저자: StanleyDruckenmiller · 외국인
요약 보기
첫 줄 결론: 드러켄밀러는 분산보다 확신 있는 소수 집중 베팅과 빠른 판단 수정을 강조하며, 시장 예측 대상 자산에 대한 구체적 가격 전망은 없다. 커리어 배경: 피츠버그 내셔널 뱅크에서 60억 달러 운용 중 석유·방산주에 집중 투자해 성과를 냈고, 이후 뉴욕에서 Duquesne Capital을 90만 달러로 창업했다. 초기 고객의 사기 사건 이후 운용자산은 700만 달러 규모까지 성장했다고 설명했다. 투자 철학: 리스크 관리는 '한 바구니에 달걀을 모으고 그 바구니를 집중 관찰하는 것'이라고 본다. 분산투자와 위험조정수익률 개념은 비판적으로 언급했다. 상품·통화·채권·주식 등 자산군을 넘나들며, 좋은 아이디어가 없으면 해당 자산을 보유하지 않는 것도 전략이라고 말했다. 시장 관점: 현재 가격은 이미 현재 상황을 반영하므로, 18~24개월 뒤 세상과 그때의 증권 가격을 떠올려야 한다고 강조했다. 기업의 과거 실적보다 시장이 기대하는 미래 실적과 그것이 통념과 다를 때 돈을 번다고 주장했다. 대가 사례: 워런 버핏, 칼 아이칸, 조지 소로스 모두 소수 집중 베팅을 한다고 언급했다. 아이칸의 애플 50억 달러 투자와 소로스와의 영국 파운드 공매도 일화를 소개했다. 리스크 원칙: 큰 포지션일수록 객관성을 유지하고, 사실이 바뀌면 즉시 포지션을 정리해야 한다. 틀렸을 때 물타기로 버티는 것은 금물이라고 강조했다. 직업관: 돈이 아니라 열정으로 일해야 하며, 장시간 노력을 감당하려면 재미를 느껴야 한다고 조언했다. 젊은이에게는 여러 분야를 시도해 보라고 권했다. 구체적 종목·지수·금리·환율에 대한 1~3개월 방향 예측은 발언에 없다.
다듬은 글
I grew up in a small town, three small towns in South Jersey till I was nine and then I moved to Richmond, Virginia when I was nine. I was there till I was 18. And and what did you study in college and what were your early career aspirations? You didn't always want to be an investor. Uh I was uh an English major my first two years and uh I wanted to be an English professor.
My s- first semester of my junior I took a course in economics so I could read the newspaper cuz I wasn't very good at it even though I was supposedly an English major. And uh fell in love with the subject and crammed an economics major in. I think I took 18 out of my last 21 courses were economic courses, something absurd like that.
And then I wanted to be an economics professor. So I wanted to be I wanted to teach. I love teaching. How old were you when you started your first fund and and how much did you raise? Well, I was 28 years old. I was I would when I was 27 I was director of investments for Pittsburgh National Bank. I was running $6 billion.
And I was doing a pretty good job because the show I ran went under and I had no experience whatsoever so I said this is easy. Let's put all our money in oil stocks and defense stocks. If I had been a little older, a little wiser, I would have diversified. It went up a lot so everybody thought I was a genius.
I wasn't a genius. I just didn't know any better. Um so I go to this dinner in New York. I'm making $43,000 a year and I give a presentation on the gold and the guy says "You don't sound like you're from a bank. Why don't you Why don't you start a firm?" And I said with what? I'm worth about four grand.
And and he says uh "Well, I'll pay you $10,000 a month to talk to you." So I started Duquesne Capital and he said you can raise money. Well, I'm such a good salesman after a year and a half I'd raised $900,000. So that's what I started with, $900,000. Two years later the guy that paid me $10,000 a month to talk to me I woke up one morning and he was going to jail.
Um he had some scheme and it cost Chase Bank $256 million. By then I was up to a grand total of $7 million with a 1% fee. For those of you who went to the wrong school, I know all you USC people can do the math. I had $70,000 a year in revenues and my overhead was 160 and I was in deep you know what.
Talk about your investment philosophy and why you know, you got those types of results. How did you do it? Well, my idea of risk control is a little non-conventional. I like putting all my eggs in one basket and then watching the basket very carefully. But what at most business schools they teach I think a lot of nonsense called risk-adjusted return and diversification.
Ouch. It as a money manager if if you look at a normal portfolio, most people will make 70-80% of money that year on two or three ideas even though they'll have 30 or 40 things in their portfolio. My concept was to put into those two or three ideas that I had the most conviction in. I was also lucky to travel across asset classes.
So I traded commodities, currencies, bonds and equities and it gave me the discipline if I didn't have a good idea in equities, I was happy to have no equities. Or the same thing with bonds. So when you have a quiver with a bunch of arrows in it, you can usually find something to put a lot of money into.
The only other thing I'd say is too many investors look at the present. The present is always is already in the price. You have to think out of the box and sort of visualize 18 to 24 months from now what the world is going to be and what securities might trade at. You know, what a company's been earning is ridic- it doesn't mean anything.
What you have to look at is what people think what a company's earning, what people think it's going to earn and if you can see something two years is going to be entirely different than the conventional wisdom, that's how you make money. My first boss used to say the obvious is obviously wrong. If you invest in conventional wisdom, you're going to lose your butt.
So when I've looked at all the investors of very large reputations um Warren Buffett Carl Icahn George Soros they all only have one thing in common and it's exact opposite of what they teach in a business school. It's they make large concentrated bets where they have a lot of conviction. They're not buying 35 or 40 names and diversifying.
I don't know whether you remember uh Icahn a few years ago put $5 billion into Apple. And I don't think he was worth more than 10 billion when he did that. When I went in to tell Soros that I was going to short 100% of the fund in the British pound against the Deutsche Mark he looked at me with great disdain because he thought the story was good enough that I should be doing 200%.
So A, they concentrate their holdings. B concentration, this is very counterintuitive. It really gets you in tension b- in my in my thinking decreases your overall risk. Because where you tend to be in trouble is if you have 35 or 40 names and you stop paying attention to one. If you have big massive positions um it has your attention.
If you're going to bet big you have to be ruthlessly objective about your position. I've put on positions I was 100% sure I'd have for two or three years and 10 days later in my opinion the facts changed and I'm out of them but if you're going to go the route of making concentrated bets, you also have to go the route of being completely open-minded.
Um when the facts change being wrong, you can't sit down and there and double down if things don't start to work out. The people that love it like me are so addicted to it and so intellectually stimulated by it. If you're not and you're in for the money you have no chance competing with these people.
They're going to outwork you, they're going to outexecute you. So and I think it's probably true of a lot of professions but let's not forget if you're American, you're probably going to spend 60-70 hours a week minimum working. If you're in your job for the money and not because you love it you just blew 70 hours a week on the happen- on the happiness quotient.
That's pretty rough. Right. I would tell a 20-year-old follow your passion. I was just lucky. I followed my passion. My mother-in-law says I'm an idiot savant and I wouldn't be good at anything else but I would do this for $50,000 a year. I really would. I just I just love it. And I hate to see young people get trapped in something and I would also say keep an open mind.
I started uh at Bowdoin as an English major. I took economics just so I could read the paper intelligently. I went to get a PhD in economics and I went there and I said "These people are crazy. They're trying to shove the economy into a math formula. It doesn't make any sense." Then I went to I worked construction for six months.
I got kind of a weak upper body so that didn't work for me. Then I went to uh the bank and I found out what I was just in love with. And so try stuff out and if you're not really really engaged during the day and you're not happy uh move on to something else cuz there's there's something out there for everybody.
But I would not let money be the driver of the equation. That can lead to a lot of not maximizing what I call the happiness quotient.
Comments 0