Warren Buffett How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor

요약 보기

1977년 기사에서 인플레이션은 주식 투자자의 실질 수익을 잠식한다고 주장했다. 저인플레이션 환경은 투자자에게 유리하다. 명목 GDP 약 5%(실질 3%+물가 2%)가 장기 기업이익과 자본가치 성장률 5% 안팎을 결정하고, 배당을 더해 세전 6~7% 수익이 현실적이다. 투자 마찰비용(연 1.5~2%)을 고려하면 과거 1982~1999년 강세장 기대(14~15%)는 비현실적이다. 뮤추얼 대비 기대 하락이 실망의 원인이다. Munger는 이보다 더 비관적이며 경제학자들의 생산성 논리를 비판했다.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. In a 1977 Fortune magazine article titled " How Inflation Cheats Stock Investors," you argued that corporate earnings generally act like a bond's coupon, and are therefore negatively affected by high inflation. Due to high inflation at the time, you assumed a world where 12% of corporate returns on capital shrank to 7% after taxes and fell to 0% in real terms.

02. You have been expressing pessimism about the outlook for stocks for several years now. To a large extent, we assume, this is due to extremely high initial estimates. If inflation was clearly bad for investors in 1977, isn't its relative absence in today's economy at least a plus for stockholders? Is there also a component of expectations of future inflation in your warnings that investors are likely to be disappointed with stock performance?

03. Well, I would say there is no doubt that the lack of inflation is a plus for owners. What I mean is that the real income that you would get, in my opinion, from owning an American business, if it were purchased at similar prices, would be higher if we had prolonged periods of low or near-zero inflation than if we had prolonged periods of high inflation.

04. I don't think there is a question here, since that article explained how you paid taxes on nominal and fictitious profits in real terms. So, your question about which period is better for investors: a period of low inflation for any length of time is better for investors. Um, and the problem, as you also pointed out, was the starting point in predicting modest returns for equity investors.

05. The returns weren't necessarily that modest, I predict, they were just modest compared to what people had come to expect during that long bull market from 1982 to 1999. There were polls conducted by Gallup in collaboration, it seems, with Paine Webber at the time. Now they have moved on to UBS Warburg, which showed people's expectations about the stock market.

06. And these profits that people were counting on were 14% or 15%, as I recall. And they thought they were going to get 14% or 15% in a low inflation environment. Well, you know, it was a dream . And, um, there's nothing wrong with low inflation in earning, you know, 6% or 7%. This is probably as good as it gets , because in a low inflation environment, how much will GDP grow?

07. Well, GDP, you know, if you have 2% inflation and even 3% real growth, then we're talking about 5% GDP growth in nominal terms. If GDP grows at this rate, then over time corporate profits will grow at about the same rate. And if corporate profits grow at 5% per year, then the value of those profits, the capitalized value, is likely to grow at about the same rate over any long period from a normal starting point.

08. Add to that the dividends, and you know, you get 6% or 7% before deducting frictional costs. Um , investors bear a lot of frictional costs. They don't have to do it , but they do. And often it is 1.5% or 2% of their investment. So the math is not bad. It's just, just, just bad for those people who are used to or expected very high returns, looking in the rearview mirror at 1998 or 1999.

09. Charlie? My overall attitude is a little more negative than Warren's. You heard it, friends. This is not the end of the world. I mean, essentially, if the people who own American businesses get 5-6% of the pie—an economy worth $10 trillion now, and someday—a $20 trillion economy. But if we get 5 or 6% of the pie, those of us who invest our capital in producing goods and services for American businesses, for American consumers, for the American population—is that, you know, I don't know if that's what the creator of the universe would have thought of.

10. But it doesn't seem crazy to me either way . You know , I think it's a lot of goods and services for the people who provided the capital. But you have over 100 million people in the workforce working to produce it for you, using your capital. And it provides what I would consider a pretty good real return if you have low inflation.

11. If you get into high inflation conditions, as I wrote back in '77, you can easily get very, very low, and possibly even negative, real returns for investors. I mean, inflation can fool the equity investor, as I wrote back then. And I used 7,000 words to explain why. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that article if anyone is still interested.

12. But inflation is the only thing that can turn investors' aggregate returns into negative territory over a long period of time. And this is the enemy of the investor. Charlie, does this bring up any other thoughts? I don't think you'll get perfect help on these issues from economists either. They have certain standard formulas.

13. To an economist, when manufacturing jobs move to China, it's just productivity growth. And if you ask one, well, let's say all the manufacturing jobs in America went to China, wouldn't that be too much of an efficiency gain? And their answer would be: "No." And people are actually paid to think like that at major universities.

14. Yes. What would get this point across, of course, would be if all economics teaching were exported to China, where a new understanding would emerge at that moment . And number six,