저자: Economical Indicators · 외국인
다듬은 글
a lot of debt has built up in China in the last eight years, so they too will suffer more than they did last time, and they will not be able to bail out the world as much as they did last time. We're all going to suffer. I can think of very few places that won't suffer. Maybe North Korea won't suffer, maybe Cuba, but most people are going to suffer the next time around.
지난 8년간 중국에도 부채가 많이 쌓였습니다. 그래서 중국도 지난번보다 더 큰 타격을 받을 것이고, 지난번처럼 세계를 구제해 줄 여력도 없을 겁니다. 우리 모두가 고통을 겪게 될 겁니다. 고통을 피할 곳이 거의 없다고 봅니다. 북한이나 쿠바 정도는 괜찮을지 모르지만, 다음번에는 대부분의 사람이 고통을 겪게 될 겁니다.
The one man who helped build and oversee Newmont Mining's most profitable mine is on the cusp of delivering a new cash-flowing mining company to North America, with a 70 cent a share price target from Europacific Capital. This 25 cent a share company is 35% owned by one of the most successful businessmen in America. Learn more at Crush thestreet.com wealth.
뉴몬트 마이닝에서 가장 수익성 높은 광산을 건설하고 운영을 감독했던 한 인물이 북미에 현금흐름이 좋은 새 광산 기업을 내놓기 직전입니다. 유로퍼시픽 캐피털은 목표주가를 주당 70센트로 제시했습니다. 주당 25센트인 이 회사의 35%는 미국에서 가장 성공한 사업가 중 한 명이 보유하고 있습니다. 자세한 내용은 Crush thestreet.com wealth에서 확인하실 수 있습니다.
안녕하세요, 여러분. Crush thestreet.com에 오신 것을 환영합니다. 오늘은 아주 특별한 손님을 모셨습니다. 전설적인 투자자 짐 로저스 씨입니다. 이전에도 출연해 주셨고 우리 쇼의 단골 손님이기도 합니다. 저자이기도 한 큰 인물을 모시게 되어 영광이고, 지금 전 세계 시장에서 나타나는 심각한 변동성에 대해 이야기 나눌 것이 기대됩니다. 짐 로저스 씨, 오늘 나와 주셔서 감사합니다.
Delighted to be here, Kenneth.
As I said, we're seeing some major volatility going into 2016. Are we seeing the central banks lose control of the grip they had on the stock markets right here, right now, in 2016?
Yes. If not this month, soon. 2016 and 2017 will not be good, Kenneth, partly because of the mistakes the central banks have made in the past. Now they're going to do their best to hold things up, as you can see they already are, the Bank of Japan and others. But unfortunately I'm afraid we're all going to have to pay the price. I'm not particularly happy about it, but they've made a lot of mistakes in the last eight years, actually the last 18 or 20 years, and we pay for those mistakes.
Was this just a reaction to the correction we saw in the early 2000s, the tech bubble, the dot-com bubble, and all of this expansion of the money supply and lowering of interest rates? Is all of this coming to a head? Is that what you were talking about over the last 18 years, what we're dealing with now: the system essentially overwhelming and collapsing, based on the inflated bubble they've been trying to inflate since the early 2000s?
It actually goes back further than that. The root cause is the gigantic debt built up in the developed world over the past few decades. Then the American central bank, starting with Alan Greenspan, has done nothing but print money every time there's a problem. All of this compounds and accumulates. And this is the first time in recorded history that all the major central banks are printing a lot of money: the Japanese, the Europeans, the Americans, the British. Everybody is printing money at the same time, and everybody is building up debt. The world talks about austerity, but no country is actually going to austerity. Every country has higher debt now than last year, and they'll have higher debt next year. So a lot of things have come together. In the last eight years the central banks have printed money and held everything together, but whether it falls apart this year or next, it's going to fall apart.
Do you think the stock market volatility we're seeing, especially going right into January, was a direct response to the 25 basis point rate hike the Federal Reserve made in December, or was it coincidence and bound to happen?
Everybody in the world knew interest rates were going higher. If anybody was surprised, I don't know where they've been living. Did it shock the markets? Anybody who was shocked should be shocked, because it was broadcast over and over again. Maybe that was the wake-up call, or maybe it made people realize, oh my gosh, this really is going to happen. But it's coincidence more than anything else, if you ask me. The situation, Kenneth, is that rates had been going up in the market anyway, and then the Federal Reserve came along and followed the market, as they often do. I guess this was a wake-up call. The American stock market was actually down last year. If you go to the New York Stock Exchange, there were twice as many stocks down as up. I repeat: on the New York Stock Exchange in 2015 there were twice as many stocks down as up. So we've been having problems for a while. The averages have been supported by eight or ten stocks that never go down, or never did go down, but the real market was down last year. This has been going on a while.
Is that typical for the markets, the overall stock markets, to be carried by a handful of companies?
It's happened often in the last two or three decades, and it's actually the way markets work. At the end of a bull market, you usually have a narrowing of the stocks that are going up. They're usually the high-quality names or the hot stocks of the era, whatever it happens to be. It always happens that at the end of a move you have fewer and fewer stocks going up, and then everybody realizes, oh my gosh, this is over, and then it collapses. There's nothing new about it. It's how markets have been working for decades, or maybe even hundreds of years.
Right. So the Fed is making their next decision coming up, on their forward guidance to continue raising rates. Do you think they're actually going to be able to do that, especially in the face of all this stock market turmoil and global turmoil? Will they continue to raise rates and attempt to get further and further away from zero?
You can see why we don't need central banks. They do more, they cause more problems than good, especially cumulatively. I suspect they will not raise rates. If they do, it will not be more than one time, because the markets are going to be going down. And when the markets go down, everybody calls the central banks and says, oh my gosh, you must save civilization. The central banks, certainly in the US, are made up of bureaucrats and academics. They don't know anything, which is why they work for the government. So they will panic, and then they will do whatever they can to save the markets. It's artificial. It won't work, just as it's been artificial for the last long time, certainly eight years. There comes a time when no matter how much money you have, the market has more money.
If you ask Obama or some of these other talking heads in the media, QE was successful, and I'll say that in quotation marks. Do you think they'll just revert back to more QE, since our experience with it inflated the stock market and inflated real estate, and now they're pointing to a lower unemployment rate? Is QE just more palatable for the markets and an easier thing for central banks to resort to, rather than actually manipulating the interest rate?
I don't know if they'll even call it QE in the future, Kenneth. They've done three or four QEs. It's a little embarrassing to come up with another one. They'll probably call it something else, cupcakes or spaghetti, who knows, to disguise it. They're going to try to do everything they can: printing more money, lowering interest rates, buying more assets. But as I said, no matter how much PR, no matter how much whitewashing you use, the market knows this is over and we're not going to play this game anymore.
Jim, I want your thoughts on China. China was in the news at the beginning of the year with their moves in the stock market. Is China going to suffer less than the US during this economic collapse?
Yes, mainly because China has less debt. In fact they have big assets. In 2008, when the world had problems, China had a lot of money saved up and then started spending it. This time around China itself has debt. A lot of debt has built up in China in the last eight years, so they too will suffer more than they did last time, and they won't be able to bail out the world as much. We're all going to suffer. I can think of very few places that won't suffer.
Did China, with all their building, their infrastructure and what people are calling ghost cities, continue to build out this infrastructure, or will China convert to a more consumer economy, since so much of their construction has been done?
Infrastructure and ghost cities are two different things. A lot of the money they spent in the last decade went to infrastructure, which builds their competitive advantage: highways, railroads, airports. That makes them more competitive in the future. In 2008 the US started spending on things, and we made sure the bureaucrats didn't lose their jobs. The Chinese increased their competitive advantage with their spending, whereas we and other countries increased our competitive disadvantage with what we spent our money on. We just raised debt but did nothing for future competitiveness. In the future, China will surely spend more on infrastructure. Remember, China's infrastructure has been in serious decline for three or four hundred years, and they have a billion three hundred million people, so there's a lot they can do. There has been too much speculation in property and real estate in China, and you'll probably see some people go bankrupt in the real estate business going forward. The government has said they're going to let people go bankrupt. I hope they mean it. So you're going to see problems in China, but you're going to see worse elsewhere. I'd rather be in China than in Italy, Kenneth, and in the next downturn I'd rather be in China than a lot of places.
Is the US still dependent on China producing cheap goods?
Everybody likes cheap goods. Would you rather buy a cheap car with good quality or an expensive car with the same quality? Of course you want a cheap car, a cheap television, a cheap everything with the same quality. So yes, China has an advantage, but other people are learning. You're starting to see Vietnam manufacturing competitively, and Myanmar will probably come into the market in the foreseeable future. Even North Korea is starting to produce goods sold into the world market. But China is obviously dominant, and as we have problems, China will certainly continue to be a manufacturing base, but they're going to have their own problems too.
Historically China has supplied cheap goods for the US, and the US has been dependent on that. As the US declines, what do you suspect this transition will look like? Is China dependent on the US purchasing the cheap goods they offer?
Ken, we're all interconnected now. China is the second-largest economy in the world, America is the largest, Europe as a whole is an even bigger economy than the US, and Japan is the third-largest single economy. We all trade with each other now. It's not a question of who depends on who; we all depend on each other. If you're a Chinese company that does business with Walmart, in the next few years you're going to know something's wrong. Some Chinese companies won't suffer at all. China is horribly polluted and spending a lot of money to clean up. If you're in the pollution-cleanup business in China, you won't care if Europe falls into the sea, because you're too busy. But if you deal with Walmart, you're going to know something's wrong in China. Likewise, if you're a mining company or a company that does business with China, some parts of the Chinese economy you'll know are wrong. Korea does a lot of trading with China, so does Japan, so do a lot of people. We're all in it together now.
Jim, what are your current thoughts on precious metals? At the moment, as we're doing this interview, silver is in the $14 range and gold is above $1,000. Are we seeing a turnaround? Are you optimistic about what has been going on with precious metals over the last couple of weeks?
I own gold and silver, and have forever. I've noticed they've rallied. I'm not buying. I suspect there'll be another opportunity to buy gold and silver sometime in the foreseeable future. If that doesn't happen, don't worry, I own plenty of gold and silver.
Are you still thinking that with the stock markets collapsing, that could be bullish for the US dollar in the short term?
My largest currency position, Kenneth, is the US dollar, and has been for some time. The US dollar is a terribly flawed currency. The US is now the largest debtor nation in the history of the world, so we've got a lot of problems as the debt continues to rise. But the reason it's my largest position is that everybody else has problems too. People aren't going to rush into the yen or the euro. People perceive the US as a safe haven. It's not, but people think it is, which is why I own a lot of US dollars. As the turmoil gets worse in the next couple of years, many people are going to rush into the US dollar. It's going to get overpriced and might even turn into a bubble, depending on how bad the turmoil is. At that point I hope I'm smart enough to sell my US dollars, and who knows where I'll put it, back into gold, precious metals, or the Chinese renminbi, or wherever. When the dollar is strong, gold goes down, or when the dollar is weak, gold goes up. If that scenario plays out, you'll see the dollar going up and gold and everything else going down. I hope I'll be smart enough at some point to sell my dollars and put them into whatever goes down the most and is most attractive at that time.
You're an intelligent investor and you've been very successful with your calls. Jim, I want your thoughts on oil. We're looking at $30 oil at the moment. Is oil starting to look like a solid investment, or is it coming to the point where it's becoming attractive, at least?
The word "solid" in the investment world worries me. Nothing is solid, nothing is safe. I've seen everything that was safe turn into a disaster in my career. Yes, oil has been going down for a long time, and it's probably in the process of making a bottom. But Kenneth, if we suddenly see a huge collapse somewhere, everything will spike down. That's how you make bottoms: everything spikes down together. So oil could have, who knows where the bottom could be, but oil is certainly in the process of making a complicated bottom as we speak.
To conclude: are you more bullish on silver at the moment, or gold? Considering their ratios and supply and demand, and all the different aspects that relate to them, are you more bullish on one or the other?
I own both. If I had to buy one today, I would buy silver rather than gold. I'm buying neither, Kenneth, I hasten to tell you. But silver is certainly down more from its all-time highs than gold, so historically silver looks better, though I'm not buying either at the moment.
For the audience, if you were to give one piece of advice here in 2016, what would that be?
Be knowledgeable, be worried, and be prepared, because it's going to be a mess. A lot of us aren't going to survive. I hope I do survive, and I hope you do too, and I hope all your listeners do.
Sir, I really appreciate you coming on the show today. Are you going to be speaking anywhere soon that you'd like to announce to our listeners?
I'm speaking a lot of times, I can't always remember. It's on my website, which is www.jimrogers.com, and we'll be sure to have that up for everyone.
Jim Rogers, again sir, it was an honor to have you on the show. I really do appreciate you coming on and sharing your knowledge with us.
Thank you so much. My pleasure, Kenneth. I hope we can do it again sometime.
Comments 0