원문 보기
and this week's video we'll go over how howard marks thinks about value versus growth which is a topic he writes about in this year's memo called something of value which has generated a flurry of interest within the investment community howard marx is known as somewhat of a philosopher king in the world of investing the co-chairman of the 153 billion oak tree capital management has not only built the largest distressed debt investment firm but also written 132 iconic memos since 1990.
even warren buffett said that when i see memos from howard marks in my mail they're the first thing that i open and read i always learn something marx is a great believer in the cyclical nature of markets his book mastering the market cycle getting the odds on your side which teaches investors how to identify different stages of the market has garnered rave reviews from the hedge fund manager ray dalio and the bond king jeffrey gunblock howard marks describes his son andrew marks as an investor particularly in growth companies with the focus on the technology sector of course howard marx has gained popularity for his value investing approach which he lays out is quantifying what something is worth intrinsically based primarily on its fundamental cash flow generation capabilities and buying if its price represents a meaningful discount from that value fundamentally value investing happens from a place of skepticism mark explains in the memo that our default reaction is to be deeply dubious when we hear this time it's different and we point to a history of speculative manias and financial innovations that left behind significant carnage at the same time an investor requires deep curiosity openness to new ideas and willingness to learn before forming a view so as not to miss out on innovation innovation often appears absurd in its early days before becoming an obvious development in hindsight so the raging debate in the investment community over the last few decades has been the battle between two styles value versus growth like two seemingly opposing schools of thought like his way of investing compared to his sons each has its diehard supporters and each has enjoyed periods of dominance but is value and growth two parts of the same coin howard marks questions whether the two styles are really mutually exclusive at all and whether the rivalry between them may be masking a more profound change taking place in the investment world there are usually two schools of thought when investing number one growth investing growth investors are attracted to companies that are expected to grow faster either by revenues or cash flows or definitely by profits than the rest as growth is the priority companies reinvest earnings in themselves in order to expand in the form of new workers equipment and acquisitions don't expect dividends from growth companies right now it's go big or go home growth companies offer higher upside potential and therefore are inherently riskier there's no guarantee a company's investment in growth will successfully lead to profit growth stocks experience stock price swings in greater magnitude so they may be best suited for risk tolerant investors with a longer time horizon number two value investing value investing is about finding diamonds in the rough companies whose stock prices don't necessarily reflect their fundamental worth value investors seek businesses trading at the same price that is considered a bargain as time goes on the market will properly recognize the company's value and the price will rise additionally value funds don't emphasize growth above all so even if the stock doesn't appreciate investors typically benefit from dividend payments value stocks have more limited upside potential and therefore can be safer investments than growth stocks howard marks thinks that there is a cautionary tale from the 1960s for growth investors and a chance to win beg for value investors he argues that both of these styles of investing are equally valid lessons from the nifty 50.
the world that existed 50 60 and 70 years ago was a pretty static place things didn't seem to change very much or very fast the homes cars reading matter business technology and general environment was pretty static but in the memo howard marks tells us of one of the biggest changes that took place in the 1960s with the emergence of growth investing via fast growing companies many of which were quite new the nifty 50 that he usually talks about so much ruled the stock market in the late 1960s the group included office equipment manufacturers ibm and xerox photography titans kodak and polaroid drug companies like merrick and eli lilly tech companies including hewlett packard and texas instruments and advanced marketing slash consumer goods companies such as coca-cola and avon these companies stocks carried very high price to earnings ratios reaching up to 80 and 90.
obviously investors should only pay multiples like these if they're sure the companies will be preeminent for decades to come and investors were sure in fact it was widely believed that nothing bad could happen to these companies and they could never be disrupted this was one of the post-war america's first major brushes with newness and inventors embraced these companies with their revolutionary newness but somehow assumed that a newer and better new thing could never come along to displace them of course those investors were writing for a fall if you bought the stocks of the greatest companies in america when i started working in 1969 and held them steadfastly for five years you lost almost all of your money the first reason is that the multiples in the late 1960s were far too high and they were gutted in the subsequent market correction but perhaps more importantly many of these forever companies turned out to be vulnerable to change at least half of these supposedly impregnable companies have either gone out of business or been acquired by others kodak and polaroid lost their position when digital cameras appeared xerox seated much of the dry copying business to low price competition from abroad ibm proved vulnerable when decentralized computing and pcs took over massive mainframes today unlike the 1950s and 60s everything seems to change every day it's particularly hard to think of a company or industry that won't either be a disrupter or be disrupted or both in the years ahead according to marx anyone who believes all the firms of today's market of leading growth companies will still be here in five to ten years has a good chance of being proved wrong increasingly us businesses is virtual digital and information oriented no longer devoted to agriculture or manufacturing physical products even those companies that do produce physical goods or services increasingly employ information products and other aspects of technology these elements will have profound impact on which legacy businesses will survive which moats will hold up and which newcomers will supplant the incumbents as well as what our world will look like in 10 or 20 years from now for investors mark believes that this means there's a new world order words like stable defensive and moat might be less relevant in the future since a lot of investing will require more technological expertise than it did in the past and capitalism is brutal so where do you stand on the value versus growth debate what are your thoughts on the something of value memo by howard marks let me know in the comments down below thank you for watching this video entirely till the end nothing helps out my channel more than y'all sticking it out until the end and please consider subscribing to my channel if you haven't already done so also if you enjoyed this video please like this video and subscribe to my channel so that i can continue to make videos like this for you to enjoy
Comments 0