원문 보기
today I'm the bottom line Ray Dalio says everyone should be holding gold the Trump trade appears to be back on plus Chicago economist Luigi Zingales explains what Milton Friedman got lost hello welcome to the bottom line presented by fidelity investments I'm Sarah silverstein at the Nasdaq market site in Times Square last week business ins at our CEO Henry Blodgett sat down with Ray Dalio the head of the biggest hedge fund in the world Bridgewater associates here's what Dalio had to say about the only way to be successful in the markets you recommend that most portfolios should contain some gold Wow of course why a lot of people think it's not of course in fact it doesn't make sense well first of all to structure a portfolio the best way to structure a portfolio is is to have the right kind of balance in your portfolio so and some amount of gold gold service of purpose it is first of all a diversifier against other assets you know we have this risk-on risk-off thing we have we also have a monetary system we have a Brentwood's monetary system began after World War two and it had the dollar as the world's reserve currency there's a risk there there's a lot of dollar denominated debt and so on if somebody did felt that they didn't want to hold that and so on you could have exposures to that so it's a diversifying asset in that is sensible and and you know that's the main reason to have gold in the portfolio five to ten percent people I don't understand it people will have more in terms of cash or though I'd want the key in to in terms of being able to have a successful portfolio as your core portfolio in other words what's your strategic asset allocation mix what is your if your I got it let me ask you about Bitcoin okay Bitcoin people say the same thing it's a store of value you've got to have diversified the dollars not safe it's been going up and up and up yet recently crashed Jamie Dimon came out it's complete fraud he'd fire anybody at JPMorgan who invested in it because he wouldn't want people that's stupid working for him what do you think there are two purposes of a currency is it a medium of exchange and is it a store hold of wealth those are the basic ingredients bitcoin is not an effective medium exchange by and large and if I coach I have a Bitcoin I want to go buy things it's not easy to buy things with the Bitcoin and in terms of a store hold of wealth a store hold of wealth more reflects like gold more reflects the opposite of what money is doing right and so you look at it it's a store hold of wealth bitcoin is a speculative it's a speculative bubble right it's price is like a greater fool theory in terms of its price if you say what is its intrinsic value if if bitcoin was made into a more effective medium of exchange and also operated in terms of a store hold of wealth not of the reflection of that volatility it would be a viable instrument it is to me a vehicle for speculation that's attracting people in and it has all the classic ingredients of a bubble people leveraging themselves up and it doesn't have that same intrinsic value even the privacy value okay is suspect suspicious in other words it has a purpose to some extent if you're living in a country and you don't know your currency it was whether it's gonna be good or not and you might hole try to hold that but that thing you're holding is running around like crazy for reasons that you don't understand and then it's so it's not gonna be an effective store holder well and the privacy will be stress tested in other words governments are examining who is operating in their own clever ways of what that and so you can't even assume that that's so it's gonna be a privacy vehicle so I don't see the effectiveness of Bitcoin I could see cyber secure currencies and and so on but crypto currencies but this is not what we're having it's it's you know it's a possibility that I think is has been captured as a speculative vehicle that's in the middle of the bubble said something else about investing but I think it's very profound and simple I think a lot of people don't underst which is to be successful as an investor you have to bet against the consensus and be right first of all why why can't we just buy stocks we think well the code the consensus is built into the price so because the consensus is built in the price in assets priced themselves in a way that they're all they're all compete and they're all of equal value in certain sense there's there's a risk premium of equities over cash and bonds we'll have that over whatever but it's basically they're all priced that way so I think of it as going to betting on a sports team or in other words you or a horse-racing okay so there's handicapping that's going on so in order to be successful you're betting against the consensus and you have to be right that's the that's the game and you described your first trade when you're a teenager bought a stock it tripled you thought hey this is easy but you convey very effectively that in fact it is extremely difficult even though it seems so simple ah being successful in the markets is more difficult than being successful in competing in the Olympics your odds are higher to be successful competing in the Olympics because you have more people trying to do it you have more resources we put hundreds of millions of dollars we have at Bridgewater 1,500 people we are now competing against other teams and that's the kind of resources that are going into playing that particular game so think about that in terms of handicapping it it's not an easy thing to do what you can do is achieve balance you can you can to know how to hold a balanced portfolio and to receive something that is a return that's much better than cash achieving balance is something that you can do and and I think that that but it figure if you're going to enter the game since Value Added is a zero-sum game you have to ask who are you playing against what is you going to the poker game with and you know do you want to do that and as you talk to people in the real world is your sense that people understand what they're up against when they might biased or try to time home institutional investors who are smart by and large understand that the average man tends to be much more reactive if you look at the purchases and sales that they make when something goes up they're more likely to buy it they think ah that's a good investment they don't know how to measure that in terms of oh is that a much more expensive investment that's more likely to go down so that's why you know you put ads in newspapers and they say ah that's what had that return that's what they're attracted to so they tend to buy high and sell low and so they're not the average man should not be playing this game in that way they should be playing the game and/or humility if you if you think that you're good at playing the game just make sure that it's like going to the poker table or going to the racetrack do it with a little bit of money and watch it and get the best advice that you can to know that you're going to be able to take money out of the system rather than put it in right you've written a terrific book thank you so much for sharing your life and wisdom and best of luck congratulations thank you thanks appreciate it it looks like the Trump trade is back on because of a tax proposal that is we're expected to see on Monday which should lay out the specifications for a corporate tax cut Trump has been talking about a federal corporate tax cut from 35 percent to 15 percent since 2015 JP Morgan's head of equity strategy says as long as headlines continue to indicate political traction we believe investors are likely to start pricing and higher probability of tax reform and if you look at the goldman sachs basket of stocks that are most likely to benefit from a tax cut you'll see that they outperform the broader market right when Trump was elected and then started to corrects but over the last few weeks these tax have started to outperform again on optimism for a tax cut so how much of a boost could this give stocks according to JP Morgan cutting the tax rate from 35% to 25% could increase S&P 500 earnings by $11 per share bringing it up to a hundred and forty three dollars per share which would increase the end 150 points at the current multiple Jim Fabio senior vice president of government relations for a fidelity investment points out that before tax reform can advance Congress needs to pass a budget for 2018 to provide the protected vehicle known as Budget Reconciliation which would allow tax reform to pass the Senate with only 51 votes which means that political pressure to get tax reform could actually help us agree on a budget but as fidelity investments jurrien timmer points out most long-term investors shouldn't react to short-term events and that's today's bottom line as the Chicago Booth alum I consider myself very lucky to have had the opportunity to interview Luigi Zingales of Chicago Booth about his new research which challenges some of Milton Freeman's assumptions about maximizing shareholder value I'm thrilled to be here with professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business Luigi Zingales thank you for joining me my pleasure so a Business Insider we talk a lot about better capitalism which we define as companies that look at not just shareholder value but also the welfare of employees and consumers as well as the world and you recently came out with a paper that kind of has a more elegant way of doing this by incorporating all of that into shareholder value can you explain yes I wouldn't say the necessaries a more elegant ways it's a more precise way to sort of refine the issue because we're all very familiar with the Friedman statement that the only responsibilities social responsibility of business is to maximize profits and that sort of conclusion is derived by Friedman starting from an important premise number one is that managers should care about their principles that are the shareholders and we actually this is a paper with Oliver Hart from Harvard we actually start from the same premise but we which is slightly different or maybe not slightly different conclusion because we point out an important consideration number one is shoulders care about things other than money like people care things other than money yeah I'm an academic and if I only care about money I would not be an academic so there's something more important or at least as important as money this is not enough because Friedman did recognize the possibility and however Friedman says as long as sort of you can separate it doesn't use exactly this language Brazilians you can separate you are social decision from your business decision then the problem is so think about corporate charity if I'm a corporation I can distribute profits and my shells can decide where to allocate those profits there is no inefficiency in transferring the money to that and it strictly better because the shareholders can pick what they want rather than the company so if the decision that has social implication is completely independent and separate from the the decision like copper charlie is Friedman is absolutely right what you should do is maximize profits distribute the profits and then people take care however most business decisions are not like that if I want I'm concerned about co2 for example if I pollute more and emit more co2 and then this DVD extra profit to my shareholders it costs more for them to undo my co2 emission then would be to me to curb the co2 emission to begin with or to cite a recent case a shareholder would want to ask Walmart to stop selling in his store the high-capacity magazines using mass killings and this is not that if you make the extra box by selling the high-capacity magazine then uribe to the shows the shoulders can prevent the mass killings no it's not gonna work that way so in the situation that we call technically they are not separable then you need to consider in your business decision what shareholders wants what and they might want only you to maximize profits but they might want other things in particular if your shoulders our foundation or university endowments there may about objective than just money and and I think that we kind of have forgotten this in the standard debate and we want to bring it at the forefront so that actually shareholders can direct where the and this decision can have an influence in this decision so shareholder welfare is not necessarily equivalent to market value absolutely not in as I said people care about things other than market value they care about not having mass killings in the United States they care about maybe not having so much co2 or they might care about other things and one of the examples I've seen her talking about is shkreli Martin shkreli and how and he uses this as an explanation for what he did and my sole responsibility is to increase my shareholder value how did that become a rule because it's not a real rule necessarily I think that that's part of the contribution I think in the value of what what have written because I think that from the 1960 when 70 when Milton Friedman wrote that piece to today the idea of maximization shoulders value F become the dominant mantra in the 1970 when Friedman was writing was kind of an extreme position and people did not embrace and in the last kind of almost 50 years it has become the dominant position to the point and people abuse it and and the example you quote is an example of a investor who at least uses a justification that he had to maximize shoulders value against anything else and first of all in the law there is not such an obligation but more importantly I don't think that even if we go from first principle in finance the obligation is so narrow is the maximization of shareholders welfare known as Sally wealth and is there an example of a company or companies that are doing this already that are looking at the shareholders all of what they care about not just their value not just the market value I think that we see a lot of companies especially perrolli held ones that have other objectives in mind I come from a region in Italy where there are a lot of small firms and unfortunately we suffer a long recession and many of those films fail and many entrepreneurs actually commit a suicide and left their life insurance to pay for the employees because they deeply care about the employees is for them is almost like family and now maybe that you can think this is a bit of excessive but what is is saying probably help companies there is a huge sense of other things are important besides just money and once you become a larger company we seem to like rush to the minimum common denominator and often against the interest of the shoulders themselves because shoulders might be as I said foundations endowments people who buy statue care about things other than than money but when they invest they leave it at all and some of the solutions this is socially responsible investing right now avoid certain companies and you don't think that's necessarily the solution yes I think that there are two approaches that are prevalent today one is the approach of divesting and I think that this approach not all is not particularly useful might be even counterproductive so if I am a weak or social investor and I avoid all stock all stock will end up in the main in the hands of people who don't care at all about the environment leading to a worse outcome than the one we are to begin with and in a world with money is fungible you don't really penalize them unless like 90% of the market think that way you're not gonna have a big impact so that's that's probably number one pop number two is all this trend in in copper social responsibility or as the Europeans say ESG environment sustainability and growth is very much decided by a few people who wake up a morning and say this is the objective we should follow and what we say is at the end of the day the shareholders are the owners of the the company and they should rule on this decision there should not be sort of removed to somebody else including institutional investors what we advocating in the paper is that investors need to sample up all their investors to know what the investors want so stay in the stock get in the stock and try to drive decisions DRI decision but also dry decision according to what the investors want not what they decide and the last question what do you think everybody gets wrong about responsible capitalism or what is the thing that needs to change I think that sometimes we want to project too much of our desire into sort of the system that cannot they are too much of all this responsibility so what I like of the paper I wrote with all their heart is that we take a narrow perspective but I think a very solid one both logically and I think legally and I think that tells you what business can do when what business cannot do I think that Milton Friedman was right and say you should not give all this social responsibility because at the end of the day you need to be sustained you need to create value and and so you need to pay attention these things you can't transform all businesses in social enterprises we do have nonprofits associations and businesses and they're very valuable but we cannot transform everything into that on the other hand you don't want to be sort of sonar thus saying that people care only about money and ignore other important consideration that are part of our welfare thank you so much professors and galas my pleasure that's it for this week thanks so much for joining us a big thank you to fidelity investments for making the show possible and of course a thank you to Nasdaq for hosting us
댓글 0