원문 보기
Perhaps not to gain entry points . But let's talk about Peter Lynch. He was at Fidelity. Many people are familiar with the saying "buy what you know". That's all they mention. What do you think is misunderstood about Peter Lynch today? Well, I think what was really impressive about Peter was that he's a great translator.
In other words, he translates every event that occurs in the world into what it means for actions. For example, the rest of us, if we read about the war in Iran, start thinking about politics and strategic issues. He immediately thinks about which companies will benefit from this. So he's a great translator.
The other thing is that he is a brave investor in stocks. He is willing to go where others go in the opposite direction. That was most evident in October 1987 when the stock market collapsed. But he was a big buyer and, of course, he did very well. So his view is that he is a long-term investor; If the market goes down, it's a buying opportunity.
Those are two really impressive things about Peter, and I would mention a third. He is a very good human being. He has been very philanthropic in Boston and is a great guy to have lunch with. He is simply a very good person. What kind of lunch does Peter Lynch eat ? We just eat a sandwich, nothing special.
Very well, then we accept it. Well, speaking of lunches, I'll take you to Cherry Cokes and Dairy Queen for a second. Because I think the way you just explained Peter Lynch rhymes with the way many people talk about Warren Buffett. Compare and contrast those two personalities. Well, I think they are both similar in that they are both very intelligent.
Both have a deep understanding of companies and both stay the course. They have a strategy and they stick to it. But, given their investment vehicle, they are very different strategies. Peter managed the Magellan Fund, and people could enter and exit that fund daily. So basically I needed to have a very liquid portfolio, where I could sell shares if necessary when people withdrew their money.
Warren Buffett, on the other hand, is in an insurance company. So it has a long-term investment perspective . Therefore, you can buy illiquid shares. You can buy types of bonds that are not traded very often. So it has a very different long-term strategy. Both stick to their strategies, but they are very different.
And I imagine that the types of shareholders, you know, the shareholder bases of both are different. In the mutual fund business, you're inevitably going to have those who chase performance, just like in individual stocks, but Berkshire probably has many more long-term shareholders than, well, I think Fidelity Magellan and many Fidelity Magellan funds do as well , but you inevitably attract those who chase performance.
You know, after a long period of profitability. Most mutual funds that have performed very well over the years have been growth-oriented, especially in the last 10 years. Warren Buffett is more of a value investor. He buys early and hopes to start a trend. So, again, it's a very different context in which they invest.
Both are big investors, but you're right, they have different investor bases. Very different. How would you characterize your level of... you used the word courage? Would you say that each person possesses a different kind of courage? Yes, I think there are many investors who are reacting quite strongly to what has happened in the last few days or in the last month.
Both have a very well thought-out investment strategy . Therefore, when they buy a stock, they will not be as affected by current events and will maintain their position, even if the world moves in one direction or another . They have good reasons to buy the stock and will remain loyal to it. Tell us a little about your role.
Tell us what you did when you were at Fidelity and MFS. I'm curious. You saw this industry at a different stage of its evolution from privileged vantage points. Tell us some stories. Well, actually, when I became president of Fidelity, Fidelity was in a difficult position. Peter had left the Magellan fund and Jeff Vinik had begun to manage the fund.
And Jack, Jeff, for better or for worse, put the fund half full of cash. That was around 1995. And that was not only a bad decision in terms of the fund's performance, but it was also inconsistent with what its shareholders expected. I think one of the important things I did was to reach a consensus that, if you're in an equity fund, you should keep between 80 and 90% in stocks of the type listed in your fund's name .
And if you wanted a balanced fund, we had it. If you wanted a money market fund, we had it. So we were able to focus the equity fund primarily on being in equities. And that's difficult because some investors say, "Well, this is not a good time for stocks." But my opinion was that if you manage a stock fund, that's what your prospectus says. That's what investors are waiting for. And you need to get that guidance.
Comments 0