Viser opslag med etiketten Investering. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten Investering. Vis alle opslag

onsdag den 8. december 2010

Jim Rogers - Interview With the Financial Times


Did you think you would get to where you are?

No, I am as surprised as anyone. I certainly wanted to get somewhere and was willing to work hard. I wanted to retire young, but I never thought I would retire before 40.

When you realised that you had made your first million were you tempted to slow down?

I can remember the exact day of my first million dollars’ net worth. It was in November 1977. I was 35. I knew I needed more than that to do what I wanted when I was 37 – the age I decided to stop working to seek adventure.

What is the secret of your success?

As I was not smarter than most people, I was willing to work harder than most. I was prepared to examine conventional wisdom. If everyone thinks one way, it is likely to be wrong. If you can figure out that it is wrong, you are likely to make a lot of money.

What is your basic investment strategy?

Buy low and sell high. I try to find something that is very cheap, where a positive change is taking place. Then I do enough homework to make sure I am right. It has got to be cheap so that, if I am wrong, I don’t lose much money. Every time I make a mistake, it is usually because I did not do enough homework.

Do not underestimate the value of due diligence. In the 1960s, General Motors was the world’s most successful company. One day, a GM analyst went to the board of directors with the message: “The Japanese are coming.” They ignored him. Investors who did their homework sold their GM stock – and bought Toyota instead.

I’m not buying any stocks at the moment. If anything is undervalued now it is commodities and some currencies.

What has been your most spectacular gain?

The Quantum Fund. When we started the company in 1970, I had $600 in my pocket. Within 10 years, the portfolio had gained 4,200 per cent.

Do you want to carry on till you drop?

No. These days, I spend very few hours a day working, because I have two little girls and I want to spend as much time with them as possible.

Both our girls have a Chinese governess and speak fluent Mandarin. For their generation, Mandarin and English will be the most important languages.

Have you made any pension provision?

I don’t have a pension because I hope I don’t need one. I have accumulated assets and that is what I live on.

What is your commitment to charity?

I have given money to students and schools around the world. I try to give scholarships to students rather than schools, because the students need the money more than administrators.

Do you allow yourself the odd indulgence?

I have been around the world twice. Setting off in 1990, I spent 22 months travelling through six continents on a motorcycle.

On my second trip, which started in 1999, my wife and I travelled for three years through 116 countries in a custom-made Mercedes.

What is the most you have ever paid for a bottle of fine wine or champagne?

I don’t have an upper limit for champagne, but I’ve never had the urge to spend $2,000 on a bottle of wine. I always remember my background. I did not have money as a kid.

Picasso or Art Deco as an investment?

I am at a stage where I am not interested in having or amassing stuff.

Do you believe in passing your wealth to children?

I’ve always thought that, if you give children too much, you will ruin them. I have set up my will so they don’t get much until they are at least 30.

I went to Yale and Oxford and a lot of rich kids were there who never had to work. I know I want my children to be well-
educated and experience the workplace.

Education and the necessity to work changed my life and yanked me out of the backwater of Alabama.

Where should people put their money in the recession?

Invest only in things you know something about. The mistake most people make is that they listen to hot tips, or act on something they read in magazines.

Most people know a lot about something, so they should just stick to what they know and buy an investment in that area. That is how you get rich.

You don’t get rich investing in things you know nothing about.


Fra Jim Rogers blog:

Wiki om Rogers:

lørdag den 30. oktober 2010

De økonomiske analfabeter har talt - igen!

Det er ikke kun S og SF, der er økonomiske tåber, med ønsket om at ville indføre 0,25 pct. afgift på aktiehandler. Nu vil EU følge trop og indføre en afgift på 0,1 pct. på aktienhandler, værdipapirhandel.

Det lyder jo som et lille uskyldigt beløb, det er også symbolsk, så hvad er problemet?

Problemet er, at denne afgift tilføjes alle handler. Nu er det sådan, at aktiemarkedet ikke kun vokser ind i himlen. Når nogle tjener penge, så taber andre dem.

Hvis vi forestiller og at hr. Madsen har investeret 1 mio. kr. Hans pensionsopsparing. Men da han skal til at sælge sine aktier, for at hæve pensionen, så er de kun 800.000 kr. værd. Så skal han tabe 2000 kr. oven i ud fra S og SFs forslag. Det er ikke meget, det er håndører, indrømmet ja, men det er stadig spot føjet til skade.

Det blegner dog i forhold til den danske beskatning af afkast på aktier, der er på op til 45 pct. Det vil sige, at hvis man nu havde tjent 2.000.000 kr. på investering på 10 mio. kr.
Så i stedet for at tjene 2.000.000. Så skal man betale 900.000 i skat. (Teknisk set skal man betale lidt mindre, da beskatningen på de første 100.000 er mindre end 45 pct.)

Det lyder vel også meget retfærdigt, for det er da mindre, end skattefar vil have af ens løn.

Nu er der bare det men, at de 2.000.000 kan man jo investere igen, Så man havde 12 mio. kr at investere for - i stedet for 11,1 mio. kr.

Selv om det ikke lyder dramatisk med denne skat, så begrænser den faktisk investorers muligheder for at tjene penge, og betyder effektivt, at de mister op til over 80 pct. af de penge, de faktisk kunne have tjent, hvis der ingen skat var.

Er det så ikke retfærdigt, at investorer betaler skat i stedet for at bare have råd til at købe luksusboliger, champagne og Ferrarier på stribe?

Jo, det er det såmænd nok, man betaler såmænd også skat de fleste steder. Det er nok bare ikke nogen overraskelse, at det danske skattevæsen giver alle andre baghjul på den her konto med beskatning af afkast.

Men lad os først gøre os det klart, at der er forskel på, om man sælger en aktie for at købe en ny aktie, eller for investere i og eje et selskab, eller oprette et helt nye selskaber. Eller om man gør det for at købe en Porche.

I det sidste tilfælde tager man pengene ud til personligt forbrug, her kunne man eventuelt diskutere rimeligheden i en skat - dog ikke så høj.
I de første tilfælde investerer man dem eventuelt i at starte et helt nye selskab til fordel for samfundet, eller i at overtage et selskab og opnå indflydelse i det, så det selskab kan blive stærkere og dermed et langt bedre aktiv for samfundsøkonomien. Det specielt hvis man antager, at der er en sammenhæng mellem at være god til at tjene på investeringer, og mellem at lede et selskab frem mod bedre tider.

Det vil sige, fremfor at alene at forhindre at danske rigmænd blærer sig med store boliger, fede sportsbiler osv. Så forhindrer denne skat faktisk virksomheder i at blive oprettet, eller opkøbt og forbedret, den forhindrer økonomien i at vokse, sammen med alle de andre forhindringer, der er legio.

Det er Warren Buffett et godt eksempel på, men havde han levet i Danmark i dag, så var han ikke nået så langt. For over 80 pct. af hans formue var deltvist røget i skattekassen, delvist blevet saboteret af staten som fremtidig indtjeningsmulighed.

Med politikere som dette, skal vi ikke undre os over, at vi ikke klarer os godt. Der findes andre OECD lande, der klarer sig langt bedre, fordi skattesnablen endnu ikke stikker ned i alle hjørner af samfundsøkonomien, eller suger så kraftigt.