저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 달리오는 부채 누적과 화폐 증발로 달러·채권의 실질가치가 훼손되고 금·주식 등 실물·자산이 상대적으로 유리해진다고 보며, 미중 디커플링은 불가피하다고 본다. [부채·화폐] 높은 재정적자를 화폐 발행으로 메우는 구조가 문제이며 화폐 가치 희석과 자산가격 상승을 낳는다. 달러는 아직 안전자산 지위를 유지하지만 완만히 약세이며, 공급·수요 측면에서 채권 수요가 줄고 연준의 부채 monetization 압력이 커진다고 봤다. 전통적 60/40 포트폴리오는 채권 수익률이 목표에 못 미치고 상승 여력도 제한적이라고 평가했다. 과거 1933년·1971년 사례처럼 통화 증발기에는 주식이 오르고 달러가 약하며 금이 상승했다고 설명했다. 현재 실질금리가 사실상 마이너스인 것은 일종의 부의 세금으로 작용한다고 봤다. [정치·불평등] 1930년대 이후 최대의 부·기회·정치적 격차가 존재하며 내전 위험까지 거론했다. 양당 대립을 타협으로 풀어야 한다고 강조했다. [중국] 중국은 국가자본주의로 빠르게 성장했고 1인당 소득이 30배, 기대수명 10년 증가, 극빈율 급감을 이뤘다고 평가했다. 외국인 투자 개방도가 2015년 약 1%에서 현재 약 60%로 확대됐다고 언급했다. 규제 당국은 지능적이고 합리적이라며 앤트그룹 IPO 중단을 과도한 자의적 규제로 보지 말라고 조언했다. [디커플링·지정학] 신흥 강국과 기존 강국의 충돌 역사(16건 중 12건 전쟁)를 근거로 공급망·기술의 자급화가 불가피하다고 봤다. 무역·기술·지정학·자본·군사 다섯 영역에서 미중 갈등이 이어질 것이며 중국 IPO 비중이 35~40%에 달할 것으로 전망했다. [출연자 전망] 달러 약세와 실물·주식 선호, 채권 비중 축소가 큰 흐름이며 분산 투자가 필요하다고 권고했다. 구체적 가격 목표는 제시하지 않았다.
다듬은 글
Hello, I'm Ratch Nashan- Bog, the finance editor of The Economist, and with me today is Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater, the world's largest hedge fund, and philanthropist. Ray, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to this friendly conversation at the Greenwich Economic Forum. Thank you for joining us.
With pleasure. You are here to tell us about a long historical journey that you have studied very carefully, but I think it would be a mistake not to ask you about the main news first: the Pfizer vaccine and the US election. Tell us a little bit about what this means for the markets. Well, new tests indicate an effectiveness rate of around 90%.
So that's great. You know, one way or another, I think the virus will disappear within the next year. That is, such is the evidence. And then, I suppose, we will return to a relatively normal life. Although we will also be left with the problems caused by the virus. And I think they're important, so we'll move on to them.
There are three of them. The first is the problem of debt and money. In other words, we have a lot of debt, we have large budget deficits, and we finance it by printing money. So that's a problem. It raises questions about modern monetary theory, etc.: how does it work and what are the consequences ?
We might touch on this if we have time, but it devalues money and increases the value of other assets like stocks and affects the currency. The second is political, and here we have more clarity. You know, the big problem that has been and remains is that we have the largest political and wealth gap in the country since the 1930s.
In other words, there is a large wealth gap, a large opportunity gap, and a large political divide. And how these gaps are filled or resolved is a very important matter. I hope that the most important thing for any country is to try to bridge these gaps together. Do not fight on the principle of "victory at any cost", an internal struggle.
There is a very real risk of civil war if this is not handled correctly in various aspects, as there are limits to what people are willing to give up. So, but such a movement can happen, and I think even the fact that Republicans can win the Senate is a good thing, because I think we have a population with two very opposing ideologies when it comes to the issue of red states and blue states, although there are other issues.
and that this conflict, above all, cannot be dysfunctional for them. So that's the second one, and of course we still have the rise of China. The third major influence, in my opinion, is the emergence of a great power that challenges the existing power. And I suspect that perhaps this will be resolved a little less confrontationally, with more grace.
I don't know , but peace and productivity are my two top priorities, and I think last week was pretty good in that regard. You touched on many issues. Let's start with debt monetization. It appears that bond yields are still low. The dollar is still a relatively safe haven. At what point will the markets start to take into account when exactly we should expect the devaluation you are talking about?
Well, I'm, let's say, a mechanic. I just look at supply and demand. This is not an ideology. There is simply a certain amount of debt that needs to be sold. There are buyers, and they buy for different reasons. And this became a burden on the dollar. The dollar is weakening, but not to an unacceptable level.
Even, apparently, in a completely healthy way. So, if you take the size of the deficit and our basic structure— whether at the federal government level or the country as a whole. The fact is that we borrow money, we are constantly borrowing. So we spend more than we earn and our balance sheet deteriorates, which means there is a problem of debt rollover and difficulty in selling it.
There will come a time, similar to currency defense, when you will see this happen much more sharply. This happens when you can no longer sell enough bonds. Even domestic institutional investors are seeing a decline in the value of bonds in their portfolios. A traditional 60/40 portfolio, for example, gives them a bond yield that won't meet their needs, is n't guaranteed to meet their needs, and also has no real potential for price appreciation because when interest rates fall, prices rise, but not by much.
So for these reasons, demand for bonds is also decreasing, which means that the Federal Reserve and other central banks are in similar situations, but in particular, the Federal Reserve is going to have to monetize this debt and so on. And, uh , so from a supply and demand perspective, this, uh, this is an important issue.
And if we look at history, have there been, uh , episodes when similar monetizations, the decline of certain empires or regimes, were overcome thanks to better policies? This is somewhat related to your second big factor—inequality . Yes. This, this, this is funny , uh, the time that comes to mind is analogous.
This happened three, three times? Well, this has happened many times in history. I will give a few examples: March 5, 1933; August 15, 1971, was like April 9 of this year, you know? In all these cases there was a lot of debt and money involved; money was scarce and money had to be obtained either by taxing someone or by printing, and taxation had a negative effect on growth.
And in the first case, Roosevelt on March 5, 1933, uh, uh, broke the gold bond and so on, and printed a lot of money, and then the stock market went up a lot, because easy money is good for the stock market. The dollar fell, gold rose. Uh, the same August 15, 1971. I was working as a clerk at the New York Stock Exchange at the time.
I was still a child. Well, I mean, I do n't know, twenty- something years old. And uh, uh , I heard, you know, that money won't be accepted in Europe. And then the dollar was tied to gold. So, its only value was tied to gold. And on August 15, uh, President Nixon put an end to that. I walked onto the New York Stock Exchange floor thinking the market was going to fall sharply, but it rose sharply due to the effects of monetary easing and money printing.
And the same thing happened this time. So this dynamic, uh, has been repeated over and over again when you're in the late stages of the long-term debt cycle. Money printing, debt creation, and its monetization are happening, and traditionally this does not make them a reliable means of storing wealth.
Today you get minus 1% real interest rate, guaranteed, or almost zero, depending on the country, from zero to 1% guaranteed rate in conditions that are different from that. It's a wealth tax, and it causes the natural changes I'm talking about, which in turn confirms the lesson that history has taught us over and over again .
Now I would like to move on to China, as we get a lot of questions from the audience about China as well. First, tell us what the main driving forces behind China's rise are. Well, obviously State Capitalism , I think, started in 19 ...well, there was the revolution of '49, and then Deng Xiaoping came to power, starting in 1978, a very tightly regulated communist system , in which, in fact, there was no private property, was liberalized.
I started going there in 1984 as a guest of the only company allowed to look at the outside world—CITIC—with the aim of teaching them about financial markets. And it was very undeveloped back then, but you could see the intelligence of the people, what they were like. So, openness led to two things.
Deng Xiaoping introduced openness and reform, and it was a movement towards a market-based open economy that gave rise to his famous statement: " To be rich is glorious." And when he was asked whether it was capitalism or communism, he replied: "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." And since then, per capita income has increased 30 times.
Average life expectancy has increased by 10 years. The poverty rate has dropped from 88% to almost zero, I mean extreme poverty, and that's amazing. So if you go to China now and see their resources, what a huge difference. When I first went to China, I gave people, high-ranking officials, $10 calculators.
A calculator —and they thought, "Wow, this is a miracle device." Literally 1984. Today, their technologies are comparable to ours and are improving at a faster pace. So China is very strong in many ways, and it has a unique culture that works well because they've been able to allow and facilitate ingenuity, the development of capital markets.
In 2015, foreign investors could only invest in about 1% of their markets. Today, foreign investors can invest in 60% of their markets. So he's taking a very classic path. They are the world's largest trading nation, meaning they account for more of the world's trade than any other country. So the development of the renminbi as an increasingly important currency, the development of their financial markets— that's what's happening in China.
So, I think people need to understand this better and not let misunderstandings get in the way of their presence there. Because we live in a world now where, in my opinion, you need to think about diversification, because when a new force emerges in history that challenges an existing and perhaps declining force, you find yourself in a situation where your portfolio needs to be diversified, and you need to understand these relationships.
Thank you. In fact, one of the questions from the audience was exactly this: how to think about investment allocation given these big changes in trends. I wanted to ask you about state capitalism, and you're right in saying, of course, China's financial markets have opened up, but is there a point where the state can become a problem and hinder China's growth?
I'm thinking of Ant Group's suspended IPO, which seemed to reflect some last-minute regulatory issues. I have had the opportunity to deal with Chinese regulators for the past 30-plus years, and I know what they are like. I found them to be very intelligent, logical, informed people who strive for progress and do things that I would almost always do myself if I were in their shoes .
But they move at a certain pace, and there has to be a process for that. They don't want to rush. And I have to say that regulation is always difficult for any regulators. When I think back to our regulators in 2007-2008 , they weren't strict enough , and they were criticized for that. Then—too strict.
So no one will ever be satisfied for sure. I, uh, I think it would be a very serious mistake to view this as, uh, a capricious, uh, inappropriate regulatory environment that threatens investment in China. And, uh, one more question from the audience. What does "decoupling" mean , in relative terms, if you see America declining relatively and China rising instead?
Is decoupling beneficial for both economies? The decoupling is essential for both economies due to the geopolitical risks that arise. You know, history shows that when a rising power emerges that challenges an existing world power—the United States in 1945— we had an American world order based on the dollar and the U.S.
economy, and that changes. History shows that 16 times rising powers have challenged existing ones, and in 12 of those cases it led to wars, and in any case they cannot remain vulnerable. Supply lines cannot be interrupted, technology cannot be restricted, and so on . And this forces both economies and both countries to strive for self-sufficiency.
China has now reached a point where, uh, it has caught up and has its own technology and can develop domestically. So you will see, uh, this world; you will see disconnection, and where there is overlap, you will see tension. From an economic perspective , this is not good for the world; It would be better if there was free exchange and we could use each other's strengths and intelligence.
But, uh, eventually, it will have to give way, so it will be a bit of a burden, all things considered, but we will balance on that edge. What this will mean for who can invest where, and who can use which technologies—that remains to be determined. There are generally five types of conflicts that the United States will have and already has with China.
We have a trade war, a technology war, we have a geopolitical war of some kind, regional issues and how they are resolved. We have, uh , a capital war. We are becoming participants in a capital war. You know, about 35-40% of all important IPOs and listings will be in China and Chinese markets. So the movement will take place in this direction.
History shows us that all great empires had their financial centers. Major financial centers of the world. It was Amsterdam in the Dutch Empire , London in the British Empire, New York in the American Empire. We'll see more of that there. So, there is a problem of capital war. Who, where, who can place shares, etc.
And, of course, there is also military rivalry. There will be competition for spending, and it will depend on how strong these countries are in terms of spending. So when we think about, say, budgetary issues, uh, defense will play an important role, and there could be military issues; There are a lot of topics for discussion here, uh, and there is a general belief that, uh, you can have your own spheres of influence.
You know, the world is interconnected, but if you have, uh, Asia, and the Chinese do it one way and the United States do it another way, and there's mutual respect, then this can be achieved. I think this is the best possible outcome, given all the circumstances. Ray, we've only touched on this topic superficially, but unfortunately our time is up. Thank you for joining us, it was nice chatting. Thank you for inviting me.
Comments 0