저자: JoelGreenblatt · 외국인
요약 보기
그린블랫은 자신들을 전통적 가치투자자보다 블렌드 스타일로 보며, 성장주 거품이 꺼질 가능성을 언급했다. 시장이 18~20% 급락하거나 몇 년간 연 4~6% 수준의 저수익이 나올 수 있다고 봤다. 러셀2000은 역사적으로 94%의 기간보다 싼 상태에서 최근 1년 기준 극도로 비싸 향후 수익률이 평이했다고 언급했다. 가치 팩터 정의(PBR, PSR)에는 동의하지 않고 현금흐름 기준으로 기업을 평가한다고 밝혔다. 금·비트코인은 가치 평가가 불가능해 투자하지 않는다고 했다.
다듬은 글
Yeah. So, um, while I say we're not traditional value investors and and we're usually categorized by, let's say, a Russell or a morning star as blend, as Warren Buffett would say, growth and value are tied at the hip. That's part of valuation. Uh, so they put us in blend, not traditional value. But when growth is really going and these are the companies priced on hope and and what's going to happen in 2024 2025 when those are doing really well uh they're probably uh not going to love what we're doing as much in other words.
So we would rhyme a little more with traditional value. And so in those type of uh frothy markets that's not our market. But those don't last forever. Uh prices have gotten pretty high. And like I said, that doesn't mean that the fang stocks or some of the names that you're familiar with won't do well or they won't meet the expectations that people think.
It's just that as a group uh the growth group uh where people just pay up for you know expected growth over the next 5 years uh that's probably as you suggest uh uh have been a little frothy. I would expect that to come back to earth. What do you think the catalyst for that is going to be? Rising interest rates.
I mean the real answer is I don't know. Uh I would just say that it always happens. In other words, if the pendulum swings too much one way, uh there'll be, you know, just like we had a correction in October, that could happen. Things in general are more expensive than usual, but like I said, it could play out in a lot of different ways.
Market could fall 18 or 20% tomorrow, or it could just under earn at 4 to 6% a year for a few years. And that's the way it levels off meaning lower returns than than what you people have become. Uh but surely some some things must confuse you if you evaluate the market based on the things that you've observed in history.
The degree to which for example companies with bad balance sheets haven't been punished. Yes. So basically there's a there's a reflexive component to that. One thing I didn't mention that uh the Russell 2000 which is the small cap universe that's in the sixth percentile towards expensive meaning it's been cheaper 94% of the time and when it's been here in the past year forward returns have been about flat so depending on what companies we're talking about that is super expensive that should come back over time it's usually not a good idea to lose money or buy things at 100 times pre-tax free cash flows just bad idea
Juel I want to ask you a question about factors You're not a systematic investor, but I've wondered to myself if there's any way you'd ever embrace systematic value investing. And the reason I asked the question is because I know that you teach your students at Colombia to look at a security the way that they would consider buying a house.
Well, what if you were buying the neighborhood? Wouldn't you evaluate all the houses in the neighborhood on an aggregate basis and decide whether one neighborhood was cheap relative to another neighborhood being expensive? and maybe the cheap neighborhood on aggregate was worth buying and maybe selling houses in aggregate in the expensive neighborhood.
I hear you because over time that's worked right. So the statistics suggest that value is a factor. Yeah. Outperforms growth. It outperforms momentum. It outperforms size. It outperforms everything. Right. But the way people describe value factor as low price book low price sales I have no there are many ways to slice it
right but the way that they're categorized by let's say a Russell or a morning star is low price book low price sales and to me that's not a factor that we look at okay we're looking at cash flow so what happens would you consider doing it on cash flow I do that's what we do we value businesses sure we're buying the cheapest and you know you brought up the house analogy So, you know, if you're buying a house, it's pretty simple questions.
They're asking a million dollars. Your job is to figure out whether it's a good deal or not. So, one question you might ask is, if I rented it out and I could get 70 or $80,000 a year net of my expenses and interest rates are 3%, does that sound pretty good? How cheap is it relative to similar houses and all houses in all neighborhoods?
So, we look at a company, we say, how cheap is it relative to companies in the same industry? How cheap is it relative to all companies I can choose from? How cheap is it relative to how it's been priced over history? relative to the market. These are measures of absolute relative value that anyone would use to value any earning asset.
We can't value gold or bitcoin that way and that's why we pass. Okay, we don't value. But earning assets, uh, there there's standard ways that everyone would value them. And you know, if you don't go crazy and you're very disciplined about it, there's plenty of opportunities
Comments 0