저자: BillAckman · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 방송 내용상 명확한 자산별 1~3개월 가격 방향 예측은 거의 없고, 금리와 경기 관련 장기 전망이 중심이다. 거시 금리: Ackman은 연준이 금리 인상을 마쳤을 가능성이 높다고 보며, 경기 둔화 신호(높은 모기지·자동차·카드 금리의 영향)를 언급했다. 장기금리: 과거 2년물 금리가 12bp일 때 5%까지 오를 것이라 베팅했으나 현재는 그 포지션을 유지하지 않고 헤지 성격으로 본다. 30년물 국채금리는 중기적으로 5%대 중반까지 오를 가능성이 있다고 봤다. 주택담보대출: 10년물과 모기지 금리 스프레드가 역대급으로 벌어져 있어, 10년물이 오르더라도 모기지 금리는 현 수준보다 크게 오르지 않을 수 있다고 봤다. 리스크: 변동금리·단기 고정금리 차입자가 재조정(repricing)되면서 문제가 생길 수 있고, 상업용 부동산 투자자와 지역은행이 특히 어려울 수 있다고 했다. 다만 대부분은 장기 고정금리 대출을 보유하고 있다고 했다. 유가·물가: 연준이 통제할 수 없는 유가가 CPI를 좌우하므로 금리 인상이 유가에 효과가 없다고 봤다. 스페이스X·X(트위터): 일론 머스크가 X 상장을 추진할 가능성은 낮다고 봤고, 상장 방식의 특수구조(사전 확정 투자)를 설명했다. 스팩(SPAC) 구조에는 비판적이다. 우크라이나: 장기 전쟁은 미국과 세계에 좋지 않으며 전쟁이 빨리 끝나야 한다는 입장. 출연자 전망: 대상 자산 중 삼성전자·엔비디아 등에 대한 가격 방향 발언은 없다.
다듬은 글
the possibility that you might want to take exu via this this fund so maybe we should back up a little...
Hmm, 여기서 잠깐. 이 원문은 영어입니다. 영어 자막은 영어로 다듬어야 하므로 아래에 영어 원문을 정리해 드리겠습니다.
Just want to remind you that during COVID he came on and said how everything is falling apart, the sky is falling, hell is coming. Things are coming bad, stuff's coming, like there's a tsunami coming. But then we found out he had a short against the market. Bill Ackman, billionaire, bought a $27 million credit default swap that netted him a staggering... you ready? That turned it into $2.6 billion.
Enter this idea of X. One of the things you told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend was that you would be open, absolutely, you said sure, to using this vehicle, if you will, to take X, Elon Musk's formerly Twitter, public. The answer is, I have a lot of respect for Musk. I think Twitter is a really important platform. I think he's made tremendous improvements to the platform, and I think it's a unique, you know, very difficult to disrupt kind of asset, and one that could grow. And he's obviously going to pursue different lines of business, so I think it's quite interesting. I don't have information on how the business is doing. I have no idea whether he has any interest in doing something. I think Elon has plenty of experience and enough backers to take this thing public without Bill Ackman.
With all due respect, have you spoken to him about it?
I have not. So this is just, they asked me a question: would you consider it? The answer is absolutely, because I like the business, I like Musk, and I think it's important.
Of course, he is cloud chasing here by name-dropping X. He was asked about this and said he has no concrete plans of taking X public. He never spoke about it to Elon. He just used this to promote his platform, which is a good marketing move, but I don't think X is going public anytime soon.
Elon just showed you with SpaceX: he's not in the business of taking companies public, because a lot of bad juju comes with taking a company public: a lot of scrutiny, a lot of headaches. If you can keep them private and make money, he's probably going to keep doing it, like with SpaceX. And you had the CEO of Twitter talk about Twitter hitting profitability in 2024. So if he's at profitability right now, if he's starting to turn this ship around, he probably doesn't need to make it public. But he may.
But will Bill Ackman play a role in this? I highly doubt it.
Why do you think all of these SPACs were such failures? Because the deal was such a terrible deal for the counterparty, for the company. Only the worst of companies would transact with them.
Ackman has a structure that solves one of the issues of SPACs, which is the fact that investors put money in before they know which company they're investing in. The simplicity of this is: no shareholder warrants, so it's common stock. They understand that, right? They understand that we're going to buy a billion dollars at $25 a share. We're going to do that in front of them. Time will pass. Hold on. It's going to receive the same scrutiny as any IPO. We have to file an IPO prospectus with the company that has to be approved, go effective by the SEC. Then the rights trade for 20 days, so people can say, "Oh, the rights are trading for a penny, this is a bad deal." If the rights are trading for three or four dollars a share, people say, "Okay, the market likes this transaction."
So there's a lot more information here for the retail investor than there typically is. With a typical IPO, you've got to expose yourself to the world with a prospectus well before knowing whether you can raise any money, and then you're subject to the market. If the market's there and the investors like you, you raise your money. You don't know what the price is, you don't know how much, you don't know whether it gets done. That's the typical deal.
What we've done is reverse that whole process. Imagine a world in which you sit down with an investor. The investor does due diligence on your business, likes your business, likes the management, and says, "You know what, I'll invest a billion and a half dollars at $25 a share regardless of what the market does between the time we file with the SEC and the time the prospectus gets approved. What do you say?" I think every IPO investor would say that sounds like a pretty good deal. And I say, "What if you need more?" We'll guarantee you a billion and a half dollars, a fixed price, and by the way, if you need more, we have a whole bunch of other investors like us who've invested alongside us before, and they're going to get to invest at the same price. What do you say? That's what we call Pershing Square Spark Holdings.
But his thing doesn't solve the main issue with SPACs, which is the lax regulatory approach. I'd like companies that went through the meat grinder of an IPO for a reason. If you're going to use this relaxed regulatory approach to speed through the requirements of going public, I'm not a fan of that. We've seen Lordstown, we've seen Nikola, we've seen a whole bunch of companies. Bad actors will always abuse structures like this. I don't trust any one person. I trust the meat grinder of the IPO. It's not the most efficient thing in the world, but it clears out a lot of garbage.
I want to talk about interest rates, and where you think we really are headed, because you've made some provocative statements about where you think the 10-year is ultimately going to go. I'm curious what you think that ultimately means for equities. We were just speaking downstairs about mortgage rates, and whether they stay at the 7-8% level, and what that means. Do things start to break as a result?
Sure. A few things. One, I think the Fed is probably done. I think the economy is starting to slow. I think the level of real interest rates is high enough to slow things down. High mortgage rates, high car rates, high credit card rates: they're starting to really have an impact on the economy. The economy is still solid, but it's definitely weakening. We're seeing lots of evidence of weakening.
When the two-year Treasury was at 12 basis points, our belief was that it was going to five. We no longer have that bet. The bet, if you will, is really a hedge at this point: that long-term rates, the 30-year Treasury, are likely to go higher. Our expectation is that they go into the mid-fives. What happens there? I don't know. The 10-year doesn't have to go meaningfully above 5%, because you're seeing some weakness in the economy. But on a long-term basis, we think structural inflation is going to be persistently higher. In a world like that, the government shouldn't be able to borrow at 4 and 3/4 fixed for 30 years. So I think long-term rates go higher.
I don't think mortgage rates will go meaningfully higher. The spread between the 10-year Treasury and mortgage rates is about the widest it's been, so you could see a world in which the 10-year Treasury goes up and mortgage rates don't go meaningfully higher than where they are now. A lot of that has to do with breaking the consumer, though. At some point these seven-to-ten-year ARMs are going to roll over, and people are going to have some problems.
And then what happens to the regional banks?
Fortunately, a big percentage of the country has fixed-rate mortgages at 3.5-4% or less. A lot of businesses, a lot of the big companies, have fixed-rate debt extended for a relatively long period of time. So yes, some people have borrowed short-term at a low fixed rate and are going to get repriced, and a lot of commercial real estate investors are going to have a very challenging period. I think that's the big threat.
He also said the Fed is done, no more rate hikes. To me, the question of whether the Fed is done depends on energy prices, which we have no control over. Energy prices, which interest rates in the United States and the Fed have no control over, are going to determine how quickly we survive this or die from it. So at the end of the day, the Fed has no control over CPI right now, because it will be dictated by the price of oil. I don't think the Fed is going to raise rates anymore, because it will do nothing for oil prices.
He did shut up CNBC when they tried to bring up the "Elon loves Putin" argument again. I don't know where that's coming from. A total strawman argument.
Final question: you met with Zelensky. Yes. I think you're a supporter of Ukraine. Yeah, I think you're a big supporter. Would you have liked the US government this weekend to have funded Ukraine? And by the way, how does that square with Elon Musk, who I know has a very different opinion of Zelensky?
I don't know that Musk has a negative opinion of Zelensky. I think his view is that a forever war in Ukraine is not good for America, not good for Ukraine, not good for anyone. I agree with that. I'd like to see a world in which that war ends. It's a Black Swan risk for the world. There are thousands of young and innocent people dying. I'd like to see a world where that ends sooner rather than later.
Okay, Bill Ackman touched on so many different subjects. Thank you, great answer. For Ackman overall, I give him a solid 7.7 for this interview. Shout out to everybody who came in and watched this video with me today. Thank you so much. I'll see you in the next video.
Comments 0