저자: CathieWood및진행자 · 외국인
요약 보기
Cathie Wood는 현재 암호화폐 하락을 긴 사이클 속 일시적 괴리로 보며, 관세·공급충격에 따른 인플레가 정점을 지났다고 주장. 감세·규제완화(디지털자산·AI)로 2026년 가격안정과 생산성 중심 고성장 국면을 예상하고 본인도 비중을 늘리고 있다고 말함. 진행자는 미국 달러가 DXY 기준 상승 압력을 받을 것으로 보며, 통화증가율 약 5%와 장단기 금리차 정상화를 근거로 제시. 기술 혁신에 따른 디플레이션적 생산성 사이클을 강조.
다듬은 글
And you can see that there there is a loose connection between these two metrics. Part of the reason there's a loose connection is velocity. Sometimes when the velocity of money moves down, uh that takes this the stimulus out of money growth uh because the rate at which money is turning is slowing down.
And that typically happens when people are afraid, concerned, or feeling somewhat negative about their circumstances. recent decline in the cryptocurrency market is only a brief divergence from a longer historical cycle. She claims that supply shocks and tariffs, rather than a long-term structural change, caused the inflationary pressures that shook the markets.
She looks ahead to 2026. She sees a regime of price stability and revitalized growth made possible by a stabilizing interest rate environment. Strategic policy changes, like reduced taxes and targeted deregulation in the digital asset and artificial intelligence sectors, will attract international capital and spur non-inflationary productivity gains.
According to Wood, institutional players are discreetly building positions in anticipation of a shift from a negative phase to a time of rapid innovation, even though retail mood is still erratic. She positions the current struggle as a unique early entry window for those who are understand that the next phase of the cycle will be dominated by a massive surge in disruptive technology and crypto assets.
By increasing her own exposure during this time of maximum pessimism, she argues that the convergence of favorable fiscal policy and technological breakthroughs is priming the market for an explosive recovery. chart, you will see that while debt to GDP is above one here, the one ratio, you can see debt to equity is at .5.
And actually, it's very low by historical standards. Uh the other thing I will say is if you look at debt to assets, another balance sheet item, um the asset side of the US balance sheet is really at cost. What did the land cost? What did the gold cost when it went onto the federal balance sheet? Uh well, some of these costs were 50 to 75 years ago.
And so, if we if we really thought about this, we could sell some of our land, and I forget how much land the government owns. It's a substan- I think it's over a quarter of all the land in the United States. So, we could defray the debt that way. Now, I'm not recommending it, and we do want discipline.
So, I'm very happy that there is a concern about the deficit and the debt uh because if you think about government spending, which is the problem, um every incremental dollar in government spending is effectively an incremental tax dollar. We've either got to pay for it today uh in taxes, tomorrow in taxes, or the most regressive tax of all is inflated away, which we don't think that's going to happen, but that is what happened during the '70s.
So, back to Cathie. Another hotly debated issue is the dollar. DXY is the trade-weighted dollar. It's only six countries. It's not the 26 countries in the Fed's measure. Um it doesn't include China, the yuan, for example. Uh but how high will the dollar get? Last year, the narrative was the US exceptionalism is dead.
The dollar is in decline, and it's inexorable. It's it's going to continue. And you can see here, many people um believe that the dollar will end the year as measured by the DXY at 103.6. Now, that is very interesting to us because you can see on the next page where we are in the context of history.
Uh we are just below 99. So, what Cathie is suggesting is the people who are um willing to trade or make a prediction, uh they actually think the dollar is going to go up. Uh and that goes against conventional wisdom. Now, we agree that it is going to go up uh mostly because of what I just mentioned about foreign direct investment and our capital-friendly, business-friendly tax policies.
Also, deregulation is we think going to increase the return on investment in the United States relative to that in the rest of the world. That is dollar positive, and we take this chart all the way back into the early '80s. Why? It is because we like to illustrate what happened during Reaganomics, and we think Trumponomics resembles greatly, actually, Reaganomics.
And look what happened to the dollar back then. Now, it was coming from the depths of despair in the late '70s, but it really went into overdrive to the point where all the Treasury and Monetary Ministers around the world got together and said, "This is becoming a deflationary risk to the rest of the world." Because a lot of dollar a lot of debt is denominated, was, and still is denominated in dollars.
So, the dollar the debt service was getting more and more expensive back then. Uh we think we're not going to see a surge like we did in the early '80s, but we think the pressure is to the upside. And if you look at this chart in in the context of history, you will see that we are closer, if you take out that that boom in the early '80s, we're closer to the higher end of the dollar's range than we are to the lower end.
And again, I think that goes against conventional thinking right now. Uh here, we're moving into monetary policy uh and and away from fiscal policy. Um and you can see money growth is up to roughly 5%. So, it has continued to accelerated, having spent some time in negative territory after the uncontrolled money growth post-COVID.
Uh you can see that is mapped in green against the CPI. And this is important. It's setting us up for for another Cathie chart. Um and you can see that there there is a loose connection between these two metrics. Part of the reason there's a loose connection is um velocity. Sometimes when the velocity of money moves down, uh that takes this the stimulus out of money growth uh because the rate at which money is turning is slowing down.
And that typically happens when people are afraid, concerned, or or feeling somewhat negative about their circumstances. Cathie Wood compares the current state of the economy to the supply side expansion of the Reagan era, arguing that we are about to enter a modern-day Reaganomics cycle that will have a far greater impact because of the convergence of blockchain, robotics, and artificial intelligence.
Wood sees late 2025 as a crucial turning moment when these deflationary growth technologies start to draw enormous global capital inflows, propelling productivity to previously unheard-of levels. While traditional market concerns are still focused on the friction of tariffs and budget deficits, the rapid expansion of the digital asset ecosystem, she predicts, will surpass 1 billion active wallets by 2026, is at the heart of this thesis.
She believes that this will create a network effect that, when paired with an increase in global liquidity, will spark one of the fastest and most important cycles of wealth creation in financial history. In the end, she claims that the structural movement toward automation and decentralized finance is setting up the market for an impending and potent phase of momentum, evading this confluence of policy and innovation as the main driver of a protracted upward trajectory in crypto.
So, you can see here uh that velocity actually has been in a downtrend since the late '90s. And that is when baby boomers started to retire. Uh very very those were the very early baby boomers. Uh but also it was around the time that China entered the WTO and there there was a lot of concern in the United States.
Our manufacturing sector effectively was exported to China. And so there were concerns and I think those two variables caused the secular decline. Well, baby boomers are still retiring and again when they retire you know, they're not as free spending. Uh and we are now seeing however the reversal of the the the shipment of our manufacturing sector over to China.
And I think our tax package is one reason for that. So maybe we're seeing a secular turn in velocity. If if not, it will probably flatline here and and you know, because baby boomers are retiring but the manufacturing is coming back and other kinds of investment coming back. Maybe we flatline here and that 5% money growth is what is impacting directly the economy.
And if you think about 5% money growth, that would effectively mean nominal GDP growth would be around 5% and that would give us room. We think real growth thanks to productivity is going to accelerate into the three four five percent range. That would leave very little room for inflation. So here's another look at monetary policy from a very short-term point of view meaning it's the yield curve as measured by the two-year Treasury yield minus the three-month Treasury yield.
And in negative territory that would suggest the Fed was leaning I would say hawkish or restrictive. And you can see we've just crossed into a positive slope just crossed. So maybe the Fed is operating at a neutral rate. It's not too hawkish. It's not too dovish. We're in a neutral zone right now. And this chart I've featured a number of times.
I I find it fascinating. This is the yield curve again, but it's the 10-year Treasury yield minus the two-year Treasury yield and this is the one most commonly referenced. You can see the downtrend that's been in place really since the 08-09 debacle the global financial crisis. And the reason I'm interested is even after COVID when monetary authorities around the world were you know, put the accelerator to the floor and fiscal policy was profligate.
I mean just money thrown at the problem around the world. We couldn't get this measure of the yield curve back into that 200 to 300 basis point range. And I just have been wondering what does that mean? Effectively it means that that the long-term Treasury yield was not following short rates the way it normally does.
And why would that be? And here again, have we hit another peak and are we tipping over again? I don't know. But what that would tell us and of course consider the source, it would fit in with our sort of deflationary undercurrent thesis around technology. And and we saw this in the 50 years that ended in the late 20s the late 20s in the 1900s which was also ripe with innovation.
So telephone, electricity, internal combustion engine all riding on top of the railroads that were built out in the 1800s. Well, the equivalent to the railroads this time is the internet in the digital world and now we have we have robotics, energy storage, AI very importantly AI blockchain technology and multi-omics technology.
All of those are highly deflationary trends and could the yield curve be picking up on that? We think it might. According to Cathie Wood, the world economy is poised for a major productivity supercycle akin to a digital Reaganomics due to the convergence of blockchain technology biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
This change is marked by a great acceleration in capital expenditures where real GDP growth is anticipated to reach an aggressive 7% objective by 2026. Thanks to falling technology prices and deregulation particularly in the AI and cryptocurrency sectors. The role of institutional capital which has already started to absorb Bitcoin production at a 6:1 ratio to fresh mining output is crucial to this vision.
As it successfully transforms digital assets from speculative vehicles into legal hedges and essential financial infrastructure. By describing the current state of affairs as a coiled spring. Wood contends that the combination of tokenized real-world assets autonomous logistics and automated AI agents will not only spark the next big bull run but also completely transform international trade.
Changing the investment landscape from short-term market noise to long-term exponential growth and unheard of capital efficiency.
Comments 0