저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
Jeremy Siegel의 'Stocks for the Long Run' 요약. 주식은 장기 투자에서 채권·금보다 실질 수익률이 압도적으로 높고(연 6.7%, 채권 3.5%, 금 0.6%), 20년 이상 보유 시 실질 마이너스 수익 기간이 없었다. 채권은 장기 수익률이 낮고 변동성 감소 효과는 보유기간별 배분으로 설명됨. CAPM에서 출발해 Fama-French 3요인(가치·소형주 프리미엄)이 과거 수익을 설명하며, 가치 프리미엄(연 3.8%)이 소형주(1.9%)보다 일관적이나 2008년 이후 소형가치주는 부진했다는 점을 언급.
다듬은 글
with 4.7 out of five stars on Amazon and 4.13 out of five stars on good reads I offer you three essential lessons from the book stocks for the long run by Jeremy seagull cheerfully recorded by Cool Cat investing lesson one consider stocks for a long-term investment Horizon in August 1929 an iconic article everybody ought to be rich was published in this article John raskob a business executive claim that by investing $260 a month in stocks everyone can expect their wealth to go to $1,400,000 in just 20 years a whopping 26.3% annual return quick note these are inflation adjusted numbers just 2 months later the decade long Great Depression of the 1920s began stock dropped 89% and did not return to inflation adjusted all-time highs for the next 30 years if we exclude dividends as people plunged into the depths of economic depression and did not want to see stocks or anything related to equity markets the article became a laughing stock and a farce however it turned out that this was a winning strategy anyway during these 30 years investing $260 every month into a broad index of stocks would have resulted in about 615,000 inflation adjusted dollars bonds a perceived Safe Haven by many perform much worse during those 30 years investing in stocks have generated Capital returns eight times higher than Bonds in the United States the historical performance of various asset classes since 1802 shows a dramatic outperformance of stocks with a 6.7% total real annual return the next best investment class was bonds at 3.5% yearly inflation-free returns gold showed just 0.6% above inflation returns moreover despite Wars depressions pandemics a shift from an industrial economy to service-based and all the technological progress since 1802 stocks showed a remarkable consistency of returns from 1802 to 1870 stocks returned 6.7% annually from 1871 to 1925 stocks grew at 6.5% and from 1926 to 2012 we saw 6.7% performance the same 6.5% real compound annual growth rate was observed from the end of the second world war stocks were not immune from periods of negative real returns albeit these periods were much shorter for example stocks showed near zero compound annual growth rate for 5 years between 1976 to 1981 and for 12 years between 2000 to 2012 saying this we have to be mindful that unlike bonds there was never a period longer than 20 years when real total stock returns were negative Ergo lesson one consider stocks for a long-term investment Horizon lesson two think carefully before investing in bonds now let's look at the other major investment class bonds since 1802 long-term government bonds showed 3.5% yearly inflation free returns however the returns of Bonds were not as consistent with 4.8% from 1802 to 1870 3.7% from 1871 to 192 25 and just 2.6% from 1926 to 2012 in addition we saw 35 years of negative returns between 1946 and 1981 as you can see to generate maximum returns over long periods stocks are superior however a lot of people consider bonds to minimize portfolio volatility for pre and during retirement years okay let's discuss the price fluctuations and answer the following question what would be an optimal yearly rebalance portfolio of stocks and bonds to minimize volatility based on a Target holding period when we look at the data over the last 100 years we can see if you want to minimize the volatility of your portfolio with a holding period of 1 to 2 years consider 133% allocation in stocks for a holding period of 5 years use 75% bonds and 25% stocks portfolio for a 10-year holding period you will need at least 33% stocks for 20 years 50% stocks is the best for a holding period of 30 years the portfolio with minimum volatility would consist of 68% stocks and 32% bonds now let's look at the risk measured as the maximum price drop for for both stocks and bonds stocks are much riskier over a 1 to 2year Horizon however over any 5year period since 1802 the maximum price drop for stocks is about the same as for bonds at 12% for any 10 years the worst performance by stocks is better than the worst performance of bonds moreover stocks be Bonds on returns in 90% of all 20year periods to be even more precise stocks never showed negative real returns in any 17 years for any 30 years Almost 100% of the time stocks outperformed bonds there were only two times in the past 200 years when bonds slightly outperformed stocks and 30-year rolling periods that happened in 1861 during the Civil War and in 1981 during the vulker interest rate hikes this outperformance can be somewhat predicted by higher initial interest rates thus as you can see from this graph it is unlikely to happen anytime soon overall historical data shows that stocks over long periods tend to outperform Bonds in real returns have smaller maximum draw downs and have a dominant role in a portfolio to minimize volatility Ergo lesson 2 think carefully before investing in bonds by the way please let me share a word of gratitude to everyone who has chosen to support this channel if you haven't yet please consider doing so the link is in the description below now back to the video lesson three know what strategies are likely to improve your returns based on historical evidence William sharp and other scientists introduced a cap M model in 1964 this model shows that higher investment returns are achieved by taking higher risks in the capm model risk is defined as beta and described as a sensitivity of asset price changes to the fluctuations of the broad stock market beta equals 1 implies volatility of the asset price similar to the market beta higher or lower than one suggests an asset with higher and lower sensitivity respectively the capm model implies that higher returns can be achieved by investing in assets with higher beta this model explained about 66% of the historically observed returns in 1992 Nobel laurates Eugene Fama and Kenneth French improved the model to include two additional factors risk of value and risk of small size now this three Factor cap and model explained about 90% of the historically Reserve returns risk of value can be defined in multiple ways however the most commonly used these days is the low price to earnings PE or Price to Book PB ratios lower price to earnings and Price to Book ratios indicate a situation when it costs less to acquire a dollar of earnings or a dollar of equity generated by the business respectively risk of small size is commonly defined defined as the relatively smaller market capitalization of the business market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the price of a share by the total number of outstanding shares both statistics can be easily found on most Financial websites Let's test the cap M model on the US historical data from 1926 to 2018 because of risk Equity premium the portfolio of 100% stocks outperformed the portfol folio of 100% government bonds by an additional 4.1% compound annual growth portfolios tilted to small market capitalization companies showed an additional 1.9% yearly premium investing in value stocks improve returns by an extra 3.8% annually these premium returns were consistent across time in any 10-year rolling period the stock market premium was positive in 85% % of the periods the small capitalization premium was adding returns 72% of the time and value premium generated additional real returns and 84% of 10year periods it is important to note that the value premium is much more uniform across time than the small cap premium in other words value premium tends to be closer to 3.8% in most 10-year periods small cap premium of 1.9% although positive in 72% of 10-year periods had a higher degree of volatility with very pronounced periods of lower and higher outperformance but what about the global markets outside of the United States although data is only available from 1990 we see the positive premiums of 2.3% for stocks over bonds 0.1% premium for small cap stocks and 4.
3% for value stocks the equity premium was positive in 81% of any 10-year rolling periods small capitalization and value premiums were observed in 822 and 72% of periods respectively what would an additional 1.9 and 3.8% annual return due over 40 years if you allocate a fixed portion of your income to a retirement fund every year all other things being equal you would end up with a sum about 4.6 times the size of a portfolio having only SNP 500 Index exposure if you consider investing a lumpsum for 40 years the difference is roughly eight times please note since 2008 the small cap value stocks underperformed the market this made many Market participants question whether the additional return premium still exist Ergo lesson 3 know what strategies are likely to improve your returns based on historical evidence thank you so much for watching if you enjoyed this video please like subscribe check our other videos and consider supporting this channel the link is in the description
Comments 0