저자: 미상 · 한국인
요약 보기
은행위기 이후 시장이 '역사는 반복된다'와 '이번엔 다르다'로 갈려 있다고 진단. 금리 인하 기대와 나스닥 반등을 보지만 유동성 축소로 큰 위협 가능성 경계. TSMC 실적은 양호하나 삼성전자는 메모리 재고·DRAM 가격 부진으로 부담. 러셀2000 부진은 유동성 부족의 신호로 해석. 현재 미국 포지션 유지, 큰 조정 시 TMF에서 SOXL로 전환 계획.
다듬은 글
Hello, nice to meet you. Actually, recently, the market sentiment seems to have split significantly into two camps: one believing that history repeats itself, and the other believing that this time is different, standing in a tense standoff. In fact, despite the banking crisis, the market has continued its flow as if the crisis never happened thanks to swift responses and actions.
Of course, yesterday, the market's conception was satisfied with the 25bp FMC hike, but the market also experienced another correction towards the end of the session following comments by U.S. Treasury Secretary Jenny Delone regarding bank and deposit protection. Ultimately, it is difficult to say that risk-related issues have been completely and cleanly absorbed yet, but I believe these two main currents are currently coexisting significantly.
Therefore, as I mentioned in yesterday's video, I expect government bond yields to continue declining, while the Nasdaq is likely to continue its rebound. However, I have a feeling that after a while, a major threat factor—something that the market cannot cope with—might emerge—even if it is not quite a financial crisis like COVID-19.
I lean slightly more toward the view that history repeats itself, but I hope you will still think that this time is different when investing in stocks. There are many investors leading the market with warnings. I believe it is meaningful to examine their perspectives. I used to invest heavily in the semiconductor sector.
This is the chart of the stock I invested in as my main investment. If you look at it, it has fallen significantly and then rebounded; most semiconductor ETFs show similar trends. However, the crucial factor now is whether the current position is the bottom or if it could lead to a larger correction and decline.
Those who say "this time is different" often cite corporate fundamentals. Take a look at this: this is TSMC's February 2023 earnings. The blue line represents the basis for my estimates, and the results actually exceeded them. The important thing is that while there was a decrease compared to the previous quarter and the journal, the year-over-year ( YY) trend continues.
Looking at the figures, while MOM (Month of Month) shows a decline of about 18%, the revenue actually increased by 11% year-over-year. Revenue has now been confirmed, which is why people are saying "this time is different." The basis of what you are saying is that companies' fundamental earnings are no longer that bad.
If you look at it, that interpretation makes sense. In particular, the question is whether the correction will continue until around 2020. The earnings in 2020 are as follows; it means they are overwhelmingly different from now. Companies have grown and possess strong fundamentals, and from a fundamental perspective, they believe that a correction around 2020 is already quite excessive.
In fact, if you look at the companies' P/E ratios, it becomes even more stark. Even from a historical perspective, the current level is positioned at a level significantly above average. This means it is not overvalued. In short, they consider it cheap and cheap criticism. Yes, so the logic is a bit weak to view the current stock price level simply as a lack of caution.
This is because there is a distinct difference between the current earnings and those during the COVID phase when prices fell. As you can see, companies have grown, posted higher earnings, and achieved greater growth compared to then. Actually, when looking at the semiconductor sector, which is my primary investment area, you only need to focus on two major companies: TSMC and I mainly focus on just those two companies: Samsung Electronics and TSMC.
As you are likely aware, TSMC is a foundry specializing in system semiconductors, while Samsung Electronics is dedicated to memory. Ultimately, since these two are the leading giants in the industry, they are the firms that drive the semiconductor sector. For fabless companies like the US firms we commonly know—such as Qualcomm—and companies like Nvidia, the actual production of their products cannot occur without the backing of either TSMC or Samsung Electronics.
Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the performance, inventory status, and earnings of these two companies. Currently, TSMC is showing solid earnings, which can be attributed to benefits from Nvidia's volume related to AI and GPT. However, Samsung Electronics still faces a burden regarding inventory due to its capacity for memory semiconductor cycles.
DRAM prices are not showing signs of a significant rebound right now, and in fact, DDR5 isn't leading the market as much as expected. Ultimately, it appears that this is being directly reflected in the current ISM manufacturing index. Typically, a reading above 50 is considered positive, and since the semiconductor sector relies heavily on actual manufacturing capabilities, the current phase at 52 can be viewed as a somewhat stagnant phase in terms of the cycle.
As I mentioned earlier, this is largely due to Samsung Electronics' memory semiconductor capabilities, as memory is significantly affected by the cyclical nature of the market. Therefore, looking solely at the manufacturing index, entering the market now is not necessarily a bad idea. This is because stock prices below 50 already reflect a certain degree of stagnation, so entering and responding at any time is not a bad idea.
However, there are two major points that need to be compared. During this phase, liquidity was released quite significantly. If you look at it, there was even a period when the US 3-month Treasury yield went into negative territory. This means that capital inflows into MMFs increased tremendously. This implies that banks were not accepting cash.
If someone came to deposit money, it would not be a burden for businesses like stores. They would have accepted it because it was feasible, but it was a time when banks would refuse corporate deposits. It was a time when money was overflowing. It was even a period where 3-month U.S. Treasury yields went into negative territory.
Ultimately, the money had nowhere to go, so it flowed into MMFs. It was a situation where investing this money in MMFs into U.S. Treasuries would result in losses. How should I put it? It was a time of high liquidity—so much cash that there was a shortage of Treasury bonds. Now, let's return to performance and make a comparison.
Compared to 20 years ago, corporate earnings have improved, but liquidity has contracted. Back then, corporate earnings were poor, but the market was flooded with abundant liquidity. As you know, stock prices are determined by the mutual influence of the base interest rate and, ultimately, corporate earnings fundamentals.
This means that the two are now showing contradictory results. It implies that back then, liquidity was good but earnings were poor, and this time, earnings are good but liquidity is poor. Therefore, those who argue that history repeats itself—that "this time is different"—often mention corporate earnings, but If you look at the arguments of those who claim that history repeats itself, they are essentially saying that factors related to the benchmark interest rate, the overall fundamentals, and corporate EPS are bound to be halved.
In this regard, the market boundary does not yet clearly show the manufacturing index surpassing 50. While the NASDAQ is likely similar, we are seeing stock prices rise as Big Tech companies improve their earnings. However, you need to look at this alongside the Russell 2000. The Russell 2000 is actually centered on U.S.
domestic companies sensitive to the economy; you can view it as being dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises. Contrary to the rise driven by improved earnings of non-tech companies mentioned earlier, the market is currently showing a pattern of giving back all of its recovery. Ultimately, this liquidity shortage inevitably causes the weakest links to collapse first.
The large corporations and Big Tech companies we commonly know do not go bankrupt. I believe that judging a company's economic conditions or its fundamentals based solely on their earnings can lead to a major mistake. Ultimately, if the consumption of individual consumers who would buy their products decreases, a recession is inevitable.
This is where future competitiveness and the increase of growth engines for Korea I believe you should n't get confused by the current strong fundamentals of companies. It is actually quite difficult to view the rise of major companies, including the NASDAQ, supported by solid earnings, as a reflection of the overall domestic demand situation for U.S.
companies. In particular, companies like TSMC are showing consistently good performance because they are focusing more on future growth and growth engines centered on system semiconductors. On the other hand, Samsung Electronics is not showing this kind of trend because it is influenced by typical market cycles.
Therefore, I believe this time is different. We must not miss the possibility of a recession at any moment. Fundamentally, no matter how good corporate earnings are—no matter how good they are right now— market liquidity, which can be considered the benchmark interest rate, acts to lower the overall average P/E ratio.
Since it acts as a drain on the overall market, well, even if companies continue to show remarkable earnings growth, if the average figures are adjusted downward overall, it is difficult to see such distinct stock price growth. So, if you look at it, the NASDAQ has risen steadily while rebounding from the recession.
Rising steadily, eventually... We are now facing such significant difficulties due to unexpected threats, so it is difficult to assert with certainty that such risks will recur. However, looking at the earnings of some large, successful Big Tech companies, I think it is a bit unreasonable to expect solid economic fundamentals across the entire U.S.
economy. In fact, around that time, I viewed stock prices as undervalued relative to corporate earnings and market sentiment, but it is difficult to consider the current phase to be particularly attractive. Back then, one could invest more boldly than expected, but considering the overall economic conditions, such as interest rate levels and risk factors related to the financial crisis, I am quite skeptical right now about whether this trend will continue upward without any issues.
Of course, I am closely monitoring the market and am looking for a point where I can boldly shift my investment weight from TMF to SOXL if push comes to shove. However, the current situation appears to be quite burdensome, and if a major threat were to arise, then I would consider using the profits from bonds to boldly enter SOXL Semiconductor with triple leverage.
So, I think the trend might continue in a better direction than expected. To put it simply, I am currently holding U.S.-based positions while closely monitoring the situation, and my plan is to boldly enter SOSSL once a significant correction occurs. I suppose I can say that I am continuously watching for that timing.
Of course, there is a possibility that I might miss out if the market continues to rise, but personally, I believe that is highly unlikely given the current situation. My perspective is largely settling on the analogy that history repeats itself. Thank you.
Comments 0