ZKIZ Archives


Joel Greenblatt的投資要點 lichen

http://xueqiu.com/2717133613/25051031
Joel Greenblatt在《The Little Book that Beats the Market》中介紹了神奇公式,給個人投資者打敗專業機構、打敗市場平均水準提供了一個方法。其長期年均回報可達20%~30%。然而Greenblatt在1985年成立的Gotham Capital的年均回報率達到了40%+。顯然,他沒有用自己的神奇公式進行投資,因為他發現了另一個回報更高的投資策略:投資於特殊事件。

在《You can be a Stock Market Genius/股市天才》這本書中,Greenblatt給我們介紹了投資於特殊事件的方法。在這些高回報的領域,相同點就是缺少人關注,尤其是因為某些原因而存在大量拋盤,而這就是價值窪地,就是能夠給我們提供超額回報的地方。那些無法忍受孤獨、缺乏堅定的信念,不能勇敢地站在大眾的對立面的人們,是無法享受這個回報的(Money Ball裡面給我們進行了生動的演示,有時堅持正確的做法有多麼艱難!)。

資本市場裡的特殊事件主要包括分拆、併購、破產與重組、資本重組。每種投資的要點如下:

公司分拆:
1、分拆出來的新公司股票通常都能跑贏大盤;
2、選對立場,在投資分拆時,這甚至會讓你獲得好於平均水平的回報;
3、如果分拆具備以下特徵,則表明這可能是一個很有利的投資機會:
  1)機構不想要它(並不是因為其投資優勢);
  2)內部人士想要它;
  3)分拆過程顯露出投資機會(便宜股票、大單生意、槓桿作用的風險/回報比)
4、通過瀏覽財經媒體並跟蹤證券交易委員會的報告,你可以找到並分析新分拆中的前景。
5、關注母公司也會給你提供豐厚的回報。
6、局部分拆以及配股分拆會創造出獨特的投資機會。
7、時刻盯著那些內部人士。
公司併購:
  併購套利——最好別幹!(失敗的損失很大,成功的收益太小)
  併購證券——可以幹!
公司破產重組:
1、投資要點
  1)破產能帶來獨特的投資機會,但它自身不討人喜歡。
  2)記住,最好不要買破產公司的普通股。
  3)破產公司的債券、銀行債務和貿易索賠也是有吸引力的投資標的,但是前提是你必須專心去做。
  4)在破產重組的公司新發行的普通股中努力尋找總是會有所回報的,就像分拆和併購證券,廉價證券總是來自本來就不想擁有這些股票的性急的賣家;
  5)除非價格無法抗拒,否則只投資於好公司。
2、賣出提示:交易壞公司,投資好公司。(長期持有壞公司可不是個好主意)
3、投資重組公司:
  1)通過公司重組能發現隱藏的巨大價值。
  2)尋找那些下降空間有限、由企業可供重組和管理層有激勵計劃的事件。
  3)在可能重組的事件裡,要發現催化劑正在起作用的跡象。
  4)確信重組的規模在整個公司現有資產中佔有相當大的比例。
資本重組:
1、重組股。在股市中,幾乎再沒有其它地方能讓人在謹慎的研究和分析後獲得如此快和如此棒的回報了。
2、長期期權。在股市中,幾乎再也沒有其它地方(可能除了重組股以外)能讓人在謹慎的研究和分析後獲得如此快和如此棒的回報了。
3、權證和特殊事件期權投資。在股市中,幾乎再也沒有其它地方(可能除了重組股和長期期權以外)能讓人在謹慎的研究和分析後獲得如此快和如此棒的回報了。

Greenblatt推薦的書籍(非常遺憾,我只讀過其中三本):
《逆向投資策略》 The New Contrarian Investment Strategy, David Dremen
《聰明的投資者》 The Intelligent Investor, Benjamin Graham
《沃倫巴菲特之路》 The Warren Buffett Way, Robert Hagstrom
《安全邊際》 Margin of Safety, Seth A. Klarman
《彼得林奇的成功投資》One Up on Wall Street, Peter Lynch and John Rothchild
《戰勝華爾街》 Beating the Street, Peter Lynch and John Rothchild
《你唯一需要的投資指南》 The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need, Andrew Tobias
《大師的投資習慣》The Money Masters, John Train
《向格雷厄姆一樣讀財報》The Interpretation of Financial Statement, Benjamin Graham and Spencer B
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=74583

JOEL GREENBLATT 談投資 (Graham & Doddsville 訪問摘要)

Joel Greenblatt 是著名美國投資者, 亦時投資書作家.

他的投資紀錄超卓
. 以下是 Graham & Doddsville 訪問他的部份摘要, 從中可看出他的投資功力深厚, 對價值投資概念的領略透徹.

………………………………………………………………………………………….
Q:Harkening back to the first part of your investing career, you talked about passing on ideas. How many ideas did you pass on for every idea that you ended up acting upon?
Joel: It’s a tough one. I would say it obviously depends on how selective you are. If I looked at 40 or 50 ideas, and, while perhaps 12 or 13 of them would have worked out, if I end up only buying one, that’s okay. That’s fine as long as the one I choose works out. It doesn’t matter that I missed out on 11 or 12. Not losing money is a good way to ensure that your portfolio has a good risk/reward profile. One of the things I said in You Can Be a Stock Market Genius isif you don’t lose money, most of the alternatives are good.
Even if you don’t know what the upside is – if you just know there’s upside – you can create scenarios where you have an excellent risk/reward. Positions with limited downside are the types of positions that I have loaded up on in the past. Not the positions with the biggest payoff. I could buy a lot knowing that I wouldn’t lose much and that there were good possibilities that it was worth a lot more over time. At the very least, I knew that my downside was well-protected and so I could create an asymmetric risk/ reward by saying if I don’t lose much, there are not many alternatives other than to make money.
Something else that I’ve said in my class is that if you are trying to analyze an investment and there’s a lot of uncertainty regarding a company – whether it’s new technology or new competitors, or something else – or the industry in general is uncertain such that it’s very hard to predict what’s going to happen in the future, just skip that one and find one you can analyze. If you invest in six or eight things that you’ve analyzed closely, and if you’re pretty good at valuation and you have a long time horizon to see your target valuation eventually play out, then you’re going to do incredibly well even if you’re right on only four or five of the ideas. This is especially true if you include a margin of safety so that you’re not losing too much on the ones where you’re wrong.
What I said in the beginning is true: if you’re good at valuing businesses, the market will eventually agree with you. But that’s eventually. It could be in a couple weeks or a couple years, and that’s a big difference. The traditional definition of arbitrage always went something like this: buy gold in New York and sell it simultaneously in London, and you’ll make a dollar. But if I told you, “well, I guarantee you’ll make a dollar, but you could lose half of your money first, and it could take three years for you to make that dollar, and it’s going to bounce around randomly in the interim,” that’s not quite arbitrage in the traditional sense.
It’s certainly not riskless arbitrage, but it is a type of arbitrage – it’s a type of time arbitrage. That’s very hard for people to do. Throw in the fact that you don’t always get the valuation right. Yes, if you did good valuation work, the market will agree with you. I would submit that most people cannot value most companies well. If you’re very selective, however, you can value certain companies well. And that’s what I would think about doing.
Q: With respect to your risk management strategy, appropriately sizing positions has traditionally been one area of focus for you, correct?
Joel:Yes, people would say ‘how can you own only six or eight companies,’ because during a lot of my career, six or eight positions represented 80+% of my portfolio. People thought that was crazy because of the volatility and the Sharpe ratio or whatever you might want to look at, but the point is that I look at it differently. I look at stocks not as pieces of paper that bounce around. I look at them as ownership stakes in businesses.
One of the examples that Buffett gives is as follows: suppose you sold your business and you had $1 million. You walk into a town and you want to invest the money conservatively. You might look around and see that there are 50 businesses in the town but you want to try to pick ones that you think have a nice future that you could buy at a reason-able price. If you pick six or eight of them, most people would think that owning a stake in the barbershop, the hotel, and whatever other businesses you thought had nice repeat customers that would continue to grow over time as the town grew, was a pretty conservative way to go.
You’re not throwing all of your money into one business, you’re picking six or eight businesses that you researched carefully; have strong management and look like they have good franchises. That sounds fairly conservative to me. That’s how I look at owning a portfolio of stocks. Once again, they’re not pieces of paper that bounce around.
If you’re a long-term holder and you own a chain of stores in the Midwest and something bad happens to Greece, there may be some small impact, but you’re not going to sell your business for half of what you think it’s worth all of a sudden. If I’m a shareowner in businesses, I need to have a long -term perspective that things will work out roughly as I expect, otherwise I shouldn’t own them.
Q: Is there something in your background that made you predisposed to having a long-term mindset and a commitment to ensuring a margin of safety for each investment, or is this something which you developed over time?
Joel:This is a mindset I developed as early as an undergraduate student. As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in this business by reading Ben Graham. That’s what resonated with me, so what can I say? Margin of safety and how to think about Mr. Market are things that I thought about very early in my investing career.
Graham’s tenets seemed logical and simple – simple enough even for me to understand actually! So I started reading and thinking and experiencing. Some things you have to learn by doing them wrong, so I en-courage people to risk being wrong. You can’t be a good investor without investing.
As you gain experience you start to understand risk/ reward; you start under-standing what looks like a good opportunity and what doesn’t; you recognize when you have more knowledge than the market about a given issue and when you don’t. So it’s a matter of comparing situations to your history of opportunities. I’ve also said in class that one of the important things to look at is not just what’s available now but what you think might be available in the future, and that perspective comes with time.
Here’s the other thing – unfortunately you don’t learn from your successes all that much; you learn from the things you screwed up. You have to screw up a little bit to learn what not to do again and to remember it as well. But you have to combine this with the right thought process,which I think is the key. There are a lot of smart people out there. A lot of people have financial skills and most of them fail.
The difference between those who are successful and those who fail is perspective – the viewpoint of how they look at the market – which really just comes back to Ben Graham and keeping that long-term horizon and understanding how to filter out the noise. People are bombarded left, right, and center with information, even more so now; you can bury yourself as much as you want.
Therefore, you need a simple filter through which to look at the world. Those who have a baseline from which they can really contextualize everything they look at are the people who are successful. A lot of things are driven by emotion. When things get bouncy, as long as I continue to believe that my work was good, and my thought process was right, I have to ride it out. As easy as it sounds, it’s really hard to do.
Q: Any other parting words of wisdom for our readers?
Joel:If you want to get good at investing, read a lot and practice a lot. Even if it’s not a lot of money, it’s real money. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that this is all you need to do to lead a successful life. This is fun for me; it’s fascinating. There’s nothing wrong with this field but, as I said before, I don’t think there’s much social value in it.
You can probably say that about a lot of occupations that aren’t saving lives every day, so you don’t have to feel bad about it. But I would just encourage people pursuing an investing career who are ultimately successful in it, to figure out a way to give back. Many people reading this are Columbia MBAs and pretty much all of them are, or will be, successful in some field or another. If you can figure out a nice way to give back that’s meaningful for you, that’s even more fun than being successful in whatever you choose to do. Keep that in mind.
 
 
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=176992

Next Page

ZKIZ Archives @ 2019