Howard Marks - The Most Important Thing - Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor -

요약 보기

Howard Marks의 'The Most Important Thing' 초반 10페이지를 읽으며 두 가지 주장에 반박하는 영상. 첫째, 투자는 알고리즘으로 환원될 수 없다는 주장은 틀렸다는 입장. Jim Simons의 Renaissance Technologies 메달리온 펀드처럼 알고리즘 기반 펀드가 연 40~70%대 수익을 낸 사례를 들고, Joel Greenblatt의 매직 포뮬러처럼 공식 기반 가치투자도 시장을 이긴다고 주장. 둘째, 인덱스 투자는 평범한 수익(average)에 안주하는 것이 아니라는 입장. 1976년 Jack Bogle의 인덱스 펀드가 조롱받았으나, 장기(10~20년)로 보면 인덱스가 액티브 펀드 대부분을 압도한다고 설명. Warren Buffett이 헤지펀드와 맺은 10년 내기에서 인덱스가 이긴 사례도 언급. 영상은 Marks가 '사고의 깊이(2차 사고)'를 강조하는 맥락을 두고, 데이터와 알고리즘 성과를 무시하는 것은 편견이라고 비판하는 구조. 개별 종목이나 시장 방향에 대한 구체적 매매 권고는 없음.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. all right welcome back to pietro's manus finance um i actually didn't plan on doing another video today i plan to spend the rest of the afternoon engrossed in the book that i'm holding here right here which is the most important thing uncommon sense for the thoughtful investor it's by howard marks howard marsh is a very successful investor multi-billionaire his company i believe is oaktree capital um 10 pages in but i have to say i'm i'm really disappointed uh essentially i found two glaring errors on the first two pages so the first one uh here is not on the introduction believe it's on like literally page one and it he says here and investing can can't be reduced to an algorithm and turned over to a computer so yeah that's just to me wrong um blatantly wrong i'm not sure if he's not familiar with uh jim simmons and rentec if he hasn't read the book the man who saw the market how jim simmons launched the quant revolution um the medallion fund um has had returns of 70 a year uh sometimes people say 40.

02. so you know so it's just a bizarre statement to discount um the success of quant funds and beyond just jim simmons and robert mercer's rentec there are others who have had um tremendous success with signal based uh with uh deep uh analysis of data now for most people there may be maybe he's saying most people aren't going to be renaissance technology but um you know and also the other thing is you know reduced to an algorithm you know if you were to replace algorithm with formula i mean even a value fundamental investor who he mentions here joel greenblatt magic formula has outperformed the market so i found that it's trendy amongst uh high level investors to dismiss algorithms formulas and software he would use the term probably first level thinking he would he would view that type of thought or that type of process as first level not really deep second level thinking um but the data is the data so if a formula or an algorithm is outperforming and it's outperforming over a long period of time versus someone who's doing deep thinking or looking at for me and making their decisions based on data but their their own decisions well there's there there so that's just an interesting statement there so okay so then on the next page he says here at bottom it's a matter of what you're trying to accomplish anyone can achieve average investment performance just invest in an index fund that buys a little of everything that will give you what is known as quote market returns and quote merely matching what the market does but successful investors want more they want to beat the market so i will certainly agree with that those last two sentences um you know that those who are engaged in actively investing for themselves or putting money in actively managed funds are seeking alpha right i mean that's otherwise they would just invest in the index the thing i would i would quibble with here is and it's not my real it's not my opinion on this it's just the data is when jack bogle at vanguard released the index fund in 1976 it was mocked as un-american as you know why would you want to settle for average i think one of the competitors of vanguard said something would you want an average dentist or an average surgeon um and so but the thing that has borne out over time is by buying indexes you're not settling for average you're settling for market returns which are quite above um active management um you know the the large bet that warren buffett made with any hedge fund over a period of was five years or ten years you can you can just google that find that information information out very quickly warren buffett hedge fund bet um the index won the index beat the assembled hedge funds that that he accepted because of the the the tyranny of um fees that uh the the the two and twenty models so that's just a blatant misstatement that you're settling for average i mean i would think he would know this that's a again that's why i'm just like kind of blown away because he's so well respected you know warren buffett has touted him and others and he just sort of plays the role of the cerebral uh college professor and um yeah so that's just um a bizarre statement knowing that when you're buying indexes you're not settling for average you are going to beat and there's figures you can go and pull the data um you know jl collins has has written about it as well as jack bogle um you know you could pull out any you know that book simple path to wealth or any of jack bogle's book or do do a little bit of google researching on just the percentage over over time of what in or how much indexes beat actively managed funds so it's a lot less over a year over three years over five years but then when you start getting out 10 12 15 20 years the percentage that that indexes beat active funds is quite overwhelming so yeah just a little disappointed i'm going to get back to reading them on page 10.

03. it's a shorter book it's uh 179 180 pages so i could probably finish it out today but um yeah just that quick little aside on howard marks and i'm just kind of a little little bit of shock so anyways ciao