저자: BillGross · 외국인
요약 보기
첫 줄 결론: 빌 그로스는 장기 국채금리가 과대평가되어 있고 적정 수준은 약 4.5%이며, 실질금리 상승과 재정적자 확대로 채권·주식 모두 고평가 부담이 크다고 본다. [인플레이션·연준] 향후 인플레이션은 3% 안팎으로 예상되며, 그 수준에 도달하면 연준이 인상을 멈추고 1년 내 금리 인하를 고려할 수 있다고 봤다. 연준 기준금리가 2.5~3%로 내려가면 10년물 텀프리미엄 약 135bp를 더해도 현재 금리(약 4.15%) 수준이 된다는 논리다. [채권] 10년물 국채(4.15%)는 장기간 과대평가 상태였고, 강세 전망의 논거는 결함이 있다고 주장. 적정 매수 구간은 약 4.5%로 제시했으며, 독일 분트·영국 길트도 경기순환 고점 부근이라 글로벌 현상으로 설명. [실질금리·경기] 30년물 실질금리가 약 2%로 10년 넘게 못 본 수준이며, 2% 실질금리는 충분히 긴축적이다. 재정 부양금 소진 후 소비가 둔화해 실질 GDP 하락과 인플레 약 3%로 이어질 것으로 전망. 장단기 금리 역전(12~18개월 지속)은 경기에 부정적 신호. [재정·공급] 재정적자 약 1.5조 달러로 장기 국채 공급이 향후 1조 달러 이상 증가할 가능성. 이번 30년물 경매는 부진했다. [지역은행] 3월 SVB 사태 후 지역은행 주식을 장부가 0.5배 수준에서 매수해 큰 수익을 냈으나, 장기금리 상승으로 최근 30~40% 상승해 차익실현 후 다른 곳으로 이동 중이라고 밝힘. SVB 청산은 신용이 아닌 듀레이션 리스크 때문이었다고 분석. [투자 포지션] 마이크로소프트의 액티비전 인수 차익거래 포지션 보유(주당 95달러 기준 가격 매력), 파이프라인 MLP(Magellan, MMP) 보유로 8~8.5% 배당·세금이연 효과 강조, 엔비디아는 일주일 전 비판. [주식] 주식위험프리미엄이 1% 미만으로 사실상 역사적 저점, 주식시장은 고평가. AI가 수익성을 높일 수 있다는 점은 인정하나 실질금리 시차효과(1~3년)로 장기 투자자는 밸류에이션에 신중해야 한다고 조언. [출연자 견해 요약] 그로스는 전반적으로 금리 상승 압력과 실질금리 부담을 강조하는 비관적 장기 견해를 밝혔다.
다듬은 글
We've talked a lot this week about fighting inflation, whether it's been overcome, or at least on the way to it. From an economic point of view, we can say that we are on the right track. But is there a reason to invest now in view of this? Well, I think there is reason to expect inflation of about 3% in the future, give or take.
And I think if we were to reach that level, the Fed would start to consider stopping the hikes, and maybe even cutting rates over the next year or so. But I really think that the 10- year bond yielding 4.15 right now, you know, is probably overvalued and has been overvalued for a long time because of the yield being too low and the price being too high.
Um, you know, if the Fed rate actually went down to 2.5 or 3%. You know, the 10-year term premium, which is the spread between the 10- year bond and the Fed rate, has typically been around 135 basis points for a long time. So , you know, if you add 135 basis points to 2.5 or even 3% in the Fed rate, you get the level we're at now.
And this suggests that all the bullish predictions about Treasuries, 10-year and maybe even long-term, I think their arguments are somewhat flawed. I believe they have been overvalued for a long time, and we are returning to proper valuation of long-term notes and bonds. But I mean, you understand better than anyone the connection between what's happening with inflation and the Fed and how that affects some of these optimistic forecasts.
And these optimistic forecasts have really started to grow, and not just because of the two reports we received this week. Bill, if they are wrong, explain to us why exactly? Well , I think they're wrong. First , because rates were so low because of quantitative easing, and the fact that, you know, in some cases, the real yield on the 5- year bond was minus 200 basis points, which sounds incredible, but that was a year and a half ago, and now it's plus 200 basis points.
So, that's a change in real rates of 400 basis points. So, I think investors were just stunned that the Fed would keep rates low for a long time, and that inflation wouldn't come out of its hole. Hmm, that's right. And so now we're going back to what seems to be the old world , where interest rates are actually a sign of a healthy economy.
And now, with an inverted yield curve that has been in place for 12–18 months, a thriving economy, especially a financial one, cannot thrive. This does not mean that it will immediately collapse, but it will not be able to function well if low-risk investments generate higher returns than high-risk ones.
And if you move from a 30-day Treasury bill to a 30-year bond, you see that from a yield perspective, the 30-day instrument is more profitable than the 30- year one. So it's just a curved yield curve, and it doesn't bode well for the economy in the future . Well, you noted that higher rates are a sign of a healthy economy.
I want to talk a little more about real returns, because I was just looking at the data on the screens. If you look at the 30-year real yield, it's already approaching 2%. We have n't seen such figures in over ten years. What conclusion do you draw from this? This fantastic rise that we are seeing is in real returns.
Well, it's a signal that the economy, and especially inflation, needs to slow down, and that's inevitable if we want to contain inflation. Is there a realistic yield of 2%—I don't think it's too much for a 30-year bond, but for a 5- year bond and about the same for a 10-year bond—isn't that too high?
Yes, in the long run, this is probably too much, but it is probably considered necessary to keep inflation at 3–3.5%, and will probably continue to be necessary. Real returns, as Paul Volcker showed us , are the solution to slowing economic growth and reducing inflation. And I think, Vee, I think, you know, the current chairman Powell, he, he's trying to repeat what Paul Volcker did to, uh, defeat the inflation dragon , not in the same way and not on the same scale that Volcker did, but he's trying to become the second Volcker in the next, uh, 12 to 24 months.
Bill, I promise, I'm looking at the 30- year real yield right now—it's at 1.95%. I'll show you the graph later, but it's really high. This is simply shocking. I want to go back to the nominal yield, though, and talk about fair value , because I follow your Twitter pretty closely, and of course, last week you wrote that you were generally bearish on the 10- year bond.
We were talking about how you view 10-year bonds now. They're at , uh, well, let's see, 4.16%. Where is the fair value? At what level would you dare to invest in bonds now? Well, I think at higher levels, somewhere around 4.5%, that's a good technical level to stop at. You know, what we saw this week , Katie, in terms of the proposal, we saw 100 billion in new bonds.
You mentioned this. Uh, 3-, 10-, and 30-year bonds. The first two auctions went well. But 30-year-olds—no. But we can expect, I think, going forward, given the fiscal situation and the deficit of a trillion and a half dollars, that the supply of long-term Treasury bonds will increase, perhaps by a trillion more than in the previous 12 months.
So it's not just the proposal, but also the fact, in my opinion, that 10-year bonds were at too low a level at the beginning of the year. I would also note that other markets, the German bond market ( Bunds) and the British (Gilts) ... They are all essentially at cyclical highs and are currently showing signs of further growth .
So this is a global phenomenon. We know something about Japan. We don't know exactly what their intentions are. But it seems like all the major central banks are moving in the same direction, and so are all the major bond markets. So I think 10-year Treasury bonds at 4.5% might have some value, but certainly not at that level.
But Bill, when we look at what real rates are telling us and compare that to the backdrop of the increasing supply of Treasury bonds, which most people expect to grow, and of course the potential for additional fiscal injections in the future. Does this distort the message we receive? I think, to some extent, as I suggested, the real yield...
sorry, Katie, on the 30- year bond, you're probably more right than I am in that it's close to 2%. So, they are all close to 2%. Historically, you know, these levels have been enough to reduce inflation. They were higher during the Volcker period, although they were harder to measure because there were no TIPS then.
But, you know, 2% real rate is a pretty restrictive rate. And I think once that $500 billion or $1 trillion in consumer demand that came out of the three to four trillion dollar fiscal program 12 to 18 months ago...I think once that money runs out, we'll start to see the impact of a 2% real rate on consumers and consumption going forward.
So, lower real GDP and , as a result, inflation, in my opinion, is around 3%. You have disposed of many of your assets in regional banks. Last month, you tweeted that you made, and I quote, " a lot of money." You tweeted something earlier that I found very interesting. You linked this to what we are seeing in the Treasury bond market, saying that you find it strange that the high 30- year bond yield, which brought down SVB and most other regional banks due to excessive duration, is now as high or even higher.
Have the last few months allowed regional banks to reduce duration? What do you mean? What you were basically saying is that we may have new challenges ahead for some of these smaller banks? Well, that's hard to say, Katie. We know that Silicon Valley Bank was liquidated because of long-term Treasury bonds.
They took on the risk, but that risk was related to duration, not credit. And during the panic two months ago, you know, firms like Schwab and so on, which were thought to have a long-term portfolio, also lost value quite dramatically. Um, it seems strange to me now that 30-year Treasuries have higher yields than they did during this mini-panic, and that the duration effect doesn't affect regional banks.
This does not mean that during this period many of them took measures to reduce the duration . I don't know if the statistics are relevant enough, but of course it's amazing that they've gone up 10, 20, 30%, and long-term bonds and long-term Treasury yields are higher than they were before, so their assets, because they own longer- term assets, maybe Treasurys , have fallen in value, and their book value has probably suffered.
But I'm not sure if regional banks have reduced duration overall; but if not, then yes. problems may arise. Bill, is it strange enough that you're playing bearish on some of these regional banks, or are you just not touching them? Well, I didn't bet against them. I simply excluded them from my portfolio.
About two months ago, I wrote an investment forecast in which I noted that I always wanted to own a bank because it is a license to make money at book value if it is created in a new way . Two months ago, there was an opportunity to buy a decent bank for 50% of its book value, so at that time it was being sold for half price.
So, I think at this point, not being an expert on banks, but having 30-40 years of experience with financial panics, and this was a mini- panic, it seemed like an exaggeration of the decline, and that there was value there not at book value, but at 0.5 of it, so I bought a lot of them. But now, as I mentioned, with long-term bond yields rising, not falling, and most regional banks up 30-40%, it's time to look for something else, and that's exactly what I'm doing.
Well, let's talk about it. I mean, where are you looking? I mean, what is your investment appetite right now? Well, mostly these are investments related to arbitrage. I have a pretty good position in Activision, which Microsoft is buying; Maybe it will all work out, maybe it won't, but in two or three weeks at $95 it looks good, and the stock is currently just below $92.
So I think it's a good deal. And the best value, Roma, in my opinion, is now in MLPs, that is, in pipeline partnerships. Firstly, they have a tax deferral, and secondly, they provide 8–8.5% returns and profits. Yes. When oil prices rise, or, let's say, if they fall, they are correlated to some extent.
But these are very attractive investments, especially one—Magellan, with the ticker MMP. It is being sold at a 6 % discount to the buyer's price, which is quite acceptable. And this can happen within one or two months. So those were my main sources of income in addition to regional companies. But is it primarily a search for cash flow, or is there a growth story there as well?
Well, I guess so. You know, I'm 79 years old, so portfolios reflect the fact that cash flow is important. It's not that I'm criticizing Nvidia, although I did a week or two ago. But, you know, 8–8.5% with tax deferral is actually an equivalent return of about 11 or 12%, if you do the math. So for me, this is a great, just a great result.
You know, the stock market as such—you didn't ask that question, but let me get to it. Equity risk premium , as the Economist reported just last night in their weekly edition, equity risk premium is the difference between... the stock and... it's the P/E ratio, inverted upside down. So, if the P/E is 20, that's a 5% premium over 10- year bonds.
It is now less than 1%, which is almost a historic low. This means that investors are willing to take on the risk of stocks compared to 10-year Treasury bonds, which, in my opinion, are themselves overvalued. So, you know, the stock market, I think, is overvalued, based on these and other indicators.
But when you look at what led us to those estimates, Bill, I mean, there were a lot of people talking about this idea. I mean, you mentioned Nvidia and artificial intelligence. The idea that this is some kind of new structural growth story, if you will, that AI is going to make us more productive, and that in turn will lead to better profits and better profit margins here.
Do n't you see any validity in this, uh, thesis? No, I see. Uh, I didn't mention that, and thanks for pointing it out. I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in AI, although I have it here in my pocket phone. Um, but I think, yeah, the consensus is that AI will impact profits in many areas, not just in, uh, chips.
And therefore, if this is the case, then the stock market has a fundamental basis for future development . Eh, we'll have to look into that. But, you know, beyond that, I just think that because of the low equity risk premium and the relatively high P/E ratios, that... You know, the market is overvalued.
Let me point out that real interest rates are indeed very important in the long run for stock valuation. And, as we mentioned earlier, the 5-year real interest rate went from minus 200 to plus 200. That means 5-year TIPS fell 16% and 10-year TIPS fell 20%. And, you know, if everything was fine and nothing changed, if we didn't see AI, if we didn't experience this impulse surge over the last 6 months, then these interest rates in the long term would definitely have an impact on the stock market level, because they themselves would have fallen by 20 to 25%.
Well, Bill, I'm glad you brought this up , because I've been thinking about it too . I remember 2020-2021, when real interest rates were at those deeply negative levels. I've written a lot about how when it goes back into positive territory on a significant scale, it will be bad news for stocks. Obviously, we didn't see it.
Do you think this dynamic is just stalling, or has something fundamentally changed in this relationship? No, I think it's a delay, Kitty. And it's hard to know for sure because real interest rates operate with a time lag. This does n't happen every day. This can be a lag lasting from one to two to three years.
And you both highlighted the fact that the AI, the momentum and, you know, the good earnings season for stocks over the last 12 to 24 months was based on fiscal policy that I don't think will be repeated compared to what we've seen in the past with $3 to $4 trillion deficits. So, absent this, I believe that in the future, if you are a long-term investor, you should be very cautious about stock valuations, despite the development of AI and market momentum.
This is certainly an unusual gap and an unusual effect that has not been observed before.
Comments 0