Hello, this is just a casual conversation. Today, I'm not just talking casually; I want to discuss something more serious. The serious topic is about investing in gold. In fact, I should have talked about this earlier, but it's a bit late now. So, today, I will calmly share my thoughts on gold investment.

First, the topic I want to discuss is real estate. I will compare real estate with stocks, and the key word for this first topic will be contract. Do you think investing in real estate is an easier contract compared to stocks? Even if you buy one share of stock, you could consider it a contract between me and the company. In fact, buying one share of Samsung Electronics through an MTS is easy; it costs about 70,000 won. However, when you want to buy real estate, like a house, you have to be very meticulous. You need to check the property registration details, you have to get a loan, and the paperwork is complicated.

There is so much to study. Therefore, a real estate contract seems to be a more difficult contract, while a stock contract seems easier. However, in my opinion, stocks are actually a much more challenging contract. There is a reason for this. If we take an apartment as a standard, buying real estate means purchasing one unit, one house. So, one house is entirely mine. I can say, This is my house. However, it’s not the same with stocks. When you buy stocks, you are purchasing a share. For example, if Samsung Electronics has a total of 7 billion shares, owning one share means you own a tiny fraction of that. Because of this concept, creating a proper contract that reflects that ownership is quite difficult. For instance, even if you own one share, you have certain rights, but how those rights should be recognized becomes a question. Minority shareholders expect the company to fulfill its responsibilities.

If it is possible, it is very difficult to create a contract that clearly outlines how responsibility should be taken. So, where are the contracts really well established? Without a doubt, it is the United States. The contracts related to ownership of stocks are thoroughly defined there. Conversely, where is it really not well done? I believe it is in China. People in China tend to invest much more in real estate than in stocks, and this has been the case until now and will likely continue. In a way, I see investing in real estate as something that happens more in underdeveloped countries. Now, when we think about our country, many people believe that the government will never let real estate collapse, saying, This real estate can never go down.

Many people have lived in various houses, whether it be one, two, or three. However, I believe that the rising prices of real estate in the Danwon district do not contribute positively to the national economy. Why? Because while rising real estate prices may seem beneficial, they only help those who own property. For those who do not own real estate, it provides no assistance at all. Just think about it; the only thing that rises is the cost of living. On the other hand, I believe that the increase in stock prices is a different issue. When stock prices rise, it means, from a company's perspective, that their financing costs decrease. This concept of lower financing costs might be a bit confusing, so let me give you an example. Let's assume there is a company called Ihoseok Academy, and let's say its value is approximately 10 billion won. Because of this 10 billion won in corporate value, if I were to...

If I say I will give you a 10% stake, a friend of mine kindly said, I will bring in a 10% stake, so I will invest. How much money can I receive? I can receive 1 billion won, right? But what if it's not 10 billion won but 100 billion won? The company's value has increased; the stock price has risen. Since the stock price has gone up, even if I give the same stake of 10%, the amount of money I can receive is not 1 billion won but 10 billion won. Do you understand? An increase in stock price means that the cost the company can raise is lower. If companies in our country do not receive proper evaluation of their stock prices, it means that their cost of raising funds increases. In the past, companies used land as collateral to borrow from banks, and then they built factories and borrowed money from banks using the factories as collateral. The cost of raising funds from banks was...

There are interest rates, but not right now. The economy has become a time where we cannot simply rely on global companies to compete. There must be ways to procure funds through stocks, but if stock prices are low, that indicates a weakening of the company's competitiveness, or more exaggeratedly, it can affect the competitiveness of the country as well. Therefore, I believe that all taxes, including capital gains tax, play a very strong role in allowing the government to shift the movement of money from one place to another. The sentiment is that, obviously, people say to invest in real estate and disregard stocks. When the flow of money shifts from stocks to real estate, it does not help the national competitiveness at all; only real estate prices go up while stock prices fall, weakening the competitiveness of companies. This ultimately means that the companies you work for could face more difficulties, leading to a reduction in jobs.

This means that the companies your children will be working for may become more difficult to enter, leading to a loss of jobs. While one might think, What’s the problem with just financial investment? it's important to consider that companies in our country need to go abroad and compete with foreign companies. In that context, I can highlight how crucial it is for companies in our country to receive a proper evaluation of their stock prices. 

Now, let’s move on to the second topic. Since we are talking about companies, let's discuss them further and consider it from the perspective of investors. Many people might think that financial investment is just about making money. But think about it carefully: when we say we want to increase financial investments, it also implies that we are going to lower transaction taxes. So, we’re saying that we should lower transaction taxes while also increasing financial investments.

In this situation, naturally, what effect will arise? The proportion of short-term investors will increase. What thoughts will companies observing this situation have? Wait a minute, if the proportion of short-term investors increases, then the ones who have been bothering us will disappear, right? They kept insisting on value-up and shareholder returns, which was annoying, but they will leave now. So, if there are many short-term investors, we don't have to provide shareholder returns to them, right? This creates a vicious cycle. In such situations, companies might become more aggressive towards investors. Be cautious. Additionally, investors may demand more from companies, which becomes a tricky situation. It leads to a vicious cycle. Therefore, there will be doubts about whether the value-up that the government is promoting is truly feasible.

To achieve value-up, the government can tell companies, Hey, you should work on your value-up, but the voice of investors telling companies to do so is much more powerful. However, that is not happening, which is very unfortunate. It is not just about implementing measures immediately; it is concerning that this situation could have a significant negative impact on our country's companies' ability to increase their value. Recently, the KOSPI has not been performing well. The domestic market is struggling, and there are various reasons for this. A while ago, when I met with some foreign investors, they expressed surprise about the domestic industries in Korea, saying, Wow, the population is declining. How can companies in such a country that rely on domestic consumption experience substantial growth? Therefore, they concluded that there is no reason to invest.

They say that overseas investors are speaking, but I couldn't respond in just one word. It's really true what they're saying. So, I said that exports should be doing well. However, recently, with the strengthening of the won, there are concerns that the competitiveness of export companies is weakening. That's right. Because of this, the appeal of the KOSPI is diminishing. But there's a degree to this situation. The recent KOSPI stock price, as we discussed yesterday, is performing worse than the stock prices in countries affected by the ongoing conflict in Palestine, where we were recently in an uproar about a 0-0 football match. And if we look at Germany's situation, it's really not good. There has been no growth for six years, with the GDP remaining the same. Yet, despite that, their stock prices are at record highs. There's no reason for the KOSPI to be as bad as it is. There is a degree to how bad it can be. So, I believe that...

Personally, I believe that the situation of hesitating whether to invest in this fund is very unfavorable. Think about it: if interest in overseas investments decreases, it means that interest itself is declining. In other words, it signifies indifference. I find this expression truly frightening. What do you think is the opposite of love? It's not hatred; it's indifference. Everyone watching this broadcast should consider this. If investors become indifferent to the KOSPI, there is nothing more terrifying than that. If domestic investors are not buying stocks, will foreign investors step in? Will stock prices actually rise? Will they even receive an appropriate valuation? How can companies maintain their competitiveness and compete with foreign firms successfully?

How can we imagine that your children will be able to work for great companies in our country? When we think about it, the various incidents related to the gold pitcher over the past year can truly be heartbreaking. The third topic is overseas stocks. When discussing overseas and domestic stocks, I believe a very important keyword is conversion costs. The term conversion costs can be quite daunting. In the past, it was considerably difficult to invest in overseas stocks, so when we looked at really good companies abroad or significant changes happening in the world, it was challenging to buy those overseas stocks. As a result, we invested in domestic stocks that operated similar businesses. That was one way of investing. However, these days, not many people invest that way anymore. Unless you are someone who plays with a few small theme stocks, it has become difficult to make such investments. Because...

The reason is that the switching costs are low. In the past, it was very difficult to transition to foreign stocks. However, investing in foreign stocks from domestic stocks has become very easy these days. This means that everyone is investing in foreign stocks, which is why the term Suhakgei (referring to investment in foreign stocks) has come up. I also think that foreign stocks are more attractive than domestic stocks, and I have been sharing this with you. Recently, there was surprising news that came out this week. It was about the Democratic Party and the ISA accounts. To briefly explain these accounts, they are designed for the government to encourage ordinary citizens to save up a significant amount of money. The idea is that if you don't save, it will be difficult for you later on. So, you should...

If you invest, I will exempt you from taxes. If I do this, I will exempt you from taxes, so please put your money here. Create this account and make sure to accumulate a substantial amount, aiming for about 100 million won. This can be considered an account that offers benefits. However, the account that provides these benefits actually does not allow for foreign stocks to be included. Of course, you can include foreign stock ETFs that are listed domestically. Therefore, many people advise to just put domestic Nasdaq ETFs into the ISA. However, I noticed that a recent supplementary measure related to gold investment mentioned that they would allow investment in foreign stocks through the ISA to provide some easing. Because of this, many domestic investors are outraged. It is evident that this is a way to provide benefits through taxes in Korea, but what does it mean to encourage investment in foreign stocks?

The question is, isn't it different? Taxes ultimately serve the role of the government in shifting the flow of money from one place to another, moving it in a direction that benefits the nation. The very fact that this thought has arisen indicates a serious misjudgment of the situation, in my opinion. To summarize what I've said today, the tax policy regarding financial investments ultimately determines where the flow of money will go. It's clear to anyone that the value of real estate is lower than that of stocks. However, the rise in real estate prices does not contribute to national competitiveness. On the other hand, an increase in stock prices helps reduce the operational costs for companies, thereby enhancing their competitiveness. Therefore, the flow of money is currently concentrated in real estate.

You need to think about how to transfer the flow of money into stocks in some way. From that perspective, I believe that the current introduction of gold investment poses a significant problem. Secondly, from the standpoint of companies and investors, this kind of tax policy increases the proportion of short-term investors, allowing companies to do whatever they want even more freely than before. This means that there are no means to prevent the situation from moving further away from value creation, which is a serious issue. If investors become completely indifferent to the KOSPI, our country will experience a more serious decline in national competitiveness. Finally, it might be helpful to consider the relationship with foreign stocks in terms of switching costs. It's no longer difficult to invest in foreign stocks like it used to be; anyone can do it now.

I can go for overseas stocks, but I think this process is too much of a stretch. When I discussed this with my employees, they mentioned that it seems like we should focus more on overseas stocks. The reason I'm talking about the Korea Financial Investment Association today is that, to be honest, I feel that if we continue like this, it could be really dangerous. I’m speaking out of concern, genuinely worried about the country. You might think, Who do you think you are to worry about the country? But honestly, when I first joined the company, I made a statement. I said that I would become someone who feels responsible for this company in ten years. What I meant by that is that I truly care about the company.

I hope the company does well, and it was also an expression of my determination to become someone who is qualified to say such things. In a way, discussing this might be overstepping, but I still believe that many of you watching this video are influential people, and that’s why I’m sharing my thoughts. Another point is that, as a parent myself, I genuinely worry about the country, and that’s why I’m speaking out. So, I would love to hear your thoughts on what I’ve said today, so please leave a lot of comments. If you found the content of this video helpful, it would be great if you could share it with those who may not know much about the financial investment sector. That’s all for today, and I will say goodbye here. This has been just me.

[그냥효] 논란의 금투세... 작심하고 소신발언 하겠습니다

효친님들을 위한 바이사이드 애널리스트 이효석 매니지스트입니다. 
운용 경험을 살려서 변화된 세상에서 생존을 위한 투자전략을 리서치하고 있습니다.
비즈니스/광고/협업 문의 : contact@hs-academy.kr
