Ken Fisher Debunks Rising Long-term Interest Rate Fears

요약 보기

결론: 금리 상승이 주식에 예측 가능한 부정적 영향을 준다는 통념은 역사적으로 입증되지 않으며, 널리 알려진 공포는 이미 가격에 반영되어 있다. 시장 통념: 사람들은 인플레이션과 장기금리 상승을 크게 걱정하지만, 주식은 널리 알려진 정보를 이미 선반영한다. 이론과 현실: 금리 상승이 기업가치(미래 이익의 할인가치)를 낮춘다는 이론은 타당하나, 다른 요인이 항상 함께 작용하므로 금리 상승 자체가 주식의 확실한 악재는 아니다. 금리 상승은 긍정·부정 요인과 함께 나타나며, 역사적으로 금리 상승이 주식에 좋거나 나쁘다는 뚜렷한 패턴은 없다. 밸류에이션 검증: 높은 밸류에이션이 낮은 미래 수익을 예고한다는 믿음과 달리, 밸류에이션 수준과 이후 주식 수익률 사이에는 실질적 상관관계가 거의 없다(3개월~5년). 10년 뒤 평균 이상/이하 수익 정도만 일부 시사될 뿐 방향은 알 수 없다. 결론 정리: 금리 상승이 주식에 나쁘다는 주장은 반복되어 이미 가격에 반영됐고, 따라서 그 통념은 오히려 틀렸다는 것이 발언자의 주장이다. 언급 종목: 개별 종목 언급 없음. 대상 자산 중 미국채금리(장기금리 상승 우려 맥락)만 간접 언급. 출연자 전망: 금리 상승 자체가 주식에 예측 가능한 부정 영향을 주지 않는다는 중립~낙관적 입장. 구체적 가격 목표나 기간 예측은 없음.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. right now we get a lot of people pretty concerned about inflation long-term interest rates potentially rising with inflation ironically of course stocks are pre-pricers of all widely known information facts widely known opinions and all these kinds of things i mean there's almost nothing that people pay a lot more attention to there's things but not many uh that they pay a lot more attention to and what do they think is going to happen to interest rates and what do they think is going to happen to inflation so that tends to have a little market impact and in fact in history there is little market impact to this rising rates do not have a predictable impact on stocks that you should be prepared to bet on rising rates coupled with other things might but rising rate by themselves no now the concept behind rising rates being a negative impact to stocks is a somewhat valid theoretical one the value of a business is supposed to be the net future earnings cumulatively discounted back to the present by a valid interest rate that's the right interest rate and so if interest rates go up that means that the discounter would be a bigger number and the present value of that future earning stream would be less and there's other things equal uh validity to that concept other things are never equal and there's always multiplicities of factors going on all the time hence no one thing is ever the singular force that drives stocks it's always this multiplicity of things that could be this could be that could be the other but the fact is that rising interest rates are often paralleled by other forces that could be positive or negative and there's not a overwhelming feature in history showing you that rising interest rates are good or bad for stocks people will not accept that for another parallel reason one of the things that people believe is that high valuations should foretell worse stock futures than low valuations and so when the markets got a high historical evaluation they tend to be more pessimistic than if the market has a low historical valuation and i was just telling you that rising interest rates should discount the present value of future earnings stream more lowering the valuation but when we actually look at the history of both valuations and also interest rate adjusted valuations there's no actual and people will not believe this you probably will not believe this but it's true there's actually no correlation between valuation levels and subsequent stock market returns in any period that a normal human being really cares about and by that i mean the future three-month one-year two-year three-year and five-year returns basically show a correlation coefficient statistically documenting the tenacity or the force of one to impact the other there isn't any it's effectively to a rounding error always very close to zero there's no correlation between valuation levels and future earnings returns until you get out to some very convoluted ways to calculate valuations and 10-year returns and even then it doesn't tell you up or down it just tells you above average or below average future returns 10 years later so my point to you is and summing up now people tell you that rising interest rates should be bad for stocks but in fact that's not measurably true at all and when you have people tell you something is true over and over and over again and you can see this widely in media today widely on things like cnbc and what have you uh when you hear this over and over again you know it's already been priced and therefore you know it's actually wrong thank you very much