Macro Trader

Docent: 과연 기술주들이 처한 참혹한 현실이 중국의 규제 때문만일까?라는 질문을 던져볼 수 있는 내용임. 중국의 지도자는 5년, 10년, 15년의 시간 동안 자신만의 족적을 남기고 있음. 지난 10년 간 경제성장을 주도 한 기술 기업들이 어떻게 세번 째 시진핑의 임기를 맞이할지 귀추가 주목되는 가운데, 다양한 내용을 담고 있는 이 기사를 살펴보고자 함. 우선, 시진핑이 집권을 시작했을 때 시가총액 20위 안에 중국 기업 중 텐센트만이 11위로 기술 기업에 속했지만, 현재 게임 및 사회관계망 서비스, 예약과 배송 서비스를 담당하는 기업들이 다수 포진 하고 있음. 이들 경영진은 시가총액 상위에 포진한 그들의 위치에 비례해 힘든 시간을 겪었다 생각할 수도 있는데, 바이러스 대확산 시기 그들의 기술력과 사회에 미치는 영향을 검증할 수 있는 기회가 있었음에도 불구 알리바바나 텐센트는 그 당시 가격보다 아래에서 거래되고 있는 현실이기 때문임. 이런 현실을 마오쩌둥으로부터 시작 된 '공동번영'를 구호로 한 각 종 규제를 비난의 표적으로 삼기 좋겠지만, 이미 공동번영은 '공동빈곤'으로 퇴색되고 있음. 오히려 알리바바 마윈 회장이 2020년 10월 포럼에서 무분별하게 규제 당국과 은행을 비판했던 때를 떠올려 볼 필요가 있음. 이로 말미암아 한 때 최고의 부를 자랑했던 그의 앤트 그룹 상장이 취소되었음. 이카루스처럼 태양 가까이 다가갔다가 불타버린 것임. 현실은 규제 당국의 규제로부터 충돌을 빚는 기술 기업들이 점점 많아지고 있다는 것이며, 경영진들은 어떻게 해야 정부의 편에 설 수 있을지 아직 모른다는 것임. Every Chinese leader stamps their mark on the country they rule for five, 10, (or 15) years. Xi Jinping’s brand is indelible, but the technology companies which have powered China’s economic rise over the past decade will be searching for clues on how to navigate his third term. When Xi took power in March 2013, Tencent Holdings Ltd. stood at a lonely 11th spot as the only technology company among China’s 20 largest by market value. Today, the games and social media behemoth stands at the top, accompanied by six others including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. in fourth, ahead of bookings and deliveries provider Meituan at number 11 . The Covid outbreak was a great opportunity for China’s technology leaders to prove their worth to the nation, offering a plethora of products to help citizens and companies survive rigid lockdowns and economic upheaval. Yet Tencent and Alibaba now trade lower than they did three years ago, before the virus crept out of Wuhan. A good portion of the blame can be attributed to “common prosperity,” a term first coined by Mao Zedong, but which became a battle cry under Xi last year to “increase the size of middle-income groups.” Companies were quick to jump aboard, telling investors — and Beijing — that they were ready to play their part. “We have actively worked on shouldering more social responsibility and creating greater value while promoting common prosperity for the larger society including our delivery riders, merchants, consumers, and other business partners,” Meituan Chief Executive Officer Wang Xing said in August 2021. But, as my colleague Shuli Ren noted this month, common prosperity has morphed into common poverty as everyone got poorer and China failed to broaden its middle class. It seems the buzzword even fell out of favor this year, although it has been revived in recent weeks and has popped up in state media with increasing frequency. Beijing’s “plan to reduce inequalities throughout the country,” as common prosperity is now described, doesn’t completely explain the troubles facing China’s technology companies, though. In fact, the challenges preceded it. Jack Ma’s ill-advised speech at the October 2020 Bund Forum in Shanghai — wherein he criticized banks and regulators — resulted in the nixed public offering of his fintech Ant Group Co. Ma, founder of Alibaba and once China’s richest man, flew too close to the sun and got burnt. While that one incident, and its fallout, was a shock to the sector, it doesn’t entirely explain the diminished fortunes of China tech. A series of regulatory actions over the past few years — collectively labeled a crackdown — help to describe multiple examples of Beijing’s heavy hand at work. Education companies had their business models pulled from under them, games firms went through repeated bouts of censorship and content renovation, while e-commerce players were hit with punishing antitrust fines. The end result is a growing list of Chinese technology companies who’ve run afoul of regulators. Yet still lacking is clarity as to what executives need to do in order to stay on Beijing’s good side.

The end result is a growing list of Chinese technology companies who’ve run afoul of regulators. Yet still lacking is clarity as to what executives need to do in order to stay on Beijing’s good side.

Docent: 과연 기술주들이 처한 참혹한 현실이 중국의 규제 때문만일까?라는 질문을 던져볼 수 있는 내용임. 중국의 지도자는 5년, 10년, 15년의 시간 동안 자신만의 족적을 남기고 있음. 지난 10년 간 경제성장을 주도 한 기술 기업들이 어떻게 세번 째 시진핑의 임기를 맞이할지 귀추가 주목되는 가운데, 다양한 내용을 담고 있는 이 기사를 살펴보고자 함. 우선, 시진핑이 집권을 시작했을 때 시가총액 20위 안에 중국 기업 중 텐센트만이 11위로 기술 기업에 속했지만, 현재 게임 및 사회관계망 서비스, 예약과 배송 서비스를 담당하는 기업들이 다수 포진 하고 있음. 이들 경영진은 시가총액 상위에 포진한 그들의 위치에 비례해 힘든 시간을 겪었다 생각할 수도 있는데, 바이러스 대확산 시기 그들의 기술력과 사회에 미치는 영향을 검증할 수 있는 기회가 있었음에도 불구 알리바바나 텐센트는 그 당시 가격보다 아래에서 거래되고 있는 현실이기 때문임. 이런 현실을 마오쩌둥으로부터 시작 된 '공동번영'를 구호로 한 각 종 규제를 비난의 표적으로 삼기 좋겠지만, 이미 공동번영은 '공동빈곤'으로 퇴색되고 있음. 오히려 알리바바 마윈 회장이 2020년 10월 포럼에서 무분별하게 규제 당국과 은행을 비판했던 때를 떠올려 볼 필요가 있음. 이로 말미암아 한 때 최고의 부를 자랑했던 그의 앤트 그룹 상장이 취소되었음. 이카루스처럼 태양 가까이 다가갔다가 불타버린 것임. 현실은 규제 당국의 규제로부터 충돌을 빚는 기술 기업들이 점점 많아지고 있다는 것이며, 경영진들은 어떻게 해야 북경과 Every Chinese leader stamps their mark on the country they rule for five, 10, (or 15) years. Xi Jinping’s brand is indelible, but the technology companies which have powered China’s economic rise over the past decade will be searching for clues on how to navigate his third term. When Xi took power in March 2013, Tencent Holdings Ltd. stood at a lonely 11th spot as the only technology company among China’s 20 largest by market value. Today, the games and social media behemoth stands at the top, accompanied by six others including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. in fourth, ahead of bookings and deliveries provider Meituan at number 11 . Executives and shareholders at these new giants have good reason to feel hard done by over the past few years. The Covid outbreak was a great opportunity for China’s technology leaders to prove their worth to the nation, offering a plethora of products to help citizens and companies survive rigid lockdowns and economic upheaval. Yet Tencent and Alibaba now trade lower than they did three years ago, before the virus crept out of Wuhan. A good portion of the blame can be attributed to “common prosperity,” a term first coined by Mao Zedong, but which became a battle cry under Xi last year to “increase the size of middle-income groups.” Companies were quick to jump aboard, telling investors — and Beijing — that they were ready to play their part. “We have actively worked on shouldering more social responsibility and creating greater value while promoting common prosperity for the larger society including our delivery riders, merchants, consumers, and other business partners,” Meituan Chief Executive Officer Wang Xing said in August 2021. Tencent “invested actively in key strategic areas as well as in frontier technologies, along with making new commitments in common prosperity initiatives,” Chairman Pony Ma said in an earnings call a year ago. But, as my colleague Shuli Ren noted this month, common prosperity has morphed into common poverty as everyone got poorer and China failed to broaden its middle class. It seems the buzzword even fell out of favor this year, although it has been revived in recent weeks and has popped up in state media with increasing frequency. Beijing’s “plan to reduce inequalities throughout the country,” as common prosperity is now described, doesn’t completely explain the troubles facing China’s technology companies, though. In fact, the challenges preceded it. Jack Ma’s ill-advised speech at the October 2020 Bund Forum in Shanghai — wherein he criticized banks and regulators — resulted in the nixed public offering of his fintech Ant Group Co. Ma, founder of Alibaba and once China’s richest man, flew too close to the sun and got burnt. While that one incident, and its fallout, was a shock to the sector, it doesn’t entirely explain the diminished fortunes of China tech. A series of regulatory actions over the past few years — collectively labeled a crackdown — help to describe multiple examples of Beijing’s heavy hand at work. Education companies had their business models pulled from under them, games firms went through repeated bouts of censorship and content renovation, while e-commerce players were hit with punishing antitrust fines.

Bottom-line: 제 20차 중국 공산당 전국대표대회의 시진핑 주석의 기조연설에서 바이러스 대확산 방지를 위한 억제정책 완화나 침체 위기의 부동산에 대한 지원책이 제시되지 않으면서 금요일 기대감으로 지수를 상승시켰던 투자자들에게 실망을 줌. 미국과 경쟁적인 기술 분야에서 집중적인 힘을 쏟겠다는 강한 의지를 보였으나, 이것만으로는 증시에 활력을 불어넣기엔 부족했음. Chinese stocks resumed their decline as President Xi Jinping offered little sign of a shift away from Covid Zero in his key speech, disappointing investors who had been hoping for some loosening of restrictions to shore up the market. The benchmark CSI 300 Index slid as much as 0.9% early Monday, after anticipations ahead of the twice-a-decade Party Congress contributed to a jump on Friday. A gauge of Chinese equities listed in Hong Kong also traded lower. China stock traders have been looking to the leadership gathering for fresh market impetus after suffering losses that have been among the worst in the world. Xi’s renewed pledge for tech self-reliance may offer some reprieve, but overall, the lack of pivot away from Covid Zero and the absence of stimulus signals for the property sector came as a disappointment to investors.

Bottom-line: 골드만삭스는 저평가 상태의 주식을 염가에 매수하려는 투자자라면 현금흐름을 창출하거나, 가치지표로 볼 때 매력적이거나, 수익성이 높아지거나, 또는 큰 폭으로 하락해 있는 중소형주나 경기순환주에 주목할 것을 권고함. 특히 가치지표로 볼 때 저평가 상태에 있거나 현금흐름이 좋은 기업은 이익회수기간(주가수익비율의 역수)이 길거나 높은 성장률의 성장주 대비 매력적으로 보인다고 평가함. 중소형주의 경우 대형주 대비 역사적 상대 저평가에 있음. 골드만삭스가 연말 목표치로 전망 한 S&P 500 지수 수준인 3,600 포인트를 현재 하회하고 있지만, 반대로 경기가 경착륙할 경우 지수 수준인 3,150에는 10% 이상 위에서 거래되고 있음. Goldman Sachs sees some attractive opportunities in quicker cash flow-earners, value stocks, profitable growth firms, “depressed” cyclicals and small caps for US investors looking for bargains. Value stocks and firms earning cash flows immediately look attractive relative to long duration and growth stocks, strategists including David J. Kostin wrote in a note dated Oct. 14. Profitable growth stocks trading at bargain valuations include Exelixis, Meta. Cyclical stocks that are cheap even in the case of a recession include PulteGroup, Toll Brothers and Mosaic. S&P Small Cap 600 Index “trades at a historically large discount” to S&P 500 Index. S&P 500 is trading below Goldman’s base-case year-end target of 3,600, more than 10% away from a hard landing scenario target of 3,150.

Kakao plunges as much as 9.5% to the lowest since May 2020 after a fire at a data center disrupted messenger app, ride-hailing, payment, gaming and other popular services on Saturday. 

최근 대량의 옵션 거래가 많은데, 이에 대해 과거 매크로 펀드를 운용하면서 옵션의 역할을 어떻게 해석하면 좋을지 적어놓았던 글이 있어 올립니다.

불꽃처럼 살다 간 'Basquiats'의 삶을 한 번 찾아보시면 재밌을겁니다.

팝콘 친구들... 이런건 가볍잖아... 🤦🏻‍♂️

Bottom-line: 경기 침체가 눈 앞에 보이고, 인플레이션과 높아진 금리의 부채 때문에 모두가 안전자산을 향하지만, 금 조차도 올해 -9% 하락했음. 이런 상황에서 예술품을 볼 가치가 있는가? 런던 전시회에 붐비는 사람들을 보면 그렇다고 생각하는 것 같음. 작품들은 권리로 인해 침체로부터 보호 받으며, 이들의 구입자는 대부분 높은 부를 축적한 부유층인 경우가 많기 때문에 가격이 보존되고 있음. 실제로 예술품 경매를 추적하는 지수는 S&P 500 지수가 -25% 이상 하락한 상황에서 되려 +50% 이상 상승했음. 물론 이 지수는 성공 한 경매를 다루고 미술품 시장의 절반도 대변하지 못하지만, 적어도 이 시장의 분위기는 좋다는 것을 알 수 있음. 이런 예술품 투자에 있어 피카소, 모네, 바스키아는 안정적인 블루칩 투자로 여겨지며, 일생에 단 한 번의 구매 기회조차 어려울 수 있음. 이런 주류 투자는 매우 높은 가격에 거래 될 뿐 아니라 유동성이 떨어짐. 자본의 여유가 없을 경우 예술품을 분할하여 소유하는 방법도 있음. 이는 투자자들이 바스키아 작품의 일부를 소유하는 권리를 가지게 해 자산 포트폴리오 다각화에 도움을 주지만, 작품을 소장하고자 하는 사람에겐 유옹하지 않음. 또 다른 옵션은 좋아하는 예술품을 구입하고 다른 곳에서 투자 기회를 찾는 것임. 이런 저런 소음이 가득하지만, 장기적으로 주가지수에 투자했을 때 수익을 잊지 말아야 할 것임. Investors cope with recessions, inflation and high-cost debt. Havens are few and far between. Even gold is down 9 per cent year to date. Could the art market be worth a look?. Punters in the enormous snaking queue that formed for the London Frieze art fair certainly seem to think so — although the split between collectors and socialites has yet to be established. By rights, art should be shielded from the worst of the economic headwinds: collectors tend to be wealthy and to fund their purchases from income or savings. Indeed, recent auctions seem to bear this out. Combined sales from the top three houses were up more than 20 per cent in the first half of the year, according to an upcoming survey by Clare McAndrew of Art Economics. And the ArtBnK index, which tracks the price fetched by active artists, has risen more than 50 per cent, compared with a decline of almost a quarter for the S&P 500. All these indicators have their limits. Auctions are less than half of the art market. Indices that track them only count successes: no allowance is made for the lots that get pulled or remain unsold. And, of course, every artwork is different. The price that it fetches may say more about its size, colour or quality than it does about the state of the market. That said, the mood music is still remarkably positive. The blue chips of the art world — the Picassos, Monets and Basquiats — are widely assumed to be the safest bet. Buying them may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And going mainstream is a natural way for investors to try to limit the risk of these expensive and illiquid asset purchases. But where does that leave the rather more modest collector, the one without hundreds of millions of pounds to spare?. Enter fractional ownership models: these give investors the chance to own a bit of a Basquiat, and sell it on without the underlying artwork changing hands. Useful for those wishing to diversify their assets — but less so for those who want a painting. Another option might be to buy art one likes, and look elsewhere for investment opportunities. For all the buzz over collectable asset classes, it is easy to forget that over the past decade the S&P outperformed them by miles — even after its recent decline.

주말이니 머리 아프지 않고 말랑 말랑한 내용으로 가볼게요.

Bottom-line: 런던에는 하나 당 65만 달러의 가치를 금괴 5만개가 은행 네트워크 시스템 하에서 24시간 7일 내도록 거래되고 있음. 이런 시스템은 지난 20년 간 큰 변화없이 이어왔음. 금융 스트레스가 커질 때 되려 금이 생각보다 거래가 편치 못하고, 바뀐 규제들로 인해 은행이 금을 보유하는 비용이 증가하고 거래 수익과 시장 축소 등의 우려에 직면하고 있음. 현재 로비 단체들은 현행 거래를 금에 대응하는 디지털 토큰 발행을 통해 블록체인으로 전세계 모든 금 거래를 시스템화 하면 시장이 활황이 될 것으로 기대하고 있지만, 지금까지 작은 변화의 시도조차 무산 된 경우가 많아 10월 16일 컨퍼런스에 모인 참가자들은 회의적임. 근래 금은 주식, 채권, 현금의 대안을 찾는 투자자들에게 비트코인과 경쟁관계에 놓여있고 혹자는 비트코인을 ‘디지털 금’이라 칭함. Trading on one of the world’s oldest markets depends on a network of high-security vaults located underneath Greater London. There, some 50,000 gold bars, each worth more than $650,000, change hands every day among the four big banks in charge of processing transactions. The system, which includes some $500 billion worth of gold stored in locations, has been trundling along with little change for most of the past two decades. David Tait, who heads the World Gold Council, the main lobby group for miners of the metal, thinks it’s time for an overhaul. The former investment banker is trying to push through changes he hopes will significantly increase demand, including a database using blockchain technology to keep track of almost every gold bar in the world. Once that’s up and running, he says, it should be possible to create a digital token backed by physical gold that can be more easily traded. Market players gathering for a conference on Oct. 16 are skeptical the proposed overhaul will get off the ground, because previous attempts to make even small changes to the market have fallen flat. But the package of changes, dubbed Gold 247 (for 24/7), has taken on fresh urgency. Post-financial crisis banking reforms began to affect gold this year after market participants were unable to prove that the asset could easily be traded in stressful times. The new rules, in effect, made it more expensive for banks to hold bullion, compressing the already meager returns they make trading the commodity, and raising concerns the market will shrink. And in the past decade, gold has faced growing competition from cryptocurrencies for the attention of investors looking for alternatives to stocks, bonds, and cash—with some boosters even calling Bitcoin “digital gold.”.

최근 요약한 내용 중 일부를 보기 편하게 정리해봤습니다.