원문 보기
And today we're going to talk about investment strategies, and this guy here has an impressive track record. Today is the day you'll meet one of the legends who passed through Wall Street. Today is the day you'll learn all about the Peter Lynch method for investing in the best stocks. Peter Lynch, you're parachuting in here.
First of all, welcome! But secondly, he was a fund manager from 1977 to 1990, and in those 13 years he achieved a return of 29 percent per year. Can you stop and think about it? Twenty-nine percent per year is more than [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar]. Then Peter [someone] achieved a higher return than the Oracle of Omaha, but [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar].
He's still working today, and the internet stopped [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar]. That's when you see the importance of consistency, because unlike [someone else], despite having a higher return than [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar], he loses in terms of net worth because the bank has consistently invested year after year, always with resilience.
And another thing, you [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar]... the issue of writing books, the business that doesn't like [something unclear - possibly referring to a specific fund manager or similar]. Writing books is just like writing letters, and Peter Lynch, correctly, likes it so much that he likes it so much that he has already written three books, and a good part of them are available in Portuguese.
I have to say that we all have Wall Street, we also have Beach in the Street, and the third is Lord of the Rings. For all the content here today, this is taken from these books, that is, it is knowledge directly from the source, explained and told by Peter Lynch himself. And the first step is very similar to the bus stop step: it asks you to invest only in what is within your circle of competence.
It may seem cliché for me to say this, but it 's impressive how many people come to my Instagram every day talking about how a fraction of them even have an idea of how that company makes money. So you have to select the companies that are within your sphere of competence, what you can understand.
And how did Peter Lynch select companies? It's a little curious. His grandson would go about his life walking down the street, walking on the sidewalk, visiting a store that caught his attention, buying a product that caught his attention, eating something tasty. This might seem like a good business idea, but behind it, it didn't exist.
Next, he sends [the product] if it causes pain, he doesn't understand that market, and then he would study the balance sheets of several companies that expect success in the client's portfolio. It was through this method that he chose the second step, which is even an elimination criterion. He doesn't like those companies that like to show off, those that are always extravagant.
Generally, these companies have very tight images, they constantly have losses, they have out-of-control debt, but even so, the people at the top, you know, the people who call the shots inside the company, are traveling in executive jets, the company headquarters are at the most expensive address in the city, the executives' salaries are obscene, and even the Mormons they end up earning aren't so much due to meritocracy.
If the old woman is always concerned with cutting unnecessary expenses, that will make a business grow, make the company's margins solid, and have a robust cash flow. I'm more concerned with all the colors I just told you. When the client encountered this situation, he didn't even continue his study.
The third step is to look for companies that have debt, control what I ask for, life for a legal entity, it's not wrong. Sometimes it even makes more sense than not having it for tax reasons, which is a topic for another video. Having it isn't wrong; you can have it as long as it's well managed. Twitter also starts from this premise when analyzing debt.
There are two metrics that I always explain here for you to use in your analyses: the net debt to issued debt ratio, meaning how many years of operating results the company would take to pay off all its net debt; and another indicator, which I talk about a little less but can also be used, is the financial expenses to EBITDA ratio, meaning how much of your operating result covers all those expenses with interest.
Four steps already start to get into fundamental indicators, and of course, let's imagine which one we're going to talk about here: the controversial P&L (Profit Margin). People love it, others hate it. It's excellent; P&L is used along with other indicators, and when it performed P&L analysis, it always analyzed that specific company compared to other competitors in the same sector.
Look, it's no use looking at WEG's P&L and saying, "Wow, WEG's P&L is expensive compared to AES Tietê's, or the one under renovation," but you're... Comparing apples to bananas doesn't make any sense, you see? The fifth step is very connected to the four steps, and remember, a moment ago we talked about P& L?
The fifth is profit growth, and P&L used to cross the two, that P&L formula that everyone talks about, which I'll summarize for you basically, what it tries to demonstrate is that if you have a company with a P&L of 50 but it's also having a very large profit growth rate, that company doesn't let you down.
It 's very different from when you find a company that doesn't have profit growth and is at P &L 50. In that second case, you have to be a little like, 'Why? P&L of 50, companies are growing profits, that's what they're trying to explain.' So you always have to cross these two indicators: net profit growth along with current P&L, of course, always comparing with competitors.
You'll find several companies, especially in the United States, regarding technology, that have P&L over 100, but if you analyze it, it 's extremely rare. Those are the ones that, at the same time, are delivering growth that is phenomenal. I 'm not saying you have to invest in these companies, I'm saying that the market...
He's betting that they will continue to grow. The next point isn't exactly a step, but it's something you have to put on your checklist. The PIS (presumably referring to a political figure or organization) I liked to use, which was the issue of share buybacks. He loved it when companies bought back their own shares, and he also liked it when executives were buying back shares because if that guy is taking his personal money and putting it into the company's business, it means he's now putting a strong alignment of interests in place.
If that business doesn't work out, it will directly affect his pocket, not only through salary but also through the loss of the equity—the shares he bought in the company he works for. This is one of the points that Onibus always talked about: always look for people who have an alignment of interests with minority shareholders.
And now comes something that is a trademark of PT20: the division he makes of shares. He divides them into six packages, and the first of these packages are slow-growth companies, only those companies that have already reached the level of a radio station. You can't expect growth from the big companies in their profits.
Generally, companies in the electricity sector fit perfectly into this first package. The second... The "big package" consists of moderately growing companies. They exhibit a higher profit growth rate than slow-growing companies, but it's not growth that excites investors. This also includes already established companies that are one step away from becoming slow-growth companies.
Companies that fit into this category are generally found in the beverage sector. The third package, as you might assume, consists of fast-growing companies. Here we have many examples, especially in the technology sector of the American stock exchange. Some companies have growth exceeding 20% per year and end up in this package.
Of course, these stocks represent much more risk than companies in the dairy and moderately growing sectors, but if you get it right by including one of these in your portfolio, it can make a big difference. In fact, this is one of the preferred methods because it leverages the instabilities of your portfolio.
The fourth package consists of cyclical companies, and here it seems that Brazil is a champion, because the Bovespa is full of cyclical companies. For example, the commodities sector is highly cyclical... Aviation is highly cyclical, the automotive industry is also highly cyclical; they are linked to numerous factors.
So you have GDP growth, Chinese demand, unemployment rates, and so on—there are countless variables that end up escaping the company's management control. The fifth package is the " house" companies. There are people who love this type of company; they are those companies that are trying to get out of the mud, as if they are trying to turn their business model around to see if things start to improve.
Generally, these are companies that have accumulated years of poor results, and some are even in judicial reorganization. This presents an even higher degree of risk than the rapid growth companies. And the sixth package is those companies that are currently classified as assets that are not priced by the market.
For example, think of a construction company that, if you add up all the furniture inventory it has and all its land bank, is worth more in accounting terms than its market price. This would be an example of an asset that is poorly priced by the market. For this type of company, the investor needs to dig deeper into the balance sheets and also wait for the market to perceive this dissonance that he found, if indeed it is.
There's the same thing, those things that are sometimes flawed, he's seeing things that aren't the time I have to hold these shares. This is a very important step. Many people say that in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years anything can happen, but the result of a good business is very predictable over a horizon of ten to twenty years.
So the answer is simple: if the fundamentals remain valid, you continue with the company you own. If the company changes its fundamentals and things get worse, you don't continue with that company. I already know how long you have to hold it, but how many shares you have to have in your portfolio. We have to make a distinction because PT Leite, as an institutional manager of a team, had times when he had a thousand shares in his portfolio.
But he himself clarifies in his books that he doesn't recommend this one for the individual investor. He says that the individual investor is well served by diversifying 8 to 12 shares. What I'm talking about in terms of shares doesn't mean that's all; you have to have other assets. There's a lot of quality content that you just saw in this video, and you know what's best?
There's much more content waiting for you below. In the description of my Telegram and Instagram links, I post exclusive content that I can't have anywhere else about real estate investments abroad, like the strategies you're seeing here today from successful investors. That's the end of today's video. Big hug, and see you in our next video!
Comments 0