저자: 짐크레이머 · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 변동성 장세가 당분간 이어지며 단기 반등은 기대하나 추세 전환은 아직 아니라는 견해. 시장 상황: 전날 장중 낙폭이 줄어 반등했으나 악재성 뉴스는 없었고, 나스닥 조정·다우 조정 진입 등 약세가 이어짐. 크레이머는 최근 시장을 '미니 플래시 크래시가 15분마다 나타나는' 위험한 장으로 표현하며, 매수 주체 부재를 핵심 원인으로 지목. 수급 분석: 기업 자사주 매입이 줄고, 뮤추얼펀드·ETF 자금 유출이 뚜렷하며, 다우존스 자산운용사 지수는 6주간 30% 하락. 액티브 운용의 소멸을 시사할 정도로 자산운용 업계 전반이 할인 평가 중. 기술적 분석: 2600선 이탈 후 10월 29일 저점 하향 돌파가 하락 압력. 단기적으로 신고점 회복 전까지 센티먼트 개선 어렵다고 봄. S&P500은 9월 말 고점 대비 약 12.2% 하락 상태. 개별 섹터: 금융(XLF)은 펀더멘털 변화 없이 1월 고점 대비 약 20% 하락, 사실상 매수 호가 부재. 주택·비은행 금융이 우려 요인으로 언급됨. 심리 vs 펀더멘털: 실적 하향 수치는 아직 없으며 현재는 심리 주도 하락이라는 입장. 다만 실적 미스가 나오면 대화 방향이 달라질 수 있다고 조건부 언급. 금리: 10년물 금리가 3% 아래로 내려와 금리 공포가 완화된 상태. 개별 우량주는 PER 11~13배 수준으로 매력적이라는 의견. 거시·정책: 연준 금리 인상이 너무 빨랐다는 시장 인식, 무역전쟁·법인세 감세 효과 미흡(자사주·설비투자 증가 미미) 지적. 기업 부채는 크게 늘었고 투자등급 회사채 1/3이 투기등급 강등 후보라고 경고. 전략: 한 번에 매수하지 말고 분할 매수하며 하락 시 추가 매수 공간을 남길 것을 조언. 개별 우량주 중심 접근 권고. 출연자 전망: 패널 PTJ(폴 튜더 존스)는 향후 1년간 上下 10% 범위의 양방향 변동성 장세를 전망. 크레이머는 단기 반등을 노려 QQQ 161.5 콜을 매수했다고 밝힘. 리스크: 실적 악화 확인 시 하락 가속 가능, 기업 부채 우려, 무역 갈등 지속.
다듬은 글
The market Jim can't really seem to get out of its its own way. I was going to ask Jim for the people at home. How if you're buying those, how does the other side hedge it other than knock the market down? Woof. Well, I mean as as we know, the market was down over 200 last night, right Jim? Um it came rallying all the way back Scott to just before the beginning of the day Was that was that the worst possible for people at home?
it was. It was. possible? And they let them have it with The officiating was awful. You're always saying that as well. Well, because I don't want people to lose money. You know at 4:00 what we were down 4:00 a.m. we were down at like 15. And then we were down seven. I come back at work out there and I was down three.
I said, "Oh my god. Oh my god, it's going to go up. It's going to go up. There's no positive news and it's going to go up." And then it goes up. I mean other I scanned the papers other than for people in Dallas and the Cowboys winning, there was not a single positive piece of information. That's two humble brags in a row.
One sentence, you're up at 4:00 a.m. and you worked out. I did neither of those things, believe me. So All right. But you know what I mean? I just don't want people to be picked None of us wants people to be picked off. All right. Jim, Nasdaq correction, Dow goes into correction. Where do you think we we go from here?
What's what's driving us mostly now, do you think? Well, to me I I want to echo what Lee said on fabulous interview last week, which is that what's driving us is just not enough players. I mean I I saw FedEx down four bucks on 170,000 shares. I mean this market I don't want to call it broken because that sounds scary, but we're having like mini flash crashes every like 15 minutes.
And so it's become one of these markets that is just too treacherous. If it's too treacherous, there's not going to be anyone standing there and buying, taking advantage of it. And we It's not like the companies can be in there. They're not going to be 2/3 of the volume, not allowed to be. So I just find that the direction uh the volatility is negative.
We use the term volatility, what we should be saying is selling. Because there's just volatility is making the bids withdraw. Now I know a lot of people are going to be critical and say, "Jim, where were you when it was going up?" I said the answer was I didn't like it that way either. You just I didn't like it open market up market.
There are plenty of people Joe who who now think that I mean the volatility is is not only here to stay, it's going to continue for a long while. Uh Paul Tudor Jones was interviewed this morning by Andrew. Uh let's listen to what PTJ said and we can react to it cuz it's right about volatility. I think we're going to see a lot more of what we just saw, which is a lot more volatility.
Um you know, it's really easy to say I'm really bullish, I'm really bearish. I kind of see a two-sided market. I think in the next year will be from where we are today 10 down and 10 up. Okay. So your head's going to continue to spin for many months ahead. Yeah, a lot of different places end up in the same place, a lot of volatility.
We've talked about that. That is going to continue. It is going to happen because you have central banks that are stepping back. There's no longer the put underneath the market. But to what put Jim and John were just talking about, um listen, in the marketplace right now, corporations have stepped back.
You don't have the buybacks. They've stepped back because of the Fed, they've stepped back because of trade and tariff. Let's call this market what this is. This is a trading market. People are looking at technicals right now. They're pointing towards the break below the October 29th low. That's probably the reasons why you see further selling.
The The longer-term investment dollars, I see it on the asset management side. The entire asset management industry is being priced like active management is basically going to be dead. It's down The Dow Jones asset managers index is down 30% in the last six weeks. You are witnessing significant outflows in mutual funds, outflows in ETFs.
Scott, there's no one in there to buy. So candidly for me, if I know this is a trading environment, I bought calls in the in the QQQ's, the 161 and 1/2 calls. Why? Okay, right here. Right here. Why? Because I get it guys, we're all trading right now. That's what we're do we're doing right now. There's a tremendous amount of negative sentiment in the marketplace.
Okay, you took out the 2600 low. There's going to be a bounce. gets gets rid of the negative sentiment that's in the market? Market seems fixated on the fact that the economy slowing and slowing faster than people were thinking. So short term, you need a new high. If you don't get a new high, you're wasting your time.
Um I totally think PTJ is onto something. Down 10, up 10 probably uh just means what technicians would call an expansion of the range. So now we know 2600 is not the bottom of the range. We found that out this morning. So you're in a 12.2% drawdown uh from the late September highs in the S&P. Um and then you look sector-wise, XLF is straight down.
Never seen anything like it. The fundamentals have not changed at these companies. It's pure sentiment. So without a new high in the in the broad average in the S&P 500, you're not going to get improving sentiment for any particular stock or sector. And rips are being sold. It is a different environment.
Things have materially changed in terms of sentiment and maybe that's a precursor to a fundamental change. Right now, I'm not seeing big numbers coming down on earnings. I'm not seeing deterioration in anyone's business or in any particular Right. So so it's If you say If you say, "Well, I'm a fundamentalist guy." Okay, that's great, but fundamentals are are not going to move as quickly as sentiment does.
So right now, this is on psychology. And if you do see an uptick in in companies missing expectations or then we'll have a different conversation. of conversation we had Jim with Lee Cooperman. Right. I want you to let's listen again to what what Lee told us cuz it's it's really about psychology versus fundamentals and what you as an investor should perhaps be doing right now.
In my 50 years of doing this, what do I look at? I look at the economy, I look at inflation, I look at monetary policy, I look at valuation, I look at bonds versus stocks, and everything comes up, you know, saying it's a great buying opportunity. How do you deal with that? Look, I I think Lee's right.
I think that every time you buy something there, you do get hurt. I understand the trading mentality. I I look at the XLF. I look at these bank stocks and it's almost unfathomable that they could go down on very little volume. They go down, they go down, they go down. There's just no bids for them. 20% below the January highs on on no change in fundamentals.
I mean you'd have to believe that one of them is going to go bust, which is ridiculous because they have so so much cash. The big negative is housing, I guess. Right. And then the non-banks, but the non-banks aren't nearly as The non-banks aren't nearly as irresponsible as people think. I don't like them.
I think that the Fed should say, "Listen, we we really got to scrutinize non-banks." But low lower interest rates though, Josh, are a fundamental negative Well, but for banks. Lower interest rates. Well, Well, I some part So two weeks ago I was I was busy panicking about higher rates. So I don't know what Should I panic?
All right. So here's one thing that I I do. And here's one thing that I think is interesting. And we said this the other day, there is no better cure for a fear of high rates than high rates themselves because um all of a sudden, you've got the situation now where the 10-year backs off to below 3%. We failed at 305.
If that number rings a bell, that was the panic high from the taper tantrum back in the summer of 2013. So five years later, we failed at that level once again. So now if you're going to have lower rates on the 10-year, maybe you get people not worrying so much about, "Oh no, the Fed's going too far, etc." That conversation recedes.
And now you say, "Well, what's the bull case?" The bull case probably is a stock-by-stock basis. Have you had enough damage in some of the best-run companies in America that are now selling at 11, 12, 13 times earnings with good dividends, with continued buybacks. So maybe it's not an index conversation for every investor.
Maybe it's, "Hey, what's my favorite name? Oh my god, I can own that thing 15% lower than where it was two months ago and nothing's changed." I totally agree with you, but you have to be willing to buy more if it does go down. You have to leave room. You can't You can't do your entire purchase in one shot.
And I think that that's really the best advice we can give. Are we Is the market too obsessed with the economy? I think it It's obsessed with the idea that Jay that Fed Chairman Powell got it got it wrong. And Maybe went too fast. As Barron's suggests, maybe the administration got it wrong in thinking that this corporate tax cut was going to prolong a cycle that was, you know, long in the tooth, uh it was going to extend it even further, that it was going to lead to, you know, greater spending, higher earnings, higher stock prices.
But a lot of that could have happened, Scott, except that then the president chose his battles. He is the president, he chose his battles. He chose to have this trade war. China didn't say, "Oh yeah, let's let's let's go throw this right in their eye." They didn't do that. We did that. Well, remember they've been hitting us hitting us hitting us.
So we're fighting back. I was I'm in you know, I've been in the Peter Navarro camp for 15 years, no new revelation. We're fighting back. I mean when I read about what this CFO did from Huawei, I mean the Canadians don't do our bidding. Okay? The Canadians don't do our bidding. They agreed The Barron's article So So the Barron's article goes chapter and verse through every promise that was made surrounding the tax cut.
Starting with repatriation, which is not a hit. Cash payments to shareholders haven't meaningfully increased. Investment spending hasn't accelerated. So the question is, do you think that the that the authors of tax reform actually believe that that would happen or do you think it was a payback to the donor class because they just wanted to lower taxes?
I think they believed it. The fact that it's not happening, what does that mean for really where the economy is? Is it slowing more dramatically as a result of these things not happening that Barron's laid out? seen higher earnings per share. I've seen a lot of buybacks. Look, I know that they're looking at the data the way that they do, but the companies that I follow have actually used it for the most part.
They're paying down debt though, too. Paying down debt. That's why I don't One of the reasons why I want to say you should buy the market, but I'm not because I for everything you said we're going to go down, is because balance sheets are so great. And that's like Lee is talking about balance sheets.
You Look, there've been We all know that there've been times when interest rates have been four, five, or six and and our the balance sheets have been bad. We'll be sitting here talking about what do you think about that? Corporate debt has exploded um in both nominal terms and relative terms and a third of the investment grade corporate debt index is a possible candidate for fallen angel status meaning a down tick in the economy all of a sudden you'll have some waiting slash to junk.
They're triple B minus right now. So I'm not as sanguine about the the the balance sheets of corporations. I think they are not as great as people think. These are not the systemic risk companies that that I would normally be worried It's not the financials right now. Bank of America Bank of America is so solid.
That to me is America. Whatever you do don't look at the industrials. Let's hear it out.
Comments 0