저자: GilRossi—본영상은CharlieMunger편집요약 · 외국인
요약 보기
찰리 멍거의 가치투자 철학과 시장 과열에 대한 견해를 정리한 영상으로, 개별 종목 가격 예측은 없음. [가치투자 철학] 가치투자는 지불하는 가격보다 더 많은 가치를 얻으려는 투자이며, 유행과 무관하게 유효하다고 주장. 모든 좋은 투자는 본질적으로 가치투자라는 입장. 소수 종목 집중 투자가 100개 분산 투자보다 우월하다고 봄(분산은 이해 부족을 가리는 보험이라는 시각). [매도 및 보유] 아직 매도 시스템이 없다고 언급하며, 품질·경영진이 유지되면 가격 이유만으로 매도하지 않는 성향. [투기·거품·매매] 호황과 붕괴는 자본주의의 일부이며, 장을 피하지 않고 버티는 것이 정책이라고 함. 무료 수수료 거래와 모멘텀 매매는 도박 성격이며 중개업계의 이익 구조를 비판. 거품이 어떻게 끝날지는 알지만 언제인지는 모른다고 답하며 시장 타이밍은 불가능하다고 봄. [비트코인·테슬라·금] 비트코인은 변동성이 커 교환 수단으로 부적합하며 금의 인위적 대용품으로 봄, 본인은 투자하지 않음. 테슬라의 적정 가치 판단에는 어려움을 표하며 고평가 시사. [금리·밸류에이션·자본주의] 현재 저금리로 인해 높은 PER을 수용하는 것은 이해 가능하다고 봄, 다만 과열 투기 장세에서 부자가 된 것은 아니라고 언급. 국채는 인플레이션을 감안하면 나쁜 투자로 평가, 현금 대신 보통주 선호. 기업 성공은 생물 진화처럼 대부분 도태되며, 코닥·GM 파산 사례를 들어 자본주의의 잔혹성을 강조. [영상 자체 평가] 편집자 Gil Rossi는 멍거 발언을 일관된 가치투자 원칙으로 묶어 해설하며, 후속편을 예고.
다듬은 글
Hi, welcome to my channel. My name is Gil Rossi, an investor and fund manager. Today I want to show you a compilation I made from Charlie Munger's discussion with shareholders at the Daily Journal shareholders meeting. Charlie Munger is Vice Chairman of Berkshire and Warren Buffett's partner, and I have followed both of them for a long time, so I want to share his views on investing and on the world in general. Let's go see it.
Value investing, the way I see it, will never go out of style, because value investing, as I conceive it, is always wanting to get more value than you pay for when you buy a stock. That approach will never go out of style. Some people think value investing means chasing companies that have a lot of cash but are lousy businesses, but I don't define it that way. I think all good investing is value investing. It's just that some people look for value in strong companies and some look for value in weak companies, but every value investor tries to get more value than he pays for.
What is interesting is that in wealth management, a lot of people think that if they hold a hundred stocks they're investing more professionally than if they hold four or five. I regard that as insanity, absolute insanity. I find it much easier to find four or five investments where I have a reasonable chance of being right and that are way above average. I think it's much easier to find five than a hundred. I think the people who argue for all this diversification, by the way, I call it "divorcification," a term I copied from somebody, are wrong. I'm far more comfortable owning two or three stocks that I think I know something about and where I think I have an advantage.
Could you describe your system for selling securities? I so rarely hold a company like BYD that goes to a nosebleed price that I don't think I have a system yet. I'm just learning as I go along. You can count on this: if we really like the company and like the management, and that's how we feel about BYD, we're likely to be a little too loyal, and I don't think we'll change on them.
**Key takeaways from this section:** "Value investing" is a redundancy, like saying "free gift." All investing is value investing, because when you invest you are trying to get more value than what you put in. And by that same definition, if you can't define the value of what you're investing or betting on, you are speculating. On diversification, he says you don't need to over-diversify. Buying a hundred companies gives you average returns, with your mistakes canceled out by your successes. But if you analyze companies the way he does, following a hundred companies is impractical. It's easier to find five or six good companies where he has a competitive advantage, understand them, and understand the value he can get from them, rather than hundreds. In fact, the Daily Journal portfolio holds no more than five stocks. For him, it's much better to truly understand the business you're investing in than to spread your money across hundreds of stocks, which is really just insurance against not knowing what you're doing. On selling, he's still learning, and that's great. He's 90 years old or so and still learning, and he hasn't yet settled on a system for selling. He and Buffett both tend not to sell a business for price reasons as long as it still meets their quality requirements, such as good management and a good business.
In this second section, Charlie Munger discusses booms, busts, free trading or commission-free trading, momentum trading, gambling, speculation, and timing the market. Let's watch.
These things do happen in the market economy. You get crazy booms. Remember the dot-com boom, when every little building in Silicon Valley rented at a huge price, and a few months later about a third of them were vacant? There are these periods in capitalism. I've been around for a long time, and my policy has always been to just ride them out. What shareholders actually do is crowd into buying stocks in a frenzy, frequently on credit, because they see prices going up. That's a very dangerous way to invest. It's the kind of thing that happens when a whole lot of people use liquid stock markets to gamble the way they would bet on racehorses, and that's what we have going in the stock market. The frenzy is fed by people earning commissions and other revenue from this new bunch of gamblers. When things get extreme you get things like short squeezes. The public doesn't generally notice, but clearinghouses clear all these trades, and when things get as crazy as they did in the event you're talking about, there are threats of clearinghouse failure. It gets very dangerous, and it's really stupid to have a culture that encourages as much stock gambling as possible by people with the mindset of racetrack bettors. Of course it creates trouble, as it did.
I have a very simple idea on this. I think you should make your money in this world by selling other people things that are good for them. If you're selling them gambling services and raking profits off the top, like many of these new brokers who specialize in luring gamblers in, I think it's a dirty way to make money, and I think we're crazy to allow it. Robinhood trades aren't free. When you sell order flow, you're probably charging your customers more while pretending to be free. It's a very dishonorable, low-grade way to do business.
What do you think of all the speculators and promoters pushing them? I don't participate at all, and I think the world would be better off without them. This kind of crazy speculation, in enterprises not even founded or picked out yet, is a sign of an irritating bubble. The investment banking profession will sell shed as long as shed can be sold.
Many observers see market behavior that reminds them of the dot-com bubble: wild speculation, endless IPOs, and stocks soaring on their first day of trading. Do you agree there's a close parallel to the late 90s, and that this therefore must end badly?
Yes, I think it must end badly, but I don't know when. It's most egregious in the momentum trading by novice investors lured in by new types of brokerage operations like Robinhood, and I think all of this activity is regrettable. Civilization would do better without it. You'll remember that when the first big bubble came, the South Sea Bubble in England in the 1700s, it created such havoc that when it blew up, England hardly allowed any public trading in securities of any company for decades afterward. Human greed and the aggression of the brokerage community create these bubbles from time to time, and I think wise people just stay out of them.
**Main takeaways:** He has been through many booms and busts in the stock market, and his strategy is to wait them out until they pass. I also like his answer when asked whether this must end badly. He's talking about speculation not in the market as a whole but in specific spots, and he says yes, it must end badly, but he doesn't know when. That shows that timing the market is impossible. Nobody can do it, so don't try.
In this third section he talks about Tesla, Bitcoin, and gold. Let's watch.
I do think a properly run bank is a great contributor to civilization, and that the central banks of the world, controlling their own banking systems and money supplies, are good. So I don't think Bitcoin is going to end up as the world's medium of exchange. It's too volatile to serve well as a medium of exchange, and it's really an artificial substitute for gold. Since I never buy gold, I never buy Bitcoin, and I recommend that other people follow my practice. Bitcoin reminds me of what Oscar Wilde said about fox hunting: it was "the pursuit of the uneatable by the unspeakable." Which do you think is crazier, Bitcoin at 50,000 or Tesla's fully diluted enterprise value of 1 trillion?
I have the same difficulty Samuel Johnson once had when he got a similar question. He said he couldn't decide the order of precedence between a flea and a louse. I don't know which is worse.
**Main takeaways:** These are connected with the first section on value investing. He applies value investing to his views on Bitcoin, gold, and Tesla. You can calculate Tesla's value, but in his view its value is not higher than the price being paid. With Bitcoin, he doesn't see any value and can't calculate any. As a medium of exchange it's too volatile, and you can't use it for anything else. Gold is the same.
In this fourth and last section he talks about interest rates, high multiple valuations of companies, inflation, and biology. Let's watch.
We prefer owning common stocks to holding cash under current conditions. It's kind of an accident that we have so much in marketable securities. No, I don't think we have a bubble in Treasury securities. I think they're a bad investment. Interest rates are this low, and I never buy any of the Daily Journal. I think everybody is willing to hold stocks at higher price-earnings multiples when interest rates are as low as they are now, so I don't think it's necessarily crazy that good companies sell at far higher multiples than they used to. On the other hand, as you say, I didn't get rich by buying stocks at high price-earnings multiples in the midst of crazy speculative booms, and I'm not going to change. I am more willing to hold stocks at high multiples than I would be if interest rates were a lot lower. So far the evidence would suggest that maybe modern monetary theory is right, but put me down as skeptical.
Long-term business success is a lot like biology. In biology, individuals all die, and eventually so do all the species. Capitalism is almost as brutal. Think of what has died in my lifetime. Think of the things that were once prosperous and are now failing or gone. Who dreamed, when I was young, that Kodak and General Motors would go bankrupt? That's the nature of capitalism. It's like evolution in biology: new species are created and old species die out. Of course, it's hard to negotiate in such a field.
**Main takeaways:** He doesn't see the market as really overvalued. Interest rates are so low that paying higher price-earnings multiples for various companies isn't crazy. But he says he didn't get rich by investing in highly priced companies during crazy speculative booms, and he doesn't think we're in one now. Some companies with high price-earnings ratios still offer value, because interest rates are so low. Investing in Treasuries isn't a good business, and he isn't investing in Treasuries or bonds, nor is the Daily Journal. This also ties back to the first section. He can calculate the value of Treasury bonds, and it's below the price you pay. If you invest in Treasuries in today's low-rate world, you aren't even compensated for inflation. So it's quite consistent. Everything he discussed in this section can be summarized in the definition of value investing, or investing in essence.
That's it for my summary of this video. I hope you enjoyed it. If you didn't know Mr. Munger, you now have a better idea of who he is. There are plenty of books, interviews, and shareholder letters from the Daily Journal to read. I encourage you to get to know him and learn from him. You probably won't agree with 100% of what he says, but he is a very good thinker. I'm going to make a second video with content more related to life and general principles about investing and life in general, so stay tuned. Don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you get notified when I upload. In this case, I'll upload the second part of Charlie Munger's interview in a couple of days. Thanks very much for watching, and see you next time.
Comments 0