전체기사 최신뉴스 GAM
KYD 디데이
글로벌

속보

더보기

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.

[관련키워드]

[뉴스핌 베스트 기사]

사진
경찰, '1억 의혹' 강선우·김경 영장 신청 [서울=뉴스핌] 고다연 기자 = 공천헌금 1억원 의혹을 수사하는 경찰이 강선우 무소속 국회의원과 김경 전 서울시의원에 대한 구속영장을 신청했다. 5일 경찰에 따르면 서울경찰청 공공범죄수사대는 이날 오전 9시 정치자금법 위반, 배임수재, 청탁금지법 위반 혐의로 강 의원에 대해 구속영장을 서울중앙지검에 신청했다. 김 전 시의원에 대해서는 정치자금법 위반, 배임증재, 청탁금지법 위반 혐의를 적용했다. 강선우 무소속 국회의원, 김경 전 서울시의원 [사진=뉴스핌 DB] 경찰은 구속영장에 뇌물죄 혐의는 적용하지 않았다. 판례를 검토한 결과 정당 공천은 자발적 조직 내부 의사결정으로 이번 의혹은 뇌물죄 구성 요건인 공무가 아닌 당무에 해당한다고 봤다. 다만 경찰은 추가 조사 등을 통해 두 사람을 검찰에 최종 송치할 때는 뇌물죄를 적용할 수 있는지 검토할 예정이다. 강 의원은 2022년 지방선거를 앞두고 김 전 시의원으로부터 공천 대가로 1억원을 받았다가 돌려준 혐의 등을 받고 있다. 강 의원은 두 차례 경찰에 출석해 조사를 받았다. 김 전 시의원은 네 차례 소환조사를 받았다. 현재 공천헌금 수수 당시 상황 등에 대한 두 사람의 진술은 엇갈리고 있다. 구속영장이 신청됐지만 강 의원이 현역 의원이라는 점이 중요 변수로 꼽힌다. 헌법 제44조에 따라 경찰은 현역 의원을 회기 중에 국회 동의 없이 체포·구금할 수 없다. 검찰이 강 의원에 대한 구속영장을 청구하면 체포동의안은 국회에 제출된 뒤 처음 열리는 본회의에 자동 보고된다. 이후 24시간이 지난 시점부터 72시간 이내 본회의를 열어 표결해야 한다. 의원 체포동의안은 재적의원 과반 출석에 출석의원 과반 찬성으로 의결된다. 한편 강 의원은 지난 3일 경찰 조사를 마치고 나오면서 '불체포특권을 유지할 것이냐'는 취재진 질문에 답하지 않았다. gdy10@newspim.com 2026-02-05 10:12
사진
2026 동계올림픽 무엇이 바뀌었나 * 'AI MY 뉴스'가 제공하는 AI 어시스턴트로 요약한 내용으로 퍼플렉시티 AI 모델이 적용됐습니다. 상단의 'AI MY 뉴스' 로그인을 통해 뉴스핌이 준비한 2026 밀라노 코르티나담페초 동계올림픽 소식을 실시간으로 확인해보기 바랍니다. [서울=뉴스핌] 남정훈 기자 = 2026 밀라노·코르티나 동계올림픽은 '새 종목'과 '새 프로그램'이 대회 얼굴을 바꾸는 첫 무대다. 기존 강국 구도와 메달 판도를 흔들 변화들이 이번 겨울 설원과 빙판 위의 숨은 관전 포인트로 떠오르고 있다. 스키모의 여제 에밀리 하롭. [사진 = 에밀리 하롭 SNS] ◆ 스키마운티니어링 첫 올림픽…'스키모'가 여는 새 시장 가장 상징적인 변화는 스키마운티니어링, 이른바 '스키모'의 올림픽 정식 종목 채택이다. 스키를 착용한 채 가파른 산악 지형을 오르고, 다시 내려오는 이 종목은 알프스와 피레네 등 유럽 산악 지역에서 레저 스포츠와 엘리트 스포츠가 동시에 성장해 온 종목이다. 프랑스와 이탈리아, 스위스가 전통적인 3강으로 평가받고 있으며, 피레네 산맥과 맞닿아 있는 스페인 역시 빠른 성장세로 이들을 추격하고 있다. 자연환경과 문화적 배경이 경기력으로 직결되는 종목 특성상, 첫 올림픽 무대부터 유럽 국가들의 강세가 예상된다. 스키모의 여제 에밀리 하롭. [사진 = 에밀리 하롭 SNS] 산악스키에 걸린 금메달은 총 3개다. 세부 종목은 남녀 스프린트와 혼성 계주로 구성됐다. 스프린트는 약 3분 내외의 짧은 코스에서 진행되지만, 고도차 약 70m 구간을 빠르게 오르고 내려와야 해 폭발적인 체력과 기술이 동시에 요구된다. 특히 스키와 장비를 벗고 착용하는 과정에서 발생하는 작은 실수가 순위를 바꿀 수 있어, 이 장면이 종목의 최대 관전 포인트로 꼽힌다. 남녀 스프린트는 2월 19일(현지시간)에 열리고, 혼성 계주는 21일에 치러진다. 혼성 계주는 남녀 선수 한 명씩 두 명이 팀을 이뤄 코스를 두 차례 완주하는 방식으로 진행된다. 프랑스의 에밀리 하롭처럼 세계선수권과 월드컵을 휩쓴 선수들은 이미 '올림픽 역사상 첫 금메달리스트'라는 상징적인 자리를 놓고 치열한 물밑 경쟁에 들어갔다. 코스 난이도와 고도, 눈 상태에 따라 전략이 크게 달라지는 종목 특성상, 기존 설상 종목과는 전혀 다른 유형의 체력과 경기 운영 능력을 지닌 선수들이 주목받을 가능성도 크다. ◆ 여자 스키점프 라지힐, 마침내 정식 무대 여자 스키점프 라지힐의 올림픽 정식 편입 역시 주목할 만한 변화다. 지금까지 여자 선수들은 노멀힐 종목에만 출전할 수 있었고, 라지힐은 남자 종목으로만 운영돼 왔다. 하지만 세계선수권과 월드컵에서는 이미 여자 라지힐 경기가 정착된 상황이었고, 올림픽 편입이 늦었다는 평가가 나올 정도였다. 여자 스키점프 라지힐의 간판 스타인 니카 프레우츠. [사진 = 프레우츠 SNS] 이번 밀라노 대회에서 라지힐이 추가되면서, 여자 점퍼들은 보다 다양한 무대에서 자신의 기량을 증명할 수 있게 됐다. 슬로베니아의 니카 프레우츠처럼 최근 몇 시즌 동안 라지힐에서 압도적인 성적을 거둔 선수들은 개인전은 물론 혼성 단체전까지 동시에 메달을 노릴 수 있는 구조가 만들어졌다. 여자 라지힐 도입은 단순히 종목 하나가 늘어나는 데 그치지 않는다. 남자·여자·혼성 종목을 모두 소화해야 하는 만큼, 선수층이 고르게 형성된 국가가 유리해진다. 특정 에이스 한두 명에 의존하던 팀보다는, 전체적인 육성 시스템이 탄탄한 국가들이 상대적으로 경쟁력을 갖게 되는 구조다. ◆ 루지 여자 더블·혼성 팀 이벤트… '혼성 시대'의 가속화 루지에서는 여자 더블과 혼성 이벤트가 더해지며 메달 구조가 달라진다. 기존에는 남자 더블이 중심이었지만, 여자 더블 편입으로 여자 선수들의 선택지가 넓어지고, 후속 세대 유입에도 긍정적인 영향을 줄 것으로 예상된다. 여기에 남녀·싱글·더블이 모두 참여하는 혼성 팀 계주는 국가별 '전체 루지 시스템'의 수준을 가늠하는 무대로 자리 잡을 가능성이 크다. 이번 2026 밀라노 동계올림픽 새 종목으로 뽑힌 루지 여자 더블. [사진 = 밀라노 동계올림픽 홈페이지] 비슷한 흐름은 바이애슬론·크로스컨트리·스키점프 등 다른 설상 종목에서도 이어진다. 혼성 릴레이·혼성 팀 경기 비중이 꾸준히 늘어나면서, 남녀를 따로 떼어 보던 관점에서 벗어나 '한 국가의 전체 저변'과 시스템을 함께 보는 시각이 강해지는 추세다. 이는 동계올림픽 전체가 점점 더 성평등·혼성 중심 구조로 이동하고 있음을 보여주는 장면이기도 하다. ◆ 프로그램 개편이 바꾸는 메달 지도 새 종목과 새 이벤트의 추가는 자연스럽게 메달 지도를 변화시킨다. 스키모처럼 유럽 산악 국가들이 강한 종목이 들어오면서 이탈리아, 프랑스, 스위스, 스페인 등은 새로운 메달 창구를 확보하게 됐다. 반면 전통적으로 빙상과 구기 종목에 강점을 지닌 국가들은 상대적으로 불리해질 가능성도 있다. 반대로 루지 여자 더블과 혼성 팀 이벤트처럼 기존에 강세를 보이던 종목이 확장되는 경우, 독일과 오스트리아 등 전통 강국들의 우위가 더욱 공고해질 여지도 있다. 종목 성격에 따라 각국의 득실이 분명하게 갈리는 구조다. 프로그램 개편은 선수 육성 전략에도 직접적인 영향을 준다. 혼성 팀 이벤트를 염두에 두고 남녀를 함께 훈련시키는 방식이 늘어나고, 과거에는 상대적으로 관심을 받지 못했던 스키모·루지·스켈레톤 같은 종목에 대한 투자도 점차 확대될 가능성이 크다. 각국 올림픽위원회와 경기단체들은 밀라노 대회를 기점으로 어떤 종목이 '효자 종목'으로 자리 잡을지, 또 어떤 분야가 사각지대로 남을지를 저울질하며 중장기 육성 전략을 다시 설계하고 있는 분위기다. 밀라노·코르티나 동계올림픽은 이런 의미에서 '새 겨울 스포츠 지형'을 시험하는 무대다. 스키모·여자 라지힐·혼성 팀 이벤트가 얼마나 흥미로운 경기와 서사를 만들어내는지, 또 어느 정도의 시청률과 팬 관심을 끌어낼 수 있는지에 따라 향후 동계올림픽 프로그램 논의의 방향도 달라질 수 있다. 종목 개편은 단순한 숫자 조정이 아니라, 겨울 스포츠의 미래를 다시 그리는 출발점이다. 그런 점에서 밀라노의 변화는 그 자체만으로도 충분히 지켜볼 가치가 있는 또 하나의 핵심 관전 포인트다. wcn05002@newspim.com 2026-02-05 10:14
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