저자: MarcFaber · 외국인
요약 보기
중동 분쟁과 자산 하락으로 유동성이 줄어들며 향후 12개월간 투자자들이 큰 손실을 볼 수 있다는 경고. 방어적 자세와 자본 보존 강조. 미국 기술주 중심 지수(S&P500, 나스닥)는 고평가로 하락 위험 큼, 아시아는 상대적으로 낫지만 유동성 매도 대상이 될 수 있음. 채권은 단기 반등 가능하나 재정·통화 확대에 따른 장기 인플레 우려. 달러는 위기시 강세, 자산가치 하락이 실물경기 침체로 이어질 수 있음.
다듬은 글
I wanted to say, when these assets go down, in my view, liquidity shrinks. Whether it shrinks and then assets go down, or whether assets go down and then liquidity shrinks, I'm not entirely sure about, but liquidity seems to be shrinking, and I think we may wake up, all of us who are investors, in a year's time, with our asset value being lower than it is today.
Now, some people will lose 50% of their asset value, and some will lose 90%, and some will lose maybe just 10%. You want to try to be in the group of people that loses the least money in the next 12 months. It's not a question of making money, but how do we lose the least money? That would be my philosophy and investment strategy at the present time.
The safest approach now is not to chase returns, but to protect capital. When assets fall, liquidity can shrink quickly, and the next year may reward investors who lose the least, rather than those reaching for the most. Marc Faber, a respected contrarian investor, known for his cautious macro analysis and long experience across global markets, argues that today's sell-off should be viewed through the lens of liquidity pressure, high valuations, and the risk that financial weakness spreads into the real economy.
The sharper point is that almost everything can be affected when investors need cash. Europe, America, Asia, Latin America, gold miners, property and technology shares can all be sold together, even when some regions seem less exposed to the original shock. That is why doing nothing can be a valid strategy while markets are emotional.
If volatility remains high and liquidity continues to tighten, the priority should be patience, selectivity, and avoiding the most crowded assets. The best prediction is a defensive year where capital preservation matters more than aggressive buying or trying to catch every early bounce in fragile markets now.
think that everything might be sort of affected, but my view is that the US is now sort of occupied in Ukraine and in the Middle East, and that they will be sort of much friendlier towards China than they would have otherwise been. So, actually, I'm not sure that the portfolio managers around the world will think my way, but my way of thinking is that this intervention in the Middle East might be sort of mildly positive for Southeast Asia and China and Asia in general because uh it's now most unlikely that the US would sort of provoke a war between China and Taiwan.
I think that they will abstain from. And I think that they will come to the conclusion that they need a China uh not necessarily to cooperate, but not to be unfriendly or military unfriendly. So, personally, I think that the Asian markets are okay. I think they will go down because, you know, people sell in Europe, then they sell in America, then they think, "Oh, Asia is still high.
We also sell Asia to raise liquidity." As I pointed out before, and the same happens in Latin America. I mean, theoretically, Latin America is the continent the least affected by the problems in the Middle East or in Central Asia. But, it's also being sold because the portfolio manager in America, he sits there, he invests money, he wants to raise liquidity, he's going to sell something that hasn't gone down yet.
And so, today, the Latin American markets are down substantially. This is very interesting that they are being sold as much as they're being sold. That I have to say is a little bit of a surprise to me. I didn't expect them to go up necessarily, but I thought they would go down less than equities. And what has happened, they go down actually significantly, and gold miners are very weak.
They have been weak already for several for several days or weeks, but they are particularly weak in the last two, three days. When you're in a bull market and then you have the first downtrend or the first setback, do you rush in and buy or do you stay aside? I wrote in my report that the best um course of action when something like this happens, and you have a shock, and assets move a lot, the volatility increases a lot, the best course of action is frequently to do nothing and to wait until uh the markets become again less emotional and more rational.
In a in let's say hostilities are occasionally favorable for stock markets and occasionally they're not favorable. And I would like to define this if you are in a bull market hostilities offer a buying opportunity because the market sells off and then it goes up like 1991 in the US the Gulf War offered a buying opportunity.
But on other occasions the markets are very high like now uh the valuations are very high and the hostilities may lead to a catalyst to push prices down and they could go down substantially. Particularly the indices like the S&P and the Nasdaq which are loaded with technology stocks and the so-called Magnificent Seven shares.
So that I would avoid. I want to point out here one thing. I mean we stock strategists are always accused of being wrong in our predictions. And I think the political analysts are even worse. So I'm an economist and I'm an investor. I of course I'm in interested in geopolitics and what countries do with their political philosophy and systems and so forth.
But basically I'm trying to preserve capital for my clients and for myself. And I focus on economic and financial developments. And I think that the war has introduced a sort of appetite for liquidity. Now, the the expression liquidity is very difficult to define because I'm not entirely sure whether say stocks and bonds and cryptocurrencies and paintings and other assets go up because of increased liquidity or whether they as they go up they create increased liquidity.
So, but one thing I'm quite sure, when the stock market goes down when the property market goes down and we had a big decline in in commercial properties in in major cities in the world, including you know, Chicago and Los Angeles, San Francisco and so forth. Whether Yes, I wanted to say when these assets go down in my view, liquidity shrinks.
Whether it shrinks and then assets go down or whether assets go down and then liquidity shrinks, I'm not entirely sure about. But liquidity seems to be shrinking and I think we may wake up, all of us who are investors, in a year's time with our asset value being lower than it is today. Now, some people will lose 50% of their asset value and some will lose 90% and some will lose maybe just 10% You want to try to in the group of people that loses the least money in the next 12 months.
It's not a question of making money. But, how do we lose the least money? That would be my philosophy and investment strategy at the present time. I don't think we're going to make a lot of money. Asia may look better than other regions because the United States is already occupied with Ukraine and the Middle East.
That could make Washington less willing to provoke a confrontation over China and Taiwan, which is mildly positive for China, Southeast Asia, and the wider region. But, relative safety does not mean prices cannot fall. When portfolio managers need liquidity, they often sell whatever has not yet declined, including assets less directly exposed to the crisis.
Latin America shows the same pattern. It may be distant from the conflict, yet it can still be sold hard because investors need cash. The cleaner strategy is to avoid assuming that cheap geography protects against global liquidation. Technology-heavy indices, especially those loaded with the biggest US growth names, remain vulnerable if high valuations meet a liquidity shock this year.
Now, let's get back to the interview. I think you bring up an important point. What about bonds? And I've written about this and I'm sort of bullish about bonds. But, I have to say one thing. The bond yield now is, say, 4% for the 10-year Treasury. In theory, in the current situation, and this happened the day they announced the aggression against Iran, bonds in the morning rallied.
But, then they sold off because then bond holders and the analysts got second and they they kind of became convinced that the war would be inflationary. But the initial reaction was for bonds to rally. And I think the initial reaction is probably a correct. But at 4% interest, I cannot say that bonds are particularly cheap.
In other words, that they'll rally a lot. I think they can rally because the war may be used as an excuse for Trump and the Fed and the Treasury to print more money. That is my concern. And so, initially maybe bonds will rally somewhat, but long-term, money printing would lead to more inflation. And uh possibly uh significantly more inflation, which would be very negative for uh asset markets, especially financial assets.
You know, if someone told me the US goes to war against Iran and so forth, uh someone might have concluded that it will weaken the US dollar. But you know, it actually strengthens the US dollar. And we have to understand the financial market nowadays, the market capitalization is a multiple of global GDP.
It's much bigger. Traditionally, in a sound economy, we have the economy that this size and the financial market maybe just this size. In other words, when I started to work on Wall Street in 1970, uh the stock market capitalization was 25% of GDP. Now it's somewhere between 150 and 200% of GDP. In other words, formerly I could say, "Okay, the economy does this and that will have an impact on the financial market." Nowadays I have to say, "The financial market is doing this and it will have an impact on the real economy." So it it's changed around and exactly what the impact of the present downturn is, I'm not sure.
But personally, I believe that the US economy in the last 10 20 years was driven mostly by capital appreciation of assets. In other words, the guy he has a house, it was worth 100,000 say 10 years ago, now it's worth 3 400,000. If he is rich, he borrows money and goes and spends that money on a Cadillac or whatnot.
And once the asset value goes down, he will lose his appetite to spend and he will cut down on spending. In the initial phase, he may borrow more money. That is a possibility. But at a later stage, he may curtail his spending. And I think the decline in asset value in the US will have a very significant impact on real economic activity, on consumption and that will lead to a horrendous recession.
Horrendous. Bonds may rally at first because fear often pushes money into Treasuries and a 4% yield can still attract defensive demand. But that is only the first layer. If war becomes an excuse for the Fed, Treasury, and government to print more money, the long-term result could be more inflation, not real safety.
That would hurt financial assets, especially after years in which markets became much larger than the underlying economy. The bigger danger is that asset prices now drive behavior in the real economy. When homes, stocks, crypto, and commercial property rise, people feel wealthier, borrow more, and spend more.
The financial market is no longer just reacting to the economy. It can weaken the economy itself. A stronger dollar during stress also fits this view because investors scramble for liquidity, even when US policy looks reckless. The likely path is uneven, some bond strength, pressure on stocks and miners, and then a deeper hit to spending if asset values keep falling.
That could turn a market decline into a severe recession, making caution more valuable than trying to predict every short-term rebound as liquidity becomes harder to find globally. .
Comments 0