저자: NourielRoubini · 외국인
요약 보기
비트코인은 현금흐름·실사용 가치가 없어 근본가치가 없고, 가격 급등은 펌프앤덤프·워시트레이딩·테더 발행 등 조작과 FOMO에 의한 투기 거품이며 과거 2017년처럼 급락할 위험이 크다. 비트코인은 인플레이션 헤지 자산으로도 입증되지 않았다. 2020년 2~3월 주식 폭락 때 비트코인은 50% 하락했고, 금·물가연동채 등 전통 헤지 자산이 오르지 않는 상황에서 비트코인만 오르는 것은 조작 외에 설명이 어렵다고 주장했다. 미국 1.9조 달러 부양책은 과장되어 있다. 실제 지출은 약 1/3(약 6천억 달러, GDP의 약 3%) 수준일 것이며 나머지는 저축과 채무 상환에 쓰여 성장 충격은 제한적이다. 저축된 돈이 국채로 흘러가 국채금리 상승을 억제하고, 가계 연체·부실을 막기 위한 사실상의 구제금융 효과가 있어 신용시장도 지지받을 것이라고 전망했다. 따라서 단기간 과열이나 인플레이션 급등은 가능성이 낮다고 봤다. 제로금리와 대량 유동성으로 자산 인플레이션과 거품이 생기고 있으며, 스팩(SPAC) 열풍과 장기 PER 33배 수준, 암호화폐 투기가 그 신호다. 개별 SPAC 중 일부는 성공하겠지만 다수는 실망스러운 수익을 낼 것이고, 시장 조정 가능성이 크다고 봤다. 경제 성장은 시장이 기대하는 V자 회복보다 약할 가능성이 높으며, 하방 리스크가 상방보다 크다고 결론지었다.
다듬은 글
we want to bring in nouriel roubini professor of economics at nyu's stern school of business also ceo of roubini macro associates we're also joined by yahoo finance correspondent julia laroche nouriel it's great to have you back on the program here let's start with bitcoin because the last time you're on with adam and julia you were talking about bitcoin and you were saying you were very skeptical of it that has no fundamental value so i'm curious to get your takes on the massive rise that we've seen since then and why we're seeing so many investors bet on bitcoin well there's a massive rise but there is a huge amount of volatility you know overnight it fell more than 12 and now is down 7 for the day and you have to ask yourself whether retail investors and institutional investors should be investing into something that is so risky and something that is not a currency and it's not even an asset i think it's volatile i think that some of the movement upward is driven not by worries about inflation or the basement of fiat currencies because gold is not going up very much tips are not going out very much why would just uh bitcoin be a hedge against inflation and the basement of fiat currency there must be something else something else is that there is massive manipulation we know there are pump and dump schemes there are wash trading spoofing uh there is front running even by exchanges and there is this phenomenon of tether a stable coin that is produced out of nowhere with we don't know which kind of backing and every other day there is a billion dollar of it issued that goes to buying bitcoin so then there is massive price manipulation there are bunch of whales and insiders that are manipulating this market and we know there are a whole bunch of legal investigation by the doj by the cftc by the attorney general office in new york they're looking into what's going on so i think it's a very risky asset class nouriel it's truly laroche and you're mentioning uh some of the whales who are in the space and you believe it's a risky asset class and i think the last time we did speak you said that look this thing has no place in an institutional investors portfolio or retail investors portfolio yet we've seen a lot of retail investors in the space we have seen a lot of big names very well established names into this space so like why not why not have just even just the tiniest little percentage allocation in bitcoin what what is the argument against just having some exposure well there are some people that are risking their entire house on it i mean if you take tesla if you exclude the credits they get for gas emissions it's still a money losing firm and now they're betting all their entire cash on bitcoin if you want to become a bitcoin fund be a bit confined but not elected vehicle company or microstrategy is a tax firm that was flat for 10 years didn't go anywhere pretty much and now the ceo is betting the entire cash and borrowing a 600 billion dollar on bitcoin so you're not a technology company that people are doing lots of risky stuff you know the people are institutions everybody wants to trade the stuff everybody wants to be custodial because regardless of whether it's worth zero or 50 they want to make money out of the trading it's not as if goldman sachs or the custodians believe in this asset class if you can get the cut out of the exchanges in the crypto space so be it uh and you know institutions are weird you know scott minard from guggenheim partners one day says we're going into bitcoin because it's going to go to 400 000.
and the next month it says no it's going to go down to 20 000. just make up your mind the reality is that nobody knows what the value of this pseudo asset is it doesn't have any value because it doesn't have any income doesn't have any use doesn't have any utility so it's a total speculative play on a bubble that is self-fulfilling and now we have like in 2017 uh hundreds of thousands of retail suckers that are having fomo if you are missing out going to disaster class and they're going to buy the peak like it happened in december of 2017 when bitcoin was 20 000 and fell to 3 000 by the end of the next year so it's the same phenomena just people moving in because of fomo feeding the bubble manipulation and eventually they crash i mean overnight we also one percent which asset classes that volatility let me just keep this simple because a lot of us we we get moved by the big sway fortunately i don't have 50 000 to buy a bitcoin so i'm not at risk but you could do a fractional you know you can buy a fraction of it is there any purpose for bitcoin i hear you dismissing it but i think i'm missing something well an asset usually stocks bonds loans real estate they give you income and therefore there is a reason for the capital gain if the dividends are not fully rebated the profits uh other asset classes like real estate residential gives you housing services you know gold doesn't have income but as users in industry as utility as jewelry and has been used for liquidity purposes and as a store of value for thousands of years so you're asking yourself what is the fundamental value of bitcoin doesn't have any income doesn't have any users in industry doesn't have any utility you can't have a gold chain of bitcoin doesn't give you any pleasure unlike gold and jewelry and other stuff and therefore doesn't have any intrinsic fundamental value because it's not even scalable you can do only five transactions per second with bitcoin well you can they make 24 000 transactions per cycle with the visa network so it's never going to be able to be even a means of payment and it's not a unit of account it's not a single numerator so people say the store of value against tail risk but when in february march of last year u.s stocks went down say 35 uh bitcoin was not a hedge it went down by 50 another cryptocurrency went down by 60 and if it's a hedge against inflation what's the fundamental value that leads it to be a hedge against inflation and if people are so worried about inflation why bitcoin goes from 5 000 to 50 000 while gold has been correcting downwards and break evens are barely above two percent and tips are given your returns are still relatively mediocre if people are really worried about inflation they will diversify in a wide range of assets that are historical good hedges against inflation that's not happening so that might not be the reason why bitcoin is going higher so there must be manipulation there's nothing else that explains this movement and muriel as we talk about the u.s economy some of the people whom we serve at yahoo finance would say the 10-year the yield on the 10-year bond is now approaching 1.4 percent another group of the people we would serve would say 10 million of our fellow americans are still unemployed which would you be looking at as a as a measure of where we stand in this economic recovery about an overheating of the economy based on the fact that we have massive monetary and fiscal stimulus that we are controlling the contagion that we're gonna have vaccines deployed the financial conditions are easy uh but i'm not sure about the overheating because uh uh studies suggest that out of the 1.9 trillion dollar of the fiscal stimulus most of it is not going to be spent is going to be saved because there are millions of households that are in arrears on their ranks on their utilities television cable phone gas electricity or they're not paying their mortgages or personal loans or credit cards or student debts so out of the 1.1 trillion i think the best the one-third is gonna be spent and the other two thirds is going to be saved if that's the case then the growth impulse of the stimulus is not going to be as large secondly the money is recycled through savings is going to end up into treasury bonds and therefore is going to cap how much of those treasury yields are going to rise and 3 is going to be a bailout not only of households but also of credit markets of banks and all the financial market credits that lend to the households that are now under stress so i think that if i'm right about this influence we're not gonna get overheating the bond yields are not going to rise further more we're not gonna have in the short run an inflation burst and we'll have a bailout of household that becomes a bailout of the credit markets that have rallied the lots but they will have room to rally more than otherwise so nouriel um correct me if i'm wrong am i hearing you on this so the 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus you don't think that's going to be excessive um if so can we explore that a bit more and um also the implications you said you know one third of it will be spent uh most of that will be saved and there'll be some that goes into the credit markets what does that mean for the economy well it means that the economy is going to grow less because of the stimulus than otherwise if only a third about 600 billion is spent uh that's about three percent of gdp as opposed to something that is closer to 10 of gdp so there'll be some growth acceleration relative to a baseline without the stimulus but not as large and if the money then is recycled and saved in financial market then i think that the worries of the bond market that the yields are going to go much higher maybe proven exposed incorrect because i think bond markets are worrying that now most of the money is going to be spent and as i pointed out if you are saving it and running out your debts and your our ears then rise in non-performing loans rise of the faults of households on the variety of their loans mortgages credit cards student loans is going to be less than otherwise and you could have further tightening of say spreads in the credit market as well so that those are the implications of it but it's not too it's not too excessive uh well they based on one third spend and two thirds uh being uh saved it would not be excessive in terms of the concerns of folks like larry summers or viet blanchard that is going to lead to a overheating of the economy the part that is going to state and local government is going to be mostly spent but most of the transfers are going to be effective into a household sector and i think many households in order to stop losing their homes are being evicted or foreclosure they'll have to save the money and use it to run down their debts and there are years and that's uh what the economic and empirical studies suggest so it looks like huge on face value 2 trillion dollars but the amount that is really spent is going to be only a fraction of it so it's not acceptable just a little bit though we also want to get your take just on the spat craze and what we've seen play out in the markets over the last several months we saw a record month horsebacks in january on track for another record month in february is there any risk do you think to this well you know i mean the spark phenomena is my view as a broader signal that there is you know with zero rates on the shorthand and very low on the long end there's a mass of liquidity and the short term is not leading to goods or service inflation is leading to asset inflation and eventually to asset bubbles so whether it's tax stocks or the effect that secretly adjusted pe ratios are well above historical average at 33 whether is the bubble in cryptocurrencies where there is uh the spark phenomenon some of it is a signal of this fraudulent financial market because money is so cheap and everybody everybody can borrow and do the investments that may turn out to be good or bad you know some of these tax investments might go for the right companies and be high return some of them given there is frothiness are going to end up with disappointing returns for the investors so i don't think that all of them are going to be successful i don't think there are systemic risks coming from this pack leaving aside the fact that maybe there is excessive fraudiness in financial markets and eventually a correction is likely especially if in my view some of the tail risk of the economy is going to imply that probably the economy is going to grow slightly less than what the markets are expecting the market expecting a v-shape recovery i think there are many reasons they could elaborate on why the growth may disappoint to the downside rather than the upside muriel robini is a professor of economics at new york university's stern school of business also ceo of roubini macro associates thank you as always for joining us and julia laroche thank you for being here as well
Comments 0