저자: TerrySmith · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 테리 스미스는 기술주가 '기술' 라벨 때문이 아니라 각 기업의 자본수익률과 재투자 능력으로 수익을 낸다고 보며, 장기 보유 중심의 접근을 강조한다. 포트폴리오 운용: 펀드 최초 편입 종목 중 10개가 현재까지 남아 있으며, 편입 종목 교체(회전율)는 약 4%로 낮다. 다수의 변경은 피인수 등 비자발적 요인이다. 좋은 기업을 보유하는 것 자체가 수익의 핵심이라고 설명한다. 기술주 관점: 마이크로소프트, 페이팔, 비자, 인튜이트, 세이지, 아마데우스, 페이스북 등을 보유하지만 이들을 '기술주'로 묶는 것은 유용하지 않으며, 업종 특성(급여, 회계, 항공 예약, 소셜미디어 광고 등)이 제각각이라고 본다. 인공지능·가상현실에는 직접 투자하지 않는다. 페이스북: 2018년 케임브리지 애널리티카 사태로 주가가 조정된 것을 일시적 결함(glitch)으로 보고 매수 기회로 삼았다. 당시 약 40% 성장, 높은 자본수익률, 진입장벽을 근거로 들었고 이후 성장률은 20%대 후반으로 둔화됐을 것이라고 언급했다. 알파벳(구글): 디지털 광고에서 페이스북과 함께 사실상 복점이라 평가하지만, 신사업(연 50~60억 달러 손실)과 구글 클라우드 적자에 대해 우려하며 자본배분 판단에 의문을 표했다. 그럼에도 너무 늦었다고 보지는 않는다. 애플: 노키아의 흥망을 거론하며 하드웨어 중심 사업의 평균회귀 위험을 우려했다. 최고 의사결정자 부재 시 리스크도 언급했다. 아마존: 유통은 마진이 약 2%로 낮고 AWS가 이를 교차보조하는 구조라 우려된다. 두 사업이 분리되면 관심이 있을 수 있다고 했다. 정기적으로 투자 판단을 재검토하며 입장이 바뀔 수 있다고 밝혔다. 리스크: 기업 가치가 높아 과도한 지불 가격, 신사업 자본배분 실패, 규제 및 평판 이슈, 최고경영진 변화가 주요 위험으로 제시된다. 출연자 전망: 장기 관점에서 좋은 기업을 합리적 가격에 보유하면 충분하다는 입장이며, 단기 가격 방향에 대한 구체적 예측은 없다.
다듬은 글
hello today i have with me my colleague kyle caldwell collectives editor interactive investor and someone who needs no introduction terry smith founder chief executive and chief investment officer at fundsmith which includes the uk's largest investment fund fundsmith equity hello terry delighted that you could join us today good morning terry i'd like to talk about technology um it's something that interests a lot of fun smith investors currently um now first of all microsoft was held in the top 10 shortly after the fund launched uh it's still in the top 10 today um how many of the original holdings still remain in the fund and in addition how much of a positive impact has buying and holding sort of had on performance well you're actually right about microsoft i'd need to go back and check but i think it's 10 stocks now from the original funder still there and uh i mean quite a lot of the turnover you have to bear in mind is involuntary we've lost quite a lot of companies uh without us doing anything so cr bard and dr pepper snap and sort of disappear without us doing anything they just got taken over um the uh the original del monte business that we owned disappeared uh so quite a lot of it is important funny old thing if you own own good things people come try and buy them off you could say so look i think that basically it's what the companies does that makes money here i mean we don't turn over very much last year we turned over four percent uh all those changes we discussed earlier just forced out my portfolio if you are a long-term investor it's the return on capital that the company makes and its ability to reinvest that return on capital which generates most of the return if a company can generate a 30 return on capital and reinvest a significant portion of its cash flow earnings each year at that 30 it can do better for you than i can basically and so look it's nice from time to time that we managed to do something a bit clever in terms of buying something when there's a glitch or the markets it's out of favor of the market and it can add to it but the reality is in the end it's it's the the companies that are making the money for you here not uh not my buying and selling that's that's doing it and the the weighting to technology has become more significant over the years in an interview back in 2014 you said that on the whole we are really suspicious of new technology so what made you change your mind in 2018 in respect of facebook i'm not sure i've changed my mind generically about new technology because i guess what i would query with you is whether facebook is genuinely uh new technology if you have a look in the msci it's listed under communication services and that's what i think it is i don't think it's doing anything particularly whiz-bang out there and if you look at what we own in technology i mean we own amadeus airline reservations adb payroll processing facebook intuit in accounting and tax software microsoft operating systems cloud computing gaming etc paypal payment services sage accounting software visa payment services they're all quotes technology companies but is technology really the drop the single driving factor yeah i mean i think often in investment labels are unhelpful in people's thinking so i don't think people think well technology i think what drives those companies the main driver of them is not technology i think it's employment in payroll or business in accounting or computing of a sort that we're doing now communicating using microsoft teams or airline reservations and travel or social media and digital advertising the drivers are quite separate and different it's not technology and i think you know technology is a label fangs as a label bricks as a label caused people to make these sort of generic decisions about groups of things which are very different i mean like the fans are very different if you think about it you know between facebook apple amazon netflix google now now alphabet i mean what's the commonality between you know home viewing of cinema mobile devices social networks not a lot really they've got quite different returns on capital employed quite different growth profiles and quite different valuations making a generic decision to make mistake i mean on facebook itself just to say what made you nothing made this change your mind about our knowledge of technology we still don't invest directly into things like ai or virtual reality it's very interesting i'm sure it might change our lives maybe even for the better who knows when i think i've got somebody who understands it and applies it makes great return on capital out of it i'll ever think about investing in it but in the meantime it's going on over there i'm doing technology but if you think about it it's old-line technology quite to quite a degree and it's technology which is basically uh facilitating an underlying business rather than pure and it's right going back to facebook i mean what happened was we had the cambridge analytica scandal if you like about about data and all the broad that came out about the use of facebook for political uh campaign or to influence elections and i always say to people i think if you're going to own one of these really good companies and you're going to do it at a fair price or better you need a glitch you need something that happens that goes wrong and i mean time and time again we've found ourselves in a situation where that's what we're confronted with of course you have to make your mind out whether it's a glitch or whether it's an existential threat to the company before you dive in there but that's really what that presented to us in facebook you know we were looking at a company that was growing well at that point at about 40 percent grand i'm probably down in the in the 20s now because nothing can keep growing at that rate making you know high 20s return on capital employed with quite possibly insuperable barriers to entry uh out there and it is that sort of thing that gives you an opportunity you've got to make up your mind whether it really is an opportunity so far he said looking for some wood to touch as he speaks uh it has proven to be an opportunity that pitch and we think it continues to be so well look you've already mentioned three of the companies i was just about to to talk about i mean other tech guys so apple amazon and alphabet so they appear natural contenders to be held in the fund given the various qualities that they have and why have you not invested in those three companies and is it too too late now anyway let me run you through them i mean alphabet or google is really in a currently at least a duopoly outside of china in basically digital advertising google is search based and facebook is obviously social media based but they're the two means of attacking digital advertising which is clearly the growth area uh dominant area now increasingly of advertising in the case of google what they've done is a couple of other things they've done their next best whatever they call it which they're losing five or six billion dollars per annum on their their new bets right i mean it's a pretty good business but i am worried about i mean what you asked a question earlier about how the money's made is it clever dealing by me or is it actually the company's doing it and i unfortunately professor said it's the company's doing it i pick the right companies and so on and that's mainly what mainly what drives things it's the same with this i mean once we've given the money to our company which is effectively what we're doing we may buy the shares from somebody else we are owning a portion of the capital we are relying upon them for capital allocations decisions when people consistently keep doing things which don't seem to produce anything that lose five or six billion dollars a year it worries me a bit particularly if we've got no say through the voting strategy so yeah if they didn't have that i'm pretty sure we would very likely own it and and maybe we still will but because i don't the answer to your end question is it too late no i don't think it's too late they've also got a similar level of loss from their attempts with the google cloud i may be completely wrong with the google cloud in terms of assessment but i've got to say my guess is that they're third in a two volts race uh which is which is problematic i think follow apple what scares me with apple is that i live through the rise and fall of nokia and and i heard all the same reasons why we shouldn't worry about a consumer electronics business uh reverting to mean returns because it was quotes an ecosystem and maybe it is maybe i'm wrong but it does worry uh this is a business which is seems to be driven at least in part by the need to continue to churn out the next uh nice flat device with rounded corners uh that you want to buy even though it's the same as the last one roughly speaking it worries me and it worries me particularly if you ever get to the day when you don't have a guiding single mind at the top of the organization but i might be wrong i mean that bear in mind with all these that might run is it too late probably not amazon's got two businesses one of them is really great and the other one is i mean we've got the uh the retail business which makes about two percent margins and has been described by uh tweety brown one of the fund managers i mentioned earlier as a uh a charity or utility for the benefit of consumers funded by wall street they've got a point i mean about this is it's clearly not making adequate margins or returns of retail business and of course it's cross-subsidized by amazon web services the cloud business and i think people are quite confused about this because they seem to think about it so somehow they got to the cloud business to power the uh the online e-commerce business no they haven't the two businesses have got no signatures whatsoever in reality and again there if they were to break the two out i i might really be interested in one of the two but i'm quite worried about it as it stands as a structure uh in terms of where where we'll end up with a business with a massive cross subsidy across those two but we are as a as a team and people who continually re-examine these things i mean we don't think i'm never going to run amazon or something and then just forget about it we regularly sort of blow the dust off metaphorically from the online file and have a look at it and we've done that in the past a couple days and changed our mind and we might change our mind again here on or any of those or they might change you
Comments 0