저자: EdYardeni분석소개영상—출연자소속은제목기준Zeygos채널진행,발언인용은Yardeni분석전달 · 외국인
요약 보기
차기 Fed 의장 Kevin Warsh 체제에서 공급측 중심 정책 전환이 예상되며, 대차대조표 축소와 생산성 붐이 전개될 수 있다. Yardeni는 2027년 EPS 350달러에 PER 22배를 적용해 S&P500 2026년 목표 7,700을 제시했다. 장기금리는 4~5%대 유지 및 베어 스티프닝, 금은 온스당 6,000달러 장기 목표를 제시했다. 다만 정치적 갈등, 이사회 교체, 대법원 판결, 유동성 리스크 등 위험요인도 함께 언급됐다.
다듬은 글
Be careful because something really important is about to happen at the Federal Reserve, the most powerful central bank in the world. A regime shift is brewing, a new era for monetary policy, and in this analysis we will examine together what this could actually mean for markets and the global economy.
This is precisely the question and it is fundamental. Jeron Powell is expected to hand over the leadership of the Fed to Kevin Worsh in May 2026. And no, this isn't just a changing of the guard. This is a real philosophical revolution. We're talking about moving from a demand-side economy to a completely supply-side one.
Let's see what all this entails. Ok, first of all who is Kevin Wash? Isn't he just the likely next Fed chairman? He is considered the architect of an economic doctrine that seeks to literally overturn the approach of recent decades, calling into question the very foundations of the monetary policy to which we are accustomed.
And here the comparison is almost brutal. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. On one side, there is Powell, who has been defined as the Pragmatic Pivoter, someone who navigated by sight, adapting his moves to the data that arrived day by day. On the other hand, we have Worsh, the supply cider, which has a completely different idea.
It does not want to manage demand, but wants to unleash the forces of supply to trigger strong, structural and long-lasting growth. To truly understand the scope of this change, let's take a step back and look at this very interesting table. Analyst Eddy Ardeni has labeled each era of the Fed. After Greenspan, the great asset inflator, and Bernanche, the quantitative easing man, we have had Yellen and Powell, much more focused on data and the labor market.
And then comes Worsh, the supply sider. He breaks completely with this tradition. Its priority is no longer to inject liquidity, but rather to remove it by drastically reducing the Fed's balance sheet, in order to force a more efficient allocation of capital and stimulate real productivity. The heart of his thinking is revolutionary in its own way.
Listen here. For him, inflation is not an inevitable side effect of growth, but a political choice, the result of bad decisions. As a result, he throws the famous Philips curve in the trash , considering it scrap metal. The government's recipe is fewer taxes and fewer rules. from the Fed's action to stop flooding the markets with money and, above all, to deflate that enormous balance sheet to ensure that capital goes where it is really needed.
Well, that's a fascinating theory, but in practice, what does it mean for the markets? Here we get to the heart of the analysis because analyst Ed Iardini has done the math, and the math is very precise. Here it is, the head-spinning number: 7,700. This is the target Yardeni has set for the S&P 500 index by the end of 2026.
It's an impressive number , sure, but let's see exactly how we get there. So, the basis of everything, as always, is corporate profits. According to the Ardenis, they are literally destined to explode. We start with a forecast of earnings per share, or PS, of $268 in 2025, then a jump to 310 in 2026 and up again to 350 in 2027.
We are talking about double-digit growth, year after year, which would be fueled precisely by this productivity boom and the math to get to 7700 is actually very straightforward. We take the $350 of earnings forecast for 2027. We apply an earnings multiple of 22, which is a value that discounts strong optimism about future growth, and the result is exactly 7700.
Here is the model revealed. But why should this earnings growth be so rapid? Iardeni's answer lies in this sentence. He talks about the roaring 2020s. He sees an era in which artificial intelligence and automation are creating an explosion of productivity that then cascades into record profits for companies.
Of course, markets aren't just about stocks, so it's crucial to understand how this new landscape impacts all other major asset classes. Let's take a look at the bigger picture. This table sums it all up perfectly next to the 7700 target for the S&P 500. We have accurate forecasts for the rest as well .
In a boom scenario , 10-year Treasury yields are expected to remain high, between 4% and 5%, partly because the Fed will buy less debt. Gold, on the other hand, is seen as a classic hedge against geopolitical risks and uncertainty, with a truly ambitious target of $6,000 per pound. and short-term rates.
With inflation still sticky, no cuts are expected until at least June. For the bond market, the technical term to use is be stipening. It's a bit of a complicated word, but essentially it means something simple. Long-term interest rates are rising faster than short-term ones. And this is happening precisely because with the Fed withdrawing from the market, strong growth, and high public debt , investors want a higher premium to lend money long- term.
And what about gold? There was a price drop in late January that some might have noticed, but Yardeni dismisses it as a technical sell-off , not a fundamental issue, but a trading rules issue that forced a sell-off. Precisely for this reason, his long-term view of an ounce of gold at $6,000 does not change one iota.
So far we've talked about theories, numbers, models—all very fascinating—but reality, as we know, is made up of people, politics, and obstacles, and here things start to get much more complicated. This is the team that will decide monetary policy in 2026 and, as can be seen, it is divided. On one side are hawks like Bowman and Waller, always worried about inflation and ready for restrictive policies.
On the other hand, there are doves like Cook and Paulson who prioritize full employment. Between these two factions, Worsche will have to try to build a consensus for his agenda, a task that, let's face it, is politically very, very difficult. And as if this division were not enough, there is also a strong instability of roles.
This timeline is eloquent, a continuous succession of expiring mandates and key retirements, including that of Powell right around 2026. The Fed will face a significant turnover that will alter the balance of power right in the midst of this delicate transition. And then there's a potential legal bombshell, a case pending in the Supreme Court that will decide whether the president of the United States can fire a Fed governor whenever he wants.
Such a ruling would obviously undermine the very foundations of the Central Bank's independence, which is a fundamental pillar of the entire system. And finally the purely technical challenge. Reducing the Fed's balance sheet, as Worsh wants, is a very delicate operation. Falling below a critical threshold estimated at around $3 trillion in reserves could trigger liquidity crises and flare-ups of volatility in money markets.
In short, a risk to financial stability. So, all things considered, we are faced with great tension. On the one hand, there is the almost utopian promise of a new era of strong, inflation-free growth; on the other, a series of far from negligible political and technical risks . To overcome these obstacles, some are suggesting an agreement, a sort of pact between Worsh's new Fed and the Treasury.
The idea would be to coordinate debt management and loosen some rules for banks, so that they can reduce their balance sheets without triggering a liquidity crisis. The ultimate goal would be the best of all possible worlds: low rates and a lean balance sheet, all at the same time. And the final question we leave open is precisely this: Warshi Ardeni's vision.
Will this non-inflationary productivity boom actually materialize, or will the new Fed eventually be overwhelmed by the complexity of the political and technical challenges that lie ahead? The future of global markets may depend on the answer.
Comments 0