저자: TerrySmith · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 테리 스미스의 3단계 전략(좋은 기업 찾기, 적정가에 사기, 그냥 보유)을 소개하며 예측성 있는 고품질 기업을 장기 보유하라는 영상으로, 특정 종목의 단기 가격 전망은 없다. 펀드 성과: Fundsmith Equity Fund는 영국 최대 펀드 중 하나로 약 300억 달러를 운용하며, 2010년 설립 이후 연 17.1% 수익률을 기록했다. 같은 기간 시장 전체는 연 12.3%였다. 전략 1 - 좋은 기업 선별: 핵심 지표는 ROCE(투하자본이익률)이며, 자본비용을 웃도는 높은 ROCE를 중시한다. 펀드 편입 기업 평균 ROCE는 약 28%, S&P500 평균은 약 16%다. 기업의 매출총이익률 약 63%, 영업이익률 약 26%, 현금전환율 약 99%, 이자보상배율 약 17배가 언급되었다. 기업 특성: 예측 가능한 수익, 일상 필수재·사치재, 소액 반복 구매, 강한 브랜드 충성도, 경기침체·전쟁·팬데믹을 견딘 회복력을 선호한다. 예시로 펩시코(소비재 약 30%), 마이크로소프트(펀드 최대 보유, 기술주 약 28%), 아이덱스 래버러토리스(헬스케어 약 22%)가 소개되었다. 전략 2 - 밸류에이션: 잉여현금흐름수익률(FCF yield)을 PER보다 선호하며, 목표는 기대 인플레이션보다 최소 1%p 이상 높은 수준이다. 다만 좋은 기업은 다소 비싸게 사도 장기 복리로 보상된다는 입장이다. 아이덱스 PER 약 38배(2015년 매수)→약 57배, 펩시코·마이크로소프트는 약 8~12배(2011년 추정)에서 현재 28~32배로 언급되었다. 코카콜라·콜게이트 사례도 인용. 전략 3 - 보유: 거래가 많을수록 비용이 늘어 수익률이 낮아지므로 좋은 기업을 사고 장기 보유하라는 결론이다. 출연자 전망: 테리 스미스는 구체적인 가격 방향이나 목표가를 제시하지 않았고, 장기 투자 철학만 언급했다. 영상 말미에 자신의 저서 'Investing for Growth'를 추천했다.
다듬은 글
this video covers the investment strategy of terry smith who is the master chief of the successful fundsmith equity fund the fundsment equity fund is one of the biggest equity funds in the uk and currently manages around 30 billion dollars of assets it has delivered its investors an impressive return of 17.1 per annum measured from its establishment in 2010 until now for comparison in the same period the market as a whole had an annual return of 12.3 percent a statistic that most fund managers do not beat so how does terry smith beat the market his strategy goes as follows find good companies do not overpay do nothing so what makes a company good let's first look at the gold heart ratios that terry smith uses to separate the wheat from the chaff later we will delve into the operational characteristics that smith likes to see in the company and go over a few companies that are currently part of the fundsment portfolio so first the numbers in line with investment t-rex warren buffett terry smith considers consistent high cash returns on capital employed abbreviated as rogue to be the most important financial marker of a good company for smith it is perhaps the most defining factor for a company to be considered good enough for his investable universe rogue indicates how good a company is in generating profits from its capital be it their machinery intellectual property equipment or cash for example smith explains that if you are buying a share in a company you are buying your share of the company's capital and just like you are interested in a rate of return of your savings account or some other investment that you do you should also be interested in the rate of return of your share of the company's capital company that has a rogue of 25 means that for every dollar of capital you own the company is making 25 cents of profit it is however important to look at the cost of capital employed as well the company might have a rogue of 25 but if it has a cost of capital 30 it is destroying value just like you would get 4 if you borrowed money with 10 interest rate to invest it in a project with a rate of return of only 5 it is actually pretty easy to calculate rogue one way is dividing cash from operating activities found in the cash flow statement by total assets minus current liabilities found in the balance sheet you can find these numbers in the annuals if you think you are tough otherwise you can use sites like yahoo finance macro trends or trading view on the other side of the value creation equation is the cost of capital which can be split in cost of debt and cost of equity you can derive cost of debt from the company's financials as they usually state the interest expenses made cost of equity can only be approximated by people with spectacles using a capital asset pricing model unfortunately i don't have spectacles although cost of capital might be tricky to calculate smith thinks that you should only be interested in companies that have a rogue that is higher than any feasible cost of capital so what does he consider to be a high road then the average company in the funsmith equity fund in the past eight years had a rogue of around 28 compared to the s p 500 average company which had a rogue of around 16 it is good to notice however that rogue differs per sector for example an energy company such as shell uses more capital compared to a tech company such as meta or a company such as domino's pizza which is a franchiser so partly uses other people's capital to generate revenues so it makes sense to compare companies rogue within sectors in terms of metrics rogue is mentioned most often in smith's definition of a good company but he mentions a few other metrics quite often as well so i'll briefly go over their meaning and what the average company in a fundsmith portfolio scores on them so you can use them for comparison these are gross margin which has been around 63 for their average company so it makes stuff for three dollars and seventy cents and sells them for ten dollars operating margin which has been around twenty six percent for fun smith so for each dollar of revenue it has 26 cents in operating income the cash conversion of the fundsment average company has been around 99 which means the company converts almost all of their profits into cash an interest cover which has been around 17 times so the company's profits are 17 times higher than what they have to pay in interest they can easily pay their interest even in adverse market situations so wrapping up a good company in terms of financial metrics has consistent high cash returns on capital employed that are above its cost of capital it has high margins and low levels of debt thereby creating value for shareholders a company might have a good financial track record but the trick really is to judge a company's ability to continue to create value for shareholders over the long term and some companies possess characteristics that allow them to do just that of course nothing is certain but smith mentions some of the characteristics of the kind of companies he likes that should give these companies a solid foundation for continuous value creation first of all good companies make good products like windows vista and cheetos lip balm next to that smith generally tends to favor companies that have predictable returns provide the everyday necessities and luxuries typically sell small ticket products in everyday repeat transactions have brand loyal customers dominate in certain product areas or at least have a strong market share and are resilient typically being around for ages and having survived multiple recessions wars and pandemics one example of a company that ticks these boxes and is currently part of the funsmith portfolio is pepsico pepsico is a global leader in beverages and convenient foods that sells millions of products per day in more than 200 territories around the world it possesses strong brands that customers are loyal to giving them predictable returns such as pepsi cola mountain dew quaker doritos and cheetos given the characteristics that smith likes it is not surprising that currently 30 percent of fundsments portfolio is in the consumer stable sector one example in the technology sector is microsoft which is fun smith's largest holding microsoft has the largest market share in computer operating systems and is the second largest cloud computing provider after amazon millions of companies worldwide rely on a subscription-based enterprise office applications and use them as their main productivity software for most companies changing their office suit or cloud computing provider causes an enormous hassle so the microsoft prison results in consistent predictable returns that microsoft can use to expand their business they also own minecraft around 28 of fun smith's holdings is in the technology sector the second largest holding in the funsmith portfolio is idexx laboratories idacs are global leaders in veterinary testing equipment and water microbiology testing since 1985 more than 1.5 billion idex livestock poultry and dairy tests have been used also idex water testing equipment is used to ensure the safety of the drinking water of around 2.5 billion people a lot of the equipment that idec sells is single use which results in repeat purchases and predictable returns as people continue to put the health of their pets above anything a total of 22 percent of fun smith's portfolio is in the health care sector so to recap according to smith a good company typically has consistent high cash returns on capital that are above its cost of capital has high margins as low levels of debt and in terms of operational characteristics usually all in all is pretty boring but rock solid in earning cash by providing those repeat transactions small ticket products that are a necessity in the everyday lives of both people animals and businesses so you have found a good company great just don't be too quick on the trailer to assess the value of a company smith prefers to use the free cash flow yield as opposed to the p e ratio which is for normies the free cash flow yield can be calculated by dividing the free cash flow by the company's market gap smith's rule of thumb is that a free cash flow yield is good but it is at least one percent above the expected rate of inflation whatever that may be however recently he has deviated quite a lot from this rule of thumb as funsmith bought shares in amazon at a free cash flow yield of about minus one percent but it does bring us to an interesting point that smith makes about valuation in general which is that a low price does not necessarily mean good value and a high price does not necessarily mean expensive smith shows this by using coca-cola and colgate palmolive as an example you could have paid twice the market pe for these companies in 1979 and still make twice as much money than an investment in a market index over a period of 30 years this is because these companies consistently grew about five percent faster compared to the market and through years of compounding these highly rated stocks with higher growth rates beat lower rated stocks with lower growth rates this is what smith means by saying that it is safe to pay up for quality so what did funsmith pay for the companies that i used as an example earlier in terms of pe ratio smith definitely paid up for idexx laboratories which was bought in 2015 at a p e of around 38 versus an s p 500 average of about 20.
currently it is valued at a p e of around 57 versus an s p 500 average of 22. pepsico and microsoft were bought at about the same time which was as far as i have been able to determine around 2011. the pe of pepsico was about 12 and microsoft was about 8 compared to an s p 500 average of about 15. currently they are valued at a pe of 28 and 32 respectively versus an s p 500 average of 22.
although pepsico and microsoft were relatively low rated at the time smith says that you don't often get a quality company at a cheap price it may only be possible to get a good company at a low valuation when the company has a problem or when there's confusion or a negative sentiment around the company this was the case when they bought shares of microsoft as the focus of most analysts was on microsoft losing the battle against apple and mobile devices and against google in mobile operating systems and online search in addition to that microsoft's market share of operating systems for personal computers windows was showing a decline however their biggest revenue source at that time was microsoft office and its revenues from the provision of service and id tools which is their number one revenue source today we're growing rapidly this reminds me of the time that i bought shares of google in 1834 when literally nobody believed in search engines paid off pretty well so well in fact that i won't ask you to please use the affiliate link in the description of the video if you are planning on buying terry smith's book investing for growth from which i got most of this information thank you kind sir i think the general takeaway from smith on the topic of valuation is that you should not blindly stare at p e ratios or free cash flow yields if you decide to buy a stock but instead look for quality first because in the long term true compounding quality companies with high growth rates result in returns that more than make up for the slightly higher prices you pay for them now but keep in mind that the higher the price the less probable that becomes the reasoning behind this last step of smith strategy is that the more you transact the more costs you make and this lowers total returns if you have found a good company and did not overpay for it then you are in a situation in which you are basically your own worst enemy because future you instead of looking at facts might someday be influenced by tv talking hats or god forbid social media investment gurus whose strategy is that you only have to double 1k 10 times to get to a million and this is true so why are you still poor bro now this video compiles what terry smith has to say specifically about his three-step investment strategy but his book investing for growth is far more than just that throughout the book he makes great analogies between investing and sport presents his 10 golden rules of investment bashes fund managers and shares his view on dividend growth investing and etfs the book contains a wealth of practical insights for investors which is delivered in the form of witty short and simple beginner friendly writings and that is why i recommend you reading this book especially when you're setting your first steps in investing for those that already read the book or bought the book after watching this video let me know in the comments what you think about it and how it has shaped your decision making and investing i want to thank you for watching this video if you liked it please subscribe to the channel on which i will cover more investment philosophies and book summaries in the near future feel free to let me know which investor or book should be next until the next video bye
Comments 0