Ray Dalio: Investing Through All The Ups & Downs

요약 보기

한 줄 결론: 레이 달리오는 주식·채권 혼합의 한계를 지적하며 레버리지를 활용한 리스크 패리티(위험 균형) 전략으로 상승과 하락을 모두 버틸 수 있는 분산 투자를 강조한다. [리스크 패리티 등장 배경] - 1996년 가족 자산을 운용하며 시장은 제로섬이고 자산배분 구조가 핵심이라는 것을 깨달았다고 회상. - 전통적 주식 50%·채권 50% 배분은 주식의 변동성이 채권의 약 2배라 자산 위험이 주식에 쏠린다고 지적. [레버리지를 통한 분산 방법] - 위험을 균등하게 맞추기 위해 채권을 더 사야 하는데, 이는 저수익 자산 비중을 늘려 수익률을 희석시킨다는 문제가 있다. - 대신 채권에 레버리지를 걸어 변동성을 주식과 비슷하게 맞추면 수익률을 낮추지 않고 분산이 가능하다고 주장. - 위험·수익 관계상 변동성이 큰 자산은 장기적으로 높은 수익을 내는 경향이 구조적으로 존재한다고 설명. [상관관계와 충격 분석] - 레버리지 채권과 비레버리지 주식의 상관관계가 높아지면 두 자산이 함께 하락할 수 있다. - 완전 상관(100%)을 가정하면 포트폴리오 변동성은 주식 변동성과 같아진다고 계산. - 실제로는 상관관계가 100%가 아니므로 수익을 희생하지 않고 분산 효과를 얻을 수 있다고 봄. [포트폴리오 관점] - 주식 집중, 채권 집중 모두 바람직하지 않으며 균형 잡힌 분산 포트폴리오가 가장 중요하다는 입장. - 특정 기간의 시장 결과를 예측하기보다 어떤 환경에서도 버틸 수 있는 구조를 설계하는 것을 강조. [출연자 전망] - 특정 종목·지수의 단기 가격 방향에 대한 구체적 예측은 없음. 장기적 구조와 원칙 중심의 설명.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. this is where I want to get the risk parity in and not about the current situation but how you develop the theory it comes out of this idea that everything happens over and over again you want it as I understand it a way to invest that would enable you to sail through all the various ups and downs what happened in 1996 it got you to hit his introduction what was that moment where you decided to take a bet on the ballast that is risperidone earned enough money that I was putting together a trust from my family and I realized now I know that making money in the market zero-sum and the asset allocation mix is the important thing and I knew something about how markets work and the problem of most markets is that you can't achieve balance like if you have a stock bond mix you know you want to diversify and you buy stocks 50/50 of your money 50% in stocks 50% in your and in bonds the problem with that is you're dominated by equities because it has twice the volatility so I need more more volatility in order to create a balance because I want a Betty Quilly on two things the thing about it also is that in the traditional way then you have to buy more bonds and as you're buying more bonds you're buying a lower returning asset class and as that lower returning asset class even buy more you dilute your return and you're not getting much so in order to have an equal amount on each one of those things I have to have an equal amount of risk and because there's a if you look at risk return through time those that have riskier asset more volatile asset tend to have a higher return and they have a higher risk and that's structural because they have a longer duration and also because assets are leveraged themselves equities or leverage the average S&P 500 company has a debt equity ratio of 1 to 1 it has embedded leverage so the idea of taking a bond and changing its complexion of its return by borrowing cash and having buying let's take two bonds for the one bond is going to produce a return stream that gives me about the same amount of can both agree who assets and it also raised the return because the return of cash is lower than the return of bonds over that period of time and so that meant that I can create diversification because the most important thing is how did he create diversification without lowering your return and so that was a mana I don't know in any ten-year period or in any period what's going to be good enough and not good and I've watched this what is all I needed valve what's a Ray Dalio when you're leveraged bond portfolio and your unleveraged equity portfolio correlate and stock prices go down and bond prices go down together what is the shock analysis that you see within risk well as you'd imagine it what it would be is would be equal to if you own stocks if you had a hundred percent correlation agreed between these two assets in other words now I've written I've made it more leveraged so it has the same volatility the same risk and they were 100% correlated then the mathematical answer is it will equal the volatility of stocks so that's what it would equal but the fact is if it's not a hundred percent correlated we can get into what drives correlation what's going to that did you but what it means is that you're going to have as a result you're going to have diversification without lowering your returns comparable volatility now if I apply that to different asset classes so I can get diversification then I can have a different well divert the most important thing is to have well diversified portfolio like I look today and I say I would be terrified to own any other portfolio and the reason I'd be terrified to own any other portfolio what am I going home am I going to own stocks I'm going to be concentrated in stocks am I going to be concentrated in in bonds I don't want be concentrated in bonds I don't want the concentration