AI 버블💥 필요없고 나는 이 기업만 산다 (테리 스미스)

요약 보기

결론: 테리 스미스의 '좋은 기업을 합리적 가격에 사서 보유' 철학은 합리적이나, AI 흐름을 무시해 최근 성과가 부진했다는 영상. 투자 철학: 핵심 지표는 ROC(투하자본수익률)이며 가중평균자본비용(WACC)보다 높은 산업·기업을 선별한다. 매출 성장, 매출총이익률, 현금전환율을 확인하고 브랜드·지식재산권·설치기반 등 경제적 해자를 점검한다. 경영진의 발표 능력보다 자본배분 능력을 본다. 가격 판단: 비싼 우량주도 성장성이 높으면 합리적일 수 있으며, 저평가 기업은 저평가 이유가 있을 수 있다. 로레알 사례는 PER 281에도 장기 성장으로 정당화되었고, 애플은 PER 30 수준이었으나 성장 둔화로 비싸다고 평가된다. 장기 보유: 복리 효과 때문에 수익률의 작은 차이가 장기적으로 큰 차이를 만든다. 예시로 1천만 원을 30년간 10%로 굴리면 1억 7천만 원, 12.5%면 3억 4천만 원이다. 성과 부진 원인: AI 투자 흐름을 무시한 것이 핵심으로 제시된다. 빅테크 CAPEX는 2018년 640억 달러에서 2026년 4배 이상 증가 예상이나 ROC 관점에서 수익 입증이 필요하다. 텍사스인스트루먼트는 아날로그 반도체 기업이라 AI 수혜가 적어 필라델피아 반도체지수 대비 부진했다. 시장 대응: 테리 스미스는 가능성 단계가 아닌 확실성 단계에서 투자하는 것을 선호하며, AI 테마가 끝났다고 여겨질 때 진입하겠다는 입장으로 해석된다. 영상은 개인 투자자는 시장을 거스르기보다 관망하는 것이 합리적일 수 있다고 제시한다. 출연자 전망: 진행자 에릭은 AI 흐름에 대한 베팅 대신 관망이 합리적일 수 있다고 본다.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. If you look at Italy Smith's investment philosophy, it seems excellent, and it looks like you could really make money if you just followed it, so why didn't he make money? Why are you making such a fuss about AI innovation ? The biggest factor is that I said I didn't think AI was very good and ignored it.

02. Yes, hello. This is Eric. One of the issues investors are concerned about these days is whether they should buy stocks now that the market has become so expensive. Many of you are likely wondering, "Should I buy stocks even though they are this high?" But yes, you can buy them. There is a master who claims that you can make a profit even if you buy, so today we will take a look at the investment strategy of how this master buys expensive stocks and generates profits .

03. Today's protagonist is Terry Smith. I think this is the first person we introduced at the Master Research Institute . He was born in 1953, is 72 years old, and is the founder of Fundsmith. Assets under management amount to 33 trillion won. He is quite a figure of his caliber . He is called the Warren Buffett of Britain .

04. He is called the Warren Buffett of Britain because his investment style is somewhat similar, and he has over 50 years of experience. But it has been about 15 years since I started the business . Compared to your track record, the time you've spent running the business hasn't been that long. When I looked into why you started it so late, I realized that you actually worked in a company for quite a long time .

05. It can be seen as a case where someone worked at a financial company for a long time, but felt so stifled by their work life that they endured it for a long time until they could no longer take it anymore, so they left and succeeded through their own investments . So, when you think of Terry Smith, there is a famous book that has been published in Korean as well.

06. He is also quite famous as the author of the book *Quality Investment: A Record of Proof* . So, today's content is as follows. yes. There is a Terry Smith investment philosophy. I am going to look into exactly how one is supposed to invest—specifically, what it means to buy a good company at a reasonable price and do nothing .

07. I will look into it . And then there's Cherry, and then there's Cherry Smith. Recently, Smith has been underperforming again. It is sluggish. We have been underperforming compared to the market for the past four years, but while we can learn a lot from success stories, we can also learn a lot from failure stories .

08. That's why it exists. So, let's take a look at the reasons behind Terry Smith's poor performance and see what we can learn from them . I will do it . First of all, there is Terrence Smith's investment philosophy. Buy a company with a good philosophy. So, what does Terris Misse consider a good company to be?

09. And secondly, I told you to buy it at a reasonable price. So, we are going to look into exactly what constitutes a reasonable price, and since it says not to do anything at the end, we will see exactly what we are told not to do . First is finding a good company. How to find a good company? Will Buffett said this.

10. It is said that if there is one thing most important in a company, it is ROC . So, ROC is the money a company earns relative to the capital it has invested. To put it simply using an analogy, imagine a candy company that spent 10 billion won to build a candy factory, and then sold 5 billion won worth of candy produced in that factory.

11. Since they built the factory with 10 billion won and earned 5 billion won, you can simply summarize the return on investment as 50%. So, when asked why this is important, Terry Smith explains it like this . When we sign up for a savings or deposit account, we first look at how much interest we earn, right?

12. It is only natural to check the interest rate to see how much you will receive at maturity when buying bonds, and to look at the rate of return when signing up for a fund . However, when investing in stocks, shouldn't you naturally look at the stock's rate of return? It is said that the return on that stock is precisely the investment return of the ROC company mentioned earlier .

13. So, if a company invests 10 billion won and earns 5 billion won, as in the example of the Satan factory mentioned earlier, and the company's return on investment is 50%, then the return on that company's stock will also converge to 50% . So, it is said that the return on a company's stock can be called the company's return on investment .

14. Then, following this logic, we should look for a company with a high ROC. However, Terry Smith starts by first finding good industries within the industrial complex . This seemingly complicated diagram is what it is . I have listed each industry, and the part I have marked with a red box is the company's return on investment minus the weighted average cost of capital.

15. The term "weighted average cost of capital" is a bit difficult, but it becomes easier if you connect it to the analogy of a Satan factory . As I mentioned earlier, I said that it cost 10 billion won to build the candy factory . And if they earned 5 billion won by selling candy, then how will they raise the 10 billion won required for the candy factory?

16. From the company's perspective, they could issue bonds or issue stocks. If you issue bonds, you have to pay interest, right? And when I issue stocks, there is an expected rate of return that shareholders expect, so the interest I have to pay when issuing bonds and the expected rate of return I must meet shareholders' expectations when issuing stocks.

17. So, the cost is now called the weighted average cost of capital. So, if 10 billion was issued, with 7 billion in bonds and 3 billion in stocks, you can view it as an indicator showing how much cost this company incurred in building the 10 billion factory by factoring in the interest that must be paid on the 7 billion in bonds—which represents the expected rate of return I must satisfy to shareholders out of the 3 billion .

18. So, if we connect this to the return on investment, we built a factory for 10 billion won and sold 5 billion won worth of assets, so how much was the cost of the 10 billion won raised to build that factory? Would you say that this is a comparison? Naturally, from a company's perspective, they need to generate more profit from their investments than the cost of the capital raised to make a profit .

19. So, you can consider it as representing that. Then, if we look at which industries attract capital from a corporate perspective and generate profits with it, they are discretionary consumption, essential consumption, healthcare, and IT. Well, I'm sure everyone knows about essential consumer goods, right?

20. I am talking about consumption that we absolutely must have regardless of the economic situation, such as toilet paper. As for consumer goods , a prime example is luxury items, which we can reduce spending on when the economy is bad . So, these sectors, along with healthcare and the IT industry, generate more profit than borrowing money.

21. Therefore, it is being shown that these are value-creating industries, while conversely, there are quite a few industries that are suffering losses, where the costs incurred from the money raised are much greater than the profits. In Korea, there are actually far more industries that destroy value than those that create it: banking, real estate, insurance, heavy industry and manufacturing, mining and raw materials, crude oil and gas.

22. Of course, this is not always constant . As I mentioned earlier, raw materials can be seen as an industry where value is being destroyed, but raw materials also have a cycle, you know. If the raw material cycle is good, you can make money from raw materials as well . So, because there are cases where it becomes a good sector, Terry Smith says that when looking at the long term— that is, excluding cyclical effects—you should invest in sectors where the return on investment is higher than the weighted average cost of capital in the long term.

23. Of course, when looking at an industrial complex, there may be good companies even in less favorable industries, but Tennis Miss suggests that it is better to screen based on the industrial complex first. For example, in the aviation industry, the weighted average cost of capital minus the return on investment over 20 years is -5%.

24. So, it is an industry where money is spent much more than earned, and while there are exceptions, there are 3,000 airlines worldwide. But out of these 3,000, how long would it take to find a good company that is an exception ? So, they say it is much more reasonable to look for it in good industries that create value within the industry itself .

25. So, when I took a look at the good industries that Terry Smith talks about, I found that B2C is better than B2B. I mentioned that supplying to companies is more stable, whereas direct sales to consumers could change drastically if the economy is bad; in fact, B2B takes a much harder hit than B2C when the economy deteriorates .

26. And industries or companies with short product consumption cycles are good. So, they are saying that value is created only when consumers use the product quickly and open their wallets quickly, and that the product should not be significantly affected by macroeconomic factors . So, we identified industries in the industrial complex that had a higher ROC than the weighted average cost of capital, and since we can also see how high the ROC (return on investment) is for each company, we confirmed that it is a company with a high ROC.

27. So, what should be done next ? So, now that we have confirmed that this company has a high return on investment, we need to figure out why it is high and whether this high return can be sustained. So, first of all, in the case of Derismith, they say they look at sales and gross profit margin . Why look at sales?

28. Sales are the most intuitive indicator for understanding growth . So, you can tell whether this company is growing or not by looking at how much its revenue is increasing, and as for the gross profit margin, is n't that revenue calculated by taking costs into account? In other words, it is an indicator of how much we can sell the goods for after sourcing them— that is, how much profit margin we can add to the sale .

29. So, since adding a larger margin implies greater pricing power, I mentioned that we first check sales and gross profit margins . The next thing to look at is cash generation ability. The company generated revenue and earned money. But not all of this revenue goes into cash. So, how much of the revenue generated is converted into cash?

30. Because ultimately, companies need cash to invest and do other things, so it is necessary to understand the cash conversion rate . So, the cash conversion rate indicates how much of the net profit is converted into operating cash flow. So, I said that the next factor considered is how much cash a company can bring in from revenue generated.

31. So, Terrence Smithson says that after we go through these numbers, we figure out what the driving force behind them is . So, this company has a very good return on investment, sales are growing, and it is applying good margins to achieve a high gross profit margin . Also, looking at the cash flow conversion rate, it converts revenue into cash very efficiently as soon as it is generated.

32. So, I am conducting some qualitative research to find out why this company is so good, given that it is a really good company . So, the point is to examine whether the company is doing well because it has brand power or dominates distribution networks, or because it possesses significant intellectual property rights, or whether it operates in an installation-based industry—that is, an industry like our aircraft engines where customers must continue using the product and pay ongoing maintenance costs .

33. And finally, they say that since the management is a good company, they are checking its ability to continue managing it well as a good company in the future . They say they don't look at whether the company gives a good presentation or if the CEO speaks eloquently; rather, they examine revenue, gross sales ratio, and cash flow conversion rate.

34. Since the essence of a business lies in how well a company brings in goods, adds a margin to sell them, and converts those sales into cash, they verify how well the company understands this process. We also check how the generated cash is used, and as we mentioned earlier, the return on investment is important.

35. To increase the return on investment, companies need to invest their cash wisely. So, they say they check whether the company invests well and how well it allocates its capital . So, it has been quite complicated so far, but to summarize, we first check the return on investment . So, first, we check if the return on investment is higher than the company's weighted average cost of capital.

36. If it is, to determine why the return is so high, we look at sales and the gross sales ratio, and check the cash conversion ratio. We then examine whether there is an economic leader to figure out why these numbers are performing so well and what makes this company successful. You could say that the qualitative work of verifying things like brand power or intellectual property rights is the way to select a good company .

37. Second, I found this good company . Shouldn't you make a purchase ? You have to buy at a reasonable price, but regarding just how reasonable a price is, Warren Buffett said this again. The point is that buying a very good company at a slightly high price is much better than buying a less good company at a low price.

38. Italy Smithson says this. We talk about the efficient thalamus hypothesis, you know . So, because the market is smart, there is a reason why expensive things are expensive and cheap things are cheap. So, they say that since people recognize the good stuff, it is naturally bound to be expensive, and since they also recognize the bad stuff to some extent, it is bound to be cheap.

39. That is why we say that if we invest together, we should invest in undervalued companies . However, undervalued companies have a reason for being undervalued. For example, if the value of this company is 100 won and its stock is 50 won, you should not assume that it is undervalued. Because this undervalued company is undervalued due to being bad, it is said that even if it hits the remaining 100 won, there is a risk of damage as it could fall to 90 won, 80 won, 70 won, 60 won, 50 won, or 40 won over time .

40. Conversely, since universally recognized businesses are bound to be expensive, people argue that it is rational to buy a good company even if it means paying a slightly higher price . So, as a prime example, this graph lists the PR activities of each company back in 1973 . As you can see, the one I have marked with red clap is L' Oréal, a company that many of you are familiar with.

41. L'Oréal's PR was 281 at that time. Although the figures are enormous, it is said that it achieved a return rate that outperformed the benchmark in the long term . Because even though L'Oréal's stock price is expensive right now, this high price is justified because L'Oréal's growth is much higher . So, even if the PER is 281, if this company can grow significantly in the long term, it can be considered cheap.

42. They say it can be seen as a reasonable price . Conversely, there are cases where a price can be considered expensive even if the PR is lower than that . This graph shows Apple's PR and the orange line. And the green color is Apple's revenue growth rate. Terry Smith mentioned that he bought Apple and then sold it during the period I marked in red.

43. If you look at this period, didn't Apple's PR go up from the 20s to the 30s? But Apple's revenue growth rate has slowed down. So, since Apple's growth potential is declining but its PR has risen, this company can be considered expensive. So, in terms of absolute figures, it is not that Loreal is expensive because its P is over 200 and Apple is cheap because its P is 30 in comparison; rather, when growth potential was narrow, Loreal could be seen as cheap because its growth potential was high, while Apple could be seen as expensive compared to its growth potential because its P was only about 30 and its growth potential was low .

44. So, Terry Smith is saying that a reasonable price depends on the company's growth potential . So, it means that even if a great company is expensive, you can still make a profit by buying it if it has growth potential . And finally, it says not to do anything. Why do I have to do nothing ? Because we always talk about compound interest .

45. Ultimately, investing is done to receive the blessings of compound interest, but people are weak at predicting the long-term effects of compounding . For example, let's assume you invest 10 million won for about 30 years . However, if you invest at a 10% rate of return, it becomes 170 million won after 30 years.

46. When the rate of return is 12.5%, it becomes 340 million won . So, although the difference is only 2.5 percentage points, in the long run, it can be seen as almost a twofold difference . And if there is a bigger difference in the rate of return, and the rate of return is 1 billion percent, what happens after 30 years?

47. It becomes 660 million won. So, because even a small difference creates a huge difference in the long run, I believe that, like L' Oréal mentioned earlier, even if the PR is 281 at the time, if a high level of growth is maintained over a long period, the intrinsic value grows compounded, and therefore, the high stock price is inevitably justified .

48. Yes, that was Terry Smith's investment philosophy. Didn't I mention that Terrence Smith has been underperforming recently ? If you look at Terrence Smith's investment philosophy, it seems excellent, and it looks like he could really make money if he just followed it. So why hasn't he made money? If we look at the reason, it seems the biggest factor is that he ignored AI.

49. Terry Smith said this about AI innovation . Why are you making such a fuss about AI innovation? Innovation has always been by our side. However, people are highly valuing the AI ​​innovations currently taking place because of the recency effect—that is, the tendency to find the most recent things the most impressive .

50. There have been many technological innovations on the scale of AI in the past. So now, AI innovation is going to change the world. I have previously stated that instead of investing by betting on that belief, it is important to identify the winner among these AI companies and determine which one holds the competitive edge .

51. And another reason I ignored the AI ​​trend is that people often talk about AI these days, saying that Vicks are investing a tremendous amount in it. And aren't they saying that they will increase investment further in the future ? So, the graph shows the CAPEX, or capital expenditure, of Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft .

52. If you look, corporate capital expenditures were $64 billion in 2018, but it is expected to increase by more than four times by 2026 . But as I mentioned earlier regarding Terry Smith's philosophy, didn't I say that a company's ROC—that is, its return on investment—is the most important ? But if the investment amount increases by more than four times over about eight years, then how much more do you have to earn relative to the invested amount to increase the return on investment?

53. But aren't there a lot of criticisms right now that AI isn't making money? So, the point is that even though you invest a huge amount, it isn't easy to make enough money to justify that investment . So, Carrie Smithson is saying that she doesn't really like AI because she feels uncomfortable investing in AI companies right now.

54. However, as you all know from experiencing this market, Terry Smith said that even expensive stocks can generate profits if the company is excellent. But in this market, the stocks that rose because people considered them excellent, despite being expensive, were precisely AI stocks. As I mentioned, Terry Smith emphasized ROC, but currently, AI investment is reaching the level of an arms race, and because people like companies that actively invest in this, the market trend is the same as Terry Smith's philosophy .

55. And Terrence Smith said that it is important to choose a company that holds this competitive advantage . But we don't really know how the AI ​​landscape will turn out yet . Although Nvidia is making money right now, it is not yet clear how the industry structure will change as AI advances further. Since we don't know how the landscape will turn out yet, how can we know who the ultimate winner of the competition will be?

56. So, this too, the flow of the market went in a direction somewhat opposite to Terry Smith's philosophy . So, I think this is a representative failure among Terrence Smith's recent investment cases that demonstrates going against the trend . This graph is the Nasdaq index, which is purple. The red line represents the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, and the green line represents Texas Instruments, one of the U.S.

57. semiconductor companies. As you can see, despite being a semiconductor company, Texas Instruments performed much worse than the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index to which it belongs . Its performance was much worse than the benchmark NASDAQ. But why were your grades so bad? Our semiconductor business did so well, so why on earth didn't this company succeed?

58. Uh, it is because this company was not a company that produces AI semiconductors . The reason semiconductors have risen in popularity is because of their connection to AI. Texas Instruments uses analog semiconductors, which are used in cases where external signals, such as heat or light, need to be converted into digital signals .

59. In particular, since the company manufactured analog semiconductors that convert external signals into digital signals, especially in the automotive sector, it was somewhat detached from the AI ​​trend, so its stock price did not perform as well as other semiconductor companies. But since Terry Smith ignored the AI ​​trend, looking at this, if you only look at things like ROC, Texas Instruments is good.

60. So, looking only at these indicators, they made a choice thinking it looked good, and because that choice went against the trend, the performance was poor compared to the index. You were talking about Terry Smith. I think we can summarize today's discussion like this . Terry Smith's philosophy is really good.

61. Choosing good companies, buying them even if they were expensive if they had growth potential, and waiting until a profit was made— that was a fairly rational investment philosophy, but didn't you end up losing money in the end ? However, to summarize the reason for this loss in one word, I believe it is because I fought against the market .

62. Even though AI is driving the trend, as we can see with Texas Instruments, in a way, he made a bet that was somewhat contrary. However, a trend going against Terry Smith's market could actually be correct. This graph illustrates the possibility and certainty effects, and the dotted line represents the probability of an event occurring.

63. And you can view this solid black line as representing the intensity of people's subjective belief that this event will happen . When something hasn't happened yet and the possibility isn't certain, people actually have higher expectations . Because they say stocks are shelf-type . Looking at AI now, we don't know how it will change the industrial structure or what the final outcome will be, but everyone is full of anticipation.

64. AI will change the world. However, as this progressed, the landscape where AI transforms the industrial structure was eventually completed. Then, at that time, it is actually easier for people to have expectations . Ah, well, it's all over now. Nothing special. The point is that because people expect growth to be over, their expectations actually drop when things become certain .

65. However, Terrence Smith suggests investing during the certainty phase rather than the possibility phase . So the average 1,000-lip shave of the companies owned by Terry Smith is 1920. These are companies that are over 100 years old . So, people invest when the company is in its early stages or when its growth looks promising, but by the time the company has fully grown, they realize, "Oh, the investment is all gone." There is a tendency to dismiss it, thinking, "Isn't it over now?" Terry Smith said that rather than having expectations for AI skyrocket like this, the market would settle down and people would think, "AI is over now." I will enter when people say the AI ​​theme is over.

66. I'm saying I'll wait until then, even if it goes against the flow of the failure, but from the perspective of personalization, is this really acceptable? It's a bit difficult. There is a famous quote about this personally. The market insider can be much bigger than your bank account. Since the market may rise further than I can sustain while accumulating against the market trend, from an individual's perspective, rather than fighting against it like a billionaire such as Terry Smith, it can be seen as a rational choice to avoid placing bets against the AI ​​and instead observe the market, especially if we cannot participate in the AI ​​strategy .

67. Yes, that’s all for today . Do you really think you can hold out and invest until you see the big picture ? I would appreciate it if you could leave your thoughts in the comments . I am Eric, the director of Eric's Master Research Institute. Let's invest like a master again today.