저자: EdYardeni · 외국인
요약 보기
S&P500 8,400 목표를 유지하되 유가·금리 리스크로 확률을 80%→70%로 낮췄다. 실적 상향(2026년 주당순이익 컨센서스 419→425 전망)과 생산성 기반 기술 호황을 근거로 들며, 10년물 4-5%는 경제 자신감의 신호로 본다. 금리가 6%로 급등하지 않는 한 우려는 낮고, 재무부가 단기채 발행을 늘리는 방식으로 대응할 수 있다고 본다. AI 규제 논의는 크게 걱정하지 않으며 미중 경쟁이 AI 규제 논쟁보다 우선이라는 입장이다.
다듬은 글
With us is Ed Yardeni, President of Yardeni Research. Good morning. Ed, it's nice to see you. Again, uh, the news of the day, the news of the past week, certainly starts to influence some of your views. Explain where you were. You had an 80% chance that everything would go pretty smoothly. I think you lowered it to 70% because of oil prices and so on.
But 70%—is that still optimistic enough to expect 8,400 points for the S&P by year-end? Well, yes, I mean, I'm raising some concerns about the risks for the 8400 mark, of course. Um, 80%—that's actually a pretty optimistic view , and having said that, I'm a little less optimistic about the risks on the oil and bond side.
I mean, reality bites , and that's all there is to say. But on the other hand, the revenue side, we've discussed this before , Joe, is really extraordinary. I call this "an incredible earnings boost." And all of this momentum continues to show up week after week in analysts' consensus earnings forecasts.
I thought that by the end of the year the market and analysts would expect $415 per share for the S &P 500 next year. They are already at $419 per share, and the year isn't even over yet as we look ahead to the next one. And I think we'll get to $425 a share by the end of the year, and that's an important metric to think about where the market will be at the end of the year.
The market will factor in next year, and if it's 425, multiply by 19.7, you'll still end up with 8400. I actually raised my earnings target, but had to lower my P/E target because investors are clearly nervous about this market and aren't raising P/E to keep up with earnings. P/E actually goes Well, uh, trying to get it back.
Yes, he just came back, he's back on the air. So, you're making, yes , you sound good, but you're making some important points. No, no, we understand. No, we got it. I think another profound thought you made was that the economy can probably withstand oil at $100. It's not great, nobody likes it, nobody likes the current gas prices.
However, this makes the Fed perhaps more inclined than usual to never raise rates just once. Maybe they could, but if they raise the stakes, I don't know what the end point is going to be, and you know, Druckenmiller said we're not even close to optimistic right now. Okay, so bond yields start to rise, and you get great returns, but your multiplier—what you get for those returns—depends on whether rates go up too much , and there's also a trend in AI, and if rates go up too much, the risk-free returns in areas other than stocks will become so attractive at some point that it's bound to hurt.
This will inevitably hurt stocks. So you can't guarantee a multiplier of 20. We can go to a multiplier of 18. No, of course not. You are absolutely right about that. And we are at the upper end of the range that we considered normal. I think that a 4-5% yield on 10-year bonds is really a vote of confidence in the economy.
This shows that the economy is doing well and not only can withstand this level of interest rates, but also justifies it. So at 5% I'm not too worried. I would be more concerned if it quickly rose to 6%, but you know what? So would Treasury Secretary Bessant, and I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled out a "bazooka" and started telling us that he was going to issue more Treasury bills and fewer bonds to reduce pressure on the bond market.
I know he hasn't gotten good reviews for his work on bond market stress yet, but he has this tool and Janet Yellen used it in 2023 when bond yields hit 5%. That's exactly what she did. It issued more bills and took the tension out of the bond market, and I think the ministry can do the same. Also, I think we're still seeing pretty good productivity numbers, and labor cost inflation is at 1.4%—there 's still reason, very good reason, to argue that we're in an era of productivity-driven technology boom that's going to continue.
I'm not particularly concerned about this statement that companies want to slow down the development of AI. As Andrew said, the reality is that there are already limits to how quickly we can build data centers and all that . I don't think infrastructure building is going to slow down, um, I think it's important that we put more safeguards in place for AI, and that's probably what this is about .
Yes, but one of your concerns is the prospect of the AI investment boom slowing down, and the overall environment, you call it FEMA. It's like, you know, there's an AI momentum in the stock markets. Uh, there's no doubt about it. Who do you think will win ? Uh, and you noted that the restrictions already exist.
But purely philosophically, what will win: fear of AI or fear of China? I think the fear of China, and we, ultimately, you know, those in charge, ultimately, just maybe don't tell everyone, but I still think they're acting. I still think they want to, they want to win, I guess. Well, they want to win, but the Chinese government probably has an even bigger problem with AI.
If AI truly becomes a thinking machine and decides that communism is an inappropriate system, then AI will destroy the Chinese government. In other words, it is in the Chinese government's interest to install safeguards for this monster, just as we have such requirements for safeguards. The Chinese might think that AI will decide that communism is the best way, but they're not exactly communists anymore, and we're, you know, pseudo-pseudo -capitalists here.
Yes, I think, again , we're talking about philosophy here. I think it's, you know, man versus machine, and they have the same philosophical issues that they have to deal with. And I think there's the same pressure on them to put safeguards in place for this system, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start to collaborate in this area, because it's really becoming more and more of an " us versus them" thing.
Comments 0