저자: JeremyGrantham · 외국인
요약 보기
그랜섬은 AI 관련 투자 버블이 2008년 위기보다 클 수 있다고 경고하며, 기술의 실재성과 주가 과열은 별개임을 강조한다. 나스닥은 2000년 고점 후 약 78% 하락한 사례를 든다. 비트코인은 내재가치가 없어 0으로 수렴할 수 있다고 본다. 미국 주택가격은 약 30% 하락해야 안전 수준이 된다는 견해이며, 방어적으로 미국 주식 비중을 줄이고 현금·채권·해외 투자를 택한다. 출생률 하락과 정자 농도 감소, 미세플라스틱 검출 등 생식건강 위험도 함께 경고하나 인과관계는 아직 논쟁 중이다.
다듬은 글
Lưu ý: bản gốc là phụ đề tự động tiếng Anh, nhưng đề bài yêu cầu giữ nguyên ngôn ngữ, nên tôi chỉnh sửa bằng tiếng Anh, giữ nguyên nội dung và giọng văn của người nói.
Jeremy Grantham has spent over half a century studying market booms and busts. He steered clear of the tech bubble in the late 1990s and warned about the risks in the housing market before the 2008 crisis. Now he argues that AI is contributing to one of the biggest investment bubbles in history.
But Grantham's warning doesn't stop at US stocks. He moves from AI, Bitcoin, and real estate to a seemingly unrelated issue: the declining birth rate and the potential threat to human fertility from chemicals, pesticides, and microplastics. Why would an investor put a financial bubble and a biological crisis in the same story?
Because both reflect a very real human flaw. We overestimate immediate rewards and underestimate consequences that take many years to become apparent. When a stock surges or a cryptocurrency hits its peak, people constantly check the price. But declining environmental quality year after year, chemicals accumulating in soil, water, and food, or a birth rate falling over decades don't create the same sense of urgency.
We are highly sensitive to the immediate risk of losing money, but we easily overlook long-term biological risks that extend across generations. Grantham doesn't deny AI's existence. On the contrary, he believes it could be a truly great invention. But it is precisely these world-changing inventions that often create extremely dangerous bubbles.
Looking back, both railways and the internet changed the world. But as those technologies emerged, investors weren't just buying the tangible value already created. They were also paying for promises about the future. The result is that a technology can be right, while the price investors pay for it is still wrong.
After the internet bubble peaked in March 2000, the Nasdaq Composite fell about 78% before bottoming out in 2002. The internet didn't disappear, but many investors lost money buying its future value at excessively high prices. That is exactly what Grantham is warning about regarding AI. The question isn't just whether AI is useful. The question is whether the actual profits in the future will be large enough to justify the money being poured into businesses tied to the AI narrative.
Technology companies now generate real revenue and profits. But AI could still be both a true revolution and create a bubble in some assets. Some studies suggest the current AI market has both real economic foundations and vulnerabilities, because expectations about the future are being priced in too early. A good technology doesn't automatically make a good investment.
Let's take, for example, a person named Huy. He is 38 years old and works as an engineer at a manufacturing company. After more than 10 years of work, he accumulated a sum of money and began investing for the future. Initially, Huy intended to spread the money across multiple channels. But every day he sees news about AI, soaring tech stocks, and accounts making profits of several tens of percent. Huy began to think that keeping money elsewhere meant missing a great opportunity for his generation.
He invested most of his money in technology stocks and a portion in Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Huy is completely ignorant. The problem is that he turned something that could be true into a definitive conclusion: that the current price is still too cheap. Huy monitors price charts daily, but rarely checks his portfolio concentration, his reserve fund, or his loss tolerance.
That's how bubbles work. They don't make people believe something completely absurd. They make people believe too much in a story that is only partially true.
Mr. Grantham pointed out a fact: financial companies would never advise you to withdraw your money when prices are at their peak. The reason is simple. A fund manager charges a fee based on the total amount of money you contribute. Brokerage firms make their living from fees charged each time you trade. Meanwhile, the media always prioritizes breaking news to attract views.
Not all consultants intend to scam you, but there's a harsh truth: they pocket the commission today, while you will bear the losses if the market crashes tomorrow. So before following any investment advice, always ask yourself one fundamental question: how will this person make money if I follow their advice?
Recognizing the significant risks in the US stock market, Grantham chose a defensive strategy. He reduced the amount he invested in US stocks, kept some cash, bought bonds, and looked for opportunities in other countries where the market is not yet inflated. On real estate specifically, he frankly stated that US house prices would have to fall by about 30% to return to a safe and sustainable level.
Of course, this is the perspective of an investor who prioritizes safety, not a one-size-fits-all formula. In the past, Grantham has also repeatedly issued warnings prematurely. And holding cash, buying bonds, or investing overseas all carry their own risks. So the core lesson is never to entrust your entire financial future to a single market, one asset class, or one narrative the crowd is blindly believing.
With Bitcoin, Grantham argues the asset has no intrinsic value, facilitates shadow transactions, and could eventually return to zero. Bitcoin does not generate cash flow like a business. Its price depends heavily on the belief and demand of buyers. But the assertion that Bitcoin will definitely return to zero remains just a prediction. Proponents argue that decentralized networks and limited supply create a different form of value.
What we need to remember is not to predict whether Bitcoin will live or die. The bigger lesson is that a rapidly appreciating asset doesn't necessarily bring equally great value to society. When you invest in something that doesn't generate consistent profits like a business, you have to be extra careful. Calculate carefully how much you should put in. Be extremely cautious about borrowing money. And make sure that if you lose all of it, your life can still endure.
After warnings about AI, stocks, and Bitcoin, Grantham unexpectedly shifted to a danger he considers far more frightening: the decline in birth rates and reproductive health. The numbers are alarming. In 1950, the average woman gave birth to about five children; by 2021, that number had dropped to just 2.2. A study in The Lancet even predicted that by 2050, about three-quarters of countries and territories will fall below replacement fertility levels. Simply put, the children born to later generations will not be enough to offset the people lost, and the population will shrink.
Of course, fewer children is not entirely due to physiological or health issues. The pressures of raising children, making ends meet, education, changing roles for women, and personal choices all have a significant impact. We can't blame everything on chemicals or microplastics.
However, the warning signs regarding reproductive health are real. A large 2022 study across 53 countries showed that average sperm concentration in men decreased by more than 51% between 1973 and 2018. Even more alarming, another study in 2024 found microplastic particles in all 23 human testicular tissue samples tested. Detecting microplastics does not prove they directly cause reduced fertility. Scientists are still debating the mechanisms and the role of many other factors, such as age, obesity, metabolic disease, stress, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. But the fact that science hasn't yet said so for certain does not mean the danger doesn't exist. It shows that we haven't fully grasped the seriousness of the problem yet.
Asset bubbles and biological crises may sound like two unrelated things, but they stem from the same root. A company craves profit this quarter. An investor wants their assets to skyrocket this year. And we as consumers prefer cheap, convenient products that are readily available. Meanwhile, the environmental and health costs come very slowly. They appear sporadically in many places, and it may take decades before we see the full consequences.
That is why the market can update a stock's price with pinpoint accuracy, yet is almost powerless to measure the value of land, water, fertility, or the health of future generations.
We also shouldn't turn Mr. Grantham's warnings into a doomsday story. No one knows for sure when the AI bubble will burst, how far prices will fall, or which companies will survive. Grantham is very good at spotting when the market is inflated, but guessing exactly when the balloon will deflate is something almost no one can do.
On the other hand, a declining population isn't entirely a disaster. It becomes truly dangerous when the decline happens too quickly, leading to a shrinking workforce, an aging population, and an inadequate social security system. Similarly, current research on sperm, chemicals, and microplastics is not yet sufficient to attribute the entire problem to a single culprit. If we overreact, we will inadvertently turn a scientific warning into an unfounded fear.
Ultimately, the value of this interview doesn't lie in whether Mr. Grantham is 100% correct in every prediction. It lies in the fact that he forces us to look directly at risks that the masses are deliberately turning a blind eye to.
The first lesson is to clearly distinguish between a great invention and a sound investment. AI can change the world, but if you buy it at too high a price, you'll still lose big.
The second lesson is not to treat any billionaire's prediction as a command to rush into buying or selling. Consider it one perspective for reference. Allocate your capital so that if that prediction is wrong, your life is not turned upside down.
The third lesson is to always be wary of self-interest in financial advice. A financial advisor's credibility can never replace your own responsibility for protecting your finances.
And the biggest lesson is that a person's real assets are not just the numbers in a brokerage account. They include health, living environment, work capacity, family bonds, and the future of their children. They have no electronic price board that updates daily, but once they're gone, they're very hard to get back.
Jeremy Grantham may be right or wrong about when the AI bubble bursts. Bitcoin may not return to zero as he predicts. But the paradox he points out is still worth considering. We live in an age where we can assess the value of a business in milliseconds, yet we are very slow to assess damage that lasts for decades. Stocks may peak while birth rates hit rock bottom. Technology may advance while the biological foundations of the human body face increasing pressure.
So the biggest question isn't how much higher AI, Bitcoin, or stocks will go. The question is whether we are using progress to build a more sustainable future, or borrowing from the future to serve the optimism of the present.
Of Jeremy Grantham's four warnings, which worries you the most: the AI bubble, the valuation level of the US market, Bitcoin, or the population crisis? Please leave your comments below. If this video gives you a different perspective on money and the future, please share it with someone interested in investing, and subscribe to the Trọng Thịnh Vượng channel to learn about the subtle rules shaping our assets and lives. Hello, and goodbye.
Comments 0