저자: MarcFaber · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 글로벌 경기와 미국 주식에 대해 여전히 비관적이며, 주식보다는 금·은 등 귀금속과 일부 신흥국 및 싱가포르 시장에 상대적 매력을 두는 입장이다. 미국 주식 및 경기 전망: 미국 증시는 완전히 반영되었거나 고평가 상태이며, 기업 이익이 하락하고 세계 경제활동이 둔화되고 있어 주식 투자에 신중해야 한다고 주장. 섹터 로테이션: 2011년 이후 금광주는 80~90% 폭락했다가 올해 거의 100% 반등. 말레이시아·태국·인도네시아 시장은 달러 기준 9~12% 상승. 앞으로 시장은 인덱스 대신 섹터 강세를 활용하는 적극적 운용으로 이동할 것으로 전망. 아시아·중국: 연초 중국 경기에 대한 비관으로 마카오 카지노주(샌즈차이나, 윈차이나)가 크게 하락해 현재 매력적인 수준이라고 평가. 중국은 단기 문제가 크지만 장기적으로는 보상이 있을 투자처라고 봄. 다만 싸다고 할 수준은 아니라고 언급. 귀금속: 금광 섹터는 새로운 강세장에 진입했다고 판단. 금·은·백금·팔라듐이 바람직한 통화로 선호됨. 달러·금리: 장기적으로 달러는 약세 통화로 보나, 미국 10년물 금리 1.93%가 독일·프랑스 등 마이너스 금리와 비교해 금리차 때문에 당분간 달러는 괜찮다고 봄. 단 연준이 금리를 인하하거나 마이너스 금리를 도입하지 않는다는 전제 조건부. 중앙은행·정책: 현재 마이너스 금리는 인류 역사상 처음이며 좋게 끝나지 않을 것이라 주장. 헬리콥터 머니(1인당 1만~2만 달러 지급)가 단기 부양은 하지만 장기 성장에는 도움이 안 됨. 정부 개입·규제 확대에 비판적이며 시장 자원배분을 선호. 신흥국: 브라질·러시아 등은 경기침체지만 밸류에이션이 크게 낮아졌고 상대적으로 매력적. 싱가포르 주식은 배당수익률 4% 수준으로 제시. 미국 시장은 PS·PER·시총/GDP 등 어떤 지표로도 매력이 낮음. 정치·무역: 트럼프가 미국 경제를 해칠 수도 있지만 힐러리 클린턴은 세계를 파괴할 것이라며 상대적으로 트럼프를 지지한다고 발언. 다만 자유무역 제한은 시장에 부정적이라는 데 동의. 리스크: 정책 실패, 신용 버블 재형성, 중국 등 단기 불확실성 존재. 세계 경기 둔화와 주식 이익 하락이 핵심 리스크.
다듬은 글
The last time we spoke, you're clearly bearish on on your view of the global economy and the global markets. How does this factor in now? How does that change that view if at all the terrorist attacks that is? Uh I haven't changed my view. I think what we have is in the US uh stock market that is basically if not fully priced then overvalued.
given that the earnings will rather come down and around the world we see a a slowdown in economic activity. So overall I'd be rather cautious about investments in equities. However, over the last uh 12 to 24 months, many sectors have had huge declines. Say you take gold mining shares since 2011 they dropped 80 90% and so this year they had a strong rebound many gold shares are up close to 100%.
And I think what will happen is that the market will turn into more active management of equities. In other words, away from index funds and that will favor uh managers that take advantage of sector strength. We also have this year say Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia. These markets are up in dollar terms between nine and 12%.
So different sectors will move at different times. Sure. And I see here and there some opportunities. What are the opportunities in your view right now, Mark? Well, I think that in Asia, the sentiment turned very bearish at the end of last year and especially concerning China and the Chinese economy.
And as a result of that uh Macau gaming companies, casinos in Macau got slaughtered and now they are in my view at the relatively attractive level. They started to move up. Sands China, wind China and so forth. These equities are in my opinion quite attractive and I still feel the mining sector has embarked on a new bull market.
Hey Mark, it's Tim Seymour and I just want to ask you a question because you've been so bearish for so long and you're talking about constructive things you see in China. Uh and yet the rest of the I think the market public largely thinks China is one of the biggest issues out there. Where are you now versus where you were in '09 on China?
Well, in ' 09 we had just gone through a recession and actually I turned quite bullish about China in 2014 before the 100% rise in Chinese equities. Uh now that stocks have again declined very substantially. I have to say uh given the size of the country and given the variety of different sectors there are some opportunities from a longer perterm perspective I don't think it's a bargain by any means but I believe that China despite its nearterm problems that could be very substantial will in the long run be a rewarding investment destination.
Uh Mark, you had mentioned gold miners and your belief that this uh is a start of a of a bull market uh for gold miners. Is that does that necessarily mean that you're also bullish gold itself which has had a nice run year to date? And is that inherently a call on the US dollar as well? Yes. I don't understand why the world is uh so enthusiastic about the US dollar.
I think in the long run the US dollar will be a weak currency. Having said that, you see I can buy now a 10 years US treasury at the yield of 1.93%. And in Germany, France, Europe, I have in many cases negative interest rates. So because of the yield different difference yield differential I think that actually the US dollar provided the Fed doesn't cut interest rates again and provided the Fed doesn't introduce negative interest rates provided all these conditions I think the US dollar should be okay but not the desirable currency and that's why I think the most desirable currency will be gold, silver, platinum and uh palladium.
Got it. Mark, thanks so much for phoning in. We appreciate it. Christine Lagard as you know the IMF managing director has come out today and she has said the world economy would be bet would be worse off excuse me without negative interest rates. I knew you'd laugh and she she admitted she was being counterfactual.
I suppose your laugh tells me what you think of that comment. Look, I believe that the interventionists uh with fiscal policies and with monetary policies, in other words, the so-called neocanesian or new Keynesian, that is their excuse. They will always say if we hadn't done this and hadn't done that, it would be much worse.
They have no proof for this assertion. In my view, it would have been better to let the crisis already, the first one in 2000, run its course and prevent the colossal credit bubble that was built up that then led to an even bigger crisis. And now they're doing the same mistake. they're again adding to credit volumes in the world.
Credit as a percent of the global economy is up very strongly uh since 2007 in particular of course in China but also in other countries and we distinguish between productive credit and unproductive credit. Productive credit is to build a factory with credit and then hire uh people and acquire machinery and then produce something either services or goods.
But most of the credit is now for transfer payments. And that is very negative for long-term structural economic growth because it allows actually the government to become bigger and bigger and bigger and to have more regulation. And I can tell you I'm in the financial sector and I talk to people in the financial sector.
Half their time is nowadays uh consumed with filling out forms by regulators. Mark will how are they going to fight then the next crisis? I mean your prescription would have been more fiscal policy that should have played a more active role. Will we see more publicly funded infrastructure when and if the next crisis hits?
Yes, that's a very good question because the magicians at central banks, they always come out with a new trick. And uh this negative interest rates that we have today, this is for the first time in recorded human history from the times of Babylon up to today that we have negative interest rates and it's not going to end well.
That I can tell you. But the sequence of how it will not end well, I'm not so sure. But they still have a lot of ammunition. What they can do is helicopter money. In other words, they can send you and Mr. Bloomberg and me and everybody say a check for $10,000 and that is like throwing gasoline into a fire for a while.
The fire will uh glow and uh expand and then afterwards it will again go down and then you need another doses of helicopter money. So the next time around they can send out checks for $20,000 to everybody. And this will be a very popular measure because everybody will get the $20,000. For the rich, it won't mean anything.
$20,000 more or less. But say for the poor people and for the lower middle class to get $20,000 a piece will be very desirable. So they can do a lot of things if they want to. But will it help the economy? That is the question. It won't help in the long run. You cannot grow an economy by just throwing money at people.
What should they be doing? What policies would you want to be enacted? Mr. Farber, I want to tell you the le the less policies the better it would be. We all learned at school that the free market and the capitalistic system is the best allocator of resources. And now what we have is the worst allocation of resources because it's the government that tells you how these resources are allocated.
And they continuously expand their interventions. And I can tell you I started to work in 1970. In in the 70s and early 1980s, central banks actually never came up in discussions. They have now become like the messiah. And everybody watches what the central banks do. And in the end, in my view, they will have from a long-term perspective, no impact whatsoever.
Now, can they move markets short term? Yes. But maybe not in the direction they want to. You talk about allocating resources, Mr. Farber. Allocate my resources for me right now because I'm looking at the picks that you have and you're saying get into the dogs of the world. Of course, your usual pun.
Brazil. You're saying get into Brazil. get into Russia. How are you going to convince me I'm in such political turmoil there? Well, you see these emerging markets like Brazil and Russia, of course, they are in recession whereby Russia is doing better than Brazil, but the valuations have come down very substantially.
And if you ask me Mark, where should I allocate my funds today in the US stock market which is essentially very highly priced by any measure price to sales price to earnings and so forth uh market cap to GDP the US market doesn't come out favorably. Now the emerging markets they have corrected significantly uh some since 2006 and some since 2011 and I would say they are relatively relatively attractive.
So if I had to invest money today and I'm investing all the time money because I have a cash flow. I invest in emerging economies. You can buy the Singapore stock market with a 4% dividend yield. Well, Singapore is a relatively sound economy. It's diversified and it's wellrun unlike the US. Unless, of course, the US is run by Mr.
Trump, then the US will improve. Are you really a fan of Mr. Trump, Mark? Uh, do you do you really believe it's all relative? Given the alternatives, I would vote for Mr. Trump because he may only destroy the US economy, but Hillary Clinton will destroy the whole world. That's why will Hillary Clint why why will Hillary Clinton destroy the whole world?
What's the evidence? Look, look at her nation building in the Middle East. How successful that has been. But Mr. Farber. I mean, we're seeing from Donald Trump's potential policies that he wants to slow international trade between the United States and other countries. Surely that's going to be a block upon free markets.
Well, I agree that it is negative if you have a restrictions on a free market. That I agree. The last time we spoke, you're clearly bearish on on your view of the global economy and the global market of equities. in other words, away from index funds and that will favor uh managers that take advantage of sector strengths.
We also have this year say Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, these markets are up in dining shares since 2011 they dropped 80 90% and so this year they had a strong rebound. Many gold shares are up close to 100%. And I think what will happen is that the market will turn into more active management around the world.
We see a a slowdown in economic activity. So overall, I'd be rather cautious about investments in equities. However, over the last uh 12 to 24 months, many sectors have had huge declines. Say you take gold. How does this factor in now? How does that change that view if at all the terrorist attacks that is?
Uh I haven't changed my view. I think uh what we have is in the US a stock market that is basically if not fully priced then overvalued. Given that the earnings will rather come down and
Comments 0