저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 샤마스는 버핏·멍거의 비트코인 비판에 동의하지 않으며 비트코인을 포트폴리오의 1% 헤지 자산으로 보유하겠다는 입장이다. 비트코인의 성격: 버핏과 멍거가 기술 자산이 아니라 비생산적 자산(금과 유사)으로 본다는 점에 샤마스는 동의하며, 비트코인을 금의 대체재로 본다. 포트폴리오 전략: 자신의 포트폴리오는 위험자산 99%, 위험회피 1%로 구성되며, 그 1% 버킷에 비트코인이 중요한 위치를 차지한다고 설명한다. 상관관계 주장: 비트코인은 전통 시장과 직접적으로 상관되지는 않지만, 시장 유동성 증가가 비트코인 매수세를 키운 면이 있다고 본다. 헤지 근거: 2007~2008년 금융위기 때 헤지 자산들이 무너진 사례를 들어, 향후 위기에서도 전통 자산은 상관되어 하락할 수 있으니 비상관 헤지로서 소액 보유가 보험 역할을 한다고 주장한다. 금과의 관계: 금은 수천 년의 가치 저장 기록이 있으나, 젊은 투자자들은 디지털 자산을 선호한다고 본다. 두 자산이 배타적일 필요는 없다고 한다. 비판에 대한 반론: 이해하지 못한 채 폄하하는 것은 불공정하며, 버핏·게이츠의 전문성은 인정하지만 30~40년 뒤 시장을 누구도 정확히 알 수 없다고 강조한다. 리스크: 유동성 축소 시 비트코인 가격 변동성, 그리고 위기 시 전통 자산 간 상관관계 상승이 주요 우려로 언급된다. 출연자 전망: 샤마스는 비트코인 장기 보유 및 헤지 역할을 긍정적으로 보나, 1~3개월 단기 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 발언은 없다.
다듬은 글
you have been a big bull on bitcoin yeah um we had some folks that some people know on our show earlier this week Becky was out in Omaha I want to show you what they had to say if we could roll the tape on bitcoin from Mr Munger and Mr Buffett the asset itself was creating nothing I think it's a scumball activity yeah I would short it if there was an easy way to do it so there you have it you have Bill Gates Warren Buffett Charlie Munger one of them was calling it a scumball activity the other saying Bill Gates saying he would short this thing if he could and you're saying they're all wrong yeah explain um well look not everybody is right all the time and I think we have to acknowledge that we all have biases and look I'm a disciple of Buffett and monger and one of the things that um they have said for years which I believe is you define a circle of competence and you stay within it and I think it's been clear in his entire investing career that technology is not in his circle of competence and so the only technology name that he's owned is Apple I mean he you could claim that IBM was a technology company that's borderline it's out of that that didn't work anyway right and apple I was thinking that if he got in Bitcoin if he eventually got in Bitcoin when he got in events it got into Apple it had already be at a million dollars probably probably but shamath just going back to this this I don't think he looks at as a technology I think he looks at it as an asset class that he would put in the same similar class with gold just it's a non-productive asset it's an asset that is only worth more if other people agree to pay more for it that that's the type of issue which I also agree with I think I think it is exactly that I think it is a replacement to Gold but again but you like gold you're saying you like non-productive assets I like in a portfolio again my portfolio is 99 risk on one percent risk off and in that one percent risk off bucket I think that something like Bitcoin is really important why because it is not correlated to the rest of the market and the biggest thing that's changed you don't believe that the success of Bitcoin over the past several years has been correlated to the market I would say not directly correlated but clearly so the idea that there's as much liquidity in cash sloshing around in the world has allowed people to buy into Bitcoin in a way that they wouldn't have frankly if it's different than being correlated to a stronger that's a liquidity argument I've been in the liquid I've been in the Bitcoin Market since 2012.
and I feel like I'm in two different universes I need a passport to go between the Bitcoin world and my regular World these are not the same people and what I would tell you is the people that own Bitcoin in 2012 all the way up to now the majority of those people view it as a hedge to the traditional Financial infrastructure whether that's true or not is unclear but that's how we've all viewed it separately what Joe says is absolutely right there's a big difference between correlation and liquidity and the reality is all of these Financial Assets in the traditional markets are fundamentally correlated we saw that in 2007 everything broke down things that we thought were Hedges went away and so I think it's really important to not forget what happened there so in 2018 or 19 heaven forbid we go through another cataclysmic financial event we are going to see the same fundamental correlation and so again I ask why would it not make sense to have a non-correlated hedge for a small amount this is about buying insurance it was the same reason why in 2008 the folks that bought simple simple Insurance bought some CVS buy gold I mean at least Gold's got a 3 000 year 10 000 year record of of being a store of value I mean I think that's the other thing Buffett's saying there's no reason to think this is a storm I think that's a fair point but I think these are not exclusive decisions and you know for for this younger class of entrance into the market they probably don't want to buy gold in fact they don't want to buy gold and they want to buy something that's much more digital and reflective of their value I feel though about the idea that that Charlie sort of suggested that there's something sort of scummy about that or that there's a lot of scum in the crypto world right now and and that there's a lot of people who have been sort of sucked into this world that have bought into this world by by some folks who may not be as um look I think it's really unfair to not understand something and then to disparage it again I think he's exceptional I think Warren Buffett is exceptional I think Bill Gates is exceptional at what they do and I think it's fair to say that in 30 or 40 years if I'm you know a vibrant successful investor and if I'm back on this show the idea that I know what's happening 30 or 40 years from now as well as some other new 40 year old or 30 year old entrant into the market it's just not true the reality is things change hey there thanks for checking out CNBC on YouTube be sure to subscribe to stay up to date on all of the day's biggest stories you can also click on any of the videos around me to watch the latest from CNBC thanks for watching
Comments 0