저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
캐시 우드가 연준에 공개서한을 보내 금리 인상이 과도하며 디플레이션 위험이 있다고 주장한 것을 분석하는 영상. 결론: 우드의 논리는 일부 타당하나 연준이 보는 지표 전체를 반영하지 못하며, 시장은 연준의 매파 기조에 따라 흔들릴 가능성이 크다. 우드의 핵심 주장: 연준은 고용과 헤드라인 인플레이션 같은 후행지표에 의존하고 있으며, 원자재 가격은 이미 정점을 찍고 하락 중이다. 재고 근거: 월마트 재고 25.5%, 타깃 36.1%, 나이키 글로벌 44% 증가 등 재고 누적은 소비 둔화를 의미하며 이는 물가 하락 요인으로 제시됨. 물가 근거: 중고차 가격지수 하락, PPI·CPI 전월 대비 하락 등을 근거로 제시. 식품·에너지 제외 근원 인플레이션은 연율 약 8%(CPI)와 5%(PPI)로 높다는 점도 언급됨. 고용 근거: 구인 건수(JOLTS)가 110만 건(10%) 감소, 이를 연준이 고용 둔화를 이유로 금리를 올릴 명분을 줄이는 신호로 해석. 진행자 평가: 재고 논리는 일부 타당하나 연준이 보는 요인은 더 많다. 우드는 성장주 보유 편향이 있으며, 10월 CPI와 11월 2일 FOMC가 핵심 변수라고 봄. 연준이 과도하게 매파적이면 6~9개월 내 경기침체 위험이 있다고 언급(JP모건 다이먼 인용). 우드는 향후 6개월 내 디플레이션을 예상하며 연준과의 대립을 주장. 리스크: 금리 인상 지속 시 팔란티어·테슬라 등 고성장주가 타격을 받을 수 있음. 진행자 본인도 해당 종목을 보유 중이라고 밝힘. 출연자 전망: 캐시 우드는 향후 6개월 내 디플레이션 발생과 연준 정책 오판을 예상함.
다듬은 글
all right everybody we've got something we've got to talk about uh this is something I saw in my morning open stream when I when I opened the market and it's that Kathy Wood retweeted something at like 9 30 a.m uh or yeah 9 45 a.m which was an open letter to the FED now this is really interesting and I want to talk about this it is getting to the point where Kathy Wood feels that Mr Jerome Powell and anyone in the FED is not listening to her and she's screaming about it she's putting it up on podcast she's making YouTube videos about it she's saying that look Jerome Powell you're not Paul volcker I'm almost quite explicitly saying hey who the hell do you think you are she's trying to get her argument out there into the world and Elon Musk agrees with her by the way Elon Musk agrees that we have a risk of deflation coming so she's not the only one alone out here but Oliver stocks are in high growth Tech names and if interest rates rise that only hurts those names they get pummeled even more if a recession happens like a real real recession it gets even worse so they wrote an open letter to the fed and this is so interesting it's like Alex carbon pounds you're putting out like shareholder letters it's like Arc is putting out an open letter to the Fed so let's read through it a little bit let's talk about some of her core arguments and we'll talk about if there's any logic here uh in our recent in the no video we offered some of our data uh data we offered some data for our data driven approach to the FED to we offered some data for our data driven fed this is hilarious they put data driven in quotation marks assuming that the FED is not data driven to consider As It prepares for its next decision on November 2nd in the face of conflicting data the unanimity the unanimity I'm probably saying that wrong but whatever of the fed's last decision to increase the fed's fund rate by 75 basis points was surprising basically saying look you guys keep doing 75 bips and there's no reason for you to do we focus on two variables uh employment and headline inflation upon which the FED seems to be taking its decisions in our view both are lagging indicators not leading indicators again lagging indicators means this has already happened in the past it's not really going to delineate what's going to happen in the future whereas a leading indicator is what's about happening right now commodity prices are uh leading indicators Upstream in the stage of processing most commodity prices have peaked and except for food and energy are falling on a year over year basis as shown below without question food and energy prices are important but we do not believe that the FED should be fighting and exacerbating the global pain associated with the supply shock to Agriculture and energy Commodities caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine which means they are blaming more geopolitical things as a one-time phenomenon for why we have some of these shocks and prices versus overarching inflation or that being evidence of overarching inflation which is why the FED should not be doing what they're doing and then you see they have these charts over here uh they have the peak closing price date this is all around 2020 2021 Peak closing price Peak closing price to last closed percent change and closing price year over year percent change all of these are negative meaning all these things or at least most of these things are starting to Trend downwards which means we should be showing that Commodities are going down inflation is going down raw materials are going down then they talk about inventory accumulation in the face of single-digit sales growths uh inventories at Walmart and Target increased 25.5 and 36.1 percent respectively during the most recent quarter uh Nike's recent quarter suggests that the inventory imbalances have worsened despite sales growth of only 3.6 Nike's inventories increased 44 globally so even though they have some sales growth their inventories are still stuck on the shelves because people aren't buying uh in North America and on ship and Transit inventories increase 64 it's 85 respectively now remember why is this important if you have more inventories that means less people are buying which means less money is going into the economy if less money is going into the economy from a macro level there are more goods and services which means prices should come down so for example if there's 20 laptops and 21 people want those laptops there's less demand or sorry less Supply more demand which means the prices for those goods like laptops go up but if there's 20 laptops and only five people want it then those prices have to come down because if you're five people you have the leverage as the demand over the cost of the supply which means the supply does not need to be raised to an astronomical expense to ward off the other people who are not willing to pay for something which causes inflation her argument is if we have a lot of inventories and Walmart Target Home Depot Nike all these companies are like hey we have more inventory because people are just not buying then you don't need to raise interest rates you don't need to cause a recession you don't need to have this like big Paul volcker style type of we got to get inflation down because it will naturally come down with more inventories existing if inventories were not at the heights that they were right now I think Kathy would not have an argument but she has a decent argument there her inventories going up now granted there's probably a ton of other factors that the FED is looking to that Kathy might not be looking to but at least for this argument there is some point here then she talks about the used car price indexes we talked about that before how that's going down year over year which is a good thing at the end of the day for prices come down come down um and then she talks about this part which is interesting during September and early October the FED felt Vindicated in its tough stance by reports that inflation is measured by both CPI and pce deflator excluding food and energy increased 0.6 that's eight percent annualized and that the PPI excluding food and energy increased about five percent annualized including food and energy the CPI and PPI fell one percent annualized 0.1 for the interest rates however while some home prices are measured by the federal Housing Finance Agency uh they also fell 0.76 or 0.6 reported on the employment front during September and early October initial claims for unemployment insurance declined in non-parent payroll employment increased 263 000 but job openings as measured by jolts fell 10 or 1.1 million what does all this mean number one it means that if you take out certain things that the FED is if you exclude certain things like food and energy and you include them into the inflation report then we're actually decreasing core inflation by one percent now the FED may want to be more aggressive than one percent annualized or 0.1 percent core which means they want to get it down even more so you can make the argument that you know that doesn't really matter you could also make the argument that if you exclude these things and inflation is rising then including those things doesn't really make it better it just overall washes the entire form of inflation so if we exclude food and energy and its inflations through the roof then like we still have to do something about inflation so I don't know if Kathy has the best argument there but at least she says if you took everything together the core inflation is reducing and then the jobs thing is super important right so why did the market crash last Friday because the jobs report was actually good we either had more jobs than we wanted to have or we had less unemployment than we thought we were going to get right in general more people were getting jobs and jobs were doing well if that's the case the FED is going to be more aggressive because they want to have about unemployment at 4.4 to decrease uh competition in the in the wage Market in the labor market less money going to the system which means inflation is ultimately going to go down it sucks that you have to get people to lose their jobs in order to trigger a recession but nonetheless that would be the case um and that would reduce inflation her Kathy's argument is job openings measured by jolt fell to 1.1 million or fell 10 which means 1.1 million less jobs were offered which theoretically is a technical layoff right because you're just not hiring more people which means more people can't get those jobs some people you probably have to lay off in that context which means if jobs are going down that is a good thing why is that a good thing because now the FED can't say hey we need to increase unemployment because those jobs are going down already that is the entire thesis argument for why job openings uh going down or falling is a good thing in the Kathy respect they ended off by saying unanimous really could it be that the unprecedented 13-fold increase in interest rates during the last six months likely 16-fold come second has shocked not just the us but the world and raise the risks of a deflationary bust Maybe maybe not and I think that's the that's the exciting part here maybe it did maybe it not it kind of sounds poetic at the end where they're just like you know is are you really thinking this is the case do you really think this is true it might not be true it might not be the case and I think we're gonna ultimately have to see Kathy has some data We're Not Gonna I'm not I'm not gonna say she doesn't have some data the problem is she's also a bit biased because a lot of the stocks that she owns are going to get destroyed as interest rates go further and further and by the way I don't want those stocks to get destroyed I'm in some of those stocks like palantir and Tesla those are growth stocks and you want to you know see them be green but at the end of the day if we if we have to get rid of inflation and we have to be incredibly hawkish this might just be something that the FED has to do I think October CPI is going to be very telling that's going to let us know everything around if we November 2nd it goes up or down because imagine if inflation decreases it's like five percent I don't think that's gonna happen but like imagine if it does the FED cannot be that hawkish because at that point you are actually risking a recession for no reason and it would just be absurd but if inflation doesn't go down as much as it needs to go down and if the like pinpoints of data cap these using are not convincing to the federal Jerome Powell then he's going to raise interest rates and it's going to be a pretty rough economy over the next six to nine months Jamie Diamond president of JP Morgan just came out and then said he fully expected recession in the next six to nine months um we are already in a technical recession with negative GDP growth for consecutive quarters I guess it's a question of like a real like the media is like all right it's here it's time and if that happens there's gonna be a lot more pain to come so uh Kathy says deflation's happening in the next six months she thinks the FED has got it totally wrong it's a war between Kathy and the FED let's see what happens thank you so much for listening watching let me know thoughts comments I'll see you in the next one
Comments 0