저자: MarcFaber · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 마이너스 금리와 중앙은행 개입은 장기적으로 좋지 않게 끝나며, 단기적으로는 신흥국 주식이 상대적으로 매력적이다. 마이너스 금리와 신용 팽창: 세계 신용 규모가 2007년 이후 GDP 대비 크게 늘었고, 생산적 신용이 아닌 이전지출 위주라 장기 구조적 성장에 부정적이다. 마이너스 금리는 역사상 처음이며 결국 좋지 않게 끝날 것이라고 봤다. 헬리콥터 머니: 중앙은행이 현금을 직접 살포할 수 있으며 단기적으로 경기를 띄울 수 있으나 효과는 일시적이고 반복이 필요하다고 설명했다. 신흥국 vs 미국: 브라질·러시아는 침체지만 밸류에이션이 크게 하락했고, 미국 주식은 PS·PER·시총/GDP 등 모든 지표에서 고평가로 매력이 없다. 신흥국 중에서는 싱가포르 증시(배당수익률 약 4%)를 언급했다. 미국 장기국채: 개인적으로 장기 미국채를 보유해 왔고 최근 2주간 하락해 일부 매도했으나, 옐런도 결국 마이너스 금리를 도입할 가능성이 있어 다시 매수할 생각이라고 밝혔다. 이는 미국채금리 하락(가격 상승) 쪽 전망이다. 정치·무역: 트럼프가 낫다는 입장이며 힐러리 정책이 세계를 파괴할 것이라 주장. 트럼프의 보호무역은 자유시장에 부정적이나 미국이 그간 타국에 양보해 왔다며 더 균형 잡힌 무역을 지지한다. 중앙은행 영향: 중앙은행은 단기적으로 시장을 움직일 수 있으나 장기적 영향은 없다고 봤다. 출연자 견해 요약: 개입주의 정책 비판, 시장경제 옹호, 신흥국 저평가 강조, 미국 고평가 경고.
다듬은 글
christine lagarde as you know the IMF managing director has come out today and she has said the world economy would be bet would be worse off excuse me without negative interest rate I knew you'd laugh she noted she I think this is a factual I suppose your laugh tells me what you think of that comment look I believe that the interventionists with fiscal policies and with monetary policies in other words the so-called do Keynesian or New Keynesian that is their excuse they will always say if we hadn't done this and haven't done that it would be much worse they have no proof for this assertion in my view it would have been better to let the crisis already the first one in two thousand run its course and prevent the colossal credit bubble that was built up that then led to an even bigger crisis and now they're doing the same mistake there again adding to credit volumes in the world credit as a percent of the global economy he's up very strongly since 2007 in particular course in China but also in other countries and we distinguish between productive credit and unproductive credit productive credit is to build a factory wiese credit and then hire people and acquire machinery and then produce something either services or goods but most of the credit is now for transfer payments and that is very negative for long-term structural economic growth because it allows actually the government to become bigger and bigger and bigger and to have more regulation and i can tell you i'm in the financial sector i talk to people in the financial sector after time is nowadays consumed with filling out forms by regulators mark will how are they going to fight then the next crisis i mean your prescription would have been more fiscal policy that should have played a more active role will we see more publicly funded infrastructure when and if the next crisis hits yes that's a very good question because the magicians at central bank's they always come out with a new trick and this negative interest rates that we have today this is where the first time in recorded human history from the times of Babylon up to today that we have negative England's rates and it's not going to end well that I can tell you but the sequence of how it will not end well I'm not so sure but they still have a lot of ammunition what they can do is helicopter money in other words they can send you and mr.
Bloomberg and me and everybody say your check for ten thousand dollars and that is like throwing gasoline into a fire for a while the fire will glow and then expand and then average it will again go down and then you need another doses of a helicopter money so the next time around they can send out checks for twenty thousand dollars to everybody and this will be a very popular measure because everybody will get the twenty thousand dollars for the rich it won't mean anything twenty thousand dollars more or less but say for the poor people and for the lower middle class to get twenty thousand dollars a piece will be very desirable so they can do a lot of things if they want to but will it help the economy that is the question it won't help in the long run you cannot grow an economy by just throwing money at people what should they be doing what policies would you want to be an active mr.
father I want to tell you to let the less policies the better it would be we all learnt at school that the free market and the capitalistic system is the best allocator of resources and now what we have is the worst allocation of resources because it's the government that tells you how these resources are allocated and they continuously expand their interventions and i can tell you i started to work in 1970 in that in the 70s and early 1980s central banks actually never came up in discussions they have now become like the Messiah and everybody watches what the central bank's do and in the end in my view they will have from a long-term perspective no impact whatsoever now can they move markets short-term yes but maybe not in the direction they want to do you talk about allocating resources mr.
Farber allocate my resources for me right now because I'm looking at the pics that you have and you're saying get into the dogs of the world of course your usual pan Brazil you're saying get into Brazil get into Russia how you go convince me amid such political turmoil there well you see these emerging markets like Brazil and Russia of course they are in recession where by Russia is doing better than Brazil but the valuations have come down very substantially and if you ask me mark where should i allocate my funds today in the US stock market which is essentially very highly prized by any measure price to sales price to earnings and so forth market cap to GDP the US market doesn't come out favorably now the emerging markets they have corrected significantly some since 2006 and some since 2011 and I would say they are relatively relatively attractive so if I have to invest money today and I've been resting all the time money who's ever cash flow I invest in emerging economies you can buy the Singapore stock market with a four percent dividend yield well Singapore is a relatively sound e karam it's diversified it's well run unlike the US unless of course the u.s.
is run by mr. Trump then the u.s. will improve are you really a fan of mr. Trump marker do you d really believes all relative given the alternatives I would vote for mr. Trump because I only destroyed the US economy but Hillary Clinton do will destroy the whole world that's why will Hillary Clinton YY will Hillary Clinton destroy the whole world but what's the evidence look look look at her nation building in the Middle East how successful that has been but mr.
father I mean we're seeing from Donald Trump's potential policies that he wants to slow international trade between the United States and other countries surely that's going to be a block upon free markets well I agree that it is negative here if you have a restrictions on a free market that I agree entirely but you have to equal e see that the US has essentially given in on a lot of things that benefit other countries if you look at say the gross 2002 today which countries have done relatively well the emerging markets have done fantastically well their GDP has gone up substantially the standards of living have gone up substantially they have accumulated large reserves and so forth the US and Europe and Japan relatively speaking have been declining and that these statistics are visible from industrial production in emerging economies it's doubled in the last 12 years global trade you look at the share of emerging markets it's gone up the developed world the US Europe Japan it's gone down and so forth and so on so I think that maybe we have to find a way to have a more balanced a pro to global trade I'm not saying protectionism but the more balanced approach that is fairer to the developed world give me another cool for me mr.
father you are saying at the moment you like long-term US Treasuries but the consensus is for yields to rise what do you feel is that is the beneficial trade there in terms of you're saying relatively speaking get into long-term u.s. debt why yes actually I still hold US Treasury stated very well until about two weeks ago and since then they sold off I've sold some trading positions but I'm looking back to buy some of them because I believe that eventually mrs.
Yellen will also introduce negative interest rate don't forget in 2009 she said publicly if it were possible to introduce negative interest rates I would be voting for that so I believe there is a chance that in the US they'll do the same as elsewhere as in Japan and as in Europe Christine Lagarde as you know the IMF managing director has come out today and she has said the world economy would be bet would be worse off excuse me without negative interest rate I knew you'd love she she noted she I think this is a factual I suppose your laugh tells me what you think of that comment look I believe that the interventionists with fiscal policies and with monetary policies in other words the so-called do Keynesian or New Keynesian that is their excuse they will always say if we hadn't done this and hadn't done that it would be much worse they have no proof for this assertion in my view it would have been better to let the crisis already the first one in two thousand run its course and prevent the colossal credit bubble that was built up that then led to an even bigger crisis and now they're doing the same mistake there again adding to credit volumes in the world credit as a percent of the global economy is up very strongly since 2007 in particular course in China but also in other countries and we distinguish between productive credit and unproductive credit productive credit is to build a factory we're scred' it and then hire 1970 in that in the 70s and early 1980s central bank's actually never came up in discussions they have now become like the Messiah and everybody watches what the central bank's do and in the end in my view they will have from a long-term perspective no impact whatsoever now can they move markets short-term yes but maybe not in the direction they want to do you talk about allocating resources mr.
Farber allocate my resources for me right now because I'm looking at the pics that you have and you're saying get into the dogs of the world of course your usual pan Brazil you're saying get into Brazil get into Russia how you go convince me amid such political turmoil there well you see these emerging markets like Brazil and Russia of course they are in recession where by Russia is doing better than Brazil but the valuations have come down very substantially and if you asked me mark where should i allocate my funds today in the US stock market which is essentially very highly priced by any measure price to sales price to earnings and so forth market cap to GDP the US market doesn't come out favorably now the emerging markets they have corrected significantly some since 2006 and some since 2011 and I would say they are relatively relatively attractive so if I have to invest money today and I've been resting all the time whose have a cash flow I invest in emerging economies you can buy the Singapore stock market with a four percent dividend yield well Singapore is a relatively sound e karam it's diversified and it's well-run unlike the US unless of course the u.s.
is run by mr. Trump then the u.s. will improve are you really a fan of mr. Trump marker do you d really believes all relative given the alternatives I would vote for mr. Trump because I only destroyed the US economy but Hillary Clinton do will destroy the whole world that's why will Hillary clip why why will Hillary Clinton destroy the whole world but what's the evidence look look look at her nation building in the Middle East how successful that has been but mr.
father I mean we're seeing from Donald Trump's potential policies that he wants to slow international trade between the United States and other countries surely that's going to be a block upon free markets well I agree that it is negative here if you have a restrictions on a free market that I agree entirely but you have to equally suck and me and everybody say your check for ten thousand dollars and that is like throwing gasoline into a fire for a while the fire will glow and then expand and then after it it will again go down and then you need none of those is of a helicopter money so the next time around they can send out checks for twenty thousand dollars to everybody and this will be a very popular measure because everybody will get the twenty thousand dollars for the rich it won't mean anything twenty thousand dollars more or less but say for the poor people and for the lower middle class to get twenty thousand dollars a piece will be very desirable so they can do a lot of things if they want to but will it help the economy that is the question it won't help in the long run you cannot grow an economy by just throwing money at people what should they be doing what policies would you want to be an active mr.
father I want to tell you to let the less policies the better it would be we all learnt at school that the free market and the capitalistic system is the best allocator of resources and now what we have is the worst allocation of resources because it's the government that tells you how these resources are allocated and they continuously expand their interventions and i can tell you i started to work in april and acquire machinery and then produce something either services or goods but most of the credit is now for transfer payments and that is very negative for long-term structural economic growth because it allows actually the government to become bigger and bigger and bigger and to have more regulation and i can tell you i'm in the financial sector i talk to people in the financial sector half their time is nowadays consumed with filling out forms by regulators mark will how are they going to fight then the next crisis I mean your prescription would have been more fiscal policy that should have played a more active role will we see more publicly funded infrastructure when and if the next crisis hits yes that's a very good question because the magicians at central bank's they always come out with a new trick and this negative interest rates that we have today this is where the first time in recorded human history from the times of Babylon up to today that we have negative England's rates and it's not going to end well that I can tell you but the sequence of how it will not end well I'm not so sure but they still have a lot of ammunition what they can do is helicopter money in other words they can send you and mr. Bloomberg
Comments 0