저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
Chamath는 M2 통화속도 상승과 머니마켓펀드에 쌓인 대기자금(드라이파우더)이 연준 금리인하 시 위험자산으로 유입되어 S&P500이 7,000까지 갈 수 있다고 주장. 금리는 50~100bp 낮아져야 하며 9월 25bp 인하가 유력하다고 봄. Q1 GDP -0.5% 등 데이터상 연준이 정치적으로 동결 중이라 비판. 친구 Friedberg는 인플레이션 주도 랠리 경고, Sacks는 인플레 통제되었고 연준이 뒤처졌다고 봄. 이스라엘-이란 충돌은 시장이 이미 소화했다는 논지. 뉴욕 맘다니 시장 정책 비판. 크립토는 유동성 복귀 시 수혜 주장.
다듬은 글
not understand that. By the way, when we were talking about this, just like I said that we're probably going to print like a threehandle on GDP in Q2, we also talked about the fact that we were probably going to have a negative GDP print in Q1. So, we've been knowing it for months. We've basically been calling it right.
So, why is there an inability to just look at the data and just say the obvious truthful thing? So, I think I think whether whether whether whatever you think of Trump, it doesn't really matter. rates should not be where they are today. They should be 50 to 100 basis points lower. Period. It's categorical.
He'll do it in September. He's going to do it 25 in September. It's obvious. There's no logical explanation for it. There is a subjective explanation and that's political. Hey guys, welcome to Everyday Finance. Right now, trillions of dollars are parked in money market funds waiting to do something.
That's dry powder, not simply cash, according to billionaire investor Chimath Palahapasha. And that money might pour back into the markets if the Fed begins to lower interest rates. Chimath presented a daring scenario on the most recent Olan podcast. A significant repricing of risky assets may occur if Jerome Powell even hinted at lowering rates
weather to deal with economic fissures or to control political pressure. According to him, the S&P 500 might go higher and reach 7,000. He is not alone in raising eyebrows either. David Friedberg and David Saxs co-hosts also offered their opinions. Saxs maintained that inflation is already under control and the Fed is lagging behind.
Oh. While Friedberg warned that this surge of optimism might be more driven by inflation than by fundamentals. However, Chimath's analysis is what draws attention. He sees a spike in money velocity and sidelined capital poised to take on risk, creating what he refers to as a meltup situation. What does this signify for cryptocurrency, then?
Capital may stream into Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets. If it begins to leave low yield money markets, it may also go to stocks. According to Chimoth, the next phase of the bull market could be triggered by the Fed's next action. This might serve as the catalyst for a significant cryptocurrency rally in order to remain ahead of every major change that could affect your financial future.
Remember to hit like, subscribe, and turn on notifications before we break it all down. Let's get started. I think the the free money trade here is to be levered long. I think you can make a lot of money right now. Why is that? The first chart I want to show you is the velocity of money. So what is this?
This is the M2 money supply. It's a measure of how much money is circulating in the economy. What this shows is the impact of rates where we were able to start to slow down and contract the money supply. But then as you saw as the economy stabilized and people started to project was possible in 18 to 24 months you started to see money coming back into the system.
That's what has given a bid to the equity markets. That's great because a percentage of this capital gets allocated into things that can generate a superior return to money markets and that's where the bid to the equity market came from. So you would say well where does it go from here? The next chart, Nick, if you just give the second one, is look at how much money, and again, you can just look at the last five years.
Look at how much money is sitting in money market funds. And what this starts to show you is you have trillions and trillions of dollars of dry powder on the sidelines that will need to find a home. I think that Jerome Powell is in an increasingly untenuous situation because he will be looked at as politicizing the office of the Federal Reserve.
There is enough data that can justify cutting rates. If you cut rates, and we've talked about this before, two things will happen. Number one is people will take some amount of money out of the money market funds because they will want to go and seek superior returns somewhere else. It will increase the velocity of money at the same time.
You put those two things together, that is a bid to the equity markets. And so if we're at an all-time high today with rates at 4 and a half% and Powell back against the wall to cut, the only road from here is probably up. And so you could see this thing get rerated quite aggressively. And then the question is, do you do it where you manage your risk and you're short some stuff or do you just say, you know what, I'm just just going to take it all up and take most of my shorts off and let the thing go.
I think that if Powell starts an aggressive cutting program, either because he has to or because he's trying to keep his job, I mean, man, you could see the S&P at 7,000. No, but like just as we were taping, there's just a whole deluge of economic data that came out. The GDP print for Q1 came in at minus.5%.
I mean, so how could anybody interpret for Q1? So, how could anybody at the Fed or in the media covering the Fed not understand that? By the way, when we were talking about this, just like I said that we're probably going to print like a three-handle on GDP in Q2, we also talked about the fact that we were probably going to have a negative GDP print in Q1.
So, we've been knowing it for months. We've basically been calling it right. So, why is there an inability to just look at the data and just say the obvious truthful thing? So, I think I think whether whether whatever you think of Trump, it doesn't really matter. Rates should not be where they are today.
They should be 50 to 100 basis points lower. Period. It's categorical. He'll do it in September. He's going to do a 25 in September. It's obvious. There's no logical explanation for it. There is a subjective explanation and that's political. I I think he just after the tariff stuff he said let's just push it out two month two two two months get some more data and then we'll cut it in September.
What's the difference between a seep a July August cut or a September it's probably not going to be meaningful in the arc of history. But if you're if you're against the tariffs and you're buying into you know Jim Kramer's doom narrative or Larry Summer's Doom narrative that's more of a reason to cut.
think it's reasonable to pay Disney for pre-training and I think that they do. I told you though this like we did a licensing deal with OpenAI we meaning you know beast they paid us and they're using it for pre-training it's quite reasonable is it the right price we have no idea but we did it so that we could be a part of the conversation and shape how these deals
get done for content creators but Sax is right like if you think about like what is the ultimate output the output if you look at how a transformer behaves it's it's almost it's impossible to say that it's copying the inut Three opposing viewpoints become apparent as the argument intensifies. Chimath Palihapaya recognizes an opportunity for a risky asset.
He points to higher money velocity and trillions in money market funds as proof of liquidity. According to Chimath, a tidal flood of money might enter the markets if the Fed lowers interest rates. He thinks that action could repric all other asset classes in addition to increasing stocks. More cautious is David Friedberg.
He contends that monetary distortion rather than economic advancement may be the cause of growing asset valuations. Friedberg observes a concerning trend when GDP growth slows. Inflation stays high and deficits increase, markets soaring on money printing liquidity. This appears to be less of a healthy bull market and more of an exaggerated illusion.
David Saxs is more datadriven and realistic. He thinks the Fed is stalling and inflation is under control when the CPI drops below 2.5%. Is curious as to when rate reduction will take place. He believes that the asset markets and economy will gain when they arrive. Regardless of their disagreements, all three think a significant shift is imminent.
Investors in cryptocurrencies are aware that when liquidity returns, it spreads widely. Capital looks for profits in Bitcoin, equities, and real estate. That creates the conditions for a robust cryptocurrency upswing. After markets, the conversation continues. The focus of the all-in team is now on geopolitics and tensions in the Middle East.
Concerns about an oil shock, regional bloodshed, and global market instability are raised by the standoff between Israel and Iran. This is their breakdown. The fear that I had was that if there was um protracted conflict, what you effectively would see is a bunch of supply go offline. And if that supply went offline and as long as the demand stayed even roughly the same, you would see prices go up.
My thought was that the price of oil could double. I think Goldman had it slightly under a doubling. So that was definitely the the fear what folks had going into that weekend. But coming out of it, this is where I think you have to be very respectful of the fact that the market is really the sum of many, many, many millions of informed opinions.
And I think what they saw was that Iran was not really in a position to do anything but capitulate and give up. M and I think that what they also saw whether you agree with the Israeli policy or not was that they had systematically gone from where they are and marched eastward essentially. They effectively decapitated Hamas.
They effectively decapitated Hezbollah. They effectively decapitated the Houthis. I think finally putting a nail in the coffin of this Iran nuclear ambition program was not just important for them, but it's critical for Saudi and the UAE. You know, MBS had an incredibly powerful quote, which was, "If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, we will have no choice but to get our own." Right?
So by taking all of that risk off the table, what you're now talking about is an enormous supply that could essentially service world productivity needs unhindered because it's not just Iranian supply. You're talking about Emirati supply and you're talking about Qatari supply and you're talking about Saudi supply.
So, I think what the market realized was, okay, now the Middle East is the closest it's ever been to fully monetizing the oil that they have and to invest aggressively into their own people. The second thing is that Steve Witoff spoke about the fact that you should expect the Abraham Accords to expand.
So if you think about that one-two punch, not necessarily from a geopolitical lens, but from an economic lens, the first punch is neutering the Iranians ability to be chaos monkeys in the region. But the second punch is the one that then now creates normalization across the region with Israel. It double and triples down the ability to monetize oil and start to invest those returns in future projects that have a much better ROI.
All of that leads to cheaper energy and Iran becomes the odd person out here in this new, you know, federation of people in the Middle East who want peace and normal relations. I think it's a phenomenal question, Jason, but I think that's what the market sniffed out and I think that's what the market is now saying like that this is a chapter that we can close and move on.
I think the three of you guys are a little exaggerated to be quite honest. I mean, all the rhetoric sounds very clever, but I don't think it's accurate. I think the way that I see it is more nuanced than this. I think what's happened is that Zoron Mdani is very smart and is running a playbook to win like all politicians do based on a formula that has been winning in large cities for the past decade.
And so I don't know if he really believes in this rhetoric or not, but it's worth noting that most of his platform is copied and pasted from London and Chicago. So the things that he's talked about, universal basic free meals, affordable housing, freezing the cost of transportation, public grocery stores, all three of you are reacting like these things were pulled out of thin air.
They're not. These were the public platforms of the mayors who have won in London in Vienna in Havana, Cuba and in Chicago. So I think the reason why this works is that these are small pockets in the end of a large political spectrum. Even though New York feels big, it isn't that big in the context of the United States.
And what you see is that when you try to take those policies in a city, take London, and then level it up at the national level, there's a quick schism that happens. So if you look at labor and labor trying to scale up the policies of a Sadi Khan in London throughout the country, Labor is now at the absolute the Labor Party the absolute lowest approval ratings in the UK of any party ever in this moment in time after an election.
So I think what you're probably seeing is quite a sophisticated AB test. And I think that the political wingmen and the money people that want to be in control know how to run candidates on platforms that can win. And this is a clear winning strategy in left-leaning major metropolitan centers. So what I would say just to refine what you guys are saying is that this platform is not new.
I've seen it for the last decade. I think you're going to see it for the next few decades. It doesn't work. And so you're going to see the same results in New York City that you've already seen in London, which has become unlivable sadly. One of my favorite cities in the world. If you don't believe it, go visit there.
Chicago, which I haven't been to in 15 years and will never go to. It's a disaster. So my my point is it just doesn't work. So you can win. it actually isn't very effective and it doesn't scale to the national level which is my view. My view is much more basic. It's it's much less sophisticated than I think what you're saying.
My extremely simpleton view of things is that humans swing in a pendulum-like fashion between poles and over multi-deade arcs you go between the thing that works to the thing that should work now because it's not the thing before. So, I suspect what happens is that New York takes a 40 or 50-year journey.
And at some point, it will look like New York of the 80s. And at that point, you'll have an Ed Cook-l like figure. You'll have a David Dinkens-like figure. You'll have a Michael Bloomberg like figure. You'll have the broken windows theory of policing reemerge as the cause celeb. And the cycle will repeat itself.
So, I tend to think that these things are just between two poles. We've spent a lot of time in this more independent self-reliance poll. A lot of people will want to experiment with this other thing. It just doesn't prove to work. And in the absence of something cataclysmically bad, I don't think it's going to change.
One thing is certain. As the dust settles on international markets and changing geopolitical environments, we are living through a seismic change. The landscape is rapidly changing with trillions of dollars of idle money getting ready to transfer into riskier assets, central banks edging closer to a critical rate cut cycle, and even the Middle East setting itself up for a new era of energy modernization and influence.
According to Chimath, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that could yield enormous benefits for those who are prepared. However, Friedberg cautions that what appears to be growth could actually be inflation. Saxs, however, reminds us that opportunity is frequently concealed by panic and looks past the headlines that are fueled by dread.
The message for cryptocurrency investors is clear. Bitcoin and digital assets aren't only players, they're leaders when liquidity returns and money begins to realign. This might signal the start of a significant breakthrough period for the entire decentralized finance and alternative stores of value space, not just for stocks.
The true query then becomes, are you prepared for what lies ahead? Are you in a position before the floodgates and the capital open? What do you think of Chimath's proposal for an S&P 7000? What would it signify for cryptocurrencies in Q3? Please share your opinions in the comments below. If you found this macro breakdown helpful, please remember to ring the bell, like, and subscribe so that you don't miss any important moves. Appreciate your attention and we'll see you in the future.
Comments 0