Por que eu não invisto em estatais? Precisamos ser honestos...

Summary

In this video, the speaker discusses their reasons for not investing in state-owned companies, based on concerns over political influence and management changes with each election cycle. Despite previous criticisms of state-owned companies, the speaker acknowledges that these companies can perform well, citing examples like Banco do Brasil and Petrobras, which have outperformed private counterparts in recent years. The speaker emphasizes a desire for investment tranquility over maximizing returns and encourages viewers to critically assess the role of state-owned companies in their portfolios, while acknowledging that political factors can create investment opportunities.

Takeaways

• 😀 Raul explains why he avoids investing in state-controlled companies, citing the political influences on management decisions.
• 😀 He highlights how the political appointment of leaders in state-run enterprises can lead to mismanagement or politically motivated actions, harming shareholder interests.
• 😀 Despite his personal bias against state-run companies, Raul emphasizes that private companies also have their own issues, such as corruption scandals.
• 😀 Raul's approach to investing is driven by his desire for stability and peace of mind, rather than purely seeking high returns.
• 😀 He reflects on his past experiences of investing in companies like Banco do Brasil and Eletropaulo, where he faced significant losses, influencing his current investment philosophy.
• 😀 Raul acknowledges that many other influencers repeat his views on state-run companies, but often with shallow understanding, contributing to a widespread misconception.
• 😀 Contrary to popular belief, Raul debunks the myth that state-owned companies underperform compared to private companies, using examples like Banco do Brasil and Petrobras to demonstrate their strong performance.
• 😀 State-run companies in sectors like utilities, which are less prone to bankruptcy due to their ties with the government, can offer investment opportunities with better returns over time.
• 😀 Raul notes that the volatility of state-owned companies often presents investors with opportunities to increase their positions at lower prices during political turmoil.
• 😀 Raul concludes by emphasizing that his decision not to invest in state-run companies is personal and ideologically driven, prioritizing his peace of mind over potential financial gains.

Q & A

Why does the speaker avoid investing in state-controlled companies?

The speaker avoids investing in state-controlled companies because they believe these companies can be politically influenced, which may affect their management and long-term profitability. Political appointments can lead to decisions that prioritize political agendas over business performance.

What is the speaker's stance on private companies versus state-controlled companies?

While the speaker acknowledges that private companies also face corruption issues, they prefer to invest in private companies over state-controlled ones due to the perceived risks of political interference in the management of the latter.

What is the main reason the speaker dislikes investing in state-owned enterprises from an ideological standpoint?

The speaker's ideological preference for a smaller state leads them to avoid investing in state-owned enterprises. They argue that state ownership can lead to inefficiencies and a misalignment of interests between the government and shareholders.

How does the speaker respond to the myth that state-controlled companies always perform worse than private companies?

The speaker refutes the myth, presenting data to show that state-controlled companies, like Banco do Brasil and several utility companies, have historically performed better than private companies in terms of investment returns.

Why does the speaker emphasize 'peace' and 'tranquility' in their investment philosophy?

The speaker values peace of mind and stability in their investments, preferring companies where they won't be disturbed by frequent political changes or management turnover, which is common in state-controlled enterprises.

What role does political influence play in the performance of state-owned companies, according to the speaker?

Political influence can result in the appointment of non-technical managers or individuals with political connections, which may harm the company's long-term business performance and stability.

How do state-controlled companies provide investment opportunities, according to the speaker?

State-controlled companies may offer unique investment opportunities because political decisions can cause price fluctuations, creating windows for investors to buy at lower prices. Additionally, these companies are less likely to go bankrupt due to their ties to the government.

What does the speaker mean by 'critical perspective' when analyzing investments in state-owned companies?

A 'critical perspective' means that investors should independently assess the risks and opportunities of state-controlled companies, rather than relying on simplistic or ideological assumptions about their performance.

Why does the speaker recommend questioning advice from influencers on YouTube?

The speaker suggests that many influencers repeat simplified or incomplete information without understanding the nuances of investing in state-controlled companies. This can lead to misinformation and an incomplete understanding of the subject.

How does the speaker compare investing in state-controlled companies to investing in government bonds or fixed-income securities?

The speaker contrasts investments in state-controlled companies with investments in fixed-income securities by explaining that the latter offers more stability, while investing in state companies carries the risk of political interference, although it may yield higher returns.