저자: Manu · 외국인
요약 보기
제레미 그랜섬의 AI 버블 경고와 '전부 매도' 주장, 비트코인 제로 주장, 미국 주식 전면 매도 권고를 소개하고, 이를 과도한 공포로 평가. 밸류에이션(S&P500 PER 20~22배, 평균 15~16배)은 부담으로 인정하나 비트코인 제로 주장과 미국 시장 전면 회피는 비합리적이라 반박. 포트폴리오 분산과 유동성 보유를 강조하며 자사 교육 과정을 홍보.
다듬은 글
And what might be happening now with artificial intelligence is that we are reaching an inflation level of a possible bubble at admirable levels. These technologies, when they are disruptive and attract a lot of attention, usually also attract a lot of capital, and that's why they end up generating all this inflation.
Bitcoin will certainly go to zero. He did not mention any timeframes or explain the reason, the rationale, or the architecture behind this claim that Bitcoin will reach zero. This may happen. Only time will tell. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. How are you all? Today I want to bring here one of the great dinosaurs of the financial market who predicted the crisis of the 2000s and the subprime crisis of 2008, and he came with a bombshell: he ordered everyone to sell everything.
And what I want to bring up is , does it make sense within our philosophy here at UVP Capital? And you, as a savvy investor and a UVP lover , need to understand first and foremost, who is this big dinosaur who ordered everything to be sold? It's our beloved Jeremy Grantham, who at his peak as a manager had nearly $165 billion under his esteemed management.
He became known for predicting the 2000s crisis, the dot-com bubble, and also the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. And it wasn't just about selling everything; he said that Bitcoin has a high probability of going to zero. This is explosive, Lucão. It's very good, very explosive. But of course, first of all, I want to thank you for being here watching this wonderful channel, UVP Capital, on its traditional program, Conexión Capital.
But there's something that makes me sad: you subscribe for the World Cup, right? To watch that other channel that I also watch. I like it very much. Subscribe here to our channel . Nobody wants to do it, man. It can't be, you can't stop doing it just to see a little drink there. I know it's a great game, I'm never going to compete with Mbappé, Haaland or Cristiano Ronaldo.
But, hey, a subscription here doesn't hurt anyone, it's our fuel to be able to continue bringing you all this explanation and absorption of the international market in general. But let's get straight to the point to explain what makes sense and what doesn't within these explosive conclusions that our dear Jeremy recently published in a podcast he participated in, which I will even recommend you watch later.
I'm not going to leave the channel link here because we're not getting paid to recommend channels here. We will also value our work here. Well, folks, what makes sense here in what our dear Jeremy said is that he says that all that bubble stuff will always exist, will always burst, and that dynamic will always exist.
What changes is the plot; you already know this very well, and I have already mentioned it here a few times. And one of the biggest bubbles in history always stems from a large process of indebtedness and euphoria. This has happened quite frequently, as I have already told you. I'm only going to use this example one more time.
I know you're going to say, "Manu, yes, you're getting repetitive." But it happened with the railroads, it happened with the internet, it happened with the telecommunications sector a long time ago. And that really changed the way we live, how the economy revolves, and it kept inflating until it burst, and then it became a trend and brought all the benefits we are reaping today.
And what might be happening now with artificial intelligence is that we're reaching a level of inflation of a possible bubble at admirable levels, perhaps even comparable to the Great Depression of 1929. So, at this specific point, these bubbles, the architecture here isn't specific to Jeremy alone.
Ray Dalio has also spoken extensively and expressively on this point. So, this part makes a lot of sense. But I repeat, these technologies, when they are disruptive and attract a lot of attention, usually also attract a lot of capital, and that's why they end up generating all this inflation. But the problem itself is not the technology.
Technology is vital, it will become a trend and will help the economy as a whole and humanity. But what's really going on here is the price you pay for this technology, which is where these excesses and this madness of paying any price come from. The multiples are stretched . This is basically where Jeremy's reasoning makes a lot of sense.
And I'm going to use the Amazon example once again here. Amazon. Did you ever think that at some point Amazon, the market favorite , a trillion-dollar company in market value, fell by more than 90%? That happened during the dot-com bubble in the 2000s. It took 10 years to recover. Which is another company here that almost nobody knows today, but which at one time was similar to the Nvidia of today, Cisco, which fell astonishingly by around 92, 93% of its market value and, surprisingly, took almost 23 years to recover the trading value it had back in the year 2000.
So, what I want to convey here is that it doesn't mean the company isn't good, but perhaps the price at which it is traded at that time can be a trap; That's where the detail lies that we must pay close attention to. Another point Jeremy also brought up here is the part about asset valuation. Here we are talking very repeatedly about the valuation, mainly of the US market, which is the largest stock market in the world and also the largest fixed income market , which has very stretched multiples.
Today it is trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of around 20 to 22 times. It has already reached 25 times, now it has stabilized a bit , but, compared to the average of the US market of the last 10 years, it is still well above, as the average is around 15 to 16 times. Therefore, the valuation here is also a metric that makes a lot of sense and, within Jeremy's reasoning, is totally aligned with what we believe.
What's a bit exaggerated here is the way he's framing this, how this could generate a depreciation, a correction abruptly. It might happen, is that okay? I'm not saying that what he says won't happen. I'm just saying that he's preaching excessive fear, and that if we base our decisions solely on that fear, we might make irrational choices that could cause more harm than good.
So, gentlemen, this issue of multiples is very important. The assessment here makes sense. Now, where does our dear Jeremy's little bit of exaggeration begin? It is in the conclusions, mainly here about an asset for which I have no affection, but I am not a detractor either, which is Bitcoin, and that he came up with that categorical statement that Bitcoin will certainly go to zero.
He did not mention any timeframes or explain the reason, the rationale, or the architecture behind his claim that Bitcoin will reach zero. This may happen, only time will tell, but it is very radical to base it solely on this, because of the name behind it and its importance within the financial market.
There is a point here where one must be very careful when making this rationale. And here it is clear, we always explain with data why this statement is dangerous. Because today the US economy, which in the past somewhat hated Bitcoin or didn't want to own it, many managers like those at BlackRock, like Lint, were among those who said: "Ah, Bitcoin really isn't an asset that makes sense." But after the popularization of the launch of ETFs, this began to be integrated into the economy in a broader way.
Today you already have a very strong market volume of ETFs that are backed by crypto assets, mainly Bitcoin, which is the main crypto asset of the ecosystem . This is not only happening with institutional investors, but also with some pension funds. So, if this really does reach zero, it will bring a correction or perhaps a terrifying squandering of market value, of people's economy; If this happens, it would be utter chaos.
So we have to be very careful with those claims, because as I said, according to data from BlackRock, Fidelity, pension funds, they are already embedded within this ecosystem. This is also no guarantee that this cannot happen and that Bitcoin will not reach zero, but there is already a whole ecosystem that gives greater robustness to the crypto asset side, okay?
So, once again, it doesn't mean, just with this database that I'm bringing you, that this can't happen. I'm saying that it adds a bit more robustness to an asset that is very risky. What we cannot trivialize is placing the crypto asset, mainly Bitcoin , as a counterpart to gold, right? It's because it's very new, it still has a lot of volatility, and it's still highly correlated with the stock market and the fixed income market.
So, it gained some maturity from 2011 until now, which is when it began to be traded more massively within the ecosystem , but it is still very volatile, it still has a lot of risk, but it is generating, it seems, a greater level of maturity as it goes on in its longevity. Therefore, claiming that it will reach zero is a bit dangerous and a bit extreme.
So we need to be careful with any kind of statement in that regard, okay? So it's not a conclusion that was based on data. At least what was presented to us, what was presented through this podcast, was not based on data. He may have had some reasoning behind it, but he didn't share it there with the audience.
And likewise, he also talks about SpaceX here, criticizes SpaceX quite a bit, and says that the company's valuation is very inflated and that it will not deliver any value. I partly agree with him that the company's valuation is indeed stretched, but to say that it will not deliver any value, that none of the company's three areas generate value...
It's a lie , because today if you take Starlink, it already has subscribers, it already has profits, it already has a consolidated income and it has a relatively smooth operation. Perhaps not to justify that valuation, because that valuation of SpaceX is much more based on the information technology part , mainly xAI, which is within the group, within the company and which is in all this hype for information technology, mainly artificial intelligence.
So the problem of concluding, of generalizing that a company will not be able to deliver any value is very problematic. In this specific case, SpaceX may now enter a period of bankruptcy, it may be so, but today there are clear signs within the company's business lines that are profitable and that have a certain rationality in their operation.
I don't agree with the valuation the market is paying today, but there is a certain legitimacy there in SpaceX's line of business, mainly in what it's about with Starlink. But criticizing the valuation seems perfectly legitimate to me, but predicting the company's operational failure in a general way, that's a bit of an exaggeration, because you're trying to bring a very assertive level to that for a company.
But what caught my attention the most here was that he recommended everyone sell their US stocks. No one should have exposure in the US market. And this scared me and also left me worried about the intention behind it or even the rationality. So, completely ignoring the US market here is dangerous, because we can't generalize that the US market is just artificial intelligence, it's just the magnificent seven, it's not like that.
Alright? That part of the US economy has a very stretched valuation. The multiples are there at a level of irrationality, but reducing the US market to just these assets here is very dangerous. And to completely exit the US market and not hold any more US assets at this time is somewhat irrational, or even to have very extreme movements there, which is the opposite of what we understand here as a healthy portfolio management move.
So, bringing concrete numbers here for you, the technology and artificial intelligence part has very high multiples. But sectors such as energy, financial institutions, insurance, and even the health sector are very close to levels even below their historical averages, offering a more comfortable entry point or a more favorable risk-return ratio .
Therefore, generalizing about an entire US economy based solely on artificial intelligence and saying that one should get out of assets or not hold them is very dangerous. So we have to be very careful with this. And if you're curious and would like to have a solid foundation and your own decision-making power, without falling into those "buy or sell everything" traps, I invite you to access the link below to learn about the UVP school and see if it makes sense for you.
If you earn more than 4,500 reais per month, it will make sense , because you will learn to invest in the national and international market, to carry out an analysis for your life context, your time horizon and, mainly, for your risk profile. And you, more than anyone else, are primarily responsible for your assets and their management.
You need to learn, even if you later decide to hire a professional to manage your assets; You need to know what's being done with him, okay? So, the invitation is extended for you to learn with our great teacher Raul Sena. But of course, as in any interview and with any great manager, I in no way intend to criticize Guerme; who am I compared to him?
No, it's not, not at all. The point here is simply to act rationally and understand all these fundamentals. In his interview, I liked that he provided a basis for rationality that we can apply to our own daily lives and to contextualize the international scenario. He points out that, although large investors can foresee or see risks, they cannot know exactly when they will occur, because that is impossible.
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can achieve it. He himself uses his own example when saying that he predicted the great internet crisis of the 2000s, the " dot-com" crisis, too far in advance. In 1998 and 1999. He was one of the first to say that there was a big problem, that this was an unsustainable bubble, but it continued to inflate for another 1 or 2 years before it really burst.
And in that process, where he had already begun to make his moves, he lost a large part of his clients, about half, for having warned too soon. So you also have to be careful with how you make that move and how it's carried out. Even the biggest investors will make mistakes. Michael Burry also has a history where there is a joke in the market that he arrives too early to the funeral.
This is what usually happens with some large investors who end up looking too much at the risks, but they end up anticipating too much and the market is sovereign, it really does what it wants to do. And what does this change for the investor, for you, for me? When we do this analysis, the philosophy we have here is that, whether you are a UVP or a student of the UVP school, or a client of our consultancy, we build our clients' wealth and manage it on a basis where we are not predicting what the next big rise or the next big crash will be.
We're preparing your wallet for any weather, whether it's sunny, rainy, winter, or autumn. We are prepared for those scenarios. Therefore, our goal is to always have a balanced portfolio. So we do n't believe in binary portfolio allocation options. It's either buy everything or sell everything, it's not about that.
So, it's not about selling all US stocks, buying all gold, and selling all Bitcoin. That's not what we do. We perform a balancing within your risk profile and within a time horizon. This is also what you should adopt as a rationale for your portfolio management. And that great maxim, diversification, not only diversification of assets, but also geographical and currency diversification is healthy.
Looking towards quality, looking towards real protection in this inflationary moment we have at a global level, it is also important that you have that notion. Having some liquidity in your portfolio is always healthy. At this moment when you have a bit more stability and a basic interest rate , in most economies, at a higher level and with the prospect of staying that way, why not have some cash, some liquidity to give you that peace of mind as well?
That's our line . Internationalizing a portfolio is always welcome to help you achieve diversification and controlled risk for your profile and time horizon. This is the most important thing. Sometimes, what is a controlled risk for Manuel may not be a controlled risk for you. The same applies to Jeremy, who has a different stage of life and a different set of information.
So this is the key point. It's not about seeing if you'll guess correctly on prediction A, B, or C. The key is always to have a portfolio positioned according to your financial and life circumstances . Perfect. So, the great Jeremy remains an extremely relevant voice, someone who brought great ideas and a great manager.
He raises some very important warnings about valuation, multiples, excessive euphoria, and market cycles. You already know all this, and there are other famous managers like Ray Dalio who warn about the same thing. The problem is when you start falling into extremism. In the financial market, the biggest losses usually occur when someone believes they have certainty about the future.
That's the big trap: you think something is going to happen and you position yourself with a larger size than you should. This is a precaution you should take. If you can maintain that mental sanity when managing your portfolio, you can eliminate almost 80 to 90% of the risks present in it. Data can reduce uncertainty, but never eliminate it.
So take this wealth of data with you. I hope you found this helpful, and please comment on what you thought of this video. Once again, thank you so much for reading to the end.
댓글 0