저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
연준(FED)은 인플레이션을 강하게 잡지 못하고 결국 영국 중앙은행처럼 금리 인상을 멈추고 양적완화로 돌아갈 것이다. 연준 내부 이견 신호: 찰스 에반스(시카고 연은)는 금리를 너무 빠르게 올렸다고 시사했고, 메리 데일리(샌프란시스코 연은)는 경기침체를 피하려 완만하게 대응하길 원한다고 발언했다. 화자는 이를 인플레 파이터로서의 의지 부족으로 해석한다. 인플레이션은 연준이 일시적(transitory)이라고 베팅한 결과로 통제 불능 상태이며, 미국뿐 아니라 영국·유로존·일본 등 전 세계적 문제다. 완만한 대응으로는 인플레를 잡을 수 없고 경기침체를 감수해야 한다고 주장한다. 10여 년간의 제로금리로 연금·보험·채권펀드가 레버리지를 키우고 주식으로 몰리는 등 위험이 누적됐다. 영국 연기금 위기가 이미 터졌고 같은 일이 미국과 유럽에서도 일어날 것이라고 경고한다. 저금리는 차입자에게 유리하고 대출자를 벌주는 구조이며, 2008년 구제금융이 도덕적 해이를 낳았다고 비판한다. 금리 상승기 자산 투자 관련 구체적 가격 목표나 종목 추천은 제시되지 않았다. 결론적으로 위기 후 연준의 정책 전환(금리 인하·양적완화 복귀)을 예상한다.
다듬은 글
the biggest problems in America but nobody bothers to figure that out they just keep on buying dollars and so that delays our day of racketing but that day of racketing is going to come it's not permanently delayed it's just temporarily delayed until ultimately we're confronted with the same reality that the bank of England was confronted with today and they made the exact choice that I would have expected them to make and they made the exact choice that I do expect chair Palma I don't care how much he wants to bark about being tough on inflation at the end of the day he will not fight the FED is a paper tiger and it will fall just as quickly as the bank of England when they're confronted with an actual crisis sure as long as stocks are still relatively high as long as unemployment is still low as long as housing hasn't imploded as long as we haven't had a major economic event a financial crisis maybe a big increase increase in unemployment as long as the FED can pretend everything is okay then it could pretend it's willing to accept minimal pain in order to deal with inflation but with its maximum pain then defend will not have the stomach for that it's going to go back to quantitative easing just like the bank of England and of course the bank of England is probably going to stop raising interest rates and the FED will do the same thing in fact there's already indications right now as of today and yesterday that there's some dissension in the ranks over at the Federal Reserve Charles Evans was interviewed he's the Chicago Federal Reserve president and he implied that he now believes the FED has moved too quickly in raising interest rates in other words that the FED has raised interest rates too much too quickly and they have to slow the pace down now the reality is they haven't gone too quickly they actually been operating at a sales Pace they're only now trying to catch up because they got so far behind the curve and they still have it caught up but now you've got Charles Evans saying we've done too much too soon that is the first in the arbor there an indication that they're gonna back away from the rate hikes that they've already telegraphed but I think more significantly look at San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank president Mary Daly who also said yesterday that while the FED is Resolute about bringing down high inflation she wants to go as gently as possible so as not to drive the economy into a downturn excuse me that ship has sailed the economy is not only already in a downturn it's already in recession and that recession is getting worse but what's more significant about that comment is she didn't talk about how she's willing to put the economy through pain she wants to go gingerly she wants to be as gentle as possible in her fight against inflation because she doesn't want the economy to go into a downturn the downturn doesn't even mean a recession maybe just slower growth but the fact of the matter is we have a massive inflation problem and the time to go gingerly has long passed the FED already made a decision to let this inflation Genie out of the bottle they gambled when inflation was lower and they gambled that it was transitory there's a problem in the UK by dollars there's a problem in the Eurozone five dollars there's a problem in Japan by dollars yes there's a problem all over the world if you remember on my podcast I accused the FED of betting the farm on transitory well they lost the farm and now they have to fight a lot harder and so now they can't be gentle they have to be tough they have to be tougher than inflation you can't win a fight against inflation and be gentle you've got to knock inflation out you got to get in the ring and kick inflations but if you're just gonna try to sweet talk the inflation Genie back into the bottle it ain't gonna work that inflation Genie is having too much fun outside the bottle it doesn't want to get back in you've got to get tough you got to be willing to drive the economy into a downturn if that's what it takes you can't be gentle this reveals that San Francisco fed president Mary Daley really is not committed to fighting inflation she's not as Resolute as she claims if her willingness to fight inflation ends if that inflation fight does any serious collateral damage to the economy because it will again remember the bank of England was just as tough they were just as committed and they were just as Resolute until something bad happens and what have I been saying on this podcast we are one day away from a crisis blowing up this same thing was true in the UK and their crisis blew up this morning it happened and it's gonna happen here it's gonna happen in the ECB there are consequences to having interest rates at zero for more than a decade what are those consequences was you pay pensions being highly levered they were trying to do what they could to make ends meet in a low interest rate environment you know the same thing's been happening with insurance companies anybody that has been dependent on interest for bonds they've had to do something to survive in a low interest rate environment there's a lot of bond funds that are levered up as well in order to maintain any kind of yield they borrow money they take on tremendous risk that's why so many of these bond funds are falling so much because they are levered the only way they were able to make the interest payments was because they took on debt the buyers of these products had no idea how much risk the underlying funds were taking they thought they were are buying something safe something is safe but not if you lever it up the minute you take on a lot of debt it's not safe at all so there's all sorts of Mal Investments and risk-taking in fact one way a lot of people dealt with low yields on bonds is they bought more stocks they gambled on the stock market going up because they couldn't get enough of return clipping the coupons on their bonds so they figured they would buy more stocks and those stocks would go up and they would get that added return from stock market appreciation well what if stocks go down not only don't you get any return you actually lose money so a lot of people ended up taking a lot more risk to compensate for the fact that rates were too low these were the problems the unintended consequences of fed policy they always wanted to talk about who gets helped by low interest rates oh it makes it easier for people to go out and buy a home yes there's always going to be a winner if you artificially lower interest rates but there has to be a loser to offset that winner because if somebody gets to borrow money cheap that means somebody else is having to loan money cheap so it's good for the borrower it is bad for the lender and so low interest rate for punishing lenders and how we're lenders figuring out how to get around this well again the lenders in the UK the Pension funds that were lending money and buying bonds at these low interest rates their solution was take on Leverage and I guess they just hoped a day like this would never come because what they did is they postponed the prop they had a problem they didn't have enough interest income on their bond portfolio they could have solved the problem by being honest telling their pensioners we got to cut your benefits or you got to contribute more they didn't want to do that so they kicked the can down the road and they took on a bunch of debt and they postponed the pain until now of course they're not really going to have to feel any of that pain because once again they're getting bailed out by their Central Bank so they're not actually going to get punished for their Reckless risk taking and one of the reasons they were likely willing to take that gamble is because they were also betting that their Central Bank would bail them out that was the moral hazard precedent that we set in 2008 with all the Bad actors everybody who got too leveraged up because the money was too cheap and so they were at the debt party nobody maybe other than bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had to deal with the consequences of that hangover because the central banks bailed everybody out
Comments 0