저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 현 시장은 펀더멘털 호조와 느슨한 금융여건 덕분에 고평가 우려에도 사상 최고치를 기록 중이지만, 인플레이션이 일시적인지와 금리가 안정될지가 핵심 불확실성이다. 시장 밸류에이션: 시장이 스트레스를 받고 있고 밸류에이션이 높다는 점을 인정하지만 그럴 만한 이유가 있다고 봄. 경기 회복이 빠르고 자금 유입이 지속되며, PPI 등 나쁜 인플레이션 지표에도 시장이 이를 일시적으로 받아들여 사상 최고 수준을 기록. 핵심 질문: 첫째·둘째 요인(펀더멘털, 금융여건)보다 셋째 요인인 인플레이션의 일시성과 금리의 안정 여부가 가장 중요함. 연준 정책 프레임워크: 연준은 과거 인플레이션이 없었다는 판단에 기대어 경제를 과열시켜도 괜찮다는 결과 기반 접근을 택함. 이는 일시적 인플레이션이라는 큰 베팅이며, 당시 알았다면 이런 프레임워크 변경은 없었을 것이라고 평가. 고용 목표: 실업자 800~900만 명이 아직 복귀하지 못했고 노동시장 재진입이 불투명해 고용 목표 달성은 빨라지기 어렵다고 봄. 기업들은 인력난을 호소하지만 고용 회복은 더딤. 고용 목표가 인플레이션이 뜨거워지기 전에 달성될지가 의문. 제이미 다이먼 서한: 골디락스 시나리오를 언급하면서도 인플레이션과 볼커식 긴축 가능성에 대해 긴장감을 드러냄(고확률로 보지는 않음). 정책 처방: 거시건전성 정책을 강화하고 은행·비은행 모두 주시해야 하며, 완화적 금융여건을 서서히 정상화하는 신호가 필요하다고 주장. 그러나 연준은 가능한 한 오래 완화 기조를 유지할 것으로 예상. 리스크: 인플레이션 장기화 시 금리 급등 가능성, 정책 실패에 따른 시장 조정 위험.
다듬은 글
joining us right now is mohamed elairian advisor uh at allianz and uh gramercy also president of queens uh college cambridge i don't know we'll ask muhammad how nervous are you we just had a a chiron on the screen saying you know uh is the market stretched is the market stretched so is the market stressed valuation wise it is but it is for good reasons i want to stress last week andrew was a build of the goldilocks and the question is can it last you have strong fundamental news the economy is picking up significantly that's great news you had continued inflows and while you had a bad ppi number a bad inflation number the market treated it as transitory so when you have good fundamentals very loose financial conditions and the market is look is is willing to look through the inflation numbers you get the record levels the big question for me is not the first two it's the third one will inflation be truly transitory and will interest rates remain well behaved i think that's the major question facing this market mom can i flip this around you know i'm sure you watched 60 minutes last night and you saw what jay powell had to say and everybody keeps talking about inflation inflation inflation inflation but what i'm questioning actually is if if you think that he considers his mandate in this regard to be about jobs how quickly do you think we actually hit that jobs number and then does he put the brakes on so i don't think we're gonna hit that jobs number quickly because he's talking about the eight to nine million and he even said even more the eight to nine million people who haven't regained their jobs yet and there's a real question mark as to how they're going to re-enter the labor force and how they're going to be absorbed you know companies are having record openings but complaining that they can't wait if they can't find enough people and yet we have eight to nine million people who are still unemployed so there's a fundamental question as to how quickly we're going to be able to achieve his target of employment and whether that happens before inflation gets too hot for him well so that was that was going to be my next question which is how hot does the economy effectively have to run and potentially inflation i want to say run away but run on us to get at the same time that he's trying to get the jobs numbers to his targets so you heard him very clearly yesterday he said in the past we've run it hard and we haven't gotten inflation so we've gone from a forecast base to an outcome-based approach and we're willing to run it hot so this fed is willing to run the economy hot it's willing to take that risk because it in the it looks at history and says we haven't had inflation so we're not going to have inflation that's the big bet the transitory bed that it's making um which clarita the vice chair had an even better explanation basically saying the models that we were based our focus on aren't as reliable so it makes sense to go to an outcome based and do you think that is a a fair way to think about it i'm now thinking back to the the letter that jamie dimon put out last week his annual letter uh where he talked about this goldenly lock scenario but also said i mean if joe was nervous it sounded like jamie was also nervous about the prospect of inflation and even talked about the the paul the possibility of a paul volcker moment i don't think he was putting it necessarily at a high probability but but the idea that he was even talking about it so i do not believe that the fed would have changed its monetary framework and ended up where it is now had it known back then what we know today of course it couldn't no one knew we would have a complete change in demand management with trillions coming out of the fiscal and monetary at the same time no one knew that so i don't think they would have changed the monetary framework had they known but they're stuck in this new monetary framework now am i anxious about the way the fed is running yes i would much rather them see i would much rather see them do two things one is press harder on precautionary policies on macro prudential remember we've had near accidents already so so keep a a much closer eye on what's happening both the banks and non-banks and secondly start very slowly moderating these incredibly loose financial conditions start signaling that the economy is really picking up fiscal policy has kicked in and it's time for monetary policy to somewhat moderate that's what i would do but i don't think that's what they're gonna do they're gonna stay loose as long as they can
Comments 0