Only 2.4% of companies globally make you money long-term—the rest should be held cyclically
Statistics show companies outside that 2.4% mostly deliver flat or negative returns. This episode provides a concrete framework for identifying whether a company belongs in that 2.4%: the expected return formula, valuation anchors, and entry points across the company life cycle.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
Only 2.4% of companies are worth holding long-term
Yong Qing cites a statistic: of all stocks in global equity markets, 2.4% of companies created all net wealth gains; the rest either had gains and losses that canceled out, or in rare cases went to zero and delisted. He uses this to overturn the common misconception that ‘long-term holding equals value investing’—long-term holding is just the surface. What actually matters is whether you picked one of those rare companies with durable competitive advantages, capable of surviving low-probability black swan events. Buying a bad company and holding it through thick and thin has nothing to do with value investing.
— Yong QingGood companies still lose money when valuations collapse
He presents the expected-return formula: annual return = earnings growth + dividend yield + valuation change. Two examples illustrate: a white-liquor stock at 20x P/E with 8% net profit growth and 3% yield, assuming stable valuation, projects to about 12% annual return. A growth stock at 50x P/E with 10% earnings growth and 3% yield delivers negative 20% returns if valuation compresses from 50x to 20x over two years—even as profits climb. The conclusion: holding a business with solid fundamentals still loses you money if you bought at an inflated valuation. This is the real reason many investors lose money on growth stocks.
— Yong QingNever own a business you can't track completely yourself
He lists ‘hard to follow’ as one of six money-losing traps: an industrial valve company might be genuinely excellent, but unless you work in that industry, you can't sense the performance gap between it and competitors, nor can you track its order flow. That's not a stock to own. Contrast this with Apple—as an ordinary consumer you directly perceive the experience difference from other phones, and that ‘bodily contact’ with the product gives you reliable judgment. He repeats: buy businesses with no real competitors, where you only need to track one company. Once you must monitor several rivals simultaneously, the problem difficulty doubles.
— Yong QingInside information loses value when external shocks hit
He cites a mistake he made: a friend said a company had already fallen to employee-stock-plan price, ‘it won't fall further.’ It did. Employee stock plans and institutional placement prices aren't real valuation floors—stocks have normal volatility ranges. More critically, he offers a thought experiment: suppose you're the third person after the boss and CFO to know a piece of inside information—that's ‘super inside’ information. But the day Trump announces tariffs on China, the Hang Seng Index and CSI 300 both crater anyway, and your inside-information edge evaporates instantly. Ordinary investors can't access truly first-hand information and can't survive this kind of external shock.
— Yong QingThe best entry is when hypergrowth becomes stable profit
He divides the company life cycle into introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. The critical point from introduction to growth is called ‘crossing the chasm’ (examples: Pinduoduo (拼多多), Claude's introduction of paid offerings). He argues the best value-investing entry window is when a company transitions from hypergrowth to maturity, has weathered competitive winnowing, and proven it can survive and earn steadily. He cites Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (宁德时代): it recovered from a crash with profits stabilizing and share buybacks underway, proving its quality. Then the energy-storage business delivered on growth promises; that's when a high-quality ‘champion cycle’ truly begins—not during introduction, when the story is loudest.
— Yong QingWhen institutions pack a sector, individual edge evaporates
Using 20+ years of institutional positioning data, he shows capital rotates across mega-cycles in large consumption, large manufacturing, and large technology. A sector's institutional holding share can jump from 20% to 40% over several years. His conclusion: when a sector has maxed out institutional attention and research depth, the value is hard to miss anymore. At that point, individual investors and small institutions have basically zero information advantage and will almost certainly lose entering. The real edge goes to continuously-ignored, un-tracked companies whose fundamentals haven't collapsed—those are where ordinary investors actually find bargains.
— Yong QingWhen billionaire memoirs appear, the market peak approaches
He summarizes micro signals for identifying market peaks and troughs. Peak signals: media coverage explodes, new concepts fly everywhere, and especially when the big names who made fortunes in the sector over recent years get lionized. ‘If the tycoons write a book, risk gets much higher.’ They keep raising capital to scale up. Trough signals are the inverse: the sector gets condemned as worthless and should shut down, yesterday's moguls are now called fools. These emotional signals fundamentally reflect people mistaking price's visible swings for changes in the underlying company's true value.
— Yong QingUS equities had negative returns for over a decade
Against the popular ‘US stocks always go up’ narrative, he cites 1949–2020 data to refute it: 1968–1982 saw US equity annual returns of negative 4%; 2000–2009, with the internet bubble combined with the '08 financial crisis, saw major declines. Markets are neither eternally bullish nor bearish—it depends whether the factors driving that run still hold, not linear extrapolation (‘went up every year before, so always will’). He offers another statistic: despair cycles average 14 months with negative 36% total return; euphoria cycles average 22 months with positive 80% total return. Both booms and crashes are just phases of the cycle.
— Yong QingIn their own words · checked verbatim
You think your information is firsthand—but it might not be. It could be third-hand or fourth-hand.
你以为的信息是一手的 有可能不是 有可能是第三手第四手
Yong Qing36:22
When there are few people, you actually make money more easily—opportunity probability is high. When there are many people, profit probability drops sharply and loss probability rises.
人少的时候 反而容易赚钱 机会概率高 人多的时候 赚钱概率降低很多 赔钱概率高
Yong Qing46:29
Value investing is like being a sniper—you practice your fundamentals, lie prone for hours, and when a target arrives, you fire once, hit, and exit.
价投资 很像一个狙击手 平常练基本工 趴在那半天 直到有一个目标来了 你打了一枪 然后击中 就撤退了
Yong Qing1:08:47
It's like there's a bomb hiding under a candy—one in fifty might be a bomb.
它是在一个糖果下面说有一个炸弹 比如说50个里面只有一个是炸弹
Yong Qing1:53:06
Figures
| Share of global companies creating net wealth long-term | 2.4% | 7:09 |
| CSI 300 years with annual returns within normal range (5.6%-10.4%) | 3 of past 20+ years | 4:08 |
| US equity years with annual returns within normal range | 3 of past 23 years | 4:08 |
| Buffett's valuation when entering Apple (cash-adjusted) | ~10x P/E | 1:11:47 |
| Valuation support level for industry-leading companies | 15x P/E | 1:43:01 |
| Valuation floor during external shock | 10x P/E | 1:43:01 |
| US equity annual return, 1968–1982 | -4% | 1:44:01 |
| Euphoria cycle (bull market): average duration and total return | 22 months, +80% total return | 1:39:00 |
| Despair cycle (bear market): average duration and total return | 14 months, -36% total return | 1:39:00 |
Glossary
- Bullwhip Effect
- A supply-chain phenomenon where small fluctuations in consumer demand trigger massive amplification of inventory and production swings at upstream levels.
- Crossing the Chasm
- The critical transition when a product jumps from a niche early-market audience into the mainstream mass market.
How to listen
Individual investors who want to learn an expected-return framework to screen stocks, rather than hold whatever they feel good about for years.
The opening comparison of value investing, trend investing, quantitative, and index fund strategies is low information density and can be skipped directly.