저자: EdYardeni · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 메가캡 기술주(매그니피센트 7)에 대한 비중을 줄이고 S&P500 내 나머지 493개 종목으로 분산하는 것이 합리적이며, 미국 비중도 과도하니 글로벌 분산이 필요하다는 견해. 전략 변화 배경: 2010년부터 정보기술·커뮤니케이션 서비스 overweight를 추천해 왔으나 성과가 너무 좋아 두 섹터가 S&P500 시총의 45%를 차지함. 이익 비중 증가폭은 시총 증가폭에 훨씬 못 미침. 미국 vs 글로벌: 미국이 MSCI World 시총의 65%를 차지해 이미 과도한 비중. 현재 비중 유지만 해도 일반적 분산 포트폴리오 대비 overweight. 경쟁 심화: 매그7의 이익률이 매우 높아 경쟁자 유입이 불가피하며 실제로 그러고 있음. 구글 Gemini 3 출시로 OpenAI 입지 재고, 딥시크 신모델이 저렴한 칩으로 미국 모델 수준에 근접한다는 평가. 대안: 매그7 밖의 'impressive 493'(S&P500 나머지 종목) 중에도 AI 등 기술을 생산성·이익률 개선에 활용하는 우량 기업이 많아 확대 분산이 타당하다고 봄. 리스크: 밸류에이션이 오랫동안 높았고 AI 사이클은 아직 초기 단계라는 반론이 있으나, 본 발언에서는 비중 축소 쪽 입장 유지. 특정 가격 목표나 기간은 제시되지 않음. 단기 가격 예측: 명시적 1~3개월 방향 예측 없음.
다듬은 글
[CC may contain inaccuracies] It's now recommending effectively going underweight the mega-cap tech stocks versus the rest of the S&P 500. Veteran strategist Ed Yardeni says he sees more competitors coming for the juicy profit margins of the Mag Seven. Yardeni is also seeing little reason to stay overweight on the U.S.
in the all country world MSCI portfolio. Some global peers have outperformed the S&P 500 this year on cheaper valuations and the weaker dollar. Let's talk to the man himself. Ed Yardeni is president at Yardeni Research. And Ed, why that change? It is a massive change for you. Well, it's always time to think about the future when you get to the end of a year.
2025 is almost over. We're now thinking about 2026. I've been recommending overweighting information technology and communication services since 2010. The problem is it's worked all too well. The two sectors now account for a humongous 45% of the market cap of the S&P 500. Of course, their earnings share has also increased, but nowhere near as as far.
And the same thing can be said about looking at the U.S. versus the global economy. When you look at the U.S. MSCI relative to the World MSCI Index, what you see is the U.S. now accounts for 65% of the market cap of the world's stock market. So it's hard to recommend overweighting something that's already quite overweight.
I mean, if you just told people just to maintain the current weight of the index, that would still be an overweight position relative to what most people would think would be a diversified portfolio. Ed, what's fundamentally changed, because when we talk about the overstretched valuations, there have been that way for a very long time now.
And when you take a look at the AI cycle, people still point to how it is still at the nascent stage. Well, I would say with regards to the Magnificent Seven, what's I think has changed is that they're competing more aggressively against each other and they've got more competition coming out of nowhere and somewhere and on a regular basis here.
We recently saw that Google introduced Gemini three, which suddenly made everybody kind of reconsider just how strong the position is of OpenAI and OpenAI's relationship to lots of other AI-related companies. And then just at the same time, Deep Sea came back, remember DeepSeek when it introduced its model back in January of this year, kind of shocked everybody because they were able to put together a pretty good a model that worked as well as some of the other ones in the United States.
But apparently it was was trained on chips that cost a lot less and now looks like they're doing it again. And there's some talk that the latest version of the DeepSeek model is just as good as Gemini three. So there's a lot of competition. The profit margins have been awfully high from the Magnificent Seven.
That usually invites a lot of competition, and that's exactly what's happening. And by the way, once you look at the S&P 500 and look outside of the Magnificent Seven, there's what I call the impressive 493. There's still plenty of good stocks out there of companies that are going to be using all these technologies, are using all these technologies to increase their productivity and to increase their profit margins.
So I think the broadening out of portfolio from the Magnificent Seven to the 493 would make sense to me.
Comments 0