저자: JeremyGrantham-제목·채널기준,인터뷰형식으로추정 · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 미국 성장주(특히 기술주)는 과대평가되어 향후 10~20년 수익률이 낮을 것이며, 신흥국 가치주가 상대적으로 유망하다. [시장 전반 및 버블 진단] 현재 시장은 통화 완화로 만들어진 버블 국면이며, 자산가격 상승은 신뢰가 유지되는 동안만 지속된다. 미국 기술주는 2000년과 같이 과대평가되어 있다. [금리·밸류에이션] 장기국채 및 TIPS 실질금리가 마이너스로 떨어져 주식이 상대적으로 싸 보이는 비교는 왜곡된 기준이라고 비판한다. [신흥국·가치주] 해외 신흥시장은 미국만큼 과열되지 않았고, 역사적으로 S&P 대비 가장 싼 수준이다. 신흥국 저성장(가치) 종목이 매력적이며 향후 10~20년 연 10~20% 수준의 괜찮은 수익을 기대할 수 있다. 미국 성장주는 그런 수익을 내기 어렵다. [인플레이션·인구] 통화 발행이 지속되면 인플레이션이 재발할 수 있고, 식량·금속 등 원자재 가격이 상승 중이다. 노동인구 증가율이 0 이하로 떨어지는 전환점에 있다. [가치지표 비판] PBR·PER·배당수익률 등 단순 지표로 가치를 판단하는 것은 잘못이며, 저PBR은 시장이 가장 나쁜 자산에 매긴 평가라고 본다. [그린 테마] 재생에너지·전기차·전력화 관련 기업은 향후 수십 년 동안 성장 여력이 크며, 미국 주식 중 보유할 만한 대상으로 본다. [비트코인·금] 비트코인은 배당이 없고 신앙에 의존하므로 본질가치가 0에 가깝다. 다음 약세장에서 신뢰가 사라지면 큰 타격을 받을 것으로 본다. 금도 배당이 없어 불안하지만 비트코인보다 역사가 길고 가치 보존 특성이 있다. [규제·파생상품] 레버리지 ETF·스팩 등은 전문가가 이익을 챙기는 구조로 일반 투자자에게 불리하며 금지되어야 한다고 주장한다. [출연자 전망] 시장 버블 붕괴 가능성을 강하게 경고하며 분산투자와 신중한 접근을 권한다.
다듬은 글
if you go back to before the covid, what you see is we have lost considerable strength in the economy. We have fewer people working, and we have a reduced stream of goods and services, and yet the price is much higher. So if you believe in market efficiency, which is wrong, was it wrong before, or is it wrong now? But is it really justified that we have delivered a serious wound to the global economy, and the global stock market has gone way up? It doesn't feel right. I think we all know that this is a monetary game, and you can keep these little monetary bubbles going for just so long as you keep confidence rising. But when confidence has reached these levels, the history books are pretty clear: it's very difficult to increase your enthusiasm from a state of mild hysteria.
Wherever we are today, I've been around to see a 30-year bond, and I now see it at whatever it is, two and a half. We saw real rates in 2000, where real rates on TIPS were 4.1, 4.2, real guaranteed forever, and now they're nothing. Of course they're negative, and negative all over the world. What you're saying there is that we've got an artificial interest rate structure, clearly artificial, that has been driven down all over the world into negative territory. About 20% of government bonds have a negative real return, and we're going to use that as a yardstick. We're going to say stocks are cheap because they are less utterly ludicrous than a 30-year bond or cash, which is deeply negative. This is not typically the way you measure things, by taking a ludicrously mispriced comparison. That's what we're doing. It makes people feel happy. It doesn't make me feel happy. I suspect selling everything would work out just fine.
However, having said that, there are major discrepancies, as there were in 2000, between U.S. tech, which is overpriced, the same as it was in 2000, and everything else. So the value stocks, the low-growth stocks if you prefer it, are about as cheap relative to the high-growth stocks as they ever get, so they will not have the same pain, but there's still risk to some degree. I suspect the good news is that overseas they have not had this same huge bull market and the same overpricing that we have had, and that, of course, is a heaven-sent opportunity. You can go out into the emerging markets, and they are absolutely not that expensive, despite the ridiculous argument of comparisons with an overpriced bond market. They're simply not that bad. Compared to the S&P, they're as cheap as they have ever been. They've been this cheap two or three times, and each time it's worked out very well. So you can buy emerging markets, and you can look at the intersection of those two ideas, which is the low-growth stocks or the value stocks within emerging markets, and they are handsomely priced. You should be able to make a really decent 10- to 20-year return there. You will not make a handsome 10- or 20-year return from U.S. growth stocks.
There is in the air a simple arithmetic: the higher you bid up the price of an asset, the lower the long-term return you will get. There's nothing you can do to change that equation. Every day the market goes higher, you know only one thing with certainty: the long-term return will be less than it was the day before. What happens if that happens? Then there'll be a lot of sad value managers. Now the question is, will it happen? It would be historically unprecedented for that to happen. I'm pretty certain it will not. However, having said that, let me say one thing about value. I have had no confidence, and have not had any for over 20 years, in price-to-book, PE, price-to-cash-flow, or price-to-sales as a measure of true value. A measure of true value is the long-term discounted value of a future stream of dividends. A growth stock is, of course, worth a higher ratio of this and that, and the low-growth stock less, but that doesn't mean they can't be overpriced. So value should be cheap for what you are. You should build in the growth, you should build in the quality, and if it's overpriced, it's overpriced. To use a simple-minded measure of book is a crazy idea. A cheap book is the market's vote on the worst assets out there in the marketplace. The lowest PE is the market's vote on the worst earnings, most likely to be overstated or downgraded, and the same with yield. It's the market's vote on the most likely to be cut. These have no business being good indicators of future performance.
I'm also worried, by the way, about inflation. If you think you live in a world where output doesn't matter and you can just create paper, sooner or later you're going to do the impossible, and that is bring back inflation, which we haven't seen for 20 years. If you keep it up on a global basis, you will have inflation. I can't help but notice that around the world, commodity prices of all kinds, but particularly critical food and critical metals, are going up. If you have that happening, and you have a rapidly declining growth rate in the workforce, towards zero and negative, you are really set up for "this time is different." So we are not just in a bubble market, but we're looking at a global economy that has reached an inflection point, turning down in long-term growth rate. This is a bad time to be caught over-speculating.
Yes, first of all, very difficult, and secondly, of course, diversify. It's always a huge advantage. Thirdly, amazingly, the low-growth stocks in the emerging market world are perfectly reasonable if you need to earn stocks, and most people do. That would be a perfectly good way to go. I also think shares will benefit from the greening of the economy and will do much better than the rest. Anything to do with renewable energy, the electrification of the system, electric cars, etc., these are all going to have top-line revenues that dwarf the declining growth rate of the rest of the global economy. It will take trillions of dollars to decarbonize the global system. It will dominate everyone's portfolio, and if you have to own U.S. stocks, they're the ones to own. Look around for a good climate change fund. I'm happy to say GMO has one, and they're doing very well. Now that the focus is clearly there, it finally took 20 years to wake up, but in the last year people really are beginning to understand the size of the problem and the need to move money into greening the economy.
What is the future value of the dividend stream of Bitcoin? I can tell you that doesn't take a prize-winning mathematician. It is nil. It will never pay you a dividend. If you're desperate, can you eat it? No, you can't. Its entire value is on the greater fool. Is it not? So Bitcoin could be worth a million dollars a unit if you can find someone to pay it. That should give you a measure of restraint in your enthusiasm. For gold, granted, gold has had the odd 12,000-year test, which it has passed pretty well, and Bitcoin has a few years to go yet to catch up. Secondly, gold does have some fallback qualities. It doesn't tarnish. It's unique in that sense: everything that was ever made of gold is still around, and that's a pretty handy characteristic that Bitcoin also lacks. So I would say yes, I'm nervous about gold because I can't eat it and because it pays no dividend, but it has two wicked advantages over Bitcoin. Bitcoin is 100% faith. Come the next market phase, where faith is at a minimum, what do we think will happen to a stock whose entire reason for existence is faith, and nothing but faith?
It makes no commercial sense at all for them to attempt to warn the clients of impending doom. It is terrible business to blow the whistle on a major bull market. If you're a commercial enterprise, you make your money by having the bubble keep going. If the market doubles, three or four percent of that gets spent and helps the economy. Now, he was right, and he bragged about it, and then following him, Bernanke bragged that they had contributed to the health of the economy, and they had. Now the Fed also brags that it has done its part and has helped encourage the economy through high asset prices. All of that's true. The bad news, however, is that we live in a world that is, in the end, a real world of people and production. In the end, therefore, despite Alan Greenspan's enormous willingness to create a new permanent golden era of productivity, etc., the S&P still came down 50%, and the NASDAQ still burst and went down 82%, despite his fanatical interest in moral hazards and helping out stock market prices. The point is they did not brag about the negative effect of the market mean-reverting back to normal. It comes in just the time you don't need it, and it sucks out of the economy a negative wealth effect.
As it will this time, SPACs are completely, should be, a completely illegitimate instrument. They're just an excuse for people with reputation and marginal ethics to raise a lot of money, take 20% of it for themselves for a quick dash around the country for six months, and a complete rip-off in the sense that the professional hedge funds then always liquidate before taking any real risk and take the premium they can get, and a few warrants, leaving the half of the marketplace that retains it, who put their money up, on aggregate with a very bad return. Of course, they'll make some money in the late stages of a bubble, but if you look at the first six years, they have a handsomely sub-average return for taking all the risk. No, they don't have enough legal requirements, enough restraints, enough checking. They are thoroughly reprehensible instruments in my opinion and should be disallowed.
Comments 0