저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 레이 달리오는 경기사이클 후반부로 자산가격이 완전히 반영된 상태이며, 금리 인상 속도를 늦추고 하방 리스크에 대비해야 한다고 본다. 경기 위치: 미국은 경기사이클의 7~8회말(후반)에 있으며, 중앙은행이 약 15조 달러를 풀고 법인세 감세로 자극한 뒤 긴축이 시작된 단계로 봤다. 자산가격·금리: 자산은 전반적으로 완전 가격 반영 상태다. 2~5년물 국채는 약 3%로 수익률곡선이 평탄해졌고, 금리가 자산가격을 훼손하는 수준까지 올랐다고 평가했다. 연준 전망: 연준은 올해 한 차례, 내년 2~3차례 금리 인상을 예상하지만 자산가격 문제로 인해 그만큼 올리기 어렵다고 봤다. 연준은 경기보다 자산가격을 먼저 고려해야 하며, 인상 속도를 기존보다 느리게(또는 더 느리게) 가져가야 한다고 주장했다. 인플레이션이 약간 오버슈팅해도 문제는 작지만, 자산 하락과 경기 침체가 겹치면 위험이 비대칭적이라 더 완화적으로 가는 편이 낫다고 했다. 채권 수급: 감세와 재정적자로 향후 1~2년간 국채 발행이 크게 늘어 수급 불균형이 생기고, 미국 내에서 흡수가 어려워 해외 투자자에게 팔아야 하는 위험이 있다고 봤다. 하이일드·신용: GE 등급 하락(정크화) 시 약 1.2조 달러 하이일드 시장에서 GE 비중이 10%가 되어 인덱스·ETF를 통한 전염 위험이 있다고 경고했다. 하이일드·BB/BBB 등 부채도 완전 가격 반영 상태라고 봤다. 포지션 언급: 달리오는 구체적 포지션은 밝히지 않았다. 동료 댄 롭의 기술주 비중 축소·숏 확대 발언을 언급하며 상승 여력이 제한적이고 위험이 비대칭적이라 신중하다고 답했다. 미중 관계: 무역 전쟁은 협상으로 해결 가능하지만, 미중 간 패권 경쟁은 1930년대 이후 처음인 구조적 경쟁으로 장기간 지속될 것이라고 봤다. 재산권, 기술·군사 협력, 정치체제 차이가 핵심 쟁점이다. 코네티컷 세금: 고소득층 세부담 문제로 헤지펀드의 이전이 이어지고 있으며, 주 정부는 자유경제구역 등으로 세수를 늘려야 하고, 감세만으로는 해결이 어렵다고 봤다. 세금 인상은 사람 이탈을 불러 한계가 있다고 했다. 리스크: 자산 하락 후 경기 침체, 정치 양극화·포퓰리즘 심화, 금리 인하 여력 부족(제로금리 근처에서는 인하 카드가 적음)이 주요 리스크다.
다듬은 글
we want to get right now to our first squawk box news maker of the hour joining us from the Greenwich economic forum Ray Dalio is your founder of the hedge fund giant Bridgewater associates good morning to you Ray thanks for joining us good morning and welcome to Greenwich Connecticut thank you for that want to get want to get your sense of where we are in what seems like a very complicated market these days we have a lot of volatility we have questions about tariffs and trade of course and interest rates you've always put the markets in the context of the economic machine so where are we within that machine well you know there's the short term debt cycle long term debt cycle productivity we're in the late stages maybe the seventh eighth inning of the business cycle right we're in the part of the cycle where there's been a lot of monetary easing central banks built about fifteen trillion dollars worth of assets push them up a lot we have the benefit of a corporate tax cut all that stimulation and as a result we're in the late part of the cycle where there's a tightening of monetary policy and you know you know so it's kind of the late part of the cycle with assets of fully priced and then in terms of the longer term debt cycle we're at a point where interest rates are comparatively low the capacity of central banks to ease monetary policy is limited United States is limited in other countries it's limited so that's where we are and we're in a position also where we have the emerging power on China competing with the United States and established power as an effective competitor and that's very much like the late 1930s so that's at what I think we are look at just go back for once I mean 1930s or complicated time but but specifically on the interest on the issue of the Fed and interest rates in terms of where we are in the cycle there is a debate as you know about whether interest rates should get hiked and how strong the economy really is or isn't what do you think right now built the Fed expects the rate raise one more time this year and probably three two or three times next year I think that there's a problem in terms of asset prices I think that rate of increase would not be able to be made because we've raised interest rates to a level where it's hurting asset prices we have now a flat yield curve we have in other words the you can now get in a two to five year note you can get about three percent and you have a no price risk to no material price risk so we're in a situation right now that the Fed I think will have to look at asset prices before they look at economic activity it's a difficult position because that's stimulation that they have in the form of those tax cuts are is a big stimulation in to the capacity limitations as we have low slack so that there the economy itself will pressure them to raise rates I think probably too much I think we have a supply demand problem for bonds that will particularly come next year in the year after in other words because of that tax cut and the deficits we'll have to sell a lot more bonds and the United States itself can't absorb that quantity of bonds so we're gonna have to sell those bonds to investors in other countries you look at the portfolio's of those and they have a lot of those they're sort of overweight in that bonds so I think there's a supply demand imbalance in a difficult position for the Federal Reserve that's a risky situation just to put a fine point on it though it sounds to me like you're recommending that if you were Jay Powell you might slow down similarly to what the president suggested yes I I would look at what is discounted in the curve and realized that that's discounted in all asset prices it's discounted in bonds it's discounted in equities it's this down in real estate private equities that rate of change and I would keep it certainly not faster than that and I would keep it probably less than that I think the you know the risks are asymmetric on the downside because if we have a little bit overshoot in the inflation rate you're going to be in a position where it's not going to be a problem who cares if you have two and a half percent or something it's not going to run out of control but if you have a downturn the first in asset prices and then you have a downturn in the economy it's it's an asymmetric risk it's a serious risk we have an economic polarity and populism which is an issue if you have a downturn I think the conflict is going to be greater I think that's a big issue and I think also the tools are not as effective on the downside so I would err on the side of being easier and monitoring let me ask you let me ask a question in the car if you're if you're concerned about asset prices one of your peers Dan Loeb recently just wrote we have delivered our portfolio reducing our tech exposure meaningfully and grown our short book we expect to be net sellers over the next few months if markets rally as an investor out there right now how cautious are you well I as I said I think we're in the we've gotten a lot of the good news behind us and I think that assets are fully priced and I think there's asymmetric risks so like I said we're well I don't talk about our positions but I think I don't I think the upside position is not as strong and relative to the risks rate never made it much sense of me but you said we don't have the tools to address a downturn some people think we need to race raise rates to get to a point where we can cut them if we need to cut them which I don't know if that does that make any sense here that we need that's right that's a that sounds like pretty that sounds like pretty bad logic to me but you know what they're so if you're up there at six you know you can keep cutting until like but when you're all the way down near zero you don't have a lot of cuts that you can make in case there is a downturn but yeah Brown is crazy yeah I mean but I'm telling you that what it what's built into the curve what's built into all the markets is an existing interest rate so you raise that that way is that's not good I think the Federal Reserve should use more macro prudential policies in other words there are parts right now there are some bubbles emerging there are some issues in terms of places but macro prudential policies what what that means is it has a regulatory authority that can deal with certain bubbles as they're emerging to try to be more targeted than using interest rates as a whole we're talking about bubbles do you worry about high-yield bonds we were having conversation earlier today actually about General Electric Connecticut based company whose debt has come under a lot of pressure of late that boston-based now boston-based yeah the a lot of the high-yield debt market has gone into leveraged loans and CLO and so as a result it's kind of it's off-balance sheet I mean it's uh it's at private and there are parts of that market more than the particular high-yield debt market although if I was to take BB some triple B the types of debt I think that it's it's it's more than fully priced right but but just I'm wondering if you can shed a little light on what might happen to the junk market if GE heads towards junk status I mean it's it's kind of trading there based on the credit default swaps at this point it's headed that direction if that were to happen you're talking about GE becoming ten percent of a one point two trillion dollar market and that seems like an awful lot to absorb but what kind of aftershocks would that potentially have because I think G's problems are well recognized in the market things probably reflecting those because there's a lot of index funds or ETFs or where the investor of pure experience in the sting looks at that asset as a number of assets you could have more contagion to the other markets as they say I don't want that kind of fund and then even less stressed funds would experience some sort of contagion so yeah there is that kind of risk ray wanted to ask you about China I know you just announced a new fund that's actually gonna be based in China and you've spent a lot of time there obviously we are in the middle of what some have already called a trade war given that given the tariffs but just speak to what you think about the potential trade war and how you think it will ultimately shake out I think this is a the trade war I think can be worked out trade balances I think from the Chinese perspective American perspective it but it goes way beyond the trade war you know there is this now competition real competition for in the world and supremacy this is the first time since the 30s that we've had an emerging country that is a comparable power really to the United States and there are issues there so those issues have to do with property rights they have to do with a access competition they have they have their geopolitical there are a number of things I think that the trade issues can largely be dealt with but it is a you know it's a broader issue that'll be with us for a long time and I think what most fundamentally it has to do is a different approach to life a different approach to how they think governance should work but as one of the Chinese leaders described it's basically a top-down versus a bottom-up type of approach you know if you were to look at let's say gaming by way of examples playing games video games and you go in China they will have a point of view as to what their kids should watch on video games it exemplifies this and so they will control the it can't be more than a certain number of hours and it can't be these types of games and and so that will be like a top down decision in the United States we would not want the government this system is a bottom up and so it is really it goes back to Confucius and 500 BC it's a very different approach and that is so when you look at the 2025 plan in China the government believes that they should have a plan for making China great and they they work that plan and then they'll have coordination between the parts so yes the military will cooperate with the tech companies and so on that kind of activity is objectionable to the United States because that is viewed as something that is different so that kind of identity issue or those types of rivalries will be with us for a long time even though the trade issue itself I think can be dealt with Rea before we let you go I want to talk about a perhaps more local issue than this global issue which is where you're based right now and the conference that you're attending and I know there's a number of big speakers including yourself later today this is the Greenwich economic forum but there's a big question right now about hedge funds and Connecticut the state of Connecticut taxes in Connecticut whether it's actually the right place for firms like yours to be based given given the tax rates there how are you thinking about that given that some of your peers have left the state well you see what Greenwich Connecticut is I mean it's a fabulous town right outside the New York City so easy access to the city fabulous community and then it's its vitality is it's great intellectually it's very stimulating it's there's a culture here that is great community and all those things and then there's this issue of the state issues I think that the state is going to approach this in a very effective way we'll see there's an you know there's a new government and so we'll see how but the the approach that even New York took in terms of Long Island City and the bringing in of creating a tax free economic zone for example you could take Bridgeport and you could take New Haven and you could take Hartford Connecticut and make those tax free economic zones and bring in vitality to the state I think it's really going to be a test of the cleverness and it's an issue that they're going to have to deal with one way or another it could be very debt harmful to the state it's a risky issue because the polarity between the the high income areas and the other parts of the state which are really suffering cannot be cut before you before you before your stakes before you pull up stakes and move down to zero income tax Florida with Tepper you might wait til for the recounts I think great just I don't know maybe wait a couple of weeks before you decide he's not deciding he's still I don't what do you by the way what do you think of some of your peers who have moved to Florida they're jokes on them maybe well I think I think I think the tax issue is an issue of consideration and then you know the worst case scenario is a bad scenario for the it's not just Connecticut but at some of the Northeast for New Jersey's a good example and New York different parts and I think that model has to be dealt with with bright by bringing in a lot more revenue by creating you know a different approach but I it's understandable it's not just it's the whole area wherever you have tax San Francisco's dealing with the same thing with like Nevada Frank it's a national it's a national issue we've only got a few seconds but very quickly what you're talking about creating these zones is coming under protests from people here in New York City right now I'm sorry I didn't get that they begin please the protests people are protesting the tax giveaways to these wealthy companies like what you mentioned for Long Island City no no no yeah I'm saying I think if you take I don't think you can cut taxes you have to raise tax revenue right the issue of raising tax revenue is it's much the same if we're looking at Amazon going to Long Island City right is that going to be a net benefit or is that not going to be in right benefit and you got to take a short pencil if you take it a free economic zone I've seen this happen a lot of places and the impact of companies who are not they're coming into a tax-free economic zone brings net revenue and and at and we need net revenue because you can't cut expenses it's not humane and you can't raise taxes because if you raise taxes people are going to leave more so you have to have something like that ray we want to thank you it's a pleasure you have to get to a panel we have some breaking news to get to as well we want to appreciate your time and thank you as always
Comments 0