저자: NourielRoubini-진행:BloombergTelevision · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 현재 위기는 2008년과 달리 신용위험과 경기침체가 아직 없으나, 금리 상승으로 인한 채권 평가손실이 은행권의 구조적 불안을 키우고 있어 금융 불안정과 인플레이션 억제 사이의 딜레마가 심화되고 있다. [위기 성격과 2008년 비교] 현재는 2008년과 달리 신용위험이 아직 본격화되지 않았고 경기침체도 아니다. 다만 금리 상승으로 채권 가격이 하락하면서 은행들의 미실현 손실이 커졌고, 미국 은행권만 작년 기준 약 6,200억 달러 수준의 미실현 손실을 보유 중이라고 언급했다. [스위스 크레딧스위스 리스크] 크레딧스위스는 자산 규모가 대형 은행 수준이라 붕괴 시 유럽뿐 아니라 글로벌 금융시스템에 파급효과가 크며, 리먼 사태에 준하는 충격이 우려된다. 스위스 연방 체계는 자원 측면에서 구제금융을 설계하기 어려운 'too big to fail이면서 too big to be saved' 상황이다. [통화정책 전망] 인플레이션 지표는 하락하고 있으나 연준·ECB 목표보다 느리게 떨어지고 있어, 경제 데이터만 보면 금리를 더 올려야 한다는 입장이다(연준 6% 근접 언급). 반면 금융 불안정은 금리 인상 중단·인하 및 양적완화 재개를 시사하며, 연준의 사실상 후방 양적완화는 인플레이션 기대를 자극할 위험이 있다. [신용 긴축과 금융 경색] 블랙록 래리 핑크가 언급한 '느린 위기'(은행→사모신용→사모펀드로 확산)와 연결되며, 채권금리 하락(완화)이 장기적으로 경기둔화를 부를 수 있다고 본다. 다만 현재 인플레이션이 여전히 너무 높고 타이트한 노동시장이 이를 지지한다. [안전자산 관련 발언] 은행들은 안전하다고 여긴 곳에 리스크가 있었다. 장기 국채는 더 이상 안전자산이 아니며, 인플레이션이 5%, 10년물 금리가 7%까지 갈 수 있다는 시나리오가 제시되었다. 장기 듀레이션 자산(약 20조 달러 규모)에서 추가 손실 우려가 있다고 언급했다. 금, 귀금속 등 인플레이션 헤지 자산이 대안으로 거론되었다. [출연자 전망 정리] 단기 전망: 금융 안정과 인플레이션 억제가 충돌하는 상황 지속. 금리 인하 기대는 인플레이션 재가속 위험과 충돌. 중기: 장기 금리 상승 시 자산 손실 확대 가능성.
다듬은 글
How is this crisis different than ninety eight? How is this crisis different than 2008? Well, compared to 2008, right now we don't have the credit risk yet. We're not in a recession. And the losses that occurred that seem to be related to Marketplace and other financial institutions did not realize that we have rising interest rates.
The price of bonds would fall. And last year, U.S. banks alone have something like six hundred and twenty billion dollars of unrealized losses on their securities. We have a copy. I loved about 2 1 2 3 0 0 0. The average loss is about 28 percent reduced significantly. That was the ratio of the two to one ratio for some banks, actually.
The numbers like that, say Silicon Valley Bank, of course that number was a hundred percent. But instead of the regional banks were right, that duty of all says there'll be 50 percent of that credit capital. Not a lot of money. I want to go back to your Italian economics, your public service to President Clinton, where you are expert on the regulatory framework.
Switzerland is a devolved federal government with the cantons with great strengths. What is your knowledge of Swiss regulators right now? How removed are they from the credit squeeze crisis? Are they can they be active today to help their beleaguered bank? Well, they can be actors today, even if their system is so delegated.
However, the problem is that it's raised by some standards may be too big to fail, but also too big to be saved. It's not clear that unlike the United States, the federal system has enough resources to engineer a bailout. And what they need sort of them is more tightly. But then the question is whether or not otherwise bad things can happen or bad things are happening this morning.
I'd love your take on this. There might be some people waking up this morning looking at what's happening with Credit Suisse, perhaps back perhaps based here in the United States and thinking, what does this mean for me? Why is this important? Could you explain to those people in Nora out just how important Credit Suisse might be to the financial system?
Well, he's imposed them because as BP was only about a hundred and fifty billion dollars of assets like in the case of Credit Suisse West for about at least 700 billion. So anything will happen to Credit Suisse will be of systemic effects, sort not just the European financial system, but also for the global financial system.
So if you see these Silicon Valley bank create a ripple effects in the global financial markets. Something bad happen in the Credit Suisse would be an order of magnitude more severe and something more like Lehman moments. A lot of people are talking about the implications of this on monetary policy.
And Thorsten SOC earlier said when the facts change, his view changes from no landing to a hard landing. He sees perhaps the end of a rate hiking cycle as just the market, including 100 basis points of cuts in the next year. Nouriel, do you agree with this assessment? Have the facts changed or suddenly rate hikes are out of the picture and you see that the inflation story will get solved by a crisis elsewhere?
I don't think so. I think that the dilemma for central bankers got be even worse because the latest economic data for inflation in the eurozone or the US suggests that inflation is still too high, is falling, but is not falling as fast as the Fed or ECB wanted to be. So based on what's the economy doing right now, we need to hike in much for the Fed should go at least closer to 6 percent.
The ECB should bring the deeper rate book at least 4 percent growth. Right now, we're facing a situation of financial instability and financial instability would suggest to stop hiking, maybe meant cutting rates and maybe resuming quantitative easing. And what the Fed has done is backdoor quantitative easing.
But if you do that, you're at risk of the island, for example, inflation and inflation expectations. That tradeoff exists that even before raising rates would have led those stresses in financial markets like last year, where bond yields went much higher, credit spreads widen. That's rising, becoming more severe today.
Because now we have systemic financial problems. But we are also in a situation inflation is way too high. And the idea that this financial stress is going to cause inflation drop is not yet in the economic data. So there is a dilemma for central banks, although a lot of people are saying that they see credit conditions tightening.
We heard earlier from Larry Fink of BlackRock saying that he sees a slow rolling crisis that's going to move from the banking system to private credit to private equity. How does your view kind of tie into this sort of inherent credit tightening that we see across a whole host of assets? Certain there's going to be it tied them of financial positions, at least in terms of credit spreads.
Bond yields are falling both on the short and long, and that's an easing of financial. The leash on that eventually might lead to an economic slowdown. But the reality is inflation today is way too high and it's going to remain too high because the forces are leaving for high inflation, like, for example, very tight labor market are staying with us.
And therefore, that's going to be a cause of assistant inflation. And the idea that the balance of these tightening of financial conditions is going to cause a slowdown in the economy, a weakening of inflation is not yet in the data. So there is a real contradiction between achieving economic stability and lower inflation and maintaining financial stability.
What a conflict. What a conflict now. I've got 45 seconds left. I wanted to give the opportunity to try and answer this. Banks found out that a risk was where they thought the safety was. Nouriel W the safety now when the safety is not in long term treasuries. I've been writing poetry for over a year.
You know, if the average inflation rate will be safe, 5 percent, 10 year Treasury eventually has to be 7 percent. So they've got about 20 in house. Last year you lost 20 percent on your safe bonds, more than you lost on your S&P because yield went from Wall to Wall Street. If they go from three and a half to seven over the medium term, there'll be further bloodbath on 20 trillion dollars of long duration risk assets.
This solution is going to be short term. Treasury keeps gold, precious metals and other adjust against inflation. That's why you have to go and invest investors only now starting to realize that that's what you have to do.
Comments 0