저자: JoelGreenblatt · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 시장은 현재 역사적으로 비싼 편(고평가 22퍼센타일)이며, 향후 1년 수익률은 4~6%로 평년(약 10%)보다 낮을 것으로 전망함. 시장 밸류에이션: S&P500을 1990년 이후 데이터로 상향식 평가한 결과 현재 22퍼센타일(비싼 쪽)로, 과거 28년간 78%는 더 싸고 22%는 더 비쌌음. 과거 유사 구간에서는 향후 1년 수익률 4~6%, 2년 10~12% 수준이었음. 조정 전망: 최근 조정으로 고점 대비 PER이 약 4~4.5배 낮아졌지만 여전히 비싼 편. 시장이 18~20% 급락하거나, 향후 3년간 평년 이하(4~6%) 실적을 내면서 조정될 수 있다고 봄. 단기(수개월) 방향 예측은 의미 없다고 함. 소형주: 러셀2000은 94%의 기간보다 싼 6퍼센타일(매우 비쌈)로, 과거 이 수준에서는 1년 수익률이 대체로 0% 안팎이었음. 향후 회귀 가능성 언급. 기술주/FANG: 주가수익률 50~100배 또는 적자 기업군은 역사적으로 최악의 투자전략이라고 평가. 일부 승자는 나오지만 그룹으로는 불리. 성장주 프로스(과열)는 금리 상승 등을 계기로 조정될 것으로 예상. 밸류 전략: 잉여현금흐름 수익률 7~9%, 높은 자본수익률을 가진 기업 중심으로 투자. 저PBR·저PSR 방식의 전통적 가치주 정의에는 동의하지 않음. 최근 성장주 프리미엄 축소 조짐이 있으나 밸류 회복은 아직 확인되지 않았다고 봄. 개별 종목/자산: 영상에서 삼성전자, SK하이닉스, 엔비디아, 테슬라 등 특정 종목에 대한 방향 언급 없음. 금·비트코인은 현금흐름이 없어 밸류에이션이 어렵다고 언급. 리스크: 금리 상승, 과열된 성장주 조정, 저품질 기업 가치함정, 시장 하락 가능성 등.
다듬은 글
so I want to remind everybody that you are a security investor which means that you buy individual stocks and in some cases sell individual stocks short but the natural question many people would have for a value investor right now is this after a 10 percent or almost 10 percent sell-off to the degree that you look at the market and decide whether it's cheaper expensive is a cheap sure so we actually value all the businesses in the S&P 500 bottoms up and we have good data going back to 1990 so we can actually contextualize where do we stand today according to the way we value you are measures of absolute relative value that we use and we apply them consistently over the 28 years and right now we're in the 22nd percentile towards expensive over the last 28 years meaning the markets been cheaper 78% of the time or expensive 22% of the time now this isn't a projection but we can go back in time and look from this valuation percentile in the past what's happened over the next year to N and markets up four to six percent over the next year ten to twelve over the next two so subnormal meaning during that twenty eight year period marco was of about ten percent a year and we're expensive or above average so four to six is is closer to what's happened in the past over the next year the market has repriced from its peak p/e by about four four and a half times do you see that as healthy you know we don't really look at PE we're really looking at cash flows and so we're pretty consistent about that and so markets gotten somewhat cheaper I mean it was down maybe towards the end of September it was probably down about the 14th percentile now it's back at the 22nd so it's dropped but it's not cheap but then again how what could happen from here you know in the 22nd percentile with expected returns of 4 to 6 percent one way to get back and no guarantee that would get back to those expected returns of 10% or so but one way you can get back there is if the market fell 18 or 20 percent tomorrow the expected returns going forward from there would get closer to 10 percent a year but that doesn't have to happen because if the market is to under earned meaning had subnormal returns of four to six percent in each of the next three years then three years from now with a normal earnings trajectory would also be back to a ten percent expected return so it's really not helpful for me to know what's gonna happen in the next few months but it is helpful from an investment standpoint of you know what are the prospects for the market in general and and and how exposed when you're if you're really taking portfolio exposure to the market you know where should you be Joel tech stocks and in particular bangs have led this recent sell-off how cheap would those stocks have to get to appeal to a value investor like you you know it's it's interesting the things that we're short our general trading at fifty or hundred times earnings or losing money those are your sort of choices of the things that we're going to be shorting so within that group will often be certain types of Fang stocks if they're not earning a lot of money yet and people are pricing it on 2020 for earnings and they have a lot of high hopes in involve there and we're not really up on it we own hundreds of stocks on the long side and hundreds of stocks on the short side so the bucket of companies that are trading at 50 or 100 times pre-tax free cash flows or losing money historically that's the world's worst investment strategy there will be some winners within that group and you'll actually know their names because they won but I call that the tyranny of the anecdote okay it's really the world's worst investment strategy as a group but some of them will win and you'll know their names because they won but as a group it's a bad investment strategy so we're really concentrating in companies that have seven eight nine percent free cash flow yields and a three percent interest rate environment and while some of those may be priced cheaply because the people are a little concerned about the future even though they're earning lots of cash flow now we try to stick to companies that are gushing free cash flow huge returns on capital meaning they deploy their capital well that avoids some of the value traps from traditional value and so I think that brings up the point we don't really think of value as low price book low price sales investing we're actually valuing businesses based cash flows like a private equity investor would and so if you're trying to figure out what a company's worth and and buy it for less at a bigger discount that will never go out of favor even if tradition you know value as defined by Rasul or Morningstar which is low price book low price sales investing that may or may not go stay in vogue it may be out of favor sometimes in favor may not even outperform the market going forward that doesn't mean that much to me because those are sort of have been correlations that have worked with more than your fair share companies that are out of favor I would imagine they'll could they'll come back at some point but we're actually valuing businesses based on cash flows and that's what stocks are ownership shares of businesses there are early indications in recent weeks that maybe there's a shift that maybe the premium investors have given to growth stocks is coming off and perhaps they're beginning to appreciate value once again it's been about a decade since they genuinely appreciated value if not perhaps a bit longer what are you seeing yeah so while I say we're not traditional value investors and and we're usually categorized by let's say a Russell or Morningstar as blend as Warren Buffett would say growth and value are tied at the hip that's part of valuation so they put us in blend not traditional value but when growth is really going and these are the companies priced on hope and and what's gonna happen in 2024 2025 when those are doing really well they're probably not gonna love what we're doing as much in other words so we would rhyme a little more with traditional value and so in those type of frothy markets that's not our market but those don't last forever prices have gotten pretty high and like I said that doesn't mean that the Fanning stocks or some of the names that you're familiar with won't do well or they won't meet the expectations that people think it's just that as a group the growth group where people just pay up for you know expected growth over the next five years that's probably as you suggest have been a little frothy I would expect that to come back to earth I want to think the catalyst for that is going to be rising interest rates I mean the real answer is I don't know I would just say that it always happens in other words if the pendulum swings too much one way they'll be you know just like we had a correction in October that could happen things in general are more expensive than usual but like I said that could play out in a lot of different ways market could fall 18 or 20 percent tomorrow or it could just under earn at four to six percent a year for a few years and that's the way it levels off meaning lower returns than than what you people have become but surely thumb some things must confuse you if you evaluate the market based on the things that you've observed in history the degree to which for example companies with bad balance sheets haven't been punished yes so basically there's a there's a reflexive component to that one thing I didn't mention that the Russell 2000 which is the small cap universe that's in the 6th percentile towards expensive meaning it's been cheaper 94% of the time and when it's been here in the past year Ford returns have been about flat so depending on what companies we're talking about that is super expensive that should come back over time it's usually not a good idea to lose money or buy things at a hundred times pre-tax for cash flow it's just bad idea Joel I want to ask you a question about factors you're not a systematic investor but I've wondered to myself if there's any way you would ever embrace systematic value investing and the reason I ask the question is because I know that you teach your students at Columbia to look at his security the way that they would consider buying a house what if you were buying the neighborhood wouldn't you evaluate all the houses in the neighborhood on an aggregate basis and decide whether one neighborhood was cheap relative to another neighborhood being expensive and maybe the cheap neighborhood on aggregate was worth buying and maybe selling houses in aggregate in the expensive neighborhood because I hear you was overcoming that's worked right so the statistics suggest that value was a factor yeah outperforms growth that outperforms momentum and I performed size it up performs everything right but the way people describe value factor is low price book low price sales I have many ways to slice it right but the way that they're categorized by let's say a Russell or Morningstar is low price book low price sales and to me that's not a factor that we look at okay we're looking at cash flows so what happens with your that instead of doing it on cash flow I do that's what we do we value businesses sure we're buying the cheapest and you know you brought up the house analogy so you know if you're buying a house it's pretty simple questions they're asking a million dollars your job is to figure out whether it's a good deal or not so one question you might ask is if I rented it out and I could get seven or eighty thousand dollars a year net of my expenses and interest rates or three percent does that sound pretty good how cheap is it relative to similar houses and all houses in all neighborhoods so we look at a company and say how cheap is it relative to companies in the same industry how cheap is it relative to all companies I can choose from how cheap is it relative to how it's been priced over history relative to the market these are measures of absolute relative value that anyone would use to value any earning asset we can't value gold or Bitcoin that way and that's why we pass ok value but earning assets there there's standard ways that everyone would value them and you know if you don't go crazy and you're very disciplined about it there's plenty of opportunities always
Comments 0