Why Warren Buffett Sees Investing as a Loser’s Game

요약 보기

결론: 투자에서는 수익을 극대화하기보다 치명적 손실(0)을 피하는 것이 장기 성과에 더 중요하다. 워런 버핏과 찰스 엘리스의 '지는 게임(loser's game)' 개념을 소개한다. 승자의 게임은 옳은 행동으로 결과가 정해지고, 지는 게임은 실수로 결과가 정해진다. 장기적으로 시장을 이기려는 투자자 대부분이 저성과를 내며, 과도한 레버리지나 고수익을 기대한 고액 수수료가 대표적 실수다. 버핏의 2005년 주주서한 인용: 아무리 훌륭한 숫자 여러 개라도 0을 곱하면 0이 된다. 0은 높은 비용, 세금, 과소비 등 관리되지 않으면 수년~수십 년의 재정을 날릴 수 있는 요인이다. 시뮬레이션: 자산 A는 99%의 기간 4% 수익, 1% 기간 -96%, 자산 B는 매 기간 1% 수익. 중앙값 기준으로 초반 50기간은 A가 우세하나 약 75기간부터 B가 앞서며, 1,000기간에는 B가 영구적으로 앞선다. 평균으로 보면 A가 우세하지만 이는 소수 시뮬레이션의 행운에 의해 왜곡된 결과다. 일부 자산운용 상품이 이런 방식으로 운을 실력처럼 마케팅한다고 주장한다. 노벨상 수상 경제학자 마이런 숄즈와 LTCM 사례: 지능이 아니라 과도한 레버리지(50배 수준)가 실패 원인이다. 버핏은 평생 약 1.6배 수준의 레버리지만 사용했다. 출연자 전망: 특정 종목·자산에 대한 가격 방향 예측 발언 없음.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. berkshire shares have increased more than 2,000 percent in value one of the largest market capitalizations in the world and it could roll a lot larger since warren buffett show my favorite fable as a child was Aesop's The Tortoise and the hare about the famous race between a fast arrogant rabbit and his much slower shelled counterpart after gaining a sizable lead the he decides to take a nap during the race believing his victory is all but assured until the hay wakes to find that the tortoise has passed him despite making a mad dash towards the finish line the hare comes up short and loses their ice while most people see the moral of the story as don't be overconfident or slow and steady wins the race I see it as a warning against a terrible decision making after all it's the Hays bad decision not the tortoise good decisions that leads to the Hays defeat investment consultant Charles Ellis apply this framework in his book winning the losers game in a winner's game the outcome is determined by the correct actions of the winner in a loser's game the outcome is determined by the mistakes made by the loser Ellis explains how investing is inherently a loser's game because most investors who attempt to beat the market those who try to win typically underperform in the long run for example using excessive leverage or paying high fees for expected out performance are two common ways in which would be winners become definite losers the better strategy for investors thing is not to try and win but not to lose too many people in the financial community obsess over the optimal way to invest when their time would be better spent steering clear of actions that could lead to ruin if you enjoy the scoring please smash the like button hit subscribe let's get back to the video Warren Buffett said it best in his berkshire hathaway late to shareholders in 2005 over the years a number of very smart people have learned the hard way that a long string of impressive numbers multiplied by a single zero always equals zero the warning from Ellis and Buffett alike is crystal clear avoid the zeroes avoid them at all costs why because the zeroes are those things that can set you back years or decades in an instant in the investment world the 0s are typically variables associated with high costs so feasts taxes extravagant spending etc all these things if not managed properly can wreak havoc on your finances so how do you avoid the zeros to start let's illustrate how this approach would work through a simulation imagine you have a choice between two assets to invest in a set a returns 4% in 99% of them periods and negative 96% in 1% of the Barretts as it be a returns 1% in all periods given these two options which asset would you prefer to invest in if you had to invest for only one period most of you would like a big asset a because odds are you'll land a 4% return but what if you had to invest for 100 periods or 1,000 periods to taste the outcome of these scenarios I ran 1,000 simulations for each asset and please smash the like button for those thousand simulations with the assumption that you invested $1 into each year are the results for the median simulation across the first 50 periods as you can see asset a completely dominates as it B because a majority of the simulations have not experienced a 96% loss yet but if we extend the simulation actually the first 100 periods you will notice the results aren't quite the same now as it B leads as it a starting around the 75th period as more than half of the simulations including the median simulation have experienced their 96% loss but what happens if we keep going at 1,000 periods one of the assets begin to permanently pull away from the other why does this happen while asset a has a high return in an acid B in most periods ie 4% is bigger than 1% asset a also has catastrophic returns in some periods that it cannot make up for in the long run push another way asset B performs better because it avoids the zeros the large infrequent losses unlike asset a you might be wondering how it's possible that asset a underperforms asset B for the majority of the simulations despite having a higher expected return while this is true in the median simulation this is not necessarily true if we take the average across all simulations when we take the average asset a easily outperforms as it been since a smaller number of simulations of asset a experienced sphere if any 96% losses across 1,000 periods those feel lucky simulations would completely skew the average in favour of asset a / acid being just look at how ridiculous the result become when using the average outcome across all simulations for the first 1000 periods in this instance as it a clearly dominates though only due to luck you can imagine how someone might market SMA without disclosing that it's the result of chance but you don't have to imagine this hypothetical scenario because this is exactly what many zero investment strategies do they ignore all the losses and market the winners to unsuspecting Vic they have to do this because no one in their right mind would hand over their money to these financial charlatans I used to think my edge in life was being smart but really it isn't my edge is not being stupid there's a big difference case in point Myron sculls the Nobel prize-winning economist is far smarter than I am yet I have the better performing investment record anyone who knows about skulls as magnificent losses with long-term capital management ldcm can attest to this how is it possible that a Nobel laureate can have a worse and investment record than a typical investor like me well it turns out that the Nobel prize-winner played a stupid game in the case of Myron skulls and LTCM that stupid game was called leverage how do I know it was stupid because if Warren Buffett only levered one point six to one throughout his career why would you ever go beyond this limit let alone 50 times over it as LTCM orphan debt as the saying goes play stupid games when stupid prizes so don't blame thank you for watching this video if you enjoyed the content please smash the like button hit subscribe I will see you in a couple of days be upstanding