저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
찰리 멍거의 4단계 투자 체크리스트를 소개하는 교육형 영상으로, 특정 종목의 가격 방향 예측이나 매수·매도 권유는 없다. 1단계: 이해 가능한 사업인가 — 워런 버핏·멍거의 '능력 범위(circle of competence)' 개념을 설명하며, 테드 윌리엄스의 스트라이크존 비유를 들어 이해하는 사업에만 투자하라고 강조한다. 2단계: 지속 가능한 경쟁우위(해자)가 있는가 — 네트워크 효과(유튜브), 저비용 우위(월마트), 브랜드 해자(스타벅스), 특허·지적재산 등 자원 해자(제약사) 네 가지 유형을 사례와 함께 설명한다. 3단계: 경영진이 유능하고 정직한가 — 경영 성과를 업계 경쟁사와 비교하고, 자본배분(재투자·인수합병·배당·자사주 매입)을 평가해야 하며, 비효율적 인수합병이 주주가치를 훼손할 수 있다고 경고한다. 4단계: 가격이 적정한가 — 아무리 좋은 기업도 무한정 가치가 있는 것은 아니므로 본질가치보다 낮게 사서 안전마진을 확보해야 한다고 말한다. 본질가치 계산법은 별도 영상으로 안내한다. 결론적으로 이 체크리스트는 투자 과정 전반에 적용할 수 있는 원칙이며, 영상은 구체적인 자산에 대한 단기·중기 가격 전망을 다루지 않는다. 출연자 및 후원 안내: 진행자는 영상 말미에 패트리온 후원을 요청하며, 자신이 매수·매도하는 종목을 패트리온에 공유한다고 밝힌다.
다듬은 글
I think that the methods I've used, including the checklists, are the correct methods, and I'm grateful I found them as early as I did. The methods have worked as well as they have, and I recommend that other people follow my example. Charlie Munger has quickly become one of my favorite investors to study. In this video we'll look at Munger's four-step investing checklist, which he uses to decide whether to invest in a company or buy a particular stock. Make sure to stick around to the end, because this checklist is something you can apply to your own investment process today to become a better investor.
Let's get into it. First, we have to deal with things we're capable of understanding. Number one: do we understand the business?
Even though this concept sounds simple, it's probably one of the biggest mistakes investors make. In my job as an investment analyst, I even see professional investors who have been investing for decades make this mistake. They invest in stocks they don't fully understand, simply because of FOMO, fear of missing out. In this case it's fear of missing out on strong investment returns.
One of the key takeaways from studying Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger is the concept of the circle of competence. Listen to Buffett talk about it using a baseball analogy. "I don't have to understand all kinds of businesses. There are all kinds of businesses I don't understand, but there are thousands of opportunities there. I did understand Bank of America, and I'm able to understand some given percentage of them."
Ted Williams wrote a book called *The Science of Hitting*. In it, he has a diagram of himself at the plate with the strike zone divided into 77 squares, each the size of a baseball. He says that if he swings only at pitches in his sweet zone, his batting average would be .400. If he had to swing at low outside pitches still in the strike zone, his average would be .230. He said the most important thing in hitting is waiting for the right pitch. He was at a disadvantage, though, because if the count was two-and-one or so on, he had to swing even at a pitch that was low where he only hit about .230.
In investing, there are no called strikes. People can throw Microsoft at me, General Motors, any stock you name, and I don't have to swing. Nobody is going to call me out on called strikes. I only get a strike called if I swing and miss. So I can wait, look at thousands of companies day after day, and only when I see something I understand, at a price I like, do I swing. If I hit it, fine. If I miss, it's a strike, but it's an enormously advantageous game.
Once we get past that filter, we need a business with intrinsic characteristics that give it a durable competitive advantage.
Number two: does the business have a durable competitive advantage? This is what Charlie Munger calls a moat. Simply put, a moat refers to a business's ability to maintain competitive advantages that protect its long-term profits and market share from competitors. The terms "competitive advantage" and "moat" get thrown around a lot in investing, so I want to make them more tangible. Over my investing career I've identified four types of moats, and I'll give examples of each.
The first type is network effects: a phenomenon where a product or service gains value as more people use it. This is especially pronounced in technology companies. A perfect example is right here on YouTube. As more viewers join the platform, creators benefit from more views and more advertising revenue, which incentivizes them to keep making videos. As more viewers means more money for creators, more people are motivated to start making their own videos. As more videos are made across a wide range of topics, the platform becomes even more valuable to viewers, attracting even more new viewers and leading existing viewers to spend more time on it. In summary: more viewers lead to more creators, more creators lead to more viewers, and those additional viewers lead to even more creators. That's a network effect at work.
The next type is the low-cost advantage: a company can produce its products or offer its services more cheaply than its competitors and can therefore sell to customers at a lower price. Walmart is a perfect example. Walmart's large size gives it the power to negotiate lower prices with suppliers. With 10,500 stores spread across the world, it can charge less than the local corner grocery with one location. Because Walmart buys products more cheaply than smaller competitors, it can charge customers less and still make a profit. If smaller competitors tried to match Walmart's low prices, they would likely start losing money without that low-cost advantage.
The third type is what I call a brand moat: a company has such a strong brand that customers will pay a premium price. Starbucks is a good example. Over the years it has built a brand that lets it charge five dollars for a cup of coffee that a customer could make at home for 20 cents or buy at a convenience store for a couple of dollars at most. Through brilliant advertising and brand building, Starbucks has turned its coffee into a status symbol that millions of people will pay a premium for.
The fourth type is what I call a resource moat. By resources I mean things like patents, technology, or other intellectual property that give a company an advantage over competitors. Pharmaceutical companies come to mind right away. When a drug company develops a medicine proven to be effective, it receives a patent, meaning it is the only company legally allowed to produce that medicine. You can quickly see how a patent and the exclusive right to produce a medicine protects a company from competitors.
And of course, we would vastly prefer management with a lot of integrity and talent in place.
Number three: is the company's management talented and of the highest integrity? The quality of management, meaning the CEO, the rest of the executives, and the board of directors, is critical to the long-term success of the business, and therefore helps determine your investment returns. Charlie Munger and his partner Warren Buffett have a saying: "We try to invest in businesses so wonderful that an idiot can run them, because sooner or later one will." Still, they consider it a big positive when a company they're looking at has a great management team.
In previous interviews, Munger has said you should evaluate management on two criteria. First, how well they run the business. You can learn a lot by seeing what they've accomplished compared with their competitors in the same industry, and how the company's status and competitive position changed after the manager first took the leadership role. Second, capital allocation. This is frequently overlooked by both new and experienced investors, but it matters a ton if you plan to hold the stock for the long term.
Capital allocation is simply what a company does with the cash it generates from profits. The management team has a few choices. They can reinvest the cash in the business to grow, use it to buy another company, or return it to shareholders through dividends and/or share buybacks. This is one of the biggest areas where management teams can mess up and hurt the stock's value. Acquisitions are one area to watch closely. Companies can spend billions on acquisitions that don't work out, because the company they bought isn't good or because management simply paid too much. Say a CEO spends one billion dollars acquiring a smaller company, and that company fails and has to shut down over the next few years. That billion dollars was wasted for you as a shareholder. It would have been much better paid to you as a dividend than spent on that acquisition.
Finally, no matter how wonderful a company is, it's not worth an infinite price. So we need a price that makes sense and gives a margin of safety, given life's natural vicissitudes.
Number four: is the price fair? No matter how great or amazing a company is, it isn't worth an infinite amount. Charlie Munger built a career and a name by buying stocks below their true value, or in other words, their intrinsic value. Think of it this way: you want to buy a stock for seventy dollars a share when its true value is one hundred dollars a share. That thirty-dollar difference between the true value and what you paid is called the margin of safety. It protects you from losing money if your estimate of the company's intrinsic value turns out to be wrong.
How intrinsic value is calculated deserves its own video, so if you're interested, check out the video I made on calculating intrinsic value.
These are very simple ideas, and the reason they haven't spread faster is that they're too simple. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel on Patreon (link in the description). That's where I post which stocks I'm buying and selling, and where I share all the tools and resources I use in my own portfolio. All proceeds go toward hiring and fairly paying editors to raise the quality of the channel and give you more value as a viewer. Talk to you soon.
Comments 0