저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 현금은 장기적으로 가장 나쁜 투자이므로 저축은 여러 국가·자산군에 분산해 굴리고, 투자 판단은 대중 심리와 반대로 하라는 조언이다. 저축과 예산: 매달 지출과 저축액을 비교해 저축이 몇 달치 생활비인지 계산해야 하며, 저축은 자유와 안정을 준다. 현금의 한계: 인플레이션율에서 세후 수익률을 뺀 실질 손실이 연 2%p 정도 발생할 수 있어 현금은 장기적으로 가장 위험한 선택이다. 분산투자: 어떤 자산 하나는 생애 중 반드시 큰 손실(저축의 절반 수준)을 겪으므로 국가와 자산군을 나눠 분산해야 한다. 부채: 부채가 저축을 강제하거나 소득을 만드는 자산이라면 활용할 수 있으나, 소비를 위한 부채는 피해야 한다. 부채 상환 능력은 자산 수익이 이자를 넘는지로 판단한다. 역발상 투자: 시장은 대중을 반영하므로 모두가 살 때 팔고 모두가 팔 때 사야 하며, 감정적으로 불편한 방향이 옳을 때가 많다. 다만 시장 타이밍 예측은 하지 말라고 경고한다. 연금과 의료 부채: 연금·건강보험 부채도 실질적 부채이며 현금 조달이 필요하다. 다음 경기침체 때 재원 부족에 따른 정치적 갈등과 세대 간 부담이 커질 수 있다. 불평등과 사회 문제: 하위 60% 인구가 자본주의와 민주주의의 혜택을 충분히 받지 못하고 있다. 코네티컷 고교생 22%가 학교에 적응하지 못하는 실태, 교재·연필 부족, 오피오이드 중독과 자살 증가를 국가적 위기로 봐야 한다. 해결책: 복지 지원보다 공공·민간 협력의 마이크로파이낸스 등으로 사람들을 생산적으로 만드는 방식이 필요하다. 그렇지 않으면 자본주의와 민주주의가 위협받으며, 빈부 갈등이 경제 침체 시 특히 격화될 위험이 있다.
다듬은 글
Well, I want to talk about my generation, the millennials. We actually grew up during the crisis. So, how would you advise us to prepare, and perhaps what would you say to our generation? We feel the trauma of that crisis. Yes. First of all, I think one of the problems is that your last experience is what's going to stick in your memory, and it's not going to be the one that's going to catch you off guard.
Therefore, the next experience will be completely, completely different. I know my parents went through the Great Depression and then missed the economic boom because they were constantly thinking about it . So I think they need to see all these crises. That's why you can see inflationary crises and others, and when you get that perspective, I would tell your generation three things.
Okay, three recommendations. The first recommendation is to think about your savings and how much money you should set aside. The best way to think about this is to estimate how much money I spend each month and how much I have saved to figure out how many months will this amount last me? And appreciate the savings, right?
And calculate them, because savings are freedom and security . and think about what that means. So, that's the first thing: how much do I have for this? The second thing is—how do I save money? So , what should I invest my savings in? And when considering where to invest your savings, realize that the lowest-risk investment, which you consider safe because of its low volatility —cash—is the worst investment over the long term .
And you can judge this by estimating the inflation rate relative to the after- tax income you're going to receive. So if the inflation rate is two or three percent, you earn 1 percent, and you have to pay taxes on that 1 percent or 2 percent that you earn, you're effectively losing 2 percent a year, and that becomes a problem.
So you need to move to assets that are...to other assets that will perform better over a period of time. And when you do that, the most important thing I can tell you is to diversify your assets well, because I guarantee that one of them—and you can't guess which one—will be a disaster in your lifetime.
You will lose half of your savings if you choose the wrong asset, and you won't know which one is right. So choose different countries, choose different asset classes. And I could spend too much time explaining exactly how to do that. But that will be the second thing to learn. The first thing is to think about how to save.
Be careful with debts. When you think about debt, think about whether this debt will help my savings or will it generate income? Sometimes debt, such as buying a house, apartment, or asset, creates forced savings. Forced savings are good. Or if you take on debt and think: will I turn this debt into an asset?
This asset must generate more income than the cost of servicing your debt. If you use debt for consumption, it's not a good thing. Understand ? You lose that same security. So, first, think about how much you are saving and whether and how you should borrow. Second, make sure you're thinking about diversifying this , not cash.
And third, do the opposite of what your instincts tell you to do if you're going to play this game. It should be the opposite of what your instincts and the crowd say, because the market reflects the crowd. So you have to buy when no one wants to buy and sell when no one wants to sell. Yes. That's right.
And it's emotionally difficult. You probably won't be able to play this game well because it requires huge resources; we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year trying to play it effectively. This is a challenging game for mastery. So I would caution you against trying to guess market timing.
But I will say: if you are going to do it, do it in ways that make you uncomfortable, because they go against your instincts. That's really great advice, Ray. Another thing that really resonated with me in the book: If the next recession impacts pension and healthcare obligations, will my generation be responsible for that ?
Yes. So, we pay a lot of attention to debt, and rightly so, but retirement and healthcare obligations—that's the same thing as debt. These are liabilities that require cash to finance themselves. And when you think about it, you realize that we don't have enough money to fund these things. So there will be some pressure.
And I think that's also part of the political conflict, because when you tell someone that you can't pay their pension in full, or how are you going to finance it? Who are you going to take the funds from to finance this? Or if you think about healthcare issues and demographics, do they require taking away from people what was promised to them, or maybe you just print money?
These are questions that will be important to your generation. And you know, you are not only an incredible financial manager, but also a great philanthropist . And when you talk about the next recession, you also raise important social issues, like wealth inequality. What do you think about this? How do we solve this problem?
Because it looks like this will be a very big problem. Yes. I think, uh, capitalism should work for all people, and democracy should work for everyone. And now we find ourselves in a situation where, due to many factors, it doesn't work for a significant portion of the bottom 60% of the population. I divided the averages into the bottom 60% and the top 40%.
I could take 80% or even 95%. And it doesn't work for a large portion of the population. We don't have proper education. In many cases, we don't create a foundation . My wife works in Connecticut, trying to help so-called disoriented and disconnected youth. Let me paint a picture. In Connecticut, which is the wealthiest state in the country or ranks as the wealthiest, 22% of high school students are disoriented or disengaged .
Disoriented means they are attending school but not actually learning. They just somehow " float out". And detached means they don't even know where they are. 22%. Now these students, these people, will find themselves on the streets. This is a problem. There are school districts in which children are required to share textbooks, and in some cases even pencils.
They literally break the pencil in half, sharpen it on both ends, or pass it to each other, and so on. And, uh, these, these are issues of educational opportunity or even income, um, there's a portion of the population, um, that's in the bottom 60% where opiate use is increasing and, um, suicide is increasing, which I think should be considered, uh, a national emergency for which we need to create metrics, identify these conditions, and somehow deal with that.
I think these things can be handled much, much better, uh, but you have to approach it in a way that solves the problem, and that's possible by making them productive. I don't mean handing out money or, say, social assistance, but doing certain things, probably in a public-private partnership format, where the private sector, that is, business, together with the public sector, can, uh, can provide checks and balances to make these things productive.
I see many such cases. I fund, for example, uh, microfinance, Grameen America is one example, but there are many, and, uh, the ability to lend someone $1,000 and, uh , get it back, not 99%, but 98% return, um, and, uh, that $1,000, uh, can help buy carpet cleaning equipment, and that person can go into business and be productive.
You have to think about these things because if capitalism doesn't work for the majority of people, it will be in danger, and the same goes for democracy— democracy is based on the idea of compromise, to be able to unite people, etc. I think if we have too much fragmentation, that's what I think are the biggest risks .
I think debt crises can be controlled. But when you get into bad situations, uh, as a basic principle, if you have rich and poor living together and they have to decide how to spend the budget, how to divide the pie, and then there's an economic downturn, you're likely to have conflict. And I think we need to work on this.
댓글 0