저자: MartinShkreli · 외국인
요약 보기
버핏의 코카콜라 미매도 실수를 사례로, 복리 기업도 과도한 가격이면 매도 대상이라는 가치투자 관점을 설명함. 현금흐름 자본화(현금흐름/할인율)로 코카콜라가 과대평가였다고 주장. 테슬라 같은 고PER 주식은 유동성(M1·M2 통화공급)에 좌우되며, 시장 급락·현금 고갈 시 고평가 자산이 하락할 수 있다는 논지. 2008년 자신의 헤지펀드 경험을 들어 기관 자금 회수가 투기 자산 매도로 이어졌다고 설명.
다듬은 글
you know the value of coke is is largely been built up over some you know decades and it's sort of reached an asmtote and the price of coke interestingly I I remember this believe it or not kind of overshot this and Buffett famously said that one of his biggest mistakes was not selling in that period because this is one of the the core dilemmas of and sort of advanced value investing is if you have a compounding machine, do you should you ever sell?
And Buffett's publicly said no in the past. And I think that uh the reality is some others have said and including Buffett have said yes, there is a price that's too high for everything. Coca-Cola is a wonderful compounding machine on its return on on equity and its return on assets and things like that.
The so-called buffet return I've described a few times. But you're not getting the price of the original owner. Even if you are the original owner, there is a price that's sort of saying I'm going to like this was like 30 40 times for Coke and Coke is not growing. It made no sense. This is roughly 2000 two um and on the assets like okay so this is the coke plant this cost you know $7 billion in capex to create and to maintain and this is generating 7 billion of cash flow a here.
That's 100% return on assets. Well, that's wonderful. But how does that help you as a stockholder? Because the stock's at, you know, uh 200 billion market cap. Do you really want to pay 200 billion for 7 billion? You know, you cannot increase this return otherwise they would. And that was the sort of folly of Buffett.
And I think he said it was one of his biggest mistakes is great. You know, this compounding is fantastic, but I already got the benefits of that. And I cannot compound exactly. I'm only just going to get this 7 billion every year. Now, I'm going to get the 7 billion and I could buy back this guy, but at at a certain price, do I, you know, is this a sale?
At a trillion dollars, is it a sale? And the previous message was, no, at no price could it be a sale? And the new message is, eh, at the right price, it's a sale. There's no business quite like Coca-Cola. That's true. But there is a price that, you know, having a reliable cash flow stream. There are other reliable cash flow streams out there.
Maybe you'd argue there's none quite as reliable as Coke, but okay, discount a $7 billion annuity at 1% risk. That's worth 700 billion, right? It's cash flow. Um, how do we do this? cash flow divided by discount rate, right? Um so 2% you know it's 50 times which is 350 and at 3% you know you're you're at 3% discount rate which you can get from bonds and other things.
So is Coca-Cola safe? Sure. But is it safer than a bond a senior secured bond in the US government? No, it's not as safe as that. So it was overvalued. Um so this is a philosophical question. Now getting back to the point of Tesla, there are markets and situations where investors largely the the the investors with the marginal capital remaining are only investors who are sort of comfortable living in the black zone.
in high risk markets they're investors with flush with cash that are live comfortable living in the in the uh orange zone and that's why they are living in the orange zone that's why the price of Tesla is is you know 100 plus times earnings because there are people willing to buy it and sell it at that price when capital evaporates and a big market crash or a fear or panic whatever only place the only people who have capital like Paul Singer at Elliott and other value investors like Buffett, they don't buy stocks in the orange zone.
They only buy stocks in the black zone. So the prices have to go to the black zone. So this is really when I describe that tug of war, it's really a philosophical question more than it is like a question with an answer. In essence, you could argue that it's an M1 M2 question, an M3 question. It's a money supply question.
Is there money? If people have money, they will do stupid things with it. They will invest. They will speculate. They will buy Ion Q and Regetti and D-Wave, but they'll also buy good companies like Tesla. Tesla's a great company. Elon's maybe the best entrepreneur ever. I say that with a huge ego. Um, so you know what you're really asking is when will the money supply change because that's really what matters.
And sometimes when you're looking at these stocks, what's more important is what is their ability to capture people's imaginations? That's why quantum rallied, right? That's why all these quantum stocks are up a lot. They were capturing people's imaginations. And there's tons of cash. Tons of cash. No unemployment.
So people had money from that. Rising prices and everything. So people had money from that. And so you had companies that are talking about a new kind of computing. Well, you missed the old kind of computing that was called Nvidia, parallel computing. You probably missed the first kind of computing, the x86 in the 80s, 90s.
You maybe even weren't even born yet. So you say, "I want the next kind of computing and that's quantum computing." Okay, great. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter because you're looking to bet gamble. You're looking to speculate. And when people take the money away, you can't speculate. There's no money to speculate.
You need money for pharmaceuticals. You need money for rent. You need money for a surgery. You need money for a rainy day. Maybe it is a rainy day. You need money for a hurricane. You know, it's it's when it's bad out there, you can't buy stocks. Why? You might say, "Well, I save money, Mark." No, I'm not talking about you.
When in 2008, my my partner and I am Maric uh were sitting in his in his uh in his attic studying stocks every day. Um I was basically unemployed. My hedge fund had not done well. And I, like I said, I made a big bet that the market would crash in '07. I was wrong because it crashed in '08. And uh it was too early.
Um so I was licking my wounds, you know, like a like a cat sitting there with Maric reading Munger, reading Buffett, forming this philosophical framework that would carry me forward. We started we started trading and betting with the money we did have. But we didn't have money from institutions. We didn't have money from big big uh backers like Kalpers.
Um, our big backers said, "Well," or my big backers, I should say, said, "Well, you know, you bet on this market crash and you were wrong. You know, you had the right idea, but it didn't work." So, that's that. But the funny thing is, every other fund had the same problem. People took money out from Citadel.
People took Citadel was down 50%. At that time, uh, my boss, a tiger cub, who had done marvelously. He was up all the time, but he wasn't up enough, you know, he had good returns, which was really hard to do in that environment, but he he was up, you know, 10% or 12%, stuff like that. And they said, "Well, we need that money, too." This is New York Firefighters, New York Pension, Port Authority, guys like that.
These guys put 10, 20, 30, $40 million in hedge funds. You don't. you might put a million dollars in the hedge fund maybe. So, you know, those guys needed their capital and they said, "Give me the capital back." So, even a guy like that who had two or three billion, now he's got two or 30 hundred million or something like that.
I don't know exactly. And Citadel who had, you know, 20 billion, now he's got 10 or eight or whatever. And they're looking at stocks and they're saying, "Wait, we're deep in the black zone. We're deep in the black. We don't need to speculate. We're paying 2 3 4 5 times earnings for this stuff. The point is they don't have capital.
Comments 0