저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
연준 금리 동결 전망이 강하며, 워시 의장의 작업반 검토 결과는 연말 이후에나 나올 것으로 본다. 연준 운영 체계(균형대차, 인플레이션 측정)의 전면 개편이 금리 방향보다 중요하다고 주장. 기술주는 펀더멘털은 유지되나 기술적 지표 악화로 일시 조정 중인 합리적 버블로 평가. 아시아(특히 한국·일본)의 과도한 레버리지를 우려하며, AI 투자 과잉 가능성은 있으나 과소투자보다 낫다고 봄.
다듬은 글
As we just discussed, there may be an unusual divergence of opinion on whether or not the Federal Reserve will raise rates this year. And let's talk about this more. Joining me in the studio is Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic advisor at Allianz and professor at the Wharton School. It's always nice to see you, especially in person.
Thank you for being here. Hmm, it's really amazing how divided people are. I mean, you know, I just talked to a strategist a few minutes ago who said, "There's no way... She said it's crazy that people think the Fed is going to raise rates this year." And then I spoke to Diane Swank from KPMG yesterday who said, "Yes, they should raise rates this year." Hmm, is it because we're not getting more structure from the Fed?
Why is there so much controversy about this now ? And first of all, thank you for inviting me. And that's amazing. The Bank of England says Bank of America is talking about three hikes. Right. Quite a few people are talking about downsizing. Yes. I'm for no change so you know what stage I'm at. Um, look, there are disagreements related to a few things.
First, it's how people interpret inflation figures. So, yesterday we had the personnel inflation measure, which is considered the Fed's favorite inflation measure. There are those who said: "You know what ?". It will soften and decrease somewhat. In fact, we may be at the peak of inflation. There are those who said: " Absolutely not." Look at the core, it will continue to grow.
Hmm. Then you have the changes in the Fed. And people are wondering what these changes mean. And then you have different interpretations about the economy. Some consider it extremely strong, others see it as strong in certain places but weak in others. I think all things considered, my strong expectation, not a weak one , my strong expectation is that the Fed will do nothing this year.
And the most important thing to focus on are the five areas that new Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh has identified as needing work, because they really do need effort. Working groups because they really need work. And the Fed's long-term effectiveness will depend on addressing these problems that have led to serious mistakes over the past 5 years.
But it also means we'll have to wait to get more clarity. His words implied that it would take at least until the end of the year before these working groups would actually start publishing some of the conclusions of their work. So maybe that supports your point that the Fed is doing nothing in the meantime , but it also means the market has to keep guessing, right?
Yes, and I think what Kevin Warsh is trying to do, and I think it's absolutely right, is break this very unhealthy interdependence that has developed between the markets and the Fed. And that led to the Fed, ahem, seeing its room for maneuver shrink. That's good. And this has led to markets becoming very dependent on data, very short-term.
And we have seen significant changes in expectations for rate hikes. I think breaking this interdependence is in the long-term interests of the economy . Among other things, there are numerous discussions going on, and this is one of the questions that the task forces are going to address: how do we measure inflation?
There is talk of truncated average inflation as one way to measure it, but there is also a lot of discussion about this indicator, that it does not assume certain changes, changes in the inflation regime. So what is the best way to measure inflation? How should the Fed do this? How should we do this?
Yes, I don't support the idea of coming up with a whole series of inflation indicators. I think there is a more fundamental issue, which is the sources and use of data. What data are we actually looking at? Is this simultaneous data? Is this really outdated data or not? And the second issue is the monetary system.
You know, very few people say that the 2020 system was dead right after it came out because it was so retrospective. And the 2025 system was never completed. So, this is the Fed that will be radically revamped . And I think that's more important than whether they leave rates unchanged, lower them, or raise them.
It will depend on where the economy is heading and where the markets are heading. Um, where does balance sheet size figure into the equation ? Because, you know, there's talk that even if they don't change the rates, Williams, as he's said before, might try to reduce the balance. As I understand it, he wants to have a theory that underlies balance management.
Before he does anything. Whatever. Whether you like it or not, we are talking about our star, some kind of equilibrium interest rate. Nobody has any idea about equilibrium balance analytics . And we increased the balance from 2 trillion to 9 trillion, and then back to 6 trillion. These are large-scale steps.
Um, and we did it without a basic theory of what the balance should be, how it should be managed. I think it's impressive when you look at the Fed over the last 6 years . Of course, it fell asleep on politics, making a big mistake in 2021 by calling inflation temporary. It fell asleep on the forecasts.
It fell asleep on compliance. We had five high-ranking officials. It fell asleep on balance management. And I think what you're seeing is a major update from the Fed. And it seems like you consider it necessary. I think it's not just necessary. I think this has been postponed for a long time. We need this, we need this urgently.
Hmm, I want to address what's been happening in the technology stock market lately. We talked a lot about this. Hmm, and is it a bubble? Hmm, and if it is, even if it's not a bubble, what do we need to worry about when we look at how these things are trading? So, the economist in me thinks it's the most amazing thing in the world that capital markets are willing to fund innovation on the scale that they are willing to fund it.
This makes the US unique in the global economy. The financial side of me says it's a bubble, but it's a rational bubble. In the sense that if you don't know which of these platforms, which of these programs will win. You have to have a venture-oriented approach. You have to spread out your bets, hoping that the one that works will pay for itself .
Enough to make up for losses elsewhere. And this will happen because huge sums of money are at stake . This means that when we look back, we will say, "Did we really invest that much in this company?" Hmm, I think overall we lived in a period where fundamentals , valuations, and technicals were aligned for technology.
And we saw the most amazing surge. This threw the estimates out of balance. When valuation went out of balance, technical indicators went out of balance, and that's what we're seeing today. It is technical indicators that undermine technology trading. Fundamentals remain stable. Yes. So, I think this is more of a temporary setback than a permanent one , and it has to do with the fact that the estimates are completely out of balance.
How concerned are you about the kind of speculation and leverage in the system right now? So, I'm worried about leverage in Asia. Hmm. You know, we haven't talked about this in particular in Korea before. Yes, Korea and Japan. I mean, if you look at what's happening in these markets this week, yes, you're worried.
So the bad news is that, in my opinion, there is a huge amount of excessive leverage . The good news is that the flow of influence will be limited by markets, not economics. And that's really important. You know, we live in a world where we are concerned about markets. But actually the economy has a lot of tailwinds this time around , particularly as someone said in a recent segment about the bottom of the cake.
Hmm. You have low energy prices. You have a strong job market. You have lower borrowing costs. It is very pleasing that these headwinds are turning into a tailwind for such an important segment of the population. Hmm, you know, the markets were fine for a very long time. The lower part of the economy was not like that.
It's nice to see that the lower part of the economy is doing well. When we are so dependent on the economic front, we are also very dependent on the development of artificial intelligence. It represents a much larger percentage of GDP than in the past. So as much as you're concerned about something happening there, you know, even in the financial markets, yes, if you have losses in one place, you can offset them with gains.
But economically it doesn't necessarily work that way. If you have a data center that you're building and then the demand for that data center drops, for example, do you have someone else who will come and take it away? Is it just standing empty? Do you have such an economical, um, you know, construction that then goes bankrupt at some point?
So, I think you have a short-term problem and a long-term problem. You captured the short-term problem perfectly when you quoted Dan Ives. The concept of an air pocket between construction and monetization. The long-term problem is that every innovation eventually becomes overdone in the first phase.
And the behavioral aspects are very, very simple. When you suddenly lower the barriers to entry for something truly exciting, we humans overproduce it and overconsume it. It happened during the Industrial Revolution, it happened with railroads, it happened with the fiber optic circuit . Hmm. This happens every time.
So yes, will there be any data centers that won't monetize the investment? Yes, there is. But again, I would advise that we overinvest in fundamentally transformative innovation rather than doing what Europe is doing and underinvesting. Because in the long run, the error of overinvesting is much smaller than the error of underinvesting .
And now there is concern that due to public resistance to development, we may be slowing down. Yes, I mean, AI has a huge public relations problem. Yes. Huge. OK? And they need to realize that they are systemically important, and they need to be there with the stories. Google it well. It says, “Look, I can change the healthcare sector.
I can change the education sector. Agriculture. Hmm. Farmers can now have a tool in their hands that is much better at determining whether their crops are disease-free or not, Hmm. And what will the weather be like in the future? If you go to developing countries, it's amazing that there can be a clinic in rural Malawi that now has access to world- class medicine.
There may be a school where each student has a personal tutor. I think the artificial industry needs experience to tell these stories because the backlash is starting to build significantly. Yes, and it will potentially become material at some point. And it will also become political. Yes, definitely. Muhammad, thank you very much . Nice to see you.
Comments 0