저자: GeorgeGammon · 외국인
요약 보기
마이클 버리의 경고를 인용하며 S&P500 최대 77% 폭락 가능성을 주장. 실질 기준 과거 약세장 사례(1929~49년 74%, 2000~13년 약 40%)를 제시하고, 수익보다 PER(멀티플) 압축이 약세장의 주원인이라고 설명. 패시브 투자 자금 유출입(인구구조, 고용 둔화)이 하락을 촉발할 수 있다고 봄. 워런 버핏처럼 현금(T-bill)을 늘리고 역발상 투자를 하라고 권함(유료 커뮤니티 홍보 포함).
다듬은 글
Michael Burry just came out and gave a dire warning about a stock market crash that you cannot ignore. I'm going to explain why he's coming to this conclusion, why he's giving this warning, and maybe more importantly, what you can do to protect yourself in one simple fast step. Let's go over the details here as to why Michael Burry is saying the stock market could crash up to 77%.
Now, he didn't say 7%. He didn't say 17%. He's talking about a 77 or a possible 77% crash in the S&P 500. This is amazing. And by the way, it's not hyperbole. I read his entire post as to how he's coming to this conclusion, and it makes a lot of sense. And I'm going to go over that right now. But before we do, let's start by looking at a chart all the way back.
This is S&P 500, but more importantly, adjusted for inflation. That's the chart they never show you, the Dave Ramsey types, the financial planners. They always show you a nominal chart. But who cares what the S&P 500 is doing in nominal terms? All you care about is your purchasing power. So we have to adjust for inflation.
So we go back to 1930. On the left, we go from 100 up to 4 thousand. Okay, now we start 1930 right around called 4 5 600. And then we go straight down. So we get to maybe 1950, the mid-50s in here. This chart isn't exact, obviously. I just eyeballed it here. But the first point that I wanted to highlight is this red arrow.
So if you would have bought the S&P 500 in 1930 or right around this time, think about this. You could have bought and hold for 25 years. And you wouldn't have just been down, you would have been down massively. I mean, just eyeballing it here, you would have been down by almost 50%. And that's if you would have bought and hold for 25 years.
But unfortunately, there is more. That's not the only time in the stock market. I mean, look at this. If you would have bought in 1930, you could have held until 19 85. And you basically would have been flat. Now, sure, you could have rode this up and maybe if you had the wherewithal to sell right here, but you wouldn't because remember, you're a buy and hold investor.
Oh, but wait, there is more. How about if you would have bought in the late '60s? You would have had to hold till 1990, maybe the mid-'90s, just to break even. And everyone thinks that more recently the stock market has just gone up in a straight line. Absolutely not. From 2000 to 2010, the stock market went down and went down big.
And that's a decade. So how many of you watching this video right now have 10, 20, 30, 40 years to invest in an S&P 500 index fund just to hope, keep your fingers crossed, that it actually increases or maybe you can break even or get a return. You see what I'm saying? Everyone likes to tell you that it's a guarantee that the stock market goes up.
So just buy and hold, dollar cost average. It's not about timing the market, it's about time in the market. Well, look at this chart and you tell me, is it about timing the market or is it about time in the market? It's obviously obviously about timing the market very very well. And that's why this video and this warning that Michael Burry is giving is so crucial for you to understand.
Now, let me ask you a question. How does the average Joe retail investor look at what drives the price of a company? I think most of them would say the earnings. So if you own a share of XYZ widget company, if the earnings go up, well, then you would expect the share price to go up. And if the earnings go down, then you would expect the share price to also reflect the exact same thing.
So the share price is basically a reflection of how well the business is doing in terms of earnings. That's not true. That's not true. And that's really at the heart of Michael Burry's point. You see, I got it right here. Give you give you guys a visual so you can see. The average Joe thinks that earnings equals price.
But in reality, we've got price, earnings, and multiple. This is the key. Editor, let's go ahead and cut to that jaw-dropping chart from Michael Burry's most recent Substack post. This chart goes from March 2026 all the way back to 1900. And on the left, we go from 50 to 50,000. Now, we're switching a little bit.
We were looking at a chart of the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation. Now, we're focusing more on the Dow, but the concept is the exact same. It's just this is the first chart that Michael used in his Substack post. Now, I also want to be clear that I'm a premium member to his Substack, so this is behind the paywall.
So I don't want to show you the whole article. I don't want to show you too many charts just to respect the other paying subscribers to Michael Burry and out of respect for Michael Burry himself. So we're just going to go over just this chart and maybe one more. I mean, he's got multiple multiple charts in there.
And by the way, if you're not a subscriber to his Substack, you might want to check it out because, you know, every 2 weeks or so he has really really in-depth posts just like this one. So the first line I want you guys to focus on is just this blue one at the bottom. And you guys probably recognize it.
It's just a chart of the Dow in nominal terms. Now, the red line moving up a little bit, that's the Dow in inflation-adjusted terms. Here's where it gets really really interesting. Check out this purple dotted line. This is where Michael Burry is actually adjusting for the historic multiple going all the way back to 1900, the average multiple.
So what he's doing is he's just taking the earnings and he's taking the multiple out of the equation. So what actually happened to inflation-adjusted earnings? And you can see that the answer is not much. Not not much. I mean, look at 1920 or so, and you're pretty much flat all the way to the mid-1950s.
I mean, you're almost flat going all the way to the mid-1990s. And then we start to see some increase in the inflation-adjusted earnings, but nowhere near what you would expect if you just look at the nominal chart of the stock market. Now, let's take a look at this gold dotted line. And this is the exact same thing, but what he's doing is he's going back to 1990 and he's taking the average multiple and then he's adjusting for that.
So just to be very clear here, the purple dotted line is taking the average multiple going all the way back to 1900, where the gold dotted line is just taking the average multiple going from 1990 to 2026. But you can see it tells a very similar story that when you adjust for the actual multiple, the price-to-earnings ratio, the stock market shouldn't really move that much or it definitely would not have moved much in the past.
So much of this movement up and down and up and down isn't necessarily a result of how well or how poorly the business is doing, it's more so an expansion and in this case a compression of the multiple. And before we move on, I want to highlight these red shaded areas, very similar to what we just did on the whiteboard, where Michael Burry illustrates these bear these secular bear markets is what I think he called them.
And he shows that peak to trough, you can have a massive drawdown, massive drawdown in real terms. From 1906 to 1921, 65%. Look at 1929 to 1949, 74%. And even more recently, from 2000 to 2013, down almost 40%. So again, is it all about time in the market or is it all about timing the market? Here's some great examples from his Substack post that I wanted to highlight for you guys.
The 1966 to '82 secular bear market saw PE compression drive the entire loss while earnings actually grew. And he points out during the lost decade, 2000 to 2009, PE compression of 98% overwhelmed earnings growth of plus 46%. In the 1982 to 2000 bull market, he says on the other hand, PE was the major factor, but earnings helped as well, especially early.
As that bull market aged in the later 1990s, PE expansion really took over. It's just what we were saying. It isn't necessarily the earnings. Most of the time when you have these big moves up, or in this case huge, massive moves down, it's a result of just a compression of the multiple. Right here, he concludes, "Multiple compression is the primary mechanism of bear markets." The bull market multiple expansion shares the stage with earnings growth.
So, the main takeaway here is that forget about earnings growth, which is what everyone talks about on CNBC. What you should be much more focused on right now, especially if you have a 401k, especially if you're invested in an S&P index fund, is what are the multiples and if the multiple goes back down to a historic average, even the average going back to 1990, where would that put the Dow?
And here he's got a table where he answers that question specifically. So, if we just look at the average multiple going back to 1990, that would put the Oh, now he's switched back to the S&P 500, okay. But again, the concept is the exact same. So, that would put the S&P 500 at 4,700 roughly, which would be a decline of 32%.
Now, if we take the PE ratio, the average PE ratio going from 1927 to 2026, and that's 19.39, that would put the S&P 500 right now down 52%. So, then what he does is he looks at these time frames that we just saw highlighted in red, where you go peak to trough. And what was the multiple when we hit that trough, that low point?
So, what's the maximum downside risk, if you want to look at it that way? So, post-1980, it was right around 11, which would bring a drawdown in the S&P 500 drawdown, a collapse, a complete crash in the S&P 500 of 72% and here you can see what I was talking about on the whiteboard. If we look at all history going back to 1921, then it's 9.25, and that multiple would put the S&P 500 down by 77 percent.
Okay, now let's go over what could be the catalyst for these multiples, let's say mean reverting, and what you can do to protect your financial future. So, the first thing, the most obvious thing that we have to look at and what Mike addresses in his Substack post, is passive investing. And Mike Green, my good friend, talks about this all the time.
I'm sure you guys have heard podcasts with this explanation. And it's very, very simple. Basically, what happens, we've got the average Joes right here, and they are heading into the labor market. They are at that working age and they are contributing, let's say, 10% of their paycheck to an S&P 500 index fund because Dave Ramsey tells them that's the smart thing to do and that's the cheapest way to fund your retirement.
So, all of these average Joes and Janes are taking, let's say, a dollar per month and they're putting it into this passive index fund. Okay, well, they're not the only part of the equation here. We've got the old guys. They're keen. They're retired and they need to draw down their savings, so they have to sell the passive index fund that they have owned, let's just say, for the last 25 years.
So, you have $3 going in, you have $1 coming out. Well, on net, that's $2 of buying. So, what's going to happen to the S&P 500? Not rocket science. It's going to go up. But wait a minute, we know what's happening right now with demographics and the baby boomers. They have been retiring for quite some time and the population of working adults going into the labor market is actually slowing down, where the population of people leaving the labor market is increasing.
So, editor, go ahead and help me out with this one. What we'd have is we'd have, let's just say, one average Joe contributing $1 into the market and we would have three grandpa Joes taking $3 out of the market, which would make the S&P 500 do what? You guessed it. Go down. But it's not just demographics.
The exact same thing would happen if the labor market was deteriorating. I don't know, let's say, due to a recession. And by the way, what was the last non-farm payroll print? Oh, yeah, that was a negative 92,000. So, if you have fewer and fewer people working, and even if you don't have more and more grandpa Joes taking money out of the passive index fund, you have fewer and fewer dollars going in to where the exact same thing happens.
You have no dollars going in, you have $1 coming out. Net result, S&P 500 goes down. Now, I've actually talked to Mike Green about this. I had lunch with him several months back and we talked for about 2 hours and I asked him if he had any models that he had done in the past to determine what the unemployment rate would have to be in order to have these inflows turn to outflows.
And he said, based on his models, that it would be right around 5.5 to 6%. So, that's just a normal recession or it could be a result of AI taking jobs away. It doesn't matter. However, the jobs are taken away, whether it's due to economic reasons or technology, the net result is there's more money coming out than is going in, stock market goes down, you get the mean reversion to the multiple.
Now, whether that mean reverts to the multiple that takes the S&P 500 down 32% 54% 77%? That, I don't know. So, then the question becomes, "Okay, George, I get what you're saying right here and it's terrifying, but it makes a lot of sense. This isn't just some prediction that's being pulled out of the air, this is based on historical data and facts." And you can't argue with that.
So, how do I protect myself? Well, I would do exactly what Warren Buffett's doing. Now, this is not investment advice, but Warren Buffett has seen these cycles. He's seen them many, many, many times. And what is he doing right now? He's loading up on cash. He's loading up on dry powder. In fact, I think, right off the top of my head, he's got a cash pile of about 370 which is the highest in percentage terms that he has had in cash in his portfolio, I think, since he started the business.
So, that in and of itself tells you everything you need to know on how to protect yourself, just do what Warren Buffett's doing. And by the way, he's not holding that cash in a checking account. He's holding that cash in short-term T-bills. And of course, having some dry powder on the side isn't the only thing you can do, but you can't just do what people have always done.
Or you can't just do what Dave Ramsey tells you to do, or your local financial planner. You can't just buy the dip. You can't just dollar cost average. You can't just say, "Well, it's time in the market." No, it's actually timing the market. And for that, you need to be a contrarian investor. You need to be a rebel capitalist, if you will.
And these are the things that we talk about in Rebel Capitalist Pro, which is my private investment community, all the time. You can see how the pros are actually playing this. Guys like Brent Johnson, Patrick Sresny, Chris McIntosh, just to name a few. And I can assure you, they're not doing what Dave Ramsey is telling you to do.
And that's how they'll likely not only survive whatever comes in 2026, but even thrive. If you want more information on Rebel Capitalist Pro, the research, the live streams with the pros, all of this insider contrarian intel that'll help you navigate these tumultuous times, we'll put a link in the description below.
Comments 0