Market Risk in 7 minutes by Howard Marks

요약 보기

위험(risk)은 변동성이 아니라 손실 가능성이며, 사후에도 정량화가 불가능하다고 주장. 수익률만으로 운용 성과를 판단할 수 없고 감수한 위험을 함께 봐야 하며, 시장 상승기에 더 얻고 하락기에 덜 잃는 비대칭 성과가 가치 있다고 설명. 또한 하락장에서 매도해 회복을 놓치는 것이 투자의 가장 큰 실수라고 강조.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. hi I'm Howard marks and this is how to think about risk the title of this class is how to think about risk that's an important title not what to think how to think the first question is what is risk risk in my opinion is the ultimate test of an Investor's skill the return alone doesn't tell you how good a job the manager did the key question is you see the return you must ask how much risk did the manager bear to get that return now let's look at this range of managers what we posit is that the market is up 10% or down 10% now let's look at some individual managers the first one is up 10 when the Market's up 10 and down 10 when the Market's down 10 a lishes nothing you might as well have invested in an index fund that emulates the performance of the market no skill no value added now let's look at the second one up 20 when the market goes up 10 down 20 when the market goes down 10 no skill no value added just a lot of aggressiveness what about this one up five when the Market's up 10 down five when the Market's down 10 again no selection ability no discernment no value added just defensiveness you don't need help in achieving that and you sure shouldn't pay a lot for it but what about the next one he or she is up 15 when the Market's up 10 and down 10 when the Market's down 10 so in other words Market type losses on the downside but Superior gains on the upside value added what I call asymmetry does better in the good times than does poorly in the bad times but what about this one and I think this is the most interest I think maybe it characterizes Me Maybe it izes oak tree to some extent up 10 when the Market's up 10 down five when the Market's down 10 so Market type gains in the good times I personally think that performing with the market when it does well is good enough and that's almost all the time nobody should have to beat the market when it does well but if you can do that and at the same time be ready to decline less when the market has down spells I think that's accomplishing something very important I believe that risk is not volatility the academics developing investment Theory largely at the University of Chicago in the early 60s just a couple of years before I got there adopted volatility as their measure of risk I believe they did so largely because volatility is readily quantifiable and nothing else is I think volatility can be an indicator of the presence of risk a symptom if you will but it's not risk itself so if risk is not volatility then what is it and in my opinion and in the real world sense risk is the probability of loss I think this is what most people mean when they say risk and I think that this is what people demand compensation for if they're going to Bear it uh nobody sitting around at Oak Tree says well you know uh we shouldn't make that investment because it might be volatile or uh because it might be volatile we should demand a higher return no they say that about the possibility of loss we're not going to make that investment because the possibility of loss is too high or because of the possibility of loss we're going to demand a risk premium in terms of the return this is risk the possibility of loss now another important question is is risk quantifiable in advance and I believe it it's not like most things occurring in the future risk cannot be anything except a matter of opinion I was writing my first memo about risk in 2006 I wrote about my belief that risk is not quantifiable in advance and then I hit the return key and went on to the next section and wrote something I had never thought about before my belief that risk is unquantifiable even after the fact and I think this is a fascinating topic uh you buy something for a dollar and a year later you sell it for $2 was it risky and the interesting thing is that you can't tell from the outcome a profitable investment may or may not have been risky was it a safe investment that in the case of my example was sure to double or was it a risky investment where you got lucky in terms of the outcome and as I say you can't tell from the outcome the bottom line is to me it's impossible to quantify risk in advance or even in hindsight the possibility of loss is not the only form of risk there are lots of forms of risk my last memo on the general subject it's called risk Revisited again and I talk in there about 24 or 25 different forms of risk some serious some facius some important some less important and obscure but still it comes in many forms the risk of missing opportunities is another important risk in other words if you think about it the risk of not taking enough risk another really important form uh of risk I think one of the key risks in investing is the chance of being forced out at the bottom which is a bigger mistake buying at the high and seeing a decline or selling out at the low and missing out on the recovery clearly it's the ladder if you buy at a high and you experience a decline if you're able to hold throughout and not lose your nerve the next high is usually higher than the last High the fact that you experienced a downward fluctuation might have been uncomfortable for a little while while but by the time the new high is achieved you're you're you're back to to your cost and more but if you sell at the bottom and miss out on the subsequent recovery that means you've gotten off the track of investing and uh may never get back on in my opinion selling at the bottom it's the cardinal sin in investing