저자: TomLee · 외국인
요약 보기
Tom Lee는 Goldman 연구를 근거로 PCE 인플레이션이 6개월 내 100bp 하락할 것이라며 Fed가 시장 압력에 굴복하고 있다고 주장. 10년물 4~6% 구간에서는 PE가 금리와 양의 상관이라는 1930년 이후 데이터를 제시. 주택투자 회복으로 S&P 주당이익 30~50달러 추가 가능, 연내 8200 돌파 전망. 중간선거 전 risk-off 후 Q4 대형 랠리와 내년까지 이어질 것으로 봄. AI 트레이드 지속을 전망.
다듬은 글
Tom Lee, head of research at Fundstrat, recently appeared on CNBC to deliver a remarkably bold market prediction, arguing that the S&P 500 is coiled for one of the most powerful equity rallies of our lifetime. Despite widespread fear over stubborn inflation and soaring bond yields, he contends that the underlying data points to an imminent sentiment shift.
the consensus view on interest rates and corporate earnings might be completely wrong and how a unique mix of sidelined cash, housing dynamics, and the AI trade could launch the index past major historical milestones. ; It sounds to me like you're in agreement with Rick. They will, but they shouldn't.
Yeah, I I agree with Rick that it's probably uh seating to market pressures, not that the Fed thinks that's the best course. Uh Goldman had a great study showing that there's four things distorting PCE today. 1.7 percentage points are coming from portfolio fees, flash memory, tariffs, and energy. In 6 months, just without Fed intervention, that's dropping 100 basis points.
So, PCE is set to drop anyways. I I don't know if the Fed really needs to accelerate that process. But you're still pretty positive on how you think the market ultimately will react. Yes, and part of it is expectations. You know, the market's been anticipating and sitting on the sidelines because of a hike.
Um I think it does take out future hikes. So, that's yields falling. There's a lot of pessimism already, and people have to keep in mind 25 basis points really doesn't hurt the stock market, but we have a ton of cash on the sidelines and we've been down many days in a row. So, I I think it could be a very big rally that starts.
About 5% on the on the 10-year. It's a problem, isn't it or no? I mean, round numbers are a problem. I mean, we were at this level in 2023 and the economy didn't break. Uh when we look back to 1930, between 4 and 6% PE is positively correlated with higher yield. So, actually, arguably, PE should be expanding until about 6% on the 10-year.
So, I I think that we don't like seeing 5% cuz I I know it's stress, but history shows the US economy can handle that. What if I think, as some do, that earnings are in the process of peaking, and now when you have the backup in yields, that that in and of itself challenges the multiple? Therein lies another issue.
How would you respond to that? Uh, well, a couple things. One is, uh, you know, if even if the rate of change of earnings growth and revision slows, but we're still growing 10% organic, we should be closing in on a 20 PE. But investment spending GDP, a lot of that's housing, which is depressed, isn't at cyclical peak.
So, to me, I think there's still a big lever to pull that housing, which is private investment, could go up a lot. That could add 30, 40, 50 dollars to S&P earnings. So, I think we're not really at peak earnings yet. But we haven't had the big pullback that you've told our viewers you still thought was coming and could be Fed-induced.
So, how do you square all of this? Well, the the factors that make us think a big pullback's coming are still in place, you know, market tests the Fed, margin debt, IPOs, uh, leverage, but there's pessimism today, and I don't think markets peak on pessimism. So, I think that we still have a a substantial rally into the end of the month, and then I think when people flip bullish, that's really when all these other headwinds could come together.
the midterms? What kind of risk do you think there is around the midterms? Uh, again, it'll be a risk-off period cuz people don't like binary outcomes, so they don't they're going to just sit until we have the elections, but gridlock, which is what markets are pricing, you know, a Senate and a House flip to Democratic, is actually a good scenario for markets because stocks tend to do better when there's gridlock.
And you think that still holds true? Yeah, I think post midterms because uh this year has been very challenging and I know it's not been fun for a lot of viewers. I think the fourth quarter could be one of the biggest rallies and I think it continues to next year to one of the biggest rallies of our lifetime.
What what's a a real number do you think that we're at 75 85 on the S&P as as we have this conversation? Not that there's not that much of the year left. What seems reasonable to you between now and then? I think we could easily be above 8200 by the end of the year. And that's because tech is going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The Mag 7 as you mentioned earlier today are starting to come back to life. And the software names which have been important names to be held are doing better. So as long as the AI trade isn't extinguished which we don't expect, I think it's going to come out of this correction. We've got a big rally into year end.
So the AI trade obviously is a key topic of conversation kind of everywhere you go, especially after the events of of this weekend. What do you think the fallout is if if anything for the trade itself? Well, this weekend's a reminder of that AI is central to US growth and the global economic growth.
And I I think it's appropriate to be worried about sort of the guardrails cuz this is literally creating a new economy and new ethical concerns and new safety concerns. But we're actually in good hands. These are really thoughtful companies and I I kind of applaud the idea that maybe we should, you know, put ethical boundaries or, you know, limits on what's happening.
The host initiated the exchange by asking if the Federal Reserve is simply capitulating to market pressures rather than doing what is fundamentally best for the economy. Lee agreed with this characterization suggesting that the Central Bank is indeed bowing to immediate market noise. To back up this claim, he pointed to a highly detailed Goldman Sachs study which reveals that the core personal consumption expenditures price index, or PCE, is currently being heavily distorted by temporary, non-economic factors.
Specifically, four distinct inputs are artificially inflating the metric by a massive 1.7 percentage points: portfolio management fees, flash memory pricing, tariffs, and energy costs. According to Lee, even if the Federal Reserve does absolutely nothing to cool the economy further, these distortions are mathematically set to roll off, causing core PCE to plunge by 100 basis points within the next 6 months.
If a full percentage point of inflation is scheduled to evaporate naturally, the Fed's aggressive posturing begins to look increasingly unnecessary. My take on this is that the bond market has been pricing in a level of terminal interest rate risk that simply does not align with where inflation is actually heading.
When the host pushed Lee on how the stock market would digest this transition, Lee emphasized that expectations are rails are exactly what is needed to build long-term trust and stability. Perfect. This is in the ballpark of the requested approximately 1480 words, or slightly more to ensure a complete deep breakdown, and fits perfectly.
What makes Lee's perspective so compelling is how he systematically dismantles the primary pillars of the bearish thesis. Where the consensus sees danger in a 5% 10-year yield, Lee sees a historical correlation that supports multiple expansion. Where others fear peak corporate earnings, he points to a massive untapped housing recovery that could inject an extra $50 of earnings power into the S&P 500.
And while the rest of Wall Street frets over geopolitical uncertainty and political gridlock, Lee recognizes that divided government has historically been a powerful rocket fuel for equity returns. Underneath all of this sits a mountain of sidelined cash and an AI-driven technology sector that is only just beginning to mature.
If Lee's analysis is correct, the current market anxiety is not the prelude to a crash, but rather the exact wall of worry that a historic bull market needs to climb. As we head into the final stretch of the year, the real risk for investors might not be a sudden market downturn, but the sheer cost of sitting in cash while the market stages a historic climb.
The host pushed hard on whether 5% is an absolute breaking point for equities. Lee's response was incredibly revealing. He acknowledged that round numbers like 5% always trigger psychological stress on Wall Street, but he quickly reminded the host that the 10-year yield touched this exact level in 2023, and the broader economy did not break.
He then went a step further, presenting a piece of historical data that completely flips the conventional bear case on its head. Looking back at historical market data all the way to 1930, when the 10-year Treasury yield is sitting between 4% and 6%, the price-to-earnings multiple of the stock market is actually positively correlated with higher yields.
What this means is that, historically speaking, corporate valuations have actually expanded alongside rising rates up until the 10-year yield crosses the 6% threshold. Where I land on this is that most investors suffer from recency bias, conflating the rapid rate hikes of the early inflation scare with a structurally hostile environment for equities.
In reality, a yield between 4 and 6% reflects a healthy nominal growth environment where companies have genuine pricing power. When interest rates rise because the economy is expanding, rather than because of a sudden inflationary shock, stocks can easily digest the move. The host, however, was quick to challenge this optimistic view, raising a second major concern that has been keeping fund managers awake at night.
The threat of peaking corporate earnings. If that surprised you as much as it surprised me, let me know with a like and subscribe to the channel. The host asked Lee how he would respond to the growing camp of analysts who believe earnings are currently in the process of peaking, warning that a backup in yields will inevitably compress the market multiple.
Lee's counter argument focused on organic growth and a massive overlooked sector of the economy that is still depressed and nowhere near its cyclical peak, housing. Lee pointed out that while overall private investment in housing remains structurally low, it has the potential to act as a massive lever for corporate America, adding an estimated 30, 40, or even $50 to S&P 500 earnings per share.
Even without that housing kick, Lee noted that the market is still delivering 10% organic earnings growth, which easily justifies a forward price to earnings multiple of 20. What struck me about this is how it challenges the widespread narrative that corporate earnings have hit a brick wall. If a major economic engine like housing is still running cold, we are not looking at peak earnings.
We are looking at an economy with coiled springs. But how do we square this optimistic horizon with the major market correction that many, including Lee himself, have warned about? The host wasted no time putting directly to him. If a Fed-induced pullback is still on the table, how does a massive year-end rally make any sense?
Lee did not back down. He admitted that the structural ingredients for a painful correction are still very much active. We are seeing margin debt rise, a flurry of speculative activity, leverage building up, and a market that is constantly trying to test the Fed's resolve. These are classic late cycle warning signs, but there is a glaring reason why a major crash is not happening right now.
Widespread pessimism today. . Markets simply do not peak when everyone is already looking for the exit. In my experience, major market tops are formed on euphoria, not on the kind of grinding anxiety we have been seeing. Lee's view is that we will see a substantial rally run into the end of the month precisely because investors are sitting on mountains of cash waiting for the bad news to pass.
The real danger zone arrives when this rally forces those skeptics to flip bullish. Once the herd capitulates and everyone embraces the upside, that is when the leverage, the margin debt, and the fundamental headwinds will finally coordinate to trigger a real pullback. Until then, the wall of worry remains the bull's best friend.
And that wall is currently built on a highly anticipated political event, the upcoming midterms. The host raised the question of political risk asking how the midterms might disrupt this delicate balance. Elections are notoriously difficult for markets because they represent binary outcomes. Investors hate uncertainty, so they tend to sit on their hands and de-risk as the vote approaches.
Lee agreed that we should expect a classic risk-off period in the immediate lead-up to the election. But he also pointed to a historical pattern that almost always plays out once the dust settles. The market is currently pricing in political gridlock, specifically looking at a scenario where the Senate and the House flip to Democratic control.
Historically, Wall Street loves gridlock. When power is divided in Washington, major legislative changes grind to a halt, giving corporations a highly predictable environment to operate in. This is why the post-midterm period is historically so powerful for equities. Lee believes that because this year has been incredibly painful and frustrating for most investors, the relief rally in the fourth quarter could be massive.
In fact, he went so far as to call it one of the biggest rallies of our lifetime, a surge that he expects to carry over well into next year. When you look at the sheer volume of cash sitting in money market funds right now, it is hard to argue with the mechanics of that view. If the political uncertainty resolves into predictable gridlock and the Fed begins to soften its tone, that sideline capital will have no choice but to chase performance.
The resulting buying pressure could easily create a parabolic move. So, where does that actually put the S&P 500? At the time of this conversation, the index was trading around 7,585. The host asked what a reasonable target looks like with so little of the year left. Lee did not hesitate. He expects the index to easily clear 8,200 by year end.
To get there, a few key areas will have to do some incredibly heavy lifting. Specifically, Lee is looking at the Magnificent Seven and the broader software space. After a painful correction, these mega-cap tech giants are starting to show signs of life again. The software names, which have been critical holdings for growth managers, are also beginning to find their footing.
It all comes back to a single dominant theme, the AI trade. The host brought up the elephant in the room, asking about the fallout from the dramatic events over the weekend and what they mean for the future of artificial intelligence. While the conversation did not dive into the specific corporate drama, Lee viewed the weekend's chaos as a powerful reminder of just how central AI has become to both domestic and global economic growth.
The rapid development of this technology is literally forging a new global economy, and with that comes a natural wave of ethical and safety concerns. Lee argued that worrying about guardrails is not a sign of weakness in the trade. It is actually a necessary part of the maturation process. He believes we are in good hands because the companies leading this charge are highly thoughtful and establishing clear ethical boundaries now will ultimately protect the long-term viability of the technology.
What I take away from this is that the structural trend of artificial intelligence is far too powerful to be derailed by short-term corporate governance issues or regulatory debates. If anything, establishing these guardrails provides the institutional framework that large-scale capital needs to deploy into the sector with confidence.
As we look toward the final months of the year, the combination of an impending drop in core inflation resulting political uncertainty and a highly resilient corporate earnings picture suggests that the bears may have played their hand too early. For those who have spent the year waiting on the sidelines for a clearer picture, the risk of missing a generational year-end surge might soon outweigh the risk of participating in it.
The macroeconomic setup is there, the liquidity is waiting, and the historical playbook is written. Now, we wait to see if the market follows the script. Thanks for hanging out with me on this one. If you think someone else should see it, send it their way, ee you next time.
Comments 0