最近在rationalize自己的Macro Book，不少品种工具较9月份做了较大调节。恰好看到Stanley Druckenmiller关于美联储货币政策及独立性、美国大选（及关税财政政策）、美债收益率、英伟达等方面的讨论。
访谈中他透露的play book跟我在有些品种工具上的表达是反的，觉得更要琢磨下他的核心观点及配套的仓位应对逻辑（实际上Druckenmiller部分观点兑现的假设也正是自己部分持仓止损的假设）。
Drukenmiller观点总结
金融市场一片大好，美联储9月开始降息的决定过早（至少50bps开降始过于激进）。 美联储可能陷入“前瞻指引”陷阱里，如果美联储错了，导致货币政策往复纠错，对金融市场而言也是灾难。 通胀重新走高概率高（财政支出），美债收益率可能走高。 从市场标的表现看，认为川普赢得大选概率高，但自己并不喜欢川普的关税政策。 虽然非常看好AI，但卖飞了英伟达，找机会还会再进去。
配合理解的图
Stanley Drukenmiller认为：可能会出现1970s的情形（再通胀）
Stanley Drukenmiller认为：美债10y收益率的合理交易水平应该参考名义GDP增长率水平（目前看经济没什么问题）。
当前宏观市场主要指标图：
访谈内容
注：访谈稿由软件Merlin基于访谈视频生成，个人认为实用启发度较高的内容加粗标记，对投资交易借鉴度较高的中文总结如下。
Covid时Fed放水过猛，通胀失控，主要原因：美联储和市场陷入了“前瞻指引”的陷阱，而并不是“数据驱动”。2021～2023年，通胀明显跑在目标值上，美联储还保持0利率、持续买债放水。本轮美联储降息可能会犯类似政策错误（目前市场一片大好，通胀还在目标值之上，降息就从一降50bps开始了。
目前通胀还在目标值之上，金融市场一片大好（如：美股），看不出一次降50bps的意义是什么，或许美联储只是认为实际利率过高就觉得货币政策过紧。
两党的产业政策接近，都抛开了“自由资本主义精神”的本质，希望国家在资本配置中扮演更重要的角色。
基于美联储可能犯错，美国通胀重新走高的假设，倾向于空美债（多美债收益率），亏损25bps左右，目标100bps甚至几百个bps。
Bloomberg:
I want to welcome in our Bloomberg Television and radio audiences to the special episode of Bloomberg Markets. Seated here with an exclusive interview with chair and CEO of Duquesne Family Office, billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller.
Now Stanley in 2021, you had written an opinion paper in The Wall Street Journal that said the Fed is playing with fire. And a couple weeks ago, you wrote to me and you said that you hope that the Fed is not making the same mistake that it had made in 2021, the mistake of being trapped by forward guidance. What's at stake here? Why are you so concerned?
Druckenmiller:
In 2021, I think the Fed did a great job when we were facing a black hole and COVID in 2020. They took some very aggressive actions. One of those actions was forward guidance for they to try and settle markets got it ahead to basically a zero interest rate policy.
I think it's for it was frankly for three years. We were all fooled by COVID. I was two when it first happened, we were wondering, you know, are we sinking into a black hole?
But it was pretty obvious, I'd say a month or two after vaccine confirmation, which was the fall of 2020, that we weren't going into a black hole. Unemployment, which I think had been around 14%, started to drop precipitously. The economy came back. We wrote the article in the spring of 2021, because at this point we felt we were like booming. And it was it was everywhere. And the economy and the companies we talked to and unemployment rate everywhere. And the Fed wasn't adjusting, so they were buying, I think, 120 billion a month of securities that might have been down to 95 a month by that time period and rates were still zero.
And I think had they had a clean slate, they would have never been buying bonds to that degree with what was going on in the economy. But they were trapped, in my opinion, by forward guidance. It’s pretty incredible from from the point we wrote the article when it was so obvious that we even wrote about it.
It was 13 months from when inflation went through 2% to when they finally raised rates. They also bought 2 trillion of bonds during that period. So I guess the reason I analogize it today and it's quite different, I had a lot of confidence then that they were wrong on inflation. The money supply was growing at 40%. As I said, the economy was booming.
This one's much more nuanced. However, I'm just looking at the asymmetry here. Back then you go 13 months with inflation through the target goes up to eight and a half percent and is still going on the three months and you're keeping rates at zero and you're buying bonds like crazy. And then you when you finally move, you move 25 basis points. And your rationale is we need to see the whites of inflation's eyes. And you're saying this was three or four or 5%.
Okay. Today we're still quite a bit above target, depending on which measure is somewhere between two and a half and three and a quarter. The economy. They've come up with this, I guess, theory that monetary policy is restrictive because of real inflation rates. But I don't really go by theory. I'm a market animal. Frankly, we've found over the years that markets are better predictors than professors. And when I look at look at the landscape, equities is at a record high, gold at a record high, GDP above trend, credit type bank earnings and forecasts look good. We don't see any restriction whatsoever. Crypto going crazy, you name it. So all of a sudden, the crowd that said they wanted to see the whites of inflation's eyes and they wanted to be data dependent as opposed to forward looking are now cutting 50 basis points, not a quarter, which is what they started off and we're not even to target yet. And this is all on the theory that monetary policy is restrictive.
So what I would say is this I don't have the conviction I had in 21 that we wrote that article, that the Fed is going to be wrong. But on a risk reward basis, I just don't think it makes any sense at all to to lay out the cards they've laid out and commit themselves through forward guidance once again. And what I what I was trying to say when I was saying it reminds me of 2021 is I just hope if the data don't go with them and they certainly haven't since they started this narrative, they adjust this time and they're not trapped by the forward guidance the way they were in 2021.
Bloomberg:
Listen, does this mean that you thought 50 basis points was an absolute mistake? And do you think that there is a risk of an inflationary spike in the way we saw in the 1970s?
Drukenmiller:
Yeah. Do you have the chart we talked about earlier?
Bloomberg:
Let's see if we can pull that up there. Certainly one that investors have been looking at.
Drukenmiller:
And while, you know, even if we don't have the chart, so in the 1970s, inflation came down from a remarkably similar level to where it was in 2021, I think 2021 peaked at nine. I think it was eight back in the seventies. They came down to three. The Fed was easing. So the Fed started easing and inflation went right back up to I think it peaked at a 12% when Volcker came in and smashed it. I'm not predicting that. But when you're easing into a melt up in financial markets and we have the fiscal policy we have going forward, it's certainly a risk. And I just I think it's a mistake not to be taking that risk into account. I don't really understand the rush of 50 basis points, and I think the markets have priced in a 97% cut at the next meeting. That's all through Fed guidance, It’s funny, my my friend Jim Grant, who's one of my favorite writers, said they're not really data dependent. They're for guidance dependent. And that's what they're showing again.
And look, he might be right and I hope he is right, but it's a big risk because if in fact, they're wrong and inflation takes off because monetary policy is in fact not restrictive and we have fiscal expansion going on and they have to tighten again, I think it could be a nightmare for markets and maybe even for the independence of the Fed. You can't make multiple mistakes that would have been.
But I'm not predicting I'm just saying why did they go 50 and why do they need this forward guidance?
Bloomberg:
You know, I'm glad you brought up the Fed independence. I wanted your view on this. Are you concerned about the independence in the scenario of a Donald Trump win?
In an interview just a day ago with Bloomberg editor in chief John Micklethwait, he said that the job at the Fed is to show up in the office once a month and say, let's flip a coin.
On the other hand, your long time colleague, Scott Bessant has been informally advising Trump and floated the idea of a shadow Fed chair. How compromised is Fed independence at this juncture?
Drukenmiller:
Well, I think a shadow Fed and this kind of talk is a horrible idea and irresponsible. However, I think where Trump to be elected, the institution will hold. I think a bigger threat to the Fed would be major, major mistakes by the Fed.
And I think the Fed is obsessed with soft landings and fine tuning. To me, that's not the real job. The real job is to avoid the kind of problems we had with the great financial crisis, which in my opinion, were because the Fed was too easy going and them create a housing bubble. And then obviously after COVID, not the initial actions, but sticking with it for a year and a half for two years, buying bonds with the money supply exploding.
To me, they've got to stop the fine tuning and start looking at the bigger picture and committing yourselves now and then. If they stick to forward guidance and inflation starts going up again, that could lead to a hard landing, not a soft landing.
Bloomberg:
Speaking of the future, of course, another big uncertainty ahead beyond Federal Reserve policy is the November election.
I'm wondering what the Druckenmiller playbook is around this election cycle and what you think the most likely scenario is and how you set up for it.
Drukenmiller:
Well, it's an evolving situation.
If you had asked me this 12 days ago, I would have said, I don't have a clue as to the total costs up. I still don't have conviction who is going to win on the election.
But as I said earlier, I like market indicators for the economy and for financial restrictiveness. I also like them for elections. I remember how right the market was on Ronald Reagan in 1980, despite what the pundits were saying.
And I must say in the last 12 days, the market and the inside of the market is very convinced Trump is going to win. You can see it in the bank stocks, you can see it in crypto, you can even see it in DJT, his social media company.
But throughout the whole, I would say, the industries that are deregulated. If we had deregulation, will benefit from Trump or outperforming the others. So, If you put a gun to my head and thank God there's not one in my head, so this really doesn't matter.
I wouldn't say that I would have to guess Trump is the favorite to win the election now, but who knows what these polls even mean. No one even responds to them anymore. But that's what we're looking at.
I think the delta between, let's say, four outcomes, blue sweep, red sweep, Trump with a with a blue branch of Congress, HARRIS With a red branch of Congress.
First of all, I think the blue sleeve sweep is extremely unlikely. Even if Harris wins the presidency, local at state by state polls, it looks like the Republicans are going to win the Senate where you get a blue sweep. I think just the math of taxes, business confidence, lack of animal spirits, no change in the regulation front in investors minds. You could get a you would have a rough time for equities, I would think for 3 to 6 months. I think this would probably translate in the economy because equity ownership is 25% of financial assets at an all time high. That was 15% just not that long ago. So that's a blue sweep. But the good news or the bad news, depending on how you view life is, I think it's highly unlikely, so that playbook is probably going to be irrelevant.
A red sweep, which I think is probably more likely than a Trump presidency with a with a blue Congress. A red sweep. I think you get animal spirits in the business community. You get deregulation and there might be some sort of uplift relative to where they were and in terms of the business community. So I think the economy could be potentially stronger for 3 to 6 months. My fear would be because of those reasons and because I think bond yields already don't reflect a proper economic outlook. You will probably get a bad response in the fixed income markets, which could then snuff out the equity rally. But any view we have in Duquesne Family Office where we're worried about bonds. We're not playing it through the stock market. We're playing it through the bond market. If you want to go after the cause rather than the symptoms are, still look like there's stocks and things to do. I also think under a red sweep, the Fed, for the reasons I just illustrated, and maybe because of past relationships, would be much more hawkish than they would be under a Harris administration. So I think that would all be in our playbook and the responses to it under a Harris administration with a Republican Congress, probably not a lot of change from the landscape we currently have in terms of trying to figure out what's going to happen.
Bloomberg:
I want to remind our viewers, if you're just tuning in right now, I'm standing by with Stanley Druckenmiller for our Bloomberg Television and radio offices. Of course, he leads the Duquesne Family Office.
And you we're talking through each scenario here. But what about your personal views here? In a recent conference, you had mentioned that you wouldn't vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Which concerns you more?
Drukenmiller:
Which concerns me more. I am a I like Bret Stephens’ line in the New York Times. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote against. I can't see my voting self voting for either one of them. So it really doesn't matter whose concerns you are and I certainly will never would never support either one of them.
I just think they're actually unified on some things like industrial policy. Both of them think apparently the government should have a major role in allocating capital, which I find frankly Sonali bizarre.
When I think back 10 or 15 years. I'm a I'm a reader of Tom Friedman and quite quite a good writer. And he was constantly pointing out how the Chinese model was potentially superior to the US model. Talking about how nicer airports were and their roads and how they could target certain industries.
Well, my long capitalist suspicions have been confirmed and China's been, as we all know, a disaster with that model. But somehow both parties, Republican and Democrats, have adopted industrial policy, kind of throwing free market Reagan capitalism to the side. So the policies in terms of that I find equally bad.
I find her policies much worse in terms of and I think this anti-business and regulation. Well, frankly, I, I grew up in America with a certain model of a president George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Ronald Reagan was one in my lifetime where there was a certain dignity in behavior in the office.
And I don't judge anyone who wants to vote for for Trump. But for me, it's just a red line. So I'll probably write in someone when I go to the polls.
Bloomberg:
When you think about the policies Donald Trump has put forward, a day ago, he said to Bloomberg that tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary. He's negated the idea that many economists believe that this could have many punitive impacts on the American consumer. How do you see it?
Drukenmiller:
Well, I don't like tariffs. I'm know I just said I'm a free market capitalist. The only thing I'll say about Trump is a bit of a blowhard. So I don't know whether he's negotiating with our foreign adversaries and frankly, with our foreign partners. I don't think it will be in the world. But I am not in favor of tariffs. I don't like them at all.
You know, it's interesting, by the way, the Biden administration kept all his tariffs. So it's not like I'm a fan of their tariff policy either.
Bloomberg:
What about taxation? At the end of the day, you have been very, very critical for many years about the US debt load, the fiscal situation. And there are analyses that said both candidates would increase the federal debt load. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Trump more than the Harris administration would. At the end of the day, can Congress get away with extending the tax cuts from the Trump era? Or is there another way to really close the gap?
Drukenmiller:
Look, in my world, the less taxes the better. But we live in a world that I hope still includes compromise. And if there's some sort of agreement for spending cuts, I could definitely tolerate tax increases to balance them.
I will say one thing I don't really like the media narrative which compares fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and fiscal irresponsibility with spending. And again, you're right. I'm a fiscal hawk. I'm a lot more about or more worried about this and the effect four or five years out and whether we have a soft landing and our economy grows at 1.2 or 2. This is big stuff we're talking about.
But tax cuts are accompanied by additions to the capital stock. Spending is a shrinking in the capital stock replaced by government spending. So of the two, the two sins tax cuts are less.
But personally, if I was in government, you can't just do tax cuts if you don't get the spending cuts. And it was Trump to me that took entitlements off the table in 2016. And that's where the money is.
Bloomberg:
So want to switch gears here because we only have a little bit of time left with you. I want to talk about the market and I want to talk about how you're looking at certain wagers that you put on.
A while ago, we spoke about Nvidia, and you had said that it would be something that you held for years. And ever since then you held it for a while, but more recently you have been selling it off. How much do you have left of it and why have you been selling? Can you see yourself getting back into it again?
Drukenmiller:
I've made so many mistakes in my investment career. One of them was I sold all my Nvidia probably in somewhere between 800 and 950. I think it's 1300 on that stock down. And today I own, nonetheless, 400 points.
It was a big mistake in terms of AI and by the way, when I saw you at that conference, which was 18 months ago, I fully expected to own it for years, but I think it was 300 and change. And as I also said in a media interview, I'm not Warren Buffett. So I thought I was going in. But what changed is it tripled in a year. And I, I thought the valuation was rich. We are big term long term believers in AI, and there's still many ways we're playing AI, particularly the infrastructure that's been built out to support the power needed.
And yes, I think it really is a wonderful company and where the price to come down, we get involved again. But right now I'm licking my wounds from a bad sale there.
Bloomberg:
You know, the other question I have to ask you really quickly, we don't have a lot of time, but you were saying that you expressed a lot of your views through the bond market. The ten year hit 4.1% again recently. Do you think it goes much higher and where do you think it ends next year? Would you go very short at this rate?
Drukenmiller:
I don't know what very short means. We shorted bonds the day the Fed cut 50 because we thought it was a mistake. We still have that position. It’s not so much.
I have a view on where it's going to go short term, what I do believe if Powell ends up being wrong here and inflation accelerates next year, bonds could go up a lot a lot of basis points, hundreds. Whereas if he's right, you might lose 25 or 30 basis points short.
The golden rule I've always had is the ten year should trade around where nominal GDP is, which is five and a half percent. So the risk reward to me is being short bonds.
