日韩中文字幕在线一区二区三区,亚洲热视频在线观看,久久精品午夜一区二区福利,精品一区二区三区在线观看l,麻花传媒剧电影,亚洲香蕉伊综合在人在线,免费av一区二区三区在线,亚洲成在线人视频观看
          首頁 500強 活動 榜單 商業 科技 商潮 專題 品牌中心
          雜志訂閱

          美國人對AI警告充耳不聞,或將面臨比2008年更嚴重的危機

          Nick Lichtenberg
          2025-11-30

          阿爾伯特·愛德華茲極度看空AI。

          文本設置
          小號
          默認
          大號
          Plus(0條)

          法國興業銀行(Société Générale)直言不諱的全球策略師阿爾伯特·愛德華茲(Albert Edwards)——他甚至自稱“永久熊市論者”——確信,當前主要由高估值科技股和人工智能股驅動的美國股市正深陷危險的泡沫之中。(需要明確的是,法國興業銀行并不認為美股或AI股存在泡沫,并指出愛德華茲的職責是提供內部不同觀點。)盡管歷史常常重演,但愛德華茲近期警告稱,本輪周期崩盤的環境已發生根本性變化,可能導致經濟和平民投資者遭受更深遠、更痛苦的清算。

          “我認為存在泡沫,不過話說回來,我總是認為有泡沫,”愛德華茲最近在彭博社的梅琳·薩默塞特·韋布(Merryn Somerset Webb)的播客節目《Merryn Talks Money》中表示,并指出每個周期總有一個“看似非常合理、極具說服力的敘事”。然而,他的結論堅定不移:“最終會以悲劇收場,這一點我非常肯定。”

          愛德華茲在接受《財富》雜志(Fortune)采訪時表示,此前關于泡沫的理論“在1999年和2000年初非常令人信服,在2006—2007年也是如此”。他說,每次“市場上漲都如此迅猛”,以至于他不再談論泡沫,“因為客戶會對你重復同樣的話卻總是說錯感到厭煩”,直到泡沫破裂后他們才會改變態度。“通常,當人們被泡沫沖昏頭腦時,他們根本不想聽,因為他們正在賺大錢。”

          正如他本人常指出的那樣,愛德華茲以極度看空的市場策略師聞名,他做出過一些引人注目且夸張的預測,經常對股市大幅崩盤和經濟衰退發出警告。他的過往記錄包括著名的準確預測互聯網泡沫,但也包含一些未應驗的警告,例如預測標普500指數可能從峰值下跌75%——比2008年金融危機的低點更糟。當《紐約時報》在2010年報道愛德華茲時,他們指出,這位面帶微笑、穿著勃肯鞋的分析師自1997年以來就一直預測美國股市將出現日本式的停滯(他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時重復了這一預測)。

          盡管如此,愛德華茲仍堅持認為,當前情況與1990年代末的納斯達克泡沫有明顯的相似之處:科技股估值極高,一些美國公司的遠期市盈率超過30倍,而這都由引人注目的增長敘事所支撐。愛德華茲認為,正如上世紀90年代科技、媒體和電信(TMT)行業吸引了大量(有時是浪費的)資本投資一樣,今天的狂熱與那個早期時代如出一轍。不過,有兩個關鍵差異可能導致這次的結果要糟糕得多。

          缺失的催化劑與融漲風險

          愛德華茲解釋說,在以前的周期中,泡沫破滅的催化劑通常是貨幣當局的緊縮周期——即美聯儲加息,從而暴露市場泡沫。這一次,隨著美聯儲降息,這一催化劑明顯缺失。美國銀行研究部指出,央行在通脹上升時降息的情況十分罕見,自1973年以來僅占16%。不祥的是,美銀在八月份發布了一份關于“2007年幽靈”的報告。

          愛德華茲預測,美聯儲不會收緊政策,反而會因為美國回購市場的問題——這是大衰退時期的另一個幽靈——而停止量化緊縮,并可能“很快”轉向量化寬松。美聯儲本身在2021年就回購問題發布了一份工作人員報告,報告中寫道2007年至2009年間的交易“凸顯了美國回購市場的重要脆弱性”。回購問題在疫情期間再次出現,里士滿聯儲指出利率從2019年開始“急劇飆升”。

          愛德華茲告訴彭博社,缺乏鷹派政策可能導致“進一步融漲”,使得最終的破滅更具破壞性。愛德華茲自嘲道:“我只是厭倦了看空,基本上就像搖著鎖鏈說‘這都是泡沫,全都要崩潰’。”他說,他明白這個泡沫實際上可能持續的時間遠超像他這樣的永久熊市論者認為合理的時間,“而實際上,正是在那時,會突然冒出一些意外事件,抽走泡沫的根基。”

          “人工智能泡沫更令人擔憂的是,”愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,“經濟對這一主題的依賴程度有多深,不僅僅是推動增長的企業投資,”還有消費增長由頂層五分之一人口主導的程度遠超平常。換句話說,那些重倉股票的美國最富有人群,對經濟的推動作用比以往任何泡沫時期都大,占消費的比例也大得多。“所以,如果你愿意這么說,經濟比'87年股災時更脆弱,”愛德華茲解釋道,股市25%或更大幅度的回調意味著消費支出必將受到影響——更不用說50%的暴跌了。

          愛德華茲告訴彭博社,他擔心被卷入市場、被鼓勵“逢低買入”的散戶投資者廣泛參與。愛德華茲警告說,“股市永遠不會下跌”這種信念是危險的,并認為下跌30%甚至50%是完全有可能的。美國社會的不平等以及財富被“股市吹脹”的高收入人群財富高度集中是愛德華茲主要擔憂的問題,他指出,如果股市出現重大回調,那么美國的消費將“受到非常、非常嚴重的打擊”,整個經濟都將受損。華爾街那些不那么極端看空的人士,如摩根士丹利財富管理的麗莎·沙萊特(Lisa Shalett),也日益認同這一觀點。

          愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,從很多方面看,市場早該回調了,他指出除了疫情期間的兩個月,自2008年以來就沒有出現過衰退。“這時間真他媽長,而商業周期最終總是會進入衰退的。”他說時間太長了,以至于他作為永久熊市論者的本能都感到困惑。“事實上我現在對即將發生的崩盤不那么擔心了,這反而讓我擔心,”愛德華茲笑著補充道。

          愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,他經歷過各種周期和泡沫,并在1990年代中期確立了他永久熊市論者的地位,當時他感覺到遙遠的亞洲正在發生一場地震。“你在這個圈子里混了幾次,就會變得憤世嫉俗,”他說,然后又糾正自己:“這個詞不對。你會變得對完整的敘事極度懷疑。”他自豪地重復講述他在90年代在德利佳華(Dresdner Kleinwort)工作時,如何以懷疑的態度撰文評論當時馬來西亞的經濟繁榮,結果卻驚訝地發現泰國先爆發了危機。盡管如此,他說,“因為我的文章,我們失去了(在馬來西亞的)所有銀行牌照,”并補充說,這個故事仍然自豪地釘在他的X.com賬號上。

          “我基本上算是得躲在桌子底下,”愛德華茲談到他內心的熊市觀點在公司內部得到的反應時說道。“企業金融銀行部門當然不樂意失去所有銀行牌照。但回過頭看,你知道,他們避免了在馬來西亞危機爆發前最后一年向其放貸。他們事后也沒謝我。”

          財政失控與蟑螂

          除[股權估值外,愛德華茲一直強調另外兩個指向系統性脆弱性的主要潛在風險。首先,愛德華茲強調了西方由“財政失控”驅動的長期通脹風險。盡管中國帶來短期的周期性通縮壓力——其GDP平減指數已連續12個季度同比下降——愛德華茲表示,他相信對于負債累累的西方政客來說,阻力最小的路徑將是“印鈔”。在某個時間點,財政可持續性的計算“根本對不上”,迫使央行通過“收益率曲線控制”或量化寬松進行干預以壓低債券收益率。

          這就引出了愛德華茲長期持有的關于日本的觀點,他稱之為“冰河時代”。他說,大約在1996年,他開始認為“日本正在發生的事情將滯后地出現在歐洲和美國”。他解釋說,日本股市泡沫的破裂導致了各種糟糕的情況:實際利率崩潰、通脹降至零、債券收益率降至零。最終,日本進入了一段低增長時期,至今未能擺脫。他補充說,與美國的不同之處在于,日本化實際上在2000年互聯網泡沫破裂時就開始發生,但隨著美聯儲開始通過量化寬松“撒錢”來解決問題,經濟與資產價格之間的“關系破裂了”。他認為,美國從那以后基本上處于一個持續25年的泡沫之中,隨時可能破裂——這個“隨時”已經說了四分之一個世紀。

          “我們最終會在某個時間點面臨失控的通脹,”愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,“因為,我的意思是,那就是最終結局,對吧?沒有人愿意削減赤字。如果這個泡沫破裂,我們重啟量化寬松,唯一的解決辦法就是更多的量化寬松,然后我們最終陷入通脹,可能比2022年更糟。”

          愛德華茲還在房價中看到了確鑿證據。“你看看美國房地產市場,你會想,'嗯,實際上,是不是美聯儲相對于其他地方來說太寬松了?'因為為什么其他房地產泡沫在房價收入比方面已經收縮,而美國卻仍然停留在最高估值或接近最高估值的水平?”一番精彩論述展示了為何愛德華茲盡管有“老調重彈”的名聲卻仍備受尊重,他指出,在2018年彭博觀點的一篇文章中,傳奇的前美聯儲主席保羅·沃爾克(Paul Volcker)“在臨終前痛斥美聯儲”。這位在1980年代以遏制通脹著稱的央行行長認為,現代寬松的貨幣政策是“一個嚴重的判斷錯誤……基本上就是把問題往后推”。愛德華茲向《財富》雜志分享了一張經合組織(OECD)的圖表,顯示由于美聯儲過于寬松,美國房地產市場與全球市場脫鉤的程度有多大。

          這位分析師還表示,他也對私募股權持懷疑態度,他認為這一資產類別從多年來債券收益率下降和杠桿使用中獲益匪淺。私募股權的優勢在于其稅務處理方式以及“它不需要按市價計價,因此波動性不大”。然而,該行業杠桿率很高,他表示,如果全球環境轉向債券的長期熊市,那將是一個“重大問題”。近期一些引人注目的破產事件已開始波及債券市場,引發了人們對“信貸蟑螂”的擔憂,正如摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席執行官杰米·戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)最近給這個問題貼的標簽。

          愛德華茲借用“你絕不會只看到一只蟑螂”的比喻警告說,這些破產事件預示著一個高杠桿行業存在更深層次的問題,該行業已將其“觸角……深深伸入實體經濟”。

          《財富》雜志向愛德華茲指出,更多主流、不那么悲觀的人士也發出了類似的警告,例如在雅虎財經投資大會上發言的穆罕默德·埃里安(Mohamed El-Erian),以及“債券之王”杰弗里·岡拉克(Jeffrey Gundlach),后者對私募股權同樣持懷疑態度。愛德華茲同意空氣中彌漫著某種氣息。“我想說的是,懷疑的聲音更多了。而這又是一件讓我擔心的事情。這個泡沫可以持續下去。如果它是一個泡沫,它可以持續相當長一段時間。嗯,我們可以把問題一次又一次地往后推。通常情況下,懷疑者會被掃到一邊。”

          對于那些陷入既害怕崩盤又害怕錯過融漲的投資者,愛德華茲建議投資者對他的話持保留態度,但要注意潛在的警告信號。“我說我每年都預測經濟衰退,別聽我的,但這些是你應該注意的事情。”愛德華茲引用前花旗集團首席執行官查克·普林斯(Chuck Prince)那句用舞會比喻總結泡沫心態的著名言論,建議道:“關于在音樂還在播放時跳舞,你必須決定是站在樂隊前面蹦跳,還是在靠近消防通道的地方跳舞,準備第一個離開。”(財富中文網)

          譯者:中慧言-王芳

          法國興業銀行(Société Générale)直言不諱的全球策略師阿爾伯特·愛德華茲(Albert Edwards)——他甚至自稱“永久熊市論者”——確信,當前主要由高估值科技股和人工智能股驅動的美國股市正深陷危險的泡沫之中。(需要明確的是,法國興業銀行并不認為美股或AI股存在泡沫,并指出愛德華茲的職責是提供內部不同觀點。)盡管歷史常常重演,但愛德華茲近期警告稱,本輪周期崩盤的環境已發生根本性變化,可能導致經濟和平民投資者遭受更深遠、更痛苦的清算。

          “我認為存在泡沫,不過話說回來,我總是認為有泡沫,”愛德華茲最近在彭博社的梅琳·薩默塞特·韋布(Merryn Somerset Webb)的播客節目《Merryn Talks Money》中表示,并指出每個周期總有一個“看似非常合理、極具說服力的敘事”。然而,他的結論堅定不移:“最終會以悲劇收場,這一點我非常肯定。”

          愛德華茲在接受《財富》雜志(Fortune)采訪時表示,此前關于泡沫的理論“在1999年和2000年初非常令人信服,在2006—2007年也是如此”。他說,每次“市場上漲都如此迅猛”,以至于他不再談論泡沫,“因為客戶會對你重復同樣的話卻總是說錯感到厭煩”,直到泡沫破裂后他們才會改變態度。“通常,當人們被泡沫沖昏頭腦時,他們根本不想聽,因為他們正在賺大錢。”

          正如他本人常指出的那樣,愛德華茲以極度看空的市場策略師聞名,他做出過一些引人注目且夸張的預測,經常對股市大幅崩盤和經濟衰退發出警告。他的過往記錄包括著名的準確預測互聯網泡沫,但也包含一些未應驗的警告,例如預測標普500指數可能從峰值下跌75%——比2008年金融危機的低點更糟。當《紐約時報》在2010年報道愛德華茲時,他們指出,這位面帶微笑、穿著勃肯鞋的分析師自1997年以來就一直預測美國股市將出現日本式的停滯(他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時重復了這一預測)。

          盡管如此,愛德華茲仍堅持認為,當前情況與1990年代末的納斯達克泡沫有明顯的相似之處:科技股估值極高,一些美國公司的遠期市盈率超過30倍,而這都由引人注目的增長敘事所支撐。愛德華茲認為,正如上世紀90年代科技、媒體和電信(TMT)行業吸引了大量(有時是浪費的)資本投資一樣,今天的狂熱與那個早期時代如出一轍。不過,有兩個關鍵差異可能導致這次的結果要糟糕得多。

          缺失的催化劑與融漲風險

          愛德華茲解釋說,在以前的周期中,泡沫破滅的催化劑通常是貨幣當局的緊縮周期——即美聯儲加息,從而暴露市場泡沫。這一次,隨著美聯儲降息,這一催化劑明顯缺失。美國銀行研究部指出,央行在通脹上升時降息的情況十分罕見,自1973年以來僅占16%。不祥的是,美銀在八月份發布了一份關于“2007年幽靈”的報告。

          愛德華茲預測,美聯儲不會收緊政策,反而會因為美國回購市場的問題——這是大衰退時期的另一個幽靈——而停止量化緊縮,并可能“很快”轉向量化寬松。美聯儲本身在2021年就回購問題發布了一份工作人員報告,報告中寫道2007年至2009年間的交易“凸顯了美國回購市場的重要脆弱性”。回購問題在疫情期間再次出現,里士滿聯儲指出利率從2019年開始“急劇飆升”。

          愛德華茲告訴彭博社,缺乏鷹派政策可能導致“進一步融漲”,使得最終的破滅更具破壞性。愛德華茲自嘲道:“我只是厭倦了看空,基本上就像搖著鎖鏈說‘這都是泡沫,全都要崩潰’。”他說,他明白這個泡沫實際上可能持續的時間遠超像他這樣的永久熊市論者認為合理的時間,“而實際上,正是在那時,會突然冒出一些意外事件,抽走泡沫的根基。”

          “人工智能泡沫更令人擔憂的是,”愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,“經濟對這一主題的依賴程度有多深,不僅僅是推動增長的企業投資,”還有消費增長由頂層五分之一人口主導的程度遠超平常。換句話說,那些重倉股票的美國最富有人群,對經濟的推動作用比以往任何泡沫時期都大,占消費的比例也大得多。“所以,如果你愿意這么說,經濟比'87年股災時更脆弱,”愛德華茲解釋道,股市25%或更大幅度的回調意味著消費支出必將受到影響——更不用說50%的暴跌了。

          愛德華茲告訴彭博社,他擔心被卷入市場、被鼓勵“逢低買入”的散戶投資者廣泛參與。愛德華茲警告說,“股市永遠不會下跌”這種信念是危險的,并認為下跌30%甚至50%是完全有可能的。美國社會的不平等以及財富被“股市吹脹”的高收入人群財富高度集中是愛德華茲主要擔憂的問題,他指出,如果股市出現重大回調,那么美國的消費將“受到非常、非常嚴重的打擊”,整個經濟都將受損。華爾街那些不那么極端看空的人士,如摩根士丹利財富管理的麗莎·沙萊特(Lisa Shalett),也日益認同這一觀點。

          愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,從很多方面看,市場早該回調了,他指出除了疫情期間的兩個月,自2008年以來就沒有出現過衰退。“這時間真他媽長,而商業周期最終總是會進入衰退的。”他說時間太長了,以至于他作為永久熊市論者的本能都感到困惑。“事實上我現在對即將發生的崩盤不那么擔心了,這反而讓我擔心,”愛德華茲笑著補充道。

          愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,他經歷過各種周期和泡沫,并在1990年代中期確立了他永久熊市論者的地位,當時他感覺到遙遠的亞洲正在發生一場地震。“你在這個圈子里混了幾次,就會變得憤世嫉俗,”他說,然后又糾正自己:“這個詞不對。你會變得對完整的敘事極度懷疑。”他自豪地重復講述他在90年代在德利佳華(Dresdner Kleinwort)工作時,如何以懷疑的態度撰文評論當時馬來西亞的經濟繁榮,結果卻驚訝地發現泰國先爆發了危機。盡管如此,他說,“因為我的文章,我們失去了(在馬來西亞的)所有銀行牌照,”并補充說,這個故事仍然自豪地釘在他的X.com賬號上。

          “我基本上算是得躲在桌子底下,”愛德華茲談到他內心的熊市觀點在公司內部得到的反應時說道。“企業金融銀行部門當然不樂意失去所有銀行牌照。但回過頭看,你知道,他們避免了在馬來西亞危機爆發前最后一年向其放貸。他們事后也沒謝我。”

          財政失控與蟑螂

          除[股權估值外,愛德華茲一直強調另外兩個指向系統性脆弱性的主要潛在風險。首先,愛德華茲強調了西方由“財政失控”驅動的長期通脹風險。盡管中國帶來短期的周期性通縮壓力——其GDP平減指數已連續12個季度同比下降——愛德華茲表示,他相信對于負債累累的西方政客來說,阻力最小的路徑將是“印鈔”。在某個時間點,財政可持續性的計算“根本對不上”,迫使央行通過“收益率曲線控制”或量化寬松進行干預以壓低債券收益率。

          這就引出了愛德華茲長期持有的關于日本的觀點,他稱之為“冰河時代”。他說,大約在1996年,他開始認為“日本正在發生的事情將滯后地出現在歐洲和美國”。他解釋說,日本股市泡沫的破裂導致了各種糟糕的情況:實際利率崩潰、通脹降至零、債券收益率降至零。最終,日本進入了一段低增長時期,至今未能擺脫。他補充說,與美國的不同之處在于,日本化實際上在2000年互聯網泡沫破裂時就開始發生,但隨著美聯儲開始通過量化寬松“撒錢”來解決問題,經濟與資產價格之間的“關系破裂了”。他認為,美國從那以后基本上處于一個持續25年的泡沫之中,隨時可能破裂——這個“隨時”已經說了四分之一個世紀。

          “我們最終會在某個時間點面臨失控的通脹,”愛德華茲告訴《財富》雜志,“因為,我的意思是,那就是最終結局,對吧?沒有人愿意削減赤字。如果這個泡沫破裂,我們重啟量化寬松,唯一的解決辦法就是更多的量化寬松,然后我們最終陷入通脹,可能比2022年更糟。”

          愛德華茲還在房價中看到了確鑿證據。“你看看美國房地產市場,你會想,'嗯,實際上,是不是美聯儲相對于其他地方來說太寬松了?'因為為什么其他房地產泡沫在房價收入比方面已經收縮,而美國卻仍然停留在最高估值或接近最高估值的水平?”一番精彩論述展示了為何愛德華茲盡管有“老調重彈”的名聲卻仍備受尊重,他指出,在2018年彭博觀點的一篇文章中,傳奇的前美聯儲主席保羅·沃爾克(Paul Volcker)“在臨終前痛斥美聯儲”。這位在1980年代以遏制通脹著稱的央行行長認為,現代寬松的貨幣政策是“一個嚴重的判斷錯誤……基本上就是把問題往后推”。愛德華茲向《財富》雜志分享了一張經合組織(OECD)的圖表,顯示由于美聯儲過于寬松,美國房地產市場與全球市場脫鉤的程度有多大。

          這位分析師還表示,他也對私募股權持懷疑態度,他認為這一資產類別從多年來債券收益率下降和杠桿使用中獲益匪淺。私募股權的優勢在于其稅務處理方式以及“它不需要按市價計價,因此波動性不大”。然而,該行業杠桿率很高,他表示,如果全球環境轉向債券的長期熊市,那將是一個“重大問題”。近期一些引人注目的破產事件已開始波及債券市場,引發了人們對“信貸蟑螂”的擔憂,正如摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席執行官杰米·戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)最近給這個問題貼的標簽。

          愛德華茲借用“你絕不會只看到一只蟑螂”的比喻警告說,這些破產事件預示著一個高杠桿行業存在更深層次的問題,該行業已將其“觸角……深深伸入實體經濟”。

          《財富》雜志向愛德華茲指出,更多主流、不那么悲觀的人士也發出了類似的警告,例如在雅虎財經投資大會上發言的穆罕默德·埃里安(Mohamed El-Erian),以及“債券之王”杰弗里·岡拉克(Jeffrey Gundlach),后者對私募股權同樣持懷疑態度。愛德華茲同意空氣中彌漫著某種氣息。“我想說的是,懷疑的聲音更多了。而這又是一件讓我擔心的事情。這個泡沫可以持續下去。如果它是一個泡沫,它可以持續相當長一段時間。嗯,我們可以把問題一次又一次地往后推。通常情況下,懷疑者會被掃到一邊。”

          對于那些陷入既害怕崩盤又害怕錯過融漲的投資者,愛德華茲建議投資者對他的話持保留態度,但要注意潛在的警告信號。“我說我每年都預測經濟衰退,別聽我的,但這些是你應該注意的事情。”愛德華茲引用前花旗集團首席執行官查克·普林斯(Chuck Prince)那句用舞會比喻總結泡沫心態的著名言論,建議道:“關于在音樂還在播放時跳舞,你必須決定是站在樂隊前面蹦跳,還是在靠近消防通道的地方跳舞,準備第一個離開。”(財富中文網)

          譯者:中慧言-王芳

          Albert Edwards, the outspoken Global Strategist at Société Générale---a figure who even refers to himself as a “perma bear”---is certain that the current U.S. equity market, driven largely by high-flying tech and AI, is experiencing a dangerous bubble. (Société Générale, to be clear, does not hold the view that U.S. stocks or AI stocks are in a bubble, noting that Edwards is employed as the in-house alternative view.) While history often repeats itself, Edwards warned recently that the circumstances surrounding this cycle's inevitable collapse are fundamentally different, potentially leading to a deeper and more painful reckoning for the economy and the average investor.

          “I think there's a bubble but there again I always think there's a bubble,” Edwards told?Bloomberg's Merryn Somerset Webb?in a recent appearance on her?podcast?Merryn Talks Money, noting that during each cycle, there is always a “very plausible narrative, very compelling.” However, he was unwavering in his conclusion: “it will end in tears, that much I'm sure of.”

          Edwards told?Fortune?in an interview that previous theories about a bubble were “very convincing in 1999 and early 2000, they were very convincing in 2006-2007.” Each time, he said, the “surge in the market was so relentless” that he just stopped talking about bubbles, “because clients get pissed off with you repeating the same thing over and over again and being wrong,” only to change their tune after the bubble bursts. “Generally, when you're gripped by a bubble, people just don't want to listen because they're making so much money.”

          As he himself frequently points out, Edwards is known as a very bearish market strategist who has made some high-profile and dramatic predictions, often warning about major stock market crashes and recessions. His track record includes famously?calling the dot-com bubble, but it also includes warnings that haven't panned out, such as predicting a?potential 75% drop in the S&P 500?from peaks---worse than the 2008 financial crisis lows. When?The New York Times?profiled Edwards in 2010, they noted that the chuckling, birkenstocks-wearing analyst had been predicting a Japan-style stagnation for U.S. equity markets since 1997 (a prediction he repeated in his interview with?Fortune).

          Still, Edwards insists that the current parallels to the late 1990s?NASDAQ?bubble are clear: extremely rich valuations in tech, with some U.S. companies trading at over 30x forward earnings, justified by compelling growth narratives. Just as the TMT (Technology, Media, Telecom) sector attracted vast, sometimes wasted, capital investment in the 1990s, Edwards argued that today's enthusiasm echoes that earlier era. There are two key differences that could lead to a much worse outcome this time, though.

          The Missing Trigger and the Meltup Risk

          In previous cycles, Edwards explained, the catalyst for a bubble's demise was usually the monetary authority's tightening cycle---the Federal Reserve hiking rates and exposing market froth. This time, with the Fed lowering rates, that trigger is conspicuously absent.?Bank of America Research?has noted the rarity of central banks cutting rates amid rising inflation, which has occurred just 16% of the time since 1973. Ominously, BofA released a note on the “Ghosts of 2007” in August.

          Instead of tightening, Edwards anticipates the Fed will move away from quantitative tightening and likely shift to quantitative easing “quite soon,” due to issues in the U.S. repo markets, another ghost from the Great Recession. The Fed itself issued a?staff report in 2021?on repo issues, writing in 2021 that trading between 2007 and 2009 “highlighted important vulnerabilities of the US repo market.” Repo issues reemerged in the pandemic, with the?Richmond Fed?noting that interest rates “spiked dramatically higher” starting in 2019.

          Edwards told Bloomberg that the absence of hawkish policy could lead to a “further meltup,” making the eventual burst even more damaging. Poking fun at himself, Edwards said, “I just got bored being bearish, basically rattling my chains saying, 'This is all a bubble, it's all going to collapse.'” He said that he can see how the bubble can actually keep going for much longer than a perma bear like himself would find logical, “and actually that's when something just comes out the woodwork and takes the legs from out from under the bubble.”

          “What's more worrying about the AI bubble,” Edwards told?Fortune, “is how much more dependent the economy is on this theme, not just for the business investments, which is driving growth,” but also the fact that consumption growth is being dominated far more than normal by the top quintile. In other words, the richest Americans who are heavily invested in equities, are driving more of the economy than during previous bubbles, accounting for a much larger proportion of consumption. “So the economy, if you like, is more vulnerable than it was in the '87 crash,” Edwards explained, with a 25% or greater correction in stocks meaning that consumer spending will surely suffer---let alone a 50% lurch.

          Edwards told Bloomberg he was concerned about the widespread participation of retail investors who have been dragged into the market, encouraged to “just buy the dips.” This belief that “the stock market never goes down” is dangerous, Edwards warned, arguing that a 30% or even a 50% decline is very possible. The inequality of American society and the heavy concentration among high earners whose wealth has been “inflated by the stock market” is a major concern for Edwards, who pointed out that if there is a major stock-market correction, then U.S. consumption will be “hit very, very badly indeed” and the entire economy will suffer. This view is increasingly shared by less uber-bearish voices on Wall Street, such as?Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Lisa Shalett.

          In many ways, Edwards told?Fortune, we're overdue for a correction, noting that apart from two months during the pandemic, there hasn't been a recession since 2008. “That's a bloody long time, and the business cycle eventually always goes into recession.” He said it's been so long that his perma-bear instincts are confused. “The fact I'm less worried about an imminent collapse [right now] makes me worried,” Edwards added with a laugh.

          Edwards told Fortune that he's been through various cycles and bubbles and he gained his perma-bear status in the mid-1990s, when he felt a distant earthquake happening in Asia. “You've been around the block a few times, you just do become cynical,” he said, before correcting himself: “That's not the right word. You become extremely skeptical of the full narrative.” He proudly repeats the story about how, when he was at Dresdner Kleinwort in the '90s, he wrote with skepticism about Malaysia's economic boom at the time, only to be surprised when Thailand blew up first. Nevertheless, he said, “we lost all our banking licenses [in Malaysia] because of what I wrote,” adding that the story is still proudly?pinned to his X.com account.

          “I had to sort of basically hide under my desk,” Edwards said of the inward reception to the emergence of his inner bear. “Corporate finance banking departments certainly didn't appreciate losing all their banking licenses. But in retrospect, you know, they avoided a final year of lending to Malaysia before it blew up. They didn't thank me afterwards.”

          Fiscal Incontinence and Cockroaches

          Beyond?equity valuations, Edwards has been highlighting two other major underlying risks point to systemic vulnerability. First, Edwards highlighted the long-term risk of inflation in the West, driven by “fiscal incontinence.” Despite short-term cyclical deflationary pressure emanating from China---which has seen 12 successive quarters of year-on-year declines in its GDP deflator---Edwards said he believes the path of least resistance for highly indebted Western politicians will be “money printing.” At some point, the mathematics for fiscal sustainability “just do not add up,” forcing central banks to intervene through “yield curve control” or quantitative easing to hold down bond yields.

          This is where Edwards' long-held thesis about Japan comes in, what he calls “The Ice Age.” Around 1996, he said, he started thinking that “what's happening in Japan will come to Europe and the U.S. with a lag.” He explained that the bursting of the Japanese stock bubble led to all kinds of nasty things: real interest rates collapsing, inflation going to zero, bond yields going to zero. Ultimately, it was a period of low growth that Japan still has not been able to break out of. The difference with the U.S., he added, is that Japanification actually started happening in 2000 with the dot-com bubble bursting, but “the relationship broke” between the economy and asset prices as the Fed began “throwing money” at the problem through QE. The U.S. has essentially been in a 25-year bubble since then that is due to burst any day now, he argued---it's been due any day for a quarter-century.

          “We're going to end up with runaway inflation at some point,” Edwards told?Fortune, “because, I mean, that's the end game, right? There's no appetite to cut back the deficits. We bring back the QE, if and when this bubble bursts, the only solution is more QE, and then we end up with inflation, maybe even worse than 2022.”

          Edwards also sees a smoking gun in home prices. “You look at the U.S. housing market, you think, 'Well, actually, is the Fed just too loose relative to everywhere else?' Because why should other housing bubbles have deflated in terms of house price earnings ratio, but the U.S. is still stuck up there at maximum valuation or close to it?” In a flourish that shows why Edwards is so respected despite his broken-record reputation, he notes that in a?Bloomberg Opinion piece from 2018, legendary former Fed chair?Paul Volcker?“eviscerated the Fed just before he died.” The central banker who?famously slew inflation in the 1980s?argued that the modern era's loose monetary policy was “a grave error of judgment ... basically just kicking the can down the road.” Edwards shared an OECD chart with Fortune to show just how much U.S. housing has decoupled from global markets because the Fed has been too loose.

          The analyst also said he applied his skepticism to private equity, an asset class that he sees having benefited immensely from years of falling bond yields and leverage. Private equity's advantage has been its tax treatment and the fact that “it doesn't have to mark itself to market, so it isn't very volatile.” However, the sector is highly leveraged, and if the global environment shifts to a secular bear market for bonds, he said that would be a “major problem.” Recent high-profile bankruptcies have started to leak into bond markets, prompting concern of “credit cockroaches,” as JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently labeled the issue.

          Drawing on the metaphor that “you never have just one cockroach,” Edwards warned that these bankruptcies signal deeper issues in a highly leveraged sector that has spread its “tentacles... deeply into the real economy.”

          Fortune?notes to Edwards that more mainstream, less bearish voices are sounding similar warnings,?Mohamed El-Erian?at the?Yahoo?Finance Invest conference and?Jeffrey Gundlach, the “bond king,” who takes a similarly skeptical view of private equity. Edwards agreed that something is in the air. “I would say there are more voices of skepticism. And again, this is one thing which makes me worry. This bubble can go on. If it is a bubble can go on quite a long while. Well, we can kick the can down the road many times. Normally, the skeptics are swept aside.”

          For investors trapped between the fear of a collapse and the fear of missing a meltup, Edwards told advised investors to take him with a grain of salt but be mindful of potential warning sings. “I say that I predict a recession every year, don't listen to me, but these are the things you should be looking out for.” Paraphrasing an?infamous quote from former Citi CEO Chuck Prince?that summed up the bubble mentality with a metaphor about a dance party, Edwards recommended: “In terms of dancing while the music's still playing, you have to decide whether to be in front of the band, pogoing, or dancing close to the fire escape, ready to get out first.”

          財富中文網所刊載內容之知識產權為財富媒體知識產權有限公司及/或相關權利人專屬所有或持有。未經許可,禁止進行轉載、摘編、復制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
          0條Plus
          精彩評論
          評論

          撰寫或查看更多評論

          請打開財富Plus APP

          前往打開