저자: MasayoshiSon · 외국인
요약 보기
한 줄 결론: 손정의는 비전펀드 포트폴리오가 상장 기업을 늘려가며 분기마다 큰 손익 변동이 생기는 것을 '새로운 일상'으로 받아들이며, 투자 방식과 후계자 육성을 강조했다. 이익·손익 구조: 최근 5조 엔 이익에 대해 크게 기뻐하지 않는다고 밝혔고, 앞으로 분기마다 흑자와 적자가 교차할 것이라 전망했다. 상장 기업 가치 변동: 비전펀드 1·2호가 보유한 상장주식은 약 6조 엔 규모이며, 10% 변동 시 약 6000억 엔 손익이 발생할 수 있다고 설명했다. 분기당 약 1조 엔 차이는 충분히 가능하다고 봤다. 포트폴리오 전략: 백색 공(비상장 투자)이 황금알(상장)로 바뀌는 기업 수를 늘리는 것이 핵심이며, 매년 수십 개 기업이 상장되는 생태계를 만들어야 한다고 강조했다. 투자 실패 사례: 영국 Greensill 파산에 대해 사업모델은 훌륭했지만 투자 편향과 과도한 대출이 문제였다고 인정했다. 신용위기로 투자자와 채권자가 무너졌다고 설명했다. 알리바바 사례: 투자 당시 매출이 거의 없고 10년간 적자였으나, 결과론적으로 성공한 사례로 언급했다. 투자 성과 통계: 지금까지 224개 기업에 투자했으며, 투자 시점에 흑자인 기업은 극소수(약 5%)이고 약 95%는 적자 상태라고 밝혔다. 투자 의사결정: 기술 배경에 대한 이해와 상상력으로 판단하며, 한 걸음 잘못 가면 바닥으로 떨어질 수 있다고 봤다. SPAC vs 일반 IPO: SPAC은 미래 사업 계획을 공개적으로 설명하고 공모가를 미리 제시할 수 있고, 경쟁 제안에 대응하는 도구로 쓸 수 있다고 장점을 설명했다. 다만 주된 상장 경로는 일반 IPO가 될 것이라고 봤다. 후계자 육성: 함께 달릴 후계자를 빨리 찾아야 하며 조직을 만드는 데 약 10년이 필요하다고 언급했다. 현재 약 200개 기업 기업가 중 후계 후보가 있을 것이라 밝혔고, 향후 500개 기업으로 늘면 그 중에서 나올 것이라 전망했다. 종목·지표 직접 언급: 삼성전자, SK하이닉스, 금, 엔비디아 등 대상 자산에 대한 가격 방향 발언은 없음.
다듬은 글
This is Masayoshi Son, Chairman and CEO of SoftBank Group. He has made a profit of 5 trillion yen. First of all, can I ask how you feel about that? Well, I've made a profit of 5 trillion yen. I don't feel particularly excited or anything like that. I don't have a sense of accomplishment in my head. As you can see from this graph, from now on, every quarter, SoftBank Group will have both positive and negative results.
What will it be like? What do you mean by a 1 trillion yen profit? Well, that's the new normal. The word "new" is ending, so we might use money in that regard. In short, we responded to the golden egg manufacturing business exactly three months ago in three seconds. If we were to compare the recent egg production to, for example, going public (IPO), which is like producing a ball of money, then last year there were about 14 IPOs or sales of Aizu, and before that there were launches, and before that there were about 4 companies.
It was something like that, I think it was 4814. This year, well, compared to last year I think the number will far exceed one year, but the white eggs that are being prepared, well, a year ago it was like Earl Rider, and now a year later it's about 200 companies, especially in the last three months which have increased by 60 companies.
So the so-called preparation part of the white eggs is accelerating, and if the preparation increases, then naturally the number of finished products will also increase. If this continues and dozens of companies come out every year, then it's no longer a matter of probability. If you plant a big egg, there will be small ones as well.
But after the eggs are laid, the price of those eggs is affected by the stock market every day and fluctuates daily. Right now, our Vision Fund 1 and 2 together hold about 6 trillion yen worth of listed stocks. These listed stocks move with the daily market fluctuations, and if they move by 10%, that's 600 billion yen.
It's amazing that they can move by about 10 minutes in a day, so it's quite possible that they will move by at least 10 percent in 23 days. So in 23 days, 6 trillion yen could go up or down by 600 billion yen, or in 23 days... Yes, it happens. So, a difference of about 1 trillion yen per quarter is certainly possible.
But the important thing is that the number of companies that become listed stocks, that is, white balls that turn into golden eggs, continues to increase. First of all, when a white ball is reborn as a golden egg, the profit is only made once. So, as a fundamental and as an echo system, I think the point is that we must not create a system where dozens of companies are born into the group that goes public every year.
Green, a British company, has gone bankrupt. Well, among the investments of the SoftBank Vision Fund, Green is also a recipient of SoftBank's money, so there are also criticisms that the profits will be split through public trust. What is the lesson from that, or rather, why did this happen? There was the lesson from Weaver, but we have entered an era like this.
How do you view this? Well, I thought Green's business model itself was excellent, and I still think so, but even if Green is excellent, there was a bias in the investments. Especially former shareholders, the company Copter Group had excessive lending in that area. That being said, that wasn't something we could directly control.
This so-called credit crisis caused a complete collapse of other investors and creditors, and I think that's what happened. Some of the companies we invested in were included in the activities of the entrance exams that we knew about, and I don't know the details of the direct interactions between them, but we also condoned it, and there are many things we should reflect on.
However, when we look back afterwards, if it worked out well, we'll be able to say that it was good, and if it failed, we'll be able to say that it was bad. Conversely, even Alibaba, when we invested in it, was still just the King of Flowers, and it was a company with virtually no sales, and it was in the red for 10 years.
Even then, if things had been even slightly different, it would have gone bankrupt. And recently, even we, who have gone public with a large company, had some difficult incidents along the way. So, when you look back in hindsight, you can't just say that it was good because it didn't work out, or that it was bad because it didn't.
: Well, we put that in front of each company every time, but at this stage of using it, it's difficult to implement the tools that will cover the entire year. Basically, we have invested in 224 companies so far, but among those 224 companies, at least one company is in the black at the investment stage, and I wonder if there is a 5% tax rate, so 95% of the companies are in the red, and the deficit continues to increase.
Putting an investment price tag on a huge valuation is a bit of a gamble, but it takes a lot of courage. Normally, if you go with the so-called conventional, Chinyuki-kan way of thinking, I think it would be difficult to make investment decisions. So why can we make decisions there? One reason is that we understand the background of the technology, so we have to use our imagination to think that if we use AI in this way and approach it from a new angle, it will surely work.
If this imagination goes wrong one step, it will go to the bottom of the abyss, but if you take one step right, it will always go well, and we will stay on the list of a few companies. What was the true meaning behind your statement that it would be the case? It's possible that some of the companies we invest in will accept an offer from SPAC and then go public through SPAC.
On the other hand, I think the number of cases where we use SPAC to invest is only a few per year. And among those, bringing in a company that we have already invested in as a sponsor of GasPAC and going public will be only a small part of that. If we don't have SPAC, Isono, you know, if they accept an offer from another SPAC, and you get caught up in the unfavorable conditions, a lot of shots are taken over, and your family company might leave.
In such cases, we want to have the tool at hand to counter by saying, "Someone else will offer better conditions," and make a move. Another thing is that we wanted to invest in a company earlier and more, but when we tried to invest, the other party said no, or they were accepting another SPAC. In such cases, when we want to make a new investment in a company that we are not part of the family, we use ResPAC, and we ask, "Will you accept our investment?" But I think the main route will be a general IPO.
Why is that? There are criticisms that SPAC is contributing to a bubble, so I guess you're not really considering it as the main route? No, I think SPAC has its advantages. In short, it allows you to openly explain and disclose your future business forecast. Many of the companies in the Loire group are still operating at a loss, so being able to clearly disclose that they are currently in the red but are expected to grow in this way in two, three, or four years is one of the advantages of SPAC.
Another advantage is that you can clearly present the offer price from the beginning. With a general IPO, that's not possible due to the rules. Also, you do n't know what the offer price will be until you actually do it, which is a disadvantage. There are these two baits, but general IPOs often open the doors to more investors, and the companies we invest in also tend to go through general IPOs.
Often, people want to go out and make their debut, so I need to quickly identify a successor to run alongside me and work together with them. I need about 10 years to create an organization that can run alongside them, so I need to find one quickly, because if I think in terms of 10 years, there isn't much time left.
Are there any people from Imai Junior High School? Even a few would be fine, but no, you know, There are people who I kind of feel like, but I think there are probably people like that among us, since we are currently a group of 200 entrepreneurs. If this number increases to 500 companies in the future, I think there will surely be some among them.
댓글 0