저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 시장은 단기 반등 가능성이 있으나 지속 여부는 불확실하며, 실적 하향 수정이 나오면 추가 하락 여지가 크다. 연준 금리 경로: 6월·7월 50bp 인상 후 금리 약 2% 부근에서 사실상 일시 정지가 예상되며, 이후는 데이터 의존적이다. 시장은 이미 이를 일부 반영했다는 평가다. 시장 지표: 10년 물가연동 기대(BE) 금리는 4월 말 고점 이후 하락 전환했고, 기업 신용 스프레드는 약 35~40일간 축소되어 자금조달 비용 부담이 완화되는 신호로 해석했다. 반등 시나리오: 물가와 성장이 예상보다 양호하게 나오면 연준이 긴축 속도를 늦출 수 있어 랠리가 가능하다. 다만 단순 데드캣바운스나 베어마켓 랠리에 그칠 위험도 있다. 밸류에이션 리스크: 구글·페이스북은 PER 10배대로 싸 보이지만, 이익 추정치가 틀리면 실질 PER은 훨씬 높아진다. 이익 하향 수정이 향후 2~3분기에 나올 경우 저점이 더 낮아질 수 있다. 스냅 사례: 스냅은 실적 발표마다 실망스러운 콜로 주가를 망가뜨리는 패턴이 반복된다고 지적했다. 저점 판단: 지수 저점은 이미 어느 정도 다져졌다고 보지만, 무리한 의사결정으로 무너지는 기업은 계속 나올 것이다. 구조조정 장기 전망: 과잉 투자 기간에 자금이 쉽게 공급돼 유사 기업이 대거 등장했으므로, 자본구조가 나쁘고 밸류에이션이 과도한 기업들이 정리될 것이다. 방향을 빨리 바로잡는 기업이 승자가 된다. 최근 몇 년간 베타 상승을 알파로 착각한 것이 가장 큰 실수였다고 언급했다. 출연자 관점: 영상 후반 출연자(진행자) 역시 자본구조 조정 필요성에 동의하며 대화를 이어갔다.
다듬은 글
Everybody starts to throw out this whole idea that you can never slow growth, or the company will die. Maybe in a vacuum that's true. But when every other company is fighting tooth and nail to survive, the only thing you need to do is survive. If you can make your cash last as long as possible, even if you cut to the bone and stop growing, and you come out the other end as the only company left, you will win and run over the market. You may have pushed back your plans for world dominance by a few years, but they're still available to you.
Billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya recently unveiled his market forecast, saying stocks and crypto assets are in the midst of a melt-up. Venture capitalist, SPAC sponsor, and founder and CEO of Social Capital, Chamath dives into the state of markets right now and the level of uncertainty coming from the Fed. He also explains why markets can go even lower from here, and what specific strategies can help a company win in these turbulent times. He elaborates on how irresponsible governance and poor decision-making can lead to a company's downfall.
We still had some amount of rate uncertainty from the Fed. I think people weren't sure how aggressively they were going to hike. But by early this week it was pretty clear there are going to be two 50-basis-point hikes, one in June and one in July, and then effectively a pause, because the Fed funds rate will be at around 2%. Everything after that will probably be path- and data-dependent.
I think the markets had already started to see that writing on the wall. Look at one of our favorite measures, the 10-year breakeven. It has effectively rolled over. From the highs in late April it started to come down, which says people were thinking inflation wasn't going to be as bad in the back half of the year.
The second thing is corporate credit, which in some ways is what really matters to the Fed, because that's where they can intervene. The spread above Treasuries that a company pays when it issues debt is a signal. When it goes up, it means the cost of capital is rising, and that's going to make it hard for companies to raise money. They may have to lay people off or get into cost-cutting mode. That's what goes through everybody's mind. But that spread has also rolled over for about 35 to 40 days, which means the gap between the US Treasury price and what decent corporates can issue debt at has started to shrink. So it looks like we're set up for a potentially decent little rally.
The problem is whether this is a sustainable rally or what we call a dead cat bounce, a bear-market rally where you get one or two weeks of relief before things spiral down again. If the data comes back reasonably good, meaning prices aren't escalating as much as we thought, inflation isn't as bad, and growth is moderate, that gives the Fed a lot of ammunition to take its foot off the gas. In that case, markets could boom.
I totally agree with this. We're in a pretty reasonable place. The real question now is what it would take to push the market lower, and this is more of a nuance. When you look at companies that are "cheap," take Google or Facebook. People say, my gosh, this is cheap, because if you run a screen on it, it's something like 10 to 12 times price-to-earnings. But the real question is whether the earnings are right. What can take the market lower is if earnings are modeled incorrectly.
We saw this week that Snap completely blew itself up. They have the most incredible propensity to self-immolate on earnings calls of any company I've ever seen. There have been at least three times over the last four years where I don't know whether it's poorly scripted, poorly rehearsed, or whether the people helping Evan get ready for these things are at fault, but these have been disastrous calls. My point is this: if you think Facebook and Google are cheap at 10 times earnings, you'd better hope the earnings are right. (I'm making these numbers up to give you an example.) If the earnings are actually wrong, the multiple is much higher, maybe 27 or 19 times. That's the risk left in the market in my opinion. It could take the market much, much lower if this slowdown really contracts spending and the earnings turn out to be inaccurate. If forecasted earnings need to be revised over the next two or three quarters, that's probably where we'll see the low.
However, if growth is muted and the Fed can, as Brad said, just course-correct by degrees, a degree here and a degree there, then we've probably already consolidated the lows.
I still think there will be examples of people who run themselves into a brick wall because they don't want to make hard decisions. That will be more exaggerated in Silicon Valley, because we have a culture of tolerance and an economic business model that supports irresponsible decision-making and poor governance. A fund's job ultimately is to make a very important decision about whether they truly care about generating massive returns, or whether fee income becomes so meaningful that it drowns out every other incentive they have.
Over the last four or five years, optimizing for anything except market beta was kind of dumb. The worst thing you could have done in that period was confuse alpha and beta. Alpha is what you can do because of your discrete skill versus anybody else. Beta is when the market just goes up. A lot of folks were made to feel very silly, or like a downer or a wet blanket, in these last few years. They'll probably have the last laugh.
There's something else that isn't talked about enough. There are going to be a lot of really good companies with horrible capital structures, really terrible cap tables, really bad valuations, and big overhangs of preference stock that will have to be worked out. As Brad said, the person who course-corrects 90 degrees will win. They may win not because they're being especially courageous, but simply because they're less stupid than everybody else.
Remember that in most of these markets over the last four or five years, we funded four or five versions of every imaginable company. Then maybe a marginal second or third one captures some value, and everyone else isn't that valuable. That's roughly been true. We were able to support it because every company looked interesting. Anyone with traction could be competed against, because the only differentiator at the time was very cheap money, effectively free and flowing in faster than you could count. All of that now has to get sorted out. Those dynamics shouldn't be ignored.
댓글 0