저자: CathieWood · 외국인
요약 보기
비트코인은 주요 자산군과 상관관계가 낮아 포트폴리오 분산 자산으로 가치가 있다. 달러는 레이거노믹스 시기처럼 자본수익률 상승으로 반등할 가능성이 크며 컨센서스와 다르다. 금/M2 비율이 과열 수준이나 금 상승세가 당장 끝났다고 단정하기는 어렵다. 구리는 전기화 수요로 구조적 상승 요인이 있고, S&P500/석유 비율이 신고점을 향하며 강세 신호다. 밸류에이션은 혁신 기업의 매출·이익 가속으로 소화 가능하다고 본다. 인플레이션은 하락 전환이 예상되며, 장단기 금리차 역전은 롤링 침체를 의미하고 연준 완화 여부를 주목한다.
다듬은 글
If you look across the top line there, the correlation with most other asset classes, Bitcoin versus any other asset class, very low. Uh, no correlation with bonds. Uh, almost no correlation with gold and reats. Um, very low correlation with commodities. The highest correlation is with the S&P 500. And even that is a low correlation.
What this means is that asset allocators uh have a fiduciary duty to look at Bitcoin uh and other crypto assets uh for portfolio diversification. Kathy Wood begins by addressing the US dollar which she believes is widely misunderstood at this stage of the cycle. The prevailing consensus is that the dollar is structurally weak following its decline through 2025.
However, Wood argues that this view ignores historical precedent and the role of return on invested capital. She draws a direct comparison to the early 1980s under regonomics when progrowth fiscal and regulatory reforms dramatically increased returns on capital within the United States. As those returns rose relative to the rest of the world, global capital flowed into US assets, driving a powerful dollar appreciation.
Wood suggests that current policy conditions resemble a turbocharged version of that era. One that could once again reverse dollar weakness in a way that surprises market ; Dollar being so weak. Well, if we're right, the dollar is stabilizing here after a decline in uh 2025 and will reverse course much like it did during the early 80s.
in the early 80s with regonomics and we think that this administration's policies are turbocharged regonomics. Because of those policies, the dollar went up. Why? Because the return on invested capital in the United States went up relative to the returns elsewhere in the world. Uh so we would not be surprised to see uh a sizable increase in the dollar here which is completely away from consensus expectations uh and therefore very interesting to us between a lot of inflation indicators and the gold market.
Gold prices have more than doubled in the last two years and uh here you can see what an extreme they have reached on this basis. So this is the gold market cap as a percent of USM2. US being the world's reserve currency. And you can see that we have surpassed the gold to M to ratio in the late 70s early 80s when inflation was raging at a double-digit rate and interest rates were into the double digits as well.
Um so that's interesting. There's only one other time that this ratio has been higher and it was during the Great Depression uh during the 30s when the gold price was fixed in the low $20 range and money supply was collapsing. So those two uh things are not true this time around. the gold price has been going up and the money supply has been going up.
And so we're trying to figure out what this means. Um, one suggestion is that gold has uh has entered uh I I hate to say irrational exuberance territory, but that's the that's the prevailing phrase. Um maybe gold is nearly done with this bull run. And um and then we have to ask ourselves because Bitcoin is considered digital gold.
Has Bitcoin is it done for a cycle? And as everybody knows, the four-year cycle worry is out there. Well, here you can see the Bitcoin to gold ratio uh in a trend sense since 2020. Um you can still say even though we did break the the last higher low in a broader sense you can say maybe this is still in an uptrend.
We shall see. Um but what we have found very interesting is on the next chart what is the correlation uh between Bitcoin and various uh other asset classes gold being one of an important one of them where you can see how low the correlation is. So a correlation of one means very highly correlated. A correlation of zero means not correlated at all.
A correlation of minus uh 1.0 means inversely correlated. When one goes up the other one goes down. Uh this correlation since 20 is suggesting no correlation. And in fact, if you if you look across the top line there, the correlation with most other asset classes, Bitcoin versus any other asset class, very low.
Uh no correlation with bonds, uh almost no correlation with gold and REITs. Um very low correlation with commodities. The highest correlation is with the S&P 500. And even that is a low correlation. Uh and you can look at uh the correlation uh between and among the various categories here. You know, Bitcoin Bitcoin's correlations are very low.
And what this means is asset allocators um have a fiduciary duty to look at Bitcoin uh and other crypto assets uh for portfolio diversification because the lower the correlation the high higher when adding one of these low correlated assets to the others. uh adding means return per unit of risk probably will go up.
So we think this is a a great illustration of that. Metals to gold ratio turn around to confirm that we're in uh an upturn in the cycle. And it is for me the most interesting chart cuz you know these two the long-year Treasury bond yield in green and the metals to gold ratio have been so highly correlated in the past.
They've broken apart in recent years. Um so maybe we'll they'll meet somewhere in the middle during the next few years. Here's copper. Copper is telling us, okay, maybe we're now resuming the cycle. And a lot of the um a lot of manufacturing facilities uh anything going electric demands more and more copper including transportation.
So this is also a secular shift towards copper which should benefit the price. Here to end uh are the what we've been monitoring just keeping us on our toes. the S&P to gold ratio still uh basing it's at the lower end of a a base that's been in place for the last 5 to 10 years. Uh we do not think it's going to end up like it did in the 70s.
Uh we think instead that the oil the S&P to oil ratio is leading the way and that is heading for new peaks. That's very very bullish. We had, if you look at 1980 through 2000, that's the strongest and longest bull market in history. Sure, we had episodic um uh uh setbacks, but uh the most powerful. And if we're right, uh, then that that the Trump administration is regonomics on steroids, uh, this should break out and we believe the S&P to gold ratio will follow.
Valuation is an unavoidable concern and Wood addresses it directly. She analyzes the trailing price toearnings ratio of the S&P 500 against inflation, noting the historically inverse relationship between the two. During the early 2000s, inflation rose while PE ratios compressed. The same dynamic was evident during the 2008 to 2009 period.
Yet postcoid valuations briefly fell to 1718 times earnings, a level that surprised many investors given the scale of monetary stimulus. would suggest that markets may be implicitly discounting a renewed decline in inflation. As inflation stabilized, PE ratios expanded contrary to widespread expectations.
If inflation resumes its downward trajectory, valuations may be more defensible than critics assume. More importantly, Wood emphasizes that valuations do not need to remain elevated if earnings and revenues accelerate rapidly. One thing we do have to think about as we're getting into talking about markets here is uh valuation.
So in the purple you see the PE ratio trailing 12 month moving average of the PE ratio for the S&P 500 versus inflation. So we're back to this uh important inflation call. Now, if you look carefully, I know this is messy, but if you look uh at the early 2000s, you can see that because of uh the monetary and fiscal stimulus around uh long-term capital management in 1998, Y2K in 1999, and the tech and telecom bust in 2000.
You can see that after inflation bottomed, it moved from roughly 1 and a.5% up to 4 and a half 5%. And the PE ratio went down during the early 2000s. There is an inverse correlation between PE ratios. You you saw it highlighted during 0809 and the PE ratio. So you can see where where we are now. I think it was instructive to see how low the valuation went in the purple there after co uh we dropped to 17 18 times earnings.
Now that was that was a big correction during during CO uh and there was a very rapid expansion in earnings after CO. So it was interesting to see where this stabilized uh around that 1718 range. Now why would that be? Could it be that the market in its wisdom is saying hey wait a minute we think inflation is that the next big move infla inflation will continue to be down maybe.
Um you can see the PE has gone up as inflation stabilized and I think that surprised a lot of people. Could it be the market is discounting uh another drop in in inflation and that would support valuations? Now, I'll quickly add that if we're right on the outlook for [snorts] earnings um and and revenue, GDP growth, uh then we're going to see very rapid growth during the next two and a half to three years.
Very rapid growth. And so we believe that we don't have to assume these valuations hold. We think that the revenue growth and earnings uh acceleration that we're going to see especially uh in the innovation space. So consider the source. That's all we do. That they're going to overwhelm the the high valuation by historic standards and uh help us uh deliver a compound annual rate of return well north of the market during the next uh during the next five years.
So um stay tuned. This has been a big tease. That green line representing inflation recently the the recent stabilization/slight increase has been tariff related. We think that's working through uh and we think that it the resolution of the green line will be to the downside probably negative. So if you look at uh M2 uh in the purple line here we've gotten back to 5%.
If you trace that back in time, that's really at the lower end of where M2 has been over time. And one of the things we've mentioned on this webinar before is you know if M2 growth stabilizes in this 5% range um and velocity starts to fall um then then uh we're going to see uh the nominal GDP growth will be sub 5%.
So, if we're right on the real growth acceleration, uh this could support that negative uh inflation outlook. The green line here is CPI. Uh tariffs have interrupted what was a down cycle. We got to 9% uh and then into the twos. We retraced a bit in here, but we think that inflation will turn down uh as real GDP growth is accelerating.
And many people think that makes no sense because they think growth causes inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Growth does not cause inflation. In fact, productivitydriven growth is associated with falling inflation. And that's what we expect to happen. Uh here you can see well how tight is monetary policy still.
This is the yield curve. It's the 2-year Treasury yield less the 3-month Treasury yield. And anything below zero, which this is would suggest monetary policy is on the tighter side of normal. And you can see going back in time whenever we've seen a yield curve here below zero we've typically been uh either in a recession or in the mid90s we were in a soft landing.
Uh, so it has been surprising that we didn't end up in a an official recession, but I hope in showing you the charts that I did, you do understand that this caused a rolling recession. And so, we'll see what happens with monetary policy. Are they going to ease enough to move this back into positive territory?
Typically when the Fed is gunning uh for uh from a fiscal from a monetary stimulus point of view we will get into that 1 to two% range in terms of a positive slope in the yield curve. We shall see um we would not be surprised to see it limited to one or less. Wood examines the yield curve, specifically the spread between the 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month Treasury yield.
With the curve still inverted, monetary policy remains on the tight side of normal. Historically, such inversions have coincided with recessions or in rare cases like the mid 1990s, soft landings. Wood argues that the economy has already experienced a rolling recession, which helps explain why an official recession never materialized.
Looking ahead, the key question is whether the Federal Reserve will ease policy enough to restore a positive yield curve slope. While past stimulus cycles have pushed the curve into the 1 to 2% range, Wood believes this cycle may remain more constrained, but still supportive of growth. Kathy Wood's message is ultimately a challenge to conventional macro thinking.
She argues that investors are anchoring to frameworks shaped by inflationary decades and underestimating the deflationary power of innovation from a potentially resurgent US lead.
Comments 0