저자: Subramani · 외국인
요약 보기
켄 피셔의 'The Little Book of Market Myths' 리뷰. 투자 성공의 2/3는 실수 회피라는 핵심 아이디어를 소개하고, 채권이 주식보다 안전하다는 통념, 나이 기반 자산배분(100-나이/110-나이), 변동성=위험이라는 관점, 고배당주의 안정적 수입, 소형주 우위, 손절매, 실업률·강달러와 주가의 관계 등 통념을 반박하는 내용을 다룬다. 특정 종목이나 자산에 대한 가격 방향 예측은 없고, 장기적으로 주식 수익률이 채권보다 우월하다는 일반론만 언급한다.
다듬은 글
Welcome to Subramani. Please subscribe. Please click on the bell icon. We need more followers because that's the only way more people will see this. You see, I don't do any activity for YouTube to make money, other than the Google ads they place, uh, right. So it doesn't make them much money. Maybe a dollar or two a day, which isn't enough.
For this I have to say, please sign. Uh , and if I leave money for the subscription, then yes, 40% of it goes to them. So I don't do some of these activities . That's why YouTube doesn't really want to promote my, uh , videos. So, if you think you like it, please share it with your friends, relatives, etc.
In a situation where there are people who do not understand English, my request is, please understand and explain it to them in Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, whatever language they speak. With that in mind, today I am doing a book review. Uh , a few days ago I reviewed the book " Debbanker" by Ken Fisher. So, today I'm working on a book called "The Little Book of Market Myths and, uh, How to Make Profits While Avoiding the Investment Mistakes Everyone Else Makes." It's clear that Lara Hoffman has already written this, and, uh, she's writing updated versions of this book, because this book will need some updating as well.
And this is a brief, typical description of these little books...I don't know, I have this book here somewhere, these little books of errors and so on. This is a little book, uh , a series about big profits, right? So, originally published in 2013, I don't know which version I have. I don't seem to have the 2025 version, but there is a 2025 version.
So if you buy, make sure you buy the 2025 version , or if there is anything after that. I don't think there's anything after 2025, but there is a 2025 version . It gives investors the opportunity to avoid costly mistakes by challenging some widely held but false misconceptions about markets, risk, and, er , the economy.
Right? So, Fisher's central idea is that successful investing is about two- thirds about avoiding mistakes. That's how Rahul Revit bats, leaving balls outside the starting line, and the runs will come, and, uh, he takes a lot of popular myths and, uh , just debunks them, and his stuff, uh, as I said, is two- thirds about avoiding mistakes and only one- third about doing the right things.
So common myths spread by financial advisors, media outlets, and common sense YouTubers lead investors to make emotional decisions ( suboptimal decisions ) and refute them with logic and evidence from historical data. The book, uh, helps readers develop clearer thinking for better, uh, long-term and short-term results.
Usually, uh, when I know an insurance agent who gets data from, uh , some maternity hospitals, excuse me, and, uh, he goes, and it's very, uh, easy to sell, uh, baby insurance to someone who's just had a baby because the whole thought process is centered around the baby. So they go and sell, uh, child insurance.
If the insurance is for a child, it makes no sense at all, but people sell such things. But if it's on the parents, then at least it makes sense, but yeah, it's a good vulnerable time for them to buy insurance. How much insurance, etc.–that's another matter, but that's good, I mean, when a baby is born, people only think about that, whether it's buying diapers or something else.
So it's one of those things that's easy to sell. So there are 17 chapters in total, or 17 popular myths in chapters, showing how they are stored and how they can hurt portfolios. So, if you've read the rebuttal, then that makes buying both books pointless. Uh, but it's my fault, but, uh, I bought this and then it didn't make sense to buy both.
So overall, he says bonds are safer than stocks. Which is theoretically true. But Tatast Steel bonds versus, uh, Mazda Industries shares–that’s true. But bonds of the same company, if we compare Tatast Steel bonds with, b, Tatast Steel shares, we can say that the shares are riskier. But that's something to look at, isn't it?
So, over the long term, say 20, 30 years, stocks have delivered better returns than equities. So I would look at it this way. That's not what he says. Bonds are risky, uh, in the long run because they can show lower returns. In fact, they will show lower returns than inflation. Then there is also taxation.
Uh, but stocks will give you better returns, uh, only in the long run, and in the short run, volatility can wipe out all the profits you make. So 3 years of returns can be wiped out in two weeks of trading. Right? So, if you take into account inflation and opportunity costs, it is actually bonds that are riskier in the long run.
Then, uh , he also refutes the theory that I also make, which is, uh, reducing the asset allocation to 100 minus age 110 minus age , whatever you want to do, doesn't make sense. It's just that age dependency ignores a lot of other things, right? A Tata driver and a Ratant Tata, or an Azim Premi driver and an Azim PMG driver, assuming for a minute that there is a 65-year-old driver in Azim PMG , uh, cannot have the same portfolio allocation.
It's not just about age; there are many other factors. Then, uh, again, this theory that volatility is the underlying risk: volatility is not a risk for people who can tolerate volatility, right? So, if stocks go down and I don't do anything about it for a year, or 2 years, or 3 years, that's totally fine.
The market will recover. What's the problem? Volatility is visible and frightening. But the bigger long-term risk for most people is the risk of not investing. Uh, markets are more volatile than ever. I mean, it's a myth that we all say, oh, the markets are more volatile now. Markets have always been volatile, and volatility is normal and cyclical.
In your long-term investments, say 20-30 years, you experience a 50% drop in one year . You will regularly see a 10% drop. Every now and then you will see a 20% drop. All of these things are part of the market. There can be no market minus volatility. It's like asking if you can give me a product that will give me 12% short-term returns for the next 25 years.
No, there is no such thing. And such a product does not exist. You may get 12% of your equity, but 12% is not the same. One year it will be 25, another year it will be zero . On average, it will be 12. But there may not be a single year in which you get 12%, but you will get 12% returns over a 10-year or 15-year period .
Both options are possible. Uh, then there's another myth that stocks, uh , or securities are very close, will grow at the same time, uh, track GDP growth. I haven't seen this even in India. And he's talking about the US market, where he says the short-term correlation is negligible, but, uh, I know that if I plot Infosys stock over 30, 40 years and see what the EPS is and what the P/E is, you can find an amazing correlation.
If your, uh, if your profits were like this, your stock prices, your stock prices would also go up like this . This is very clear; this clarity can be seen. But, uh, you can't see the same thing through the GDP Sensex. You can't see how then, uh, stocks will come back, that's another myth that, uh, even some regulator asked me about, "Isn't it true that stocks will always borrow, say, 10%, uh , every year continuously?" I said, “Yes, but taking into account the standard deviation, so one year it’s 30%, the next 2 years it’s zero; it's still okay because you got your 10% .
But these things will happen, but people believe in some of these things. Then, um, one more thing, people think that high dividend stocks guarantee you a reliable income. This is only partially true. A company paying out huge dividends could mean that the company has no idea what to do with the money.
So it doesn't expand, it doesn't grow. So after a few years, this cash flow may become unstable. She could start losing, ahem, margins due to increased costs, increased salaries, and some of those things in themselves could hurt her a lot. So dividends may stop. So it's not permanent. This is not like the 100-year bonds you buy from, say, the Indian government.
No, they are not. But if the Indian government were to issue 100-year bonds tomorrow, obviously at a floating rate, people would subscribe to them, knowing full well that for the next 100 years, this money would definitely come in regularly, without any worries. So high- dividend stocks are not the same as buying guilt and getting the same return.
These are two different things. Another myth he debunks is that small-cap stocks consistently outperform others. Small-cap stocks are not consistently profitable. They are good in the short term. If you see small- cap stocks underperforming , mid- and large- cap stocks have a high chance of catching up.
But to invest in just one fund all the time, it should be a multi-asset fund or even a flexible- cap fund, not in a specific fund, and say, "Oh, nothing will happen here. I'll always get 10%. That doesn't happen." Small-cap stocks are not consistently good value stocks, so wait until you are sure before investing.
This is another myth. You can't wait and say, "Oh, I'll wait for the perfect information." If the market moves by the time you get the perfect information, then you can't wait, you need to be ready for 60-70% of the data and say, "Okay, I'll make a move," and then decide what to do. Stop loss protects you from losses.
In fact, a stop loss protects you from taking profits because it happens very often in trading that your stop loss is reached and then the stock reverses. So these things happen. None of these techniques are necessary for investors at all. So I do n't think you should worry too much about stop losses, but yes, you should know what you should know, but don't install it into the system because it will trigger unnecessarily.
Uh, high unemployment is killing, uh , stocks? I don't think I've seen any correlation, even in the US, between unemployment and the market. And also, understand that unemployment is a lagging, uh, factor; it's like inflation, it's already happened. So what impact did that have, you would have to do...it would have to be some kind of direct survey to say that, uh, employment and, uh, markets are closely linked .
No, don't worry, that's not true. Uh, America is dangerously over-extended–that's a story I've been hearing for the last 30, 40 years, and Ken Fisher is one of those people who says that the government has to have money so that the government has to be willing to borrow money and, uh , defend its position wherever it does.
A strong dollar means strong stocks. No, I disagree. A strong dollar can also mean weak stocks. It can also mean good stocks. But the thing is, the Magnificent Seven has grown so much lately. Most people don't know the difference between the return they get from capital and the return they get from a strong dollar.
So yes, a strong dollar does not mean strong stocks, and shocks and crises destroy stocks. In fact, on the contrary, if you find a coalition government at the center, there will come a time when most of the reforms are moving forward and, um, something is happening. So I don't think that, um, the upheaval and the crisis really bother me.
But, of course, if there is upheaval and crisis in the opposition, it is good for the ruling, um, for the ruling party. So markets can rise at this time . News and media give you a very effective advantage. The answer is no. Every time I see a news story, I keep thinking, why is it appearing? Why is it line by line?
Why ? What does she want from this ? What does he want from this? Right ? Uh, another myth is that if, um, it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. This is also true, but only partially. Sometimes you can buy some stocks in the middle of a rally and still make a huge profit. Um, the long term perspective wins.
So what are the key takeaways from this book ? Um, pretty much calls into question the empirical rule. Um , economic indicators are misleading in context. You need to know which indicator is leading and which is lagging. Behavioral errors matter. Fear of loss, uh, uh, and the impact of market growth.
When the market is rising, you think the market will continue to rise. This is not happening. Markets fall, markets rise, markets fall. Behavioral traps matter. And if you are, the more and more books you read about behavioral finance, the more you catch yourself thinking. But when you catch yourself in the act, just don't make the transaction.
Get up, go for a walk, do whatever you want, and then come back and think again. This is something that people may not lack. American markets are resilient, innovation and profit motivation will always be there to drive the market, which means many companies will die and some new companies will be born.
Uh, everything together creates a market. So is the market sustainable? I would partly think so . Who should read this book? It's good, if not surprisingly, it's a great book for, uh, beginners in investing, and, uh, people who have been doing it for a long time. But my only caveat is that if you've already bought and read, uh, the other Debunkry book and watched my Debunkry video, then I think there's a lot in common between the two. Thank you.
Comments 0