Timore bolla AI, la forza economica di Trump, i rimproveri sulla manovra - Ep. 310

Buongiorno a tutti e a tutti. Benvenuti. Tre fattori sette novembre sta accadendo di tutto sul mercato, soprattutto sui titoli dell'intelligenza artificiale. E allora ne parliamo tra poco e cerchiamo di capire che cosa sta succedendo. Vi aspetto come sempre. Sono Mariangela Pira, giornalista di SkyTG24. Tre fattori e un podcast, il cui proposito è quello di raccontare a chiunque, anche all'attaio dello aio, ciò che accade in finanza, economia e in geopolitica economica. In ogni puntata, con un linguaggio chiaro e semplice, provo a senocciolare le tematiche di attualità, dalle energie all'inflazione, dalle banche centrali ai programmi economici del governo, dal commercio globale, a ciò che banalmente accade alle nostre imprese e nel nostro quotidiano. Che dire? Vi aspetto! È stata una partenza del mese di novembre, diciamo così, movimentata per il mercato azionario. C'è stato un calo iniziale dei titoli dell'intelligenza artificiale, poi diciamo che questo calo è rientrato. Il mercato è come se fosse, ieri mi diceva anche un ospiti a business, sul chi va là. Come dire? Che cosa sta per accadere in questo momento sui mercati? C'è un po' questa la sensazione, no? Una sensazione di calma prima della tempesta. E questo secondo me è quello che tutti un po' stanno respirando. Ed effettivamente è un po' così. Ci sono una serie di indizi che ci fanno pensare stia accadendo qualcosa. Innanzitutto, la risposta che tutti vi danno sono le valutazioni, le valutazioni dei titoli dell'intelligenza artificiale. Che cosa vuol dire questo? Ne avevamo parlato anche all'inizio dell'anno. Vi ricordate, i cinesi erano entrati proprio in take-out scivolato a parlare di deep-seek, questo modello. Facciamo l'esempio simil chat GPT, che avrebbe debuttato sul mercato globale. Ovviamente tutti sono rimasti un po' su chi va là e sull'attenti, ma come? Noi stiamo pagando titoli fior di quattrini sulla base di utili che faranno per modelli che stanno sviluppando, in questo caso language models, come appunto chat GPT. E adesso arrivano i cinesi e magari ci vanno pagare le cose molto meno e quindi tema valutazione di mercato. E giusto pagare così tanto un titolo, quanti anni ci devono mettere a fare utili per ripagarci di quello che stiamo pagando questo titolo in bourse? Il senso è esattamente questo, quindi c'è un tema di valutazioni. Poi ci si mette il financial times e scrive "Questo è la giornata di mercoledì" causando appunto il calo dei titoli che poi hanno recuperato nel pomeriggio grazie a dati macro americani che sono stati positivi e poi però giovedì di questa settimana di nuovo il mercato è crollato. E a vostrit dico, poi vedremo appunto, io vi registro come sempre questo podcast "Il venerdì mattina", vedremo come recupereranno, se recupereranno questa sera e in caso ne parleremo la prossima settimana. Il tema è Big Short 2.0 sui titoli dell'intelligenza artificiale. Seconde il financial times, Deutsche Bank avrebbe avviato coperture short su un paniere di titoli dell'intelligenza artificiale per limitare l'esposizione ai prestiti miliardari concessi a società di data center e di cloud computing. La banca ha finanziato operatori come ecodata center, come 5C group, scritto 5C, per oltre un miliardo di dollari, ma sta valutando strumenti derivati per protegersi e quindi ve li sintetizo così perché si chiamano questi strumenti CDO, si chiamano questi strumenti synthetic risk transfer che sono simili ai CDO pre 2008. Il movimento ricorda appunto la Big Short del 2008, voi avrete visto il film, no? Il personaggio era interpretato credo da Ryan Gosling, quando alcuni trader di Deutsche Bank coprivano i CDS sui MUTUI, quindi questi strumenti sui MUTUI su Prime, mentre li vendevano ai clienti, quindi li vendevano e nello stesso momento si coprivano protegendosi da questi strumenti che vendevano. Ora, il rischio non è più il mattone, quindi l'immobile e l'immobiliare, ma il cosiddetto intelligence artificiale CAPEX, c'è l'Ai CAPEX che è finanziato a debito, è un circuito di prestiti di titoli azionari gonfiato dal rally tecnologico, cioè io ti pago questi titoli tantissimo, però questi titoli io li sto comprando finanziandomi soprattutto con dei prestiti, e questo quindi gonfia il tutto, poi ci si mette rispetto al 2008, secondo me, anche la presenza degli algoritmi che in qualche modo amplificano il movimento di borse, negativo e impositivo, questo potrebbe essere, diciamo così, questo rally tecnologico che abbiamo visto, più fragile di quanto appare, allora oggi c'è banca non ha rilasciato commenti, ma questa analogia ha sollevato domande sulle fondamenta finanziarie di questa bolla dell'intelligenza artificiale. Ci sono dei segnali, diciamo così, che alcuni attori si stanno coprendo prima degli altri, quindi c'è alcuni attori che hanno questa esposizione iniziano a proteggersi, questa notizia arriva sul mercato, questa notizia spaventa. Poi in tutto questo ci si è messa anche UBS, che cosa detto? Voi vi ricordate che nei podcast precedenti, andateli a recuperare se vi serve, lo trovate nei titolini, vi ho spiegato quello che aveva portato poi all'altro calo, no? of the regional banks that financed groups, especially in the car sector, which did these financial groups, that financed groups in the car sector, which were not particularly valid. So it was a kind of bank system, it was a kind of bank system, of groups that basically financed society, especially in the car sector. UBS, what has it announced? It writes the Financial Times. This is an article by the Financial Times, but it is very precise, so I feel like saying that UBS has said these things to the clients, because it is what the article writes. UBS aims to liquidate funds that have a substantial exhibition in First Brands, the title, the group that is failed. Even this news is similar to the news of August 2007. I don't know if you remember, there was the freezing of a monetary fund of BNP Paribas. The fund was frozen and this was the first symptom of the Supremes. We are talking about August 2007, as I said. Now, I don't want to reassure, how to say, to say everything is fine, etc., and that is why I started with these news, because it is important to tell you what is happening. You know, maybe some of you today say, I want to increase my exhibition on the titles of artificial intelligence. Today the information is there and it is right to tell you, opera and cautela. But there are also very different things compared to 2008. First, the Fed, today it is prepared and more timely. In the sense that the only remedy I have understood is abundant liquidity, so if there was such a thing, it would cut the taxes immediately, it would buy many titles of state, it would put liquidity in the market. Like a kind of water bomb, so this is what he said, ok? The second is the entity of this problem. The entity of a problem that touched everyone in 2007 and 2008. Today, according to me, the entity, according to me, according to what the analysts also explain to me, according to the topic, the entity is very low compared to what we saw in 2008. So, how to tell you, cautela, attention, but I would say, let's not exaggerate. Let's try to keep our feet on the ground, that those destinations are at its best. See you soon with the second factor of today. The other topic is this, paradoxically, is not a negative topic. It is the question of the American economy. So, the American economy is showing really contradictory signs. First of all, let me tell you something that is very important, which, in my opinion, must be clear to you. It was interviewed by CNN, Jamie Dimon, the number one of JP Morgan. So, listening to Dimon, I do not have the Dimon's idolatry. I want to tell you, because then he is a character who has re-qualified, let's say, after 2008. I do not have his idolatry. I think that at the time he made mistakes. But, how to say, now, when I hear him talk, I hear him express himself, it seems that he has a kind of institutionality that, for example, is lacking Trump. Now, Jamie Dimon, for example, yesterday he was also asked if he would work with Mamdani from CNN. And he said that when he asked me to work with him, I would work with him. So, I do not know how to say, he is also one who knows how to move in politics. Clearly, he has an institutionality in talking, which is lacking, for example, Trump. Trump is as if he were not the American president, but the administrator and delegate of the United States of America. It is as if the United States of America was a great fund of private equity at the moment. Because the connections that Trump has with the rest of the world are embarrassing, with his general, Gert Kushner, in the middle. Because in the end, you imagine one who has, for example, the affairs in the United Arab Emirates, and therefore with the United Arab Emirates does affairs, and United Arab Emirates, which are among the first financiers of the RSF in Sudan, so you also have the power to say to the RSF, therefore to this paramilitary group that is acting in Sudan, please, enough. But you are not only doing it, but you are doing affairs with the United Arab Emirates, which instead give the funds to this paramilitary group in Sudan, which is practically completing a decision every week. Moreover, you have practically your kind that is worth signing contracts. Now imagine how important this is also to the light of the agreements that are stipulated. It is as if one could have in this sense a kind of great power in signing agreements and in detailing the conditions on the basis of its economic value. And imagine the United Arab Emirates have basically bought about two billion dollars of Trump's currency, which is called the World Liberty Financial, the cryptocurrency of Trump. Like if it was almost Trajano, who has to create his own reserves. Well, let's show the narcissism, let's focus on facts. Then, of course, you know that the United States sells a lot of weapons to the Arab Emirates, and in this case, however, it is not a weapon, I repeat, on the other hand, it is a cryptocurrency. And look at the case, however, the United Arab Emirates, recently written in your time, have been selling very high quality chips. Now, do you realize how serious this situation is? It is as if you use your role as an American president, as if you use cryptocurrency that has your face and that you put as exchange value, please, politicians, that maybe you give. Imagine also the fragility of those who do not have the right passport. Imagine the fragility of the people who, anyway, you may now imagine that this is my opinion. But these are things that many value journalists are writing that make inquiries in this sense. They ask themselves, because then these things here, how do you prove them? We cannot prove them, but one can join the dots and many questions are asked. Many questions are asked, even on the fact that one can calmly say, fortunately it seems that this hypothesis at the moment is, let's say, sung, because the other face of the medal is that I have never seen a country expressed in such a way, even compared to, for example, Netanyahu. Trump clearly said it, he would have bombed Ad infinitum. I was the one who, at some point, said enough, or when he said stop him on the cheese Jordan, or when he finally decided to make a resort on a cemetery, talking about gas, let's say, how things are. So, however, these links make us reflect. On the other hand, there is the economic issue of the United States. The United States are economically ill? No. In the sense that at this moment the situation is very contradictory, very contradictory. There are signs of strength of the American economy and signs of weakness. Look carefully at what happened, for example, the recovery of the market the other day. It happened because the seat was therefore very risky and therefore I speak about the day of Wednesday. The recovery happened thanks to the so-called ISM services. What measures this index? The services, so hotels, tourism, everything that belongs to the services in the United States. Also, for example, the data on employment, in this case, it is data from the ADP, so to speak. What are they? They are basically the data on payrolls, private payrolls. That is, ADP means private salaries. So the boosts pay, okay? This is also improved as data. This has, how to say, made a certain point turn the market. Obviously, data on ADP that grow means that there are also risks on inflation. Because anyway, both the services that are grown, both the data on the boosts pay that are grown, are important data, because what does it mean? It means that, I'll give you an example, the services, the activity is back in expansion. So the paid prices have risen to the maximum triennals. If a service is in expansion, a hotel, the cost of a transport, it rises. Obviously, the prices rise, no? The hypothesis is that the inflation from A to Z is not completely announced, that the inflation signal from A to Z is still alive. So this also makes the Fed say, let's stay there because maybe there is still inflation. So what do we have to do about taxes? That's why the Fed is very decisive. There are many members, including Cook, the one that Trump wanted to license, among which Daily, who are very prudent. Because this data on the services is not a data from the economy that the Fed has to help. The Fed would enter the game, we go back to the first factor, which then drops on a ball. There, to keep the system alive, it would enter the game. But the Fed, on the economy issue, cannot enter the game, because the economy, if it expands, the price rises, because if an economy is in expansion, I'll give you an example, in a hotel there are many pre-noted rooms, if you want to go to that hotel, you have to pay the camera more, so the inflation rises. The inflation, from this point of view, in the services, the paid prices, as I told you, are at the top of three years, because the Fed has to help you with the economy. No, it doesn't help you, unless you check something more serious, and we'll see you soon with the third factor of today. So, let's talk about financial maneuver. So, I'll send you back to the previous podcast, because I explained why the maneuver is done, how the maneuver is born, why it's important, etc., etc. in a way, let's say, to give or to explain some measures. It's in a simple way, so I'll send you back there at any time you need it. First, let's take a step forward. The judgment on this maneuver. So, let me tell you something. The judgment is that of the markets. The spread is in the fall. The spread this week has fallen even more. And this, what does it tell us? It tells us that, however, Giorgetti, which I had already anticipated the last time, kept tight the pockets of the bag well, and in any case, let's say, this maneuver looks a lot like the deficit, tries to respect those who are the dettams of Bruxelles. I also told you that this makes you laugh, because it's a government that has always been historically friends of Bruxelles. Instead, the maneuver, in respect, as you said, all the dettams. Now let's try to get into the merit of this maneuver, because it's true that you have to be careful with your accounts. And take it easy, we're not talking about something abstract, I always say it. When the spread goes down, it means that we pay less attention when we get into debt. It means that, however, we have a great fortune, which is to save on the interests that we pay when we sell our state titles. Soldiers that can be used, if we were a long-term country, for strong investments in education and health. So, instead of saying that this is good, that the spread goes down, we have to say everything that is right to say, and this maneuver, however, is not just saying how much we will grow in debt, zero. There is no important growth plan. Not only that. They say, Bank Italia and Istat, that this maneuver rewards the richest. It means that the weak, therefore the weaker faces of the population, are little helped. So, when there was the audit in the Senate, relatively, the judge of the maneuver, in particular, it was referring to the cutting of the IRPEF. As you know, for dependent workers, we have to pay the IRPEF. We are practically within IRPEF's face, which is divided according to the income that one has. One of these faces has been slightly reduced. According to both Istat and Bank Italia, this reduction of the faces, of the IRPEF's houses, is going to reward the reduction of the liquid, especially the richest, compared to the poorer faces of the population. Which, as I said, is all right, but you have to forget that family is necessary, ok? So, during the audit in the Senate, these reliefs are very numerous. Then, for example, there were other critics, especially from the court of account, on the violation, which is the other important provision of this financial center, because you are evoking the risk of evasion. For others, I have to tell you, evoking the risk of evasion is when there is, perhaps, the agency of the entry that regularly controls those who pay the tax. I will also make my example, because, to me, and to other contributors, it has happened to be so controlled, then, fortunately, the taxes are paid, and it is all right, but I tell myself, focus on those who do not pay them, do not do two more than two, I mean, do not see things as they are. All this, let's say, is very strange. Basically, the thing that you have to clarify regarding these reliefs brought from the Bank of Italy, to ISTAT, is that they say, "Look, there is no redistributive effect, because the intervention of the IRPEF, I remind you, that liquid goes from 35 to 33% for the rates between 28,000 and 500,000 euros, favors, they say, textual words, the nuclei of the two fifths higher than the distribution. So, how to say, not the poorest faces, but favors the faces that are more active. The Bank of Italy observations put in discussion many of the points that for other Meloni and Giorgetti had highlighted, presenting the maneuver, saying, "Ah, it will favor, above all, those who need it more." No, according to ISTAT and Bank of Italy, it is not so. For example, and this thing here, I also had it in my podcast, the review on the ISTAT, on the first house, would be done with "Parsimonia", they say, because, do you remember? Basically, if you are the owner of a first house, that first house is not counted in the ISTAT until you have a tot of money. And this is important, because they said, so your ISTAT, if it does not count the first house, is much higher, so you could get a lot of bonuses. And I told you in the podcast, but who did it? Is it a family that can't afford the house who did it? And precisely, they also noticed it. And I am very happy, excuse me, because I also did the same kind of reasoning. Then, it would be possible to avoid repeating frequent modifications of the bank's taxation. How to say, "You can't do the nice or the bad time, all the time you want on the banks." And above all, with modifications that you do not understand what changes are, etc. It is said, because it is also fair, you can tell the other side of the screen, that Giorgetti is very defensive. He said, "My priority was to have all the accounts, the accounts are in order." He says, "The interventions I did are balanced, we also gave the funds to health, and this was not underlined." And he also says, "It will also be the last round, but it is necessary to give respite to the companies, and in this way it does not make us lose our minds, because if we make a round, we still have to put ourselves in place." This is his opinion, of course, but it is also fair to give it, no? And then he says, "In his opinion, they have sealed the central bank." This is his version of the facts. So, this was what I wanted to tell you. There is a very interesting interview of Elsa Fornero on the press, who says that, in her opinion, resources and useless measures have been lost. And that, however, the low salaries are in a dry vehicle, the one that is missing is, first of all, a clear strategy. And then we are always at the top. That is, the salaries do not grow. And this, in our opinion, is important. So, I do not know how to say, it is as if the issue of the salaries for us is important, in the sense that it is a theme in Italy, the salaries. So they do not grow. This is a theme. The government, on the other hand, says, "Look, we are the only ones that, with continuity, we are cutting some tax, on the other hand, I must tell you the truth, speaking with the companies, I was in Emilia Romagna, maybe I told them recently, also in the broadcast. And when I asked a judgment on the government, the judgment on the government was not negative. It was a positive judgment. So, between the positive judgment there was, however, they are the only ones that, for example, on some tax, they are doing something. So, you know, everyone tells you a little about them. There is to say, this is what I say to people who follow the market every day, that inflation, precariousness, the truth is that they have reduced the purchasing power of poor families. Poor families do not feel for anything else all the time. And this is the truth, we do not have to look only at who is good and can afford things, and the expense of being long does not change. You have to see how the inflation has decreased, certainly, much more than the expense that, on the other hand, were already stopped and did not move. And on top of that, we had the inflation. How do you reduce the purchasing power of a family? So much. So, it is evident that this is also underlining. On this I wanted to read a piece of the editorial of Fornero that I mentioned to you, listen to these words. A very hard weight, especially for young families and for the middle of the day. They had both the financial crisis of 2008 and the next big recession. The precariousness of the work has increased. Families with low income have suffered a fall in the purchasing power. While the highest income has remained stable, or even have increased, making the patterns grow not so much, not so much, or not so much, in recent years, these differences have also suffered the effect that is most likely to hit the poor. And if the occupation is a little increased, which is undoubtedly positive, its quality leaves a lot to be desired. The poor remain poor and excluded. And I agree very much on these words. It ends in Fornero. Even in this case, in fact, the painting is not enough. Evidence of loss made for the purpose of increasing the jobs of the lowest, however, as Iaristat has remembered, they tend to prefer higher incomes, at least in the age of 30 to 50,000 euros a year. The complex judgment and also the new law of balance are acceptable more for what it does than for what it does. Little and in direction is not always socially equal. This is what Fornero says. I, on the other hand, especially on dignity, inclusion, redistribution, I agree with her. Let me try to add the debt on this country is not just the responsibility of this government. It is a debt that grows year by year. Deficit, deficit, deficit, deficit. I explained in the last podcast that they have stratified our debt in people and that, evidently, is a serious problem. Thank you for following me in this podcast and we'll see you next week.