저자: KenFisher · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 켄 피셔는 이번 강세장이 2027년까지 갈 수 있다고 보며, 2026년 후반과 2027년 초 낙관적이라고 밝힘. 연준 및 금리: 점도표는 부정확하므로 무시해야 하며, 워시 신임 의장은 회의를 줄이고 점도표를 없애겠다는 점에서 긍정적이나 참모에 휘둘릴 가능성이 있다고 봄. 단기금리 인상은 은행 대출 의욕을 떨어뜨려 성장에 불리하다고 주장. 거품 단계: 현재 AI·기술주는 고평가(프로쓰)이나 아직 도취(euphoria) 단계는 아님. 도취는 실적 없는 기업이 상장되어 자금을 모으는 현상이며, 닷컴 버블 때가 그랬음. IPO: 스페이스X 상장은 초기 급등 후 공모가 아래로 밀렸지만 이는 도취가 아니라는 강세 신호라고 평가. 앤스로픽은 증시가 20% 이상 폭락하지 않으면 올해 후반 IPO를 진행할 것으로 전망. 한국 증시: 코스피는 2~3개 종목과 꼬리로 이루어져 변동성이 크며, 최근 두 달의 조정은 상승하는 글로벌 시장 안의 변동성이라고 봄. 세계 시장이 계속 오르면 반등을 기대. 한국 투자자는 자국보다 글로벌 시각을 먼저 가져야 한다고 조언. 이란 전쟁·유가: 에너지 전쟁은 유가 급등 후 대개 10% 이내로 복귀하는 패턴을 보이며, 현재 유가는 80달러 미만이고 호르무즈 우회 수송으로 충격이 상당 부분 흡수됨. 경기 침체 우려에는 동의하지 않음. 미드텀 효과: 중간선거 해의 4분기부터 이후 3분기는 미국 증시 역사상 가장 강한 9개월 연속 상승 구간이며, 입법 리스크 감소가 그 배경이라고 설명. 장기금리·채권: 미국 장기금리는 글로벌 장기금리와 거의 동조하므로 채권 자경단이 연준과 싸운다는 주장은 근거가 약하다고 봄. 미국이 장기금리를 인위적으로 통제하기는 어렵다고 주장.
다듬은 글
the dot plot. It is overwhelmingly, notoriously inaccurate as to what they actually do. The notion of a couple of hikes, how big and how much, a little bit of that doesn't make much difference because a little bit is a little bit. Powell is starting off well in my view, and I should hope that he's strong enough to overcome the tendency to succumb to his staff, tech and AI.
And what I would say about that is that it's not that it's so far euphoric that they're still part of what you would think of as optimism. There is a secret event that happens in the back of US midterm election year that I long called the midterm miracle. Ken, it is a great pleasure to have you back on Real Vision TV.
It's great to be with you. Thanks for having me. Yeah, we have the We have not lacked for headlines since we last spoke in March. Um, I want to start actually with the Fed. Uh, in March the market was still pricing in a rate cut this year, and now the market is pricing one to two hikes uh from the Federal Reserve due to changes in market conditions.
Do you think this is justified? First, let's just start with exactly what you said. First they were pricing this, then they're pricing that. That tells you how ineffectual the forecasting of what the Fed will do is. But not only is that true, as I have said for decades now, the Fed itself never knows what it'll do.
It never knows what it'll do until just before it does it as it's doing it. It's a reactor. It's not really a causer in that it does cause market volatility, but the fact is it doesn't really have a long-term strategy despite what it thinks and what people think about it. Now, let me just go back to that again.
There's this long history of the dot plot that tells you what the various members of the board Open Market Committee think will be doing in the future. It is overwhelmingly, notoriously inaccurate as to what they actually do. And one of my views has been that the more they just, if you will, in the vernacular, shut their mouths and don't talk and don't make us think about what they may do and quietly go about their business when they have to in meetings, we're all better off.
It is and would be a mistake at this point in time for the Fed to be raising rates in any short-term rates in any market way. The notion of a couple of hikes, well, how big and how much? A little bit of that doesn't make much different because a little bit is a little bit. But when you think about what's really important that they don't really think about the way they should, the way I learned it when I was young and the way it's always been true ever since, is the spread between short-term rates and long-term rates.
And they don't actually have any real ability to predict what a movement in short-term rates will do to long-term rates. But when the spread between short-term rates and long-term rates is greater, because banks are in the business of taking in short-term deposits and lending at long-term rates, they become more eager to lend.
As the spread shrinks, banks become less eager to lend and in fact, if short rates become at or above long rates, they become very reluctant to lend at all, except for and the only way where they can make money lending is to make risky loans, which we don't really want them to do. So, the fact is raising short rates will reduce banks' willingness to lend and right now we've got a not terribly rapidly growing economy domestically or globally.
And therefore, uh we should keep having the banks lending money at a reasonably aggressive rate, which they are. And that's what should be their goal. But the way they think and the way their staff thinks and the way they tend over time to be governed is to have the 300 PhD economists yapping in their ears telling them that more growth causes inflation, less growth causes less inflation, maybe you want to stop having so much growth, except we're not having so much growth.
So, therefore, it's a mistake for them to be raising short rates. Uh will they? I don't know, but and let me go a different direction for a moment. I have been a Fed critic most all my life because mostly they do stupid stuff. Major central banks mostly do stupid stuff. Mostly they react with wrong-headed advice from the economists that are basically trained in Keynesianism uh and they eventually succumb to that advice.
Now, let me say Worsh is actually in some ways as the new head of the Fed been saying a lot of the right things. He wants less meetings. He wants to kill the dot plot, he says. He wants to have them talk less. Those are all what they should be doing. And if he sticks to that, I think it'll be a major improvement in the Central Bank of the United States.
But will he? I don't know because usually heads of the Fed succumb to the input that is provided to them by their staff. You know, I Ken, I think you read my mind. I was just about to ask you what you think of Kevin Warsh. His his first He certainly it seems to be a quite a departure from his recent predecessors.
I thought his first press conference was really great. I enjoyed the way he spoke. But the second one was a little bumpy. So so far I I I think I like the idea of making a lot of changes. So these 300 PhDs, as you characterized, are not folks who are really a group think running the most important central bank in the world.
So you know, just a quick thoughts on his first two or three months in the job. Let me just say that sometimes when a new head of the Fed has been picked they've been seen as weak. Sometimes they've been seen as strong. As I said before, over time they tend to be almost taken over as if their brains were invaded by their staff.
And what that does is makes the weak ones seem to get stronger. And the strong ones seem to get weaker. J. Powell was seen as pretty good when he first came in. There was a lot of question, did he really have the fortitude and background? But over time he came to become more respected. Usually heads of the Fed become more respected even though they do a lot of stupid stuff because they're in the position and the world [clears throat] doesn't go to hell, so they're seen as causal for that, which is largely not true, but they get the luster from that.
Warsh is starting off well in my view, and I should hope that he's strong enough to overcome the tendency to succumb to his staff. But I'd bet that if he remains head of the Fed long enough, the staff overtakes and invades his brain and turns him into a marshmallow head. Well, I hope we're wrong on that.
I hope he is strong enough and independent enough and rich enough that he says, I'm going to do it my way. Um Well, the the irony, of course, is and and and this is sad but true. He had to play up to Trump heavily telling Trump what Trump wanted to hear to get appointed and confirmed. Once appointed and confirmed, of course, he outlast Donald J.
Trump. So, he will be head of the Fed longer than Donald J. Trump will be president and whoever the next president is will pick the next head of the Fed that will replace Warsh or possibly re-pick Warsh for another term. [clears throat] We don't know. But, uh cuz we have no idea who the president will be.
We don't have no idea how Warsh will be received by that president then. But, most heads of the Fed want to be reappointed. Most heads of the Fed want the next president, whoever it is, to think well of them. And that tends to moderate them, make them not too extreme for fear that if they do something extreme and it works out badly, that then that next head of the Fed next president won't reappoint them.
Well, I hope he thinks more like David Farragut. Darn those torpedoes, full speed ahead. I wanted to ask you something about something [clears throat] you spoke about recently um on a podcast. You spoke about signs of euphoria and how if I and I don't want to put words in your mouth that I think the question was, you know, how do you know that a a a bull market is nearing its end.
You said that's you the one sign was euphoric stocks that perhaps didn't offer real promise that really showed up and that was a signal that that the the bull market was getting long in the tooth. Can you give an example or two of in the past what some of these euphoric stocks were, so perhaps as a guide to what we can see, you know, in the in the future that, you know, we've gotten euphoric.
So, stepping back from that for a moment, the concept derives from John Templeton's famous phraseology, that bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria. Now, before delving into your question, it's also true that each of those phases last fairly long, usually, before they culminate into what happens next.
It's also true that a bull market can die without hitting euphoria, if something big and extraordinary comes along that, if you will, wallops the whole economy. That happens sometimes. In this instance, we would think about all of the excitement about primarily tech and AI. And what I would say about that is that it's not that it's so far euphoric as it is a little frothy, and that's high valuations.
But, high valuations alone for significant companies don't signify euphoria. That they're still part of what you would think of as optimism. Maybe strong optimism, but strong optimism and euphoria are slightly different things. Let's delve into the euphoria part. The euphoria part is when pigs fly. It's when garbage floats.
It's [snorts] when companies are created with no basic business, but with hopes, and then succeed in going to the public market as if they actually had significant opportunity out of them. If you think back to the dot-com bubble, you had lots and lots and lots of companies with no real revenue. And lots of them no real revenue, but going successfully into the market and raising capital.
That's euphoria. It's when garbage gets to go on the market. That's different than things like the most recent example of the beginnings of the big unicorns, huge private companies that haven't gone public, but now are starting to as evidenced most recently by the SpaceX offering, which pretty much everyone in the world that isn't in the upper Amazon basin rapidly fleeing from humanity saw and watched with interest.
That was the beginning and probably soon leads to more of these big unicorns going into the public market and raising money in large amounts. That's not euphoria by itself because those companies are significant. And while the SpaceX offering is now below its initial offering price and wasn't broadly received in a strong and ongoing way after the initial couple of days, that's actually what you want in an offering because it's a sign that you aren't yet to euphoria.
If you were in euphoria, that stock would be up and continue to be up. The fact is that it rose initially, that's just part of the offering process. They planned the offering well so it would initially spike, but that that it then trailed down to be below the offering price and yet still has the very high valuation that it has says the offering was successful but without creating euphoria because there's skepticism about the price.
That's a bullish sign. And by that I don't mean a bullish sign about SpaceX as a stock. I mean it's a bullish sign about not yet being euphoria. If I could ask you to cast your memories back to the dot-com boom. I was younger lad then. I was mostly concerned with foreign exchange. Any name that comes to mind that, you know what, this company should not actually be should not actually be going public because there are no revenues.
You know, first you're completely right. That was fully a quarter century ago. It was a long time ago. I'm actually amazed that you're old enough that you could be involved with anything at all as an adult. flatter me. But, let me just say that there's no one of them that stands out. What there was is hundreds of them, so many that we don't remember their names.
That's the point. Hundreds of them. If you go back and do an internet search, you can find them, but it's been so long and they were all so insignificant in terms of what they actually did that we don't remember any of them. They just went poof because without the money from continuous stock offerings, they had no profitability to sustain them and within a couple of years of the market falling, they all disappeared.
Now, let me just say there were also some other things that got into trouble in the aftermath of the peak of that and might not have been able to get themselves into trouble because as Warren Buffett once famously said, you don't know who's swimming naked until the tide goes out. The fact is some companies that have a lot of trouble in them can have the trouble not recognized while you're in euphoria.
And then when things get tougher, the problems that they have become more obvious and you see them. But the real sign of the euphoria was not those. The real sign of the euphoria was the very large number of companies that had no core business with ongoing revenue and profitable gross operating profit margins so that they had the even the hopes of being able to create net profits.
I want to get back to the an IPO to follow up on the IPO question. Given how and you just said it's the how the market is react to SpaceX is healthy for the market though not necessarily for SpaceX. Does this change perhaps Anthropic? That's perhaps the biggest IPO that could come to market in the second half of this year.
Do you think that augurs for Anthropic in any way? Are they thinking about wow, maybe the market's not as healthy as we want to be or it's that you know what in a famous movie in Margin Call, just be first. Let's just beat OpenAI to the punch. Are they going still going to go in the second half do you think?
Let me step back to 38,000 ft. As I have said now since the early 1980s, IPO really means it's probably overpriced. The fact is IPOs are priced for the benefit of the company. They could go public sooner, they could go public later, but they're taken public at a price that's favorable to the company or they wouldn't go public.
And what that means is relatively cheap capital compared to other alternatives by selling the stock to the public or they wouldn't do it. The investment bankers work hard to create a marketing hype to allow that to happen because if the offering doesn't happen, they don't get paid and they get paid richly for making a successful IPO.
They get paid richly for the IPO regardless. When you think about Anthropic, which is your real fundamental question, you got a positive and a negative relative to what you saw with SpaceX. With Anthropic, you're more down the core of pure AI, which is the juice of the moment. That's the positive for making the offering happen.
The negative for making the offering happen is you've got a universe of people that's pretty darn large in this world that just simply believe Elon Musk is magical. And Anthropic doesn't [clears throat] have that, of course. So, SpaceX had the Elon Musk factor, Anthropic has the pure play AI factor.
I believe Anthropic can do this deal successfully in the back half of this year if we assume, which I do, that the stock market doesn't fall apart. As If the stock market falls apart, IPOs just go away. You follow that? Because they don't get the cheap capital at a much lower price. If the market were to fall by 20%, the broad market, you're not going to see Anthropic try to do its deal.
But, assuming that the market does not fall apart and maybe rises a little, which is what I expect will happen, then you should expect to see Anthropic do its deal. It wants the money. So, switching gears a little bit. Um, and you know, what a ride we've had in Korea. I think when we spoke in March, the the the Korean exchange was trading around 5,500 or so.
I think it was 6,300 last night. I don't know what they did overnight. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet this morning. But, after collapsing from almost 9,300, is this just the froth blowing off or is is there any concern that that was a generational high like the Nikkei in 1989 or are there earnings real and we'll just get back up there a bit more carefully?
I wouldn't go there. And let's again step back to 38,000 ft. I wouldn't go there because as you know, this market that we're talking about is two stocks and a tail. And therefore, is much more inherently volatile. This is two stocks and a tail. Everyone in South Korea knows the names. Everyone knows they're actually in related tech, AI, semiconductor focus.
And in that, it makes these numbers much more volatile than would be the case if it was a broader stock market. I would always urge the South Korean investor to think more globally first and think about your own country after that, just as I would a US investor. Think globally first, always. It's the global stock market that tells you where direction is going, not the local stock market.
The fact is, if we think through what's happened in this time period, you can point to things to blame in the last 2 months for why those two stocks have not done as well. But, what can we say about two stocks moving forward? That's really highly speculative. I would never think that I could predict what two stocks would do over two months with any very high confidence.
Fact is, stocks are volatile. The truth is, stocks are volatile. They just are. And the South Korean market is a good market. AI should continue to be important. Semiconductor should continue to be important. But the back off over the last two months, almost exactly two months, of the market is really just volatility within a global market that's still been rising.
What one should expect, assuming that the global market continues to rise, which is is what I expect, uh you should expect to see that bounce back. But South Korea is just inherently going to be more volatile than most than than an awful lot of countries. It's inherently going to be more volatile than America.
It's going to be more volatile than Britain. Going to be more volatile than most, not all, of Europe. It's going to be more volatile than Japan. It just is volatile. That's because of the nature of the two big stocks and the tail. There's no getting around that. I probably can't think of another stock market that has essentially been, as you say very eloquently, two stocks and a tail.
I wanted to shift talk about the other elephant in the room, so to speak, other than the markets and AI is the war in Iran. It has dragged on on and off for now about 6 months or so, I suppose. Um if and the world economy seems to be muddling along. We didn't see the catastrophic eruption in oil prices that that's some prognosticators thought we would.
And in fact, they were they're I think consensus are lower than what they thought it would be given the circumstances. So, the econo- the world economy seems to be muddling along. But if we don't get a resolution reasonably of some sort in the Strait [clears throat] of Hormuz, are some of these economies or global economy perhaps heading for a cliff?
I don't think so and I'll tell you why. First, as I said in my monthly Scholes and Weekly Biz column, oil would not get to those highs that people thought. It spiked to 138 in US dollars. But then started falling back. And there's a long history of energy-centric wars. Some shorter, some longer. With all of them, no exceptions, they follow a pattern.
The price spikes, it's slowly starts to trickle down, then it goes down faster, it gets a little volatility, and before too long, it's within about 10% up or down of where it was before the conflict started. Now, partly that's true because the price of oil tends to rise a little in the months before the conflict from the same tensions that caused the conflict.
[snorts] So, in this instance, oil rose from about $55 a barrel to $70 a barrel when the bombs hit. So, that rise occurred before the bombs hit as the tensions that led to the war. But now, we're as we speak today, under $80. And that's not that big an increase. The price of oil itself, which has been in this vein more recently, is telling you that oil is not that shy.
Why? Let's step back for a moment and separate the truth from the mythology. The truth is what the mythology is, the 20% of the world's oil was passing through the Strait of Hormuz. [clears throat] Well, that's kind of true and kind of not because about a third of that 20% or about 6% was going in for processing, not going out.
So, you really only had about 14% going out. Then, with slightly higher costs, most of that has subsequently been made up by bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. If you look, for example, at the Saudi Arabian East-West pipeline, because the costs of it are higher than water transport, before the conflict, they were shipping about 700,000 barrels a day through the East-West pipeline out to the west to the Red Sea and then north through Suez.
Once you get on water, the water transport is cheap. But the pipe is more expensive. With the war, they moved relatively quickly, took a little time, to move to 7 million dollars barrel a 7 million barrels a day, 10 times as much. That by itself ate a huge chunk of the output that the uh was going out of uh Hormuz.
Abu Dhabi has shipped more in pipeline since then. The places that have struggled the most are natural gas coming out of Qatar because it's got to go by water, it can't go by pipeline, and [clears throat] and uh Iraq, which doesn't have an easy land exit outside of uh the Gulf of of uh Hormuz. So, in that, we've gotten by most of it.
And then, what gone on in the rest of the world, other producers in other parts of the world have increased their production because they've seen the higher prices and the higher prices have motivated them to increase the production. So, for example, while one might have expected, if you made a steady state forecast, of South Korea's reserves to shrink markedly, if you assumed that the Strait of Hormuz being closed was an absolute blockade to limit the capacity of oil that could be received, the actual reserves of of South Korea have shrunk, but only shrunk a little.
But there's still a good 5 and 1/2 months of reserves, when there were 7 months of reserves last March. Why? Because all of the other producers that could increase their output because the Gulf countries that could shipped other means, the cost is a little bit higher, the price is a little bit higher, but it's only a little bit.
Therefore, because oil is actually and energy is actually a small part of global GDP, important, but not overwhelming, and the costs have gone up, it's a little pressure, but it's not catastrophic. To your point, there isn't the crunch that so many people feared would occur when the war started. That's a great point in terms of the the the South Korean certainly, it's not 2 months left, they've actually 5 and 1/2 months left because they probably husbanded their resources and be able to accumulate some, not not overall, but be able to replenish some with the additional production.
So, Total production now is only a little less globally than it was before the war started. That's the the the the one thing that people always miss is that prices are a signal to producers and when the price goes way up, producers say, "Oh, the price is up. Let me produce more. I'm going to make more money." That process, particularly if they try to put in planting capacity, brings the price back down eventually.
Make hay when the sun shines. So, given all that we've talked about, what is your outlook for for the markets for the equity markets, uh another market you have a strong feeling on for the second half, uh or for what's left of the second half? Any key events or inflection points you're looking at? So, I have written about this for decades.
It doesn't always work, but it almost always works. There is a secret event. It's a blessed event that happens in the back of a US midterm election year that I long called the midterm miracle. Normally, the president's party loses some relative power to the opposition party, maybe a little, maybe a lot in the midterm elections.
What that does is causes an increase in the obstructive nature of trying to get anything that big or important through Congress. Let me step back. When we elect a president, the president knows that. The president knows his party tends to lose relative power to the opposition party, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, in the midterm elections.
Therefore, he, and I say he because so far they always have been he's, he tries to get his most important significant legislation through in his first 2 years. Sometimes it's all done at once, sometimes it's dribbled, but it's he tends to try to get it all through in his first 2 years. This president, President Donald J.
Trump, chose his one big beautiful bill as his big signature item in its first year. The fact is there have been some other bills to go through, but the more you have big bills, the more people are scared because everything you do through the United States Congress helps somebody at the expense of somebody else.
There's no free lunches. And the more those big bills occur, the more there's a fear that my side and I lose, whatever that means. The other guy and he, they're going to win and and they're going to win at my expense and and there's a big risk to me. And the midterms ameliorate that. In this set of midterms, because Donald Trump is not popular in this country, the United States, there will be relative gain from the Democrats.
And maybe not a huge amount, but relative gain to the Democrats. And that creates this feature where after the midterms, there's no big legislative risk. Big bills do not go through at all. Very little goes through. And all that a president can really do is one, foreign policy, and two, executive orders.
But the president has already done most of the executive orders that he can do. He's been very heavy on executive orders compared to prior presidents. And therefore, the government quiets down. As you move through the back of the midterm election year, the market starts to figure that out, although people don't, and it starts pre-pricing it because the market's always pricing 3 to 30 months ahead.
Now, in the history of the United States stock market, which now goes back well over 100 years with accurate daily data, the fourth quarter of a midterm election year has been positive 88% of the time. The next two quarters have been positive up about 85% of the time each. The entire 9-month period that starts with the fourth quarter has been positive over 92% of the time.
The fact of the matter is yes, sometimes one of those quarters goes bad on you, but the three-quarter period that begins with the fourth quarter of a midterm election year, the midterm of course happening in November, is just overwhelmingly positive. It's the most overwhelmingly positive 9-month streak in US stock market history extant.
That is you cannot find another consistent 9 months in any form that's as positive as that period. So, yes, I remain optimistic. Let me go back to the point that we started with with euphoria. We've got some frothy parts of the market, but we're not yet in euphoria. We haven't fully blossomed into all that garbage flying.
We still have that ahead of us unless some terrible big new thing happens that wrecks the whole global economy the way COVID did. Without that, we should have a bull market to sustains into 2027 and maybe longer. How far after that, I don't know. We can come back and talk about that here another time, but the fact of the matter is I'm pretty bullish for the back part of 2026 and the first couple of quarters of 2027.
The last question I wanted to ask someone going back to uh [clears throat] Chair Wash and perhaps Scott Bessent, it seems like the market, the bond vigil- so-called bond vigilantes are trying to fight um the Treasury Secretary and and the Fed saying, "Well, you know what? If you won't raise rates, darn it, we're going to push up the the back end yields for the 30-year bond and make it really difficult for you and force you to raise rates.
So, it seems like the bond market is fighting the Fed chair, but are they really? Is this Is this the Is the Fed chair happy that you're actually tightening for me and I don't have to tighten in the front end and make the president really angry? First, let me say I don't know what Mr. Warsh really thinks.
Secondly, I don't think Mr. Bessant thinks anything at all. Just think that through for a second. I think he's purely a sock puppet. I don't believe he exists otherwise. Uh I'm ex- I I I have a hard time saying enough things about what I don't think he actually is. But maybe I'm wrong. Let me say that long rates are set globally competitively.
It is very hard to get a major economy and the United States, which of course is a major economy, but it's very hard to get any major economies' long rates to march out of tune markedly with the direction of long rates of other major nations around the world. Sometimes they go up a little more, sometimes they go up a little less, down a little more, down a little less, but they march in unison with the world's long rates.
If you GDP weight long rates around the world, you don't see the United States marching out of step with that. Therefore, I think the argument is a fallacious argument. The fact of the matter is it is a very competitive market. The global long bond market of long bonds around the world is about as competitive a market as you can possibly find.
And there's not a we that can get together and gerrymander that. Now, some people will tell you, "Oh, but wasn't Bessant part of Soros' operation that raided the Bank of England? And therefore, you know, isn't it really possible?" I I think that's a kind of an exception that proves the rule, and I don't really think it's very possible.
So, I I I'm not I'm not someone that buys into the argument at all. This year, when you look at US long rates, they're moving almost perfectly in fact with global long rates. There's no evidence that this story is anything more than a story. Absolutely last question. Do you In In light of that, do you see that if the long rates, even though it might be a global move, if they get to a point where the government says, "We're paying so much in in money and interest more than the defense budget," that they try to cap yields by forcing or using the Fed to say, "I want to do yield curve control at the 10-year or whatever it might be" to say, "We We will buy bonds at a certain yield level until the cows come home.
Well, mind you, we had quantitative easing that wanted to buy bonds, if you remember. And in that same time period, US rates didn't move out of step markedly with global rates. It is a mistake to think that the United States can separate itself from that marketplace. Might [snorts] a president, might a Treasury Secretary, might an administration in in the United States or some other country think they can?
Yeah. You There's a lot of idiots in the world. And the fact of the matter is, you can do idiotic things and then have a result that wasn't what you expected. But, I don't think that it goes somewhere if they do idiotic things. The United States is a major economy. Its economy is doing okay. The world is doing okay.
The markets are very competitive for long rates. It's very hard for the United States to try to as a government to try to push them one way or another without that rippling out throughout the global system and coming back to boomerang back against them. I just don't think that happens. Ken, thank you so much for your time today and the insights.
It's always great to see you and I look forward to having you again on the show. It's always great to be with you. Thank you so much and I look forward to the next time as well. Thank you, Ken. Have a great day.
Comments 0