저자: 이윤수 · 한국인
요약 보기
결론: 미국 중간선거 이후 시장은 고점 논란과 금리·유가·세금 등 구조적 불확실성에 직면할 수 있으며, 낙관론(입법 교착→안도)과 비관론(불확실성 확대) 중 어느 쪽이 맞을지는 주 단위 정책 흐름을 지켜봐야 한다는 취지. [중간선거 사이클 통계] 대선 후 2년차 4분기~3년차 2분기는 주가 상승 확률이 높았다(4분기 84%, 1·2분기 88%, 합산 90% 이상). 1926~2023년 데이터 기반이나 표본이 수백 개가 아니라 통계적 엄밀성은 한계가 있다. [낙관론(케니 피셔 등)] 입법 교착이 생기면 대형 법안이 통과되기 어려워 사회·경제 변동성이 줄고, 주식시장이 안도감을 가진다. 기존 산업 보호 측면에서도 긍정적으로 본다. [비관론(레이 달리오, 폴 튜더 존스, 제프리 건리치 등)] 중간선거 이후 불확실성이 확대될 수 있다는 입장. 세 가지 리스크를 꼽음. [유가] 튜더 존스는 중간선거 이후 유가가 20~25달러 추가 상승할 수 있다고 봄. 브렌트유 저점이 계속 올라가는 추세이며, 일시적 휴전·협상만으로는 인플레 압력이 해소되기 어렵다고 판단. [금리] 근원 CPI가 2% 목표 추세선을 이탈했고, 이자비용/GDP가 1990년대 이후 신고점. 구조적 요인이라 중간선거 이후에도 고금리가 유지될 가능성이 높다. 1980년대식 정치적 결단(정부지출 삭감 등)이 나올 조짐은 없다고 봄. [세금] 달리오는 자산세(1~2%)가 도입되면 현금 부족으로 주식·부동산 매도가 불가피해져 주식에 부정적이라고 봄. 1920~30년대 양극화 시기 사례를 들며 양극화가 정책으로 이어질 가능성을 언급. [데이터센터·지방선거] 텍사스 주지사 선거를 주목 사례로 제시. 데이터센터 반대 여론이 강해 공화당 주지사도 허가 중단을 선언했고, 미국 내 반AI 여론(반대 약 60%, 지지 25%)이 높다. 이것이 선거 전술에 그칠지 정책으로 실현될지가 관찰 포인트. [선거 전망] 하원은 민주당 과반 가능성이 높으나 경합 지역이 많고 공화당의 선거자금 우위가 변수. 상원은 민주당이 압승하기 어렵다는 시각. [트럼프 권력 약화] 중간선거 후 임기 말 레임덕으로 대외 강경 카드(이란 등)가 약해질 수 있다는 낙관적 해석도 제시되나, 이윤수 대표는 확신하지 않고 선거 후 전개를 지켜보자는 입장. [투자 포인트] 중간선거 자체보다 선거 이후 의제(AI 규제, 데이터센터, 세금, 유가, 금리)가 실제 정책화되는지가 핵심.
다듬은 글
U.S. midterm elections, which were considered a positive factor for today's positive stock market. Let's see if it works this time as well . We have invited Lee Yoon-soo, CEO of Eric's Master Research Institute. Welcome. yes . hello? Oh, it's been a long time. Ah, yes. Now, regarding the midterm elections—specifically the U.S.
midterms—there are actually many favorable factors for the stock market designed to win over voters, so there is generally a sentiment that investing around this time yields a decent profit. With the election just two weeks away, what is the current state of the market ? Uh, this midterm election is quite unique.
As you mentioned, midterm elections are usually seen as a favorable development, but opinions among investment giants are divided. So there is also a view that this midterm election will be positive, just like the last one. It's not that either. This time, views are divided on whether the upcoming midterm elections will actually act as a negative factor for the economy .
yes . Who are the optimists and who are the pessimists? yes . A representative optimist is Ken Fisher, who is now credited with creating this midterm election cycle . He is a tremendous investment master. And now, on the other hand, the skeptics are quite peculiar. Giants such as Ray Dalio, Paul Dow Jones, and Jeffrey Gundlach—known as the "Bond King"—who are primarily rooted in the macro sector, are viewing this midterm election somewhat negatively.
okay. So, I'm curious about the key points for each of the masters. Could you please explain the optimistic perspective first? Yes, before I talk about the optimistic perspective... So, people say that midterm elections are good for the stock market, but is there really any substance to that? Well, statistically speaking, it seems there is .
Here is what this graph is. Now, we divide the second year of the presidential term, when the U.S. midterm elections take place, and the third year into quarters. This represents the quarterly probability of a stock rise and the cumulative return. Now, indicated by the green shading, the money breakdown is the fourth quarter of the second year, which includes the midterm elections.
Moving on to the next quarters, which are referred to as the midterm election cycle, the probability of stocks rising was 84% in the fourth quarter, which is right now with the midterm elections. Moving on to the next period, the probability of stocks rising in the first and second quarters was 88%.
So, if you group the fourth, first, and second quarters together, the probability of the stock rising was roughly over 90% . So, looking at it on a quarterly basis, the period from this season through the first half of next year is indeed the time showing the strongest bull run in the history of U.S.
stocks . Of course, since the sample size is not in the hundreds, it is difficult to say that it is statistically extremely rigorous, but based on the data so far, it is true that the probability of an increase has been high. yes. Now that I look at the materials you showed me, looking at the bottom...
how should I put it? Oh, it is marked, and since it covers from January 1, 1926, to December 31, 2023, it is still a statistical result covering almost all recent midterm elections . Then it could be considered a truly meaningful statistic, but then again, elections probably ca n't still be in the hundreds of volumes .
So then, the magic of this midterm election is, as expected, a reflection of the efforts to win over voters. You can look at it like this. Uh, well, there might be efforts like that, though. Now, in the case of Campisier, he speaks of a stalemate regarding the magic principles of midterm elections .
What is a deadlock? Usually, when elections are held, it is not very common for one party to win a landslide victory in the midterms . Usually, even if one party wins, it doesn't result in securing a majority or taking 100% of the seats; rather, it tends to end in a stalemate . So, usually when passing a bill, the result is at a level where consultation with the opposing party is required.
But if you think about it, is n't one of the things we disliked most in the stock market uncertainty and massive change? yes. However, now, in the parliament, if one party dominates the parliament... Therefore, if massive bills can be passed at will, then in a sense, such bills can be viewed as a massive volatility that creates significant changes in the economy and society .
In that case, this is the kind of thing the stock market dislikes. However, if a deadlock occurs, it becomes difficult for any single party to pass massive bills at will. This consultation process exists because we need to secure votes from the opposing party . In the process, the severity of the bill is lowered.
Therefore, Campier’s logic is that from the perspective of the stock market, when a deadlock occurs, it judges that the likelihood of a massive bill causing significant volatility in society and the economy passing is low, and thus the stock market enjoys the rise with peace of mind . yes. Hey, that's unique too.
In principle, there must be some major legislation to foster new industries and breathe vitality into them . I have been thinking this way, but upon reflection, if we push this too strongly, there could be competition or friction with existing industries if it becomes a new industry. However, there might be room to consider those existing industries as well .
Yes, that is correct. yes. Then, it seems this election will be important. From the perspective of many investors, will the "midterm miracle"—or should we call it a crossover state— work this time as well? yes . According to the outlook based on the perspective of Campier, the creator of the midterm election cycle, aren't polling firms and the general consensus indicating a high probability of a landslide victory for the Democratic Party in this election ?
However, regarding the campaign, people are saying that while the Democratic Party will win, it is questionable whether there will be a landslide victory large enough to break the stalemate . First of all, regarding the House of Representatives. If the Democratic Party currently holds 218 seats, they secure a majority.
The general consensus is that they will secure a majority and possibly even more, but in the case of Campaigner, there are currently about 25 contested seats, and if you combine the results from other polling firms, it is about 15 seats, so it is difficult to guarantee that the Democratic Party will take all of them.
Because, yes, looking at it from the perspective of the central unit right now. Now, is n't election funding another important issue in the U.S.? Now, the Republican Party has about twice as much campaign funding as the Democratic Party . They have the financial capacity, and since these swing districts range from 2 to 15 seats, if they concentrate their funds there, the Republican Party could perform surprisingly well .
And now there is a comprehensive public opinion polling firm called Yukga. According to that company, the approval ratings of the Democratic and Republican parties are in a close race within the fifth range. It is true that the presidential sentiment is highly sensitive, but that does not mean the Democratic Party's popularity is accurate.
Therefore, considering the situation, it is questionable whether the Democratic Party will easily secure a majority in the House. And even if they secure a perfect majority, isn't there still a possibility of dissenting votes within the Democratic Party ? It is said that the situation is likely to be stalled in the House of Representatives, and as for the Senate, it is said that the Republican Party has more competitiveness there than in the House .
Agreeing with this, in the case of the Senate, it is currently expected that there will be about one to five to seven swing states. However, Campaignal believes that if you look closely at the landscape piece by piece, it does not look easy for the Democratic Party to take all the contested seats and win the Senate overwhelmingly.
yes . yes. Then, conversely, this time. Regarding the midterm elections, what points are those who say they could have a negative impact on the stock market focusing on? Yes. Contrary to Camshire, the position is that this uncertainty will actually expand through the midterm elections . I have identified three main points.
I believe that problems could arise regarding oil prices, interest rates, and taxes . Please go through them one by one. How are oil prices related to the midterm elections ? yes . First of all, he is a legendary trader. In the case of Fault and Jones, they are saying that it is highly likely that oil prices will rise further from the current level to over $20 to $25 after the midterm elections .
With the current rate of increase, it hit a peak early in the war and has not yet been able to break through that high . It means that a new high is being set. Why are you looking at it like this? Was it a month ago? President Trump has said something like that . Oil prices will fall immediately after the midterm elections.
But what is the truth behind this statement? Poltido Johnson interprets this to mean that a rough phase will come right after the midterm elections . Because. A peaceful solution—I mean, if there were a card among those peaceful solutions where oil prices would fall without any problems, it would have already been used before the midterm elections.
Fault Johnson believes that the heavy equipment was pushed back until after the election because oil prices could skyrocket before the midterm, potentially further exacerbating the already unfavorable election landscape . As for oil prices right now, this is the Brent price graph. Oil prices are currently fluctuating up and down, but if you look at the long-term outlook for this year and the search lines, the lows are getting higher.
So, we shouldn't be complacent just because oil prices have fallen due to a temporary conflict that was resolved and negotiations taking place. Since the lows are gradually rising, for inflationary pressure to subside, oil prices need to drop not just a little, but to break through those lows. Therefore, since the current situation is not sustainable for the U.S.
economy or the global economy, the Trump administration will likely make a decision. However, as I mentioned earlier, since that decision has only resulted in harsh measures, the point is that if the conflict intensifies further after the midterm elections, oil prices could spike by another $20 to $25.
yes . This is also convincing. Now, regarding interest rates that you also mentioned, how do you forecast that they will act as a negative factor ? Bond yields are the problem now, but hasn't it been a very long time since exactly long-term book yields became the problem ? It's been about two months .
However, the big names have been predicting this rise in long-term interest rates for several years now . Because they are saying that this rise is due to structural factors, not temporary ones . For instance, aren't expected inflation and the term premium the primary factors determining current bond yields ?
It includes the subtitle, but first of all, the graph of the price structure is the core CPI index. The solid blue line is the actual core CPI index. It is an index, not a growth rate . And the gray dotted line is the trend line for the Fed's target inflation of 2%. As you can see, from 2006 to 2021, it followed the 2% target price trend line well.
But at some point, once inflation became a problem, didn't it break through the trend line? So, the core CPI must either remain at 0% for the next 5 consecutive years or remain at 1% for 10 years . In reality, the Cabinet is crying out for a 2% target inflation rate, but the point is that it is impossible.
Unless a mathematically massive economic recession occurs. yes . So, I've taken off my shirt like this. Regarding that debt problem, the graph represents the interest rate X relative to the US GDP . This indicates the interest burden relative to the size of the U.S. economy, and it has finally hit a new high for the first time since the 1990s.
So, looking at this, the debt problem can also be seen as a structural factor . In that case, if interest rates are rising due to structural factors, wouldn't there need to be some structural change for them to fall? So, people actually say that the 1980s was a period similar to now . Because wasn't there really that tedious inflation for those 10 years in the 1970s ?
I believe that it was resolved in the 1980s through the political decision of the people . At that time, President Reagan and the UK's Margaret Thatcher ran on the campaign slogan that they would put an end to inflation, even if it meant cutting government spending; and if you think about it, Reagan was actually a former Hollywood actor.
When I speak, I wasn't from a traditional political aristocracy; I was the daughter of a food store owner. However, [clears throat] it means that a decision was made to the extent that the people chose someone who is not a traditional figure in order to end inflation . In fact, since then, inflation has finally been brought under control, and interest rates have started to fall.
But will there really be political decisions like those of the 1980s now ? Right now, there are no politicians even talking about such demands . There are no politicians saying they will cut government spending and curb inflation, and looking at current public opinion, people do not want the current government to cut spending .
Ca n't you see that clearly just by looking at France? Therefore, [snorting] since there will likely be no decisive action to make structural changes, it seems that interest rates will actually continue to rise after the midterm elections. The masters' view is that it seems likely to maintain a high level .
yes . This is also incredibly persuasive. So, the last thing you mentioned was, ah, the tax issue. Why is a tax, which can cause another shock, suddenly shocking the stock market ? Now, this is what Ray Dalio typically argues. We are told that the value of an asset ultimately lies in its liquidity .
Come to think of it, I did say that. You have to sell stocks to become a [ __ ]. So, for example, even if I had 1 trillion won in stocks, if I did n't have a single penny in cash, I could n't even go to the market and buy a single mung bean pancake . yes . So, I need to sell my assets and convert them into cash to sustain my economic life, but the role of credit is to prevent that from happening.
If I take credit right now, I do n't have to sell my stocks or real estate immediately . However, the price of credit is rising now . Because interest rates are rising . Then, from the perspective of the credit user, if interest rates continue to rise, it inevitably becomes burdensome because the credit must be repaid with future cash anyway.
Then you have no choice but to use this cash . However, one of the triggers for spending offerings is rising credit interest rates; while there are high interest rates like the current ones, there are also taxes. I have to pay taxes right now, so to do that, I have to sell my stocks and real estate to raise cash.
The situation in the U.S. domestically right now is... It is explained by the domestic conflict cycle . Following the Lee Ho-jeon pattern from the past . However, looking at that, domestic conflict has reached its peak, and since this conflict is being reflected in the political sphere, is n't polarization one of the factors contributing to the heightened domestic conflict?
A wealth tax must be introduced to correct polarization. In fact, a wealth tax was introduced in the 1920s and 1930s, during the time of President Roosevelt . During the turbulent 1920s, polarization in the United States became so severe that a wealth tax was introduced to correct it. I remember that at the time, the highest income tax bracket was over 90% .
So, that situation could be realized right now, but the current store assets in the U.S. are approximately $150 . We only have 5 trillion dollars in cash . However, Dalhiu's opinion is that if a wealth tax of even 1% or 2% is imposed on assets, it will be impossible to cover the cost with the current cash, so assets will have to be sold, and this could have a negative impact on stocks .
yes . Let's summarize what you have said so far before moving on. First, those who expressed optimism described the legislative process following the midterm elections as being at a standstill. They explained that refraining from pushing for overly aggressive legislation has a positive impact on stock prices by protecting existing industries and reducing uncertainty.
Given the numerous issues currently surrounding AI, data centers, and free trading, if this is pushed forward significantly, companies that made money before the advent of AI—rather than just autonomous driving— could potentially continue to survive. Therefore, this argument appears quite persuasive.
Also, regarding those who shared negative comments, that's right. Now that the midterm elections are over, Trump will have nothing to worry about and, since this is his final term, he might pursue a strategy of spacing out to definitively wrap up this situation. However, it seems this could actually become a factor that significantly increases uncertainty and causes the actual low point to rise sharply .
Also, as you mentioned, the current upward trend in interest rates is driven by structural factors, so there is a strong possibility that this will intensify. Furthermore, tax issues could also surface. So, it's a bit ambiguous which side we should bet on in this election. If you were to say which district we should examine best symbolically illustrates the market changes you just mentioned, which one would you choose ?
I would like to talk about the Texas gubernatorial election . The Texas gubernatorial election. He is the current incumbent governor, a Republican governor. I am in my 11th year now. Is n't Texas a prime example of a Republican stronghold? However, the standing of the person who engaged in politics at Dojeonhihosa is somewhat lacking .
However, if you look at the public opinion injection right now... Recently, public opinion injections have now been attached within the 5th range. Even though there is now a really strong champion in the Republican stronghold. The reason is the data center. Hino's approval ratings skyrocketed because the company strongly pushed against the data center .
That is how strong the anti-AI and anti-data center sentiment is in the U.S. right now . Moving beyond the discussion of AI regulation, if we look at data centers economically, they are a perfect example of an externality derived from economics. yes . While Lee Eun-bi Tech takes all the benefits of the network center, the local residents end up bearing the costs associated with its effects, such as noise and rising electricity bills .
It is a perfect example of an outsider, which is why the anti-AI sentiment in the US is currently quite serious. This graph is what it shows. Now, Quinnippyak University asked about this approval rating for President Trump's AI policy. yes. The opposition is close to 60%. Support is only 25%. Although there was still more support within the Republican Party, I believe that even that support isn't because Republican members are so strongly supportive of AI, but rather closer to the sentiment of, "Well, President Trump is our Republican president, so we'll just support him." Because I'm not sure, the lead-free rate is 26%.
The ratio is quite high. So, rather than supporting it based on a philosophy regarding data centers, I view it as being supported for propagation reasons. Therefore, overall, the anti-data center sentiment in the U.S. is quite serious. Because it is a perfect outside. If we look at this in context, it can also be seen as a representative example of the polarization I mentioned earlier.
So now, Governor Abbott has declared a complete suspension of data center permits, even though he is a Republican governor. For now, they said they wouldn't give us the data center until the election is over . Therefore, while it is important whether the Democratic Party wins or the political party wins, the key point to observe in this Texas gubernatorial election and beyond is how the situation will actually develop.
The symbolism of that data indicates whether this polarized sentiment will end up being merely an election tactic for both the Democratic and Republican parties, or if it will explode after the midterm elections, be reflected in the political sphere, and actually manifest as policy. Since this is a sample of polarization, we will be able to see right here in the local constituencies—specifically in the local elections—whether it will stop at AI regulation but actually lead to the tax issues mentioned earlier and continue in this manner.
Hey, this gives you a lot to think about. This is because, in the case of the Texas gubernatorial election, even if the Democratic Party were to win and it became difficult to build more data centers in Texas, as long as the Democrats didn't win in every other state, big tech companies can simply move to the state where a governor they hope to attract has been elected, as they have the financial capacity to do so.
In fact, the reason Texas has become such a coveted destination is that some demand shifted over to Virginia, which was originally one of the states planning to build a lot of data centers, due to rising opposition there . So, I am also paying attention to whether there might be any changes. In that case, could you please summarize the key points regarding performance that investors should focus on?
yes . As mentioned earlier, while whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party wins is important, I believe what is more important is whether the nature of the election has actually changed and how the agendas currently being discussed are implemented after the election . As for the case of optimism.
In the past, midterm elections were an event that reduced uncertainty. However, the skeptical view is that this year's election will actually amplify this uncertainty . Yes, it is important how the major doctors I mentioned are nurtured in this election. In the case of the EJ data center issue I mentioned earlier, for example.
Actually, just because it's the Democratic Party does n't mean they are strictly anti-AI. Just because it is the Republican Party does not mean it is a party-friendly AI . Because now, tech companies have connections with both the Republican and Democratic parties. However, from the political sphere's perspective, public sentiment is strongly opposed, yet companies are pushing ahead, so we are currently at a crossroads.
Virginia has already surpassed Texas in opposition, but now public sentiment in Texas has become so hostile that even the Texas governor is wary of the situation . In that case, where will sentiment really go after this election? Will resentment really continue due to this policy from the political sphere?
How this agenda develops is important. And as for Trump and President Trump, one of the reasons Nay Campaign views this midterm death favorably is that he saw President Trump's power wane. President Trump was, in fact, the source of a lot of uncertainty . However, due to various eccentricities, it is generally said that the president's power wanes after the midterm elections .
Especially in the case of a second term, since the president cannot run in the next election and this is their last, the phenomenon of power leakage is particularly severe, and if you look at the Republican Party. Two of the senators have longer children than President Trump . That is why there is even less incentive to be mindful of President Trump .
So, from that perspective, if we assume President Trump's power will wane after the midterm elections, will he play such a harsh, extreme card in Iran? The key point to watch is how the chairs develop after the intermediate stage, regarding the things to be used at that time . Ah, I can't really imagine it in my head .
That tough one... how should I put it? President Trump, with his personality, becomes a president who has lost his power. Hey, I think we really need to wait and see how things unfold after the midterm elections . This has been Lee Yoon-soo, CEO of Eric's Master Research Institute. Thank you. yes . thank you
Comments 0