저자: JoelGreenblatt · 외국인
요약 보기
개인투자자가 전문가를 이길 수 있다고 주장. 대형지수(S&P500, Russell1000)는 시가총액 가중 구조로 연 약 2% 손실 발생, 동일가중·기본가치가중 지수로 이를 회복 가능. 가치가중 지수는 같은 변동성·베타에서 20년간 연 7% 초과수익. 전문가는 단기 성과 압박·관료주의·규모 제약이 있어 개인은 장기 인내로 유리. 사례로 Grace Groner(180달러→700만달러, 75년), Ronald Reed(검소한 배당주 투자, 800만달러), Anne Sheber(5천달러→2200만달러, 50년) 제시.
다듬은 글
uh you maintain that an in the individual investor can beat the big guys as you put it. How can that be? Well, it's it's pretty interesting from the research we did in the book. Um most people know that uh the typical index funds, the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000, uh if you invest in those uh they beat most managers, roughly about 70% of the managers.
Uh and that's pretty powerful. Well, it's because of their low fees and that most managers aren't really adding value. So, one logical thing to do uh would be to say, well, um I know only 30% of the managers beat the typical index. So, how do I find those guys? And it turns out if you look back over the last 3, five, and 10 years of those managers records, there's really no correlation between how they do in the next three, five, 10, which is really what you're trying to figure out.
Uh so that's why you know most uh you know many uh at least advisers have have recommended and and possibly rightly uh that index funds for the individual investor who doesn't know how to pick stocks on their own is maybe a good uh uh opportunity for most people. So we set out to do something a little better.
And as it turns out the the regular indexes the S&P 500 or the Russell 1000 are seriously flawed. As it turns out, even though they beat the most active managers, they're still very seriously flawed. And they do something that costs investors about 2% a year. Uh, and that really is is that uh they're market cap weighted indexes, which means they put more weight into the larger market caps.
And so that the losers, right? So if you believe like Ben Graham or uh Warren Buffett that the market's sometimes emotional, it's not efficient like so so many professors have professed over many years, it's not efficient. Uh that means that if the market does get emotional over the short term, uh that some stocks are overpriced and some are underpriced.
And a market uh a market cap weighted index uh if a stock is overpriced, it buys too much of it automatically. And if it's underpriced, it buys too little of it automatically because it's based it on market cap, which is essentially priced. So it sounds crazy, but it actually is systematically doing the wrong thing at every point uh whenever there's an inefficiently priced stock.
And so there's an easy way to correct that. And uh there are actually equally weighted indexes instead of putting uh putting more in the larger uh market cap companies, it actually puts an equally weight. So if you have the S&P 500, it'll put as much weight in stock number one as it will in stock number 500.
It still makes plenty of errors. In other words, it's an equally weighting, but those errors are now random, not systematic like a market cap weighted index. So you actually get back the 2% a year. Uh and there few people have come out with something called fundamentally weighted indexes. It's just another way to weight stocks uh without using price and therefore the errors in those indexes are also random and you get back the 2% from those two.
And since we're value investors and have been done a lot of research on value investing over a long period of time, we create an index that we call value weighted which just means the cheaper something is the more weight we put into it. And it's actually more diversified than uh you know the S&P 500 or Russell 1000 index has the same volatility, has the same beta, yet uh over the last 20 years you would earn 7% more a year uh following that strategy.
And it's it's ridiculously simple. Just put more weight in the cheaper companies. What if I told you that an average person without a finance degree, without millions of dollars, could outperform Wall Street's smartest investors? Joel Greenbat, one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, says it's not only possible, but that the individual investors actually have a huge edge.
And there are real stories to prove it. Professionals face three big disadvantages. Short-term pressure from clients and quarterly results. Bureaucratic limits that stop them from taking bold opportunities. Size disadvantage. Moving billions of dollars into small promising stocks is nearly impossible.
As a result, they often end up buying safe, popular names just to protect their jobs, not to make the best returns. You, on the other hand, have no boss to report to, no angry clients to keep happy. You can think in years instead of months. Green blood says this flexibility combined with patience lets you go after opportunities that big funds can't touch.
Want proof? Let's look at Grace Croner, a secretary who quietly invested dollar 180 in a small company called Abot Laboratories in 1935 and held it for 75 years. By the time she passed away, the dollar 180 had grown to dollar 7 million. Green Blast's point is that success isn't about IQ, it's about temperament.
Do your own research. Ignore short-term noise. Be willing to look wrong in the short term to be right in the long term. Take Ronald Reed, a Worman janitor and gas station attendant. He invested consistently in solid dividend paying companies. And when he died in 2014, he left behind dollar8 million portfolio.
All self-managed. Professionals are trapped in 3 to 12 months mindset. You can think in decades. That's how people like Annie Sheber, a retired IRS auditor, turned dollar 5,000 into dollar22 million over 50 years. She did not have special access to Wall Street's research. She simply had patience, discipline, and a long-term wave.
Joel Greenbla's message is clear. Your lack of Wall Street constraints is your biggest weapon. If Grace Groner, Ronald Reed, and Anne Sheber could beat the market without finance ground, so can you. Think long term, stay patient, and you might just leave the professionals in the dust.
Comments 0