저자: TomLee · 외국인
요약 보기
9월 17일 FOMC 금리인하 기대가 커졌고 장기금리·모기지금리 하락 여지가 있으며 중소형주 강세가 예상된다고 주장. 비트코인은 4분기 강세로 연말 20만 달러 가능성을 제시. 스테이블코인 결제 확산은 긍정적으로 보고, NFT는 일시적 유행으로 평가. 콜렉터블 자산에 대한 개인적 견해도 언급.
다듬은 글
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies like Ethereum are extremely sensitive to monetary policy. That's why I believe that September 17 is an important catalyst. The crypto market usually shows good results in the fourth quarter. So I think Bitcoin could easily reach 200,000 by the end of the year. I know, it's a significant leap.
That's almost a doubling, but it's also almost a doubling from the current level. Let's just wait. Let's take a short pause. Doubling from the current level. So , everyone hears it. We are at $111,000. Do you think we can really reach 200,000 by Christmas? That's right. One of the reasons why Bitcoin's growth has slowed this year.
Let's start with the Federal Reserve. According to Lee, the bond market sent a clear signal after the latest employment report. Futures on the Fed rate have shifted from an estimate of two and a half cuts this year to almost three. In other words, traders are betting that the Fed will act more aggressively than previously reported.
Why? The answer lies in the balance between inflation and the labor market. Please take a moment notifications for new videos. You can also check out our other videos about cryptocurrencies and the general digital asset space, and leave YouTube's algorithms and makes a huge contribution to the growth of your channel.
Thank you, enjoy watching. We see that Fed rate futures have jumped from about 2.3 cuts by year-end to almost three. So, right after that jobs report, the bond market is effectively saying that the labor market is straying from the Fed's target more than inflation is, and therefore warrants an additional rate cut.
So I think it makes sense because we know that the inflation that will be reported this week in the August CPI could be elevated, but markets will start to see that as a temporary phenomenon. Whereas weakness in the labor market, as you know, once it starts, it is very difficult to stop. So I think it's important for the Fed to intervene quickly.
And do you agree that at least three times this year? In my opinion, if I look at what the bond market is laying out, which is essentially three cuts now, while the Fed is talking about two, the bond market is saying that the Fed is lagging behind in its understanding of these changing conditions. So, I think on the 17th, when the FOMC makes its interest rate decision, there is a chance that the Fed will react to this.
And if that happens, it will be good news, as the bond market will feel relieved that the Fed is acknowledging the weakening labor market. Hey Tom, even if the Fed cuts rates, it controls the short-term segment, not the long-term segment. What do you expect from the long-term segment? And what do you think will happen to the mortgage market as a result?
The long-term segment is a concern because we know that globally, particularly 30-year bonds, it has increased. We know that the Fed and other central banks have recognized that monetary policy only has a significant impact over a period of up to 5 years. You know, the correlation is 90%. But once we move to 10- year bonds, the market makes its own decisions about growth.
This is somewhat worrying. But on the other hand, I think mortgage rates could fall sharply as the spread between a 30-year mortgage and a 10-year bond exceeds 300 basis points. The 50-year average is around 160. So if the Fed starts cutting rates again, and the bond market sees this as an easing trend, a 30-year mortgage could fall 150 basis points even if the 10-year bond is unchanged.
This is a significant relief for the housing market. This is very important. I know you're not an economist, but you should have your own opinion on where the economy is headed. If we get these rate cuts from the Fed and the economy doesn't go into a precipitous decline , despite what we're seeing in the labor market .
This is one thing. But if we get these cuts and at the same time face an economic slowdown, perhaps even a recession in the future—that's a whole different story. Do you view these Fed rate cuts as positive because we can do it without harm and it will improve the economy, or do you view it with apprehension about what comes next?
You know, I'm inclined to think that these cuts will be very beneficial for the economy, because the 30- year mortgage is literally strangling it right now. We know that the housing market has slowed significantly. But we also know that there is a large pent-up demand for housing. So, this is a market that really needs correction in terms of easing supply and demand conditions.
We also know that the ISM, which is an indicator of business confidence, has been below 50 points for 31 months. This is the longest period since the ISM index was created. So I believe business confidence will recover if the Fed starts cutting rates. So, the combination of lower mortgage rates and renewed business confidence, in my opinion, is extending the cycle, which is why small-cap companies have become the second most profitable group after the G7 over the past 8 weeks.
Tom, you know, one of the things that Scott Bessant said is that the economy is actually in better shape than we think, and employment numbers are going to improve. How does this affect your thinking, if at all? I mean, I generally agree with Treasury Secretary Bessant's comments for two reasons. First, when analyzing corporate earnings, we do not see an increase in complaints from businesses that things slowed down in July or August.
So, while the job market looks like it has worsened over the past 2 months, business conditions have not. In fact, even in the Fed's Beige Book, most regions reported improving conditions. This is first, and second, we know that the labor market is going through many data revisions, and we are waiting for the September base adjustments.
I think they might show that the labor market has been weak all year, and maybe the last few months have actually been stable. So I think Treasury Secretary Bessant is right to some extent. Hey Tom, tell us what you think about Bitcoin before we let you go. I think we're at about $111,000 now. Prospects for growth or decline from here, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies like Ethereum are very sensitive to monetary policy.
That's why I believe that September 17 is an important catalyst. Cryptocurrencies usually perform well in the fourth quarter. So, I believe Bitcoin could easily reach 200,000 by the end of the year. I know, it's a big leap. That's almost a doubling, but it's also almost a doubling from the current level.
Let's just wait. Let's take a short pause. Doubling from this level. So, everyone who's listening to this. We are at the $111,000 mark . And you think we could actually be at $200,000 by Christmas. That's right. One of the reasons why Bitcoin stalled this year is because the Fed was on pause for 9 months.
This pause during the year, if you look at the easing cycle, has only happened twice, in 1998 and 2024 , when the Fed began to resume rate cuts in the fourth quarter, in September. The shares are showing very good results. As you know, cryptocurrency has a high beta to stocks. So I think it's going to be a very strong fourth quarter.
Small-cap stocks should also rise, as should IWM, but this is also very bullish for Ethereum, which is closely tied to small- cap. Since the Genius Act was passed just 2 months ago, billions of dollars have already passed through stablecoins. This regulatory clarity has released pent-up demand, making it easier for institutions to use digital dollars for real-world payments.
Lee notes that even in areas far from the crypto industry, such as commodities, stablecoins are increasingly being used to settle transactions. Regarding NFTs, however, Lee is more skeptical. He views the initial hype around digital art and collectibles as a passing fad. It's still a new product, in many ways, and some of it hasn't really been tested at scale.
That's what worries me. If someone comes up with a strategy that involves a bunch of leverage or a new wrap strategy and it worked for them with $25,000 in assets, that's great. But what happens when you raise $250 million ? Is there enough liquidity there from an institutional point of view? So that's how I look at it.
There is a fairly large community trying to figure this out. I would say that the first large-scale phenomenon that emerged from regulation in the area of large sums of money is stablecoins. Since the Genius Act was passed a few months ago, we can already see billions of dollars in transactions being made.
And that gives confidence to a lot of people, to see the liquidity, the transparency, the functionality, and the fact that it meets regulatory requirements, that you can actually be in the legal field . Because usually the people who do this are involved in many other aspects of financial services, just like me.
We cannot afford to break the rules in any way. So there is a lot of hesitation about some of these new strategies because they haven't been tested at scale. That doesn't mean they won't work. It's for the same reasons people say, "Oh, Solana is the future of banking, because it's fast." There were significantly more transactions on ETH than on Solana.
So even though you can argue that it's slower, it's kind of a place where if you want to be conservative, for me on ETH it's really about using stablecoins to make payments. This is what we decided to do the most. And the payments actually increase every month. We are finding more and more situations internationally in different countries where a buyer or seller uses a stablecoin for a transaction.
This is news . This definitely wasn't the case when purchasing goods until recently, and now it's happening. Are you surprised by how quickly this happens? I'm not surprised about stablecoins because they've been held back like a balloon underwater, awaiting legislation. You know, there were disputes between the House of Representatives and the Senate regarding this bill.
I was involved in this. We weren't entirely sure. We have to give Senator Hagerty credit. He helped bring it to the finish line, but that's behind him. And now that it's become law, the ball has jumped out of the water, and boom—it's become a fact everywhere. I mean, last month I was amazed at how many transactions we did, even buying assets that were not related to cryptocurrency at all.
Nothing. These aren't even crypto assets. These are old world goods, settled using stablecoins. I mean, NFT is another description of going online. I only buy assets that are physical. They can be tokenized in terms of percentage ownership. NFTs turned out to be a temporary fad. This does not mean that the transfer of assets or contracts to the blockchain will not happen.
It will happen. But those Kobe and Jordan cards, they physically exist. They are in storage. When you own a piece of this, like I do, I own a physical asset, not something that was drawn with digital pixels. And so, you know, maybe this is just my opinion, but I won't collect NFTs. I collect physical assets that can be tokenized to prove ownership through a contract.
This fascination came and went. I'm very lucky that I didn't get caught up in this, because I never understood it. Where is this asset? Where can I put on a white glove and touch him? This is something you can't do with NFTs. So, maybe I'm wrong, but I think NFTs have actually proven that you can implement a contract and know where ownership is proven.
And this in itself is very useful for digitizing partial ownership of a physical asset. A baseball card, a car, a watch, a painting—it makes sense. But in the end, people want the real thing. No, I don't see it working from a monetization perspective. I think for those who want to see Kobe Jordan's legendary card with the logo, remember that this logo was on his uniform during his debut season.
This is a physical piece cut from his game jersey for this card. Full authentication for assessment and everything else. If you want to see it, you'll probably just have to go to the website where we'll show it. Or I'm considering another option because the demand for viewing is so high—you wouldn't believe how many messages I get about this card .
I will contact several museums to see who would like to exhibit it permanently. There are so many parents with sons who want to watch her. I think we will do that, because I will never sell this card, at least not in my lifetime. So it should be in a museum. It should be where the collectors are, you know, it's a family tradition .
Fathers and sons have been exchanging cards since the 1950s. I can't believe how many hidden collectors have written to me, " Hey, is there a way to show this card to my son's class somewhere?" "This is real magic." So why shouldn't it be in a museum? This is the next question for discussion. As a personal digression, Lee shares that he owns legendary sports memorabilia, like a card featuring Kobe Bryant's debut jersey.
For him, these items are not investments for resale, but assets with deep cultural and emotional meaning. He even plans to loan such items to museums, where fathers and sons can share the joy of viewing them, continuing a generational tradition of collecting. It's a reminder that while financial markets often seem abstract, there is always a human aspect of value, trust, and ownership.
Comments 0