저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 미국 소비자 침체와 인플레이션 고착으로 실적은 부진하나, 주식시장은 2022년 말~2023년 초 바닥을 다질 것으로 본다. 거시 경기: 향후 약 18개월간 미국 소비자에게 힘든 시기가 예상되며, 2023년과 2024년 일부까지 경기 둔화(실업률 상승, 실질임금 감소, 소비 둔화)가 이어질 것으로 본다. 연준 기준금리는 5% 수준 또는 그 이상까지 오를 가능성을 언급. 주식시장: 주식시장이 채권시장과 6~9개월 뒤 경기를 선반영하므로, 연말~연초에 바닥을 형성하고 기반을 다질 것으로 본다. 다만 주가가 50% 하락 후 50% 반등해도 여전히 25% 손실 상태이므로 회복이 쉽지 않다는 점을 강조. 인플레이션: 인플레이션은 끈끈하고 지속적일 것이며, 10년물 브레이크이븐 등 지표가 높은 수준. 재정 부양책(약 1.8조 달러 추가 논의)이 인플레를 자극하는 요인. 자산 시장: 주식·크립토·미술품 등이 역대 최고점 부근에서 거래됐던 2021년 말 상황을 짚으며, 머스크와 베이조스가 올해 110억 달러 넘게 지분을 매도한 점을 언급. 본인도 Sofi 1억 달러 매도 등 체계적으로 유동성을 확보해 왔다고 밝힘. 투자 판단은 각자 상황에 따라 스스로 해야 한다고 강조. 지정학 리스크: 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁이 격화되며 푸틴의 전술핵 사용 가능성이 거론됨. 전쟁 확대와 핵 리스크가 시장에 큰 부담. 출연자들은 서방이 푸틴의 퇴로를 막고 체제 교체를 노리는 것 아니냐는 논쟁을 벌임. 리스크 요인: 에너지 가격, 식량, 일부 국가 디폴트 가능성, 중국 부동산 버블 붕괴 등이 불확실성 요인으로 언급. 종목/자산 언급: 특정 종목에 대한 명확한 매수·매도 추천은 없음. 소프(Sofi) 매도 사실만 언급.
다듬은 글
I'll give you a bit of bad news and a bit of good news and this is just me kind of you know again looking at the Mosaic and kind of judging where we are today the bad news is I think that it's going to be a really tough sticky time for the U.S consumer probably over the next 18 months and so I tend to think that you know through the course of this year and through 2023 and possibly even a little bit of 24 it's going to be a grind unemployment will go back up inflation will be sticky real earnings will shrink consumption will ebb and earnings will not be that great but the Silver Lining is I think that we are starting a bottoming process for the equity markets and I think that by the end of this year or the early part of next year most of that will be done and the reason is that you know the equity markets I think do a reasonable job of one looking at the bond market and then two looking six to nine months into the future and pricing in that future today and so by the end of this year beginning of next year I think that we we will have kind of bottomed and we'll start to build the base the thing to remind us though is that you know let's just say a stock goes down 20 50 percent even if it rallies 50 from there it's still 25 off from where yeah people don't understand that and people don't understand that climb back up to the mountain so I would just I would just think you know um uh we're gonna feel this for a while um it's this inflation as I've said for a long time is going to be sticky and persistent I think you're going to see Fed funds at or breaching five percent and uh but I think that in terms of you know risk assets will bottom out by the end of this year beginning of next year this is a super volatile ugly point in the market this last year has been really problematic and Nick maybe you can play the clip because I really want to make sure that it's it's very clear and on the record what I said almost an entire year ago let me put crypto in the context of the markets and where we are today at the end of the week after you know QT earnings in November of of 2021.
we have the stock market at Absolute all-time highs ripping we have crypto at Absolute all-time highs repping we have the art markets I don't know if you guys saw Phillips and Christie's in Sotheby's this past week at Absolute all-time highs sold another people for 25 million we have inflation at a 30-year High we have 10-year break-evens at a 25-year High we have you know one point some odd trillion dollars that we just approved last week and we're still horse trading on another three you know 1.8 trillion dollars of stimulus that we're going to put in and I think the the most important thing which is the two most important founders of Our Generation the two smartest people who have really consistently won Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have collectively sold more than 11 billion dollars of their Holdings this year alone and if you can't take all of that and decide for yourself what's right for you and your family you're doing yourself a disservice I think it's important for me to never sort of like you know be forced to tell folks whether I'm buying or selling although I'm willing to do it in moments where I think it's important but I think it's really important to understand the context and so I think like these folks that like think derivatively about individuals who are managing risk I think it's really naive and I think it's it creates a lot of missed opportunity for them as well if the smartest people in the world are now selling their core Holdings that they told you they would never sell and you are not reconsidering your position on things you're either much smarter than them or you're being really really Reckless the reason I I said all of those things was because I was getting really worried about where we were um and then and then I think on the heels of that I published a tweet and I and I said I'm starting to sell you know and I sold like a hundred million dollars of Sofi but then I was a systematic seller um through the end of last year and and through this year to try to manage my own liquidity because it changed profoundly as I saw what was happening in the markets so you know I think that it's just an important thing to call out that um things don't always go up and uh you have to pay attention to a mosaic of information and you have to do the work yourself because you know your situation is unique to you nobody else understands it and so you can't Outsource that decision to somebody else obviously you can use it as a guide you know it's fair to say you know when the 13 F's of important hedge funds come out do I read them of course because I'm trying to figure out you know what don't I know what may I be missing maybe there's a great company in there that I that I should be taking a look at so you know I'm not dissimilar to everybody else in that I use other people that I look up to or respect as a leading indicator of what to buy but I still take responsibility for my own decisions and I manage my liquidity as best as I can based on my conditions and those are always changing and so I think this is just a good reminder that everybody else has to do the same if you look historically the US has often been in the middle of or at the tail end of some either recessionary cycle or inflationary cycle when conflict escalated externally Wag the Dog you're referring to I don't know if I would call it that but I think that there is an innate human anxiety when things aren't going well you feel like you have to do something about it and you're either going to have internal conflict or external conflict as a result to try and resolve when when things are going great the economy is booming you don't enter a war you don't start a conflict with a nation when when people are happy at home when your constituents and um and you know the unemployment rate is low and job wage growth is high the economy is growing are you referring to the United States or Russia in this case I'm referring to the U.S and I think I know I was just you know curious if you were coming out of covid and coming out out of the the big question marks that loomed over our economy at the end of last year around inflation economic growth uh interest rates and the effect and now we're in the middle of the turmoil markets are down 30 percent and in some cases 70 to 80 for high growth markets there's a there's an inevitability now that unemployment is going to rise there's an inevitability now that the economy is going to contract leadership is more likely in that scenario to find uh an outlet to find a place of conflict in this theory explain why I don't understand is that what you're saying Freiburg wagged the dog yeah I don't I don't think it's a conscious decision I don't think that it's like hey let's go start a war with Russia because the economy is bad I think it's this anxiety the economy is bad and there's not a lot we can do about it and over here on the other hand there's a problem and there's something we can do about it we can build strength and we can build integrity and we can build support and we can get people to get behind something together and we can get something to to create a driving mechanism to achieve something big like a distraction you're saying yeah yeah and I I don't think that psychology is as simple as a distraction or a Wag the Dog or hey it's not even as simple as the military-industrial complex we'll see Revenue growth and wage growth and that'll drive the economy but I think all those things together are true and I think in in whole we're we're more likely to want to pursue conflict right now than we were even a year ago you buy any of that your month I think he's more right than wrong I think that when um things aren't easy you need to find sort of distractions essentially to get people to focus on other things so that the core problem isn't as obvious we have in the United States I think yeah let's go create another problem that's solvable yeah I like the best I think the best way that I can describe this is I see it as institutional rot and the more that we're left to our own devices that amount of institutional Decay becomes more and more obvious our governments don't work the way that they should you know our state assemblies are basically co-opted by special interests the federal institutions we rely on to make rules are not that great enormous amounts of money get wasted every day and as more and more people become aware of these things it just the trend is just so bad you know Civic engagement goes down everything just gets worse and so when you take that and then on top of that you sit it on a on a poor economy that is a real Powder Keg I think and so folks like to I think if you're a politician it's easier to kind of go and and point to Taiwan and say you know we're going to go and defend these folks if there's a war point to Russia and say this point to all these other things it's a whether it's implicit as free Brook says or it's more explicit of a strategy I don't know but the underlying cause is the same which is that if the foundation of the house is not strong and you're not sure what to do to fix it or you don't have the courage to fix it the better strategic alternative is to distract and talk about your neighbor's house in order to resolve ultimately uh the inflation problem you're gonna have to see a significant increment in unemployment and so when you raise interest rates uh you know generally purchasing goes down demand goes down Revenue goes down layoffs happen uh some businesses go bankrupt Etc so then there's this trickle in the economy of of less people being employed and when that happens It ultimately drives a political response which is hey we're losing our jobs people start asking their representatives do something about this in Congress and then these programs and these things get passed which themselves are inflationary and that's why it's very hard to predict ultimately when and how this all gets resolved because we seem to have an Administration that is enacting and embracing uh inflationary policies to support what they consider to be economic growth and improved employment conditions in this country and the unfortunate effect of many of those policies is inflation and then it forces this difficult Central Bank decision-making cycle and so there's attention right now that doesn't seem to have a clear path to resolution that is why it's very hard to to have a clear prediction here we also have a very significant question overhanging all of these markets related to the price of energy which is a key input to so many Industries and and drives cost as well as food and also the military conflict in Eastern Europe and you know we've and and then there's in the financial markets this big overhand question on what's going to happen with various countries that may default on their debt as well as China's real estate bubble bursting but there's no easy answer that I can just say determines basically here's my prediction of what's going to happen as chamoth uses the term I think it's a great term there's this Mosaic of things that are under under consideration right now and there's a tension between them all uh and um that's that's kind of how I think about it there's a lot of geopolitical risk I mean we're kind of you know ignoring what happened this week where Putin basically is putting nukes back on the table now I'm not saying that's likely to happen but I don't know how again I don't know how this Market gets a lot better with the risk of War 3 hitting over our heads I mean who wants to enter the market with that and by the way the nukes just just to be clear you know um you can hear certain military commanders speaking publicly about this uh but in the Russian military playbooks uh there is specifically defined actions that can lead to tactical nuclear weapon use in the field there's no direct indication that these things are going to be used right away but the as as Sac says there's like this weird like turning up the volume happening on hey maybe we're getting closer to a point where if Putin is having tactical failure in this conflict there's more weapon where you can use that has greater impact and unfortunately there are these tactical nukes in his Arsenal and you know a guy that maybe has a certain psychology that has as our friends have said his back against the wall he's not a person who in his career uh or in his history has ever acquiesced to defeat Alex carp was on CNBC he was really really sharp and concise about this which is that you know in the west When leaders fail in their objectives they just get elected out and somebody else takes their place yeah but for somebody like Putin there is nobody to take his place because it's a very zero-sum situation and so his actions will as a result also be zero summon I think folks he's never acquiesced in his life and yeah yeah we've never we've never really kind of like we don't understand well what zero-sum decision making looks like when it comes to stuff like this he needs the Golden Bridge right he does yeah what but well I'll just say two things one is that I think it's been made pretty clear that both India and China will not stand beside Russia if they do something like this and I think that that is important because they still are the two biggest purchasers of of Russian oil and so I think that matters a lot because you're talking about a lot of Revenue that would that would go away and then the second is I mentioned this last week and this may sound dumb to some of you but um don't sleep on the Russian mothers and what happened oh you're 100 right on that thing what happened this week was really interesting which is that he calls up all these reservists these reservists are not coming from the major cities of Russia you're starting to see protests you're starting to see young people saying I don't want to do this yeah and who's that really activating it's activating the moms yeah and so the losers on the Russian moms 300 people are being drafted you know to basically go fight and I actually think but David's right oh sorry sorry go ahead the question I have for you is do you think I know you don't agree with this but do you think the strategy is to back him into a corner um and then have this like rhetoric Spike to then force a resolution I know it's a dangerous strategy it's a crazy chess move but do you think that's actually what the West is thinking I see no evidence that we have any uh intentions of seeking a diplomatic off-ramp I see no evidence that they're looking for to give him a golden bridge like you said then do you think they're trying to break him and have regime I think Biden stated the policy which is this man cannot remain in power I think he blurted out the truth of his policy this is a regime change policy that's what they're going for they are backing me into a corner chica I thought that you were right this whole time which is we're going to build a golden bridge we're going to find a way to egress this guy uh and I'm now sort of in the David Camp which is I think that the the stated strategy of the Western Alliance is essentially to cause him to make such a categorically catastrophic mistake so as to become a pariah so as to either get overthrown or you know something so I I do think that on balance the risk is now for things to escalate maybe not in quantity and I'll use this word in the wrong way but you know quote unquote like the intensity of of it so um I think David's right it's a lot of pressure to the economy and to to the highest passage Irish there's a high-risk strategy we got a good thing going over here I don't see the need for all this risk so look and part of the risk would be the reward what would you see the reward if Putin was removed oh my lord well it depends who replaces him what if we get a hardliner you gotta remember Putin's taking out all the liberal reformers all that's left are hard lines so I know I know there's moms protesting in the streets but he's also under intense pressure from his his right wing you know he's got Hawks on his side who basically have been criticizing him for making this a special limited Military operation instead of a war they're like why did you try to do this with 200 000 troops we should have gone into heavy with a million is that right there's criticism there's a New York Times article about this he has his own you know military hardliners in his Security State his Hawks so that so he's not just under pressure from peace Nicks or protesting in the streets he's also under pressure from hardliners in his own government who think he's been too soft yeah it's a challenging situation he said he said he's going to be 70 years old how many years does he have left we just need to contain him for a decade he was on our side I don't contain him for one more decade that's my best idea contain them for a decade the thing I have the most trouble with is if you look at the media portrayal of this so I said last week when you know we had this successful counter-offensive that maybe we'll get what we want which is is Russia morale collapses they just tuck their tail between their legs and go back to Moscow or maybe you know the Russians really do see this war as existential for them Putin sees it as existential for himself and he escalates well what happened this week we went up a wrong on the escalatory ladder basically Putin Drew down 300 000 more troops and he's basically indicated his his willingness to use tackle nukes and he's basically said I'm not bluffing so now what is the reaction in the American Press he must be bluffing I mean that basically is the reaction and look I don't know how you know that you know in poker what you in poker what do we do when someone might be we put him on a range it's called a hand range right yes you can't possibly know exactly what they're going to do or what carts are holding so you put them on a range of possible hands and then you evaluate the story in light of their past actions what do they do before the Flop on the Flop and you basically come to a assessment of what is likely based on their story now take Putin's story like Freebird said he's never backed down in his life from anything um he has said this war is existential you know he basically threatened to invade and so he did I mean like I don't know how you can immediately jump to the conclusion this is just a bluff maybe it is but well it could still be it could still be a bluff but then to your point the range of outcomes does include uh shoving on the river moving all in I mean he's a KGB agent do you want to play the poker with a KGB agent with nukes it's right and so Jason you said throughout this guy's a Madman well exactly I mean personally I think he's more like uh ruthless mafia boss than a Madman but but let's say you're right that he is a Madman what is the story about what we're doing that makes sense if he is a Madman why would we want to basically back him into a corner like that why wouldn't we give him the the golden off ramp and by the way just on this idea that no one would ever use tactical nukes let me just give you three data points first of all we use them we drop two atomic bombs on Japan and to end World War II we could have won that war without doing it but we didn't want to lose the troops well no wait those are our attention those are just they were tactical nuke size atomic bombs number two MacArthur wanted to use 20 to 30 atomic bombs to end the Korean War he had a whole plan Truman fired him he thought he basically jump the shark but MacArthur was the most respected and admired American in 1950 and the reason why Truman could not run for your elections because he fired MacArthur MacArthur would have used basically the equivalent of tactical nukes to win the Korean War and his plan to prevent China from reinvading from the north was to irradiate the border so completely that Chinese troops could not go through it keep in mind there wasn't as many nukes at the time so we weren't up against nine different nuclear-enable countries but we had an American Commander ahead of our military who was willing to use nukes to win a war so this idea that he wouldn't I mean we've been willing to do that and the third example is obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis all of Kennedy's military advisor were willing to get to use nukes I mean and the best thing Kennedy did was not listen to his military advisors they were all super hawkish and Kennedy what did he do he looked for a way out he looked for a compromise he sent Bobby Kennedy to go cut a secret deal with the Russians where Kennedy agreed to pull the r Jupiter missiles out of turkey if the Russians would pull their missiles out of Cuba and then he lied to the American the public about it because he didn't want to be perceived as backing down but that's the kind of you know flexibility and mental acuity that I think you would need in a nuclear Showdown to avoid a catastrophe if things do escalate to the point of a nuclear Showdown do we believe that we have leadership on the level of a Jack Kennedy or a Bobby Kennedy who can basically show the flexibility and adaptability to cut a deal to basically pull us back from the brink yeah it doesn't seem like that what was Biden's response it was he gave this speech to the United Nations in response to Putin and it's more of the same as more of this as I call it the Abe Simpson speech it's old man you know yelling at the cloud I mean he's basically just yelling at a teleprompter now I think the the strategically smart play would have been to say listen Putin you said that you want the people of Ukraine to decide where these territories go okay we can hold a referendum but we want to administer by the United Nations so it'll have so it'll have some credibility behind it I mean why not throw that out there as a potential way to get diplomacy started it felt like at the end of last year you guys remember I thought like conflict was likely this year I don't think that the conditions that I was referencing have really gotten better I think they've gotten worse
Comments 0