저자: HowardMarks · 외국인
요약 보기
Marks는 AI를 사회를 비가역적으로 바꿀 기술 버블로 보며, 그 과잉 투자와 자본 파괴는 불가피하다고 본다. 시장이 AI에 대해 과열보다 회의적 반응을 보이는 것은 건전한 신호라고 평가한다. 금리는 낮은 편이며 향후 수익률은 중간 수준(높지 않지만 부족하지도 않음)으로 예상하고, S&P500은 PE 기준 장기 저수익 구간이라 본다. 연준의 인위적 저금리·금융 개입은 위험추구를 부추기는 가격 통제라며 비판하고, 연준은 극단적 상황이 아니면 수동적이어야 한다고 주장한다. AI로 인한 일자리 질 저하와 사회적 목적상실을 크게 우려한다.
다듬은 글
Bloomberg audio studios podcasts radio news seeing a market gut check some of the enthusiasm post Fed meeting yesterday after Oracle came out throwing some cold water on some of the risk appetite down 4 ten of a percent on S&P futures the bit into bonds actually gaining as the morning grows older after jobless claims came in just slightly elevated 10-year yield at 4.13%.
Turning to the economy, Fed Chair Jay Powell saying AI may be at least partially responsible for the cooling labor market, but the future remains uncertain. Howard Marx, co-founder and co-chairman of Oak Tree Capital Market, issuing a warning in his latest memo. I find the resulting outlook for employment terrifying.
I am enormously concerned about what will happen to the people whose jobs AI renders unnecessary or who can't find jobs because of it. At this moment of transformation, Howard joins us now after writing a memo that I really recommend everybody read. It really was one of the absolute best that you've ever written.
Thank you for being here with us. So, I can stop now. No, please don't. I want to keep reading your memos. I want to start with this idea of different types of bubbles. And you talk about there are productive bubbles and unproductive bubbles. What's the difference and how does that make it either something you want to invest in or not?
Well, I think that the the unproductive bubbles I would describe as financial fads. Uh portfolio insurance was one, subprime mortgages was another. Uh just uh you know financial activities that become fashionable uh zoom into popularity, get overhyped and then recede. Uh but then there are bubbles which are based on technological progress starting with the steam engine, the railroad, the radio, the automobile, uh computers, internet etc.
And these actually push society ahead uh and change it irreversibly. uh but in the process there's a bubble surrounding their implementation which is overly uh accelerated and overly financed and goes to excess and end up destroying a lot of capital but leave society uh greatly changed and I'm sure that AI is in the latter category in terms of effect on society and the question is will the implementation uh prove to have been excessive in scope And in in the way it's financed,
just because something is excessive doesn't mean that you can't invest in it. No, but but it it you know when when when every when investors hate everything and won't touch it with the 10-ft pole, chances are it's going to be on sale because nobody has pushed up the price. In fact, their disinterest has pushed down the price.
But when everybody likes something, is excited about something, chances are it may be overhyped and overpriced. So, you just have to be careful. So, that's where we are right now. You said you can invest, you can participate, but you just have to be careful. What does being careful look like? Does it mean focusing more on debt versus equities?
More on equities versus debt, more on small companies versus big ones? What does that look like? Well, uh, what I say in the memo is that it's okay to lend for activities even if they're uncertain, but not if they are if the outcomes are purely conjectural. I mean, in order to be a smart lender, you have to have good visibility on the the extent to which the thing has is likely to repay interest in principle.
uh if it's just purely conjectural uh it's not you shouldn't be a lender and in fact it's I think the memo says that um where that's the case you should actually if you want to participate you should be in the equity so at least you get the upside the lender has no upside you you make a 9% loan all you're going to get is 9% no matter how well the thing does you certainly shouldn't do that in in uh activities that have a high probability of not paying off at all because then you have unlimited downside and limited upside.
That's absolutely the wrong combination. So you think right now in some circumstances the equity might actually be a better option than the debt because of that potential upside. Yes, exactly. Because the point is that if you if you go into some startup which has a the poss you know let's say a small possibility of a of a raging success uh you you you know you you wouldn't lend to it because you have a high probability of losing all your money and no probability of participating in the success.
That's a bad trade. So you always talk about this riskreward pendulum, the risk and fear, the sort of fear and greed pendulum right now. And yesterday we saw Oracle come out and talk about having to borrow more money, having to spend more and people are selling off the shares. Does this make you feel good?
Does this make you feel like there actually is some discretion? Well, well, yeah. Well, I think that I I think that it's it's uh you know, Buffett says the less prudence with which others conduct our affairs, the greater the prudence with which we must conduct our own affairs. So when other people are acting imprudently and mindlessly and carefree, uh we should be worried.
When other people are showing appropriate concern, that's a positive sign that the market is applying some discipline. the greatest some of the greatest moments that I've seen uh some of the greatest signals of danger in the markets have been when people were not applying any prudence at all like in ' 06 for example.
Uh so if if people are reacting harshly to to aggressive possibly uh risk uh uh indicating activities, yes, that's that's a healthy sign. and th this market is is seems healthier than the than the 2000 market to me. How concerned are you that we get a Federal Reserve that's more accommodative for a variety of reasons that leads to even more risk-taking?
This idea that not only did the Fed cut rates, indicated more rate cuts, but also is adding to its balance sheet in a way that could potentially prop up demand. Well, um you know, I was thinking about this when I was waiting to to see you today. uh you know uh most of the people listening to this uh program uh including me and you uh are interested in the free markets and we think free markets should set the prices of things uh and uh the Fed manipulations are a form of price controls.
you know, they control the price of money. And uh if if the if the Fed puts money artificially cheap, then it induces behavior like risk-taking. It it it forces people into riskier activities because the returns on safe activities are so low. It it uh tends to reinforce the view that there's a Fed put that that if there's a problem, the Fed will solve it and that contributes to risky behavior.
These are all bad bad things. And you know, I believe that the Fed should be uh uh passive uh most of the time and only come to the rescue if the market is if the if the economy is seriously overheated and tending towards hyperinflation or seriously um under active and not creating jobs. U I don't think that's the case right now.
I don't think there's a and you can see in the divided uh open market committee that there's a difference of opinion. Uh so I don't think that action on the part of the Fed is compelling right now and you know um there are people who think that rates should be a lot lower than they than they are today.
Uh I I just don't see that the merit in that right now going forward. I remember back in uh 2015, 2016, 2017 when rates were incredibly low. You were saying people just need to lower their expectations for returns because ultimately you have to look at the risk-free rate and you don't want to re reach too much at a time where people are greedy.
Where are we right now in terms of what types of returns people [clears throat] ought to expect based on the current uh income rates? Well, uh, the lower base interest rates are, everything scales off that. So, uh, you know, uh, I mean, the Fed funds rate at 3 and a half is below history. It's these are not high rates.
They're only high relative to the last 15 years, but this is a low rate. So, everything scales off that. most things will give moderate returns in the debt area. [clears throat] I think prospective returns are moderate. Okay. Uh not uh lush but not inadequate. Uh the trouble is that the S&P uh based on its PE ratio relative to history appears to be priced uh to to provide a very low prospective return.
uh historically if you bought at this PE ratio um uh your return over the next 10 years averaged in the very low single digits. So I I think we're in a moderate return scenario. Uh the problem is that how do you get a high return in a moderate return scenario? And most people's uh resort is to take a lot more risk.
And that's something I don't like to do other than when it's compelling. You had a a personal note, an addendum at the end and we I led off with that idea of what artificial intelligence and machine learning will do to the labor market. It's something clearly on the Fed's mind, clearly on investors mind.
You're talking about concerns that there is going to be cannibalization from human jobs. How do you see this playing out? How are you kind of grappling with this when you look at investments, when you look at fiscal deficit, when you look at the backdrop for the financial system? Well, look, Lisa, here I'm not talking about investing or economics.
I'm talking about society. And it's very worrying to me. And uh, you know, I've gotten some very nice response from people I respect to the memo. And one of them said he thinks we've seen this in response to the internet over the last uh 25 years. Um but it has not raised unemployment because it the internet eliminated white collar jobs that were replaced by blue collar jobs like you know people who pick stuff in warehouses and and and send it out in e-commerce.
Uh so uh job count is not down but job quality is down and uh and uh I think that this is very worrisome and as I said in the uh addendum when we lost jobs to automation and offshoring. I think that that coincided with the opiate uh epidemic and uh not only in amount but also in location and I think it's a natural consequence of people sitting around all day and um even if we if we can find a a way to replace their income I worry about purposelessness and you know we we get so much job so much from our jobs other than a paycheck and you can't replace that stuff.
Um, so I I worry for society. Howard Marks, you are absolutely one of the best, my favorite to talk to. Howard Marks of Oakry Capital Management. Thank you so much for being with
Comments 0