저자: CathieWood · 외국인
요약 보기
비트코인은 주요 자산과 상관관계가 낮아 포트폴리오 분산 가치가 크다. 트럼프 행정부 정책이 레이거노믹스 같은 자본수익률 상승을 가져와 달러가 반등할 수 있다. 금/M2 비율이 과열 수준이며 금 상승 사이클이 정점에 가까울 수 있다. 구리는 전기화 수요로 구조적 상승이 기대되고, S&P500/오일 비율은 신고점 방향이다. 인플레이션은 생산성 기반 성장으로 하락할 전망이며, 2년-3개월 금리차 역전 상태에서 연준 완화 여부가 관건이다.
다듬은 글
If you look across the top line there, the correlation with most other asset classes, Bitcoin versus any other asset class, very low. Uh no correlation with bonds. Uh almost no correlation with gold and reats. Um very low correlation with commodities. The highest correlation is with the S&P 500. And even that is a low correlation.
What this means is that asset allocators uh have a fiduciary duty to look at Bitcoin uh and other crypto assets uh for portfolio diversification. Kathy Wood opens by challenging the prevailing view on the US dollar which she believes is widely misunderstood at this point in the cycle. After its decline through 2025, consensus has shifted toward the idea that the dollar is structurally weak.
would argues this interpretation overlooks historical context and more importantly the role that return on invested capital plays in driving currency strength. She points to the early 1980s under reagonomics as a clear precedent. Progrowth fiscal and regulatory reforms sharply increased returns on capital within the United States.
As those returns began to outperform the rest of the world, global capital flowed into US assets, fueling a powerful and sustained dollar appreciation. According to Wood, today's policy backdrop shows similarities to that period, potentially in an even more amplified form. If returns on capital in the US once again rise relative to global alternatives, capital inflows could accelerate and reverse dollar weakness in ways that catch markets offguard.
Dollar being so weak. Well, if we're right, the dollar is stabilizing here after a decline in uh 2025 and will reverse course much like it did during the early 80s in the early 80s with regonomics and we think that this administration's policies are turbocharged reegonomics. Because of those policies, the dollar went up.
Why? Because the return on invested capital in the United States went up relative to the returns elsewhere in the world. Uh so we would not be surprised to see a sizable increase in the dollar here which is completely away from consensus expectations uh and therefore very interesting to us between a lot of inflation indicators and the gold market.
Gold prices have more than doubled in the last two years. And uh here you can see what an extreme they have reached on this basis. So this is the gold market cap as a percent of USM2. US being the world's reserve currency and you can see that we have surpassed the gold to M to ratio in the late 70s early 80s when inflation was raging at a double-digit rate and interest rates were into the double digits as well.
Um so that's interesting. There's only one other time that this ratio has been higher and it was during the Great Depression uh during the 30s when the gold price was fixed in the low $20 range and money supply was collapsing. So those two uh things are not true this time around. the gold price has been going up and the money supply has been going up.
And so we're trying to figure out what this means. Um, one suggestion is that gold has uh has entered uh I I hate to say irrational exuberance territory, but that's the that's the prevailing phrase. Um maybe gold is nearly done with this bull run. And um and then we have to ask ourselves because Bitcoin is considered digital gold.
Has Bitcoin is it done for a cycle? And as everybody knows, the four-year cycle worry is out there. Well, here you can see the Bitcoin to gold ratio uh in a trend sense since 2020. Um you can still say even though we did break the the last higher low in a broader sense you can say maybe this is still in an uptrend.
We shall see. Um but what we have found very interesting is on the next chart. What is the correlation uh between Bitcoin and various uh other asset classes? Gold being one of an important one of them. Well, you can see how low the correlation is. So a correlation of one means very highly correlated.
A correlation of zero means not correlated at all. A correlation of minus uh 1.0 means inversely correlated. When one goes up, the other one goes down. Uh this correlation since 20 is suggesting no correlation. And in fact, if you if you look across the top line there, the correlation with most other asset classes, Bitcoin versus any other asset class, very low.
Uh no correlation with bonds, uh almost no correlation with gold and REITs. Um very low correlation with commodities. The highest correlation is with the S&P 500. And even that is a low correlation. Uh and you can look at uh the correlation uh between and among the various categories here. You know, Bitcoin Bitcoin's correlations are very low.
And what this means is asset allocators um have a fiduciary duty to look at Bitcoin uh and other crypto assets uh for portfolio diversification because the lower the correlation the high higher when adding one of these low correlated assets to the others. um adding means return per unit of risk probably will go up.
So we think this is a a great illustration of that metals to gold ratio turn around to confirm that we're in uh an upturn in the cycle. And it is for me the most interesting chart cuz you know these two the long-year Treasury bond yield in green and the metals to gold ratio have been so highly correlated in the past.
They've broken apart in recent years. Um so maybe we'll they'll meet somewhere in the middle during the next few years. Here's copper. Copper is telling us, okay, maybe we're now resuming the cycle. And a lot of the um a lot of manufacturing facilities uh anything going electric demands more and more copper including transportation.
So this is also a secular shift towards copper which should benefit the price. Here to end uh are the what we've been monitoring just keeping us on our toes. the S&P to gold ratio still uh basing it's at the lower end of a a base that's been in place for the last 5 to 10 years. Uh we do not think it's going to end up like it did in the 70s.
Uh we think instead that the oil the S&P to oil ratio is leading the way and that is heading for new peaks. That's very very bullish. We had, if you look at 1980 through 2000, that's the strongest and longest bull market in history. Sure, we had episodic um uh uh setbacks, but uh the most powerful. And if we're right uh then that that the Trump administration is regonomics on steroids, uh this should break out and we believe the S&P to gold ratio will follow.
Valuation is an unavoidable issue and Wood tackles it head-on by examining the relationship between inflation and the SanP 500's trailing price to earnings ratio. Historically, the two move inversely. During the early 2000s and again in 2008 2009, rising inflation coincided with compressing multiples.
After COVID, however, valuations briefly fell to around 17 18 times earnings, surprising many given the scale of monetary stimulus, suggesting markets may have been pricing in a renewed decline in inflation. As inflation later stabilized, PE ratios expanded contrary to widespread expectations. would argues that if inflation resumes a downward trend, current valuations may be more defensible than critics assume.
More importantly, she stresses that elevated multiples aren't required if earnings and revenues begin to grow rapidly, allowing fundamentals rather than valuation expansion to drive market performance. One thing we do have to think about as we're getting into talking about markets here is uh valuation.
So, in the purple, you see the PE ratio, trailing 12-month moving average of the PE ratio for the S&P 500 versus inflation. So, we're back to this uh important inflation call. Now, if you look carefully, I know this is messy, but if you look at the early 2000s, you can see that because of uh the monetary and fiscal stimulus around uh long-term capital management in 1998, Y2K in 1999, and the tech and telecom bust in 2000.
You can see that after inflation bottomed it moved from roughly 1 1/2% up to 4 1.5 5%. And the PE ratio went down during the early 2000s. There is an inverse correlation between PE ratios. You you saw it highlighted during 0809 and the PE ratio. So you can see where where we are now. I think it was instructive to see how low the valuation went in the purple there after co uh we dropped to 17 18 times earnings.
Now that was that was a big correction during during CO uh and there was a very rapid expansion in earnings after CO. So it was interesting to see where this stabilized uh around that 1718 range. Now why would that be? Could it be that the market in its wisdom is saying hey wait a minute we think inflation is that the next big move infla inflation will continue to be down maybe.
Um you can see the PE has gone up as inflation stabilized and I think that surprised a lot of people. Could it be the market is discounting uh another drop in in inflation and that would support valuations? Now, I'll quickly add that if we're right on the outlook for earnings um and and revenue, GDP growth, uh then we're going to see very rapid growth during the next two and a half to three years.
Very rapid growth. And so we believe that we don't have to assume these valuations hold. We think that the revenue growth and earnings uh acceleration that we're going to see especially uh in the innovation space. So consider the source. That's all we do. That they're going to overwhelm the the high valuation by historic standards and uh help us uh deliver a compound annual rate of return well north of the market during the next uh during the next five years.
So um stay tuned. This has been a big tease. That green line representing inflation recently the the recent stabilization/slight increase has been tariff related. We think that's working through uh and we think that it the resolution of the green line will be to the downside probably negative. So if you look at uh M2 uh in the purple line here we've gotten back to 5%.
If you trace that back in time, that's really at the lower end of where M2 has been over time. And one of the things we've mentioned on this webinar before is you know if M2 growth stabilizes in this 5% range um and velocity starts to fall um then then uh we're going to see uh the nominal GDP growth will be sub 5%.
So, if we're right on the real growth acceleration, uh this could support that negative uh inflation outlook. The green line here is CPI. Uh tariffs have interrupted what was a down cycle. We got to 9% uh and then into the twos. We retraced a bit in here, but we think that inflation will turn down uh as real GDP growth is accelerating.
And many people think that makes no sense because they think growth causes inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Growth does not cause inflation. In fact, productivitydriven growth is associated with falling inflation. And that's what we expect to happen. Uh here you can see well how tight is monetary policy still.
This is the yield curve. It's the 2-year Treasury yield less the 3-month Treasury yield. And anything below zero, which this is would suggest monetary policy is on the tighter side of normal. And you can see going back in time whenever we've seen a yield curve here below zero, we've typically been uh either in a recession or in the mid90s we h were in a soft landing.
Uh, so it has been surprising that we didn't end up in a an official recession, but I hope in showing you the charts that I did, you do understand that this caused a rolling recession. And so, we'll see what happens with monetary policy. Are they going to ease enough to move this back into positive territory?
Typically when the Fed is gunning uh for uh from a fiscal from a monetary stimulus point of view we will get into that 1 to two% range in terms of a positive slope in the yield curve. We shall see um we would not be surprised to see it limited to one or less. Kathy Wood highlights the importance of the yield curve, particularly the spread between the 2-year and 3month Treasury yield.
With the curve still inverted, monetary policy remains tighter than normal, a signal historically associated with recessions, or in rare cases like the mid1 1990s, soft landings, which suggests the economy has already gone through a rolling recession, which explains why an official recession never fully emerged.
The critical question now is whether the Federal Reserve will ease policy enough to restore a positively sloped yield curve and support further growth. Ultimately, Wood challenges conventional macro thinking. She warns that investors remain anchored to frameworks shaped by past inflationary decades, underestimating the deflationary potential of innovation and a resurgent US lead.
Do you agree with Wood's view that policy and innovation could support growth despite inverted yields? How do you see the yield curve shaping markets in the months ahead? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Comments 0