YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 반도체 하락 신호 여기 무너지면 끝납니다 (신영증권 김효진 박사) | 2026년 07월 06일 녹화

반도체 하락 신호 여기 무너지면 끝납니다 (신영증권 김효진 박사) | 2026년 07월 06일 녹화 — Transcript

by 언더스탠딩 : 세상의 모든 지식 · 11,692 words · 2,046 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Everything was positive until a month
0:01ago, but suddenly it's negative next
0:03month. Then that’s not a signal.
0:05It’s just a simultaneous crash, not a
0:07signal. It increases in steps.
0:12What’s more interesting on the chart
0:13to me is that Taiwan is the last to
0:15fall.
0:17The logic is that the leader falls last
0:19, while the weaker ones around it fall
0:21first, right? When the market collapses
0:25, Samsung Electro-Mechanics falls, and
0:27when only Samsung Electronics is left,
0:29well, Samsung Electro-Mechanics fell
0:31today.
0:31Please don’t use specific examples.
0:35Yes. Now that you’ve heard this far
0:37Yes.
0:38What happens if you update that now? "
0:41Understanding," the world's knowledge,
0:43where we learn things you can't hear
0:45anywhere else.
0:46Let’s introduce our guest with a
0:47reverent heart.
0:48Welcome. Hello.
0:49Yes. Hello. Shin Hyung-kwon and Kim
0:51Yo-jin.
0:51Yes. Yes. Wow, you’ve published such
0:54a great book: Money That Disappears,
0:55Money That Survives, Money That Grows.
0:57It feels like it hasn’t even been a
0:58week since it was released. Yeah.
0:59The book?
1:00Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A very fresh book.
1:03Wow. Have you been in our market for
1:06about 20 years now?
1:07A little over that. Yes. Yes. Yes.
1:10Right? With that level of expertise, it
1:12seems like things just become clear and
1:13books get written effortlessly. Seeing
1:15how you're pumping them out lately.
1:16Oh, I wish that were the case. Yes.
1:18It’s not like that. Locked in a room.
1:20Yes.
1:22It feels like you’ve leveled up and
1:24are in your prime these days.
1:26Oh, thank you. Let’s hear what
1:28you’ve prepared for today. Yes.
1:29Yes. Watching the market lately,
1:32there’s so much volatility and steep
1:34rises; looking at the charts sometimes
1:36scares me. It’s so skewed toward
1:40leading stocks—is there nothing else
1:42besides semiconductors? I get asked
1:44that a lot, too.
1:45There really seem to be a lot of
1:47concerns.
1:47Yes. Looking at the numbers, yes.
1:50It’s scary, so...
1:51I wrote down the things I was curious
1:53about.
1:54Must there be leading stocks?
1:59And this skewing—since AI is good, it
2:01seems inevitable, but if it’s this
2:03skewed, does it mean it’s unhealthy
2:05and a signal of a top? Also, having
2:09seen a bull market for a few years,
2:11it’s been a while since we’ve even
2:13said the word "bear market." Looking at
2:16the current mood, a bear market seems
2:18like it’ll never come, but in what
2:20situations should we prepare ourselves
2:22for one? So, let’s begin. The
2:24emergence of leading stocks, the
2:26skewing of leading stocks,
2:27The skewing toward leaders, and the
2:29collapse of leading stocks.
2:31I’d like to present it in these three
2:33grand flows.
2:34What the life cycle of a leading stock
2:36looks like, yes. Yes. It’s more than
2:38just moving. Ah.
2:39That’s how new market leaders emerge.
2:41Yes. Ah.
2:44The first topic I want to bring up is
2:46this. Regarding market concentration, I
2:48mean, the earnings of Samsung
2:50Electronics and Hynix are so powerful
2:52—is there anything that could even
2:54surpass AI? Since there’s nothing
2:57like that, I think it’s
2:58understandable to be concentrated, but
3:00I was worried about how to explain such
3:02extreme concentration. So, I didn't
3:05think I could find the answer on my own
3:07, and I found some people who
3:09researched this concentration.
3:11There’s a person named Bessembinder,
3:13yes.
3:14I should have made this a quiz.
3:16From 1929 to 2019, that’s almost 100
3:20years. Over those 100 years, if the
3:23total market cap increased by, say, 100
3:26trillion, how many stocks accounted for
3:28the top 10%, meaning 10 trillion? Five
3:31stocks.
3:32Five stocks? What do you mean? Yes, the
3:36total market cap grew by 100 trillion
3:38due to the market index rising.
3:42So, who was responsible for that top 10
3:44%—that is, 10 trillion?
3:47How many stocks drove that growth? Only
3:50a few stocks.
3:52Five stocks.
3:53The top 10%.
3:55Took the 10%.
3:56Yes. They took the 10%.
3:58If all stocks had grown evenly like
4:00bean sprouts to reach that 100 trillion
4:02increase,
4:04Yes.
4:05wouldn't 10%of all listed stocks have
4:12done that work?
4:13The wealth created.
4:14Right. The wealth created.
4:17Five stocks dragged 10%of it?
4:20Hmm.
4:20Hmm. Hmm, yes.
4:22There must be a lot of stocks, like
4:253,000, right? Our listed ones.
4:26Right? This is based on the US market,
4:29but in percentage terms, it’s 0.12%.
4:31Ah, that makes it more tangible.
4:33The top 0.1%dragged 10%of the growth.
4:37They did 10 times the work alone. 100
4:39times.
4:40That means they pulled 100 times their
4:42weight.
4:42If you look just at the year 2019, how
4:45many stocks accounted for that 10%?
4:48Two.
4:48Two.
4:49Yes. Just two. There are so many stocks
4:51in the US, right? But just two. That's
4:54insane.
4:54So, when you go through the writing of
4:56this person, Bessembinder,
4:58Concentration is the default.
4:59It’s always been that way. It’s
5:01just
5:01how it is. It’s not that 2019 was
5:05unique for having two stocks carry the
5:07whole market; looking from 1929 to 2019
5:09, a handful of stocks have consistently
5:12done that, and if you look at half of
5:14the total market cap increase, it's the
5:16same. Looking at the top half, it’s
5:20only 2%.
5:21The top 2%of stocks—in terms of count
5:24, about 80 stocks—
5:25Hmm.
5:27account for half of the total wealth
5:29created. Wow.
5:31So the top 2%creates half? Wow. Wow.
5:34That really puts it into perspective.
5:35Yes. So, if it had only been for a few
5:37years, I would have thought, "Oh, I
5:39guess people say the Sol-nim is intense
5:41, so maybe that's why," and just moved
5:43on. But when they present results
5:44covering 90 years, thinking about it,
5:46it actually makes sense. Besides, what
5:48this person originally meant to say was
5:50, "Look at it coldly, what you picked
5:52..."
5:53Right, right.
5:54The probability of the two stocks you
5:55picked being the right ones is
5:56extremely low.
5:57Yeah. Yes, it's a big deal.
6:01So, the main argument was that ETF
6:03investing would be better for an
6:04individual's asset growth.
6:08So.
6:08This was back in 2019, me picking those
6:11two stocks; it was quite stingy, and in
6:13terms of percentage, it was 0.04%.
6:16Right.
6:16I mean, the probability of me being in
6:18the top 0.04%in the entire country is
6:20very low, right?
6:22Therefore, ETF investing is better for
6:24individuals, and this paper came out in
6:262020. Since then, the ETF market, which
6:28already existed, has grown tremendously
6:31. So, it is a paper that has been cited
6:33before almost every ETF investment.
6:36Oh, I see. A leading paper.
6:39In 2019, the top 1%drove 50%of the
6:43stock price gains.
6:45If I don't use ETFs and I just pick
6:47stocks at will...
6:48I could miss out on that top 1%.
6:50Right?
6:51The probability of that is much higher.
6:53So, when others are making 100, I might
6:55only be making 50.
6:57And that 50 I made might not even be
6:59better than bank interest. But the talk
7:02these days is that the bigger the ETF
7:04market gets, the more money
7:05concentrates in specific areas.
7:08It does seem like that phenomenon is
7:09intensifying even more. Furthermore,
7:11regarding leveraged ETFs, people say
7:13they actually increase market
7:15volatility. Is this really a good thing
7:17? There are many opinions, but ETFs
7:19themselves...
7:21For example—I need to choose my
7:22example carefully here. Let's say
7:24there's an AI ETF. There's a
7:26semiconductor ETF.
7:27There's a future industry ETF. Let's
7:29just assume they exist, even though
7:31they shouldn't. Then, the stocks
7:33included in these three could be very
7:34similar. Because...
7:36What looks good to my eyes will also
7:38look good to CEO Ahn and Ee-pu’s eyes
7:40. So there was already a tendency for
7:43it to lean toward a small number of
7:45stocks, and looking at the chart...
7:49That's how it is. We call it
7:51general-purpose technology. When a
7:54bomb-level technology that can affect
7:56many fields appears, it’s only
7:58natural. It will naturally suck in all
8:02the real-world investment, just like AI
8:04is doing now. And the financial market
8:07will move even faster. It can actually
8:09move much faster, right? So, it’s
8:11always a bit anticlimactic how it's
8:13only a small number of stocks. Yeah.
8:16That a small number of stocks capture
8:18most of the wealth created in the stock
8:19market
8:21should be viewed as the default. So, no
8:24matter how we sugarcoat the word "
8:26concentration," saying, "Oh, it's
8:28healthy.""The earnings are good, so
8:29what can you do?" It still feels a bit
8:31uneasy when you say it, right? But is
8:33this just how the market functions? Yes
8:35. I think there’s some truth to that.
8:39Looking at the chart, it currently only
8:41shows Samsung Electronics and Hynix, so
8:43you might wonder if you should only
8:45focus on those two, but when you invest
8:47in the future, even if
8:51there are people who diversify quite a
8:53lot. But is that really a good thing?
8:55Let’s discuss that later. I think
9:00just remembering that picking well is
9:02far more important is enough, and it
9:03makes you feel a bit empty wondering if
9:05the old advice we learned when we were
9:07young, like "don't put all your eggs in
9:09one basket," was actually right.
9:12Yes. That was about asset classes, but
9:16the emergence of leading stocks and
9:17concentration might seem like it's
9:19happening because AI arrived. Or it's
9:24easy to intuitively think it's because
9:26Koreans are so prone to jumping on
9:28bandwagons, but that's not the case at
9:30all; it's always been that way.
9:34It has always been that way. This isn't
9:37just market bias or psychological bias;
9:40it means that, in reality, a very small
9:42number of stocks generate a huge
9:44portion of the profits.
9:47Actually, for me, sentiment is like a
9:49multiplier; stocks are fundamentally
9:51earnings multiplied by expectations for
9:53future growth. You could say
9:57expectation for profits played a part,
9:59but in the S&P 500, the M7 accounts for
10:02like 35%of the earnings. Yes. So when
10:08you look at that, earnings are clearly
10:10concentrated in a few stocks, and I
10:11brought this bar chart so you can see
10:13it on a larger scale, and we can look
10:15at it as a time series from 1929. Then
10:19Yes, yes.
10:21Around the 1940s or 50s, it was about
10:2310%—it wasn't like today where 0.1%or
10:260.04%take it all; back then, about 10%
10:28of the stocks
10:2910%took 10%, but this has gradually
10:32decreased. So, profits concentrating
10:37into what we consider M7, mega-cap, or
10:39giant corporations has intensified over
10:41the last few years, but it's been a
10:43trend since the 60s. It’s been a
10:48trend since after 1950.
10:51I see. Why is that? Why would that be?
10:53That
10:54Before then, there were many
10:55similar-sized players.
10:57But it ended up that way. Yes.
10:59All right, I understand.
11:00Understood. Yes. So, I mentioned this
11:05earlier, and as I said, the emergence
11:07of a leading sector happens when a
11:09nuclear-level general-purpose
11:10technology appears, sucking in
11:12real-economy investment and, more
11:14rapidly, financial capital; while this
11:16concentration might not always look
11:18good to us, I’ve noted that it is the
11:20market's default setting. Nevertheless,
11:25in Korea, Samsung Electronics and SK
11:28Hynix alone supposedly account for 55%
11:30of the market cap. Or that it could
11:32grow to some other percentage. When you
11:35look at this, even if concentration in
11:37a few stocks is normal, is this intense
11:39focus in the Korean market—where we
11:41primarily invest—really okay? I think
11:45this is a point we need to take a step
11:46further and examine. So,
11:49I looked into cases from other
11:51countries. It turns out the most
11:53extreme case was Finland’s Nokia in
11:552000.
11:56Yeah.
11:56Yes. I think I used a Nokia phone back
12:00then; it’s a historic example where a
12:02single stock made up about 70%of the
12:04Finnish stock market, which was massive
12:06, and Korea is in second place.
12:11Taiwan’s TSMC is third, the US top 10
12:13stocks are at least more diversified at
12:15about 40%, and then there’s Sweden
12:18with Ericsson, and so on. So, looking
12:22at the numbers alone, excluding
12:24Finland’s Nokia, we’re number one.
12:26It
12:28So it’s a bit ambiguous.
12:31While market concentration is the
12:33default, Korea is, for example,
12:34somewhere in the middle. If that were
12:36the case, you’d feel more at ease,
12:37honestly. Yes. But that’s not the
12:40case; Korea is still quite heavily
12:41concentrated in just two stocks. Right.
12:44But I thought about it this way. I was
12:47wondering what metaphor to use, and I
12:49thought, why not a whale in a pond? You
12:52see,
12:53the Korean economy is about 10th in the
12:55whole world. Yes. And its market cap,
12:59which used to be around 2 point
13:01something percent, is now at about 4 or
13:035 percent.
13:04So, it’s a size that you could call
13:06small or large depending on how you
13:07look at it, but
13:09whales like Samsung Electronics and SK
13:11Hynix are just swimming around.
13:13Hmm. So the water is splashing
13:15everywhere, and it’s a real frenzy.
13:17Yes. So, because Korea’s market,
13:20meaning
13:22mostly only export companies are
13:23positioned at the top of the market cap
13:25, this concentration happens even when
13:27semiconductors aren't number one; if
13:29shipbuilding is doing well, it shifts
13:31there, it suddenly shifts to
13:33shipbuilding, or if defense is doing
13:35well, it suddenly shifts to defense.
13:38Because the expected profit itself—
13:41for example, I didn't bring the chart,
13:43but maybe Canada, France, Switzerland
13:46I’d like to give you an example of a
13:48representative company, but I can't
13:49quite recall one. Those kinds of
13:51companies have a very low degree of
13:53concentration. Because
13:54they don’t have a mega-tier champion.
13:56Hmm. That’s true.
13:57So, looking at it just by the numbers,
13:59it seems quite peaceful over there. A
14:01peace within that peace.
14:03Yes. But in Korea, we have what we call
14:05cyclical stocks. Since we have major
14:08companies that are export-oriented and
14:10highly sensitive to economic cycles,
14:12to be honest, and I’ll elaborate
14:14later, Korea is truly...
14:17I often think that the level of
14:18investment difficulty is quite high.
14:20Yes. It shoots up when things are going
14:22well,
14:23and then it drops sharply when the
14:24cycle slows down. Yes. It’s hard to
14:26keep up with, true.
14:27It’s very difficult to make a
14:28long-term investment and just leave it
14:30alone. These days, if you look at KOSPI
14:32stocks, it’s basically just Hynix and
14:34Samsung.
14:35The few others there are, like SK
14:38Square which holds Hynix, or Samsung C&
14:40T, and the like. So it feels like, why
14:43buy those when I could just buy the
14:45other two? It’s a similar feeling.
14:48You can’t diversify. Right now.
14:50That’s right. But what I want to
14:53emphasize repeatedly is the memory
14:54cycle. I want to point out that even
14:59with semiconductors, Korea has a
15:01small-scale economic structure that is
15:03quite concentrated compared to other
15:05countries.
15:07A question I get asked a lot—which
15:09you also asked earlier, Mr. Lee—is:
15:11What’s next? Is there a next one? Is
15:13there?
15:13You asked something like that.
15:15Actually, that question...
15:17Some might ask it thinking, "Oh, you
15:19must not own Samsung Electronics or
15:21Hynix," but...
15:22it’s a very natural question to ask.
15:24Because in Korea, the rotation of
15:25leading stocks cannot be more dynamic.
15:28Hmm.
15:28Right, right, right. It always changes
15:30very rapidly. Countries like the US,
15:33Japan, or Taiwan—while investing in
15:35those countries may not be entirely
15:37easy—don't see their top-tier market
15:39cap companies or sectors change so
15:41dynamically.
15:44They take at least several decades to
15:46change.
15:46Yes. But here, only the number one spot
15:50is fixed with Samsung Electronics, and
15:52we’ve had 'Cha'(Automotive), '
15:54Jo-Bang-Won', 'BIG', and others. Just
15:59thinking of them, there are several,
16:01and we have a market where new terms
16:03keep popping up because leading stocks
16:05change hands so rapidly.
16:08Yes. So, in the US, for instance, once
16:12something is set, it tends to go on for
16:14four or five years. So even if you buy
16:18late, even if you didn't buy at the
16:20bottom, you could more or less keep up
16:21and not feel too much regret. But in
16:25Korea, if you hear about it and buy,
16:27it’s the peak. Then I buy, and it’s
16:29the peak again.
16:30Because it’s fast, because it’s
16:32fast.
16:33Yes, so it’s a market that is very
16:34hard to keep up with. Yes.
16:38That’s the kind of market it is; you
16:39don't even need to look at the text
16:41here. I tried doing something like this
16:43. I just lined up the top 10 companies
16:45by market cap in 5-year intervals. When
16:48I laid them out, I color-coded them by
16:50industry. The more colorful it is, the
16:54more the industries—not just the
16:56companies—kept shifting back and
16:58forth; Korea is extremely colorful.
17:00Aha.
17:01Below is Taiwan. Taiwan and Korea have
17:05similar stock returns and economies
17:07these days, but in Taiwan, it’s
17:09mostly just electronics and
17:10semiconductors with minor changes; at a
17:12glance, most of the companies overlap,
17:15but in Korea...
17:18You have to scan your eyes really
17:19quickly just to find the ones that
17:20overlap. You have to look really hard.
17:22It's a memory test.
17:23Wow, in 2005, the second-largest
17:25company by market cap was Kookmin Bank,
17:27and fifth and sixth were Woori
17:29Financial.
17:29Yeah.
17:30There was a time when they were second.
17:32What would have happened if you’d
17:34bought the top 10 back in 2005?
17:35There was even a time when SK Telecom
17:37was up there.
17:38Wow. I’m talking about when LG
17:40Display was up there.
17:43So looking at this, honestly...
17:46For me, even with this book, I thought,
17:48"Do I really know the Korean economy?"
17:50And furthermore, when I talk about
17:52stocks here and there, I wonder if I
17:54really know stocks at all. I felt a lot
17:57of reflection, but if I can take some
17:59comfort in it, at least I wasn't the
18:01only one who didn't know.
18:03Korea is really high difficulty.
18:04Yes. I do think it’s high difficulty.
18:07So we reflexively say things like, "
18:09Okay, we know about semiconductors."
18:12What's next is...
18:14We’re impatient and want to make more
18:15money, and there's that, but it's also
18:17because things are always changing and
18:19there’s always something behind it.
18:20But one thing I’d like to add is...
18:22One more thing I'd like to add.
18:25Don't just think, "Why are Koreans so
18:27impulsive?"
18:29It's because there are always companies
18:31in Korea performing well at any given
18:32time. It’s never peaceful, and...
18:35When it’s a shipbuilding cycle, there
18:37are global top-tier companies there,
18:39and the same goes for batteries, even
18:41though they’re struggling lately. So
18:44we can be more dynamic and focused
18:46because the profits seem very certain
18:47right now. It means those protagonists
18:52keep emerging, and to mention one more
18:54thing, because the numbers in the front
18:56were so chaotic, I tried this. How
19:01often do the same companies make it
19:03into the top 3? In other words, if you
19:05buy the top 3 this year, will they stay
19:07in the top 3 next year?
19:09And as for the#1 industry consecutively
19:11...Since semiconductors are good this
19:13year, will they be good next year?
19:15Hmm.
19:15And the number of#1 industries. I
19:17mentioned earlier that two sectors take
19:19the top 10%, but how many stocks should
19:21I actually spread out? We’ve tested
19:23something like this.
19:25But, which line should I refer to? You
19:28can just use your mouse. Oh, I see.
19:32If you look at this line, in Korea, the
19:35number of consecutive 1st place
19:36finishes is one. Meaning
19:40What does that mean?
19:41It means once they hit 1st, they’re
19:43out.
19:43Yes. They’re out.
19:45Once I become the champion. Then I’m
19:47out.
19:47There has never been a year where the
19:49number one stayed number one the
19:50following year. Hopefully,
19:51semiconductors will break that trend
19:53next year. Yes.
19:54Wait, what does that mean? Basically
19:57I mean, if semiconductors were number
19:59one last year, they would be number one
20:01again this year—
20:02It’s not the company, it’s the
20:04industry.
20:04In the US, it’s been eight times.
20:06Once they hit 1st, they’ve stayed
20:08there for eight consecutive times.
20:09Yes, not so much eight consecutive
20:11times, but there have been eight
20:12instances of repeat 1st place finishes.
20:14It keeps going for quite a while.
20:15So, in a market like the US, if you buy
20:18the ones that did well this year,
20:19they’ll probably do okay next year
20:21too. But Korea is different.
20:23Consecutive 1st place. Yes, the
20:25probability of staying 1st is low, and
20:27the number of sectors that take 1st
20:29place is actually quite high. Hmm.
20:32So we’re just expressing what we saw
20:33earlier with different numbers.
20:36Continuously, something...
20:39To invest in Korean stocks, you have to
20:41be an expert in every industry because
20:43of the variety of sectors here.
20:46It’s a country where you have no clue
20:48who will emerge as the leader. In Korea
20:49, knowing which industry will trend
20:51this year—
20:54The toughest country to be an analyst
20:56in.
20:57Ah, right. Yes. Even if it looks
21:00promising now, you don't know what will
21:02happen, and even if it’s doing poorly
21:04, it could surge at any time; no wonder
21:05the average lifespan of a research
21:07center head is short here.
21:10So if we pick a stock and just wait,
21:12we’re doomed. Pretty much.
21:14If you look at this and be cold-hearted
21:15about it, that’s the reality. Of
21:18course, there are those who are great
21:20at value investing and those who
21:22steadily grow their assets through
21:23dividends, but if you bought in just
21:25because "it did well this year" or "
21:27people said it was good"—
21:31If the returns weren’t good, you’d
21:33have to keep switching.
21:34Wow.
21:36Well, semiconductors are working hard
21:38to break that trend. Mm-hmm. Wow, it's
21:42really the wild west.
21:44Where there are many masters in the
21:45field.
21:46Looking at it positively, it's because
21:48the sectors are so diverse.
21:49It’s like 18 out of 20 people in a
21:51barracks being senior sergeants.
21:53Yeah, you don't know who’s in charge.
21:55Oh, that’s a strange atmosphere. But
21:58that’s how it is.
21:59Exactly.
22:00Since many of Korea's industries are
22:02sensitive to economic conditions, I
22:04intuitively felt things changed quite
22:06rapidly, but seeing it with numbers
22:08like this, it’s...yes. So, if
22:10you’ve been struggling a lot with
22:12your investments until now, I’d like
22:13you to think, "Ah, it really was the
22:15underlying asset that was the problem."
22:18I hope you'll consider it a "black
22:19label" issue.
22:20However, looking at the data you
22:22provided for Korea, the US, Europe, and
22:25Japan, the US is actually the unique
22:27one, while the shifting of leading
22:29stocks groups Korea, Japan, and Europe
22:31together. So, just keep buying—just
22:34keep buying the stocks.
22:37Then you’ll make a lot of money. The
22:38country where "don't worry about it"
22:40actually works is really just the US.
22:42Yes.
22:42Hmm.
22:43You have to stay sharp if you want to
22:44invest in stocks in Korea, Japan, and
22:46Europe.
22:46That's right.
22:47Uh. There’s no such thing as
22:48long-term investing there. If you don't
22:50pay attention, your account will end up
22:51in bad shape right away.
22:52Hmm.
22:52That’s how it is.
22:53Yes. What I’m sharing now is a
22:55summary of data released late last week
22:57. I couldn't include it this time due
23:01to my own limitations, but I felt hit
23:02by that point myself.
23:05We usually see a book become a
23:06bestseller in the US and hear a guru
23:08wrote it. Then we study the translated
23:11version hard, and hear someone wrote
23:12something on Twitter. What did they
23:14write on X? We mostly get taught by
23:18professors who studied in the US and so
23:20on.
23:22But looking at these charts, I’ve
23:23been thinking a lot about whether that
23:25truly fits the Korean market. So,
23:30I don’t think I can explain exactly
23:32how to invest in Korea right here today
23:34, but I’ve realized I need to think
23:35about it more before I can give you
23:37advice. Yes. The numbers really are
23:42like that.
23:43Yes. So, up until now, it’s been: "
23:45The concentration is severe.""Korea is
23:47tiring, the Korean stock market is
23:49exhausting." I’ve said that much.
23:51But the story from here on is even more
23:52tiring; I’m in trouble. Shall I make
23:53it even more exhausting for you?
23:55Collapse. Yes.
23:56How does the collapse of leading stocks
23:57occur?
23:57Under what conditions do they collapse?
23:59Yes. I mainly watch the news and don't
24:03actually watch much YouTube, but when
24:05people talk about the current market,
24:06some focus on Hynix's technology or its
24:08gap with other companies.
24:15Others focus on the Magnificent 7's
24:17financial statements or technology,
24:19while since I like economics, some talk
24:21about interest rates, others talk about
24:23demand—there are all sorts of people.
24:29But I’ve often thought that they
24:30might all be part of the same set. I
24:33mean,
24:34they are all actually looking at the
24:35same thing, aren't they? I’ve just
24:38thought that perhaps the emphasis is
24:40simply different.
24:44I’ve categorized the types of bear
24:45markets based on the specific
24:47environments in which they begin.
24:50The reason I’m categorizing them is
24:52because, as I mentioned earlier,
24:54they are all unfavorable. So, you might
24:56end up asking if it’s really
24:58necessary to categorize them like that
24:59after hearing me out. But the reason we
25:01need these categories is because
25:03it helps prioritize what we need to
25:05watch closely versus what we can pay
25:07less attention to. Among these
25:09types, there are some that I, Kim
25:11Hyo-jin, think have a higher
25:13probability of happening, and others I
25:15might label as less likely.
25:19So, let me start with the first type.
25:23For example, it’s when Samsung
25:25Electronics or Hynix get overtaken. The
25:28possibility of being surpassed by
25:30latecomers, whether it’s Micron or
25:32Chinese firms,
25:36we might not think it’s likely right
25:38now, but it’s a scenario we can
25:39identify, and if that’s our biggest
25:41fear,
25:44then we need to keep a very close eye
25:46on Micron and monitor whether the
25:48technology gap is truly narrowing.
25:50Right. Fortunately, I don’t worry too
25:53much about that case either. Many
25:56people don’t worry about it in the
25:58short term, but I included it as Type 1
25:59regardless. If you get chased down by a
26:04follower, well,
26:05it’s game over. It’s game over.
26:07Then the stock price never recovers.
26:09Hmm.
26:09For that company.
26:10Hmm. Because that really means the
26:12situation has reversed. It’s not just
26:14a momentary mistake that can be
26:16corrected. So even if the industry
26:20improves, it’s very rare for such a
26:22company to return to the top, and the
26:24stock is likely to remain stagnant. Yes
26:28. The second case I consider is when
26:31the company is fine. They maintain
26:32their top position, but the forward
26:34demand, or the cycle, suddenly takes a
26:36sharp downturn.
26:37Customers
26:38Yes. And there’s all this talk about
26:40AI, like why is Meta renting out cloud
26:42services? Or what happens if Apple
26:46raises prices, even Apple? No. Apple
26:49always raises prices well. There’s a
26:51lot of chatter. These things could slow
26:54down, and many people are worried about
26:56this. I’m also listening.
27:02I read the news just as diligently, but
27:04news about data centers potentially
27:06being delayed or questions about demand
27:07have been coming out so constantly over
27:09the past two or three years that I find
27:11it hard to distinguish the truth. So
27:16I’m keeping a close eye on it, but I
27:18wonder if Jensen will suddenly come out
27:20and say, "We’re cutting back on
27:21investments." Will he say that? I
27:26personally don't think there's much
27:27possibility of that, and the area I'm
27:29focusing on most is the case where
27:31interest rates rise and multiples just
27:33collapse.
27:36Hmm.
27:38But as I mentioned about the setup,
27:40when interest rates rise,
27:44they affect the discount rate used to
27:45pull earnings into stock prices. Yes.
27:49They also affect the forward demand
27:50included in this. Yes. They affect
27:54demand, and if a company running in
27:55first place was struggling to hold that
27:57spot, it could also affect the
27:59competitive landscape. So, actually,
28:02yes, yes.
28:06The degree of impact might vary, but I
28:08think interest rates are the most
28:09important factor and will likely be the
28:11deciding blow this time as well.
28:16Should we try
28:18applying this to Korea? I categorized
28:20them into three types, and I realized
28:21you can actually view them that way.
28:24But for each of these,
28:26what indicators should we look at? As I
28:29briefly mentioned, for types like
28:31competitive reversals, we need to see
28:33how much other companies are catching
28:34up.
28:36And regarding the US,
28:39people keep buying Intel stock, so I
28:41wonder if that's really okay. From an
28:46industrial perspective rather than just
28:48a stock one, we need to check if it's
28:50truly sound, because it's the slowest
28:52but most fatal risk. I believe that's
28:56what we need to watch, and
29:01I mentioned the forward demand cycle
29:03turning earlier, so I am most concerned
29:05about the possibility that rising
29:06interest rates will hit valuations and
29:08simultaneously impact forward demand,
29:10even for companies that were still
29:12managing to invest under difficult
29:14conditions. I'd like to ask you one
29:20thing regarding interest rates;
29:22generally speaking, as you said, high
29:24interest rates are bad for everything,
29:26bad for funding,
29:28and bad because they make the market
29:30feel tight.
29:33But some argue that unless the interest
29:35rate hike is caused by inflation from
29:37things like oil prices—that is, not
29:39interest rate hikes meant to cool down
29:42an overheating economy,
29:45Yes.
29:47like rate hikes caused by raw material
29:49costs, yes.
29:51There are cases where those and stock
29:53prices move together. Some people argue
29:55that.
29:57We have many guests come on to talk
29:59about interest rates,
30:02but interest rates are difficult. They
30:04are difficult, so
30:07I was saving this for last, but shall
30:08we look at this chart first?
30:10Yes.
30:11Yes. The reason why I say interest
30:13rates are the most important factor, I
30:15told you,
30:17is that I’ve been an economist for a
30:19long time, and economists always make
30:20things sound complicated. They make it
30:23complicated, but a rate hike is just a
30:25rate hike, right? Some call it
30:27normalization. Some call it tightening.
30:31You can just say you're raising it. But
30:33why do you insist on splitting hairs
30:34and assigning special meaning to it?
30:37But if you look at the chart,
30:39you might think there's a difference
30:41between normalization and tightening.
30:44The red line is the U.S. base interest
30:45rate. I think the current flow is going
30:50to go similarly to the dot-com boom—
30:52well, the dot-com bubble and bust. I
30:57look at a lot of different charts from
30:58back then.
30:59If you're Korean, you know about 1997,
31:01right? We had the Asian financial
31:03crisis. The U.S. actually wasn't hit
31:05that hard. But when the Long-Term
31:09Capital Management fund, created by
31:10professors, went bankrupt, they slashed
31:12interest rates three times even though
31:14the economy wasn't really in trouble.
31:18So they kept rates low for over a year,
31:22and the economy heated up,
31:23and stock prices climbed way too high.
31:26So when they raised rates, they said, "
31:28We're going to normalize." That's when
31:30they started raising rates, claiming it
31:32was for normalization.
31:33Are you talking about that little dip
31:34right there? Yes. Right here. Yes,
31:38right here. It's this, so yes. They
31:40lowered them, kept them low, and then
31:42hiked them. Three times. "It's just
31:44normalization." Now, you might think
31:46that since people say rate hikes are
31:48bad, stocks must have fallen when they
31:50raised them, but if you look at the
31:51stock price below,
31:55stocks actually rose at a much steeper
31:57rate, making you wonder if rate hikes
31:59were actually good for stocks. Rather,
32:01at the start of the hikes or before
32:03they even happened, people would say, "
32:05They're going to raise them." And
32:07they'd actually hate it back then. Hmm.
32:10When they were actually raising rates,
32:12it was more like, "They're raising
32:13rates because the economy is good." It
32:15was sort of like...
32:15Yes. It kept rising as if it didn't
32:18really care, but I marked it with a
32:20dashed line; from this point on, it
32:22moves past normalization. Because it
32:24goes higher than the previous peak.
32:26Once they did that,
32:30whether you call it one hike or two,
32:31once they raised rates further, the
32:33stock price plummeted like a folded
32:35piece of paper.
32:37Right. Yes. Yes. Of course, it wasn't
32:40just interest rates; there was clearly
32:42fatigue from all the unprofitable
32:44companies going public and stock prices
32:46rising. And people said they had to
32:49invest heavily because of Y2K, but 2000
32:51passed and it was all too peaceful. The
32:53world, I mean. So, there was a belated
32:57realization that they might have
32:59overdone it, but in terms of interest
33:00rates, the move from normalization to
33:02tightening caused the stock market to
33:04...
33:06What angle is that? There's no reason
33:08for it to fall at an 89-degree angle.
33:10Yeah. This is the U.S. Nasdaq, not some
33:12emerging market. So I believe that
33:14interest rate tightening, going beyond
33:16normalization,
33:19had a significant impact on that.
33:21Hmm.
33:22I believe I mentioned something like
33:23surface tension when I was here last
33:25time.
33:26Yes. So when we look at this, since the
33:29people listening to 'Understanding' are
33:31at a high level.
33:34The appropriate interest rate in 1998
33:36and
33:37the appropriate interest rate in 2000
33:39are not the same, right?
33:40So, in theory, the market should
33:42actually be able to withstand higher
33:44rates.
33:45But
33:46stocks are traded by people, so they
33:48might try to calculate these things,
33:50but "Oh, they lowered it a few times?""
33:53Wait, they're raising it again." I
33:56think people might have felt burdened,
33:58and I can talk about that; currently,
34:00U.S. interest rates have come down from
34:024.5. They lowered it three times from
34:054.5, so it's at 3.75 now.
34:08So, in my head, I calculate the
34:09appropriate interest rates and keep
34:11working on various scenarios.
34:14Is it okay until they raise it three
34:15times? I keep running these scenarios
34:18by myself. So whenever I look at these
34:20charts, we say, "Ah, interest rates are
34:22important." If I say that,
34:25people might think it's just because I
34:27work in economics.
34:31But every time I look at these charts,
34:32I strongly feel that interest rates are
34:34like that final drop of water that
34:36breaks the surface tension.
34:39I guess you can only know that in
34:41hindsight. Most people realize in
34:44hindsight, "Oh, they passed the
34:46threshold, so it really was burdensome.
34:48"
34:49I was a student in 1999 and 2000 and
34:52wasn't investing, so I couldn't feel
34:54the fervor, but
34:55Yes. After confirming that nothing
34:59happened when they raised the rate once
35:01, I think they probably thought, "Right
35:02, let's invest; the global internet..."
35:09The world was becoming one, talking and
35:11emailing people abroad; they probably
35:13felt confident that a rate hike or two
35:15wouldn't matter, so the stock index
35:17likely rose quite a bit. I have a
35:21question regarding interest rates. We
35:24have a logical explanation for
35:26why stock prices fall when interest
35:28rates rise.
35:28Yes.
35:29Like marginal companies finding it
35:31difficult to raise capital. That people
35:33have no choice but to cut consumption
35:34when rates rise. And so on.
35:36There are many explanations, but
35:38Yes. When actually determining prices
35:43in the stock market—for instance,
35:45when we ponder the fair value of
35:47companies like Micron or Samsung
35:49Electronics—we discount future
35:51multiples to the present value using
35:54interest rates, but people don't buy
35:56stocks by saying, "It's right at 3.5,
35:58but it's a bubble at 3.3."
36:01That's true. And just because interest
36:04rates rise, it’s not as if companies
36:06can suddenly say, "Hey, rates are up,
36:08so let's stop our investments," given
36:10the nature of those projects.
36:14So my feeling is that a rate-hike
36:16season isn't necessarily a case of the
36:19economy overheating, with stocks
36:21soaring and people spending recklessly,
36:23prompting the Fed to follow suit;
36:25instead, stocks hit a point where they
36:27were just naturally overvalued. It was
36:32a natural correction, and when we look
36:34back, we just happen to notice that
36:36interest rates went up around the same
36:38time.
36:38Hmm.
36:39So, while you could argue that interest
36:41rates acted as a trigger,
36:42Yes.
36:44I wonder if they didn't have a direct
36:46impact, and if stocks would have peaked
36:48and fallen anyway, even if the rates
36:50hadn't been raised. Hmm.
36:55Since we can't conduct a controlled
36:57experiment to see if the rate hikes
36:59were the real cause, Or if interest
37:00rates just happened to follow and are
37:02now unfairly taking the blame,
37:08That's the feeling I get.
37:09Yes. I've asked myself that same
37:11question many times. For instance,
37:18I was going to bring this up earlier,
37:20There’s a lot of money coming into
37:21the stock market.
37:22Even if they raise rates a few times,
37:24if I'm not investing with borrowed
37:26money, I might think, "What's the rate?
37:285%?""I can make 10%in a day with Hynix,
37:31" so I’d still invest. But if,
37:33Right.
37:36Global liquidity is tight and there’s
37:38limited capital available, and then
37:39rates go up significantly,
37:44You start to calculate, "Wait, I have a
37:46loan from three years ago I need to pay
37:48off, and now the interest is higher,"
37:50so more people will start doing the
37:51math. I believe that simultaneously
37:54affects risk appetite. Let’s look at
37:57the chart. Since I’ve explained that
37:59combination,
38:00Yes.
38:02It’s actually my favorite chart,
38:04Yes.
38:06I looked at the returns for the last
38:08three months of the dot-com bubble. Yes
38:10, yes. The reason I checked was,
38:16I felt it was difficult to determine if
38:19a cycle had peaked for companies like
38:21Nvidia, Microsoft, Samsung, or Hynix,
38:23no matter how much I analyzed it. As
38:32you mentioned, it's easy to see in
38:33hindsight that it was the peak and that
38:35there was a bubble, but we don't know
38:36that while we're in the moment. So I
38:45questioned if it was right to chase the
38:46market leaders; I didn't think we
38:48should look at the top stocks to time
38:50the shift into a bear market. Instead,
38:56I thought we should watch the companies
38:58furthest away from the current AI trend
39:00. Yes. That’s why I created this
39:05chart, and the dot-com peak was in
39:07March 2000.
39:09So I looked at the returns for those
39:11last three months.
39:12It's a simple chart.
39:14The one on the far right is Nasdaq, and
39:16as you can see, Nasdaq rose 40%in the
39:18last three months.
39:20So if I had been trading stocks back
39:21then, I couldn't have sold.
39:22Uh, 40%.
39:24Oh, you can't sell that. Since tomorrow
39:25is higher than today, and the day after
39:27is even higher, you just can't sell it.
39:28That's right. I heard that back then,
39:31the "wise" ones who predicted the peak
39:33and sold early saw that 40%jump at the
39:36end, completely lost their minds, and
39:38jumped back in.
39:39They jumped back in and were completely
39:41ruined.
39:41Yes. Even if it were me, I think I
39:43would've done the same. Yes. So,
39:45looking at this, I thought, "Yeah."
39:47Hmm.
39:48There's no answer in KOSPI. Since it's
39:50in first place right now. That's what I
39:52started thinking.
39:52Yes. It's so interesting to me that
39:55during the same period, even though
39:57it's the US, the S&P 500 and Dow Jones
39:59were in the negative.
40:01Wow, I see.
40:03My book title is also "Money Money,"
40:05but money is truly honest and cold.
40:09Then how is such a chart possible?
40:11We talked about this earlier, right? It
40:13doesn't seem like people are
40:15calculating everything so heavily;
40:16rather than calculation, shall I call
40:18it psychology? Or should I call it
40:21behavioral economics? I've already put
40:23in all the money I have. Having put it
40:24in,
40:25you have to sell your Dow Jones stocks
40:27just to buy Nasdaq. At the very end, at
40:29the very end.
40:30That's when this chart appears.
40:32Oh, that.
40:33So this chart isn't about people
40:35investing in promising things or
40:36whatever. It’s simply a chart that
40:38shows, "Oh, all the money is in." At
40:40least in my view.
40:41That's true. That's right.
40:43So, if I add this, the KOSDAQ is like
40:45that too.
40:46Oh, these days, these days.
40:48Yes. Even just within KOSPI, the
40:51individual stocks are going crazy. So,
40:53has everything arrived?
40:55But what I'm saying is,
40:57honestly, isn't that not really a
40:59global "all-in"? Cool-headedly speaking
41:01.
41:01Hmm. Not yet.
41:03Yes. Doesn't it have to reach a global
41:05"all-in" stage? That's what I think.
41:08Do you mean that European indices
41:10should fall while KOSPI rises further?
41:12Yes. Yes. That's what I think.
41:15Hmm.
41:16Uh. If you want to use something as a
41:22signal, there have to be stages. There
41:26should be a blue light, a middle light,
41:28a yellow light, but if
41:30everything was positive until last
41:32month and suddenly negative the next
41:33month, that's not a signal. That's just
41:35a simultaneous crash, not a signal.
41:37So I tried it all out. 1 month, 2
41:39months, 3 months, 4 months, I tried
41:41them all.
41:42It increases in a stair-step pattern.
41:47It would be nice to have intense
41:48reactions from people here.
41:52Audience. It would be nice.
41:55I could see the periphery collapsing
41:57first. Yes.
41:58Oh, it happens in a cascading,
42:00stair-step pattern like that.
42:01Hmm. Well, I thought my logic would be
42:04stronger if it turned out this way, but
42:06I didn't expect it to look this neat.
42:11And what I find even more interesting
42:12on this chart is that Taiwan is the
42:14last one.
42:15Taiwan.
42:15If even Taiwan collapses,
42:17This was during the dot-com boom, right
42:19?
42:19Yes.
42:20So, every household needed a computer.
42:23They needed routers, too. So Taiwan, an
42:25electronics powerhouse, was really...
42:27It followed the trend and went up
42:28together.
42:29Ah, it was a beneficiary.
42:30Hmm. Yes. It was a beneficiary, but
42:32even Taiwan is now in the negative.
42:34Ah, so even the second-tier player is
42:36falling, and...yes.
42:37When it's a company with solid
42:38performance,
42:39the logic is that, anyway, the leader
42:41collapses last,
42:43Yes.
42:43and the weaker ones around it collapse
42:45first—that’s the hypothesis.
42:47Yes. From here on,
42:49it's like, if the market crashes,
42:50KOSDAQ crashes, then Samsung
42:52Electro-Mechanics falls, and only
42:54Samsung Electronics keeps going—but
42:56Samsung Electro-Mechanics fell today...
42:59Please don't use that as an example.
43:01Yes.
43:03I'm just saying, for example.
43:04Wow, that's suddenly terrifying.
43:07So, having heard this much,
43:09Yes.
43:10what happens if you update that chart
43:11now? Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh my. Oh my.
43:14The number of emerging market indices
43:16has increased since then. It might be
43:18hard to see, but I'll explain it all in
43:20words. Yes. Yes.
43:22First, as a matter of fact, the
43:24negative values have increased in a
43:26stair-step pattern.
43:27Hmm.
43:28They’ve increased quite a bit, so I
43:29actually think that right now...
43:30The negatives have increased
43:32significantly.
43:33The ones colored red are negative, and
43:34they’ve grown quite a bit.
43:35Oh. I wish it would go on like this for
43:40several years, but I do see the trend
43:41of people selling here and moving over
43:43there.
43:47But the two things that let me say, "
43:49Let's watch a little longer," are...
43:52there are some that go negative and
43:54then climb back up to positive. It's
43:55confusing.
43:56Aha.
43:56Aha. Brazil is doing that. India is
43:59doing it, too. India.
44:00So, I find it dangerous when this
44:02picture is too neat, but when it's
44:04messy, it's actually okay. Like, maybe
44:06we'll try hard at AI too, and end up
44:08doing something.
44:09But the fact that it's a bit messy is a
44:11plus. And if you look at the countries
44:13that went negative at the bottom, there
44:15are quite a few below -5%.
44:16Yes. Since those are in the negative,
44:18If you do a little "devil's editing" on
44:20the dates, you can push several of them
44:22back into the positive. So if you look
44:24at that,
44:26have there been no danger signals yet?
44:29Well, a few have emerged. Have there
44:31been a lot? No, not really.
44:33Yeah, that seems to be the current
44:35situation, and I was actually surprised
44:37by the mention of the European stock
44:38market earlier, as that’s what I’ve
44:40been watching most closely lately.
44:42Yeah. Because in Europe, um
44:44large capital...
44:46I mean, what AI-related companies are
44:48there?
44:49You could say there aren't any.
44:51Infineon, yeah, there aren't any. Yeah,
44:53even though the countries have
44:55announced many policies, they lack
44:57funds, and whether it’s AI or
44:58telecommunications, their
45:00competitiveness has fallen way behind.
45:02But most European stock markets are in
45:04the plus.
45:05Hmm.
45:06Hmm. You're referring to the Euro Stoxx
45:09on the far left, right?
45:10Yeah, that one too.
45:11Once that starts to fall into the
45:13negative, and that capital starts
45:14moving toward the Nasdaq, that’s when
45:16we can consider the real bubble to have
45:18begun.
45:18So, this global "Yong-geul"(leveraged
45:20investment) is quite advanced, and
45:22frankly, compared to the dot-com boom,
45:24global investing now is just a click—
45:26well, not just a click. You can do it
45:28in a few taps, it's so easy, right?
45:30Right? It's just too easy to attack the
45:31market.
45:32Yes. Even without huge capital, you can
45:34just log in today and buy today, it's
45:36very easy to do. Ah,
45:39So the reason I brought this up is that
45:41I’ve talked about interest rates and
45:42other things,
45:45which are good topics. They are good
45:47and important topics,
45:48um,
45:50but I felt they weren't very useful
45:51because you can't check them on a daily
45:53basis. If interest rates go up, it’ll
45:56be bad eventually, right?
45:57Exactly.
45:58Yes. But that’s just a big-picture
46:00discussion.
46:04Since so many people are worried about
46:06whether to sell today or jump in
46:07further, I thought, what can we check
46:09for ourselves daily? Well, for things
46:14like indices,
46:15it’s so easy for us to find that
46:16information anywhere.
46:17Yes.
46:18If you at least watch things like that,
46:20even when one person says one thing and
46:22another says something else, I thought
46:24it might be a little helpful. So, to
46:28put it simply, we should start getting
46:30nervous when the European stock market
46:31turns negative, right? Right?
46:35Yes. So, I personally wonder—last
46:37time, Taiwan was sort of the final
46:39vanguard, so is it Taiwan again this
46:41time?
46:42Or is it Korea this time? No. I hope
46:44Korea stays in first place until the
46:46very end. These
46:47these are just
46:49some daydreams I have.
46:50Does that have anything to do with
46:51interest rates as well? That, yes. Ah,
46:53I almost missed that.
46:56If they had raised interest rates
46:58before this global contraction—the
47:00crowding into leading stocks—was
47:01fully realized, we might have just said
47:03, "Well, isn't the U.S. economy fine?"
47:07And maybe we would have moved on
47:08thinking, "Good companies are listing
47:10and everything is great," right? But
47:13global capital is already fully
47:15compressed as it is.
47:17I sold everything else to buy those,
47:19but when U.S. interest rates rise, my
47:21head starts spinning. It probably had a
47:23significant impact on exchange rates as
47:25well.
47:25Hmm. That’s true.
47:26Yeah. And even if they hiked rates,
47:29they only raised them three times,
47:31which is 1 percentage point.
47:34The Nasdaq index rose 40%in the last
47:36three months; it’s hard to believe a
47:381%hike caused such an impact, but
47:40it’s not that simple. So,
47:43The combination, yes. This global
47:48concentration into leading stocks isn't
47:49just the default; it's clear that the
47:51shift from selling others to buying
47:53these has already happened.
47:58Oh, and interest rates are about to
48:00surpass their previous highs too.
48:02Hmm.
48:02And they say there are a lot of IPOs
48:04coming up as well. Stock supply is
48:06increasing too. Hmm, these things
48:08always seem to come as a set.
48:12So, when those things come together,
48:13it’s not just a "collapse"—which I
48:15know sounds dramatic—but perhaps a
48:17combination that signals the entry into
48:19a bear market. I haven't mentioned
48:24anything about timing so far. Yeah.
48:27Because frankly, you can't predict the
48:29timing.
48:29Yes. Hmm.
48:31I can share my opinion on when the U.S.
48:33might start raising rates, but yes. So,
48:35I haven't said anything at all about
48:37the timing.
48:40I don’t usually analyze specific
48:42events, but the IPO situation has me a
48:44bit worried.
48:47Hmm.
48:48Hmm.
48:50I think I touched on IPOs when I was
48:52here last time, but if I could dive a
48:54little deeper, yes.
48:57There are so many IPOs coming up.
48:58SpaceX has already done their IPO.
49:01Hmm. And Anthropic is saying they want
49:04to go for it in October or November.
49:07OpenAI seems to be dealing with some
49:08internal friction, so it looks like
49:10they're pushing to next year. But I
49:15don't know if these IPOs will succeed,
49:16and from the market's perspective, I'm
49:18not sure if this is good or bad. So, I
49:22tracked what the people who follow
49:26only these IPOs were writing about. And
49:28here's what they said.
49:30The three companies I mentioned add up
49:32to 4 trillion dollars. That's a lot,
49:34right? Yes. It is, but it’s about
49:36quality over quantity. We hear
49:38projections about multi-trillion dollar
49:40market caps. Or how much capital
49:42they'll soak up. It sounds like a huge
49:45amount of money, but it's about the
49:46quality—
49:49What matters is the proportion of
49:50unprofitable companies among those
49:52going public, meaning the quality.
49:54Yes. And how much new stock is being
49:56issued is what counts.
49:57Exactly. Because new shares are what
49:59actually suck up the liquidity.
50:00Yes. So, especially when there's a lot
50:02of new share issuance, it makes you
50:04think, "They must really need the cash.
50:06"
50:08SpaceX only issued about 4%in new
50:10shares, which, ironically, made it an
50:12even more desirable stock that people
50:14were desperate to own. Yes. But for
50:18Anthropic, it’s unclear whether
50:20they’re in the black or the red;
50:21reports have been going back and forth.
50:24While the exact new share issuance
50:26hasn't been confirmed, observations
50:28suggest it will be around 8 to 10%.
50:30That's what's coming out.
50:32Yes.
50:33Personally, I’m worried about the
50:35timing of OpenAI’s IPO.
50:36Hmm.
50:37Right. OpenAI is facing concerns that
50:40it will take quite a while to reach
50:42profitability, and the new share
50:43issuance is also...
50:45Yes. It’s been speculated, but...
50:52Given those reports,
50:56it’s not like the market will simply
50:57collapse just because OpenAI goes
50:59public. That’s not the case, but
51:01there has been pressure from global
51:02factors as well.
51:04Interest rates are also different from
51:05what they used to be. So, if a
51:09megaton-level loss-making company were
51:11to go public, I consider that the
51:13worst-case scenario.
51:17One last thing I’d like to mention is
51:19this.
51:21Actually, interest rates...
51:22Yes.
51:25If we start talking about U.S. interest
51:27rates, we could go on for an entire
51:29hour, right? That's true. I’ve been
51:32watching it that way too, but...
51:36I started to wonder. Foreigners keep
51:40selling, and domestic demand is driving
51:43the market by 150%, so, yes...
51:45I started to think, are U.S. interest
51:47rates really as important as they used
51:49to be?
51:50That thought came to me, and in a way,
51:52this can be interpreted positively. Yes
51:54. Currently, credit trading loans for
51:57KOSDAQ and the main KOSPI market
51:59combined total about 40 trillion won.
52:02It’s around that much. And it has
52:05nearly tripled in less than a year.
52:08Yes.
52:11I won’t dive into heavy topics like
52:12polarization. But there’s a reason
52:16for this investment trend, and since
52:18many have seen returns, this growth is
52:20seen as investment efficiency, yes. It
52:23was one of the options to increase
52:25returns, but the Bank of Korea's base
52:27rate is currently 2.5%.
52:30However, this credit margin trading...
52:32For margins...
52:34The applied interest rate is around 7
52:36to 9%. But recently, there’s been a
52:38lot of volatility. If it were only
52:40sharp rises, it would be fine, but
52:42there are also sharp drops.
52:43So, regarding interest rate hikes, in
52:45the past, if someone asked, "What's the
52:47BOK base rate?""It's 2.5%," you'd just
52:50say, "Oh, okay," and move on. It was a
52:53level we could easily dismiss.
52:57The rates applied to credit loans have
52:59always been much higher than the base
53:01rate, and the outlook that the Bank of
53:03Korea might raise rates two or three
53:04times this year and more next year is
53:06not just market talk—looking at
53:08inflation, it seems likely. I mean,
53:12exports are growing by 70%year-on-year.
53:14Yes. In such a situation, with asset
53:19prices heating up and multiple rate
53:20hikes expected, we shouldn't just watch
53:22US interest rates or what the Fed
53:24prefers; we need to pay close attention
53:26to data changes following Korean
53:28interest rates, as the Korean supply
53:30and demand are currently driving our
53:31market—and this data comes out daily.
53:36Data. Yes. Ah. It'll be in the
53:40newspapers. Yes.
53:41So, even if you think there's no impact
53:43, could there actually be some?
53:45Then how about the European stock
53:46market? What did they say back then?
53:49Are they doing an IPO? It would be
53:51great if we could just trade stocks by
53:53looking at only one thing.
53:55Does that mean it's starting to turn
53:57downward first? Well, they do tend to
54:00fall together, actually. If I start
54:03looking at combinations, the
54:04conversation gets long, but yes.
54:07If something like that starts to
54:09decline, it must have been a day when
54:11stock prices also fell significantly.
54:12Yes. However, can it rise again if the
54:15stock price recovers through a
54:16different combination? Or did it come
54:19as a set with everything else? Let’s
54:22try checking these things. When credit
54:25traders increase while interest rates
54:27rise, that's the headache-inducing
54:29credit situation.
54:31When trading is decreasing, it means, "
54:33I can't buy on margin anymore." The
54:35interest burden is also a concern.
54:37It seems like companies aren't as
54:38strong as they used to be. People are
54:40saying they should reduce debt-financed
54:42investments, but with the US raising
54:43rates and leading stocks being squeezed
54:45,
54:46and talk of many IPOs, I think these
54:48could be the worst-case scenarios and
54:50signals of entering a bear market. So
54:53we really have to keep an eye on
54:54various things.
54:58Honestly, depending on when you bought
55:00Samsung Electronics or Hynix, your mood
55:02changes, because those two stocks have
55:04risen so much.
55:07Yes.
55:08Investing doesn't have to be this hard.
55:11It can be easy. I also tend to think
55:13that way sometimes.
55:14Nowadays, people just say buy the dip.
55:16Always buy when it drops. Yes. But, but
55:19I don't think investing is that easy,
55:21which is why I deliberately showed you
55:22how high the difficulty level is in the
55:24Korean market. Investing is not simple,
55:28and the Korean market is not exactly an
55:30easy one to play in.
55:33I think about dieting a lot lately, and
55:35the way to lose weight is to eat less
55:36and exercise. But to maintain it, you
55:39have to study a lot. When you're losing
55:43weight, it's clear-cut, like waking up
55:45and just eating an egg. But if I want
55:49to maintain this for 10 years, wow.
55:52You really have to manage it thoroughly
55:53. Oh, so.
55:57To become a successful "weight
55:58maintainer," or to protect your money,
56:00you have to look at many things, even
56:02if it's tiring.
56:05Will the US stock market be the last
56:07one standing in this cycle? Well.
56:10I honestly wonder if it's because I'm
56:12Korean, but...
56:14Yes.
56:15I believe the bottlenecks are making
56:17money.
56:18Yes.
56:19Why shouldn't Korea be number one?
56:21Hmm.
56:21I mean, Taiwan and Korea are making
56:23more money.
56:24That’s what I think. Yes. The country
56:26might collapse first or turn off. Still
56:28, it is an emerging market. It is an
56:30emerging market, and...
56:32The possibility of Samsung Electronics
56:34or Hynix’s profits suddenly crashing
56:36on their own due to external shocks
56:38seems very low.
56:40So,
56:41The realistic outlook I can think of is
56:43a simultaneous decline. Yes.
56:45Hmm. Hmm. Rather,
56:49Combinations are important, as you
56:51think, but in your heart,
56:53Is there something where if this
56:55appears first, you get worried? Is
56:56there a priority list?
56:58I’m really desperate, seriously.
57:01Europe, look at Europe first.
57:03It’s not hypnosis, just look at
57:05Europe.
57:06We just met, I'm disappointed.
57:09Hey, how important is this question?
57:12Wow.
57:12I'm not curious about that. Even if
57:15you're not curious, that's too...
57:19I'll give it to you.
57:22I update the leading stock tracking
57:23list every morning with a trembling
57:25heart, but honestly, that is...
57:27So, when the minus increases one day, I
57:29also look at the monitor and wonder, "
57:31Why did it go up so much?" But then it
57:33turns back to plus in a couple of days.
57:35So I...
57:37I think a lot that the final blow
57:38really must be interest rates. Yes.
57:42Korean interest rates are important too
57:44, but since US interest rates have
57:46often played the role of the ultimate
57:47arbiter, I think many people will make
57:49decisions by watching US interest rates
57:51this time too. Investment-related
57:56decisions, whether the scale is large
57:58or small, regardless of...
58:00Yes. If you listen to the corporate
58:05story, there is something else
58:07connected to interest rates. Looking at
58:09the NASDAQ bubble graph you showed
58:11earlier, interest rates were raised
58:13diligently in three stages, but there
58:15was a process where stock prices rose
58:16even more at the very end. Yes. There
58:19was that process. So, since I’m a bit
58:24timid, I wonder if it fits my
58:25personality better to say, "You could
58:27earn more, but let's start cleaning up
58:29a little from now on" when such signals
58:31appear. But despite the interest rates
58:38being raised as you said, and despite
58:40many experts having already closed
58:41their positions, at that last moment...
58:45The heat.
58:46Hmm.
58:46That's true. The party actually started
58:48after interest rates were raised.
58:50You could say that. But at that time...
58:52Right. You mean we let that pass by
58:54without taking it?
58:55What do you mean by taking it?
58:59So many people are saying that we need
59:01to see this through to the end, but the
59:02reason I show these charts is that the
59:04rise is very steep, but the duration is
59:06very short. Right. That’s true. Yeah.
59:12So, you might ask, "Are you telling me
59:14to look at those four letters all the
59:15time?" But you have to look at them.
59:18Because the fireworks go off, and when
59:20they do, you can't even sell when it
59:23starts to drop. Looking at those who
59:26got trapped back then, because they had
59:28the experience of it going up so high,
59:30when it dropped, they expected a
59:32rebound, so they couldn't
59:35couldn't sell it there. Exactly.
59:37Right.
59:37You just collapse along with it. Just
59:39like that.
59:40Hmm.
59:40Well, during that time, it must have
59:42had some ups and downs in the middle,
59:43right?
59:43Rising, yes. There are periods where it
59:46rises.
59:46But once it drops from that peak, it
59:48never recovers.
59:49So if you decide that once it drops by
59:51a certain percentage from the peak,
59:52it's not going to recover,
59:54you should just do it,
59:55but if you keep staring at the numbers,
59:57you might think of it as a small
59:59sacrifice and just hold on to the end,
1:00:01right? What do you think about that?
1:00:03Like that.
1:00:04If you have a rule, like "if it drops
1:00:0630%from the peak, it's really going
1:00:09down," then...
1:00:10This.
1:00:10Just.
1:00:12How would you know what percentage
1:00:13marks a real drop?
1:00:15There's no way to know that.
1:00:17Actually, I'm calculating it right now.
1:00:20Yes, hmm.
1:00:22There are rules of thumb, but it's hard
1:00:24to make a clean cut.
1:00:27It seems difficult to just cut it off.
1:00:30The reason I show you charts like this
1:00:32is because
1:00:33hmm.
1:00:37I feel like those who have invested
1:00:39well recently tend to think that no
1:00:40matter the situation, you should just
1:00:42stick with that company. "The earnings
1:00:46are good, how could it fall?"
1:00:48Exactly. Stocks are companies, after
1:00:50all. No.
1:01:00That's why today, I'm not talking about
1:01:02my calculations or specific values, but
1:01:04rather about human nature and the
1:01:05choices people make. When you have to
1:01:09sell one stock to buy another, that's
1:01:11when you've reached the top. Since
1:01:12interest rates are higher than before,
1:01:14people have started to think a lot more
1:01:16. So, honestly, I haven't talked that
1:01:19much about the economy today if you
1:01:21think about it. Yeah. Because this is
1:01:24about the choices people make.
1:01:26But it's different now, isn't it?
1:01:29Oh, you compare it to the Nasdaq.
1:01:32But.
1:01:33Companies are very different recently.
1:01:35They are much healthier now. That's why
1:01:36the market has come this far and lasted
1:01:38this long. But what choices did people
1:01:40make back then? Have people really
1:01:41changed that much? Even looking at 90
1:01:44years of data since 1929, herd
1:01:46mentality seems to be the default.
1:01:48Now that I look at it, I really put
1:01:50together the materials in a detailed
1:01:51way.
1:01:52Yes. So when we look at those things, I
1:01:54think it's worth reflecting on what
1:01:55choices people made back then, even if
1:01:57we have to add a little more context.
1:01:59It seems worth ruminating on.
1:02:01Let me ask you a slightly different
1:02:02question. Since the 2008 Lehman crisis,
1:02:10some people say the world order or the
1:02:12way the world works has changed.
1:02:15Mm. Just looking at the 2008 Lehman
1:02:19crisis, there was a debate over whether
1:02:21to let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt or
1:02:23to save it.
1:02:24Because they let it go bankrupt, there
1:02:26were bigger repercussions than expected
1:02:28, and
1:02:29because of that,
1:02:31it almost collapsed, but after barely
1:02:33saving it by flooding the market with
1:02:35unlimited money,
1:02:36Mm.
1:02:39Once they realized that if something
1:02:41shakes, they have to bail it out, and
1:02:43that leaving it alone would cause a
1:02:45major problem, there really hasn't been
1:02:47a so-called correction since then.
1:02:51Since 2008, the US market faced shocks
1:02:54whenever Trump said something, but
1:02:56every time, they just printed money to
1:02:58solve it, printed money to solve it,
1:03:00and kept coming this far. So, whether
1:03:04the semiconductor bubble bursts or
1:03:06whatever happens, especially in a
1:03:08leveraged situation like today, if it
1:03:10starts to burst, it could easily
1:03:12collapse because it has become "too big
1:03:15to fail." Wouldn't it be safe to assume
1:03:20that the Fed put or whatever put is
1:03:22just working?
1:03:24Mm.
1:03:25I think that's a valid point, but we
1:03:27need to look at it by breaking it down.
1:03:30Yes. Yes.
1:03:33The Fed put appeared when the stock
1:03:35index fell by 50%.
1:03:36Mm.
1:03:37Then, from an investor's perspective,
1:03:39the conclusion is the same.
1:03:42Yes. I mean, socially, yes. Is it right
1:03:47for a central bank to just save a
1:03:48private company? Isn't it causing much
1:03:52greater side effects? Let's leave those
1:03:55questions to the professors 'debates,
1:03:56and from an investor's perspective,
1:03:58For that level of intervention to
1:04:00happen, the stock index, the S&P 500,
1:04:02was down 50%back then.
1:04:04Mm. When was that roughly?
1:04:06In 2008, it was -50%back then. So it
1:04:10went to -50%, which is why the Fed put
1:04:13came out.
1:04:14Yes. Yes. So if people think, "Oh,
1:04:16they'll save us if it gets like this,"
1:04:18then from an investor's perspective, in
1:04:20fact,
1:04:21they just saved a corpse, that's what
1:04:23it is.
1:04:23Yes.
1:04:24They won't let it die.
1:04:25In a way, looking at it that way, I
1:04:27suppose that could be true.
1:04:28No, no, but I'm saying that up until
1:04:312008, our humanity had central banks
1:04:33and monetary policies that struggled
1:04:35with whether we should really pour
1:04:37money into this.
1:04:39But since then, there hasn't been any
1:04:41of that. Even when a bubble is about to
1:04:43burst, they even stop wars midway,
1:04:45right? For fear that government bond
1:04:47yields will rise.
1:04:48So, saving the market has become the
1:04:50number one priority, and if that dies,
1:04:52then there's no US or anything else
1:04:54left. Isn't the consensus that "it's me
1:04:57" becoming increasingly strong?
1:05:00Hmm, what do you think? That was the
1:05:03case in 2008, but now, people think
1:05:05that if it hits -2, the Fed put will
1:05:07kick in and rates will be cut. How
1:05:10could they possibly kill that? To be
1:05:11honest, I slightly agree with that line
1:05:13of thinking.
1:05:14Yes. I find it very interesting that
1:05:18someone like Warsh became the Fed Chair
1:05:20at this point in time. That point is...
1:05:24Yes. I mean, setting aside whether
1:05:26he’s a hawk, whether he likes tech,
1:05:28or whether he’s rich,
1:05:32he has long emphasized that the balance
1:05:34sheet must be reduced. Yes.
1:05:38I’m not. That’s what he says; he
1:05:41was the youngest Fed governor back then
1:05:43, and after he stepped down...
1:05:46He couldn't cast a dissenting vote back
1:05:48then. After leaving, he said through
1:05:51lectures and articles that he actually
1:05:52opposed those policies, but in reality,
1:05:54at that time...
1:05:56It wasn't an environment where you
1:05:57could voice dissenting opinions. I was
1:05:59an economist back then, but...
1:06:02Aside from maybe Yellen, I couldn't
1:06:03really remember anyone else’s name.
1:06:05It wasn't a time when others would come
1:06:07out and speak up. But the person who
1:06:11strongly criticized the bloated balance
1:06:13sheet for causing many side effects and
1:06:14moral hazards...
1:06:19is now serving as the Fed Chair, isn't
1:06:21he? He’s just starting, so regardless
1:06:26of whether the "Fed put" is right or
1:06:27wrong, if things shake too much, the
1:06:29market might expect it,
1:06:33and President Trump might say something
1:06:35, or even act, but I don’t think it
1:06:37will be that easy this time.
1:06:39Ah, Warsh’s personality and direction
1:06:42.
1:06:43Yes, and you brought up bond yields so
1:06:45well; the bond market won't be
1:06:47forgiving.
1:06:48Hmm, yes.
1:06:50What does that mean? If the central
1:06:54bank’s independence is compromised or
1:06:56if they can’t control inflation, for
1:06:58someone investing in U.S. Treasuries,
1:07:00bailing out the system—until now—
1:07:02was better than systemic risk,
1:07:05uh, that would have been better, but
1:07:06this has been going on since 2008, how
1:07:08many years is that now? It’s been 17
1:07:10years. Because this has dragged on for
1:07:12so long, inflation is a problem,
1:07:14debt is a problem,
1:07:16and yet, the central bank and the
1:07:18market...
1:07:18Up until now, Treasuries had still been
1:07:21rising, yes. But...I’ve kept it going
1:07:27within a range that didn't severely
1:07:29damage the Treasuries I invested in,
1:07:30but now I see this won't work.
1:07:32I feel like a situation is coming where
1:07:34one has to choose between Treasury
1:07:36prices and stock prices.
1:07:37Then it’s the same as our Nasdaq
1:07:39chart from earlier. Then investors will
1:07:40choose their own money.
1:07:41Right. Naturally.
1:07:43Yes. So I don't think everyone will say
1:07:46, "Well, at this level, shouldn't the
1:07:48Fed put kick in?" this time.
1:07:50Hmm. Ah. Ah, right.
1:07:52Start lowering interest rates. If they
1:07:54force rates down and pump money.
1:07:56Ah, that’s right.
1:07:58Lowering rates is fine because the
1:08:00economy will be cold by then, but
1:08:02buying up assets like before and
1:08:03bloating the Fed's balance sheet again
1:08:05...
1:08:07That would mean there's less room to
1:08:09maneuver than before. Back then, we
1:08:13hadn't really tried those policies, so
1:08:15we didn't foresee the side effects, but
1:08:17now we can't do it long-term and...
1:08:21Is it a policy that raises inflation?
1:08:23Hmm.
1:08:24After seeing the bond market over the
1:08:26decade since 2008, yes.
1:08:28If they try to do something similar
1:08:30again, the market will think, "Oh, my
1:08:31government bonds are going to be
1:08:33worthless," so they know better now.
1:08:37Ah.
1:08:39If it’s in a state where it’s just
1:08:41barely holding on, like the Philippines
1:08:43...
1:08:44Yes. In 2022, U.S. long-term Treasury
1:08:49ETFs dropped about 50%over an 8-month
1:08:52period.
1:08:54I honestly didn't know a Treasury ETF
1:08:57could drop 50%. Yes.
1:08:58If interest rates keep rising, that's
1:09:00what happens. Yes. But this isn't 13
1:09:02years ago, it was just 3 years ago.
1:09:06It’s been 4 years.
1:09:08Many bond investors haven't forgotten
1:09:09the nightmare of that day. Oh, is this
1:09:12how it ends on a dark note? Yes.
1:09:16Was quantitative easing back then used
1:09:18to control that kind of market panic?
1:09:22It’s a long story, but the Chair was
1:09:24Bernanke at the time. Ah.
1:09:26Bernanke was an expert on...
1:09:29The Great Depression and Japan's
1:09:31stagnation. So...
1:09:33Once you fall into a recession, you
1:09:34can't get out. His mission number one,
1:09:36two, and three was, "There will be side
1:09:38effects later, but we must not fall
1:09:40into one in the first place." So...
1:09:42He would do it no matter what.
1:09:44He was Helicopter Ben.
1:09:45Hmm.
1:09:46We covered all the questions on our
1:09:48minds today.
1:09:48Hmm. Man, this is a night that gives me
1:09:51a lot to think about. Actually, if this
1:09:53happens to be the peak or if an exit
1:09:54signal appears, what should we look for
1:09:56to get out? Hmm. If you watch the
1:10:01European, Taiwanese, and Korean markets
1:10:03, they are highly likely to be the
1:10:05canaries in the coal mine.
1:10:07Yes. Especially Europe; there's debate
1:10:09over whether Korea or Taiwan will
1:10:12collapse first, together, or later, but
1:10:14Europe will likely serve as the canary.
1:10:16If other markets drop and money flows
1:10:18to the U.S., it can be seen as a signal
1:10:20of a liquidity crunch, especially if
1:10:22compounded by interest rate hikes.
1:10:25And the idea that "if things get risky,
1:10:27they'll just lower rates again" might
1:10:29not be true this time. The cabinet's
1:10:32color might be different.
1:10:33Hmm.
1:10:35Whatever the color, if the market
1:10:37interprets it differently, it could
1:10:39play out differently, so wouldn't those
1:10:41be the most practical signals?
1:10:43Hmm.
1:10:43So, I should keep this in mind and wrap
1:10:45it up, right?
1:10:46Yes. That’s right.
1:10:47Korea really is a market with high
1:10:49volatility.
1:10:51Stories about the Korean market and the
1:10:53Korean economy are right here.
1:10:54Money that vanishes, money that
1:10:56survives, and money that’s anxious.
1:10:58Yes.
1:10:59If you watch that, you'll find it all
1:11:00there.
1:11:01It works.
1:11:02Understood.
1:11:04I’ve even summarized it for you like
1:11:05this. Oh, you didn't even buy any whale
1:11:08meat, that's just too much. Uh.
1:11:11Yes.
1:11:12Warren Buffet has plenty of sales these
1:11:14days, yet you don't buy any. Thank you.
1:11:16Yes. I listened well. Thank you.
1:11:18Thanks.
1:11:20Actually, I wasn't going to do this.
1:11:24Honestly speaking, here is what it is.
1:11:26I know there are many corporate IR
1:11:28events, both small and large, held at
1:11:30exchanges in Yeouido.
1:11:32That’s correct.
1:11:33When doing this, you should talk to us
1:11:35and do some interviews; investors
1:11:36can’t all go to the exchange. They
1:11:38just whisper and finish it up. Why? Yes
1:11:41. So, you have to do it now. It’s
1:11:43good if you do it now. We say please do
1:11:47it, but if you hold an IR without our
1:11:49permission, we’ll start keeping a
1:11:51list of companies to target, and if
1:11:52there's even a slight bit of bad news,
1:11:55we’ll spread it everywhere.
1:11:57We'll make their stock price drop by
1:11:59half, just watch.
1:12:00We’ve clearly warned you.
1:12:01Yes.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 반도체 하락 신호 여기 무너지면 끝납니다 (신영증권 김효진 박사) | 2026년 07월 06일 녹화 by 언더스탠딩 : 세상의 모든 지식, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,692 words across 2,046 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.