. And money is also lost through transaction costs for trading and investing. And it comes out of investors' pockets. But, um, uh , manias that happen periodically, and not just in stocks.
Uh, we had a similar mania, um, not necessarily similar. We, we definitely had a mania for farmland here in Nebraska, uh, 20 years ago. And land that, say, couldn't bring in more than $70 or $80 an acre was selling for $2,000 an acre in a time when interest rates were 10%. Well , that kind of math will ruin you.
And it ruined the people who bought it at those prices, and it ruined a lot of banks here in Nebraska that were making loans based on that. But while it lasted, everyone thought it was great, because each farm sold for more than a similar farm a month earlier. And this was an investment by inertia in agricultural land.
Uh, and ultimately, uh, the score does matter, but it can take a long time, and when you get a huge number of participants playing with increasing amounts, you know, it creates its own self- evident truth that can exist for quite a long time. This doesn't last forever. And will this have consequences for the entire economy, as it probably did in the late 20s, or is it just an isolated industry or sector where the bubble bursts and it doesn't really affect other values.
Uh, who knows? Uh, um, but in five or ten years you'll find out, Charlie. Well, I think the reason we use the expression "terrible excesses" is because they have terrible consequences. If you mix the mathematics of network marketing or Ponzi schemes with some legitimate development , like the development of the Internet, you are mixing something terrible and irrational, with bad consequences, with something that has very good consequences.
But you know, if you mix raisins with [ __ ], it's still [ __ ]. Um, uh. Em. That's why they're assigning me to write the annual report, but. So, I think we better move on to sector three.
댓글 0