저자: WarrenBuffett/진행:TheLong-TermInvestor채널 · 외국인
요약 보기
첫째, 변동성은 위험과 같지 않다는 것이 핵심 결론이다. 변동성(베타)은 수학적으로는 정교하지만 투자 위험을 잘못 측정한다. 과거 변동성이 투자 위험을 결정하지는 않는다. 농지 사례처럼 가격이 떨어져 베타가 커졌다고 해서 더 위험해지는 것이 아니라는 설명이 제시된다. 진짜 위험은 사업 자체에서 나온다. 과도한 부채 같은 자본구조 위험, 막대한 선투자가 필요한 사업 특성, 저비용 생산자가 없는 상품형 사업(예: 섬유)의 위험이 있다. 사업을 이해하고, 거래 상대를 알고, 적정 가격에 사면 실질적 위험은 낮다. 주식시장 가격 변동은 투자자를 섬기는 것이지 지시하는 것이 아니다. 변동성이 클수록 시장의 가격 오류가 늘어 장기 투자자에게 유리하다. 'Mr. Market' 비유가 제시된다. 금융학과 교수들은 변동성을 위험과 동일시하지만 위험을 측정할 다른 방법을 모르는 것이다. 워싱턴포스트 사례에서 주가가 급락해 베타가 올라가자 교수들은 오히려 더 위험하다고 말할 것이라는 모순이 지적된다. 대상 자산(삼성전자, 비트코인, 금, 엔비디아 등) 관련 향후 1~3개월 가격 방향 예측 발언은 없다. 이 영상은 개별 종목·지수에 대한 단기 가격 전망을 담지 않는다. 출연자 전망: 장기적으로 사업 기반 투자를 강조하며 단기 시장 변동성을 기회로 본다.
다듬은 글
Yes, volatility does not measure risk. The trouble is, the people who wrote and taught about volatility didn't know how to measure risk. Beta is a measure of volatility that is mathematically sound but inaccurate in measuring risk . This is only a measure of volatility, but past volatility does not determine the risk of an investment.
To understand what I mean , take agricultural land as an example. In the 1980s or early 1980s, farms that were selling for $2,000 an acre fell to $600. I bought one of them when the banking and agricultural sectors collapsed, and then the beta of the farms increased dramatically. According to common economic theory and market theory, this means that I am buying a much riskier asset at $600 than I was when it was $2,000 an acre .
Since farmland doesn't sell often and prices are n't recorded , people would consider it absurd to say that it's risky for me to buy the same piece of land for $600 that sold for $2,000 a few years ago . But in the case of stocks, prices change every minute, and that allows finance teachers to use the math they've learned, so they explain it technically, but they translate volatility into a variety of risk metrics.
And that is completely irrelevant. Risk comes from the nature of certain types of businesses. Being in some businesses can be risky due to the general financial state of the business you do . And not knowing what you're doing also brings danger. If you understand the financials of the business you are engaged in , if you know who you are doing business with, and if you know the price you are paying is right , you will not be at any real risk.
But Charlie and I think definitely Berkshire, I don't think we've ever had this happen. Permanent damage . In marketable securities , it would be 1% or maybe half a percent of net worth . I made a big mistake in buying Dexter Shoe Company , which cost significantly more than 1% of our net worth , then I bought the entire business but I made the wrong decision in that business .
This has nothing to do with the volatility of shoe prices or leather prices or anything else , I just made a mistake . That , but when it comes to marketable securities , I don't remember a time when we lost money, even though we did a lot of things in very high beta securities . We have also done a lot of work in low-beta securities.
It is strange that the concept of volatility has developed as a measure of risk. This really happened before my eyes . This is very useful for those who want a career in teaching , but we never found a way to use it for ourselves. Charlie. Well, we would argue that at least 50% of the corporate finance and investment management courses taught at major universities are useless stuff.
Yet these people have very high IQs . One reason we do so well is that we recognize early on that even smart people do very stupid things, and we try to figure out why . Moreover, we also wanted to know who they were so we could know how to avoid them . And we don't take big risks at Berkshire. Now, as I mentioned in the annual report , we are prepared to lose $6 billion in a particular disaster , but our disaster business over many years is not that risky.
That, you know, the roulette wheel occasionally pays 35 to 1 . It seems like you're paying a lot of money compared to betting on one number , but I want to have a lot of roulette wheels . Yes. We think in terms of business risk and nothing else . You know, the key to Graham's investment approach is not to look at stocks as stocks or as part of the stock market.
Stocks are part of a business . The people in this room have some stake in a business . If the business is good, everything is fine for them as long as they don't pay too much to join that business. So we're thinking about business risk . Now business risk can come in different ways . This can come from capital structure when someone takes on excessive debt in a business, so that creditors can seize assets even if there is a minor problem with the business.
This can also come through the nature of the business. Some businesses are very risky . In those days, when commercial aircraft manufacturers were rampant , Charlie and I thought building a large commercial aircraft was a " risk-taking" venture , because it would require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment before customers arrived , and if something went wrong with the aircraft , the company would go under.
Some businesses are inherently very risky due to the time it takes and the heavy capital investment, and if there are no low-cost producers, commodity businesses are also risky because those selling at a low price can drive you out of the market. Our textile business is not one of low-cost production.
We had good management and everyone worked hard. Even though we had cooperatives and all kinds of facilities , we couldn't produce at low cost, so it became a risky business . Those who can sell cheaper than us have made this business dangerous for us . So, there are many ways for businesses to become risky .
We naturally prefer to choose businesses that are low risk, and that low risk translates into low risk for our organization as well. The risk beyond that is that even if you identify such businesses, you end up paying a higher price for them; That risk is usually more of a waste of time than an actual loss , unless you run into very unusual circumstances, then that risk becomes your personal risk .
That is, it is important that you can maintain confidence in the fundamentals of your business and not worry too much about the stock market . The stock market is meant to serve you, not dictate to you, and this is the key to having a good trade and getting rid of the risk inherent in the market . You mentioned volatility .
It doesn't make much difference to us whether stock market volatility averages half a percent or a quarter of a percent or 5 percent per day . In fact, we make even more money if volatility is high , because it creates more mistakes in the market . So volatility is a big positive for a true investor .
Ben Graham used the ' Mr. Market' example , which we also used, and I incorporated it into the report. As Ben says, copying from all the good writers , imagine that when you buy a stock you become a partner in a business where a cooperating partner comes to you every day and offers you the same price to buy or sell .
No one in any private business gets such buy or sell offers on a daily basis. But you get it in the stock market. That is a great advantage. And that's an even bigger advantage if your partner suffers from alcoholism and manic depression. That is, the crazier he is, the more money you make. So as an investor you like volatility.
Not if you're on margin, but if you're an investor , you're not on margin. If you're an investor , you like the idea of this fluctuation because it causes more things to be mispriced . In fact, volatility has decreased in recent years compared to the past. It looks big because people think in terms of Dow points.
They look at big numbers like plus 50 or minus 50 , but many years ago the volatility was much higher than it is now. And that range of fluctuations would have been truly extraordinary , it would have given you more opportunities. Charlie. How it happened is that the concept of risk-adjusted returns was developed in corporate finance departments at universities .
My advice to all of you is to completely ignore this development. The word risk used to have a positive meaning , meaning the possibility of something going horribly wrong. Finance professors have confused volatility with a lot of meaningless math . To me this seems less rational than what we do , I don't think we'll change this.
Yes. Finance departments believe that volatility is risk . Now they want to measure risk , but they don't know any other way. They basically don't know how to do it. That's why they say volatility measures risk, for example, the Washington Post stock fell almost 50% in 1973 when we first bought it. The value of the entire company dropped from about 180 or 175 million to 80 or 90 million .
Because it happened so fast, the beta of that stock actually increased, and a professor would tell you that it was riskier when you bought that company for $ 80 million than when you bought it for $170 million . I've been thinking about this ever since they told me this 25 years ago , but I still do n't understand it. Um,
Comments 0