저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 피터 시프는 연준이 인플레이션과 침체 사이에서 진퇴양난에 빠져 있으며, 대규모 주택담보대출 평가손실과 국가부채 문제로 채권·금융위기가 불가피하다고 보고, 실물자산(금·은·자원기업·신흥국)으로 대비하라고 주장한다. 은행·주택담보대출 평가손실: 2007~2010 금융위기 당시 부실 주택담보대출 손실은 약 4,500억 달러였고, 금리 하락으로 연체되지 않은 대출의 시장가치는 크게 올랐다. 현재는 상황이 반대로, 기존 고정금리 주택담보대출의 미실현 손실이 약 2조 달러에 이른다고 주장한다. 만기 25년 남은 고정금리 주담대 8조 달러(평균 4.6%, 현재 시장금리 7.5%) 기준이며, 모기지금리가 8.5%에 도달하면 미실현 손실이 3조 달러로 불어난다고 본다. 이는 연체가 없어도 발생하는 손실이다. 은행 위기 전망: 은행들은 주담대뿐 아니라 국채 등 장기 채권에서도 막대한 손실을 안고 있으며, 금리가 오를수록 이 손실이 누적된다고 본다. 실패하는 은행이 자산을 청산하면 손실이 확정되고, 이에 따라 연준은 인플레이션이 악화되더라도 금리를 인하해야 하는 압박을 받게 되며, 그 결과 인플레이션이 지금보다 더 나빠진다고 주장한다. 2008년 당시 '대마불사'로 구제된 은행들은 지금 규모가 더 커졌지만 재무 상태는 더 나빠졌다고 평가한다. 단, 이는 시프의 추정치이며 독립 검증된 미국 은행 데이터가 아니라는 점이 명시되었다. 실리콘밸리은행(SVB) 사례처럼 금리 급등으로 증권 가치가 떨어지고 예금 인출이 몰리면 위기가 촉발될 수 있다고 본다. 국가부채: 미국 국가부채는 40조 달러를 넘어섰고, 2026 회계연도 재정적자는 약 2조 달러로 전해졌다. 차입비용 상승으로 재정 부담이 커지는데, 투자자들이 더 높은 금리를 요구하는 시점에 정부가 더 많이 빌려야 하는 상황을 우려한다. 시프는 국가부채가 45조, 50조 달러 등 어느 수준에서 위기가 올지는 말할 수 없지만, 정치권은 시장이 강제하기 전까지 대응 유인이 없다고 본다. 그는 이를 '예측'이라고 강조했다. 달러 기축통화: 달러의 기축통화 지위 덕분에 미국이 낮은 금리로 대규모 차입을 할 수 있었으나, 이 특권이 점차 약해지고 있다고 본다. 연준 자료에 따르면 2024년 기준 공개된 외환보유액의 약 58%가 달러이며, 그는 달러 지위가 앞으로 줄어들 것이라 보지만 달러가 갑자기 지위를 잃을 것이라는 주장은 아니라고 선을 그었다. 대안 자산: 금이 가장 우선이며 그다음 은이다. 현재 금은 약 4,100달러, 은은 60달러 아래로 밀려 약 56달러 수준이라며 좋은 가격이라고 평가하고, 금속 가격이 크게 오를 것이라고 말했다. 그 외 광업·에너지·농업·산업금속 관련 기업과 일부 신흥국 기업을 실물자산 노출 수단으로 제시했으며, 자원기업도 경영이 나쁘면 손실이 날 수 있다는 단서를 달았다. 에너지는 구조적 문제로 보며 수요 증가와 공급 부족, 러시아·우크라이나·중동 분쟁을 근거로 들었다. AI 투자: AI가 실제로 생산성을 높일 수 있지만 막대한 투자가 모두 수익으로 이어지지는 않으며, 철도·인터넷 버블의 역사를 들어 과잉투자 가능성을 경고했다. 투자 버블인지는 아직 알 수 없다고 했다. AI 성과가 소비자나 신규 경쟁자에게 돌아갈 수도 있다고 보았다. 인플레이션: 연준의 목표가 연 2%의 구매력 상실이라며, 정책이 설계상 구매력을 잠식한다고 비판했다. 유럽·일본: 프랑스의 부채/GDP 비율이 미국과 비슷하며 일본도 부채 문제가 있다고 지적했다. 과도하게 빌린 국가들이 결국 대가를 치르게 될 것이라 주장했다. 전반적으로 시프는 금융위기와 국가부채 위기 가능성을 강하게 경고하지만, 시점과 구체적 수치는 자신의 추정이며 결론은 논쟁적이라는 점을 밝혔다.
다듬은 글
Do you think the Federal Reserve is faced with an impossible choice between fighting inflation and preventing a recession ? Or what can they do at all ? Well, it's not just about the recession. This is a full-blown financial crisis of grand proportions. Listen, I just published this in X today. But throughout the entire global financial crisis from 2007 to 2010, the losses on mortgage loans that defaulted were about 450 billion.
However, interest rates fell so much that 90% of mortgages that were not in default actually increased significantly in price. I think the banks had over a trillion dollars in unrealized market gains in their mortgage portfolios . Today, unrealized losses on existing mortgages total two trillion dollars.
You have eight trillion dollars of fixed- rate mortgages maturing in 25 years, with an average rate of 4.6%, but a current rate of 7.5%. And when mortgage rates reach 8.5%, the unrealized losses will be three trillion dollars. This is significantly more than was lost during the financial crisis. And this is without any defaults.
That's how much they lose on mortgages that don't default. Of course , they will lose even more on those where they are. But we have never been in such a situation . So, if the Fed continues to fight inflation, we will have a housing crisis that will make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a breeze .
Um, yes. Yes. As we know, the debt has exceeded $40 trillion. Peter, a question for you. What's stopping the government from having, say, $80 trillion in debt? Really, what's stopping them from doing this? Well, ultimately, it will be a bond crisis. You know, the sovereign debt crisis. That's the only thing that will stop this debt train, is, you know, a crash.
But until then, you know, we're moving on: we're just above 40 trillion now, but we'll get to 45, 50, 60, 70 trillion until there 's a full explosion. Maybe it will happen before we reach 45 trillion. You know, I do n't know. I don't know where the breaking point is. I only know that it is there, and we will eventually find it, because we will not stop until we find it, because there is no political incentive to avert the crisis.
All incentives are aimed at waiting for a crisis. So, a crisis is inevitable. This, yes, this is definitely not good. As we know, the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Is this a fairy tale for you, or do you really see this status in the future? Well, the dollar's reserve status is the reason we were able to build up such a large debt, and the reason we were able to do it at such low interest rates.
Now this is starting to change. But yes, I do believe that the days of the dollar as the world's reserve currency are numbered. I just don't know how many are left, but it's a lot less than it used to be. That is, if you expect a serious debt or currency crisis, what assets would you hold, besides physical gold?
I know you...We all know your position on gold. However, beyond gold, how can we prepare for the coming crisis? Well, I mean, obviously you can own silver. So, in addition to precious metals , you can invest in hard assets in general. You can invest in companies operating in the resource sector. That is, mining companies, not only precious metals, but also industrial metals, agriculture, energy.
And to the extent that profitable options can be found, even in technology. You know, just real assets. I think emerging markets look very attractive, as do many of their companies. You need tools to protect against inflation. You should own things, not paper promises. Because, you know, these promises won't be worth the paper they're written on, as inflation will eat away at their purchasing power.
Yes, I'm glad you mentioned energy. At what point does the persistent rise in energy costs become a structural problem for the global economy, rather than a temporary geopolitical shock? Well, I think that's already a problem, because the demand for energy is growing, and the supply to meet it is currently non-existent.
We need to invest significantly more in capacity. But it is clear that the current situation in both Russia and Ukraine, as well as in the Middle East, makes this difficult, and there is no end in sight to either situation. Yes. The market has huge hopes for artificial intelligence. How can investors distinguish a true productivity revolution from an investment bubble, where capital spending far outpaces future returns?
Yeah, well, again, I guess we don't know for sure if this is a bubble. I mean, it definitely looks like a bubble, but we don't know because we don't really know what the return on investment in AI will be. So, if it turns out that the companies making these investments can actually make enough money to make a good profit, then it's not a bubble.
But it's possible that they're spending too much and won't be able to make as much profit. And in the future, they will face great competition, which they are not yet aware of, from companies that will be able to provide AI services much cheaper because they did not make such large initial investments.
So, we don't know. I mean, there's this idea of, "Hey, you know, if we don't do this, we're going to lose." So there's an arms race to get as much computing power as possible and build all these data centers, but, you know, we don't know. Look at what happened to all the railroad companies that were created, and how many assumptions turned out to be wrong.
Yes, the railroads changed the country, but many people lost a lot of money on their investments in the railroads. And, you know, the same thing happened very recently with the Internet. Look at all those crazy assumptions that all those companies that went bankrupt made. But the internet has certainly changed our lives.
AI has the potential to change it even more. But we will see whether the investments made today will pay off in the future. What if the next financial crisis starts not because people miss mortgage payments, but because millions of homeowners pay their mortgages exactly on schedule? This sounds absurd, but this is precisely the danger that Peter Schiff points out.
His caveat is that loans made at low interest rates can lose huge market value when rates rise, even if borrowers never default. And he believes it could present the Federal Reserve with a choice that no one on Wall Street wants to discuss. Here's the easiest way to imagine it. Imagine you have a 30-year mortgage at about 4.5%.
Then they start charging 7.5% for new mortgage loans. Your old loan is still generating income, but why should another investor pay full price for it when new loans offer a much higher income? To sell it, you may have to agree to a discount. Multiply this problem by a huge portfolio, and suddenly the phrase " unrealized loss" becomes a lot less comforting.
Schiff estimates that there could be approximately $2 trillion in unrealized market losses hidden behind existing mortgages. He claims that these losses could approach $3 trillion if mortgage rates rise to 8.5%. These are just his estimates, not independently verified data for US banks. And here there is an important accounting nuance .
Banks do not evaluate each active loan as if it needs to be sold tomorrow. A mortgage held to maturity can continue to make scheduled payments. Problems arise if the lender urgently needs cash and is forced to sell at a lower price. Remember Silicon Valley Bank in 2023? His problems were not simply borrowers' refusal to repay loans.
Rapidly rising interest rates reduced the value of the securities he held, and mass withdrawals exposed his weaknesses. Schiff believes that a similar clash of interest rate risk and confidence could hit a much broader part of the financial system. This does not mean that another collapse is inevitable.
Banks have different capital buffers, hedging and funding sources , but this shows why falling bond prices matter long before any defaults occur. Schiff then shifts his gaze from bank balance sheets to Washington. America's national debt has already exceeded $40 trillion. Reuters reported this week that the budget deficit for fiscal year 2026 is about $2 trillion, and that higher borrowing costs are putting pressure on the budget.
Schiff fears that the government may have to borrow more at the very time when investors demand higher interest rates for lending. This is the financial equivalent of using a credit card to pay off the interest on another credit card. The minimum payment keeps coming, but for some reason the balance never decreases.
He predicts that the final tipping point will be the sovereign bond crisis. He can't say whether that will happen at $ 45 trillion , $50 trillion, or much later, but he argues that politicians have no incentive to address the problem until markets force them to . This is a forecast, not a countdown.
The United States borrows in its own currency and has deep capital markets, which is of enormous importance when compared to countries that have effectively defaulted. And here's what makes Schiff's warning especially provocative: the dollar's privilege as a reserve currency. Countries hold dollars and U.S.
Treasury securities for trade, investment, and financial stability. The Federal Reserve reported that in 2024, the dollar still accounted for approximately 58% of the world's disclosed foreign exchange reserves. Schiff believes that this dominant role has allowed America to borrow on favorable terms for decades, but he worries that this advantage is gradually disappearing.
However, losing a certain share in reserves is not the same as the dollar suddenly losing its global position. So what happens if investors become skeptical about government debt at the very moment when banks need support? Schiff fears that policymakers may protect the financial system by easing monetary conditions, only to revive inflation and weaken purchasing power.
His next argument concerns what people can own as financial promises become less reliable, and whether the AI investment boom could improve or worsen this debt problem. We pulled back, gold is around 4100, silver is back below 60, around $56 an ounce. And then when these banks start to fail, and what they did to distort the markets and inflate the bubbles that inevitably always burst.
If it weren't for all this inflation, prices would have dropped much more. So, let's assume that AI is that productive. In fact, even the Fed admits that their goal is for us to lose only 2 % of our purchasing power annually . So, by design, we are losing purchasing power. Banks noted unrealized gains at market value of over a trillion dollars in their mortgage portfolios.
Today, unrealized losses on existing mortgages amount to two trillion dollars. You have eight trillion dollars of fixed- rate mortgages maturing in another 25 years, with an average rate of 4.6%, but a current rate of 7.5%. When mortgage rates reach 8.5%, unrealized losses will be three trillion dollars because there is no political incentive to prevent a crisis.
All incentives are to wait for the crisis and buy gold and silver now. I mean, we pulled back, gold is around 4,100, silver is back below 60, about $56 an ounce. I think these are good prices. Uh, I think metals will go up significantly in price. Well, as we know, in 2008, banks caused a major crisis.
How do you assess the role of banks today? Do you see them also in some kind of collapse scenario, or do they have enough liquidity today that it won't happen. What is your opinion about the banking sector? Yes, I think all the banks we bailed out in 2008 because they were "too big to fail." They are much bigger now because of aid, but I think financially they are in worse shape.
Like I just said, they hold all these mortgages. I mean, not all, but most of the 8 trillion mortgage loans, which have 2 trillion unrealized losses, are held by banks. But they don't just have trillions in losses on mortgages, they have trillions in losses on the Treasury bonds they hold. And other long-term debt instruments on their balance sheets.
And as rates continue to rise , these losses continue to accumulate. This is part of the problem with the Fed raising rates. The more they raise rates, the more, you know, the worse the bank's balance sheet gets. And when these banks start to fail, and they will, like Silicon Valley or Signature Bank , when these banks start to fail, now you have to liquidate their mortgage portfolios.
Eliminate. And now you have to record these unrealized losses . So, this will put a lot of pressure on the Fed not to raise rates, but to lower them, even as inflation worsens. And when they do, then inflation will become even worse than it was. So, do you think this is just a US problem or do you see it worldwide?
I mean specifically, I mean Europe. Is there a similar problem in Europe ? Yes, I mean they have a similar problem. It's not identical, but look at France. Look what's happening there now . France has almost the same level of debt to GDP as we do. So there is a big problem there. And you know, there are many other countries in Europe that have similar problems.
Look at Japan. Look what's happening there. Look at all the debt they have. The stakes are rising. I mean, everything comes back to haunt all the countries that lived in debt and sold too much debt. Peter Schiff has a troubling question for anyone who thinks government bonds are automatically safe. What happens when the government itself continues to borrow faster than investors are comfortable lending?
He believes that America's growing debt could eventually challenge the dollar's privileged position in global finance. The consequences can affect savings and family budgets. Schiff argues that the dollar's role as the world's leading reserve currency has given Washington an extraordinary advantage .
Central banks, businesses, and investors around the world need dollars and often hold U.S. Treasury securities. This demand helps America finance its deficits. But Schiff worries that this privilege has contributed to excessive borrowing. As if owning the world's most popular credit card means the bill will never arrive.
He believes that other countries can gradually reduce their dependence on dollar assets. This is a prediction, not an imminent replacement for the dollar. So, where would Schiff look for protection? It is not surprising that gold is in first place, followed by silver. But he doesn't stop there. He mentions businesses related to material resources: mining, energy, agriculture, and industrial metals.
He also sees potential value in select companies in emerging markets. His main argument is that owning productive assets can provide a different type of exposure than the promise of receiving a fixed number of dollars in the future. But a poorly managed mining company can still lose money. Energy is another part of the story that, in his opinion, investors underestimate.
Global demand for electricity and fuel is constantly growing, while the construction of new capacity and infrastructure has been ongoing for years. Conflicts involving Russia, Ukraine, and the Middle East could make supplies even less predictable. If energy prices remain high, it will affect transportation, agriculture, industry, and household bills.
But higher prices do not mean permanent shortages. Investment, efficiency, changing demand and new sources of supply could ultimately turn the tide. Schiff sees a structural vulnerability. Its duration is indefinite. The interview then shifts to artificial intelligence, and Schiff makes a surprisingly thoughtful remark.
According to him, AI can truly transform the economy, but not every company that invests billions in it will turn out to be a successful investment . This is worth remembering every time a tech company CEO says their new data center will change civilization. Great, but will it generate enough revenue to pay for the chips, energy, buildings, and financing?
This is a less attractive question , and ignoring it is usually the most costly. Schiff compares the AI “gold rush” to railroads and the early internet. Both changed everyday life, but investors in many of the pioneering companies lost fortunes. Railroads transported goods across continents. They did not guarantee every shareholder a happy ending.
The Internet has changed everything from shopping to dating, and in the process has managed to destroy vast amounts of speculative capital. AI can deliver extraordinary performance, but the benefits may go to customers or new competitors, not today’s biggest spenders. He also points to an arms race in computing power.
Companies fear that if they spend too little today, they will be left behind tomorrow, so they pour money into data centers before the economic results become clear. This would be rational if future returns justified the investment. It could also create excess capacity if cheaper technology or aggressive competition drives down prices.
Schiff acknowledges that we don't yet know which outcome will dominate. The benefits of AI and stock valuation are two different things. There is a greater irony here. If AI truly makes businesses more productive, it could reduce the cost of producing goods and services. Schiff believes these advances should help consumers .
However, he fears that further increases in the money supply could offset some of this benefit through rising prices. This connection is not automatic. Inflation also depends on demand, supply, wages, and politics. Still, the important question is: are ordinary households experiencing the productivity revolution, or are they only hearing about it in corporate reports?
So the choice Schiff leaves us with is not simply gold versus stocks or dollars versus commodities. This is an understanding of what each asset depends on. A bond depends on whether the issuer fulfills its obligations. A resource company depends on costs and customers. Gold depends on how much buyers are willing to pay for it.
Nothing provides perfect protection. Shift expects debt and inflation to change investing, but his predictions and conclusions remain debatable. The practical conclusion is to look beyond impressive account balances and ask a more difficult question. What real purchasing power will these numbers have when you have to use them?
Stay up to date with the latest developments shaping precious metals markets . What's more, as a subscriber, you'll also nd .
Comments 0