전체기사 최신뉴스 GAM
KYD 디데이
글로벌

윌리엄 풀 총재, '돈과 분별력' 주제 연설(영문)

기사입력 :

최종수정 :

※ 본문 글자 크기 조정

  • 더 작게
  • 작게
  • 보통
  • 크게
  • 더 크게

※ 번역할 언어 선택

Dollars and Sense

William Poole*
President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Financial Planning Association of Missouri and Southern Illinois
St. Louis
Jan. 9, 2008

*I appreciate assistance and comments provided by my colleagues at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Joseph C. Elstner, Public Affairs officer, provided special assistance. Robert Rasche, senior vice president and director of Research, and Robert Schenk, senior vice president for Public and Community Affairs, provided valuable input to an earlier draft of the speech. However, I take full responsibility for errors. The views expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve System.


Dollars and Sense

We are certainly living in extraordinary financial times. Our nation has enjoyed a long economic expansion and inflation has been relatively low. However, since last August, financial markets have been in considerable turmoil resulting from subprime mortgage lending and a deflating housing boom. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is watching both recession and inflation risks. Recession risks are primarily a consequence of financial turmoil, which has threatened to spread housing industry woes to the broader economy.

Will housing sector problems push the economy into recession? It is too early to tell right now, but what we can do is to examine the current situation closely and try to learn from it. Perhaps “relearn” is a better word, because the mistakes that brought us to this point have been made before. There are no new lessons here. The lessons are familiar ones that need to be more forcefully driven home and incorporated in standard financial practice in the future. That is why I’ve titled my remarks “Dollars and Sense.” The Fed is working on providing the public with better and more useful financial information that we hope will reduce the odds on the housing finance industry repeating its recent financial mistakes.

My plan is to review the current situation and examine five key mistakes by borrowers and other market players. Although many borrowers have little financial expertise, we would have expected all the other players to be more sophisticated and experienced. Then I’ll review where the country stands in trying to educate Americans in basic financial literacy and economic thinking. As part of that review, I’ll include some of the things the Federal Reserve is doing to address this issue. Finally, I’ll look at what we can all do to help Americans know more about their finances and to give them the tools to make better choices. As financial planners, you of course have a large stake in this enterprise and will benefit in the long run from having better-prepared clients. I know your organization is already involved in some education efforts, and I applaud your efforts.

Before proceeding, I want to emphasize that the views I express here are mine and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve System. I thank my colleagues at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for their comments. Joseph C. Elstner, Public Affairs officer at the St. Louis Fed, provided special assistance. However, I retain full responsibility for errors.
Five Mistakes

Let’s review the five major mistakes creating the subprime mess.

First, too many borrowers took on mortgages they could not afford. Nothing new there, except for the number of such borrowers. How could something seemingly so preventable happen? One of the main culprits was the adjustable rate mortgage, or ARM. Actually, the problem is not the ARM itself but grossly inadequate borrower understanding of this type of mortgage. The “Two/Twenty-Eight” ARM called for low initial payments for two years, which would then reset to higher levels for the remaining 28 years of the 30-year mortgage. Too many borrowers, though, did not insist on knowing just what the “higher level” would mean, and too many mortgage brokers did not provide that information in a way the borrower could understand. Other borrowers, wanting to take advantage of low initial payments, gave misleading or false information about their ability to repay. It is important to emphasize that there is nothing inherently wrong with adjustable rate mortgages, and they make sense for many borrowers. However, borrowers must be prepared for interest rate resets and able to pay higher rates. In recent years, too many borrowers were not prepared. Borrowers also need to understand prepayment penalties in their mortgage contracts. These can make refinancing ARMs into fixed-rate mortgages terribly expensive.

Second in our mistakes summary, mortgage brokers put too many borrowers into unsuitable mortgages. As I mentioned in a speech to a St. Louis real estate group last July, with widely held expectations of rising interest rates priced into the markets throughout the 2003-2005 period, it is difficult to avoid the judgment that these ARM loans were poorly underwritten. It was imprudent for mortgage bankers and lenders to approve borrowers who likely could not service the loans when rates rose. It is important to understand that rising interest rates were not just a risk but actually the market expectation. Poor underwriting not only jeopardized the borrowers put into unsuitable mortgages but also the brokers themselves. Numerous brokers are now bankrupt, and many survivors have suffered large losses and sullied reputations.

Third, it is surprising to me that investment banks jeopardized their reputations by securitizing these mortgages when the underlying loans were backed by inadequate or spurious information.

Damaged reputations are also casualties of the fourth major mistake: rating agencies that placed AAA ratings on many securities backed by subprime mortgages. The rating agencies seemed to have based their ratings on a backward look at default experience on similar mortgages before 2006, rather than on a forward look based on careful analysis of the likely ability of borrowers to repay in less favorable market circumstances. The reason default experience on subprime mortgages was relatively favorable before 2007 is that housing prices were rising, permitting stressed borrowers to sell their properties to repay the mortgages. The rating agencies, apparently, did not believe that house prices might stop rising, in which case the music would stop.

The final entry on our major mistake list is investors who bought those securities without conducting an adequate analysis of the underlying investments. Investors too readily accepted the AAA ratings at face value. As financial planners, you are very familiar with the cliché that “if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.” A reach for yield with inadequate attention to risk is another basic lesson that apparently cannot be relearned often enough.

It is interesting, and a bit depressing, that investment professionals made four of the five mistakes. I can understand the mistakes many financially naïve borrowers made but have a hard time understanding how so many investment professionals could have been so wrong. Many observers point to greed, but I prefer a different explanation. Shortsightedness rather than greed explains actions that led to losses of tens of billions of dollars and the failure of many financial firms.

Avoiding Future Mistakes

I will now to add some detail to three of these mistake categories—borrowers who cannot repay, mortgage brokers putting people into unsuitable loans and investors who did not do their homework. Here is my question: How could better education and financial decision-making have helped people avoid these mistakes?

Borrowers. Too many know too little about credit and what its costs and risks are. Starting with coursework on credit usage in elementary and middle schools and continuing with financial literacy and economics in high school would go a long way toward equipping borrowers with the information they need, or at least give them enough knowledge to ask the right questions about what they can afford and what lending terms mean.

Mortgage brokers. Many have closed their doors and gone out of business through unsatisfactory lending. In the July realtor speech I mentioned earlier, I emphasized that a durable stream of profits in mortgage lending requires a continuing flow of capital from investors willing to buy the mortgages an originator wants to sell and securitize. Given the difficulty any mortgage broker faces in differentiating its own products, the best way to stand out and survive over the long term is to give outstanding service to mortgage shoppers. Turning outstanding service into future business prospects is precisely the role for reputation. A firm’s good name spread through word of mouth will pay the highest dividends over the long term. And going the extra mile by making certain that borrowers understand lending terms and are able to service those loans can cement that reputation and keep those doors open a long time.

Investors. Here I want to look at individual investors, the ones you know so well. It may be true that many if not most such investors put their money heavily into mutual funds, reducing some of the risk of holding individual stocks and bonds. What would help them greatly, I believe, is a much better understanding of what their funds hold. Mutual funds are professionally managed, but the subprime fallout has hit the pros hard, too. In one example from our Federal Reserve District, two investors in two Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds severely affected by subprime mortgage problems are suing over sharp declines in the values of their investments. As of Dec. 13, 2007, the Select Intermediate Bond Fund and the Select High Income Fund were down 47 and 56 percent, respectively. News media accounts tell of disastrous results being faced by other investors in similar types of securities. Would investors equipped with better knowledge have avoided such steep losses? More organizations should get behind efforts to improve investor knowledge.

Where does the country stand in terms of educating our citizens in the financial and economic basics? The brief answer is that efforts across the nation are making progress but we have a long way to go.

According to a 2007 survey by the National Council on Economic Education:

* Economics, traditionally part of the Social Studies curriculum, is now included in the educational standards of all states.
* 41 states, up from 28 in 1998, now require these standards be implemented. Sounds good so far, but there’s more.
* Only 17 states, not including Missouri or Illinois, require students to take an economics course for high school graduation, up from 13 states in 1998.
* Only 22 states, not including Missouri or Illinois, require testing of student knowledge in economics, three fewer than in 2004.

Personal finance,a newer subject in comparison with economics, is now included in the educational standards of 40 states, up from 21 in 1998, with 28 states requiring these standards to be implemented. Still, though, only seven states require students to take a personal finance course for high school graduation and only nine require the testing of knowledge in personal finance. Missouri now requires personal finance for graduation and tests for knowledge; Illinois requires a consumer education course but does not test on the subject for graduation.

What we have, then, is a mixed bag when it comes to preparing students to learn about money and the choices to be made in handling it. Our nation is making progress, but as we have seen with the subprime mess, we as a society have a lot more to do in equipping students and adults with the knowledge they need to make wiser financial decisions.

I know the Financial Planning Association of Missouri and Southern Illinois believes in boosting financial literacy. Your web site tells of the projects you’ve undertaken to better educate yourselves and your clients and the volunteer work you’ve done for the community. At the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and in our branch cities of Little Rock, Louisville and Memphis, we’re trying to do our part, too.

We’ve got a two-pronged effort going, with one part aimed at community development and a complementary effort aimed at improving financial education in the schools. On the community development side, we work on educating community groups and through those groups, their members, about improving communities through making better financial decisions.

Last month, for example, we hosted a seminar, “HMDA to Home Improvement,” in St. Louis. HMDA is the acronym for Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Attending were mortgage lending experts, community group representatives, economists and government officials. Discussions were aimed at helping homeowners avoid foreclosures and take advantage of programs making home improvements affordable.

The St. Louis Fed also participates in the St. Louis Foreclosure Intervention Task Force. It’s a collaboration of representatives of government, financial institutions, and real estate and nonprofit organizations One outgrowth of that effort is a hotline, 888-995-HOPE, that counsels homeowners concerned about foreclosure. Brochures and television appearances helped promote the hotline. We helped in starting a similar program in Springfield, Mo.

In Louisville, Ky., our branch staff is involved in the Don’t Borrow Trouble Coalition, an organization helping citizens deal with lending issues, particularly as they relate to mortgages. The Kentucky Predatory Lending Prevention Committee is another organization we help support; it helps families avoid money scams and to resolve financial problems. We’re also active in similar efforts in Arkansas, Indiana, Tennessee and other locations.

Besides our community development efforts, the St. Louis Fed and other Federal Reserve banks work through state economic education councils, centers for economic education and local school districts to offer mostly free economic and financial education materials and curricula to teachers. We do some work directly with students, but we find we can reach many more of them by working through their teachers. Our aim is to drop large boulders in the education pond and to encourage the ripples to expand.

We have a lot going on in this area too; I’ll highlight some of the key projects.

I mentioned earlier that Missouri now requires a one-semester personal finance course. The St. Louis Fed’s economic education experts are helping to train educators who will be teaching those courses, setting up workshops for them and training teachers in the new curriculum.

We also take part, as do representatives from commercial banks, in Teach Children to Save Day, an annual event for first- through third-graders. In the St. Louis metro area alone, our volunteer employees taught lessons in over 400 classrooms last year on the importance of saving regularly and what it means to save over the long term for something you really want.

There are many places teachers can go to for useful information and classroom-ready lessons on money, credit and economic concepts. Two of the best are web sites: first, our Bank’s web site at www.stlouisfed.org. Clicking on the “education” link brings teachers to conferences, materials, lessons, teaching tips and much more. The other site is actually a portal at www.federalreserveeducation.org. It’s an entry to web sites providing help of all kinds for teachers of personal finance and economics. Just about any topic under the general “economics and personal finance” heading is included in one or both web sites, along with support materials and tips on using them.

In St. Louis and our branch cities of Little Rock, Louisville and Memphis, our economic education staff in 2007 conducted well over 100 separate meetings, workshops, competitions or other events aimed at equipping teachers to provide their kindergarten through high school students with the skills they need to deal with money, debt, credit, saving and economic decision-making.

For example, in early 2007, high school teachers in Southhaven, Miss., attended a "Growing Smart with Money" workshop led by our Memphis Branch economic education staff. In the St. Louis metro area, we worked with local libraries to put on a program for middle schoolers called “Money Smarts for Kids.” We worked with the Kansas City Fed and centers for economic education staff at Missouri universities to conduct the first-ever Missouri Personal Finance Competition in St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield and Columbia, with the championship held in Jefferson City. A program begun by our Little Rock Branch staff, the Piggy Bank Primer, has helped early grade school students throughout our District to learn more about saving. A program we helped roll out in Quincy, Ill., “Your Paycheck” is expanding in our District. It’s aimed at teenagers, particular those holding their first jobs, and teaches them about paychecks—what the various deductions mean and how you can learn more about benefits, saving, withholding and more.

That’s just a partial listing of the community development and economic and financial education efforts we’ve got going. And there’s more of that coming for 2008 and beyond.

What can we all do to move this trend along, to put learning the basics of saving, borrowing and credit higher in the public’s mind? There are a number of things, and it is going to take the Federal Reserve, the Financial Planning Association of Missouri and Southern Illinois, and thousands of other organizations to pull it off.

* Contact your local schools and ask them where learning about saving, spending, investing and borrowing fit into their curricula, what lessons are being taught and how. Bring up this subject at school board meetings and parent meetings.
* Support legislative efforts to require coursework in economics and personal finance for high school graduation. Let your state representatives and senators know through calls, letters or e-mails and personal contact.
* Write op-ed pieces highlighting the need for expanded financial education and offer them to local news media. Don’t overlook influential Internet bloggers…they can help spread the word quickly.
* Get behind or start financial and economic education programs in professional organizations and lend your skills. We ask a lot of our educators; they can do a lot, but they can’t do it all. We can all add our voices…and ourselves.

Concluding Comment

The current financial turmoil will take awhile to play itself out. The fundamentals of our economy remain strong, however, and 2008 looks to be a year of rising growth. Economic forecasters expect slow expansion in the first half of the year and a quickening pace in the second half. Meanwhile, if borrowers, lenders and investors can refocus on financial basics and re-emphasize critical lessons about credit and risk, the financial future can be brighter than the second half of 2007. For that brighter future, we need to infuse our education at all levels with the lessons of 2007—old lessons to be sure but easy to understand at a very practical level from 2007 experience. With continuing effort we can expect that financial upsets such as the current one will be infrequent and milder when they do occur.

Thank you and I’d be glad to take your questions.

[뉴스핌 베스트 기사]

사진
[단독] KF-21, 내년 3월 양산 1호기 출고식 [서울=뉴스핌] 오동룡 군사방산전문기자 = 한국형 전투기(KF-21) 양산 1호기 출고 행사가 내년 3월 경남 사천 KAI 본사에서 열리는 방향으로 검토되고 있다. 뉴스핌이 단독 입수한 자료에 따르면, 당초 2026년 연말로 잡혔던 일정이 약 10개월 앞당겨지는 '조기 실전배치 시나리오'가 가시권에 들어온 것이다. KF-21(당시 KF-X) 사업은 2015년 방위사업추진위원회(방추위)가 약 8조원(70억~80억달러 수준) 규모의 체계개발을 승인하면서 본궤도에 올랐고, 인도네시아가 개발비 20% 분담을 약속하며 공동개발 파트너로 참여했다. 이후 설계안 확정(2019년)과 2020년 9월 최종조립 착수 과정을 거쳐 2021년 4월 시제 1호기(001번기) 출고 및 명명식에서 공식 제식명 'KF-21 보라매'가 부여됐다.​​ 지난해 11월 29일 1000소티 비행을 달성한 한국형 전투기 KF-21. 이로써 전체 약 2000소티 중 절반을 완료하며 반환점을 돌았다. [사진=한국항공우주산업] 2025.12.09 gomsi@newspim.com 시제기는 단좌 4대·복좌 2대를 포함해 총 6대가 제작됐고, 2022년 7월 첫 비행에 성공한 뒤 2023년 초음속 돌파, 야간·무장분리 시험을 포함해 2024~2025년까지 누적 2000회 수준의 시험비행을 소화하면서 블록Ⅰ(공대공 중심) 체계개발 막바지 단계에 올라와 있다. 방위사업청과 공군은 이 시험 데이터를 토대로 2026년까지 '초도양산+작전운용시험·평가'를 동시에 진행해 공군 F-4E, F-5 등 노후 3세대 전투기를 순차적으로 대체한다는 이정표를 세워왔다.​ 당초 KF-21 양산기 전력화 로드맵은 2024년 양산계약, 2025년 최종조립, 2026년 하반기 대량 양산 출고 및 전투적합 판정, 2026~2028년 초도 대대급 배치 순으로 짜여 있었다. 실제로 방추위는 2025년 3월께 '올해 20대·내년 20대' 방식의 1·2차 양산계약(20+20대)을 의결했고, 1조9000억원 안팎(1차 20대 기준 약 1조9000억원)의 초도 물량 계약이 체결되면서 사천 KAI 공장은 2025년 5월부터 양산 1호기 최종조립에 들어간 상태다.​ 이 기본 시나리오에서 2026년 연말로 잡혀 있던 '양산 출고식'을 10개월가량 당겨 2026년 3월 사천에서 여는 방향으로 급선회한 것이다. 업계에선 "양산 1호기·2호기를 포함한 초기 물량의 기체·엔진·전장 계통 신뢰성 검증이 예상보다 순조롭고, 공군의 F-4E 조기 퇴역·북한 핵·미사일 위협 고도화에 따른 전력 공백 우려가 일정 단축으로 이어진 것"이라고 말하고 있다.​ 2015년 개발 승인 이후 만 10년 만에 양산형을 내놓는 만큼, 대통령 참석을 전제로 한 '국가급 이벤트'가 될 것이란 전망이 업계에 확산되는 분위기다.​ KF-21 시제 1호기 출고식은 2021년 4월 경남 사천 KAI 본사에서 문재인 당시 대통령이 참석한 가운데 열렸고, 그 자리에서 "2032년까지 120대 실전배치" 목표가 공개되면서 한국의 '8번째 초음속 전투기 개발국' 도약을 대내외에 과시한 바 있다. [사천=뉴스핌]문재인 대통령이 9일 경남 사천시 고정익동 한국항공우주산업(KAI)에서 열린 한국형전투기 'KF-21 보라매' 시제기 출고식에서 기념사를 하고 있다. [사진=청와대] 2021.04.09 photo@newspim.com 내년 3월로 예고되는 이번 출고행사는 시제기가 아닌 '양산형 1호기'가 주인공인 만큼, 시제기 롤아웃 이후 약 4년 만에 현직 대통령이 다시 사천을 찾는 장면이 연출될 가능성이 높다.​​ 특히 이재명 대통령은 최근 아랍에미리트(UAE)를 포함한 중동 순방 과정에서 KF-21을 한국 방산 수출 패키지의 핵심 품목으로 전면에 내세우며, 향후 수출형 블록Ⅱ·블록Ⅲ 개발과 현지 공동생산·부품 협력 구상을 함께 홍보해 왔다. 대통령실과 국방부, 산업부 안팎에선 "양산형 출고식이 사실상 '수출형 보라매'의 첫 공개 무대가 될 수 있는 만큼, 대통령 주관 행사로 격상할 명분이 충분하다"는 기류가 감지된다.​ 현 시점에서 군·방산업계가 그리는 '3·6·9 시나리오'의 뼈대는 비교적 선명하다. 내년 3월 사천 출고식을 통해 양산 1호기를 공개하고, 6월까지 공군·방사청 공동의 전투적합 판정(전투운용능력 평가)을 마친 뒤, 9월 전후로 공군 작전부대에 초도 인도를 시작한다는 시간표다.​ KF-21 블록Ⅰ양산기는 2026년 상반기 대량 출고 이후 강릉 제18전투비행단과 예천 제16전투비행단에 각각 1개 전투비행대대(20대 안팎) 규모로 나뉘어 초도 배치되는 방안이 유력하게 거론된다. 이어 2028년 이후 공대지·다목적 능력을 강화한 블록Ⅱ 80대는 횡성 제8전투비행단, 충북 지역 제19전투비행단 등으로 확산 배치돼 공군의 F-5, 구형 F-16 전력을 단계적으로 완전히 대체하는 계획이다. 지난 11월 5일 국산항공기 FA-50와 함께 비행하는 손석락 공군참모총장의 KF-21. [사진=공군 제공] 2025.12.09 gomsi@newspim.com KF-21 사업은 개념연구 착수(2000년대 초) 이후 예산·기술 이전 문제로 수차례 좌초 위기를 겪었지만, 2015년 개발 승인 이후 10년 만에 양산형 출고 단계에 진입했다. 방산업계에서는 "전투기 체계개발-양산-수출까지 독자 사이클을 돌리는 소수 국가 반열에 올랐다"고 이구동성으로 이야기하고 있다. 방산업계의 한 관계자는 "KF-21 양산형 출고는 단순히 새 전투기를 들여놓는 차원을 넘어, 한국이 10년 주기의 전투기 개발·개량 사이클을 스스로 설계해 가는 수준으로 성장했음을 보여준다"며 "2015년 개발 승인에서 2025년 양산 1호기, 2032년 120대 전력화로 이어지는 연표는 한국이 명실상부 '전투기 개발·수출국'으로 올라섰다는 증표"라고 했다. gomsi@newspim.com 2025-12-09 11:38
사진
공수처, 조희대 대법원장 입건 후 사건 검토 [과천=뉴스핌] 김현구 기자 = 고위공직자범죄수사처(공수처)가 조희대 대법원장을 입건하고 본격적인 사건 검토에 들어갔다. 공수처 관계자는 9일 정례 브리핑에서 "(조 대법원장) 고발건은 한 두건이 아니다. 어떤 건은 수사 4부, 어떤 건은 1·3부 등에 있다"고 밝혔다. 오동운 고위공직자범죄수사처장. [사진=뉴스핌DB] 공수처는 고소·고발이 접수되면 선별해 사건화하는 것이 아닌 '자동입건' 시스템으로 운영하고 있다. 다수의 고소·고발이 접수된 조 대법원장은 피의자 신분이 유력하다. 조 대법원장은 대선 후보 시절 이재명 대통령의 '공직선거법 위반 사건'을 파기환송하고, 윤석열 전 대통령 사건을 지정 배당했다는 의혹 등을 받고 있다. 아울러 공수처는 최근 전현희 전 국민권익위원회 위원장(현 더불어민주당 의원)에 대한 감사원의 '표적 감사 의혹' 수사에도 속도를 내고 있다. 해당 사건은 최재해 전 감사원장과 유병호 전 감사원 사무총장(현 감사위원) 등이 2022년 전 전 위원장을 사직시키기 위해 특별 감사를 진행했다는 내용이다. 이와 관련해 공수처 수사1부(나창수 부장검사)는 지난 4일 감사원 운영쇄신태스크포스(TF)와 심의지원담당관실 등을 압수수색했다. 다만 공수처는 사건의 처분 시기 등에 대해선 말을 아꼈다. 공수처 관계자는 "(처분 시기는) 수사팀이 결정할 문제이기 때문에 언제 (처분한다)고 말하기 어렵다"고 전했다. 한편 공수처는 윤 전 대통령 사건을 심리하고 있는 지귀연 서울중앙지법 부장판사의 '술자리 접대 의혹' 수사도 진행하고 있다. 지난 5월 김용민 민주당 의원은 법사위 전체회의에서 "지 부장판사가 1인당 100만~200만원 정도의 비용이 나오는 고급 룸살롱에서 여러 차례 술을 마셨고 단 한 번도 돈을 낸 적 없다는 구체적이고 신빙성 있는 제보를 받았다"며 의혹을 제기하고 관련 사진을 공개했다. 이후 대법원 법원감사위원회는 해당 의혹을 심의한 후 "현재 확인된 사실관계만으로는 지 부장판사에게 징계사유가 있다고 판단하기 어려우므로, 수사기관의 조사 결과를 기다려 향후 드러나는 사실관계가 비위행위에 해당할 경우 엄정하게 처리할 것"이라는 결론을 내렸다. 이와 관련해 공수처는 사건을 수사3부(이대환 부장검사)에 배당했고, 수사팀은 최근 그에 대한 압수수색을 진행하는 등 수사에 속도를 내고 있다. 공수처는 택시 앱 사용 기록 등과 달리 신용카드 사용 내역 등은 확보하지 못한 것으로 알려졌다. hyun9@newspim.com 2025-12-09 11:15
기사 번역
결과물 출력을 준비하고 있어요.
종목 추적기

S&P 500 기업 중 기사 내용이 영향을 줄 종목 추적

결과물 출력을 준비하고 있어요.

긍정 영향 종목

  • Lockheed Martin Corp. Industrials
    우크라이나 안보 지원 강화 기대감으로 방산 수요 증가 직접적. 미·러 긴장 완화 불확실성 속에서도 방위산업 매출 안정성 강화 예상됨.

부정 영향 종목

  • Caterpillar Inc. Industrials
    우크라이나 전쟁 장기화 시 건설 및 중장비 수요 불확실성 직접적. 글로벌 인프라 투자 지연으로 매출 성장 둔화 가능성 있음.
이 내용에 포함된 데이터와 의견은 뉴스핌 AI가 분석한 결과입니다. 정보 제공 목적으로만 작성되었으며, 특정 종목 매매를 권유하지 않습니다. 투자 판단 및 결과에 대한 책임은 투자자 본인에게 있습니다. 주식 투자는 원금 손실 가능성이 있으므로, 투자 전 충분한 조사와 전문가 상담을 권장합니다.
안다쇼핑
Top으로 이동