저자: MarcFaber · 외국인
요약 보기
귀금속 장기 강세 지속을 주장. 금이 $3,000~4,000으로 조정 가능하나 장기적으로 $20,000~30,000까지 상승 전망. 광산주는 비싸지 않으나 하락 조정 가능성 언급. 법정화폐 구매력 장기 소멸, 중앙은행 양적완화 함정, 국가부채 이자 부담 확대로 추가 화폐 발행 불가피 주장. 중동 지정학 리스크 언급.
다듬은 글
I don't think that mining stocks are very expensive. I think, I think they will drop in price. I don't believe the gold bull market is over. I think it will continue. So, can he, you know, we've crossed the $5,000 an ounce mark. Could it drop to 4,000 or 3,000? But it could also go up to 20,000, as I said, I have a very large stake in precious metals .
Perhaps the time will come when I will say that I have invested everything in precious metals. I haven't done it yet. I have friends who are truly "gold bugs ." They hold 80% of their assets in gold and precious metals . Global macroeconomic stability is rapidly deteriorating as decades of aggressive central bank intervention and uncontrolled currency depreciation distort capital markets.
Investors around the world are facing increased volatility caused by unmanaged fiscal deficits, incompetent interest rate policies, and systemic liquidity traps ; Marc Faber, a renowned Swiss economi,” predicts that the long-term “ bull” market for gold is far from over. While mining stocks remain reasonably priced and may face interim downward corrections, physical precious metals are structurally poised for long-term growth.
Having previously crossed the $5,000 per ounce threshold, gold prices may undergo a period of interim consolidation to the $3,000–$4,000 level before resuming their macroeconomic growth. However, continued monetary depreciation and central bank expansion will eventually push gold towards targets of $20,000–$30,000 per ounce.
Despite the recent surge in precious metals prices, the vast majority of institutional fund managers, ETF allocations, and ordinary retail investors hold a meager share of real assets, guaranteeing a significant capital inflow once confidence in sovereign monetary policy is completely lost. 'm looking at myself, of course.
I am someone who has been advocating for owning precious metals for the last 40 years, I buy them every month, and I also tell people that they should have some precious metals ; because if they don't have them, they trust central banks, and look at those characters who sit in those banks. Would you trust them?
Absolutely not. But, but I also hold dollars because I have a financial business, I buy and sell securities, and sometimes I have liquidity because of my views, and sometimes because I sold an asset that we owned, and so on. In any case, the bulk of today is still in US dollars. I have portfolios that I value in euros and portfolios that I value in Swiss francs , and their value fluctuates greatly depending on the assets, and these fluctuations often occur unpredictably.
As I said, I have a very large holding in precious metals , but there may come a time when I can say I have it all in. I have n't done it yet, but I have friends who are real gold fans. They hold 80% of their assets in gold and precious metals . Oho. Yes, 80%, they don't own real estate, stocks, only gold assets.
But they are not interested in companies in Asia or anything like that. They are interested in assets related to gold, silver, and platinum. Mhm. You once said something like that. But I wanted to say, if you go...Where do you live? In Canada. Canada. OK. Let's say you're at a cocktail party with wealthy people.
And you ask them, "Oh, you saw the price of gold and silver went up. Do you have any?" And they will say: " Yes, there is." And the wife will add: "Yes, I have earrings from my grandmother." And everything is in that spirit. But people, and Canada is one of the best countries in terms of gold ownership, because the mining sector there is very large on the stock exchange.
However, the typical Canadian owns no more than 3-4% in gold . Also, fund managers—we can measure how they allocate funds to tech stocks, coal, minerals, MGM. and into gold, silver, platinum, healthcare, etc. The share of gold ETFs in the total ETF volume is negligible. The share of energy is negligible.
Before the energy market took off recently, I wrote a report. I have a schedule. I posted a chart in February about the record short position in oil futures. These are hedge funds. People are giving money to the hedge fund community. They manage them, and they have record short positions, I also sold some of the shares of the mining companies.
Mhm. But I didn't sell enough. That is, I needed to sell more. Always the same story. You know, you buy too much of something that doesn't increase in price. And you don't sell enough of what's falling. Always like that. Yes. You don't buy enough when it's but let's just say I don't think mining companies are incredibly expensive right now.
I believe their prices will go down. I don't believe the gold bull market is over. I think it will continue. Well, maybe he, you know, we went above $5,000 an ounce. Can it drop to 4000 or 3000? Yes, but it can also grow to 20, 30 thousand. I think Kevin Walsh is not the one who prints money. I consider him to be a generally reasonable person.
And I listened to some of his speeches. He has deep knowledge in economics. Unlike Bernanke and Yellen , she didn't understand anything at all . She does n't understand anything. But, uh, and Powell is better, I mean , I've been criticizing the Central Bank for the last 40 years, and I always said, " Greenspan is an extremely intelligent man." He has his flaws, but as an intellectual he is brilliant." He was a terrible forecaster and a relatively weak economist as a professional.
He had almost no clients left when he closed his firm and became chairman of the Fed. But he was suitable for the position of Fed chairman because he arranged...You have to understand that Wall Street is very powerful. Money in America has enormous power. Do you think Wall Street likes it when asset prices fall?
No. Their commissions depend on the size of the assets, not their quality. From the size. And they will always want the Fed to print money. You will never find a Wall Street economist who would honestly tell the public that the Fed is making a huge mistake, that they should tighten monetary policy and let asset prices fall by 30% because then they will become affordable.
Why, why is the housing market not doing very well right now in terms of sales volume? Because houses are too expensive. No one can afford them except the richest 1% . Unsecured fiat currencies serve as practical units of account for commercial exchanges, but history proves that they are fundamentally incapable of preserving wealth across generations in long historical cycles.
The purchasing power of every paper currency inevitably approaches zero. When structural economic crises arise, the theoretical remedies are tight monetary policy, fiscal austerity, and controlled defaults. However, political authorities systematically avoid these measures because the consequences of social and economic pain threaten their ability to hold on to power.
Governments consistently choose to aggressively print money to plug budget holes, postponing addressing structural problems until later. When an economy embarks on a path of massive quantitative easing, it becomes impossible to stop the stimulus without provoking catastrophic disruptions in financial markets.
To prevent systemic collapse, central banks are forced to print ever-increasing amounts of liquidity, creating an inevitable monetary trap that ultimately destroys consumers' purchasing power. Now let's get back to the interview. I have a feeling that the dollar is a currency doomed to destruction, definitely.
Definitely. But others may not be better. Do you understand ? This is why many young people are buying cryptocurrencies . I have serious reservations about cryptocurrencies, but I don't want to lecture on the subject. I prefer precious metals , but I see the need for paper money to buy and sell goods.
Because, you know, you go into a department store, you need a unit of account to buy something, and paper money is suitable for that unit. But I think paper money is not good as a means of saving because the purchasing power of money ... I can compare the prices I paid in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up and the prices I have to pay now.
Of course, paper money lost its purchasing power. On the other hand, if I had put all the money on deposit in Treasury bills and kept them rolling, or invested it all in gold, the purchasing power would probably be preserved better, you know? Including the accrued interest. Yes. So the calculations are not that simple.
Mhm. But in general, if you look at history, the value of paper money has always fallen to almost zero, always. Because when problems arise in a social system where there is money, the optimal solution would be a tight monetary policy and default. But these measures are so painful for society that rulers or politicians will not choose them.
Because the main concern of a ruler—king, lord, emperor, or democracy—is to stay in power, so that the party stays in power. So they use the money printing method to overcome short-term problems and say to themselves, "Well, we'll solve this issue later." But once you start printing money—and I want to point this out and emphasize this—once you start printing money, as Bernanke did in December 2008, you can't stop without significant pain.
And this significant pain is avoided by printing even more money. Now in economic theory, in classical theory, it has been proven that you need to print more and more money to maintain the system . As you know, interest payments on the national debt have skyrocketed. They will continue to grow, and soon they may consume the entire budget.
At that point, what else is there to do but print money? I think in any country, people would like to see new leadership. But what does this new leadership bring? And I want to warn the audience not to think that Iranians living in Hollywood, the US, London, etc. necessarily represent the people of Iran.
These are people who left Iran, many of them with the Shah, because their property was confiscated during the revolution. But you have to be clear about one thing, and to be honest, I find it hard to understand. The Shah of Iran was not a perfect leader, but to his credit, he wanted to modernize Iran, and his modernization programs were being hampered and resisted by the clergy, the mullahs, who wanted him removed.
And who supported the mullah then? Western world. They removed the shah. Mm. Yes. We have seen this in many places. Regarding Iran, I think most people would welcome a different government. Mm. I probably agree with you here, but a different government doesn't mean they're going to start hugging Israelis and saying, "Oh, Netanyahu is such a nice man, he liberated us." Do you think people will think that way?
A unit of account for trade. But I'm concerned that if this war escalates—I'm talking about China and Russia, and by the way, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India—nobody has an interest in the United States controlling Iran. They all want control, just like in the Middle East. They don't want the Americans to control the entire Middle East because they will think: if America was able to enter Iran and occupy the country, they can do the same to me in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.
And by the way, if you want to find a population that's not very happy, just go anywhere in the Middle East, because poor people haven't made as much progress as rich people, that's obvious. The rapid growth of public debt and interest-bearing liabilities is pushing national budgets towards complete fiscal insolvency.
As public debt service obligations grow uncontrollably, interest payments will absorb all government revenues, leaving central banks with no choice but to directly monetize the debt. Wall Street institutions and the financial elite actively encourage this constant expansion of liquidity, as their revenue models depend heavily on asset growth rather than on their actual quality.
This ongoing erosion of the money supply is permanently distorting the availability of real estate in the domestic market, pushing ordinary citizens out of the housing market and concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthiest 1%. Simultaneously, deepening geopolitical frictions in the Middle East threaten critical energy corridors and global shipping lanes.
Leading regional and Eurasian powers will resolutely resist external geopolitical dominance, significantly increasing the likelihood of broader international conflict. As unbacked paper assets lose systemic trust, real assets and strategic commodities will become the primary vehicles .
Comments 0