저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 배당 재투자(고배당 종목 배당금 재매수)가 장기 수익에 가장 효과적인 전략이라는 책 내용 소개 영상이다. [책·데이터 소개] 제러미 시겔의 '주식투자의 미래'를 소개. 1957년 이후 수익률 최상위 종목으로 필립모리스(담배)가 언급되며, 연평균 수익률 19.75% vs S&P500 10.85%로 비교된다. [고배당 vs 저배당] S&P500을 그룹별로 나누었을 때 고배당 그룹 수익률이 약 두 배로 나타나고, 고·저배당 그룹 간 차이는 3.5%이며 상위 개별 종목은 모두 고배당주라는 주장. [시대별 선도기업] IBM, DEC, 델 등 당시 선도기업은 수익률 상위에 없었고, 성장주가 시장 평균을 넘은 사례도 드물다는 점을 강조. [업종] 필수소비재(필립모리스, 코카콜라), 헬스케어(화이자, 머크) 등 성숙 업종의 고배당·안정 성장이 높은 수익을 냈다고 설명. 다만 모두가 같은 전략을 쓰면 효과가 줄 수 있다는 한계도 언급. [리스크] 담배 업종의 소송·규제 리스크, 이익률은 높으나 사회적 평판 문제 언급. 하락장에서 고배당이 완충 역할을 한다는 주장. [포트폴리오] 핵심은 국제 분산투자로, 인덱스펀드 약 절반 배분을 권장. 배당금을 쓰지 않고 재투자하는 것이 수익의 대부분(약 97%)을 만든다는 데이터 제시. [배당 vs 자사주 매입] 배당은 확실한 환원, 자사주 매입은 불확실하지만 세금 측면 유리. 버핏 방식 언급. 최종 결론: 고배당주만 사는 것보다 오래 지속될 기업에 투자하라는 메시지.
다듬은 글
Apparently, the number one desired profession among kids is YouTuber. I'm sure it's because it's an easy way to make money. I also want to make money easily, which means I'm a kid. I've made a mistake with the same name, but actually, I think dividends are easier. You need money though. So everyone, let's make dividends our future dream.
Be a mammal that dreams. Now that we've just talked about dividends, I'll explain Professor C's red book. What is it? After investigating for over 10 years, Index Dojo has dispatched a mode element. In short, dividend reinvestment is the strongest. I see. If you watch this video you will understand.
You will learn an efficient way to manage your assets to make money. So let's go. I previously released a video on asset management using index funds, but dividend reinvestment may be an investment method that yields a higher return. Is that so? Based on past data, it seems so. Professor Himebell has been working hard on various things and has researched the stock with the highest return since 1957.
As a result, this company was at the top. What company is it? It's pronounced Philip Morris. It's a tobacco manufacturer famous for its many products. What about overseas lesbians? That's right, there's nothing that makes people more uncomfortable than cigarettes. Dees, it's fine, it smells bad and smoky, and anyone who says it's okay to smoke a cigarette while a girl is eating has questionable common sense.
Stop reacting as if refusing here is the one who lacks common sense, no matter how you look at it, the performers are the ones who are strange. It's totally self-acted, so it's fine. I love it now, he's a scumbag who succumbed to the power of the ship, if you're offered enough money, you'll be better off in life if you just change your mind.
Look at this, the average annual return of 19.75% is significantly outperforming the S&P 500's 10.85%. Is 9.75% really that amazing? The average lifetime return of Warren Buffett, the world's greatest investor, is about that much. The S&P 500's 10.85% is also quite amazing, but wait a minute, Philip Morris was just lucky, so we can't conclude that high-dividend stocks are the longest-lasting, so look at this chart, the S&P 500 divided into small groups around each side.
The trend of high-dividend stocks having twice the return is clear. There is a 3.5% difference between the high-dividend and low-dividend groups, and the top individual stocks are all high-dividend stocks. Come to think of it, IBM isn't there, is it? It used to be the ace of the leading industries. That's a sharp observation, as if you're reading from a script.
That's right, leading companies of that time such as IBM, GHp, and Dell are not at the top in terms of stock returns. Rather, there are no so-called growth stocks among the individual stocks that have outperformed the market average. It's a strange story. Conversely, tobacco manufacturers, during the development of the computer and IT industries, have been in a hell of lawsuits and have paid huge compensation payments.
ANA's $140 million is a good thing. Moreover, in the US, the number of performers has been declining since its peak in 1963. It's amazing that it has survived. The spot also shows that profitable companies and cutting-edge companies that attract attention are not necessarily the best investments. In this way, the best is when something that wasn't expected to be good is good, and the worst is when something that was expected to be good is garbage.
IBM This is pattern 1, Philip Morris is pattern 4. By the way, there are tons of pattern 3 stocks, like this famous one. Recently, Professor Cameron Hideki has stated that variance is what determines investment performance. High-dividend stocks have a high yield that acts as a protector even in a declining market, and the stock price recovers quickly.
Also, the accumulation of stocks in the middle acts as an accelerator in a rising market. Speaking of which, what about outside of the US? For example, is the idea the same in Japan? That's right, it seems that the same trend can be seen in 16 countries around the world. I see, so should I use tobacco too?
Where should we invest from now on? Let's discuss that. Huh? Actually, there is a bias in the performance of each sector. To put it simply, these three sectors are strong. Not finance or the ed sector. For consumer staples, there are Philip Morris and Coca-Cola. For healthcare, there are Pfizer and Merck.
All three sectors are mature markets, so the growth rate is low. However, they have big brands. Because their performance is stable, they have the capacity to pay dividends and have continued to increase dividends consecutively. These unassuming stocks have produced high returns. So, buying stocks in these three sectors isn't a bad idea, is it?
But will it continue to work out the same way in the future? If everyone goes for the same thing, won't value stocks disappear? I see, fewer people than you'd think that it won't rise as much as expected, so if it doesn't fall as much as expected, and the yield is smaller than expected, and the return is lower than expected, it's a bit of a problem.
There are two explanations for this. Tobacco is uncool, tobacco smells bad, tobacco is a thing of the past, isn't it? But this company's profit margin is over 40%, it 's as high as Apple's, higher than Google and Microsoft's profit margin, it's still very strong. Even in a declining market like this, it does get stronger, doesn't it?
It does. Even if the total return is said to be 19.75%, even if you know that return will continue in the future, most people can't continue because the immediate losses are too strong. Everyone is pretty stupid. It's in third place, so it's understandable that it will be difficult to produce results from now on, but it will also be difficult to deny its advantage.
I see, that's the logic I came up with. Was this your argument? Is home building useful? I've given it as an example. Seimen-gayu. I haven't delved into individual stocks, have I? The reasoning is that the legs are just a thinner version of a similar logic. You can skip that part. Now, the professor also talks about portfolios in this book.
He says that the core should be international diversification. It's not just high-dividend stocks. Yes, in addition to the high-dividend reinvestment I introduced today, he says that you should diversify your investments with an allocation of about half and half using index funds internationally. Speaking of which, I've been wondering about this for a while, but what is the relationship between high-dividend reinvestment and other investments?
Hmm, you've noticed something good. Dividends are meaningless if you spend them. Hmm, if you spend your dividends, you will underperform the market average. That's right, you want to spend them since you've received them, but the premise of this investment is that even if you receive dividends, you will use them to buy the same stocks again.
Then the amount invested in dividends will be used to buy more dividends. You will also enjoy capital gains. As a result, there is data that 97% of investment returns come from dividends. Do n't give in to materialism. It was like a hermit back then. But you said it was a reward for yourself the other day.
Anyway, it is wise to start asset management with the amount excluding living expenses. Please never again act so superior and give me any leeway. The reason why the premise of reinvesting dividends was made in the first place is because dividends are the same as withdrawing money from a bank account.
Yes, dividends are one way of returning the profits earned by the company to shareholders. However, since shareholders are owners, even if they are not returned as dividends, the profits belong to the shareholders in the first place. On the other hand, if the profits are used for business investment, the company will grow, the stock price will rise and increase in value, and then it can be returned to the shareholders.
I see, in order to make that condition a reality, the money that was withdrawn has to be returned. Incidentally, to explain, share buybacks are more advantageous from a tax perspective than dividends because there is no dividend tax. This is a shareholder return measure recommended by Mr. Buffett. If the world's number one investor says so, then share buybacks must be better, right?
Well, in reality, the number of companies paying dividends in the US has decreased recently, but past data shows that even considering taxes, the returns were high. Also, the fundamental thinking of Berkshire Hathaway, which is run by Mr. Buffett, is the same. Dividends are a safe and certain way of returning profits, while share buybacks are uncertain but economically rational.
Is that the right understanding? It says it's recommended by Warren Buffett, so let's summarize what we've discussed so far. In short, it seems that dividend reinvestment is the best strategy. The conclusion is often quoted without context, which can be misleading, but you should invest in companies that will last, not just buy high-dividend stocks. I think that's the gist of it. That's all for today. Thank you for watching.
Comments 0