저자: CesarHauer · 외국인
요약 보기
제레미 시겔의 'Stocks for the Long Run'(장기 투자 주식) 소개. 미국 200년 데이터상 주식이 장기 최고 자산군(연 약 6.6%, 채권 약 3%, 금은 구매력 유지). 장기 보유 시 주식의 최소 수익률이 20~30년에 양수로 전환되며 채권보다 장기 위험이 낮음. 기술적 분석은 무작위 차트와 구분 못해 신빙성이 낮다는 결론. 다만 미국 결과를 한국/브라질 시장에 그대로 적용하기는 어렵고 장기적으로 주식이 유리할 것이라는 견해. 특정 종목이나 단기 가격 방향 예측은 없음.
다듬은 글
Let's talk about the book "Stocks For The Long Run" by Professor J.E.M. Sigo. It's already available in a Portuguese translation called " Investir em ações no longo prazo" (Investing in Stocks in the Long Term). What 's the idea behind this book? Professor Jim Sigo conducts a very comprehensive study of the US stock market over the last 200 years.
He does statistical analyses, risk analyses, and return analyses, comparing the risk and return of fixed income with stocks against the global market. He analyzes the differences between companies that pay dividends and those that don't, which is better for the investor, and discusses technical analysis, the 2008 crisis, and so on.
It's a very complete book, practically essential reading for anyone who already invests in stocks or intends to start investing now. There are several conclusions, some of them even counterintuitive. I'll share some with you here, but I can't mention them all because it's a very long book. I definitely recommend reading this volume.
Before presenting the book to you, I'd like to ask you to subscribe to the channel, leave a like, activate the bell, and share it occasionally. Who do you think might be interested? Okay, thank you. The first thing I wanted to present to you, perhaps it won't be a surprise, is the conclusion he draws that stocks are the best investment, the best asset class for long-term investment.
What we have to take into consideration is that this study was done for the US market, not the Brazilian market. In the United States, stocks were the best asset class to invest in for the last 200 years, according to the survey he did, compared to US fixed income. Okay, we have to be very, very clear about this when we try to draw any parallel between the US market and the national market, or the Brazilian market.
So you can't read this book and assume that the values Lie cites there in terms of risk and return, both for fixed income and stocks, are what happens here, what will happen here, or, let's say, our target, our long-term profitability trend. They are not certain. Very likely there will be differences between what happened there and what happens here.
I don't have any long- term studies like that to present to you, but I believe that the general character of... The conclusions he draws for the North American market will also apply here in Brazil, so yes, I think that in the long term, Brazilian stocks will be the best asset class for long-term investment.
Okay, Brazil has the characteristic of having higher interest rates than the United States, for example, so perhaps stocks are better, but by a slightly smaller difference, right? There's also the possibility that fixed income here is better than stocks, but we'll only know that in the future. Or, if someone did a survey like the one he did of the last 200 years of the market—the oldest survey I have, but it only concerns the stock market—it shows that the Ibovespa, since its creation, has delivered an average of 14% per year, which is in line to some extent with what he presents in his book.
We'll see this a little later, but I don't have a parallel with what would happen with fixed income investments. But the theoretical basis, at least from General Finance and such, will indicate that yes, stocks tend to outperform fixed income investments in the long term. In the long term in the US market, as he shows in his book, the Brazilian market is still an unknown, but it's very likely what will happen.
My position is: Okay, for me, the first thing that really stands out in this book is the graph he puts at the beginning showing the profitability over the last 200 years of some asset classes. I'll try to show you this graph here, okay? Take a look, if you want you can pause the video to see it in more detail, but this graph shows that in the last 200 years, the annualized return of the asset classes was more or less: stocks had a return of 6.6%, already above inflation; bonds, fixed income securities, which are bonds and bills, around 3%, fluctuating between 2.5% and 3.5%; and gold basically maintained its purchasing power.
Okay, so this is, in the very long term, 200 years, the average annual return that we can expect again in the US market for investments in fixed income stocks as well, right? He mentions it there, so... 6 and a bit for the stock market, more or less 3% for the fixed income market, so it's double, right?
We can expect that variable income, stocks, will yield double what fixed income assets yield. He also presents a very cool study he did on technical analysis, trying to show the veracity of the premises and claims of technical analysis, and what he discovers is that it's not very favorable for technical analysis.
I'll tell you how this study worked. He was trying to see if there were, as analysts could, identify trading patterns. To do this, he generated, if I'm not mistaken, eight charts, four completely random, made by a computer program, and four more that were real excerpts from some periods of the American BSA.
And he shows this to some technical analysts. Let's see if there are in fact trading patterns that are not simply random. Would the technical analysts be able to distinguish which of these charts are actually formed by the Stock Exchange and which were generated by a computer program with random numbers?
And the result is not... It's very favorable, isn't it? The analysts couldn't distinguish; they couldn't see which chart was the real record of the stock market and which one was randomly generated. So that's a negative point for technical analysts. It becomes very difficult to believe that a technical analyst will actually be able to see, in a price formation chart with price volume and so on, any pattern with sufficient precision and consistency to be able to enter and exit at the right points, making a profit on the trades.
A very cool study, it discredits technical analysis a bit. For those who are more interested in this, I made a specific video; I'll see if I can leave it here somewhere. If I can't, you can look for it on my channel later; the video will be available for you. The last point I wanted to raise here is what I found absolutely most interesting about this book and very counterintuitive because all my life, at least, I've heard that investments in stocks, despite having a higher return perspective in the long term, have a higher risk.
If you don't want to take risks, you have to have a fixed-income portfolio or have fixed-income assets in your portfolio, and the study of... Interestingly, the long-term risk of investing in stocks is lower than the risk of investing in fixed income, making it very clear that this refers to the US market, not the national market.
Okay, but I'll try to show you this graph. Look, it oscillates here, between... you keeping the asset in the portfolio. If you want, you can pause there to see it clearly, but what happens if you hold your investments for 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10, 20, and 30 years? These bars represent the maximum and minimum returns you would have holding stocks and fixed income securities.
So, holding stocks for one year, you would have a maximum return of 66% and a minimum return of -38%, almost 37%. So, your fluctuation in terms of return in one year of investment in stocks will go from 66% to 38%. In fixed income, yes, this variation is much smaller, indicating a lower risk. It will go from a return of 35% or a...
A 22% loss. Okay, so these bars are a little bit smaller now as you extend this period, that is, if you hold your stocks for 20 to 30 years, right? And from then on, there is no negative return on stocks, right? So nobody would have lost money. For example, for 20 years, the maximum return is 12.6% and the minimum is 1%.
Okay, while in fixed income, the maximum return is 8.8% and the minimum is -3.1%. So, in fixed income, even with 20 years, he managed to identify some loss. For stocks, no, the minimum return is still a positive value. And for 30 years, this difference is even greater, so the maximum return on stocks goes to 10% and the minimum will be 2.6%.
That is, the minimum return increases until the point where it ceases to be negative for stocks, but for fixed income assets, it remains negative, at least -1%. Okay, so curiously, again, I will emphasize that for the North American market, in the long term, investing in stocks, according to Jerem Sigo's survey, was less.
It's riskier than maintaining a portfolio of fixed-income securities. Very briefly, that's what I wanted to show you in the book "Stocks For The Long Run," now translated into Portuguese, and investing in stocks for the long term. It's a very good book, I recommend reading it, especially for those who want to invest in stocks, already invest, or are just starting out.
In short, it's a brilliant book, worth knowing all about this analysis by Dir. I followed his lead to understand exactly how he arrived at these conclusions, how he conducted the analysis. Remember that you have to make an effort to draw this parallel between the North American market and the Brazilian market.
I hope you enjoyed the video. If you liked it, please leave a comment. I also ask you to subscribe to the channel, like the video, and share it with anyone you think might be interested. Thank you very much.
Comments 0