잭슨홀 미팅: 파월 의장의 경제 영향과 예측

Nyang은 다가오는 잭슨홀 회의가 미국 경제의 미래 방향에 중요한 역할을 할 것이라고 믿습니다.

### 잭슨홀 예상: 파월의 중요한 결정을 앞둔 시점
* 📅 이틀 후 잭슨홀 미팅에서는 미국 경제에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있는 **파월 의장의 중요한 통찰**이 공개될 예정입니다.
* 📰 월스트리트 저널의 닉 티미라오스는 이번 회의가 경제 상황을 개선하거나 불안정하게 만들 수 있는 **'성패를 가르는' 순간**이라고 설명했습니다.
* 🏆 '명예의 전당'이라는 문구가 강조되어 **파월 의장의 결정이 그를 격상시키거나 경제에 심각한 영향을 미칠 수 있음**을 시사했습니다.
* 📈 2020년 8월, 파월 의장은 지난 회의를 되돌아보며 코로나19로 인해 악화된 디플레이션 압력에 대응하기 위해 **평균 인플레이션 목표치 개념**을 도입해 시장에 충격을 주었습니다.
* 📉 파월 의장은 짧지만 인상적인 연설에서 1980년대 인플레이션 위기 당시 볼커 전 의장의 접근법을 연상시키는 **"통화정책을 유지해야 한다"고 강조**했습니다.
* 🔍 다가오는 회의가 다가오면서 **최근 4.3%를 기록한 실업률**과 경제 전망에 미치는 영향에 대한 논의가 집중되고 있습니다.
* ⚖ 실업률의 상승은 구직자의 건전한 유입을 의미할 수도 있고 해고로 인한 문제를 의미할 수도 있으므로 **'좋은' 실업률과 '나쁜' 실업률**을 구분하는 것은 매우 중요합니다.
* 📊 궁극적으로 파월 의장의 발언은 경기 침체 가능성에 대한 공황을 방지하기 위해 **시장의 신뢰를 유지**하면서 경제적 어려움을 인정하는 균형을 유지해야 합니다.

Hello, it's Nyang. Today, I want to talk about Jackson Hole. In two days, on Friday night, we will find out what Powell will say at the Jackson Hole meeting. I saw earlier today that Nick Timiraos from the Wall Street Journal has slightly leaked some answers. So, I will mix the content from Nick Timiraos' article with various other points. First, looking at Nick Timiraos' article, there are really significant scenes described. He expressed the Jackson Hole meeting with the phrase make or break. This means it could either create opportunities or be a decisive moment that could break things. In other words, the Jackson Hole meeting could lead to improvements in the U.S. economy, but it could also be a critical moment that could derail it.

There were various stories, but the word that impressed me the most was this one. When considering the scenario, it is referred to as the Hall of Fame, which translates to 명예의 전당 in Korean. Now, finally, inflation and the war have ended, everyone. And the U.S. economy has not experienced a hard landing but a soft landing. Let's give a round of applause. Now, Chairman Powell, please go over there. It’s the Hall of Fame. You have finally entered the Hall of Fame, and we will hear whether we can raise the power of the central bank’s Hall of Fame or if, on the other hand, it is expressed like this: economic expansion does not die just because it gets older. In other words, just because the economy has been doing well for a long time does not mean it will collapse. This leads to the expression: no, this is...

It's not about dying from old age; it's about being killed. The expression is clear: it means that Yoon is being killed. These two meanings are very different, right? Ah, Powell has finally succeeded in a soft landing. Applause! It could be a hall of fame, or it could mean that Powell is attempting to kill the economy, or he might actually kill it. This is a very important moment. I'm curious about what stories will emerge from this year's Jackson Hole. 

Now, we need to talk about the past. Let's go back to August 2020. Jackson Hole always takes place in August. In 2020, at Jackson Hole, Powell brought up a term that had never been heard before: average inflation targeting. I remember thinking at that time, Wow, I had never heard of this before.

When I brought this up, it gave a huge shock to the market. Let me explain what that means. Right now, it's something you can't even imagine, but at that time, the inflation target was set at 2%. For the past 10 years, inflation had been consistently below that target, with no signs of rising. So, honestly, these days, when you invest in stocks, you pay a lot of attention to the CPI, right? Back then, we didn't look at it because inflation was always stable. So, you absolutely cannot understand this now, but at that time, there were even discussions like, Oh, we should stop fighting deflation and instead, we should wage a war against deflation. It’s hard to grasp, right? This was just four years ago. The talk about needing to wage a war against deflation was so prevalent that I believe it was then that President Williams made that statement.

He also expressed this: Ah, inflation, we have been fighting against it for 30 years, but it seems like there is no inflation. Isn't it just a ghost of inflation? Can't we do without it? Let's stop fighting and fight against deflation instead. This was the extent of the conversation. Given this context, Powell introduced the average inflation targeting framework, so let's take a look at what this means. In other words, at that time, there was a belief that there were severe deflationary pressures due to COVID-19, which is why interest rates were low and quantitative easing was continuously implemented. As a result, it seemed like prices were going to rise a bit. So, when they did rise, they said, No, no, no. Just because it increased by 2%, we are not going to raise interest rates again. We will consider the average from here to there. This means that the performance during this period is...

There were some bad apples, so even when we averaged in those with poor grades, it still exceeded 2%. Then we talked about tightening measures and aimed for an average inflation target. What was the result? As you well know, inflation didn't just hit 2%; it skyrocketed to 99%. During this time, Powell received a lot of criticism. People were asking, What is going on? You said inflation was temporary, so what is this? He faced a lot of backlash. However, from an investment perspective, this situation provided a great investment opportunity. This is because the Federal Reserve indicated that they would likely not tighten monetary policy. That's why I was genuinely excited and said we should buy stocks at that time. So, you can see the reason behind that. Anyway, these events took place in August 2020.

If it had been two years later, we would have seen a completely changed situation. Let's talk about what was said in August 2022. There was a specific expression used: stay at it. This means to endure or to hold on. You may remember the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker from the 1980s. He used this expression while fishing near Jackson Hole, saying that if you want to catch a big fish, you need to wait and be patient. 

In 1979, Volcker faced an interest rate of 11.5%. He raised it to over 20%. So, think about it: with a benchmark interest rate exceeding 20%, the market interest rates would have been around 30%, and inflation was at 10%. It was complete chaos.

그때였고요. 이렇다 보니까 볼커에 대한 비판 여론이 정말 장난이 아니었습니다. 너 때문에 나 다 죽겠다. 너 때문에 나 회사가 찔렸고, 나 때문에 농사도 안 되고, 나 지금 막 물건도 안 팔리고, 나 죽겠다. 그러면서 볼커에게 금리 좀 그만 올려라. 나 죽겠다, 나 죽겠어.라고 하면서 난리가 났었는데, 볼커 의장은 그때 뭐라고 얘기했냐면 Keep at it. 그래서 인플레이션을 잡아야 돼.라고 얘기를 했다는 거죠. 그러니까 이 얘기를 파월이 했습니다. 제가 웃는 이유가 뭐냐면, 저 불과 2년 전에 Keep it 해놓고, 잠깐만 2년 후에 Keep it 이렇게 얘기했는데, 이것도 정말 웃겼던 게 이때 당시 파월 의장의 그 연설은 5분 스피치가 있었어요. 무슨 말이냐면 그 전에는 파월이 잠깐만.

If I say this, you might think, Oh, that's not it. No, that's not it. Oh, this is not it either. Ah, really, I need to explain this in detail. Powell at the Jackson Hole meeting, just like we are waiting for Jackson now, we were waiting for Jackson back then too. He just spoke for five minutes and said, Keep at it. When we asked questions, he just said, Keep at it, and walked out. His serious expression when he left caused the stock market to drop by 3%, and it was quite chaotic. I really remember feeling frustrated about that.

Now, when you look at the chart, what do you think? In August 2020, inflation was driven up by AI, and in 2020, he showed a strong will to control inflation while talking about taking action. It’s been a back-and-forth situation.

It seems that the key point to observe is whether this person can indeed be inducted into the Hall of Fame. In that context, the core issue will be what Powell will say at the Jackson meeting coming up in two days in August 2024. According to an article by Nick Timiraos, it seems that he will express a somewhat conservative opinion regarding the U.S. economy. However, the market's current focus is not on inflation but rather on the unemployment rate. Therefore, it is crucial to discuss what he will say about the unemployment rate. I would like to delve into this topic in detail today. Recently, I have a friend who is like a brother to me, named Goolsbee. He is really the kind of person among the Federal Reserve members who warmly embraces those of us who invest in stocks, so I consider him my brother. He recently said that the experiment is...

This is how it works: it rises like a rocket and then falls like a feather. This means that when the unemployment rate goes up, it does so at a very fast pace, like a rocket. So, the unemployment rate might be at a certain level right now, but we need to be alert and quickly lower interest rates. What are we even talking about? What I want to emphasize is that the unemployment rate tends to rise rapidly once it surpasses a certain level. If you think about it intuitively, it goes like this: if the boss next to you lays off employees, you might think, Oh, should I lay someone off too? This kind of contagion leads to a very rapid increase in layoffs, which seriously cools down the economy. So, what are we going to say about the U.S. economy?

This is very important. Regarding the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate announced last month was 4.3%, which has brought a lot of attention to the so-called shop rule. It was said that if the unemployment rate rises more than 0.5% above the existing average data, it indicates a recession. There have been various discussions about the reliability of this indicator, and many of you may have heard that we shouldn't pay attention to it because it is a lagging indicator. While watching that video, I noticed that Kyung-hwan Ma, who runs a YouTube channel, mentioned that we should look at something other than the shop rule. The name of that rule is the Josh rule. To understand this rule, you need to know that there are two types of unemployment rates: good unemployment and bad unemployment. You should be aware that there is a distinction between the two. However, the good unemployment rate...

You may not understand what it means to have both good and bad unemployment rates. The unemployment rate refers to the proportion of people who want to work but cannot find a job among those who have raised their hands to say, I want to work. Therefore, there are good unemployment rates and bad unemployment rates. First, let me explain bad unemployment rates. Bad unemployment rates refer to people who want to work but cannot find a job; in other words, these are individuals who were previously employed but have been laid off. As the number of people being laid off increases, the unemployment rate rises. 

There is also a good unemployment rate. This good unemployment rate is a bit complex to think about because it is influenced by various factors simultaneously. You might wonder where the good unemployment rates come from. Let me illustrate this with a diagram. Let's consider a scenario where there are 50 people who want to work.

There is a world where five people are unable to work, resulting in an unemployment rate of 10%. Initially, the number of people wanting to work increases significantly. So, let's say this number reaches 100. Among the 50 new entrants, 15 people are unable to find jobs. Therefore, with the five original individuals and the 15 new ones who can't find work, we have a total of 100 people, out of which 20 are unemployed. This leads to an unemployment rate of 20%. In other words, when new individuals who want to work enter the market and are unable to find jobs, it causes an increase in the unemployment rate. The rise in unemployment here is not due to layoffs but rather represents a positive increase in unemployment. To understand this situation, it is important to analyze whether it is a good or bad experiment, rather than just focusing on the good unemployment rate.

We need to check how the bad unemployment rate is moving in order to make accurate predictions. This was mentioned by Mr. Park Young-hwan on his YouTube channel, so I encourage you to take a look at the details there. In conclusion, when it comes to the sharp rule, there is no predictability. However, whether we look at it from the perspective of bad unemployment rates or overall conditions, the current situation is not good. Based on this criterion, we can summarize that the economic situation is unfavorable, so we need to be cautious.

Now, with the Jackson Hole meeting approaching, let's consider what would be the best scenario for Powell's statements at this meeting. First, I think he should evaluate the economy as moderately unfavorable. The challenge with saying moderately is that if he states it's too bad, the stock prices will drop.

We need to clearly state that the economy is not doing well because if we say too many positive things, people might think interest rates won't go down. There are various issues, including unemployment rates, that indicate the economy is struggling. I believe we should emphasize the possibility of a 25 basis point rate cut rather than a 50 basis point cut, which I think is nearly impossible at this point. It's important to reassure the members of the National Assembly about this possibility. Lastly, we need to show a clear willingness to cut rates so that we can remain somewhat free from political influence. It is essential to send a strong signal that while the economy is not currently in a bad state, there is a possibility it could worsen, which necessitates a rate cut. Conversely, I think the stock market might be negatively affected if we continue to discuss the economy in a negative light.

I think it's a situation where we can't say things are too bad. Therefore, we need to ensure that concerns about an economic recession do not grow again, even though the economy is not doing well. This is why we need to lower interest rates. Powell has stated that regardless of who it is, he will make decisions about interest rates without political influence. In the past, there was some inconsistency, but he is now saying this, and I hope that the day will come when Chairman Powell is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Let's not do that. Today, we talked about the Jackson Hole meeting, and I hope you found it interesting. In fact, there have been many ups and downs within this context. I hope this Jackson Hole meeting will be a positive event, and I will take my leave here. This has been Kwon Ha.

[그냥효] 세계 경제의 운명이 내일밤 결정됩니다.

효친님들을 위한 바이사이드 애널리스트 이효석 매니지스트입니다. 
운용 경험을 살려서 변화된 세상에서 생존을 위한 투자전략을 리서치하고 있습니다.
비즈니스/광고/협업 문의 : contact@hs-academy.kr


이효석아카데미

미국 경제에 중추적인 역할을 할 것으로 예상되는 파월 의장의 연설이 예정된 잭슨홀 미팅이 다가오고 있습니다.

닉 티미라오스의 기사에서는 이번 회의가 경제를 개선하거나 악화시킬 수 있는 "성패를 가르는" 순간이라고 설명합니다.

2020년 8월에 파월 의장이 "평균 인플레이션 목표치"라는 용어를 도입하여 경제 정책에서 중요한 순간을 맞이했다는 점에서 이번 회의의 중요성이 강조되고 있습니다.

인플레이션 타겟팅과 코로나19의 영향

인플레이션 목표는 10년간 2%로 설정되었으며, 낮은 인플레이션이 지속되고 디플레이션과의 전쟁에 대한 논의가 이어졌습니다.

파월 의장은 코로나19로 인한 디플레이션 압력에 대응하기 위해 평균 인플레이션 목표 프레임워크를 도입하여 금리 인상 시기를 늦췄습니다.

그 결과 인플레이션이 급격히 상승하여 99%에 달했고, 연방준비제도이사회가 완화적인 통화 정책을 지속할 것이라는 신호를 보내면서 특별한 투자 기회를 제공했습니다.

폴 볼커 전 연방준비제도이사회 의장은 1980년대 10%에 불과했던 인플레이션에 대처하기 위해 금리를 20% 이상으로 인상했다는 비판에 직면했습니다.

그는 경제 혼란을 극복하기 위해 인내와 인내심을 강조하며 "버텨라"라는 말을 남겼습니다.

마찬가지로 최근 제롬 파월의 접근 방식도 볼커와 유사하게 잭슨홀에서의 짧고 인상적인 연설로 주식 시장의 3% 하락을 이끌어냈습니다.

미국 경제에서 실업률의 중요성

다가오는 2024년 8월 잭슨 미팅은 실업률에 초점을 맞춰 미국 경제에 대한 파월 의장의 입장을 결정하는 데 중추적인 역할을 할 것입니다.

굴스비는 실업률의 급격한 상승을 강조하며 금리에 대한 신속한 조치가 필요함을 시사했습니다.

3%의 실업률은 경기 침체와의 상관관계에 대한 논의를 촉발시켰고, 좋은 실업률과 나쁜 실업률을 구분하기 위한 조쉬 법칙이 도입되었습니다.

좋은 실업률과 나쁜 실업률 이해하기

실업률은 좋은 실업률과 나쁜 실업률로 분류할 수 있으며, 나쁜 실업률은 해고되어 일자리를 찾지 못한 개인을 나타냅니다.

반면에 좋은 실업률은 노동력이 증가하는 상황에서도 구직 시장에 새로 진입한 사람들이 일자리를 찾는 데 어려움을 겪을 때 상승할 수 있습니다.

현재 경제 상황이 좋지 않은 것으로 판단되어 주의가 필요하며, 다가오는 잭슨홀 회의에서 파월 의장은 주가 하락을 피하기 위해 경제에 대해 다소 부정적으로 평가하는 발언을 할 것으로 보입니다.

어려운 경제 및 금리 문제 해결

높은 실업률이 어려움을 나타내는 등 경제가 어려움에 직면해 있습니다.

50bp 인하보다는 25bp 인하가 더 가능성이 높으며, 이에 대해 국회 의원들을 안심시키는 것이 중요합니다.

경기 침체에 대한 우려가 커지는 것을 방지하면서 강력한 신호를 보내고 정치적 영향을 피하기 위해 금리를 인하할 필요가 있습니다.