저자: JoelGreenblatt · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 그린블랫은 저평가 우량주 전략(그레이엄·도드 + 버핏식 우량기업 필터)이 장기적으로 시장을 이기지만 항상 통하지는 않는다고 강조한다. 전략 개요: 높은 자본수익률과 저평가를 동시에 가진 기업을 골라 20~30개 묶음으로 매수하는 분산 포트폴리오 방식이다. 백테스트 성과: 2000년대 10년간 전략은 연 약 13.5%, 시장은 연 약 -1%였으나, 이 기간에도 시장보다 못한 구간(34개월, 13개월 등)이 있었다. 리스크와 한계: 일정 기간 성과가 부진해 투자자들이 전략을 포기하는 것이 가장 큰 문제다. 전략이 좋아 보이지 않는 종목들이 포함되는 경우가 많다. 현재 시장 평가: 현재 S&P500의 약 3분의 1이 10년물 금리보다 높은 수익률을 보이며, 가치주 포트폴리오는 과거 대비 상당히 싼 편(상위 85~90% 저평가)이라고 봤다. 다만 향후 상황에 따라 바뀔 수 있다고 덧붙였다. 운용 방식: 자산의 약 80%는 정량 전략에 배분하고 있으며, 일부는 롱 단독, 일부는 롱숏 전략을 쓴다. 뉴스 활용 조언: 언론에 많이 나온 종목은 헤드라인 리스크가 있을 수 있어 반대로 생각할 필요가 있다는 취지의 발언을 했다.
다듬은 글
facts have been rallying since that horrific August we were just back to the top end of our trading range but now we have a chance after this turnaround the day to really get above the highs the major average is still only showing a slight gain for the year but better than they lost how do investors achieve bigger gains joining us now is joel greenblatt managing principal of hedge fund Gotham Asset Management and author of the new edition of the New York Times bestseller the little book that still beats the markets the latest edition goes on sale today Joel thanks for coming in is it is it is a gram and odd mostly or is there more to it well I explained a way to take advantage of some of the concepts that Graham and odd talked about 70 years ago which really are buying companies that are cheap so we look at companies that earn a lot we try to buy companies are selling cheap relative to the amount of earnings that they have but one twist that Warren Buffett put on what Graham and Dodd did was said well it's nice to buy something that's cheap but it's also good to buy something that's in a good business so buying good companies that cheap prices is really what we're looking at when when I put together the formula for this book because you know when you can say still beats the market but that doesn't necessarily mean that by hold is going to be a great strategy because you could have beaten the market over the last 10 or 11 years and gotten I mean one percent a year would have beat the marker I think I think that's a really great point I mean we in our back tests we if we had followed this formula over the last 10 years you know the the decade of the 2000s the market was actually down about one percent a year following this was up about 13 and a half percent a year during that period huge you're right but the reason it really works is that it doesn't always work it's really not that great a formula in other words there was a period during that great 10 years right you beat the market by forked over fourteen percent a year yeah so you more than triples your money during that ten years but at the same time there was a 34-month period and non-overlapping 13 months period where you underperform the market so most people quit on a formula especially a formula or just any strategy that's not working most people just chase whatever did well last year and so you can't really do that as a value investor it doesn't always work takes could you could last a long time not film tomorrow we started running screens they've done this formula what stocks would show up today is vibe right I want to mention specific stocks but the areas would be there's a lot of retail stocks that show up construction engineering firms there's a lot of pharmaceutical companies a few of the you know interesting for-profit education companies come up and the bottom line is that you buy a package of these it's almost like an insurance bet where you buy 20 or 30 of these companies and they're all out of favor in other words they're they're cheap because the something you know if you read the paper you would buy any of them right lets you know that there's something wrong but you're getting them cheap that's already reflected in the price what you're buying companies that are in high returns on capital which is very important and you're buying them to very cheap prices and even over those 10 years where you tripled your money only fifty to sixty percent of the companies that you chose actually did beat the market we're at this moment where I see like one-third of the sp500 is yielding more than the ten year and yet clearly people are choosing to buy the ten year the only reason you would make that choice is if you think the yield on those S&P stocks this is going to go even higher and you're going to lose on your principal what do you what do you say about this moment in time which is a big reversal of what we've seen over the last 50 years of history well it's a great question i mean we have a lot of data we've done tons of research over the last period of years that ended up coming out in the book originally 2005 and then we've dedicated a lot of resources to looking at this and so we can put together value portfolio now that's pretty much in the 85th or 90th percentile of cheap if you put together a value portfolio ah now that now looking forward so and that's cheap based on trailing earnings and cash flows the way we measured them so it could be that we're in a pretty bad decile looking forward in other words next year maybe in the 15th percentile and prices are appropriately priced but i think there's a lot reflected in current prices especially for a large amount of value stocks including some of the large you know well-known names that you're talking about that offer great opportunity historically what percentage of your own portfolio do you have allocated against the strategy if you will well we have a number of different strategies we follow some are just straight long some are long and short and out of my liquid asset probably bout eighty percent are really now in quantitative strategy similar to what we follow on the bell much it's between 82 let's say the market lows in 81 the 800 is caught between 82 and 90 did it underperform the the overall market and let's say in the 90s with the tech bubble that it under it was valued as it does it not catch the Go Go years as much as the overall market it's a great question mean value investing has been tested way back you know it's worked for 50 or 60 years it's still hard to do because it doesn't always work our database for this you know the robustness that we need in the database only went back to 87 so we have now 23 years of history to show how well this does and you know over that time it's pretty much doubled the markets returns really I mean I think of you know the old saying please let it happen one more time because I've blown all the money from the left but not he was a 92 94 95 96 or 95 935 % + each year it was there for the 35 oh yeah I've actually it gave an incredibly yet get incredibly well it's just the reason why if I'm writing a whole book about you know with a formula that tells say you know everyone would follow the fit was perfect and there are years where it doesn't work and that's when people stop following it and it's hard to do because if you look at the list of companies that that it tells you to buy you read the paper you say I don't want to buy any of these things you know why am I going to buy a for-profit education and and some of them don't work but on average they do because you're not paying a lot for any of them and the ones that work out work out quite well you know we're you know we've worked on in all kinds of over the last year's through our research institutional strategies that we're rolling out now and you know all our studies say that it's a very robust way to beat the market it's just tough to do some time when you say if you read the papers you could you could put in if you watching anything he'll be the sacrum interchangeable I know you're saying read the paper about I think that's not forget you gotta get with the time Beyonce now and no no I don't want them to say that about it because it sounds like we're contrarian but basically if it's in the media and you're reading about it there's headline risks and probably a good time it because it's usually the opposite eventually happens I'll be more discreet now especially when you're on next time that sounds good instead of its you're reading a nutrient say if you're reading it in the New York Times would you just put that in and I will certainly desire thank you that's right there you go
Comments 0