저자: CharlieMunger · 외국인
요약 보기
찰리 멍거는 2023년 미국에서 경기침체 또는 인플레이션 재가속이 일어날 가능성이 크다고 봤다. 연준의 역할: 연준은 시장을 만드는 주체가 아니라 불안정한 시장에 대응하는 주체이며, 코로나 시기의 공격적 부양이 없었다면 상황이 더 나빴을 것이라고 평가했다. 현재의 인플레이션은 과도한 부양의 결과 측면이 있다. 인플레이션과 경기침체 전망: 이번 인플레이션의 주원인은 공급망 문제인데 18개월이 지나도 해결되지 않았다. 수요를 줄이기 위해 연준이 금리를 크게 올리면 경기침체가 수반될 수 있으며, 멍거는 인플레이션을 방치해 더 큰 침체·공황을 맞는 것보다 침체를 감수하는 편이 낫다고 봤다. 암호화폐: FTX 사태와 암호화폐 시장 전반을 사기와 착각으로 규정했다. 블록chain 기술 자체에는 가치가 있을 수 있으나, 암호화폐는 생산적 자산이 아니어서 현금흐름을 만들지 못하고 사실상 제로섬 게임이라고 주장했다. 주식과의 차이: 주식은 기업이 현금흐름과 고용을 창출하므로 암호화폐와 다르다고 설명했다. 투자 심리: 시장의 낙관과 비관 사이 진동은 가치투자자에게 우량 기업을 싸게 살 기회를 준다고 봤다. 영상 자체는 교육 목적이며 투자 자문이 아니라는 면책 문구가 포함되어 있다. 예측 대상 자산에 대한 명시적 가격 방향 발언은 없다. 연준 금리 인상과 경기침체 가능성은 거시 전망이지만 대상 자산 가격에 직접 연결된 발언이 아니므로 calls는 비워두었다.
다듬은 글
Billionaire investor Charlie Munger defends the Fed's inflation fight - even if it causes a recession. Charlie Munger has stated his opinion that a recession or increased inflation in the US is likely to occur in 2023. In a conversation with CNBC, the 98-year-old millionaire and Warren Buffett's business partner covered the FTX situation as well as a number of other topics.
Today, we will be summarising the most crucial portions of this interview. In order to at least attempt to somewhat provide economic stability to the financial markets and to the larger economy, Charlie Manger thinks it's critical for a nation or a region to have a central bank with certain powers at its disposal.
And we observe that at least in the US and some other large nations, where the Fed can go in one of two directions—either monetary stimulus or monetary tightening—to restore stability, depending on whether the market is too hot or needs some kind of artificial boost to get going. And it can seem like the Federal Reserve's or other central banks' actions are having an impact on how the markets behave, that they are actually bringing about a recession by raising interest rates, or that they are bringing about a boom by providing a significant amount of market stimulus.
Despite the fact that their actions tend to influence the economy's markets in such ways, they aren't actually the ones making those things happen. Actually, they're only responding to an unpredictable market environment. It's their responsibility to make sure that the one guy at the party doesn't become wasted by hanging out by the punch hole.
In addition, Charlie believes we had enough problems before this started. If the FED had not acted in such an aggressive manner, there would now be a much worse situation than there is today. The Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to zero percent and provided a substantial amount of stimulus, which ultimately helped many firms to remain open and allowed people to receive government assistance while they were unable to work, preventing a great deal of economic misery.
And ultimately, the overly aggressive stimulus is what's contributing to the increased inflation we're seeing right now. However, it's almost probable that things would have turned out far worse if there had been no action in 2020. It's very simple to point the finger at the Fed and claim that they are to blame for the inflation we are currently experiencing and, should they raise interest rates too soon, for the recession, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we have recently experienced a once in a century worldwide health crisis.
And if the Federal Reserve and other central banks hadn't intervened and provided stimulus to people and businesses at the exact right time, people could have been forced to continue working and going about their daily lives as usual. That may have resulted in a lot more deaths or may have forced people to spend more time inside and less time outside.
Furthermore, a large number of people would have lost their enterprises, occupations, or life savings. The damage would have been utterly devastating if no stimulation had been given in the end. The regrettable fact is that the epidemic was catastrophic for many regions of the world where there are weak democratic governments without a central bank or a robust financial system.
And regrettably, the pandemic cannot be seen as a net positive, particularly from an economic standpoint. In the end, all the Fed can do is try to minimize the harm and keep the economy growing. Munger thinks that given the circumstances, the Federal Reserve is prepared to plunge the US into a recession if that is what is required to stop inflation from spiralling out of control.
And the reason for that is that, despite the fact that supply chain problems are what are principally responsible for this inflation crisis, they have yet to be resolved after 18 months. The Federal Reserve can reduce demand by raising interest rates, which is the best instrument they have to do so when supply-side problems can't be resolved on their own.
This will help keep inflation in check what they have been doing, in fact. Unfortunately, a recession is quite likely to play a role or play a part in that equation when you need to hike interest rates dramatically and significantly reduce demand. Of course, no one wants a recession, but it is far preferable to allow inflation to get out of hand and then have to act or effectively kick the can down the road until it finally results in an even worse recession or depression.
Munger says, “A very well-known man once claimed that big civilizations have many ruins and that they took a very long time to destroy.” When questioned if things are going to get viral out of control, Munger isn't really certain about the answer. However, we can infer from his response that he doesn't actually know for sure whether a recession or a depression is on the horizon, just as virtually no one else does.
The likelihood that things will get very, very bad, however, is unquestionably increased by these bubbles in cryptocurrencies and other sectors of the financial markets. In addition, Charlie made specific comments about the FTX issue and shared his deeper perspectives on the cryptocurrency market and how he expects it to develop.
Many people who you would regard to be logical or rational fall victim to these bubbles and euphoria because, at their foundation, there is frequently a very, very good technology or some kind of invention that does have actual value. In this instance, we're referring to blockchain technology, which underpins the operation and functionality of these cryptocurrencies.
In the future, businesses will likely employ decentralized networks and blockchain technology in a variety of ways to create value, whether it be in the field of finance explicitly or in other contexts as well. Sadly, these new innovations and technologies also produce unregulated new markets, which encourages people to act dishonestly or in other unethical ways.
According to Charlie Munger, the FTX and the larger cryptocurrency market are both frauds and illusions. For their personal financial advantage, some people create scam coins, purposely mislead investors, and do other things. Then again, a lot of people are simply misinformed about how cryptocurrency actually fits into the larger investing world.
The misconception that cryptocurrency genuinely produces wealth is what Munger is referring to. As a non-productive asset, cryptocurrencies are what's known as a "zero-sum game" in terms of investment returns. In a zero-sum situation, there is no net change in wealth or advantage because one person's gain is equal to another's loss.
Naturally, this isn't true for every single cryptocurrency transaction; occasionally, an exchange will facilitate a transaction when both the buyer and the seller of a cryptocurrency benefit. However, because cryptocurrencies don't actually accomplish anything, they don't actually generate any income or cash flow.
Hence the worth of the entire crypto space as a whole cannot possibly be greater than the sum of money that individuals invest in it. Or, to put it another way, money is simply transferred from one person to another rather than being created in the crypto space. How is the stock market any different, you might ask?
If you still only trade shares the same way you trade cryptocurrency, isn't it exactly the same thing? No, it isn't. There are no winner-takes in the stock market. Yes, it might be a zero-sum game if you're trading or speculating on how share values will perform in the near future. However, once more, if we zoom out and consider the entire stock market, you'll see that the majority of investment funds actually flow toward useful assets rather than enterprises.
They are supporting companies that produce goods and services that support the economy by adding to employment opportunities and raising income that can be invested in additional companies, other assets, and new business ventures. Alternatively, if you acquire stock from someone else, you can grasp it on a simpler one-to-one level.
They receive any proceeds from the transaction that they stand to gain. Actually, you can generate money without selling that company in contrast to cryptocurrencies, where you must sell it to someone else in order to profit from your investment, cryptocurrency. In contrast, you are not legally required to sell your firm, whether it be a portion of it or the whole thing, to someone else.
Simply manage the company and capitalize on the advantages of the apparatus you've purchased, which includes staff, systems, and other resources that enable it to generate revenue for you. Overconfidence and underconfidence are unavoidable components of highly liquid markets. We prefer to think of ourselves as being logical, and we do our best to act logically over time, but we're actually emotional beings.
Even in areas like finance, where we rationally understand that making financial decisions should only be based on factors such as math and science, emotion should never be allowed to enter the picture. Despite the fact that we are affected emotionally by our financial choices and results, it affects our family.
They have an effect on our interpersonal interactions. Emotions, therefore, play a part in our financial decisions, perhaps unconsciously or, hopefully, when we are aware of them. While it can occasionally feel frightening, if you're a value investor, having markets that fluctuate between optimism and pessimism is actually a really good thing because it essentially means you have the chance to invest in really high-quality companies.
When assessments of them are excessively negative and when they are being sold for considerably less than what you would actually pay for them. If you wish to hear the whole podcast of the interview with Charlie Mongia that CNBC produced, you can find it on Spotify and Apple Music. Find the link to it in the description below.
The content in this video is for educational purposes only and hence should not be considered financial advice. Do conduct your own due diligence and consult your financial advisor before making any investment decisions. This is the end, see you next time, bye!
Comments 0