저자: CathieWood · 외국인
요약 보기
한 줄 결론: 캐시 우드는 중국 수요 둔화와 석유 수요 정점을 언급하면서도, 혁신 기술주(로보틱스·에너지저장·AI·블록체인)가 과도하게 매도됐다며 장기적으로 혁신주 비중 유지를 강조한다. 거시 수요 측면: 중국 경제지표가 매우 약하고 제로코로나가 원인이지만, 중국이 러시아산 원유를 30~40% 할인가에 대량 매입해 재고를 쌓고 있다고 진단한다. 이 할인 창이 언제 닫힐지 모른다고 봤다. 전기차·석유 수요: 캘리포니아 우버 기사들이 테슬라를 렌트하는 사례를 근거로, 전기차 유지비가 내연차보다 50~60% 낮아 전기차 주행거리(EV miles traveled)가 예상보다 빠르게 늘 것이라 주장한다. 석유 수요는 2019년에 정점을 찍었을 가능성이 높고, 자율주행 전기차가 보급되면 수요가 급락할 것이라 본다. 미국은 사상 최대 원유 생산을 기록하며 세계 최대 산유국이 될 수 있다고 했다. 언급 방향: 석유 수요 하락(전기차 간접 수혜 가능성). 소비자 서비스·기술주: 작년 페이스북·넷플릭스 등 소비자 서비스는 광고 경기 둔화와 틱톡 등 경쟁으로 부진했다. 광고는 경기침체 때 가장 먼저 삭감되는 항목이며, 작년 초 경기침체에 진입했다고 본다. 혁신 플랫폼: 로보틱스, 에너지저장, 인공지능, 블록체인을 핵심 혁신 플랫폼으로 제시. 이들 기업은 공격적 투자 중이라 단기 이익 중심 알고리즘에 의해 과도하게 매도됐으나, AI는 승자독식 구조라 장기적으로 승자가 나올 것이라 봤다. 1990년대 후반 가치투자자가 닷컴 버블 때 비판받았다가 옳았던 상황에 비유하며, 지금 혁신주를 피하는 것이 큰 실수가 될 것이라 주장한다. 리스크/조건: 중국 수요 약세, 석유 할인 창 종료 가능성, 단기 이익 중시 시장 흐름이 주요 불확실성. 출연자 전망: 혁신 플랫폼 기업이 장기적으로 승리한다는 강한 낙관.
다듬은 글
fundamentals are deteriorating, and demand destruction is real. Some of the numbers coming out of China have been astoundingly weak. Zero-COVID is one reason, of course, but I do believe China has been building inventories. The reason it has been doing so is that it's taking advantage of the Russia war: it is buying oil from Russia at significant discounts, and we don't know how long this window will stay open. Reports put the discounts in the 30 to 40 percent range, so we wouldn't be surprised to see inventories much higher almost everywhere in the world, because of the war in Ukraine, the fear of not getting energy supplies, and China and India buying disproportionate amounts of oil from Russia. Russia doesn't have very many other places of size to sell that oil.
Something interesting is happening in the United States, and probably elsewhere too. Many of you may have had the same experience. I was in California for the holidays and took Ubers. Three of the Uber drivers were driving Teslas, so I asked them about Tesla, which I found curious. They said, oh yeah, we're renting our cars from Hertz. Hertz is now charging them less to rent a Tesla, and of course that's the preferred car. Later we learned from Hertz that they're doing this because they've learned that maintenance costs for a Tesla, and I'm sure for other electric vehicles, are 50 to 60 percent below maintenance costs for gas-powered vehicles.
This matters because of a metric we monitor called electric miles traveled. Uber drivers travel many more hours of the day than we do in our personal cars, which we just park when we go to work. So the number of electric vehicle miles traveled is starting to increase much more rapidly because of this Uber phenomenon, and sooner than we might have expected.
It's also very interesting that oil demand seems to have peaked in 2019. There has been a lot of demand destruction because of rising prices around the world, and it will be nip and tuck to see whether we get back to the 2019 number. If we're right, and I'll get into this in a moment, that number is going to drop precipitously because of autonomous electric cars. We used to talk about peak oil in terms of peak supply, that we were running out of oil. Nowadays the phrase I'd say we hear more often is peak demand, and we do believe we're in the process of peaking in oil demand. At the same time, here in the U.S. we're moving toward record oil production, and once again this year we believe we could be the largest oil producer in the world. So supply versus demand sets the price.
On technology, consumer discretionary, and consumer services: consumer services, the FANG-like names, had a horrendous year last year, and anything in innovation was horrendous too. How much actually happened on the innovation front last year was pretty astonishing, and the market ignored it completely. The declines have different causes. In consumer services, Facebook and Netflix are being disrupted, and TikTok is a big disruptor. They're also now much more hostage to the cycle, since advertising is one of the first line items cut during a recession. We think we started a recession early last year because advertising fell off a cliff, and that's at least a coincident indicator, if not a leading one. So those companies are being disrupted.
In the true innovation portfolios, the new innovation names had a very bad year for a different reason. They aren't being disrupted. In fact, they are more often the disruptors than not. They were penalized because they're investing aggressively now, and they're doing so because of the opportunities tied to the five major innovation platforms we've centered our research on: robotics, energy storage, artificial intelligence, and blockchain technologies. These are ready for prime time and taking off, as I'll describe in a moment. The winners will be the companies spending aggressively now, especially in artificial intelligence, where many winners will be in winner-take-most categories. We want that. But when the market is focused on one quarter, wants its profits and dividends now, and the algorithms decide that anything without high profit margins, or anything that disappoints on margins because of more investment, is bad, they make none of these distinctions and just pummel these stocks. Truth will win out.
This reminds me very much of the late 90s. In the late 90s, value investors looked like they had two left feet, like they'd gone dumb. Of course, that was the tech and telecom bubble, which ended badly, and the value investors were right after all. Today, innovation investors look like they have two left feet or have lost their brains. But we are more convinced than ever that these innovation platforms are evolving maybe faster than even we expected, and we believe staying away from innovation now will be as big a mistake as chasing other investors into tech stocks in the late 90s. Truth wins out.
Comments 0