IRR 股息折現公式是計算投資報酬率唯一正確的公式，
因它完整的把未來的股息和賣出價考慮進來，
其它算報酬率的方法都是錯的。
這幾年流行的現金殖利率是錯的報酬率算法，
因只算到第一年的股息。
中碳2003年殖利率7%，
我8年抱下來賺6倍，IRR為 31%(註)，
現金殖利率7%離實際報酬率很遠。
The IRR formula is the correct method for calculating return on investment as it considers both future dividends and selling prices. Other methods are incorrect. The popular cash yield method used in recent years is flawed as it only accounts for the dividend in the first year. For example, China Steel Chemical had a yield of 7% in 2003, but this is far from the actual rate of return as I earned six times my initial investment over eight years, resulting in an IRR of 31%.(Note)
註：投資一檔股票不是純粹的單利或複利，而是單複利綜合，
股息是單利，未配出來的為複利，
IRR包含單利和複利才是報酬率正確算法。
Note: Investing in a stock involves a combination of simple and compound interest, rather than just one or the other. Dividends represent simple interest, while unallocated dividends represent compound interest. Therefore, the correct method for calculating the rate of return is to use IRR, which accounts for both simple and compound interest.
底下2家公司中國移動和中華電，誰比較便宜？
(摘自陳宥聰桑的研究)
不管用IRR或本益比去算，中移動明顯比中華電便宜，
可是算現金殖利率中移動僅4%，中華電5.8%反而較高，
中華電賺得少但配得多，反而被誤以為便宜。
現金殖利率會受到配息率高低和買回庫藏股而扭曲，
無法正確評估貴淑。
According to Joe's research, China Mobile is cheaper than Chunghwa Telecom, whether calculated using IRR or PER. However, it's worth noting that China Mobile's cash yield is only 4%, whereas Chunghwa Telecom's is higher at 5.8%. Despite earning less, Chunghwa Telecom pays out more in dividends and is mistakenly perceived as being cheaper. It's important to note that cash yield can be distorted by factors such as dividend payout ratio and shares buyback, making it difficult to evaluate a stock's true value accurately.
股價到底是反映IRR還是現金殖利率？
這2個例子可以證明：
中華電現金殖利率4.4％，還算便宜，
可是IRR -2%，貴了，
到底是貴或便宜？
請看股價表現，這幾年歷史高價在110元上下，
較接近IRR的貴價108.9元，
得證股價反映IRR，而非現金殖利率。
中華電是這幾年存股族首選標的，
存了幾年下來績效並不顯著，因為貴了。
When considering whether a stock is expensive or cheap, it's important to evaluate both IRR and cash yield. For example, Chunghwa Telecom has a cash yield of 4.4%, which may seem cheap, but its IRR is -2%, indicating that it's actually expensive. By looking at the historical high price of around NT$110 and the current price of NT$108.9, it's clear that the stock price reflects IRR rather than cash yield. Despite being a popular choice for depositors in recent years, holding Chunghwa Telecom for a few years may not result in significant investment returns due to its high cost.
港股匯豐銀行現金殖利率5.9%，以為便宜，
可是IRR 5% 接近貴，
到底是貴或便宜？看股價表現，
這幾年歷史高價85元上下，
較接近IRR算的貴價94.8元，
再次證明股價反映IRR，而非現金殖利率。
Hong Kong HSBC has a cash yield of 5.9%, which may seem cheap, but its IRR of 5% is actually closer to expensive. To determine whether the stock is expensive or cheap, it's important to evaluate its stock price performance. Over the past few years, the historical high price of Hong Kong HSBC has been around HK$85, which is closer to the pricey price of HK$94.8 calculated by IRR. This once again proves that stock prices reflect IRR rather than cash yield when determining whether a stock is expensive or cheap.
前一陣子老是有人來問「便宜價是否看現金殖利率6%？」
不是！因為股票不只賺股息，主要在賺價差。
一般人以為跑短線在賺價差，長期投資則收股息，
錯！無論短線和長期投資最主要都在賺價差，
我買中碳賺了6倍，股息僅 1 倍，其它5倍都是價差賺來的。
現金殖利率未算及最主要的價差怎麼會對呢？
Lately, many individuals have been asking whether a stock with a 6% cash dividend yield should be deemed cheap. The answer is no. Stocks generate returns not only from dividends but primarily from capital gains. It is commonly believed that short-term trading is geared towards realizing capital gains, while long-term investments are intended to produce dividends. However, this is incorrect. Both short-term and long-term investments are primarily focused on generating capital gains. To illustrate, I made a profit of six times my investment with China Steel, of which only one time was from dividends, and the remaining five times were from capital gains. Therefore, relying solely on cash dividend yield cannot be considered as the primary indicator of investment returns since it does not account for the most critical component, capital gains.
有位同學電話上跟我盧了10分鐘，
問他「有沒有聽過賺了股息，賠了價差？」
他答「聽過！」卻轉過頭說「就是要現金殖利率啊！」
我頓覺疲憊「怎麼同一個觀念換另外一句話講就不懂了？」
同學還跟我嗆聲他是第一志願的學生，
讓我發現：人碰到投資就變笨。
他說他是長期投資者「只在意股息，不管價差。」
「是嗎？」我回「那請把股票給我，我每年把股息匯給你。」
這時他才悻悻然掛上電話。
A student spoke to me on the phone for ten minutes. I asked him, "Have you ever heard of earning dividends but incurring capital losses?" He replied, "Yes, I have!" However, he immediately contradicted himself by saying, "It's all about cash dividend yield!" I felt frustrated that he couldn't grasp the same concept presented in a different way. The student even boasted that he was a top-ranking student, but I realized that people tend to become foolish when it comes to investments. He claimed to be a long-term investor who "only cares about dividends, not capital gains." "Is that so?" I replied, "Then, would you mind giving me your stocks? I'll send you the dividends every year." He hung up the phone in a sullen manner.
很多人大概不曉得配股配息的道理，
講稿5/21提到「除權除息前後股東財富不變」
配息其實是割股東的肉配給股東，
分到股息不算賺到，因為股價被除下來，
須填息了才是賺了，
股價漲才是重點，怎麼會說只管股息，不在意價差?!。
Many people may not understand the concept of ex-rights and ex-dividends. As previously discussed in the 5/21 lecture, "shareholder wealth remains the same before and after ex-rights and ex-dividends." Dividends are like taking a portion of shareholders' meat and distributing it among them. Dividends are not earned upon distribution as they are deducted from the stock price. To truly earn from dividends, the stock price must rise to pre-ex-dividend levels.The crucial point lies in the rise of stock prices. How could one claim to only care about dividends and disregard capital gains?
有人勸我放寬心「兒孫自有兒孫福」，
「不，這可是大是大非的事！
現金殖利率的毒害不解在投資上將到處碰壁。」，
我在狂風中嘶吼著。
像200元的中碳貴嗎？
按盈再表清楚顯示貴了，
可是現金殖利率還有 4%(=8.3息/200)，還會以為便宜。
Someone suggested I should relax and said, "Children have their own luck."
"No, this is a serious matter! The trap of chasing high cash yields will lead investors to trouble everywhere," I shouted into the wind.
Is the price of NT$200 per share of China Steel Chemical expensive?
On's table clearly shows that it is expensive, but some still consider it cheap because of the 4% cash yield (= 8.3 dividend / 200).
2011年中碳173元接近貴了賣掉之後我在討論區公告週知，
在其它社群上看到居然還有網友在感謝我
「感謝洪老前輩把中碳賣出來才能讓他買在180元」，
這位網友為何180元還會去買中碳，
正是誤信現金殖利率的結果。
In 2011, I sold China Steel Chemical at the expensive price of NT$173 and announced it on a discussion forum. I noticed that netizens in other investment clubs thanked me, saying "Thank you, Uncle On, for selling China Steel Chemical so that we can buy it for NT$180." However, this netizen's purchase of China Steel Chemical for NT$180 was the result of a misunderstanding of cash yield.
中碳是本人的成名代表作之一，
2003年最早發掘，在「選股魔法書」介紹，
上課時三不五時提一下，巴班同學都賺飽飽。
One of my famous success stories is China Steel Chemical. I discovered it in early 2003 and included it in my "Magic Book". I also mentioned it in my class on numerous occasions, and all my students who invested in it made a fortune.
2015年漲到 1 萬點，台股開始流行存股，
說只要高配息都不用賣，不管多貴都可以買，
是嗎？
中碳若買在200元，後來跌到100元，
配息4元，要配25年息才解套！
一個人大概只有3個25年，
第一個25年在唸書，唸一些沒用的書，
第二個25年在工作，大部分人工作附加價值都不高。
時間過得很快，我僅剩最後一個25年，
若仍在這裡跟大家「高ROE，低盈再率」就悲哀了，
驚覺不對，應該要去做一些更有意義的事，
所以就宣布不教了。
中碳買在200元的人25年則在等解套，豈不更可悲？ !
In 2015, when the index rose to 10,000 points, stock deposits became popular in the Taiwan market. They claimed that as long as the dividend yield was high, there was no need to sell, and no matter how expensive the stock was, it was still worth buying. But is that true? For instance, if one bought China Steel Chemical at NT$200, and the price subsequently dropped to NT$100, with a dividend yield of NT$4, it would take 25 years to break even! A person probably only has three sets of 25 years. During the first 25 years, one learns from books that are often of little use. During the next 25 years, most people work in jobs with low added value. Time flies by quickly, and I only have my last 25 years left. It would be miserable if I were still here teaching everyone about "high ROE, low P/E ratios". Realizing this, I decided to do something more meaningful and announced that I would no longer teach. How sad it is for those who bought China Steel Chemical at NT$200 and have been waiting for 25 years to break even!
1 萬點時還出現一個怪論「存股要把本金押滿，
本金1,000萬元的話押滿，現金殖利率4%，
一年能領到40萬元股息，就財富自由了！」
聽了這種論調直讓我全身起雞皮疙瘩，
漲到 1 萬點叫人押滿，實在無知！
這其實不是新鮮事，每隔幾年就會出現：
1萬點買滿，4,000點則唉叫現金是王。
When the market index reached 10,000 points, a strange argument arose: "You must fully invest when you deposit stocks. If your principal is $10 million and the cash yield rate is 4%, you can earn a $400,000 dividend within a year, giving you financial freedom!" Hearing this gave me goosebumps. However, it is unwise to invest fully when the market is at its peak. This is not a new phenomenon; it occurs every few years. Everyone all bets when the market is at 10,000 points, but when it drops to 4,000 points, cash becomes king.
坊間一堆不良理財達人和雜誌都這樣誤導大家，
說存殖利率5%，每年股息收100-200萬元以上，這樣就財富自由了。
有人真的拿房子抵押，對外張揚他財富自由了，
最後卻是碰到還款到期，而持股套牢賠錢…
提醒大家，要財富自由不是靠殖利率5%，
而是年績效長期15%以上
Some unethical experts and publications have misled the public by promoting the idea that investing in stocks with a 5% cash yield can generate dividends exceeding NT$1-2 million annually and bring financial freedom. However, some individuals pledge their homes as collateral to invest, claiming financial independence, only to suffer losses when the repayment date arrives. It's important to remember that financial freedom isn't attainable through a 5% yield but rather through a long-term annual performance of more than 15%.
2015年理專猛推南非幣，說利率高。
結果呢？賠了匯差。
In 2015, financial advisers strongly recommended investing in the South African currency, Rand, due to its high interest rates. The outcome? Investors suffered significant exchange losses.
買房的人都在算租金報酬率，說3%很不錯。
卻忘了房價會跌。
2013年跟大家警告房價會跌，沒人相信，
都以為房價是無敵的，不可能跌。
這世界哪有只漲不跌的商品，
若有的話世上就不會有窮人了，
我們祖先在漢朝買一幢房子到現在大家不都發了嗎？
Housing investors are calculating rental returns and considering 3% to be a good rate. However, they seem to overlook the possibility of house prices falling. In 2013, I warned others that house prices were likely to decline, but nobody believed me. They all thought that house prices were invulnerable and would never decrease. However, if such a commodity existed, nobody would be poor in the world. Our ancestors purchased houses during the Han Dynasty and passed them down to the next generation. Does that mean everyone is wealthy now?
即便房價不跌每年也會折舊，
新成屋和老房子價差是很大的，
一樣是賺了股息賠了價差。
Even if house prices do not drop, they will still depreciate every year. The price difference between a new and an old house can be significant. The same applies to capital losses incurred to collect dividends.
最近又聽到怪論，理專慫恿客戶把房子拿去貸款，
說利率不到3%，拿來買高收益債的利率6%可以套利？
可以套利嗎？
用3%去套利6%的前提是6%的債券價格不跌才有，
可是高收債跟股市的漲跌同方向且同樣劇烈，
怎麼套利？
I recently came across a strange argument that bank advisors are encouraging customers to take out a mortgage on their homes at a 3% interest rate and invest in 6% high-yield bonds, claiming it as an arbitrage opportunity. But is it really an arbitrage opportunity? The premise of this strategy is based on the assumption that the price of 6% bonds will not decline, but high-yield bonds are known to fluctuate with the stock market and can be quite volatile. So, how can one actually arbitrage in this scenario?
以上種種問題俱是現金殖利率的毒害！
賺股息，賠了價差。
All of these issues can be a trap for cash yield. While you may collect dividends, you could also suffer from capital loss.
- 講稿 1/21：歡迎 (Lecture 1/21 Welcome)
- 講稿 2/21：知與不知 (Lecture 2/21 Knowable and unknowable)
- 講稿 3/21：巴六點 (Lecture 3/21 Buffett's Six Criteria)
- 講稿 4/21：物美價廉 (Lecture 4/21 Cheap and fine)
- 講稿 5/21：還原股價 (Lecture 5/21 Adjusted stock price)
- 講稿 6/21：高ROE (Lecture 6/21 High ROE)
- 講稿 7/21：配得出現金 (Lecture 7/21 High dividends)
- 講稿 8/21：會計 (Lecture 8/21 Accounting)
- 講稿 9/21：地雷股 (Lecture 9/21 Landmine stocks)
- 講稿 10/21：他們通通是錯的 (Lecture 10/21 They are all wrong)
- 講稿 11/21：不會變的公司 (Lecture 11/22 Durable)
- 講稿 12/21：多種果樹 (Lecture 12/21 Diversification)
- 講稿 13/21：IRR (Lecture 13/21 IRR)
- 講稿 14/21：現金殖利率的毒害 (Lecture 14/21 The poison of cash yield)
- 講稿15/21：GDP理論 (Lecture 15/21 GDP Theorem)
- 講稿 16/21：全世界都成立 (Lecture 16/21 Globally applicable)
- 講稿17/21：不要想太多 (Lecture 17/21 Do not think too much)
- 講稿 18/21：玩融資期貨選擇權是悲劇的開始 (Lecture 18/21 Margin trading, futures and options are the beginnings of a tragedy)
- 講稿 19/21：基金太貴，不做代操 (Lecture 19/21 Funds are too expensive, don’t manage other's funds)
- 講稿 20/21：股債不是蹺蹺板 (Lecture 20/21 Stock debt is not a seesaw)
- 講稿 21/21：技術分析 (Lecture 21/21 Technical analysis)
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。