저자: TerrySmith · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: Terry Smith는 은행주는 레버리지 구조와 시스템 리스크 때문에 투자하지 않으며, 고품질 소비재·기술 기업을 선호한다고 주장한다. 은행 레버리지와 취약성: 은행은 자기자본이 적고(NatWest 기준 자산 100파운드당 자기자본 5파운드, 약 20배 레버리지) 대출 일부만 부실화되어도 자기자본이 소멸할 수 있다. 예금 인출 사태(뱅크런)는 이런 구조에서 빠르게 발생할 수 있다. 수익성 비교: S&P 은행 섹터의 최근 5년 평균 ROE는 10.9%로, 소비재 섹터 17.9%에 못 미친다. 저조한 펀더멘털은 주가 부진으로 이어졌다고 본다. 시스템 리스크: 우량 은행이라도 업계 전반의 공포로 피해를 입을 수 있다. 실버밸리뱅크(SVB)와 크레디트스위스 사태를 근거로 든다. 워런 버핏은 은행에 투자해 왔다는 점을 언급하며 견해 차이를 짚는다. 핀테크 위협: 예금·대출·결제라는 은행 핵심 기능이 핀테크, P2P 대출, 디지털 지갑으로 대체되고 있으며, 레거시 시스템 때문에 은행이 불리하다고 본다. 포트폴리오: 은행 대신 노보노디스크, 마이크로소프트, 로레알, LVMH, 필립모리스, 비자, 아마존, 알파벳, 메타 등 고품질 기업을 장기 보유하는 전략을 취한다. 기준은 높은 투하자본이익률, 낮은 레버리지, 혁신에 대한 방어력, 합리적 가격이다. 성과: 펀드 설정 이후 누적 496%, 연환산 15.6%로 MSCI World 지수(연환산 11.2%)를 상회한다고 제시한다. 종목별 방향 예측: 영상에서 대상 자산에 대한 1~3개월 가격 방향 예측은 확인되지 않음.
다듬은 글
hi JJ here again with the outer value welcome today I'm going to talk about investor and fund manager Terry Smith he's written an article for the financial times called why I never invest in Bank shares first I'm going to talk a little bit about who Terry Smith is in case you don't know and then I'm going to get into what he said okay just quickly Terry Smith runs a fund in the UK called funsmith he's been investing for a long time he used to be a top Bank analyst which is relevant to what he's talking about in this article he also wrote a book recently called investing for growth which I've read it's a really good book I really recommend it I'm going to drop a link a referral Link in the description if you haven't read it already it's much cheaper than a course investing course and you learn probably just as much so now to the article it's called why I never invest in Bank shares Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse collapses proved my point he wrote this article published on 21st of March 2023 so very recent he says having spent the first decade of my career working in a bank and then becoming a top rated Bank anime list I find that people often express surprise that I never invest in Bank shares so what it means is by being a top analyst he was the number one rated Bank analyst in the Reuters Institutional Investor surveys from 1984 to 89 it says at the bottom of the article so it goes on but I think it's precisely because I understand banks that I never invest in their shares the recent events surrounding the class of Silicon Valley Bank svb and Credit Suisse reinforce this stance why he questions if you're not up to date with what happened with Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse I've made a couple of videos on that I'll link to a playlist at the end of this video on YouTube and put links in the description to that playlist if you want to catch up on that so Terry Smith says firstly I never invest in anything that requires leverage to make an adequate return banks have a small amount of equity to support their balance sheet here are the actual numbers for net bank group for 2022.
so what he says is this NatWest has five pounds of share holders Equity to fund 100 pounds of assets it has gearing or leverage of 20 times and that's not unusual for a bank to have 20 times leverage this is what they do they use leverage if 10 of the 52 pounds of loans in every 100 pounds of assets proved to be bad then the whole of the shareholders Equity is more than wiped out so he's talking about the dangers of investing in something with that much leverage he says frankly long before that happens depositors are likely to spot the problem and panic and cause a run on the bank as we saw in Silicon Valley Bank nor are these circumstances unimaginable author Nasim taleb in his book The Black Swan points out that in the 1982 Latin American debt crisis the large American Banks lost all of their cumulative past earnings in contrast the average company in the S P 500 Index which includes Banks which distort the numbers he says has 26 billion dollars of assets and 8.5 billion of equity they are on average geared three times so it compared to Banks 20 times false and asset value are not their main risk but their assets would have to fall by more than two-thirds in value to impact the value of their Equity next he says despite the massive leverage and the risk which accompanies it returns from the banking sector inadequate the average return on Equity Roe in the s p Bank sector over the past five years is just 10.9 percent this Compares with the Roe of the s p consumer staple sector over the same period of 17.9 percent and he's quite keen on those kinds of companies we'll see in a minute I'm going to show you the companies that fundsmith owns after this these poor fundamental returns unsurprisingly translate into poor share price performance so much for the theory that you need to take more risk to get higher returns that's sort of a new investor fallacy that you have to take more risk to get higher Returns value investors in particular disagree with that it's more about understanding the company to get higher returns not more risk so he goes on finally surely there must be some good Banks to invest in which are better than the average that brings me on to another problem systemic risk even if the bank you're invested in is well run it can still be damaged or destroyed by a general panic in the sector of course he's right there he's referring to the financial crisis which the banks were involved in however we must remember Warren Buffett and he talks about Warren Buffett quite a lot in his book He's somewhat critical of what Warren Buffett invest in sometimes but if it's very keen on banks he understands Banks he's invested in Bank of America got a huge investment in Bank of America and he's been invested in other Banks sold Wells Fargo recently but he clearly understands Banks and he's got the kind of money to almost bail Banks out out when they need it so that's another perspective from Buffett but he describes the Buffett there in terms of investing in Banks even though Terry Smith understands Banks well so two great investors different opinions there next he has an anecdote to illustrate his point but I'm not going to go through that it's about a local Bank in Hong Kong when China took it over and a bank run developing the point is that bank runs can develop and once they get going they're hard to stop and that has systemic risk and for if you're an investor which you don't want to bank run as as we've seen the Silicon Valley Bank and that video I made they can happen very quickly just within with overnight it Bank can collapse with a bank run especially with social media you could say that in Silicon Valley the word of mouth was on steroids there and it was said that 42 billion dollars worth of money was one wanting to be withdrawn sort of immediately so the bank run happened and the bank collapse very quickly if you're getting value out of this episode so far please remember it a like on YouTube or in Rumble to give me that little dopamine hit and help spread it to more people so more people see it thanks so Teresa says that's banking for you Banks can be brought down by the actions of their peers look at what happened to some U.S Regional banks in the wake of the svb disaster I've talked about that in previous videos as well it's kind of a they're trying to stop a domino effect to other Regional Banks like First Republic and other ones too so they're trying to backstop depositors so that bank runs don't develop it there in the US and Regional Banks he says Lord Mervin King the former bank of England Governor encapsulated this when he observed that it made no sense to start a run on a bank but once one has started you should join in and people have said that about the Silicon Valley Bank that really uh if you're not depositors aren't going to get their money back which was a risk in the us it's up to 250 000 and the Silicon Valley Bank had a lot of depositors startup companies tech companies who had lot more of that in the bank so they stood to lose it all although it did get backstopped in the end that's the action that got taken but it's possible that you wouldn't get your money back above that level so people like Peter Thiel was advising his startup companies and his fund to go and pull their money out of the bank and that that's what kind of started the run so he's saying if there's a bank run you want to be first in line so Terry Smith says that encompasses my long-standing reasons for avoiding Bank shares but another has emerged in recent years fintech what are the essential functions of a bank to take deposits make loans and affect payments all of these essential roles are now being supplanted by so-called fintechs bank loans are being replaced by peer-to-peer lending platforms and credit funds you don't need a bank for payments or deposits you can get your salary paid straight into your Mastercard or VISA account and they are far better at Payment Processing for which you can also use your Apple or Android phone so it's basically saying the fintech is providing a lot of Alternatives digital wallets and so forth this is a criticism I've had before of banks the changing Banks and fintech sector and I do believe this myself too you could say that there are functions being taken over and the banks kind of aren't keeping up with that Terry Smith says technology is supplanting traditional banking have you noticed that your local bank branch has become a Pizza Express in which role by the way it makes more money in his fund and funsmith will see that one of the companies he owns is Domino's so he's being literal about that as well as making a joke not only that but the banks are often handicapped by Legacy systems which do not travel new entrants and at least until recently fintech startups enjoyed a seemingly endless supply of funding with little or no requirement to show a profit so he's talking about in Silicon Valley there with fintechs where the VCS are funding it until it makes a profit often to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars we've seen in the last 10 years or since the last financial crisis there's been a lot of companies as they grow Blitz scaling we could call it with VCS funding hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to keep them going until they hopefully make a profit and have a huge market share so in Seattle with this as Paul volcker the infamous former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank said the only innovation of any consequence by the banking sector in 20 years running up to the global financial crisis was the ATM and we don't even need those anymore so he's talking about digital wallets there we can transfer our money with mobile phones PayPal and square the cash app and others to venmo there are so many ways that we can move money around and store money now and even crypto we could say he didn't mention that but that's another thing so I could say that traditional Banks may be losing business because of that in future well he sees that as a risk anyway definitely a risk for him to keep away from Banks even though he's an expert in Banks so in a sec I'm going to talk about what he does own if he doesn't like Banks what does he invest in in his fund we'll have a quick look at that but what do you think of what he said do you agree with him about not investing in Banks clearly we've got Warren Buffett who likes Banks understands Banks but and does invest in them heavily from time to time Bank of America and American Express which is partly a bank and they've both done very well for him but Terry Smith not liking banks at all wanting to keep away for the reasons that he stated so what does he invest in let's see this is a list of fun Smith's top Holdings and also smithson's companies are in this list too they're all lumped together this is through ticker terminal so Novo Nordisk is the top holding with over 2.4 billion in value Microsoft next L'Oreal then lvmh Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Philip Morris International Estee Lauder Companies idex Laboratories this is around a billion now this is between 2.4 and down to a billion Striker Corp automatic data processing McCormick and come company Waters Corp pipsco Visa diagio there's quite a few Holdings the list goes on metla Toledo International Brown Foreman Corp Nike color plus Adobe church and Dwight alphabet meta platforms familiar U.S tech names there Unilever InterContinental Hotels group Amazon Otis worldwide which is the lifts the elevators saber Corp Fever Tree drinks smaller company in the UK verisign Domino's Pizza there's that pizza brand for tonight Massimo and right to move PLC some of those are smaller ones and they're smaller Holdings down to 109 million right movers there so why those companies what have they got in common I know from reading his book that he's got a kind of motto very simple points it's by good companies don't overpay do nothing and from the funsmith website he's got this list that says high quality businesses that can sustain a high return on operating Capital employed it's very important Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger like that too and so do I return on Capital employed very important businesses whose advantages are difficult to replicate businesses which do not require significant leverage to generate returns businesses with a high degree of certainty of growth from reinvestment of their cash flows at high rates of return businesses that are resilient to change particularly technological innovation businesses whose valuation is considered by the company to be attractive the company being his company the fund so it wants to get good companies really good quality companies that have already won at a good price his books called investing for growth but he does have that Warren Buffett like value philosophy as well he wants to get them at a good price so getting good companies at a good price not overpaying and then doing nothing so hiring them for a long time in case you're wondering how he's performed how his fund fundsmith has performed it has since Inception got 496 scent and that's annualized to 15.6 percent whereas equities the index and uses the msci world index has 270 which is annualized to 11.2 so he's beating the market he has been described as the UK Warren Buffett although that's that's phrases slung around a lot depending on who's doing well over the last few years but he has done well over time so if you got this far in the episode maybe consider subscribing if you're not already on YouTube Spotify video rumble or on your favorite podcast app and I'll see you next time thanks for watching or listening
Comments 0