저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
Schiff은 금·은 가격 조정을 매수 기회로 보며 금속이 더 오를 것이라 주장한다. 은행권은 주택담보대출 미실현손실 약 2조 달러(고정금리 대출 8조 달러 기준, 금리 8.5% 도달 시 3조 달러)와 국채 손실로 취약하며 금리 인상이 이를 악화시킨다고 본다. 미국·프랑스·일본 등 국가부채가 위험하고 달러 기축통화 지위는 약화되고 있다고 평가한다. 인플레이션은 장기간 지속될 것이며 AI 생산성 향상이 이를 상쇄할 가능성은 낮다고 본다. 실물자산(은, 자원기업, 신흥국)을 인플레이션 헤지로 제시하나, AI 투자 버블 여부는 불확실하다고 언급한다.
다듬은 글
We've pulled back. Gold's around 4,100. Silver's back below 60, around $56 an ounce. And then when these banks start to fail and what they did to distort the markets and inflate the bubbles, that inevitably always pop. If it wasn't for all the inflation, the prices would decline a lot more. So, let's say AI is so productive.
In fact, even the Fed acknowledges that their goal is that we only lose 2% of our purchasing power on an annual basis. So by design we're losing purchasing power. Banks had mark unrealized marktomarket gains of over a trillion dollars on their book of mortgages. Today unrealized losses on existing mortgages are $2 trillion.
You've got $8 trillion of fixed rate mortgages that don't mature for another 25 years with an average rate of 4.6 but a current rate of 7 1/2. When mortgage rates hit 8.5, the unrealized losses will be $3 trillion because there is no political incentive to avert the crisis. All the incentives are wait for the crisis and get your gold and silver now.
I mean, we've pulled back. Gold's around 4,100. Silver's back below 60, around $56 an ounce. I think these are good prices. Uh I think the metals are moving a lot higher. Uh as we know in 2008, banks triggered the big crisis. How do you see the banks bank role today? Uh do you see them also in some scenario collapsing or they are pretty much have a big liquidity today so it will not happen.
What's your take on the banking sector? Yeah, I I think I think all the banks that we bailed out in 2008 because they were too big to fail. They're a lot bigger now. Yeah. because of the bailouts. But I think financially they're in worse shape. As I just said, they're holding all these mortgages. I mean, not all of them, but the majority of the 8 trillion in mortgages that have two trillion in unrealized losses are held by the banks.
But not only do they have trillions in losses on mortgages, they've got trillion in losses in treasuries that they're holding and and other long-term debt instruments that are on their balance sheet. And as rates continue to rise, those losses continue to mount. That's part of the problem with the Fed raising rates.
the more rates they raise, the further, you know, impaired the the the bank's balance sheets become. And then when these banks start to fail, which they will, just like Silicon Valley or Signature Bank, when these banks start to fail, now you've got to liquidate their mortgage portfolios. Liquidate.
And now you have to realize those unrealized losses. So that that's going to put a lot of pressure on the Fed not to hike rates, to cut rates despite inflation getting worse. And when they do that, then inflation will get even worse than that. The banking system may look stable until rising rates expose what balance sheets have been hiding.
Peter Schiff highlights roughly $2 trillion in unrealized mortgage losses alongside additional losses on Treasury holdings. The contradiction is brutal. Fighting inflation can weaken banks while rescuing banks can reignite inflation. For savers, that creates a dangerous collision between financial stability and purchasing power.
Next, Peter Schiff exposes why the next banking rescue could undermine the dollar itself. Yeah. Do you see that just as a US problem or do you see it across the globe? I mean, specifically, I mean Europe. Uh do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do does does Europe have the similar problem here?
Yeah. I mean they have a similar problem. It's not identical, but look look at France. Look what's going on there right now. France has almost as much debt to GDP as we do. Uh so there's a big problem there. Um and you know there are a lot of other countries in Europe that that have these problems. Look at Japan.
Look what's going on there. Look at all the debt they have. Um rates are rising. I mean, the chickens are coming home to roost for all the sovereigns that have been living on borrowed money and selling too much debt. They all were making hay while the sun was shining. It was great because interest rates were low.
So, they kept borrowing and borrowing and borrowing without any consideration for the consequences that would ultimately befall them when interest rates inevitably rose cuz they weren't going to stay down forever. they had to go up eventually. And so the crisis that we're heading to was inevitable the entire time.
That's why I was warning about it for so long because I I was, you know, obviously I wanted the governments to do something to avert the crisis, but I was pretty confident that they wouldn't, but I at least wanted to sound the alarm so that individuals a can do something to protect themselves, but b so that when the crisis happened, not only could I say, "Yeah, I told you so." But I could explain why that the crisis was caused by government and by central banks, not by some kind of inherent flaw in capitalism if we really had capitalism.
The conditions that created the crisis never would have developed. They only developed because of socialism, because of the government interference in capitalism and what they did to distort the markets and inflate the bubbles that inevitably always pop. Years of cheap borrowing can conceal sovereign risk until refinancing becomes painfully expensive.
According to Peter Schiff, France, Japan, and the United States face consequences from debt accumulated during easier monetary conditions. The overlooked danger is that governments may need to borrow more precisely when investors demand higher returns. That pressure can spread across currencies, bonds, and retirement portfolios.
Next, Peter Schiff unravels why rising borrowing costs could expose the weakness behind supposedly safe government debt. Final question, Pete. Uh I read yesterday from one of the experts that he said that we are in inflation cycle that will be the longest in history projecting 10 to 15 years of per persistent inflation.
Do you think that is a realistic scenario? Yeah, it is a very realistic scenario. The the only thing that may change it would be if the productivity improvement from AI is so dramatic that prices decline. Now, if it wasn't for all the inflation, the prices would decline a lot more. So, let's say AI is so productive that it that it causes prices to fall by 20% a year.
Like everything gets 20% cheaper every year. Well, if inflation is, you know, 22%, then we get 2% inflation, right? So, we still have prices going up, but if we didn't create all this inflation, we didn't print all this money, prices would have gone way down, which would be a good thing because it's always a good thing when the things that you want and the things that you need are less expensive.
And it's not bad for business because it's not just the prices that they sell that are coming down, but the cost of production that's also going down. So businesses can make more money with falling prices, provided that their margins are intact because even if their margins stay the same, their volume goes up as price goes down.
So everybody wins when prices come down. The government on the other hand wins when prices go up because they're the ones that create the inflation. They're the ones that spend the new money into circulation. Yeah. Winners and losers and small people are are always unfortunately the losers. The US inflation remains a major major concern.
Do you believe that inflation has genuinely been brought under control or are we simply becoming accustomed to a permanent loss of purchasing power? Well, you know, we've been losing purchasing power ever since we went off the gold standard. It's just been accelerating. Even if inflation slows, your money can keep losing ground for another decade.
What Peter Schiff is highlighting is the collision between persistent monetary inflation and AIdriven productivity gains. Technology might lower production costs, but expanding money supply can prevent consumers from enjoying the full benefit. For retirees, modest annual price increases compound into a serious threat to savings.
Next, Peter Schiff exposes why falling prices could benefit households while challenging the government's incentives. In fact, even the Fed acknowledges that their goal is that we only lose 2% of our purchasing power on an annual basis. So, by design, we're losing purchasing power. But, I think we're losing it a lot faster than that.
And the Fed has lost control. Well, look at the numbers that came out today. Yeah. On producer prices if you annualize September's increase, the 1.3% gain. That's 17% annualized inflation at the wholesale level. And obviously, it's going to, you know, come down to the consumer because businesses always pass on their their costs to their customers.
uh and and the you know the CPI numbers that we got yesterday were bad but these numbers are worse which means future CPI numbers are going to be worse. So it is a big problem and the bigger problem is there's nothing the Fed can do to stop it. nothing that's politically feasible because we'd have to raise interest rates so high and shrink the money supply and shrink the balance sheet that we would collapse the entire uh economy that's been built on a foundation of of debt and artificially low interest rates.
So the we're in a very very precarious uh position right now. Definitely. Do you believe that Federal Reserve face an impossible choice between fighting inflation and preventing a recession? Can what can they do actually? Well, and it's not even just a recession. It's a complete financial crisis of spectacular proportion.
Look, I just put this uh on X today, but during the entirety of the uh two global financial crisis from 2007 through 2010, losses on mortgages on defaulted mortgages were about 450 billion. But because interest rates fell so much, the 90% of the mortgages that didn't default actually rose substantially in value.
I think banks had mark unrealized marktomarket gains of over a trillion dollars on their book of mortgages. Today, unrealized losses on existing mortgages are $2 trillion. The Fed's inflation target quietly accepts that your purchasing power should shrink every year. This is where Peter Schiff's thesis shifts.
Aggressive tightening could threaten debt dependent markets while easing risks, prolonging inflation. His comparison between historical mortgage losses and today's claimed $2 trillion in unrealized losses raises a crucial question about financial resilience. Savers could face inflation even without a banking crash.
Next, Peter Schiff exposes the mortgage rate threshold that could make today's risks considerably worse. You've got um $8 trillion of fixed rate mortgages that don't mature for another 25 years with an average rate of 4.6 but a current rate of 72 1.5 and when mortgage rates hit 8 1/2 the unrealized losses will be $3 trillion.
Th this is dramatically more than was lost during the financial crisis and this is without any defaults. This is how much they're losing on the mortgages that don't default. Of course, they'll lose even more on the ones that do, but we we've never been in this situation. So, if the Fed continues to fight inflation, we will have a housing crisis that will make 2008's financial crisis look like a Sunday school picnic.
Um, you know, yeah. Uh as we know uh the depth surpassed $40 trillion. Uh Peter question to you what keeps the government for let's say have 80 mill $80 trillion debt really what keeps them away from that? Well event it's going to be a bond crisis, you know, a sovereign debt crisis. That that's the only thing that's going to stop the debt train is, you know, a a a crash.
Uh but until then, you know, we're going to go, right now we're a little over 40 trillion, but we're going to go 45 trillion, 50 trillion, 60 trillion, 70 trillion until there's a complete implosion. Now, maybe that's going to happen before we get to 45 trillion. You know, I don't know. I don't know where the breaking point is.
I just know that it's there and we will eventually find it because we're not going to stop until we find it because there is no political incentive to avert the crisis. All the incentives are wait for the crisis. So the crisis is inevitable. Yeah, it's definitely not good. Uh as we know dollar is world's reser reserve currency.
Is that a fairy tale for you or really do you see that status going on in the future? Well, the dollar's reserve status is the reason we've been able to run up so much debt, and it's the reason that we've been able to do it with interest rates as low as they've been. A government can keep borrowing for years, but the bond market ultimately sets a price for that privilege.
Peter Schiff's argument suggests that mounting mortgage losses and rising federal debt could converge into one destabilizing event. The key risk isn't simply a $40 trillion debt figure. is whether investors continue financing it affordably. Higher yields could pressure housing, banks, and household budgets simultaneously.
Next, Peter Schiff reveals why the dollar's reserve status may delay the reckoning without preventing it. Now, that that is in the process of of changing. Uh but yes, I do believe that the dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered. I just don't know how big that number is, but it's a lot smaller than it used to be.
that is uh if you expect a major sovereign depth or currency crisis, which assets would you hold beyond physical gold? I know that you are we all know that your take on gold. However, beyond gold, how can we prepare for the crisis that is coming? Well, I mean obviously you can own silver. So, but other than precious metals, you can be invested in uh hard assets in general.
You can invest in companies that are in the resource space. So mining companies, not just precious metals, but industrial metals, agriculture, energy. Um, and to the extent that you could get good buys even in technology, um, you know, just just real assets. I think emerging markets are looking very attractive and a lot of their companies.
You need inflation hedges. You need to own things, not a paper promise. uh because you know those promises won't be worth the paper they're written on because inflation is going to erode away their buying power. Yeah, I'm glad that you mentioned energy. At what point does a sustained increase in energy cost become a structural problem for the global economy rather than a temporary geopolitical shock?
Well, I think I think it's already a a problem because I think the demand for energy is is growing and I don't think the supply is there to meet that. Not now. We have to invest a lot more in in capacity. But obviously the current situation uh both in in uh in Russia and the Ukraine and in um in the Middle East are complicating that.
And there's no end in sight to either of those situations. Yeah. Uh the market has placed enormous expectations on AI. How can investors distinguish a genuine productivity revolution from an investment bubble in which capital spending runs far ahead uh of eventual profits? A reserve currency can lose influence long before it loses its global status.
According to Peter Schiff, investors should consider tangible assets because inflation can erode the purchasing power of fixed financial claims. Silver, resource producers, energy, and selected emerging market companies offer different exposures, but none guarantees protection during a sell-off. Portfolio resilience depends on diversification and valuation, not fear alone.
Next, Peter Schiff exposes how energy shortages could intensify inflation just as AI spending faces its biggest test. Yeah. Well, again, I guess we don't know for sure if it's a bubble. I mean, it certainly looks like one, but we we don't know because we don't really know what the payoff is going to be on the AI capex.
So if it turns out that the companies that are making this investment can actually earn enough money from these investments to generate a good return, then then it's not a bubble. But it's possible that they're overspending, that they're not going to be able to generate as much income, uh, and there's going to be a lot of competition in the future that they don't know about yet from companies that may be able to deliver AI at a much lower cost because they didn't make as big an upfront capital investment.
So, we don't know. I mean, there's the idea that, hey, you know, if we don't do this, we're going to lose. So there's an arms race to have as much compute as you can and to build out all these data centers, but you know, we don't know. I mean, look what happened to all the railroad companies uh that you know that that were started and and a lot of assumptions that were made that turned out to have been false.
Yeah, railroads revolutionized the country, but a lot of people lost a lot of money on their railroad investments. And you know, that same thing happened more recently with the internet. I mean, look at all the crazy assumptions that were made by all these companies that went out of business. Um, but the internet certainly changed our lives.
AI has the potential to change them even more. Um, but, you know, we'll see if the investments that are being made today are, you know, are are going to pay off in the future. A technology can transform the economy while destroying the capital invested in its first boom. What Peter Schiff is highlighting is the difference between AI's realworld usefulness and the returns investors ultimately earn.
Railroads and the internet reshaped society, yet many early investors still lost money. Massive data center spending must generate profits, not just excitement.
Comments 0