xiaochoochoo personal page - To The Moon

xiaochoochoo

xiaochoochoo

No personal profile

920Follow

188Followers

24Topic

0Badge

2022-10-25

$老虎证券(TIGR)$[微笑]

2022-02-13

$AMC院线(AMC)$good

2022-11-05

$老虎证券(TIGR)$

2022-12-13

🥰🥰

2022-10-23

👍

Fed officials release "doves": It's time to start thinking about slowing down rate hike

2022-03-13

$Lion-OCBC Sec HSTECH S$(HST.SI)$...

2023-03-03

$老虎证券(TIGR)$ [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑]

2022-11-19

[微笑]

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-11-05

$老虎证券(TIGR)$🏄‍♀️

2022-09-23

$老虎证券(TIGR)$、

2022-04-20

...

U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop in more than a year

2021-12-31

$黑莓(BB)$ good lucky

2023-06-10

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

2023-01-26

😁

Musk "jumped the ticket" again! Cybertruck expected to start production this summer, mass production in 2024

2023-01-11

[微笑]

Tesla fell more than 3%, and Chinese-made car sales fell 44.4% month-on-month in December

2022-10-27

$老虎证券(TIGR)$😊

2022-10-22

[微笑]

The United States may set a cap on Russian oil prices above $60/barrel

2022-10-20

$苹果(AAPL)$good

2022-10-02

A

Rethink the "Great Stagflation" in the United States! Also on the enlightenment to the current asset price

2022-10-01

$老虎证券(TIGR)$y

Go to Tiger App to see more news

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"4095548256553960","uuid":"4095548256553960","gmtCreate":1632445899011,"gmtModify":1632809063765,"name":"xiaochoochoo","pinyin":"xiaochoochoo","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":188,"headSize":920,"tweetSize":1988,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":3,"name":"书生虎","nameTw":"書生虎","represent":"努力向上","factor":"发布10条非转发主帖,其中5条获得他人回复或点赞","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":24,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":11,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-3","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":" Tiger Idol","description":"Join the tiger community for 1500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.11.03","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"4e86300037264823b9bb00ff44fc0f19-2","templateUuid":"4e86300037264823b9bb00ff44fc0f19","name":"Live trading challenger","description":"for 4 months ","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/555a9001c6de2ba066c0850c80b6475a","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/acd8d1536c6533b9c274771f100401c4","grayImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/1c254e1fa3d75a472d0f55ebb1dd1ff4","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/stock-contest?adcode=StockContest2023","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.03.03","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":5600},{"badgeId":"23f878ed27704312ae41c7f17e73b319-1","templateUuid":"23f878ed27704312ae41c7f17e73b319","name":"Annualised return","description":"Top 50%","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/ffa0ed2850aef35663a435f4fb24f40c","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/4f67f095c241bed7b45d41ed5b78dd58","grayImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/01339d2a5c822a77e0c581ef8f959d81","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/stock-contest?adcode=StockContest2023","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.10.07","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":5300},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-1","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Elite Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 30","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.03.31","exceedPercentage":"60.70%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"01b3845ecc2144cfa651fa1378bf8b0f-1","templateUuid":"01b3845ecc2144cfa651fa1378bf8b0f","name":"Thai Tiger","description":"Joined related football topics in the Tiger Community","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/cef0ddd0d1ca6d8fc82b727490fb7ef0","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/cef0ddd0d1ca6d8fc82b727490fb7ef0","grayImgUrl":null,"redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.01.16","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":4001},{"badgeId":"774ec6f7ffe24a9989b2ca2e139f4b37-1","templateUuid":"774ec6f7ffe24a9989b2ca2e139f4b37","name":"Argentinian Tiger","description":"Joined related football topic in the Tiger community","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c4b9257022d333bf6d664b757ae424bf","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c4b9257022d333bf6d664b757ae424bf","grayImgUrl":null,"redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":"https://ttm.financial/TW/9928304122","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":2,"allocatedDate":"2022.12.18","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":4001},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.29","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":7,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.29","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"hot","tweets":[{"id":187071400353824,"gmtCreate":1686711003977,"gmtModify":1686711008225,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/187071400353824","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3058,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186542164123768,"gmtCreate":1686581928813,"gmtModify":1686581932885,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/186542164123768","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3244,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":185856377077888,"gmtCreate":1686414374586,"gmtModify":1686414378972,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/185856377077888","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2421,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":185826724065424,"gmtCreate":1686407272121,"gmtModify":1686407277640,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/185826724065424","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2803,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":185292748787792,"gmtCreate":1686276763325,"gmtModify":1686276767145,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"&nbsp;👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"&nbsp;👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/185292748787792","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3190,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":185095820005384,"gmtCreate":1686228682988,"gmtModify":1686228687545,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/185095820005384","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3281,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":184687908589712,"gmtCreate":1686114203841,"gmtModify":1686114207446,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/184687908589712","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2463,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":184491674406992,"gmtCreate":1686066478087,"gmtModify":1686066482011,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻😄😄😃💰💰💰🚘🚘💰😃😃😃😄","listText":"👍🏻😄😄😃💰💰💰🚘🚘💰😃😃😃😄","text":"👍🏻😄😄😃💰💰💰🚘🚘💰😃😃😃😄","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/184491674406992","repostId":"9970552986","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9970552986,"gmtCreate":1684749089245,"gmtModify":1686052573124,"author":{"id":"3527667667103859","authorId":"3527667667103859","name":"TigerEvents","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c266ef25181ace18bec1262357bbe1a8","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3527667667103859","idStr":"3527667667103859"},"themes":[],"title":"Light up your investing with Tiger, play and win prizes worth up to USD 999","htmlText":"Join our exclusive \"Light up Your Investing\" campaign with Tiger!Participate in our game and win fantastic prizes worth up to USD 999*!Unveil the allure of various regions as you progress through exciting game levels.But wait, there's more! Along your journey, uncover hidden rewards and unlock exclusive bonuses that will supercharge your investing game!Not only will you gain valuable knowledge and insights, but you'll also compete with fellow investors for the top spot on our leaderboard!Invite your friends and embark on this epic investing adventure together! Let's light up the world of investing with Tiger!Don't miss out on this limited-time opportunity!Campaign period: 6th June to 27th June. *T&amp;Cs apply.👉 <a href=\"https://tigr.link/lightupsg\" target=\"_blank\">Click here to start play</a>","listText":"Join our exclusive \"Light up Your Investing\" campaign with Tiger!Participate in our game and win fantastic prizes worth up to USD 999*!Unveil the allure of various regions as you progress through exciting game levels.But wait, there's more! Along your journey, uncover hidden rewards and unlock exclusive bonuses that will supercharge your investing game!Not only will you gain valuable knowledge and insights, but you'll also compete with fellow investors for the top spot on our leaderboard!Invite your friends and embark on this epic investing adventure together! Let's light up the world of investing with Tiger!Don't miss out on this limited-time opportunity!Campaign period: 6th June to 27th June. *T&amp;Cs apply.👉 <a href=\"https://tigr.link/lightupsg\" target=\"_blank\">Click here to start play</a>","text":"Join our exclusive \"Light up Your Investing\" campaign with Tiger!Participate in our game and win fantastic prizes worth up to USD 999*!Unveil the allure of various regions as you progress through exciting game levels.But wait, there's more! Along your journey, uncover hidden rewards and unlock exclusive bonuses that will supercharge your investing game!Not only will you gain valuable knowledge and insights, but you'll also compete with fellow investors for the top spot on our leaderboard!Invite your friends and embark on this epic investing adventure together! Let's light up the world of investing with Tiger!Don't miss out on this limited-time opportunity!Campaign period: 6th June to 27th June. *T&Cs apply.👉 Click here to start play","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/0b6e3d13593eac0f4cc3fdb8b6bf8056","width":"1200","height":"675"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":2,"paper":2,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9970552986","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2264,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":184492221870120,"gmtCreate":1686066427030,"gmtModify":1686066431324,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/184492221870120","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3120,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9944448371,"gmtCreate":1682055144193,"gmtModify":1682055147631,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"123","listText":"123","text":"123","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944448371","repostId":"9944498355","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9944498355,"gmtCreate":1681988018477,"gmtModify":1681988951948,"author":{"id":"4140065559249792","authorId":"4140065559249792","name":"狂牛四","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/394d77b44b5fdb4bec2acb3c3aead373","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4140065559249792","idStr":"4140065559249792"},"themes":[],"title":"美團上升，獨力支持大市","htmlText":"\n \n \n  星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/FUT/HSImain\">$恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/00005\">$匯豐控股(00005)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/01928\">$金沙中國有限公司(01928)$</a> &nbsp;下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點\n \n","listText":"星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/FUT/HSImain\">$恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/00005\">$匯豐控股(00005)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/01928\">$金沙中國有限公司(01928)$</a> &nbsp;下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點","text":"星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 $恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$ $匯豐控股(00005)$ $金沙中國有限公司(01928)$ 下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":2,"paper":2,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944498355","isVote":1,"tweetType":2,"object":{"id":"2d9d79b990a346499c68e7d6338c9c14","tweetId":"9944498355","videoUrl":"https://1254107296.vod2.myqcloud.com/e2ad4227vodcq1254107296/688f02d2243791581603892810/UbJaK3ntXLoA.mp4","poster":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/323aba392f08cc9f692cbef39aa2090d"},"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3089,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9944415421,"gmtCreate":1682005503664,"gmtModify":1682005507213,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Luck","listText":"Luck","text":"Luck","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944415421","repostId":"9944498355","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9944498355,"gmtCreate":1681988018477,"gmtModify":1681988951948,"author":{"id":"4140065559249792","authorId":"4140065559249792","name":"狂牛四","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/394d77b44b5fdb4bec2acb3c3aead373","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4140065559249792","idStr":"4140065559249792"},"themes":[],"title":"美團上升，獨力支持大市","htmlText":"\n \n \n  星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/FUT/HSImain\">$恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/00005\">$匯豐控股(00005)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/01928\">$金沙中國有限公司(01928)$</a> &nbsp;下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點\n \n","listText":"星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/FUT/HSImain\">$恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/00005\">$匯豐控股(00005)$</a> <a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/01928\">$金沙中國有限公司(01928)$</a> &nbsp;下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點","text":"星期四港股開市微跌，窄幅上落。恆生指數跌13點，國企指數升2點，科技指數跌3點。友邦保險跌1.76%，令指數跌29點。滙豐跌0.54%，令指數跌10點。澳門博彩股領升。金沙升3.3%，銀娛升3%，為升幅最大藍籌股，貢獻指數12點。A股開市跌8點。港股開市後由跌轉升，恆生指數微升，主因是美團升4.5，令指數升47點。相反友邦跌1.4%，令指數跌23點。美國電動車龍頭特斯拉首季盈利減23%，股價下跌。減價戰拖累汽車股。比亞迪跌1.3%，吉利跌1.1%。小鵬汽車跌7%，蔚萊跌4%，理想跌3.2%。金屬股跌，星期三升10% 的洛陽鉬業跌3.3%，贛峯鋰業跌2.6%，天齊鋰業跌2.7%。中國宏橋跌1.3%。中鋁跌2.1%。兗礦跌2.75%，中國神華跌1.74%。內房股偏軟，碧桂園跌2.7%，為跌幅最大藍籌股。龍湖跌1.9%，中國海外跌1.7%。上證綜合指數上午收市跌23點。港股窄幅上落，徘徊在升與跌之間。02恆生指數最低跌至20308點，跌59點。上午收市恆指升39點，國企指數升15點，科技指數升14點。成交505億元。 $恆生指數主連 2304(HSImain)$ $匯豐控股(00005)$ $金沙中國有限公司(01928)$ 下午港股變化不大，港股仍然窄幅上落。恆生指數微升點，美團一枝獨秀，升3.76%，令指數升38點。荷蘭政府再限制ASML出售光刻機給中國，芯片股上升。中芯國際升6%，為升幅最大藍籌股，令指數升11點。但上海復旦跌6.4%，華虹半導體升0.4%。友邦保險跌1.94%，拖累指數跌32點","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":2,"paper":2,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944498355","isVote":1,"tweetType":2,"object":{"id":"2d9d79b990a346499c68e7d6338c9c14","tweetId":"9944498355","videoUrl":"https://1254107296.vod2.myqcloud.com/e2ad4227vodcq1254107296/688f02d2243791581603892810/UbJaK3ntXLoA.mp4","poster":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/323aba392f08cc9f692cbef39aa2090d"},"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1344,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9944388723,"gmtCreate":1681705425962,"gmtModify":1681705427971,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"123","listText":"123","text":"123","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944388723","repostId":"9944952616","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9944952616,"gmtCreate":1681686529535,"gmtModify":1681686534800,"author":{"id":"3586062021179531","authorId":"3586062021179531","name":"Linghock","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3586062021179531","idStr":"3586062021179531"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"兩週前，阿里迎來了成立24年來最重要的一次變革，新的頂層設計架構調整之後，各業務集團和業務公司隨之推進組織變革。","listText":"兩週前，阿里迎來了成立24年來最重要的一次變革，新的頂層設計架構調整之後，各業務集團和業務公司隨之推進組織變革。","text":"兩週前，阿里迎來了成立24年來最重要的一次變革，新的頂層設計架構調整之後，各業務集團和業務公司隨之推進組織變革。","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":2,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944952616","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":884,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945532314,"gmtCreate":1681512685639,"gmtModify":1681512689051,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"good","listText":"good","text":"good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945532314","repostId":"1150662233","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1150662233","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1681480084,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1150662233?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-04-14 21:48","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"The tyrants in the Middle East are crazy about sweeping goods! The latest A-share positions are exposed","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1150662233","media":"ETF进化论","summary":"2006年有一则新闻令人印象深刻——中东客6亿元狂扫上海顶级豪宅。来自中东的基金 Gateway Capital，斥资约6亿元人民币，买下上海市中心新天地----翠湖天地御苑二期102 套住房，每平方","content":"<p><html><head></head><body><strong>In 2006, there was an impressive news-Middle Eastern customers swept the top luxury houses in Shanghai for 600 million yuan.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gateway Capital, a fund from the Middle East, spent about 600 million yuan to buy 102 houses in the second phase of Cuihu Tiandi Royal Garden, a new world in the center of Shanghai, with an average transaction price of 40,000 yuan per square meter.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fda7d94604cc78530f8e950784b338ee\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"831\" tg-height=\"773\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The transaction price of second-hand houses in the second phase of Cuihu Tiandi Yuyuan will reach 264,000 per square meter in 2022.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1447d82193e227d3818b05eb306a13c5\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"830\" tg-height=\"696\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Since the outbreak of two \"oil crises\" in the 1970s, the continuous rise in oil prices for many years has greatly increased the income of foreign exchange countries such as Arab countries in the Middle East. In order to smooth consumption and preserve wealth for future generations, many Arab countries have begun to set up sovereign wealth funds to open up global layout.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The total assets of the top 10 sovereign wealth funds in the Arab Gulf countries reach US $3.7 trillion, of which the assets of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) rank third in the world and first in the Arab region.</strong></p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/07c2310479ae72fb953f23928abe4910\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1046\" tg-height=\"532\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to Global SWF, a data platform for global sovereign wealth funds, the size of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority reached $993 billion; Followed by the Kuwait Investment Authority, with a scale of more than $769 billion.</p><p><strong>The investment trend of local tyrants in the Middle East has attracted worldwide attention.</strong></p><p><strong>1. Revealing the local tyrants in the Middle East</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the Middle East and the third largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Its source of funds is the government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, mainly the country's oil revenue.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In order to resist the impact of oil price fluctuations on the economy, and out of concern about the fate of the country after oil and gas resources are exhausted, countries in the Middle East have launched sovereign wealth funds to seek economic solutions and convert non-renewable assets into more diversified asset portfolios. Achieve the purpose of saving for the next generation.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In 1976, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi established the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the oldest and largest of many sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Over the past 40 years of development, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has always adhered to the management purpose of seeking an economic outlet and converting non-renewable assets into a more diversified asset portfolio.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's 20-year annualized returns fluctuate in the range of 5%-8%, and 30-year annualized returns fluctuate in the range of 6%-9%.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/59d14ae4d22d16b6c78a7965dea31d43\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"724\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority can be called the most mysterious sovereign investment fund. It keeps a low profile, does not disclose its asset value, and its investment methods and portfolios have not been made public.</strong>David Mark, former U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, said: \"In the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority basically doesn't disclose any information to the public, and it rarely attracts any criticism, and they don't advertise.\"</p><p><strong>2. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority sweeps A shares</strong></p><p>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is our old friend. As early as 1992, when the Chinese market was first opened to overseas investors, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority began to invest in China, and it has been 30 years since then.</p><p><strong>At present, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is involved in A-share, B-share, real estate investment and private equity fields. Judging from the annual reports of listed companies disclosed recently, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority will continue to sweep A shares at the end of 2022.</strong></p><p>As of April 13, among the listed companies that have disclosed annual reports,<strong>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority appears in the list of the top ten tradable shareholders of 12 A-share listed companies, with a market value of over 5.8 billion yuan in A-shares</strong>, namely Zijin Mining, Oriental Fortune, Oriental Yuhong, China Shenhua, Daqo Energy, Beixin Building Materials, Shengyi Technology, China Merchants Jiyu, USI Electronics, Pudong Jinqiao, Joincare and Blum Oriental.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c61fbad404945bbd82d5f69aeace25ec\" alt=\"(本文内容均为客观数据信息罗列，不构成任何投资建议）\" title=\"(本文内容均为客观数据信息罗列，不构成任何投资建议）\" tg-width=\"518\" tg-height=\"613\"/><span>(The contents of this article are objective data and information, and do not constitute any investment advice)</span></p><p>Specifically, compared with the end of the third quarter of 2022, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority appeared on the list of the top ten tradable shareholders of China Shenhua, Zijin Mining, and Oriental Yuhong for the first time at the end of 2022, holding approximately 18.29 million shares and 163 million shares respectively at the end of the year. million shares, 23.68 million shares.</p><p>At the end of the fourth quarter, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority increased its holdings of approximately 7.16 million shares, 610,000 shares and 170,000 shares in Oriental Fortune, Huanxu Electronics and Blum Oriental respectively; Beixin Building Materials, Joincare, Daqo Energy, and Pudong Jinqiao reduced their holdings by about 120,000 shares, 410,000 shares, 5.24 million shares, and 742,000 shares respectively.</p><p>The 2022 annual report has not yet been disclosed. Judging from the reports of listed companies in the third quarter of 2022, in the third quarter of last year, Abu Dhabi entered Oriental Fortune, Gree Electric Appliances, Daqo Energy, Haid Group, Sanhua Intelligent Control, Pioneer Intelligence, Hengli Hydraulics, Common People, Beixin Building Materials, Tonghua Dongbao and other 26 listed companies Details of the top ten shareholders, the market value of positions at the end of the period reached 7.316 billion.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/14598e9358dd5c35ef20302ee0161edd\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"704\" tg-height=\"641\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Abu Dhabi is optimistic about growth opportunities in emerging markets and has the potential to increase investment in emerging markets in the future.</strong>According to the media's interview with the chairman of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Abu Dhabi has been overweighting emerging markets represented by China in the past 15 years. The reason is the trend of emerging market economy and population growth, as well as the continuous opening of these markets to foreign investors.</p><p><strong>3. \"Patient capital\" is impatient in A shares?</strong></p><p><strong>Since 2010, Abu Dhabi's investment in A-shares has mainly covered industries such as medicine and biology, non-ferrous metals, architectural decoration, chemicals, machinery and equipment, etc. From the perspective of the industries in which the top-ranked companies are located, the upstream manufacturing industry appears in the investment list. The frequency is higher.</strong></p><p>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said its investment team is focused on investing in companies with strong management teams, reasonable valuations and growth potential.</p><p>In terms of timing, in the past, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority preferred reverse operation. Comparing the market value of CSI 300 and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's A-share portfolios, it can be found that since Abu Dhabi Investment Authority increased its A-share investment, its investment portfolio The market value does not converge with the trend direction of CSI 300, and even often shows opposite trends.</p><p>In the first half of 2015, when the A-share market was frenzy, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority considered it from a long-term perspective, and did not blindly increase its investment in China's overheated market. Instead, it still adopted relatively stable investment methods to maintain its shareholding scale.</p><p>Therefore, the asset size of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority did not suffer a significant reduction in 2015. When the A-share market experienced nearly a year of decline and was at a relative bottom, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority re-increased its investment in the A-share market and bought stocks on dips. At this time, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's A-share shareholding scale and market value also ushered in a small peak.</p><p>Then since 2016, the A-share market has rebounded, while the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has continued to reduce its holdings and reduce its asset size. It was not until the A-share market reached another low point in the second half of 2018 that the shareholding scale of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority reached another small peak.</p><p><strong>In the past, when the A-share market overheated, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority invested cautiously and even reduced its holdings; When the A-share market is at the bottom stage, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is increasing its layout and constantly buying.</strong></p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7d72367661ee8a9293d43d0300e37d35\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"724\"/></p><p>Although Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is a long-term investor and the market describes Abu Dhabi Investment Authority as \"patient capital\", it does not hold specific stocks for a long time when investing in A shares.<strong>Among the A-share companies invested by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, only a few companies have held shares for more than three years.</strong></p><p>The shareholding period is not long, and the research on the A-share market may not be enough. Middle Eastern tycoons Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia still chose to open Chinese offices during the epidemic, illustrating this trend.</p><p>According to reports, Bank of America Securities recently met with investors in the Middle East, and local investors tend to make medium and long-term deployments for the mainland Chinese market. Local sovereign wealth funds already have teams dedicated to investing in mainland China, and some have recently established related investment teams in Beijing and Singapore.</p><p><strong>In recent years, local tyrants in the Middle East have increased their investment in the A-share market, and hundreds of billions of petrochemical giants have introduced local tyrants in the Middle East.</strong>On March 27, Saudi oil giant Saudi Aramco spent 24.6 billion yuan to buy a 10% stake in Rongsheng Petrochemical, which translates into a cost of 24.13 yuan per share. According to the closing price of the day, the acquisition premium is nearly 90%.</p><p>While local tyrants in the Middle East are increasing their weight in China, domestic venture capital institutions are gathering to fly to the Middle East to find money. More than 4,000 global millionaires are expected to flood into Dubai last year, far exceeding the 1,300 in 2019.</p><p>In 2021, the bilateral trade volume between China and Arab countries exceeded the US $300 billion mark, a year-on-year increase of approximately 37%. China is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner. At the same time, Saudi Arabia has become China's largest trading partner in North Africa.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"lsy1653219549182","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The tyrants in the Middle East are crazy about sweeping goods! The latest A-share positions are exposed</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe tyrants in the Middle East are crazy about sweeping goods! The latest A-share positions are exposed\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">ETF进化论</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2023-04-14 21:48</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body><strong>In 2006, there was an impressive news-Middle Eastern customers swept the top luxury houses in Shanghai for 600 million yuan.</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Gateway Capital, a fund from the Middle East, spent about 600 million yuan to buy 102 houses in the second phase of Cuihu Tiandi Royal Garden, a new world in the center of Shanghai, with an average transaction price of 40,000 yuan per square meter.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fda7d94604cc78530f8e950784b338ee\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"831\" tg-height=\"773\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The transaction price of second-hand houses in the second phase of Cuihu Tiandi Yuyuan will reach 264,000 per square meter in 2022.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1447d82193e227d3818b05eb306a13c5\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"830\" tg-height=\"696\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Since the outbreak of two \"oil crises\" in the 1970s, the continuous rise in oil prices for many years has greatly increased the income of foreign exchange countries such as Arab countries in the Middle East. In order to smooth consumption and preserve wealth for future generations, many Arab countries have begun to set up sovereign wealth funds to open up global layout.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The total assets of the top 10 sovereign wealth funds in the Arab Gulf countries reach US $3.7 trillion, of which the assets of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) rank third in the world and first in the Arab region.</strong></p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/07c2310479ae72fb953f23928abe4910\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1046\" tg-height=\"532\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to Global SWF, a data platform for global sovereign wealth funds, the size of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority reached $993 billion; Followed by the Kuwait Investment Authority, with a scale of more than $769 billion.</p><p><strong>The investment trend of local tyrants in the Middle East has attracted worldwide attention.</strong></p><p><strong>1. Revealing the local tyrants in the Middle East</strong></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the Middle East and the third largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Its source of funds is the government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, mainly the country's oil revenue.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In order to resist the impact of oil price fluctuations on the economy, and out of concern about the fate of the country after oil and gas resources are exhausted, countries in the Middle East have launched sovereign wealth funds to seek economic solutions and convert non-renewable assets into more diversified asset portfolios. Achieve the purpose of saving for the next generation.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In 1976, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi established the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the oldest and largest of many sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Over the past 40 years of development, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has always adhered to the management purpose of seeking an economic outlet and converting non-renewable assets into a more diversified asset portfolio.</p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's 20-year annualized returns fluctuate in the range of 5%-8%, and 30-year annualized returns fluctuate in the range of 6%-9%.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/59d14ae4d22d16b6c78a7965dea31d43\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"724\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority can be called the most mysterious sovereign investment fund. It keeps a low profile, does not disclose its asset value, and its investment methods and portfolios have not been made public.</strong>David Mark, former U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, said: \"In the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority basically doesn't disclose any information to the public, and it rarely attracts any criticism, and they don't advertise.\"</p><p><strong>2. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority sweeps A shares</strong></p><p>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is our old friend. As early as 1992, when the Chinese market was first opened to overseas investors, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority began to invest in China, and it has been 30 years since then.</p><p><strong>At present, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is involved in A-share, B-share, real estate investment and private equity fields. Judging from the annual reports of listed companies disclosed recently, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority will continue to sweep A shares at the end of 2022.</strong></p><p>As of April 13, among the listed companies that have disclosed annual reports,<strong>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority appears in the list of the top ten tradable shareholders of 12 A-share listed companies, with a market value of over 5.8 billion yuan in A-shares</strong>, namely Zijin Mining, Oriental Fortune, Oriental Yuhong, China Shenhua, Daqo Energy, Beixin Building Materials, Shengyi Technology, China Merchants Jiyu, USI Electronics, Pudong Jinqiao, Joincare and Blum Oriental.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c61fbad404945bbd82d5f69aeace25ec\" alt=\"(本文内容均为客观数据信息罗列，不构成任何投资建议）\" title=\"(本文内容均为客观数据信息罗列，不构成任何投资建议）\" tg-width=\"518\" tg-height=\"613\"/><span>(The contents of this article are objective data and information, and do not constitute any investment advice)</span></p><p>Specifically, compared with the end of the third quarter of 2022, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority appeared on the list of the top ten tradable shareholders of China Shenhua, Zijin Mining, and Oriental Yuhong for the first time at the end of 2022, holding approximately 18.29 million shares and 163 million shares respectively at the end of the year. million shares, 23.68 million shares.</p><p>At the end of the fourth quarter, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority increased its holdings of approximately 7.16 million shares, 610,000 shares and 170,000 shares in Oriental Fortune, Huanxu Electronics and Blum Oriental respectively; Beixin Building Materials, Joincare, Daqo Energy, and Pudong Jinqiao reduced their holdings by about 120,000 shares, 410,000 shares, 5.24 million shares, and 742,000 shares respectively.</p><p>The 2022 annual report has not yet been disclosed. Judging from the reports of listed companies in the third quarter of 2022, in the third quarter of last year, Abu Dhabi entered Oriental Fortune, Gree Electric Appliances, Daqo Energy, Haid Group, Sanhua Intelligent Control, Pioneer Intelligence, Hengli Hydraulics, Common People, Beixin Building Materials, Tonghua Dongbao and other 26 listed companies Details of the top ten shareholders, the market value of positions at the end of the period reached 7.316 billion.</p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/14598e9358dd5c35ef20302ee0161edd\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"704\" tg-height=\"641\"/></p><p><p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Abu Dhabi is optimistic about growth opportunities in emerging markets and has the potential to increase investment in emerging markets in the future.</strong>According to the media's interview with the chairman of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Abu Dhabi has been overweighting emerging markets represented by China in the past 15 years. The reason is the trend of emerging market economy and population growth, as well as the continuous opening of these markets to foreign investors.</p><p><strong>3. \"Patient capital\" is impatient in A shares?</strong></p><p><strong>Since 2010, Abu Dhabi's investment in A-shares has mainly covered industries such as medicine and biology, non-ferrous metals, architectural decoration, chemicals, machinery and equipment, etc. From the perspective of the industries in which the top-ranked companies are located, the upstream manufacturing industry appears in the investment list. The frequency is higher.</strong></p><p>Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said its investment team is focused on investing in companies with strong management teams, reasonable valuations and growth potential.</p><p>In terms of timing, in the past, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority preferred reverse operation. Comparing the market value of CSI 300 and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's A-share portfolios, it can be found that since Abu Dhabi Investment Authority increased its A-share investment, its investment portfolio The market value does not converge with the trend direction of CSI 300, and even often shows opposite trends.</p><p>In the first half of 2015, when the A-share market was frenzy, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority considered it from a long-term perspective, and did not blindly increase its investment in China's overheated market. Instead, it still adopted relatively stable investment methods to maintain its shareholding scale.</p><p>Therefore, the asset size of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority did not suffer a significant reduction in 2015. When the A-share market experienced nearly a year of decline and was at a relative bottom, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority re-increased its investment in the A-share market and bought stocks on dips. At this time, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's A-share shareholding scale and market value also ushered in a small peak.</p><p>Then since 2016, the A-share market has rebounded, while the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has continued to reduce its holdings and reduce its asset size. It was not until the A-share market reached another low point in the second half of 2018 that the shareholding scale of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority reached another small peak.</p><p><strong>In the past, when the A-share market overheated, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority invested cautiously and even reduced its holdings; When the A-share market is at the bottom stage, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is increasing its layout and constantly buying.</strong></p><p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7d72367661ee8a9293d43d0300e37d35\" alt=\"\" title=\"\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"724\"/></p><p>Although Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is a long-term investor and the market describes Abu Dhabi Investment Authority as \"patient capital\", it does not hold specific stocks for a long time when investing in A shares.<strong>Among the A-share companies invested by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, only a few companies have held shares for more than three years.</strong></p><p>The shareholding period is not long, and the research on the A-share market may not be enough. Middle Eastern tycoons Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia still chose to open Chinese offices during the epidemic, illustrating this trend.</p><p>According to reports, Bank of America Securities recently met with investors in the Middle East, and local investors tend to make medium and long-term deployments for the mainland Chinese market. Local sovereign wealth funds already have teams dedicated to investing in mainland China, and some have recently established related investment teams in Beijing and Singapore.</p><p><strong>In recent years, local tyrants in the Middle East have increased their investment in the A-share market, and hundreds of billions of petrochemical giants have introduced local tyrants in the Middle East.</strong>On March 27, Saudi oil giant Saudi Aramco spent 24.6 billion yuan to buy a 10% stake in Rongsheng Petrochemical, which translates into a cost of 24.13 yuan per share. According to the closing price of the day, the acquisition premium is nearly 90%.</p><p>While local tyrants in the Middle East are increasing their weight in China, domestic venture capital institutions are gathering to fly to the Middle East to find money. More than 4,000 global millionaires are expected to flood into Dubai last year, far exceeding the 1,300 in 2019.</p><p>In 2021, the bilateral trade volume between China and Arab countries exceeded the US $300 billion mark, a year-on-year increase of approximately 37%. China is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner. At the same time, Saudi Arabia has become China's largest trading partner in North Africa.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/0qIbIsgimZ0N8fJQTV013w\">ETF进化论</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cfe8ba21c8b5ac2b562fdf822ed7fcb2","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/0qIbIsgimZ0N8fJQTV013w","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1150662233","content_text":"2006年有一则新闻令人印象深刻——中东客6亿元狂扫上海顶级豪宅。来自中东的基金 Gateway Capital，斥资约6亿元人民币，买下上海市中心新天地----翠湖天地御苑二期102 套住房，每平方米成交均价4万元人民币。翠湖天地御苑二期二手房2022年成交价格达到26.4万每平方米。自20世纪70年代爆发两次“石油危机”后，多年来石油价格持续高涨使得中东阿拉伯这些外汇国家的收入大增，为了平滑消费以及为后代保留财富，众多阿拉伯国家开始兴起设立主权财富基金开启全球布局。阿拉伯海湾国家的10大主权财富基金总资产规模达3.7万亿美元，其中阿布扎比投资局（ADIA）的资产位居全球第三、阿拉伯地区之首。根据全球主权财富基金数据平台Global SWF的数据，阿布扎比投资局规模达到9930亿美元；其次是科威特投资局，规模超过7690亿美元。中东土豪投资动向，备受全球瞩目。1、揭秘中东土豪阿布扎比投资局是中东地区最大的主权财富基金，也是全球第三大的主权财富基金，其资金来源阿布扎比酋长国政府，主要为该国的石油收益。为了抵御石油价格波动对经济的冲击，也出于对油气资源耗尽后国家命运的担忧，中东地区的国家纷纷发起主权财富基金寻求经济出路，将不可再生资产转换为更多样化的资产组合，实现为下一代储蓄的目的。1976年，阿布扎比酋长国成立了阿布扎比投资局，是中东众多主权财富基金中历史最悠久、规模最大的一家。在过去40多年的发展过程中，阿布扎比投资局一直坚持的管理目的是寻求经济出路，将不可再生资产转换为更多样化的资产组合。阿布扎比投资局的20年年化回报率在5%-8%的区间浮动，30年年化回报率在6%-9%的区间波动。阿布扎比投资局可以称得上是最神秘的主权投资基金，行事低调，不披露自己的资产价值，投资方法与投资组合也未公开过。美国前驻阿联酋大使戴维·马克说：“在阿联酋国内，阿布扎比投资局基本上不对公众披露什么信息，也很少招致什么非议，他们更不做广告。”2、阿布扎比投资局扫货A股阿布扎比投资局是我们的老朋友了，早在1992年，当中国市场首次向海外投资者开放的时候，阿布扎比投资局就开始在中国投资了，至今已有30年之久。目前，阿布扎比投资局在A股、B股、房地产投资和私募股权领域均有涉足。从近期陆续披露的上市公司年报看，阿布扎比投资局在2022年末继续扫货A股。截至4月13日，在已披露年报的上市公司中，阿布扎比投资局的身影出现在12家A股上市公司的前十大流通股东名单，持仓A股市值超58亿元，分别为紫金矿业、东方财富、东方雨虹、中国神华、大全能源、北新建材、生益科技、招商积余、环旭电子、浦东金桥、健康元和百隆东方。(本文内容均为客观数据信息罗列，不构成任何投资建议）具体来看，与2022年三季度末相比，2022年末阿布扎比投资局首次出现在中国神华、紫金矿业、东方雨虹前十大流通股东名单上，年末分别持有约1829万股、1.63亿股、2368万股。四季度末，阿布扎比投资局对东方财富、环旭电子、百隆东方分别增持约716万股、61万股、17万股;对北新建材、健康元、大全能源、浦东金桥分别减持约12万股、41万股、524万股、74.2万股。2022年年报还未披露完毕。从2022年3季度上市公司报告看，去年3季度，阿布达比进入东方财富、格力电器、大全能源、海大集团、三花智控、先导智能、恒立液压、老百姓、北新建材、通化东宝等26家上市公司十大股东明细，期末持仓市值达73.16亿。阿布扎比对新兴市场的增长机会持乐观态度，并有可能在未来增加对新兴市场的投资。根据媒体对阿布扎比投资局董事长的采访内容，过去15年中阿布达比一直超配了以中国为代表的新兴市场，其原因是新兴市场经济和人口持续增长的趋势，以及这些市场持续加强对外国投资者开放。3、“有耐心的资本”在A股没耐心了？2010年至今，阿布扎比对A股投资涵盖的行业主要为医药生物、有色金属、建筑装饰、化工、机械设备等，从排名靠前的公司所处行业看，上游制造业在投资名单中出现的频率较高。阿布扎比投资局表示，其投资团队专注于投资拥有强大管理团队、估值合理、具有增长潜力的公司。在择时方面，过去阿布扎比投资局偏好逆向操作，对比沪深300和阿布扎比投资局的A股投资组合市值可以发现，自阿布扎比投资局加大A股投资以来，其投资组合市值与沪深300走势方向并不趋同，甚至常常出现相反趋势。2015年上半年，A股市场狂热之际，阿布扎比投资局以长期的眼光进行考量，并没有盲目加大在中国过热市场上的投资，而仍采取较为稳健的投资手段，维持着持股规模。因此，2015年阿布扎比投资局的资产规模并没有遭受较大幅度的缩减。而当A股市场在经历了近一年的下跌，处于相对底部之际，阿布扎比投资局重新加大了对A股市场的投资，逢低买入股票，此时阿布扎比投资局的A股持股规模和持股市值也迎来了小高峰。而后2016年开始，A股市场有所回升，而阿布扎比投资局却不断减持，缩小资产规模。直至A股市场于2018年下半年迎来又一个低点时，阿布扎比投资局的持股规模才又出现了一个小高峰。过去A股市场过热时，阿布扎比投资局谨慎投资，甚至有所减持；在A股市场处于底部阶段时，阿布扎比投资局则在加大布局，不断买进。尽管阿布扎比投资局是一个长期投资者，市场将阿布扎比投资局描述为“有耐心的资本”，但其在进行A股投资时，对特定股票的持有时间并不长。在阿布扎比投资局投资过的A股公司中，仅有很少公司持股时间超3年。持股周期不长，可能对A股市场研究还不够。中东土豪阿布扎比和沙特在疫情期间仍选择开设中国办公室，说明了这种趋势。据报道，美银证券近期与中东投资者会面，当地投资者对中国内地市场倾向于进行中长期部署。当地的主权财富基金已有专门投资中国内地市场的团队，部分于近期在北京和新加坡建立相关投资团队。中东土豪近年来在加大A股市场的投资，千亿石化巨头引入中东土豪。3月27日，沙特石油巨头沙特阿美花费246亿人民币买下荣盛石化10%的股份，折算下来每股成本为24.13元。按照当日的收盘价计算，这笔收购溢价近9成。在中东土豪加码中国之际，国内创投机构则扎堆飞中东找钱。去年预计逾4000位全球百万富翁涌入迪拜，远远超过2019年的1300位。2021年，中国与阿拉伯国家双边贸易额突破3000亿美元大关，同比增长约37%。中国是沙特最大的贸易伙伴国。与此同时，沙特也已经成为中国在北非地区最大的贸易伙伴。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":893,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945536571,"gmtCreate":1681512554994,"gmtModify":1681512558724,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945536571","repostId":"2327812125","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2327812125","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1681481011,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2327812125?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-04-14 22:03","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Bank of America: Prefer AMD to Intel, giving the latter a \"buy\" rating","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2327812125","media":"智通财经","summary":"智通财经APP获悉，在第一季度财报季到来之际，美国银行表示，相比于英特尔，该行更青睐于AMD，因为后者可能会因收购赛灵思而从工业和汽车市场中受益。美银分析师Vivek Arya予AMD“买入”评级，同时予英特尔“跑输大盘”评级。与此同时，市场普遍预期英特尔第一季度销售额为112.2亿美元，但每股亏损0.14美元。分析师补充称，尽管英特尔的股价在过去几个交易日大幅上涨，但至少在2025年之前，该公司的服务器市场份额可能会继续输给AMD。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>On April 14, as the first-quarter earnings season approached, Bank of America said that compared with<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/INTC\">Intel</a>, the bank preferred<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMD\">AMD</a>, because the latter may be affected by the acquisition<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/XLNX\">Xilinx</a>While benefiting from industrial and automotive markets.</p><p><strong>Bank of America analyst Vivek Arya gave AMD a \"buy\" rating and Intel an \"underperform\" rating.</strong>Despite troubles in PCs and data centers, AMD could gain more than Intel later this year as it launches new products including Genoa server CPUs, analysts said.</p><p>Analysts said: \"Given AMD's extensive exposure to cloud computing vendors, which are expected to increase investment in CPUs/accelerators amid the AI boom, we believe AMD is in a better position overall. Its 5nm Genoa server CPU also has process node advantages and better multi-threading performance.\"</p><p>The current consensus expectation is that AMD will generate revenue of $5.31 billion and earnings per share of $0.56 in the first quarter of this year. Meanwhile, the consensus estimate for Intel to post a loss of $0.14 per share after first-quarter sales of $11.22 billion.</p><p>While Intel's stock has risen sharply over the past few sessions (partly due to its portfolio in AI), the company is likely to continue to lose server market share to AMD until at least 2025, analysts added. Ahead of Intel's first-quarter results, analysts lowered their estimates for the company's 2023 results, cutting sales and earnings per share estimates by 6% and 38%, respectively.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"stock_zhitongcaijing","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Bank of America: Prefer AMD to Intel, giving the latter a \"buy\" rating</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nBank of America: Prefer AMD to Intel, giving the latter a \"buy\" rating\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">智通财经</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2023-04-14 22:03</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>On April 14, as the first-quarter earnings season approached, Bank of America said that compared with<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/INTC\">Intel</a>, the bank preferred<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMD\">AMD</a>, because the latter may be affected by the acquisition<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/XLNX\">Xilinx</a>While benefiting from industrial and automotive markets.</p><p><strong>Bank of America analyst Vivek Arya gave AMD a \"buy\" rating and Intel an \"underperform\" rating.</strong>Despite troubles in PCs and data centers, AMD could gain more than Intel later this year as it launches new products including Genoa server CPUs, analysts said.</p><p>Analysts said: \"Given AMD's extensive exposure to cloud computing vendors, which are expected to increase investment in CPUs/accelerators amid the AI boom, we believe AMD is in a better position overall. Its 5nm Genoa server CPU also has process node advantages and better multi-threading performance.\"</p><p>The current consensus expectation is that AMD will generate revenue of $5.31 billion and earnings per share of $0.56 in the first quarter of this year. Meanwhile, the consensus estimate for Intel to post a loss of $0.14 per share after first-quarter sales of $11.22 billion.</p><p>While Intel's stock has risen sharply over the past few sessions (partly due to its portfolio in AI), the company is likely to continue to lose server market share to AMD until at least 2025, analysts added. Ahead of Intel's first-quarter results, analysts lowered their estimates for the company's 2023 results, cutting sales and earnings per share estimates by 6% and 38%, respectively.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/911257.html\">智通财经</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/38b14d4c1528b585f44d427c7a09d860","relate_stocks":{"INTC":"英特尔","GFS":"GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.","AMD":"美国超微公司"},"source_url":"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/911257.html","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2327812125","content_text":"4月14日，，在第一季度财报季到来之际，美国银行表示，相比于英特尔，该行更青睐于AMD，因为后者可能会因收购赛灵思而从工业和汽车市场中受益。美银分析师Vivek Arya予AMD“买入”评级，同时予英特尔“跑输大盘”评级。分析师表示，尽管个人电脑和数据中心领域遇到麻烦，但AMD今年晚些时候的获益可能会超过英特尔，因为AMD将推出包括Genoa服务器CPU在内的新产品。分析师表示：“考虑到AMD与云计算供应商的大量接触，而这些云计算供应商们预计将在AI热潮下加大对CPU/加速器的投资，我们认为AMD总体上处于更好的地位。其5nm Genoa服务器CPU也拥有流程节点优势和更好的多线程性能。”市场目前普遍预期，AMD今年第一季度的营收为53.1亿美元，每股收益为0.56美元。与此同时，市场普遍预期英特尔第一季度销售额为112.2亿美元，但每股亏损0.14美元。分析师补充称，尽管英特尔的股价在过去几个交易日大幅上涨(部分原因是其在AI领域的投资组合)，但至少在2025年之前，该公司的服务器市场份额可能会继续输给AMD。在英特尔公布第一季度业绩之前，分析师下调了对该公司2023年的业绩预计，将销售额和每股收益预期分别下调了6%和38%。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"GFS":1,"INTC":1,"AMD":1}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1218,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945213390,"gmtCreate":1681482986710,"gmtModify":1681482990421,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","listText":"🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","text":"🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945213390","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":885,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945213970,"gmtCreate":1681482963090,"gmtModify":1681482966660,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"🚀🚀","listText":"🚀🚀","text":"🚀🚀","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945213970","repostId":"9943960936","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9943960936,"gmtCreate":1679046534725,"gmtModify":1680580626622,"author":{"id":"3527667667103859","authorId":"3527667667103859","name":"TigerEvents","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c266ef25181ace18bec1262357bbe1a8","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3527667667103859","idStr":"3527667667103859"},"themes":[],"title":"【Game】Easter Egg Hunting with Tiger, Win Disney Shares and USD 120 Voucher","htmlText":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣<a href=\"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/easter/?adcode=20230316162207#/\" target=\"_blank\">Join our Easter campaign now</a>","listText":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣<a href=\"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/easter/?adcode=20230316162207#/\" target=\"_blank\">Join our Easter campaign now</a>","text":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣Join our Easter campaign now","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c90a7371a3bcd1e6c552d2aa23f72c33","width":"1200","height":"630"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":2,"paper":2,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9943960936","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1402,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9941985145,"gmtCreate":1679919813188,"gmtModify":1679919817613,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/0a6698fb0c4bdfab4cd92f9a6c8d2c0e","width":"1080","height":"1297"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9941985145","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":713,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9949700018,"gmtCreate":1678866359335,"gmtModify":1678866977193,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"🥵","listText":"🥵","text":"🥵","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9949700018","repostId":"2319863553","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2319863553","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1678853556,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2319863553?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-03-15 12:12","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"The collapse of SVB may become a \"Bear Stearns moment\"! Bloody crisis spreads overseas","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2319863553","media":"金十数据","summary":"硅谷银行倒闭虽然不是“雷曼时刻”，却可能成为“雷曼时刻”的导火索，危机正蔓延到海外，哪些国家将首当其冲？硅谷银行倒闭引发了人们对下一场危机将从哪里开始爆发的猜测，虽然这不是“雷曼时刻”，但会不会是“贝","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Although the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is not the \"Lehman Moment\", it may become the fuse of the \"Lehman Moment\". The crisis is spreading overseas. Which countries will bear the brunt?<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SIVB\">Silicon Valley Bank</a>The collapse has sparked speculation about where the next crisis will start to erupt. While this is not a \"Lehman moment\", will it be a \"Bear Stearns moment\"?</p><p><b>Bear Stearns moment coming?</b></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse may have been since the Fed began its massive rate hike last year<b>The first crisis to catch Wall Street off guard, but it won't be the last</b>。</p><p>More and more analysts and investors hold this view. They pointed out that although the bankruptcy of this bank may not pose a threat to the entire financial system,<b>But it almost certainly bodes for more pain in the coming months</b>。</p><p>Anne Walsh, chief investment officer at Guggenheim Partners, wrote in a note Monday:</p><p>\"The possible systemic factor in SVB's situation is that the drastic reshaping of the yield curve over the past year, which has affected almost every<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FISI\">Financial institution</a>, every leveraged business and household, and every bond portfolio. The impact of the SVB event remains volatile, and we don't think this is a Lehman moment. However, this could be a'Bear Stearns moment '. \" Walsh was referring to the notorious Wall Street lender Bear Stearns that collapsed in March 2008.<b>Six months after the institution's collapse, the collapse of Lehman Brothers officially set off the global financial crisis</b>。</p><p>Where exactly the pain from the Fed's fastest tightening cycle in decades will be manifested is the big question. There are already signs of increasing pressure on key areas of global finance.</p><p><b>Commercial real estate is a huge \"minefield\"</b>, tens of billions of dollars in office debt will mature this year, and banks are reluctant to lend any more at a time when building values plummet. The leveraged loan market is another \"minefield\" where many companies, including many tech companies, are saddled with mountains of debt.</p><p>Data compiled by foreign media show that since last Friday,<b>Global non-performing corporate bonds and loans increased by 5.6% to $586 billion</b>。 Kamil Amin, global credit strategist at UBS, said in an interview:</p><p>\"This is the first accident caused by a huge increase in interest rates.\"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3383792de6bc59ca9bbaa04d74dfd0a8\" tg-width=\"1071\" tg-height=\"629\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>He warned that \"there is more to come\" and specifically mentioned that<b>To the leveraged loan markets in the United States and Europe</b>。 In these markets, borrowers hold large amounts of floating-rate debt with little hedging.</p><p><b>SVB bonds rebound on emergency Fed bailout</b></p><p>Bonds issued by Silicon Valley Bank's parent company rebounded Tuesday amid broad gains in regional bank stocks and bond prices.<b>Investors are exploring how to profit from the bank's financial woes and the FDIC takeover</b>，<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/APOL\">Apollo</a>、<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BX\">Blackstone</a>And KKR have both expressed interest in acquiring some of the loans held by Silicon Valley Bank.</p><p>SVB's senior unsecured bonds were sold Tuesday morning at roughly 47-51 cents face value, still low but higher than last weekend's 37-42 cents level, according to price reporting system Trace.<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SCHW\">Charles Schwab</a>And First Republic Bank's bonds also rose sharply, recouping some of Monday's losses.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e824a35692d25e2f81be90b466ddbeb2\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"653\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse was triggered by a loss of confidence among depositors, which in turn forced the bank to sell relatively safe assets, which lost value due to rising interest rates.<b>Investors are looking for more banks that may explode. At present, the focus is on those banks that face high unrealized losses on assets and account for a large proportion of uninsured deposits.</b></p><p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MCO\">Moody's</a>It pointed out that six U.S. banks have high levels of uninsured deposit financing, which makes the funding situation more volatile, and placed their credit ratings on the downgrade watch list.</p><p>If there is a higher-than-expected withdrawal, including<b>First Republic Bank, Western Union, Zions, UMB, Comerica and Infront</b>The six major banks will need to liquidate their portfolios in the event of losses. This in turn puts pressure on their profitability and capital buffers, which tend to be lower than their peers.</p><p>The Federal Reserve's Term Funding Program for Banks, launched last weekend, helped bolster liquidity to meet banks' funding needs. Shares of these banks rebounded on Tuesday after a severe plunge.</p><p><b>Crisis may spread overseas</b></p><p><b>French retailers Casino Guichard Perrachon</b>Bonds and stocks fell on Monday as investors worried about the negative impact of the company's declining profitability in France and the market regulator's investigation into alleged corruption, market manipulation and insider trading.</p><p>Casino shares rebounded on Tuesday after it announced plans to sell a stake in Brazilian grocer Assai, which could be worth more than $800 million. At the same time,<b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ING\">Dutch International</a>The group sold part of Casino's credit line to Attestor at a 30% discount.</b></p><p>With the troubled<b>Spanish Gaming Group</b>Continuing to drain its cash reserves, Codere is in preliminary talks with its main creditor turned shareholder to raise new capital.</p><p>The shock wave of Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is ripping through financial institutions around the world, with investors selling banks and lenders deemed riskier.<b>Credit Suisse</b>Not immune, its stocks and bonds were among the worst performers outside the U.S. on Monday. The Swiss bank's balance sheet risk isn't as high as SVB's, but the price of its credit default swaps (CDS) has risen significantly.</p><p>More of a headache for lenders, the company said Tuesday,<b>\"Significant deficiencies\" were identified in earnings reporting and control procedures over the past two years</b>。 Furthermore, PwC issued \"objections\" to the effectiveness of its internal checks. The move comes after the bank delayed the release of its annual report last week as U.S. regulators raised questions about its financial statements.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7550ed79a07555144e756df43c42eabd\" tg-width=\"1008\" tg-height=\"646\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>CDS prices hit record highs, suggesting 35% probability of default within five years</b>But Credit Suisse Chief Executive Ulrich Koerner spoke in a positive tone in an interview on Tuesday, saying that the bank had already had capital inflows on Monday.</p><p>On the other side of the world, from CDS to bonds,<b>SoftBank's risk indicators also sound the alarm</b>。 The Tokyo-based investment fund is one of the biggest backers of tech start-ups.</p><p>CreditSights analyst Mary Pollock wrote in a note:</p><p>\"We do not believe that the impact of SVB on SoftBank is now all behind us. We are concerned that this incident could expose more problems for an already struggling SoftBank.\" SoftBank said Monday that it does not expect an impact on its financials from SVB's bankruptcy.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"xnew_highlight","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The collapse of SVB may become a \"Bear Stearns moment\"! Bloody crisis spreads overseas</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe collapse of SVB may become a \"Bear Stearns moment\"! Bloody crisis spreads overseas\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">金十数据</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2023-03-15 12:12</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Although the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is not the \"Lehman Moment\", it may become the fuse of the \"Lehman Moment\". The crisis is spreading overseas. Which countries will bear the brunt?<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SIVB\">Silicon Valley Bank</a>The collapse has sparked speculation about where the next crisis will start to erupt. While this is not a \"Lehman moment\", will it be a \"Bear Stearns moment\"?</p><p><b>Bear Stearns moment coming?</b></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse may have been since the Fed began its massive rate hike last year<b>The first crisis to catch Wall Street off guard, but it won't be the last</b>。</p><p>More and more analysts and investors hold this view. They pointed out that although the bankruptcy of this bank may not pose a threat to the entire financial system,<b>But it almost certainly bodes for more pain in the coming months</b>。</p><p>Anne Walsh, chief investment officer at Guggenheim Partners, wrote in a note Monday:</p><p>\"The possible systemic factor in SVB's situation is that the drastic reshaping of the yield curve over the past year, which has affected almost every<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FISI\">Financial institution</a>, every leveraged business and household, and every bond portfolio. The impact of the SVB event remains volatile, and we don't think this is a Lehman moment. However, this could be a'Bear Stearns moment '. \" Walsh was referring to the notorious Wall Street lender Bear Stearns that collapsed in March 2008.<b>Six months after the institution's collapse, the collapse of Lehman Brothers officially set off the global financial crisis</b>。</p><p>Where exactly the pain from the Fed's fastest tightening cycle in decades will be manifested is the big question. There are already signs of increasing pressure on key areas of global finance.</p><p><b>Commercial real estate is a huge \"minefield\"</b>, tens of billions of dollars in office debt will mature this year, and banks are reluctant to lend any more at a time when building values plummet. The leveraged loan market is another \"minefield\" where many companies, including many tech companies, are saddled with mountains of debt.</p><p>Data compiled by foreign media show that since last Friday,<b>Global non-performing corporate bonds and loans increased by 5.6% to $586 billion</b>。 Kamil Amin, global credit strategist at UBS, said in an interview:</p><p>\"This is the first accident caused by a huge increase in interest rates.\"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3383792de6bc59ca9bbaa04d74dfd0a8\" tg-width=\"1071\" tg-height=\"629\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>He warned that \"there is more to come\" and specifically mentioned that<b>To the leveraged loan markets in the United States and Europe</b>。 In these markets, borrowers hold large amounts of floating-rate debt with little hedging.</p><p><b>SVB bonds rebound on emergency Fed bailout</b></p><p>Bonds issued by Silicon Valley Bank's parent company rebounded Tuesday amid broad gains in regional bank stocks and bond prices.<b>Investors are exploring how to profit from the bank's financial woes and the FDIC takeover</b>，<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/APOL\">Apollo</a>、<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BX\">Blackstone</a>And KKR have both expressed interest in acquiring some of the loans held by Silicon Valley Bank.</p><p>SVB's senior unsecured bonds were sold Tuesday morning at roughly 47-51 cents face value, still low but higher than last weekend's 37-42 cents level, according to price reporting system Trace.<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SCHW\">Charles Schwab</a>And First Republic Bank's bonds also rose sharply, recouping some of Monday's losses.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e824a35692d25e2f81be90b466ddbeb2\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"653\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse was triggered by a loss of confidence among depositors, which in turn forced the bank to sell relatively safe assets, which lost value due to rising interest rates.<b>Investors are looking for more banks that may explode. At present, the focus is on those banks that face high unrealized losses on assets and account for a large proportion of uninsured deposits.</b></p><p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MCO\">Moody's</a>It pointed out that six U.S. banks have high levels of uninsured deposit financing, which makes the funding situation more volatile, and placed their credit ratings on the downgrade watch list.</p><p>If there is a higher-than-expected withdrawal, including<b>First Republic Bank, Western Union, Zions, UMB, Comerica and Infront</b>The six major banks will need to liquidate their portfolios in the event of losses. This in turn puts pressure on their profitability and capital buffers, which tend to be lower than their peers.</p><p>The Federal Reserve's Term Funding Program for Banks, launched last weekend, helped bolster liquidity to meet banks' funding needs. Shares of these banks rebounded on Tuesday after a severe plunge.</p><p><b>Crisis may spread overseas</b></p><p><b>French retailers Casino Guichard Perrachon</b>Bonds and stocks fell on Monday as investors worried about the negative impact of the company's declining profitability in France and the market regulator's investigation into alleged corruption, market manipulation and insider trading.</p><p>Casino shares rebounded on Tuesday after it announced plans to sell a stake in Brazilian grocer Assai, which could be worth more than $800 million. At the same time,<b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ING\">Dutch International</a>The group sold part of Casino's credit line to Attestor at a 30% discount.</b></p><p>With the troubled<b>Spanish Gaming Group</b>Continuing to drain its cash reserves, Codere is in preliminary talks with its main creditor turned shareholder to raise new capital.</p><p>The shock wave of Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is ripping through financial institutions around the world, with investors selling banks and lenders deemed riskier.<b>Credit Suisse</b>Not immune, its stocks and bonds were among the worst performers outside the U.S. on Monday. The Swiss bank's balance sheet risk isn't as high as SVB's, but the price of its credit default swaps (CDS) has risen significantly.</p><p>More of a headache for lenders, the company said Tuesday,<b>\"Significant deficiencies\" were identified in earnings reporting and control procedures over the past two years</b>。 Furthermore, PwC issued \"objections\" to the effectiveness of its internal checks. The move comes after the bank delayed the release of its annual report last week as U.S. regulators raised questions about its financial statements.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7550ed79a07555144e756df43c42eabd\" tg-width=\"1008\" tg-height=\"646\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>CDS prices hit record highs, suggesting 35% probability of default within five years</b>But Credit Suisse Chief Executive Ulrich Koerner spoke in a positive tone in an interview on Tuesday, saying that the bank had already had capital inflows on Monday.</p><p>On the other side of the world, from CDS to bonds,<b>SoftBank's risk indicators also sound the alarm</b>。 The Tokyo-based investment fund is one of the biggest backers of tech start-ups.</p><p>CreditSights analyst Mary Pollock wrote in a note:</p><p>\"We do not believe that the impact of SVB on SoftBank is now all behind us. We are concerned that this incident could expose more problems for an already struggling SoftBank.\" SoftBank said Monday that it does not expect an impact on its financials from SVB's bankruptcy.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://xnews.jin10.com/details/108380\">金十数据</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c4d7f8700530984091f56499d0cfad7","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://xnews.jin10.com/details/108380","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2319863553","content_text":"硅谷银行倒闭虽然不是“雷曼时刻”，却可能成为“雷曼时刻”的导火索，危机正蔓延到海外，哪些国家将首当其冲？硅谷银行倒闭引发了人们对下一场危机将从哪里开始爆发的猜测，虽然这不是“雷曼时刻”，但会不会是“贝尔斯登时刻”？贝尔斯登时刻来临？硅谷银行的倒闭可能是自美联储去年开始大举加息以来第一起令华尔街措手不及的危机，但这不会是最后一次。持这种观点的分析师和投资者越来越多。他们指出，尽管这家银行的破产可能不会对整个金融体系构成威胁，但几乎可以肯定，这预示着未来几个月将出现更多痛苦。古根海姆合伙公司首席投资官安妮·沃尔什（Anne Walsh）周一在一份报告中写道：“SVB的情况可能存在的系统性因素是，过去一年收益率曲线的剧烈重塑，几乎影响了每一家金融机构、每一个举杠杆的企业和家庭，以及每一个债券投资组合。SVB事件的影响仍不稳定，我们不认为这是雷曼时刻。然而，这可能是一个‘贝尔斯登时刻’。”沃尔什指的是在2008年3月倒闭的臭名昭著的华尔街贷款机构贝尔斯登。在该机构倒闭6个月后，雷曼兄弟的倒闭正式引爆全球金融危机。美联储几十年来速度最快的紧缩周期所带来的痛苦究竟会体现在哪里，这是一个大问题。已经有迹象表明，全球金融的关键领域面临的压力越来越大。商业地产是一个巨大的“雷区”，今年将有数百亿美元的写字楼债务到期，而在建筑价值暴跌之际，银行也不愿再提供贷款。杠杆贷款市场是另一个“雷区”，在杠杆贷款市场上，许多公司（包括许多科技公司）背负着堆积如山的债务。外媒汇编的数据显示，自上周五以来，全球不良公司债和贷款规模增长了5.6%至5860亿美元。瑞银全球信贷策略师卡米尔·阿明（Kamil Amin）在接受采访时表示：“这是利率大幅提升引发的第一起事故。”他警告称“未来还会有更多”，并特别提到了美国和欧洲的杠杆贷款市场。在这些市场，借款人在几乎没有对冲的情况下，大量持有浮动利率债务。美联储紧急救市，SVB债券反弹周二，硅谷银行母公司发行的债券在地区银行股和债券价格普遍上涨的情况下反弹。投资者正在探索如何从该银行的财务困境和美国联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）接管中获利，阿波罗、黑石和KKR都表示有兴趣收购硅谷银行持有的部分贷款。根据价格报告系统Trace的数据，SVB的优先无担保债券周二上午以面值约为47-51美分的价格出售，价格仍然很低，但高于上周末37-42美分的水平。嘉信理财和第一共和国银行的债券也大幅上涨，收复了周一的部分失地。硅谷银行的倒闭是由储户信心丧失引发的，储户信心丧失反过来又迫使该银行出售相对安全的资产，这些资产因利率上升而贬值。投资者正在寻找更多的可能爆雷的银行，目前的焦点是那些资产面临高额未变现损失、且未保险存款占很大比例的银行。穆迪指出，有6家美国银行的无保险存款融资水平很高，这使得资金状况更加不稳定，并将它们的信用评级列入了下调观察名单。如果出现高于预期的提款情况，包括第一共和国银行、西方联盟、Zions、UMB、Comerica和盈方在内的6大银行将需要在亏损的情况下清算其投资组合。这反过来又会对其盈利能力和资本缓冲造成压力，它们的盈利能力和资本缓冲往往低于同行。美联储上周末推出的银行定期融资计划有助于增强流动性，以满足银行的融资需求。在经历了严重的暴跌之后，这些银行的股价在周二反弹。危机恐蔓延至海外法国零售商Casino Guichard Perrachon的债券和股票周一下跌，因为投资者担忧该公司在法国盈利能力下降以及市场监管机构对涉嫌腐败、市场操纵和内幕交易展开调查的负面影响。在Casino宣布计划出售巴西杂货商Assai的股份后，其价值可能超过8亿美元，受此提振，Casino股价周二反弹。与此同时，荷兰国际集团以30%的折扣将Casino的部分信贷额度出售给了Attestor。随着陷入困境的西班牙博彩集团继续耗尽其现金储备，Codere正在与其主要债权人转为股东进行初步谈判以筹集新资金。硅谷银行倒闭的冲击波正波及全球金融机构，投资者纷纷抛售被视为风险更高的银行和贷款机构。瑞信也没能幸免，其股票和债券是周一美国以外表现最差的股票和债券之一。这家瑞士银行的资产负债表风险不像SVB那样高，但其信用违约掉期（CDS）的价格却大幅上涨。更让贷款人头疼的是，该公司周二表示，在过去两年的财报和控制程序中发现了“重大缺陷”。此外，普华永道对其内部检查的有效性发表了“反对意见”。此前，由于美国监管机构对其财务报表提出质疑，该银行上周推迟了年度报告的发布。CDS价格创历史新高，表明五年内违约概率为35%，但瑞信首席执行长柯尔纳（Ulrich Koerner）周二接受采访时语气积极，称该行周一已经有资金流入。在世界的另一端，从CDS到债券，软银的风险指标也响起警报。这家总部位于东京的投资基金是科技初创企业的最大支持者之一。CreditSights分析师玛丽•波洛克（Mary Pollock）在一份报告中写道：“我们不相信SVB对软银的影响现在已经全部过去。我们担心，这一事件可能会让已经陷入困境的软银暴露出更多问题。”软银周一表示，预计SVB破产不会对其财务状况造成影响。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SIVB":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1851,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9949477716,"gmtCreate":1678866311135,"gmtModify":1678866325744,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"🌹","listText":"🌹","text":"🌹","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9949477716","repostId":"2319863087","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1500,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9949477467,"gmtCreate":1678866265759,"gmtModify":1678866269289,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"😁","listText":"😁","text":"😁","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9949477467","repostId":"2319789861","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2319789861","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1678862003,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2319789861?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-03-15 14:33","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"The Silicon Valley Bank crisis is far from over! Analysts warn: It may spread to the global technology sector in the next few years","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2319789861","media":"智通财经","summary":"它的倒闭是2008年金融危机以来最大的银行倒闭事件，其影响可能会在未来几年波及全球科技领域。硅谷银行的崩溃始于上周，当时它表示需要筹集22.5亿美元来支撑其资产负债表。硅谷银行不得不以巨额亏损出售债券等资产。美国监管机构上周五关闭了硅谷银行，并控制了其存款。监管机构随后在周日表示，硅谷银行的储户可以取出他们的资金，此举旨在阻止危机进一步蔓延。硅谷银行破产之际，初创企业投资者正处于艰难时期。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SIVB\">Silicon Valley Bank</a>Are many around the world<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/V03.SI\">Startups</a>And the pillar of venture capital funds. Its collapse was the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, and its fallout could ripple across the global tech sector in the coming years.</p><p>Zhitong Finance APP learned that Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said on Tuesday: \"Silicon Valley Bank is essentially the godfather of the Silicon Valley banking ecosystem in the tech world over the past few decades. We believe that the negative ripple effects of this historic collapse will have a profound impact on future technology.\" The world has a profound impact. \"</p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse began last week when it said it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. Venture capital firms tell their portfolio companies to withdraw money from banks, while other customers want cash upfront. This actually led to a bank run.</p><p>Silicon Valley Bank had to sell assets such as bonds at a huge loss.</p><p>U.S. regulators shut down Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and took control of its deposits. Regulators then said on Sunday that Silicon Valley Bank depositors could withdraw their money, a move aimed at stopping the crisis from spreading further.</p><p>But investors and analysts say the event has the potential to impact the tech community in several ways, from making it more difficult for startups to raise capital to forcing companies to change their business models.</p><p><b>Tighten your belt</b></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank is crucial to the growth of the tech industry, not only in the United States, but also in places such as Europe and even China.</p><p>The 40-year-old institution, which has strong ties to the tech world, not only provides traditional banking services, but also provides financing to companies that are deemed too risky for traditional banks. Silicon Valley Bank also offers other services such as lines of credit to startups.</p><p>In good times, Silicon Valley Bank is thriving. But over the past year, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to fight inflation, and the tech sector has taken a hit. The funding environment has become tougher for start-ups in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.</p><p>The bankruptcy of Silicon Valley Bank comes amid tough times for start-up investors.</p><p>\"The Silicon Valley Bank bankruptcy was the last thing we wanted and completely surprised us,\" said Ben Harburg, managing partner at Beijing-based venture capital fund MSA Capital.</p><p>Startups have had to tighten their belts, and tech giants have laid off tens of thousands of employees to cut costs.</p><p>In such an environment, Silicon Valley Bank has played a key role in providing lines of credit or other tools to help startups pay employees or weather difficult times.</p><p>\"Silicon Valley Bank not only provides payroll services, loans to founders, but also lines of credit. Many of these companies are already having trouble raising equity, and they are looking to use these channels to expand their business and extend the time they burn money beyond what we expect. After the recession,\" Matt Higgins, CEO of RSE Ventures, said on Tuesday.</p><p>\"Overnight, those channels disappear, and no other lender will come to fill those gaps.\"</p><p><b>Changing business models</b></p><p>The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank could also turn startups' attention to profitability and be more disciplined when it comes to spending.</p><p>\"Companies will have to rethink their business models,\" Taboola CEO Adam Singolda said on Monday.</p><p>Hoxton Ventures co-founder Hussein Kanji said more companies will restructure over the next three years, though some are delaying.</p><p>\"I see a lot of behavior of'putting problems off to solve them in the future ', which doesn't help. Do difficult things, don't delay or postpone unless there is a good reason. Things in the future often don't become easier because of your hopes,\" Kanji said.</p><p>Wedbush's Ives said there could be more failures, adding that tech startups in their early stages, if they are weaker, could be forced to sell or close.</p><p>\"We believe the effects of the past week will have significant ripple effects across the tech sector and Silicon Valley over the next few years,\" Ives said in Sunday's note.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"stock_zhitongcaijing","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The Silicon Valley Bank crisis is far from over! Analysts warn: It may spread to the global technology sector in the next few years</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe Silicon Valley Bank crisis is far from over! Analysts warn: It may spread to the global technology sector in the next few years\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">智通财经</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2023-03-15 14:33</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SIVB\">Silicon Valley Bank</a>Are many around the world<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/V03.SI\">Startups</a>And the pillar of venture capital funds. Its collapse was the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, and its fallout could ripple across the global tech sector in the coming years.</p><p>Zhitong Finance APP learned that Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said on Tuesday: \"Silicon Valley Bank is essentially the godfather of the Silicon Valley banking ecosystem in the tech world over the past few decades. We believe that the negative ripple effects of this historic collapse will have a profound impact on future technology.\" The world has a profound impact. \"</p><p>Silicon Valley Bank's collapse began last week when it said it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. Venture capital firms tell their portfolio companies to withdraw money from banks, while other customers want cash upfront. This actually led to a bank run.</p><p>Silicon Valley Bank had to sell assets such as bonds at a huge loss.</p><p>U.S. regulators shut down Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and took control of its deposits. Regulators then said on Sunday that Silicon Valley Bank depositors could withdraw their money, a move aimed at stopping the crisis from spreading further.</p><p>But investors and analysts say the event has the potential to impact the tech community in several ways, from making it more difficult for startups to raise capital to forcing companies to change their business models.</p><p><b>Tighten your belt</b></p><p>Silicon Valley Bank is crucial to the growth of the tech industry, not only in the United States, but also in places such as Europe and even China.</p><p>The 40-year-old institution, which has strong ties to the tech world, not only provides traditional banking services, but also provides financing to companies that are deemed too risky for traditional banks. Silicon Valley Bank also offers other services such as lines of credit to startups.</p><p>In good times, Silicon Valley Bank is thriving. But over the past year, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to fight inflation, and the tech sector has taken a hit. The funding environment has become tougher for start-ups in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.</p><p>The bankruptcy of Silicon Valley Bank comes amid tough times for start-up investors.</p><p>\"The Silicon Valley Bank bankruptcy was the last thing we wanted and completely surprised us,\" said Ben Harburg, managing partner at Beijing-based venture capital fund MSA Capital.</p><p>Startups have had to tighten their belts, and tech giants have laid off tens of thousands of employees to cut costs.</p><p>In such an environment, Silicon Valley Bank has played a key role in providing lines of credit or other tools to help startups pay employees or weather difficult times.</p><p>\"Silicon Valley Bank not only provides payroll services, loans to founders, but also lines of credit. Many of these companies are already having trouble raising equity, and they are looking to use these channels to expand their business and extend the time they burn money beyond what we expect. After the recession,\" Matt Higgins, CEO of RSE Ventures, said on Tuesday.</p><p>\"Overnight, those channels disappear, and no other lender will come to fill those gaps.\"</p><p><b>Changing business models</b></p><p>The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank could also turn startups' attention to profitability and be more disciplined when it comes to spending.</p><p>\"Companies will have to rethink their business models,\" Taboola CEO Adam Singolda said on Monday.</p><p>Hoxton Ventures co-founder Hussein Kanji said more companies will restructure over the next three years, though some are delaying.</p><p>\"I see a lot of behavior of'putting problems off to solve them in the future ', which doesn't help. Do difficult things, don't delay or postpone unless there is a good reason. Things in the future often don't become easier because of your hopes,\" Kanji said.</p><p>Wedbush's Ives said there could be more failures, adding that tech startups in their early stages, if they are weaker, could be forced to sell or close.</p><p>\"We believe the effects of the past week will have significant ripple effects across the tech sector and Silicon Valley over the next few years,\" Ives said in Sunday's note.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/892116.html\">智通财经</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7da52addfd52fb216bcf87283f43750","relate_stocks":{"BK4589":"SVB概念","LU1861220207.SGD":"Blackrock FinTech A2 SGD-H","BK4211":"区域性银行","LU0390134368.USD":"FRANKLIN GLOBAL GROWTH \"A\" (USD) ACC","BK4588":"碎股","BK4585":"ETF&股票定投概念","LU1861217088.USD":"贝莱德金融科技A2"},"source_url":"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/892116.html","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2319789861","content_text":"硅谷银行是世界各地许多创业公司和风险投资基金的支柱。它的倒闭是2008年金融危机以来最大的银行倒闭事件，其影响可能会在未来几年波及全球科技领域。智通财经APP获悉，Wedbush Securities分析师Dan Ives周二表示:“硅谷银行本质上是过去几十年科技界硅谷银行业生态系统的教父，我们认为，这一历史性崩溃的负面连锁反应将对未来的科技界产生深远影响。”硅谷银行的崩溃始于上周，当时它表示需要筹集22.5亿美元来支撑其资产负债表。风险投资公司告诉他们的投资组合公司从银行提款，而其他客户则希望提前拿出现金。这实际上导致了银行挤兑。硅谷银行不得不以巨额亏损出售债券等资产。美国监管机构上周五关闭了硅谷银行，并控制了其存款。监管机构随后在周日表示，硅谷银行的储户可以取出他们的资金，此举旨在阻止危机进一步蔓延。但投资者和分析师表示，这一事件有可能在几个方面影响科技界，从加大创业公司筹集资金的难度，到迫使公司改变他们的商业模式。勒紧裤腰带硅谷银行对科技行业的发展至关重要，不仅在美国，在欧洲甚至中国等地也是如此。这家拥有40年历史的机构与科技界有着密切联系，它不仅提供传统银行服务，还为那些被认为对传统银行来说风险太大的公司提供融资。硅谷银行还为创业公司提供信贷额度等其他服务。在光景好的时候，硅谷银行蓬勃发展。但在过去一年里，美联储提高了利率以对抗通胀，科技行业也遭受打击。对于美国、欧洲和其他地区的初创企业来说，融资环境变得更加艰难。硅谷银行破产之际，初创企业投资者正处于艰难时期。“硅谷银行破产事件是我们最不想看到的，完全出乎我们的意料，”总部位于北京的风险投资基金MSA Capital的执行合伙人Ben Harburg表示。创业公司不得不勒紧裤腰带，而科技巨头为了削减成本已经裁掉了数万名员工。在这样的环境下，硅谷银行在提供信贷额度或其他工具方面发挥了关键作用，帮助初创公司支付员工工资或度过困难时期。“硅谷银行不仅提供工资服务，为创始人提供贷款，而且还提供信贷额度。很多这样的公司在筹集股本方面已经遇到了困难，它们指望通过这些渠道来拓展业务，把烧钱的时间延长到我们预料中的经济衰退之后。”RSE Ventures首席执行官Matt Higgins周二表示。“一夜之间，这些渠道就消失了，没有另一家贷款机构会来填补这些空缺。”改变商业模式硅谷银行的崩溃也可能会让初创公司的注意力转向盈利，并在支出方面更加自律。Taboola首席执行官Adam Singolda周一表示:“公司将不得不重新思考他们的业务模式。”Hoxton Ventures联合创始人Hussein Kanji表示，未来三年将有更多公司进行重组，不过有些公司正在推迟。“我看到很多‘把问题拖到将来解决’的行为，这并没有什么帮助。做困难的事情，不要拖延或推迟，除非有很好的理由。未来的事情往往不会因为你的希望而变得更容易，”Kanji表示。Wedbush的Ives 表示，可能还会有更多的公司倒闭，并补充说，处于早期阶段的科技初创公司，如果实力较弱，可能会被迫出售或关闭。Ives 在周日的报告中表示:“我们认为，过去一周的影响将在未来几年对整个科技领域和硅谷产生重大的连锁反应。”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SIVB":1}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1251,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":9988168381,"gmtCreate":1666697886643,"gmtModify":1676537791693,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$[微笑]","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/3cb8fcd45ec7999c90e5c08d0a7acb72","width":"1080","height":"2531"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":14,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9988168381","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":689,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9092479010,"gmtCreate":1644719988835,"gmtModify":1676533955999,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/AMC\">$AMC院线(AMC)$</a>good","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/AMC\">$AMC院线(AMC)$</a>good","text":"$AMC院线(AMC)$good","images":[{"img":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/eaff82cbf0fc91519f88bbc163050c36","width":"1080","height":"2119"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9092479010","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":933,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9984237630,"gmtCreate":1667641716620,"gmtModify":1676537948027,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a><v-v data-views=\"1\"></v-v>","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a><v-v data-views=\"1\"></v-v>","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9984237630","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":593,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9923768694,"gmtCreate":1670913297918,"gmtModify":1676538459043,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"🥰🥰","listText":"🥰🥰","text":"🥰🥰","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9923768694","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1786,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9981870363,"gmtCreate":1666484591252,"gmtModify":1676537759773,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍","listText":"👍","text":"👍","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9981870363","repostId":"1193170163","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1193170163","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1666399580,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1193170163?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-10-22 08:46","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Fed officials release \"doves\": It's time to start thinking about slowing down rate hike","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1193170163","media":"华尔街见闻","summary":"美联储可能考虑暗示减少12月加息幅度。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Author: Li Dan</p><p>After the well-informed reporter Nick Timiraos, known as the \"New Federal Reserve News Agency\", let out the news, indeed, some Fed officials issued dovish calls to slow down rate hike.</p><p>On Friday, 21st Eastern Time, a dovish Fed official and San Francisco Fed President Daly, who has voting rights at the FOMC meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee in 2024, said that the Fed should avoid plunging the U.S. economy into an \"active downturn\" because rate hike is too aggressive. Now it's time to start talking about slowing down rate hike. Daly says:</p><p>\"We may think we need to increase (interest rates) by another 75 basis points, and the market must have priced it that way. However, I really suggest that you don't think it will always be (plus) 75 (basis points).\" The economic outlook released after the Fed announced the rate hike in September shows that most Fed policymakers expect that to bring inflation back to the Fed's target of 2%, interest rates will need to rise to the range of 4.5% to 5% through rate hike next year.</p><p>Daly commented on Friday that the above forecast range is still \"reasonable\" and reiterated her forecast after the core CPI growth rate in the United States exceeded expectations in September, that is, the interest rate is expected to reach 4.5% to 5% next year. Daly said recent Fed forecasts show interest rates will rise to as high as 5% next year and then pause, which she believes is still \"a good indication of where the situation is headed.\"</p><p>\"We will see that U.S. GDP growth will be below trend next year, and monetary tightening will bring policy rates to 4.5% to 5% next year.\" Daly explained that the Fed maintained interest rates after the rate hike because interest rates must be kept at a tight level so that price stability can be fully restored. At the same time, she pointed out that when interest rates approach a neutral level that neither stimulates nor inhibits economic activity, the Fed is entering the second phase of monetary tightening, at which point the Fed should be \"thoughtful\" and \"very data-dependent.\"</p><p>Daly believes that it is necessary for the Federal Reserve to reduce the extent of rate hike, not by 75 basis points in rate hike all the time, but by slowing down, such as 50 or 25 basis points in rate hike, which is easier to manage. However, she did not explain when it should be done.</p><p>Daly said, \"We have to make sure that we are doing everything we can not tighten too much, we can't pull too fast and say we're done,\" because of a variety of negative factors such as the Russia-Ukraine war, the slowdown in Europe and continued monetary tightening by global central banks. It could affect the U.S. economy and ultimately how high interest rates need to rise.</p><p>Before Daly's speech, earlier this Friday, Timiraos, known as the \"New Federal Reserve News Agency\", issued a document saying that the Federal Reserve may consider hinting at a reduction in the December rate hike.</p><p>Timiraos noted that there are currently divisions within the Fed, with some wanting to slow down the pace of rate hike and others worried that inflation is not falling. The Fed now hopes to reduce its rate hike without triggering a surge in the market. One possible solution would have been for Fed officials to approve a 50 basis point rate hike in December while forecasting to raise interest rates slightly higher in 2023 than forecasted last month.</p><p>Also on Friday, New York Fed President Williams, who is the third in command of the Federal Reserve and has permanent voting rights at FOMC meetings during his term of office, did not comment on monetary policy in his speech. Instead, he emphasized the tight supply situation in the labor market, saying that \"in the current environment, it is challenging to fill job vacancies, and many (employers) struggle to recruit people, especially in entry-level engineering, nursing and manufacturing positions.\"</p><p>Also on Friday, an obviously hawkish Fed official and St. Louis Fed President Bullard, who has voting rights at this year's FOMC meeting, said that the U.S. labor market is \"extremely strong\", which provides the Fed with room for rate hike to curb inflation., can bring inflation back to 2% relatively quickly.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"live_wallstreetcn","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed officials release \"doves\": It's time to start thinking about slowing down rate hike</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed officials release \"doves\": It's time to start thinking about slowing down rate hike\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">华尔街见闻</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2022-10-22 08:46</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Author: Li Dan</p><p>After the well-informed reporter Nick Timiraos, known as the \"New Federal Reserve News Agency\", let out the news, indeed, some Fed officials issued dovish calls to slow down rate hike.</p><p>On Friday, 21st Eastern Time, a dovish Fed official and San Francisco Fed President Daly, who has voting rights at the FOMC meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee in 2024, said that the Fed should avoid plunging the U.S. economy into an \"active downturn\" because rate hike is too aggressive. Now it's time to start talking about slowing down rate hike. Daly says:</p><p>\"We may think we need to increase (interest rates) by another 75 basis points, and the market must have priced it that way. However, I really suggest that you don't think it will always be (plus) 75 (basis points).\" The economic outlook released after the Fed announced the rate hike in September shows that most Fed policymakers expect that to bring inflation back to the Fed's target of 2%, interest rates will need to rise to the range of 4.5% to 5% through rate hike next year.</p><p>Daly commented on Friday that the above forecast range is still \"reasonable\" and reiterated her forecast after the core CPI growth rate in the United States exceeded expectations in September, that is, the interest rate is expected to reach 4.5% to 5% next year. Daly said recent Fed forecasts show interest rates will rise to as high as 5% next year and then pause, which she believes is still \"a good indication of where the situation is headed.\"</p><p>\"We will see that U.S. GDP growth will be below trend next year, and monetary tightening will bring policy rates to 4.5% to 5% next year.\" Daly explained that the Fed maintained interest rates after the rate hike because interest rates must be kept at a tight level so that price stability can be fully restored. At the same time, she pointed out that when interest rates approach a neutral level that neither stimulates nor inhibits economic activity, the Fed is entering the second phase of monetary tightening, at which point the Fed should be \"thoughtful\" and \"very data-dependent.\"</p><p>Daly believes that it is necessary for the Federal Reserve to reduce the extent of rate hike, not by 75 basis points in rate hike all the time, but by slowing down, such as 50 or 25 basis points in rate hike, which is easier to manage. However, she did not explain when it should be done.</p><p>Daly said, \"We have to make sure that we are doing everything we can not tighten too much, we can't pull too fast and say we're done,\" because of a variety of negative factors such as the Russia-Ukraine war, the slowdown in Europe and continued monetary tightening by global central banks. It could affect the U.S. economy and ultimately how high interest rates need to rise.</p><p>Before Daly's speech, earlier this Friday, Timiraos, known as the \"New Federal Reserve News Agency\", issued a document saying that the Federal Reserve may consider hinting at a reduction in the December rate hike.</p><p>Timiraos noted that there are currently divisions within the Fed, with some wanting to slow down the pace of rate hike and others worried that inflation is not falling. The Fed now hopes to reduce its rate hike without triggering a surge in the market. One possible solution would have been for Fed officials to approve a 50 basis point rate hike in December while forecasting to raise interest rates slightly higher in 2023 than forecasted last month.</p><p>Also on Friday, New York Fed President Williams, who is the third in command of the Federal Reserve and has permanent voting rights at FOMC meetings during his term of office, did not comment on monetary policy in his speech. Instead, he emphasized the tight supply situation in the labor market, saying that \"in the current environment, it is challenging to fill job vacancies, and many (employers) struggle to recruit people, especially in entry-level engineering, nursing and manufacturing positions.\"</p><p>Also on Friday, an obviously hawkish Fed official and St. Louis Fed President Bullard, who has voting rights at this year's FOMC meeting, said that the U.S. labor market is \"extremely strong\", which provides the Fed with room for rate hike to curb inflation., can bring inflation back to 2% relatively quickly.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3672976\">华尔街见闻</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f09c44f289c2f0d40610768fe6661fab","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3672976","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/cc96873d3d23ee6ac10685520df9c100","article_id":"1193170163","content_text":"作者：李丹在消息灵通记者——有“新美联储通讯社”之称的Nick Timiraos放风后，果然有美联储官员发出放缓加息的鸽派呼声。美东时间21日周五，鸽派倾向的美联储官员、2024年拥有货币政策委员会FOMC会议投票权的旧金山联储主席戴利表示，美联储应该避免因为加息太激进而让美国经济陷入“主动低迷”，现在是时候开始谈论放慢加息的速度了。戴利说：“我们可能自己觉得要再加（息）75个基点，市场肯定已经这么定价。可是，我真的建议大家，不要认为永远都是（加）75（个基点）。”9月美联储宣布加息后公布的经济展望显示，大部分联储决策者预计，要让通胀回落到联储目标2%，明年需要通过加息让利率升至4.5%到5%的范围。戴利周五评价，上述预测范围依然是“合理的”，并重申她在美国9月核心CPI增速超预期创新高后提出的预测，即明年利率有望达到4.5%至5%。戴利说，近期美联储的预测显示，明年利率将升至高达5%，然后暂停上升，她认为，这仍然“很好地表明了形势的发展方向。”“我们会看到，明年美国的GDP增速将低于趋势水平，货币紧缩会让政策利率明年达到4.5%至5%。”戴利解释说，美联储加息后维持利率水平是因为，必须让利率保持在紧缩的水平，那样可以充分恢复价格稳定。同时她指出，当利率接近既不刺激也不抑制经济活动的中性水平时，美联储就在进入货币紧缩的第二阶段，到这个阶段，联储应该“深思熟虑”并且“非常依赖数据”。戴利认为，美联储有必要降低加息的幅度，不会一直加息75个基点，而是要减速，比如降到加息50个或者25个基点，那样更容易管理，不过，她没有说明应在何时那么做。戴利说，“必须确保我们正在竭尽全力不过度紧缩，我们不能拉得太快，然后说我们已经大功告成”，因为俄乌战争、欧洲经济放缓和全球央行持续收紧货币等多种负面因素可能影响美国经济，并最终影响利率需要升到多高的水平。戴利讲话前，本周五稍早，有“新美联储通讯社”之称的Timiraos发文称，美联储可能考虑暗示缩小12月加息幅度。Timiraos指出，美联储内部目前存在分歧，一些人希望放慢加息步伐，另一些人则担心通胀没有下降。美联储目前希望在不引发市场大涨的情况下，缩减加息幅度。一个可能的解决方案是，美联储官员在12月批准加息50个基点，同时预测在2023年将利率提高到比上个月预测的稍高水平。同在周五，美联储三把手、任内永久拥有FOMC会议投票权的纽约联储主席威廉姆斯在讲话中并未置评货币政策，而是强调劳动力市场供应紧张的形势，称“在当前的环境下，填补职位空缺有挑战性，很多（雇主）难以招到人手，特别是在入门级的工程、护理和制造业职位”。也是在周五，明显偏鹰派倾向的美联储官员、今年拥有FOMC会议投票权的圣路易联储主席布拉德说，美国的劳动力市场“极为强劲”，这为美联储提供了为遏制通胀而加息的空间，能相对较快地让通胀回落到2%。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":591,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9036432621,"gmtCreate":1647174930663,"gmtModify":1676534200436,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/HST.SI\">$Lion-OCBC Sec HSTECH S$(HST.SI)$</a>...","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/HST.SI\">$Lion-OCBC Sec HSTECH S$(HST.SI)$</a>...","text":"$Lion-OCBC Sec HSTECH S$(HST.SI)$...","images":[{"img":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/7323a50b1ba8189787b1594d5a557e92","width":"1080","height":"2032"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9036432621","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":404,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9940835931,"gmtCreate":1677803200224,"gmtModify":1677803203774,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$ &nbsp;</a>[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$ &nbsp;</a>[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$ [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/4256f7a2c85a780629b509e72f48dacb","width":"1080","height":"2182"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9940835931","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":310,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9961368106,"gmtCreate":1668841034806,"gmtModify":1676538121047,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9961368106","repostId":"1189870250","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":470,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9984222249,"gmtCreate":1667657792281,"gmtModify":1676537949268,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>🏄‍♀️","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>🏄‍♀️","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$🏄‍♀️","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/48ac1942d9a9ea22329f69c44a8e052f","width":"1080","height":"2073"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9984222249","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":402,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9913052891,"gmtCreate":1663891290613,"gmtModify":1676537356285,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>、","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>、","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$、","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/492886a3cb54c1c8ff555d811fa916e2","width":"1080","height":"1920"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9913052891","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1040,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9086271090,"gmtCreate":1650465594714,"gmtModify":1676534730222,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"...","listText":"...","text":"...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9086271090","repostId":"1119295896","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1119295896","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"为用户提供金融资讯、行情、数据，旨在帮助投资者理解世界，做投资决策。","home_visible":1,"media_name":"老虎资讯综合","id":"102","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1650464997,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1119295896?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-04-20 22:29","market":"other","language":"zh","title":"U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop in more than a year","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1119295896","media":"老虎资讯综合","summary":"汽油需求回升至每年这个时候的“平均水平”，表明需求尚未明显下降。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced that U.S. EIA crude oil inventories for the week ending April 15 (10,000 barrels):<b>-802，</b>The decline was the largest since the week of January 22, 2021. Expected: 247.1, previous value: 938.2.</p><p>EIA Strategic Petroleum Reserve inventories in the United States for the week to April 15 (10,000 barrels):<b>-470.1，</b>Previous value:-389.9.</p><p>EIA report: Commercial crude oil inventories excluding strategic reserves decreased by 8.02 million barrels to 413.7 million barrels, a decrease of 1.9%.</p><p>Domestic crude oil production in the United States increased by 100,000 barrels last week to 11.9 million barrels per day.</p><p>U.S. crude oil exports increased by 2.09 million barrels per day last week to 4.27 million barrels per day.</p><p>Financial Blog Zero Hedge Comments on U.S. EIA crude oil inventories for the week to April 15: After a sharp increase in the previous week, U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop since January 2021. Gasoline demand has picked up to its \"average\" for this time of year, suggesting that demand has not yet declined significantly. In addition, U.S. crude oil production remained flat at a two-year high. WTI crude oil was hovering around $102 before the data was released, and it was sharply higher after the data was released.</p><p></body></html></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop in more than a year</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop in more than a year\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/102\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">老虎资讯综合 </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2022-04-20 22:29</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced that U.S. EIA crude oil inventories for the week ending April 15 (10,000 barrels):<b>-802，</b>The decline was the largest since the week of January 22, 2021. Expected: 247.1, previous value: 938.2.</p><p>EIA Strategic Petroleum Reserve inventories in the United States for the week to April 15 (10,000 barrels):<b>-470.1，</b>Previous value:-389.9.</p><p>EIA report: Commercial crude oil inventories excluding strategic reserves decreased by 8.02 million barrels to 413.7 million barrels, a decrease of 1.9%.</p><p>Domestic crude oil production in the United States increased by 100,000 barrels last week to 11.9 million barrels per day.</p><p>U.S. crude oil exports increased by 2.09 million barrels per day last week to 4.27 million barrels per day.</p><p>Financial Blog Zero Hedge Comments on U.S. EIA crude oil inventories for the week to April 15: After a sharp increase in the previous week, U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than 8 million barrels last week, the largest drop since January 2021. Gasoline demand has picked up to its \"average\" for this time of year, suggesting that demand has not yet declined significantly. In addition, U.S. crude oil production remained flat at a two-year high. WTI crude oil was hovering around $102 before the data was released, and it was sharply higher after the data was released.</p><p></body></html></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1d60a2dcd6ade78c11696b80e541ad68","relate_stocks":{"USO":"美国原油ETF"},"source_url":"","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1119295896","content_text":"美国能源信息署（EIA）公布，美国至4月15日当周EIA原油库存（万桶）：-802，降幅录得2021年1月22日当周以来最大。预期：247.1，前值：938.2。美国至4月15日当周EIA战略石油储备库存（万桶）：-470.1，前值：-389.9。EIA报告：除却战略储备的商业原油库存减少802万桶至4.137亿桶，减少1.9%。上周美国国内原油产量增加10万桶至1190万桶/日。美国上周原油出口增加209万桶/日至427万桶/日。金融博客零对冲评美国至4月15日当周EIA原油库存：美国原油库存在前一周大幅增加后，上周大降超800万桶，创2021年1月以来最大跌幅。汽油需求回升至每年这个时候的“平均水平”，表明需求尚未明显下降。另外，美国原油产量持平在2年高位。数据公布前WTI原油徘徊在102美元附近，数据公布后大幅走高。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"USO":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":551,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9003685976,"gmtCreate":1640962515708,"gmtModify":1676533559012,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/BB\">$黑莓(BB)$</a> good lucky","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/BB\">$黑莓(BB)$</a> good lucky","text":"$黑莓(BB)$ good lucky","images":[{"img":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/343b7e97bc0bf0080778505852c0991f","width":"1080","height":"2778"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9003685976","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1049,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":185826724065424,"gmtCreate":1686407272121,"gmtModify":1686407277640,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","text":"👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/185826724065424","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2803,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9952659957,"gmtCreate":1674700662180,"gmtModify":1676538953878,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"😁","listText":"😁","text":"😁","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9952659957","repostId":"1119235871","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1119235871","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"追踪全球财经热点，精选影响您财富的资讯，投资理财必备神器！","home_visible":1,"media_name":"华尔街见闻","id":"1084101182","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/66809d1f5c2e43e2bdf15820c6d6897e"},"pubTimestamp":1674699118,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1119235871?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-01-26 10:11","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Musk \"jumped the ticket\" again! Cybertruck expected to start production this summer, mass production in 2024","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1119235871","media":"华尔街见闻","summary":"此前马斯克的承诺是在2023年开始进入量产。这项业务被外界视为特斯拉未来增长的关键。特斯拉皮卡Cybertruck量产时间又双叒推迟了。在当地时间周三的Q4财报电话会上，马斯克确认Cybert","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Musk's previous promise was to start mass production in 2023. This business is regarded by the outside world as the key to Tesla's future growth. The mass production time of Tesla pickup truck Cybertruck has been delayed again.</p><p>At the Q4 earnings conference call on Wednesday local time, Musk confirmed that Cybertruck will start production sometime this summer, but the full mass production time will be postponed to 2024:</p><p>Getting into production is always very slow, so I wouldn't put a lot of money into putting it in production. The question is when mass production will begin, and that is next year. To appease investors, Tesla disclosed on Wednesday that the company has begun installing the production equipment needed for Cybertruc assembly, including castings for the production of electric pickup truck bodies. Mass production will take place at the Gigafactory factory in Texas. The company also said that it is developing a new vehicle platform, and more details will be announced in March.</p><p><b>Cybertruck is regarded by the outside world as the key to Tesla's future growth.</b>The company stopped accepting orders for Cybertruck outside North America last May. Musk said at the time that Tesla's first orders for the Cybertruck exceeded what the company could complete within three years of starting production.</p><p>However, the production time of Cybertruck has been delayed several times: the prototype was released in 2019, and mass production was originally scheduled to begin in 2021, but was later postponed to the end of 2022 due to epidemic disruption. The company stated in early November last year that its latest goal is to start mass production of the electric pickup truck Cybertruck in 2023, and then gradually increase production, beginning mass production at the end of 2023.</p><p>In the lucrative pickup truck business, Tesla currently lags behind Ford Motor, which successfully beat Tesla in May last year and delivered its first electric pickup truck, the F-150 Lightning, to users.</p><p>Ford released the F-150 Lightning pure electric pickup truck in 2021, which is a derivative version of the Ford F-150. Ford now plans to increase annual production capacity of the F-150 Lightning from 40,000 to 150,000 units this year.</p><p>Edmunds analyst Jessica Cawell warned that Tesla currently needs to speed up Cybertruck production to preempt the electric pickup truck market that will be very crowded in the future:</p><p>With the F-150 Lightning and GMC Hummer EV delivered to users one after another, the Cybertruck is almost like old news.</body></html></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Musk \"jumped the ticket\" again! Cybertruck expected to start production this summer, mass production in 2024</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMusk \"jumped the ticket\" again! Cybertruck expected to start production this summer, mass production in 2024\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1084101182\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/66809d1f5c2e43e2bdf15820c6d6897e);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">华尔街见闻 </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2023-01-26 10:11</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Musk's previous promise was to start mass production in 2023. This business is regarded by the outside world as the key to Tesla's future growth. The mass production time of Tesla pickup truck Cybertruck has been delayed again.</p><p>At the Q4 earnings conference call on Wednesday local time, Musk confirmed that Cybertruck will start production sometime this summer, but the full mass production time will be postponed to 2024:</p><p>Getting into production is always very slow, so I wouldn't put a lot of money into putting it in production. The question is when mass production will begin, and that is next year. To appease investors, Tesla disclosed on Wednesday that the company has begun installing the production equipment needed for Cybertruc assembly, including castings for the production of electric pickup truck bodies. Mass production will take place at the Gigafactory factory in Texas. The company also said that it is developing a new vehicle platform, and more details will be announced in March.</p><p><b>Cybertruck is regarded by the outside world as the key to Tesla's future growth.</b>The company stopped accepting orders for Cybertruck outside North America last May. Musk said at the time that Tesla's first orders for the Cybertruck exceeded what the company could complete within three years of starting production.</p><p>However, the production time of Cybertruck has been delayed several times: the prototype was released in 2019, and mass production was originally scheduled to begin in 2021, but was later postponed to the end of 2022 due to epidemic disruption. The company stated in early November last year that its latest goal is to start mass production of the electric pickup truck Cybertruck in 2023, and then gradually increase production, beginning mass production at the end of 2023.</p><p>In the lucrative pickup truck business, Tesla currently lags behind Ford Motor, which successfully beat Tesla in May last year and delivered its first electric pickup truck, the F-150 Lightning, to users.</p><p>Ford released the F-150 Lightning pure electric pickup truck in 2021, which is a derivative version of the Ford F-150. Ford now plans to increase annual production capacity of the F-150 Lightning from 40,000 to 150,000 units this year.</p><p>Edmunds analyst Jessica Cawell warned that Tesla currently needs to speed up Cybertruck production to preempt the electric pickup truck market that will be very crowded in the future:</p><p>With the F-150 Lightning and GMC Hummer EV delivered to users one after another, the Cybertruck is almost like old news.</body></html></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ff460a3c38d8370653067c1948c76ac","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1119235871","content_text":"此前马斯克的承诺是在2023年开始进入量产。这项业务被外界视为特斯拉未来增长的关键。特斯拉皮卡Cybertruck量产时间又双叒推迟了。在当地时间周三的Q4财报电话会上，马斯克确认Cybertruck将于今年夏季某个时间开始生产，但全面量产时间将延后至2024年：投产总是非常缓慢的，所以我不会把太多资金放在投产上。问题是什么时候开始量产，那就是明年。为了安抚投资者，特斯拉周三披露，公司已经开始安装Cybertruc 组装所需的生产设备，包括生产电动皮卡车身的铸件，量产将在德州Gigafactory工厂进行。公司同时表示，正在开发一个新的车辆平台，更多细节将于3月份公布。Cybertruck被外界视为特斯拉未来增长的关键。公司已于去年5月停止接受北美以外地区的Cybertruck订单。马斯克当时表示，特斯拉第一批Cybertruck的订单超过了公司在开始生产后三年内可能完成的数量。但Cybertruck的投产时间已被多次推迟：原型车于2019年发布，最初定于2021年开始大规模生产，后因疫情干扰延后至2022年底。公司在去年11月初时表示，最新目标是在2023年开始大规模生产电动皮卡Cybertruck，产量随后逐步提高，在2023年底开始进入量产。在利润丰厚的皮卡业务上，特斯拉目前落后于福特汽车，后者已于去年5月成功抢在特斯拉之前，向用户交付了首台电动皮卡F-150 Lightning。福特汽车在2021发布了F-150 Lightning纯电皮卡，是福特F-150的衍生版本。福特目前计划今年将F-150 Lightning的年生产能力从4万辆提高至15万辆。Edmunds分析师Jessica Cawell警告，特斯拉目前需要加快Cybertruck生产进度，以抢先占领未来将非常拥挤的电动皮卡市场：随着F-150 Lightning、GMC Hummer EV先后交付用户，Cybertruck 几乎像是旧闻。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":236,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9951945104,"gmtCreate":1673391514508,"gmtModify":1676538828475,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9951945104","repostId":"1180458111","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1180458111","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"为用户提供金融资讯、行情、数据，旨在帮助投资者理解世界，做投资决策。","home_visible":1,"media_name":"老虎资讯综合","id":"102","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1673365354,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1180458111?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-01-10 23:42","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Tesla fell more than 3%, and Chinese-made car sales fell 44.4% month-on-month in December","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1180458111","media":"老虎资讯综合","summary":"周二，特斯拉高开低走，截至发稿跌超3%，此前一度涨2%。消息面上，传特斯拉中国三天内获3万辆汽车订单，官方不予置评。而据乘联会数据，特斯拉12月份中国产汽车销量环比下降44.4%至55,796辆。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>On Tuesday,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla</a>It opened higher and moved lower, falling more than 3% as of press time, after rising 2% before. On the news, it is rumored that Tesla China has received 30,000 car orders within three days, but the official declined to comment. According to data from the Passenger Car Association,<b>Tesla's December sales of Chinese-made vehicles fell 44.4% month-on-month to 55,796 vehicles.</b></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c4bcb006030171c90936ff9346bd5b0\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p></body></html></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Tesla fell more than 3%, and Chinese-made car sales fell 44.4% month-on-month in December</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nTesla fell more than 3%, and Chinese-made car sales fell 44.4% month-on-month in December\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/102\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">老虎资讯综合 </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2023-01-10 23:42</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>On Tuesday,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla</a>It opened higher and moved lower, falling more than 3% as of press time, after rising 2% before. On the news, it is rumored that Tesla China has received 30,000 car orders within three days, but the official declined to comment. According to data from the Passenger Car Association,<b>Tesla's December sales of Chinese-made vehicles fell 44.4% month-on-month to 55,796 vehicles.</b></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c4bcb006030171c90936ff9346bd5b0\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p></body></html></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9e0d9f23e003547a93295253f05b6a55","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1180458111","content_text":"周二，特斯拉高开低走，截至发稿跌超3%，此前一度涨2%。消息面上，传特斯拉中国三天内获3万辆汽车订单，官方不予置评。而据乘联会数据，特斯拉12月份中国产汽车销量环比下降44.4%至55,796辆。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":557,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9988737987,"gmtCreate":1666831403249,"gmtModify":1676537812472,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>😊","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>😊","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$😊","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/42657457c492083b6a878e23dc8e36e7","width":"1080","height":"2523"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9988737987","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":811,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9981377447,"gmtCreate":1666408682490,"gmtModify":1676537753625,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9981377447","repostId":"1196183065","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196183065","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1666407168,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196183065?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-10-22 10:52","market":"fut","language":"zh","title":"The United States may set a cap on Russian oil prices above $60/barrel","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196183065","media":"智通财经网","summary":"高于此前计划的40-60美元/桶。","content":"<p><html><head></head><body>Author: Ma Huomin</p><p>According to reports, U.S. officials may seek to set a price cap on Russian oil exports above $60/barrel, up from the previously planned $40-60/barrel. The higher price cap seems to contradict the main goal of the plan-to deprive Russia of oil revenues, but is consistent with another goal, which is to set a price high enough to cover Russia's production costs to keep it producing.</p><p>Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have said that Russia will not sell oil to countries that support the price cap plan, which industry insiders and even some U.S. allies have criticized as unrealistic. A U.S. Treasury official said it is not unreasonable to expect 80%-90% of Russian oil to continue flowing outside the price cap mechanism. If the country refuses to comply with the price cap, its crude oil and refined oil exports will only decrease by 1-2 million barrels per day, the official said.</p><p>WTI crude oil futures for December closed up $0.54, or 0.64%, at $85.05 a barrel on Friday. Brent crude oil futures for December closed up $1.12, or 1.21%, at $93.50 a barrel.</p><p>Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas futures prices pulled back sharply this week on rapidly increasing domestic supplies, expectations of warm weather in normally cold parts of the country, and broader market concerns over Russia's cuts to gas supplies to Europe fading for a while.</p><p></body></html></p>","source":"highlight_zhitongcaijin","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The United States may set a cap on Russian oil prices above $60/barrel</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe United States may set a cap on Russian oil prices above $60/barrel\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">智通财经网</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2022-10-22 10:52</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body>Author: Ma Huomin</p><p>According to reports, U.S. officials may seek to set a price cap on Russian oil exports above $60/barrel, up from the previously planned $40-60/barrel. The higher price cap seems to contradict the main goal of the plan-to deprive Russia of oil revenues, but is consistent with another goal, which is to set a price high enough to cover Russia's production costs to keep it producing.</p><p>Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have said that Russia will not sell oil to countries that support the price cap plan, which industry insiders and even some U.S. allies have criticized as unrealistic. A U.S. Treasury official said it is not unreasonable to expect 80%-90% of Russian oil to continue flowing outside the price cap mechanism. If the country refuses to comply with the price cap, its crude oil and refined oil exports will only decrease by 1-2 million barrels per day, the official said.</p><p>WTI crude oil futures for December closed up $0.54, or 0.64%, at $85.05 a barrel on Friday. Brent crude oil futures for December closed up $1.12, or 1.21%, at $93.50 a barrel.</p><p>Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas futures prices pulled back sharply this week on rapidly increasing domestic supplies, expectations of warm weather in normally cold parts of the country, and broader market concerns over Russia's cuts to gas supplies to Europe fading for a while.</p><p></body></html></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/809921.html\">智通财经网</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cdc7ca9eb3fdcde7868d42c981e73b12","relate_stocks":{"USO":"美国原油ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/809921.html","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/6ca2dcdccfa2217fb20a0351f4efe814","article_id":"1196183065","content_text":"作者： 马火敏据报道，美国官员可能寻求将俄罗斯石油出口的价格上限设定在60美元/桶以上，高于此前计划的40-60美元/桶。更高的价格上限似乎与该计划的主要目标——剥夺俄罗斯的石油收入相矛盾，但与另一个目标相一致，即设定足够高的价格以覆盖俄罗斯的生产成本，让其继续生产。俄罗斯总统普京和其他俄罗斯官员表示，俄罗斯不会向支持价格上限计划的国家出售石油，业内人士甚至一些美国盟友都批评这一计划不切实际。一位美国财政部官员表示，预计80%-90%的俄罗斯石油将继续在价格上限机制之外流动，这并非不合理。这位官员称，如果该国拒绝遵守价格上限，它的原油和成品油出口只会减少100-200万桶/日。WTI 12月原油期货周五收涨0.54美元，涨幅0.64%，报85.05美元/桶。布伦特12月原油期货收涨1.12美元，涨幅1.21%，报93.50美元/桶。与此同时，美国天然气期货价格本周大幅回落，原因是国内供应迅速增加，预计该国通常寒冷的地区会出现温暖的天气，以及因俄罗斯削减对欧洲的天然气供应而引发的更广泛市场担忧情绪暂时消退。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"USO":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":548,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9983255608,"gmtCreate":1666258404405,"gmtModify":1676537731548,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/AAPL\">$苹果(AAPL)$</a><v-v data-views=\"1\"></v-v>good","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/AAPL\">$苹果(AAPL)$</a><v-v data-views=\"1\"></v-v>good","text":"$苹果(AAPL)$good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9983255608","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":385,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9912026394,"gmtCreate":1664711833018,"gmtModify":1676537497264,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"A","listText":"A","text":"A","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9912026394","repostId":"1100486117","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1100486117","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"追踪海内外最新宏观政策和经济走势，分享来自莫尼塔宏观团队的最新观点。","home_visible":1,"media_name":"钟正生经济分析","id":"70","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86f6d9605fc344e28cd4247a93dcdc2b"},"pubTimestamp":1664674529,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1100486117?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-10-02 09:35","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Rethink the \"Great Stagflation\" in the United States! Also on the enlightenment to the current asset price","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1100486117","media":"钟正生经济分析","summary":"一、高通胀的复杂性。1970-80年代美国高通胀的成因是极为复杂的：首先，财政和货币刺激过度，初步推升通胀；然后，粗暴的价格管制与犹豫的货币政策，未能有效浇灭通胀；再者，以两次石油危机为代表的供给冲击","content":"<p><html><head></head><body><b>1. The complexity of high inflation.</b>The causes of high inflation in the United States from 1970s to 1980s were extremely complicated: first, excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus initially pushed up inflation; Then, rude price control and hesitant monetary policy failed to effectively douse inflation; Furthermore, supply shocks represented by the two oil crises triggered cost-push inflation; Finally, the long-term overshoot inflation rate destabilizes inflation expectations, triggers a wage-price spiral, and deepens the obstinacy of inflation.</p><p><b>Second, the Fed's \"faults\" and \"merits\".</b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve was not resolute enough in tightening for many reasons: first, the Federal Reserve once believed that inflation was a \"non-monetary phenomenon\"; Second, the primary goal of the Federal Reserve at that time was \"full employment\" rather than \"price stability\"; Finally, the Fed's decision-making is also influenced by political factors. After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\", regarded curbing inflation as its own responsibility, strengthened its rate hike and controlled the money supply. Since then, the Federal Reserve has been committed to stabilizing inflation expectations for a long time, reshaping its credibility.</p><p><b>3. \"Soft landing\" and \"hard landing\".</b>From 1970s to 1980s, there were four rounds of economic recessions in the United States, which can be divided into two \"soft landings\" (1970 and 1980) and two \"hard landings\" (1973-75 and 1981-82). The result of the combined effect of high inflation, high interest rates and supply shocks. However, the conditions for achieving a \"soft landing\" are relatively harsh: first, the CPI inflation rate may need to fall in time in the early stage of the recession; Secondly, the Fed's rate hike cannot be too aggressive, and even needs to cut interest rates in time when a recession comes; Finally, if a new supply shock occurs, a \"hard landing\" may be more difficult to avoid.</p><p><b>4. Clues to asset prices.</b>In the 1970s and 1980s, inflation became the vane of the capital market. The U.S. CPI inflation rate has peaked three times in stages, and U.S. stocks have bottomed out in stages. But in this process, the market has a process of understanding and digesting the inflation situation and the logic of monetary policy. Over time, the U.S. bond market has traded less \"recession\" and more \"austerity.\" In the \"Volcker era\" after 1980, monetary policy began to become the key clue of asset prices. After the end of the \"Great Stagflation\", safe-haven assets such as the US dollar still performed positively for a long time.</p><p><b>5. New enlightenment to the present.</b>First, the causes of this round of inflation in the United States have many similarities with those in the 1970s and 1980s, but the overall pressure is more limited; Second, although the Federal Reserve has \"made mistakes\" in this round, it has taken the initiative in fighting inflation; Third, this round of U.S. economic recession is almost inevitable, and there is a risk of a \"hard landing\"; Fourthly, the price trend of this round of major asset classes may be strongly similar to that of 1970s and 1980s:<b>1）</b>U.S. stocks: Inflation is still the core influencing factor, and there will still be adjustment pressure in the future, but the adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may wait for the recession to materialize.<b>2）</b>U.S. debt: Monetary policy is still the core influencing factor, and it may not fall back immediately when the recession materializes. It needs to wait until monetary policy clearly begins to relax.<b>3）</b>US dollar: The \"strong US dollar\" may last for a long time, and the US dollar may require US Treasury yields to fall back.</p><p><i>Risk warning: The U.S. economy is weaker than expected, there are new supply shocks, and non-U.S. financial risks are rising.</i></p><p>Since 2022, the U.S. CPI inflation rate once rose above 9%, real GDP has shrunk for two consecutive quarters, the (quasi-) stagflation characteristics of the economy have become more distinct, and the capital market has also experienced large fluctuations. Since the Jackson Hole meeting in late August, the Federal Reserve has repeatedly mentioned \"historical experience\" on various occasions, indicating that the current economic environment in the United States is very similar to that in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Federal Reserve will also fully learn from the response experience at that time and do something. Something is not done in order to help the United States overcome \"stagflation.\"</p><p>What is the current inflationary pressure in the United States? How will monetary policy respond? Can the U.S. economy still achieve a \"soft landing\"? When will the capital market usher in \"spring\"? In this report, with questions about the present, we review the inflation, monetary policy, economic growth and asset price performance during the \"Great Stagflation\" period in the United States from 1970s to 1980s, and try to understand the logic and laws, with a view to judging the U.S. economy, monetary policy and market trends in the future.</p><p><b>01. The complexity of high inflation</b></p><p><b>The causes of high inflation in the United States from 1970s to 1980s were extremely complicated: first, excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus initially pushed up inflation; Then, rude price control and hesitant monetary policy failed to effectively douse inflation; Furthermore, supply shocks represented by the two oil crises triggered cost-push inflation; Finally, the long-term overshoot inflation rate destabilizes inflation expectations, triggers a wage-price spiral, and deepens the obstinacy of inflation.</b></p><p><b>From 1969 to 1982, the United States fell into a crisis of high inflation. The CPI inflation rate was generally higher than 5%, with the highest reaching 14.8%.</b>The year-on-year growth rate of CPI in the United States has risen rapidly at a rate of more than 3% since 1968. In March 1969, the CPI exceeded 5% year-on-year, and the 13-year era of \"high inflation\" began. From 1969 to 1982, there were three peaks in the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. CPI, with the peaks in January 1970 (6.2%), December 1974 (12.3%) and March 1980 (14.8%). In February 1982, the CPI fell below 5% year-on-year.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0135dfd0a18c15e058312be783380d12\" tg-width=\"1066\" tg-height=\"490\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1965 to 1970, blind fiscal and monetary expansion gave birth to higher inflation.</b>With the end of economic reconstruction after World War II and the rise of European and Asian economies, the economic growth momentum of the United States has weakened, but blind stimulation at the policy level has led to obvious overheating of the economy. From 1965 to 1970, the real GDP growth rate of the United States continued to be higher than the potential growth rate, and the output gap (the difference between real GDP and potential GDP) accounted for as much as 3-6% of potential GDP. In other words, 3-6 percentage points of the U.S. economic growth rate at that time were stimulated by policies. During this period, the natural unemployment rate in the United States was 5.6-5.9%, but the actual unemployment rate basically remained within 4%. At that time, the role of fiscal stimulus was stronger than that of money. The proportion of U.S. federal fiscal expenditure to GDP increased by 3.2 percentage points from 1966 to 68, and the deficit ratio expanded from 0.2% in 1965 to 2.8% in 1968. In 1968, the U.S. government began to worry about fiscal balance. Then President Johnson signed the \"Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968\" in June to supplement fiscal revenue by increasing taxes. The Federal Reserve \"technically cut interest rates\" in August of the same year to hedge against the impact of tax increases, adding to the overheating of the economy.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fb7621fa84eb213f441091515980951c\" tg-width=\"1077\" tg-height=\"426\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1971 to 74, rough price controls turned \"short pain\" into \"long pain\".</b>In August 1971, the Nixon administration imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze. But in fact, the scope of price control continued to expand, and it was not until 1974 that the U.S. government completely canceled its intervention in prices. During this period, except for special circumstances, all price increases of goods and services need to be approved by the government. In mid-1972, the U.S. CPI inflation rate fell below 3%. This price control is regarded as a special case of comprehensive government intervention in prices in peacetime in American economic history, and it is also regarded as a failed attempt. This is because, while the price limit measures curbed the price increase, they also severely dampened the enthusiasm of production enterprises, resulting in insufficient supply of social commodities, and paving the way for the subsequent deterioration of inflation. In 1974, Nixon stepped down due to the Watergate Incident, and the new President Carter came to power, and the price control measures gradually failed. Slightly funny, both the Nixon and Carter administrations tried to control prices through verbal \"exhortation\". For example, when Carter first came to power, he encouraged people to buy \"bargains\": \"Dare to show off to others, choose bargains yourself, and be proud of them\". These admonitions are almost futile in controlling prices. The U.S. CPI inflation rate broke 5% again in April 1973, and has since reached a stage high of 12.3% in December 1974.</p><p><b>A food crisis and two oil crises in 1973 and 1979 demonstrated the destructive power of supply shocks on American prices.</b>In 1973, the grain harvest in the former Soviet Union failed due to bad weather, and then entered the international market to buy a large amount of grain, which triggered the most serious food crisis since World War II. At the end of 1973, the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. food CPI once rose above 20%. From October 1973 to March 1974, the first oil crisis broke out: the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on countries that supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, with the United States bearing the brunt. The average price of crude oil at the World Bank jumped from US $2.7/barrel in September 1973 to US $13/barrel in early 1974, an increase of nearly 500%. From March to September 1974, the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. energy CPI exceeded 30%. From the beginning of 1979 to the beginning of 1980, the second oil crisis broke out: the Islamic Revolution broke out in Iran, and then the \"Iran-Iraq War\" broke out between Iran and Iraq, which led to a sharp drop in global oil production. World Bank international oil prices rose from less than US $15/barrel in December 1978 to more than US $40/barrel in November 1979. In March 1980, the U.S. energy CPI peaked at 47.1% year-on-year, and the U.S. CPI immediately peaked at 14.8% year-on-year.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/368b46087ff151100ed782e7aa94b78d\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"417\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1980, after the headline inflation rate in the United States continued to overshoot, inflation expectations got out of control. With the help of trade unions, a \"wage-price spiral\" gradually formed.</b>After the CPI inflation rate has been higher than 2% or even higher than 5% for many years, American residents have lost their original confidence in prices and inflation expectations have risen. At that time, both the Fed and the market had limited awareness and tracking of inflation expectations. The widely quoted University of Michigan survey and Cleveland Fed model expectations were only born around 1980. The earliest inflation expectation monitoring tool in the United States was The Livingston Survey, which was born in 1946, and summarized inflation forecasts from businesses, governments, banking, and academia. The survey shows that inflation expectations in the United States have gradually increased since 1970, especially after the two oil crises, and inflation expectations have also risen sharply with the headline inflation rate. The reverse impact of inflation expectations on prices is mainly transmitted through wages: workers demand wage increases, and then the spending power of residents and the cost pressure of enterprises rise, which at the same time contributes to price increases, that is, a \"wage-price spiral\" is formed.<b>In particular, in the 1970s, American trade unions were huge, and the transmission of wage demands was relatively smooth:</b>According to the data of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), at that time, trade union members in the United States accounted for nearly 30% of the total employees in the society, and there were as many as 200-400 strikes by more than 1,000 people every year (since 2000, this number has been less than 30 all the year round). From mid-1976 to mid-1978, the CPI inflation rate in the United States fell back to around 5-7%, but the average hourly wage of non-agricultural and non-managerial personnel in the United States increased by 6-8% year-on-year, which continued to be higher than the CPI inflation rate. The stickiness of wage increases prevented inflation from falling further and paved the way for a subsequent rebound in inflation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fa062f9510e45fda47f5e682ec9ba17b\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"457\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1970 to 79, the Federal Reserve's policy response was relatively negative, continuing to \"lag behind the curve\" and failing to effectively curb inflation.</b>Before 1980, U.S. policy interest rates and inflation trends showed strong synchronization, reflecting that the Federal Reserve had been \"lagging behind the curve\" and \"catching up with the curve\" for a long time. In May 1969, the third month after the inflation rate exceeded 5%, the U.S. policy interest rate began to rise significantly and exceeded the inflation rate by more than 3 percentage points. After that, the inflation rate kept rising for about half a year before it began to fall. In the second half of 1973, while the inflation rate in the United States was still rising, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates due to economic pressure, and then the inflation rate accelerated. In 1978, the U.S. policy interest rate was basically the same as the inflation rate, and kept rising step by step. Until December 1978, the monthly federal funds rate rose above 10% and was 1 percentage point higher than the inflation rate, but soon the policy interest rate began to lag behind the inflation rate. Later, when the U.S. policy interest rate was significantly higher than the spot inflation rate, inflation dropped significantly, and the Federal Reserve took the initiative in curbing inflation: after 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker raised interest rates sharply to fight inflation; In mid-1981, the U.S. policy interest rate reached a peak of more than 19%. In October of the same year, the CPI fell both month-on-month and year-on-year; Since then, Federal Funds rate has continued to be 4-9 percentage points higher than the CPI inflation rate, and the inflation rate has continued to fall.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/707eeb51701422548c5e1b935b53479d\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>02. The Federal Reserve's \"faults\" and \"merits\"</b></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve was not resolute enough in tightening due to insufficient understanding of the relationship between inflation and monetary policy, as well as the lack of independence of monetary policy. After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\", regarded curbing inflation as its own responsibility, strengthened its rate hike and controlled the money supply. Since then, the Federal Reserve has been committed to stabilizing inflation expectations for a long time, reshaping its credibility.</b></p><p><b>2.1. Reasons for the Fed's hesitation</b></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve continued to \"lag behind the curve\" for many reasons.</b></p><p><b>First, the Federal Reserve once considered inflation a \"non-monetary phenomenon.\"</b>At that time, the Federal Reserve was divided on the causes of high inflation, and tended to believe that inflation was mainly caused by non-monetary factors, and then monetary policy chose to respond negatively. For example, in 1970, the Federal Reserve led by Burns believed that the power of trade unions triggered cost-push inflation, and then advocated the use of \"income policy\" regulation rather than tightening the money supply. It also fueled the wage and price freeze later imposed by the Nixon administration. In 1974, Burns also believed that \"improper fiscal discipline\" was the main cause of inflation.</p><p><b>Second, the Fed's primary goal at that time was \"full employment\" rather than \"price stability.\"</b>Before the 1970s, Keynesian ideas dominated the logic of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve focused on aggregate demand management and firmly believed in the existence of the Phillips curve (the negative correlation between unemployment rate and inflation). Therefore, the primary goal of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is to achieve \"full employment\", hoping to maintain a low and stable unemployment rate. Then, when the unemployment rate rises, the balance of monetary policy is tilted more towards the job market. When \"stagnation\" and \"inflation\" occurred at the same time, the Federal Reserve once believed that inflation would not continue to worsen. For example, Miller's Federal Reserve in 1978-79 believed that monetary easing would not deepen inflation as long as the unemployment rate was above full employment levels (above 5.5%).</p><p><b>Finally, the Fed's decision-making is also influenced by political factors.</b>Burns, who served as chairman from 1970 to 1978, and Miller, who served from 1978 to 79, were both influenced by the then president and lacked independence, wavering in balancing the relationship between inflation and economic growth. In hindsight, the Fed's tolerance for inflation in the 1970s may be exactly what the rulers wanted to see: on the one hand, the rulers did not want the Fed to undermine economic growth and affect votes by curbing inflation; On the other hand, higher inflation is also regarded as a hidden tax means, because the increase of nominal wages increases the progression of the whole tax system, resulting in a sharp increase in fiscal revenue. Data show that the proportion of personal income tax in GDP in the United States increased significantly during the periods of high inflation in 1969-70, 1974 and 1979-83.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/85870c4ece63c7cae63758bc6db5a828\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2.2. The achievements of the Volcker era</b></p><p><b>After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\" and took curbing inflation as its own responsibility. It firmly conducted rate hike and controlled the money supply. Although it \"created\" an economic recession, it finally defeated inflation.</b>In August, 1979, Volcker became the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He adopted the \"monetary school\" view represented by Friedman. The Federal Reserve led by him made it more clear that monetary policy was the core position of price stability, and incorporated the growth rate of money supply (M1) into the monetary policy goal, followed by a substantial rate hike, which made the Federal Funds rate higher than the CPI inflation rate, so as to achieve the goal of controlling money supply. In March 1980, Volcker carried out an ill-advised but short-lived experiment of credit control (the \"Special Credit Restriction Program\") in order to slow down the rate hike, but then restarted monetary policy tightening, and finally pushed Federal Funds rate to a peak of more than 20% in mid-1981. Although the sharp rate hike brought about the economic recession, it ultimately helped inflation fall.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7ab3004dd4948baa80533fe718adebaf\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"422\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>In addition, in the era of Volcker and Greenspan, the Federal Reserve established a new \"nominal anchor\" to stabilize inflation expectations and reshape the credibility of the Federal Reserve. This is also an important background for U.S. prices to return to long-term stability in the future.</b>In the 1980s, after experiencing the \"great stagflation\", the original expectation of price stability suffered serious damage. Even in the Volcker era, when the Federal Reserve defined its money supply target and firmly raised interest rates, the credibility of monetary policy was still questioned. It is not clear to the public whether the Fed can maintain its focus on inflation for a long time and have the ability to influence medium and long-term price trends. Therefore, Volcker and his next Federal Reserve President Greenspan are more committed to reconstructing stable inflation expectations, making them the \"nominal anchor\" of monetary policy, and ultimately re-establishing the credibility of monetary policy.</p><p><b>This is a complicated and long process: Volcker's experience of defeating inflation was a good starting point, and then the Fed shifted from money supply targeting to \"hidden inflation targeting.\"</b>In practice, the Federal Reserve focuses on the \"growth gap\" and the \"inflation expectation gap\" at the same time. In fact, it sets policy interest rates through the Taylor Rule, pursues stable medium-and long-term inflation targets, and achieves stable economic growth. In terms of inflation expectation management, the Federal Reserve monitors inflation expectations through changes in bond yields, and at the same time strengthens communication with the capital market, which enhances the credibility of monetary policy and the stability of market expectations. The monetary policy framework after the Volcker era achieved long-term results in price stability, creating the later era of Great Moderation (1984-2007).</p><p><b>03. \"Soft landing\" and \"hard landing\"</b></p><p><b>From 1970s to 1980s, there were four rounds of economic recessions in the United States, which were the result of the combined effects of high inflation, high interest rates and supply shocks. High inflation has a direct inhibitory effect on consumption, and drives the Federal Reserve to rate hike and further curb investment. Therefore, the degree of recession depends on the severity of inflation and the response of monetary policy, and the conditions for achieving a \"soft landing\" are relatively harsh.</b></p><p><b>3.1. The three major drivers of economic recession</b></p><p><b>According to the classification of the National Economic Research Bureau (NBER), the U.S. economy experienced four rounds of recessions from 1970s to 1980s:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>The first round was from January to November 1970 (11 months).</b>The real GDP of the United States fell from 3.2% in 1969 to 0.2% in 1970, but the economy hardly shrank. However, the unemployment rate in the United States rose significantly, from 3.5% in December 1969 to 6.1% in December 1970 (a stage high), and remained above 5% for the next 24 months.</p><p></li><li><b>The second round was from December 1973 to March 1975 (16 months).</b>The real GDP of the United States fell off a cliff from 5.6% year-on-year in 1973, and shrank year-on-year for five consecutive quarters, with the deepest quarterly year-on-year contraction reaching 2.3%. The unemployment rate in the United States has been higher than 7% for 31 consecutive months, rising from a low of 4.6% in October 1973 to 9.0% in May 1975, and then declining slowly.</p><p></li><li><b>The third round was from February to July 1980 (6 months).</b>The annualized rate of real GDP in the United States shrank sharply by 8% in the second quarter of 1980, but only by 0.8% year-on-year. During this period, the unemployment rate in the United States rose from 6.3% to 7.8%. In the second half of 1980, the U.S. economy immediately began to recover. In the fourth quarter, GDP rose sharply by 7.7% month-on-month, and the unemployment rate began to fall in August.</p><p></li><li><b>The fourth round was from August 1981 to November 1982 (16 months)</b>。 The real GDP of the United States has shrunk year-on-year for four consecutive quarters, with the deepest contraction of 2.6%. The unemployment rate in the United States began to rebound significantly from a stage low of 7.2% in August 1981, exceeded 8% in November of the same year, reached a peak of 10.8% in November 1982, and then slowly fell back, falling below 8% in February 1984.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93377c7b4f0d061e8d18147cc001a54a\" tg-width=\"1061\" tg-height=\"483\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><b>One of the recession drivers: high inflation.</b>Comparing the economic and inflation trends at that time, the two showed a very close correlation:<b>The nodes at which the U.S. economic recession occurs all correspond to the time when the CPI inflation rate rises or peaks.</b>For example, when the CPI inflation rate peaked in 1970, it happened to be the beginning of the rebound in the unemployment rate and the economic recession; From 1973 to 75, this round of unemployment rate rebounded and the economy was recognized as a recession, both after the CPI inflation rate broke 8%; At the beginning of 1980, when the CPI inflation rate hit a very high level of more than 14%, the unemployment rate rebounded significantly and the economy began to decline.<b>If the inflation rate is still rising when the recession occurs, the U.S. economy will continue to decline; Only after the inflation rate dropped did the U.S. economy begin to recover.</b>For example, in late 1970, the U.S. economy did not begin to recover until inflation fell below 5%; In 1975, when the inflation rate peaked and fell for a quarter, the U.S. GDP growth rate turned positive quarter-on-quarter and the unemployment rate began to decline.</p><p><b>The direct impact of inflation on the economy is mainly reflected in consumption.</b>Compared with policy interest rates, the negative correlation between U.S. inflation rate and private consumption growth rate is more obvious. Especially in the 1980s, when the policy interest rate jumped sharply, the inflation rate had already fallen early, and private consumption also began to pick up at that time, indicating that the easing of inflation was obviously helpful to the recovery of consumption.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/157a3ac9e6b19301fad3ca7e2e88c069\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"419\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The second driver of recession: high interest rates.</b>Overall, the cooling effect of the Fed's rate hike on the economy at that time was obvious:<b>When the U.S. economy is overheating, rate hike's cooling effect on the economy can be described as immediate:</b>For example, in mid-1973, the U.S. manufacturing PMI exceeded 60, and the Federal Reserve rate hike quickly cooled the \"overheated\" economy.<b>When the U.S. economy itself is in a downturn or even recession, rate hike has deepened the economic contraction:</b>For example, in mid-1974, after the policy interest rate peaked, the downturn of the U.S. economy accelerated, and the U.S. GDP shrank sharply by 3.7% in the third quarter; From March to April 1980, after the monthly rate of federal funds reached a stage high of more than 17%, U.S. GDP shrank sharply by 8.0% in the second quarter of the same year.<b>On the contrary, interest rate cuts can help the economy recover:</b>In December 1970, when the policy interest rate fell below the inflation rate, the U.S. economy immediately recovered; In early 1975, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and kept the policy rate nearly 5 percentage points below the inflation rate. The U.S. economy began to recover in the second quarter of 1975.<b>However, premature and immature interest rate cuts when inflation is not effectively controlled may end in \"repeated inflation + higher rate hike\", thus leading to a greater degree of recession or delaying the recovery that should have started earlier:</b>At the beginning of 1974, the Federal Reserve chose to cut interest rates, but as inflation continued to rise and the negative impact on the economy continued, the U.S. economy was still in recession; In May 1980, the monthly rate of federal funds had dropped to about 11% (supplemented by credit controls). In August, the U.S. economy temporarily left the recession range. However, since inflation repeatedly forced the Federal Reserve to choose greater rate hike, the U.S. economy fell into a new round of deeper recession in 1981.</p><p><b>The impact of interest rates on the economy is mainly reflected in investment.</b>Compared with inflation, the negative correlation between policy interest rate and private investment (lagging by one year) is more obvious. In the second half of 1980, the Federal Reserve briefly cut interest rates, and a year later, private investment in the United States rebounded significantly; In 1981, when the Federal Reserve resumed its sharp rate hike, the growth rate of private investment declined significantly a year later, but inflation also dropped significantly during this period, indicating that private investment is more sensitive to interest rate trends.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d940f253f486815be3e542cd6e173587\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The third driver of recession: supply shocks.</b>The food and oil crises of 1973 and 1979 caused many drags on U.S. economic growth, thus triggering economic recessions.<b>First,</b>As mentioned above, supply shocks have raised the CPI inflation rate, and rising consumer prices have suppressed aggregate demand. In particular,<b>Supply shocks have triggered higher energy consumption costs and crowded out other consumption.</b>After 1974, the proportion of consumption of energy products and services in private consumption in the United States increased from about 6% before the shock to 7-9%, and did not drop significantly until after 1985.<b>Second, the supply shock has increased the cost of U.S. oil imports, causing GDP to \"evaporate\".</b>The first oil crisis caused oil prices to rise by about $10/barrel. In 1974, the net oil imports of the United States were about 6 million barrels per day. We estimate that rising oil prices will drag down U.S. GDP by approximately US $21.9 billion by increasing net import costs, dragging down nominal GDP growth by 1.4 percentage points; Similarly, after the second oil crisis, the rising cost of net oil imports dragged down the nominal growth rate of US GDP in 1979 by 2.8 percentage points.<b>Third, the supply shock caused a shortage of raw materials, weakening the industrial production capacity of the United States.</b>After two rounds of supply shocks in the 1970s, the total industrial production index of the United States fell sharply year-on-year. Comparing the two shocks, it can be found that during the first shock, the CPI inflation rate in the United States was lower, while the PPI inflation rate was higher, and then the industrial production was hit deeper, which also reflected that the impact of supply shocks on economic output was more important. It is mainly manifested on the \"supply side\".</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bbaa840667be8378540c48fd32436e79\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"439\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3.2. What does the degree of recession depend on</b></p><p><b>For the above four rounds of recession, according to the degree of GDP contraction and the duration of the recession, they can be divided into two \"soft landings\" (1970 and 1980) and two \"hard landings\" (1973-75 and 1981-82).</b></p><p><ul><li><b>1970 \"soft landing\"</b>The background is that inflationary pressures are relatively limited. At that time, the highest CPI inflation rate was only 6.2%, and then the Federal Reserve did not make a substantial rate hike, and the highest policy interest rate was only about 9%. Inflation is limited. On the one hand, it has not suffered from supply shocks, and on the other hand, it is also related to the price controls of the Nixon administration.</p><p></li><li><b>1980 \"soft landing\"</b>The background is that inflation peaked and fell, and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates in a timely manner. At that time, the U.S. CPI inflation rate once reached an all-time high of 14.8%, and the monthly federal funds rate once reached 17.6%. However, when the recession began, the Federal Reserve quickly cut interest rates, and the policy rate dropped sharply to around 9%, and the economy quickly began to recover.</p><p></li><li><b>1973-75 \"hard landing\"</b>The main reason is that under the supply shock, the inflation rate is still rising during the recession, and then the policy interest rate has to rise rapidly with inflation (even if the policy interest rate is not significantly higher than the inflation rate);</p><p></li><li><b>1981-82 \"hard landing\"</b>The background is that the Federal Reserve is eager to curb inflation, so it has taken very aggressive rate hike measures (Federal Funds rate once reached about 20%). Although the inflation rate soon began to decline, the policy interest rate continued to be significantly higher than the inflation rate, which delayed the economic recovery process.</p><p></li></ul><b>From this, we can conclude that the requirements for \"soft landing\" are relatively stringent-first of all,</b>Inflationary pressure cannot be too great, and the CPI inflation rate may need to fall back in time in the early stages of the recession.<b>Secondly,</b>The Fed's rate hike cannot be too aggressive, and even needs to cut interest rates in time when a recession comes.<b>Finally,</b>If the government intervenes excessively in prices, or a new supply shock unfortunately occurs, then the \"soft landing\" may only be temporary, and inflation may rebound in the future, and a \"hard landing\" will be more difficult to avoid.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c05ee90fc4945e31d8dc59cbb9f3a8c\" tg-width=\"1073\" tg-height=\"367\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>04. Clues to asset prices</b></p><p><b>From the 1970s to the 1980s, high inflation was the \"biggest enemy\" of the U.S. economy and policies, so the inflation situation also became the vane of the capital market. In this process, the market has a process of understanding and digesting the inflation situation and the logic of monetary policy. In the \"Volcker era\" after 1980, monetary policy began to become the key clue of asset prices. In addition, the \"Great Stagflation\" has brought long-term pain to the economy and market, and then safe-haven assets such as the US dollar have performed positively for a long time.</b></p><p><b>4.1. U.S. stocks: Inflation is the biggest enemy</b></p><p><b>During this period, the trend of U.S. stocks was dominated by inflation. Whenever the inflation rate turned downward, U.S. stocks rebounded immediately.</b>July 1970, December 1974, and March 1980 corresponded to the three peaks of the U.S. CPI inflation rate, and were also the beginning of the rebound of the S&P 500 index. This may show that in the period of high inflation, the trend of inflation is what the market is most concerned about: as long as inflation remains high, the Federal Reserve may continue to tighten, and the U.S. economy will be threatened by both high inflation and high interest rates; As long as inflation falls, even if the economy is temporarily weak, the market believes that falling prices are conducive to economic recovery, and the Fed's tightening is expected to be relaxed, and the stock market will be included in the recovery expectation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f3acab3e6f335ccd1d9e96b22ddd4750\" tg-width=\"1069\" tg-height=\"519\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>U.S. stocks are bottom out in the middle of a recession, and the extent of the adjustment does not entirely depend on the degree of the recession.</b>At the beginning of the four rounds of recessions defined by NBER, U.S. stocks were all under pressure. However, when the recession was not over, as monetary policy expectations loosened, inflationary pressures began to ease, and market recovery expectations increased, U.S. stocks were often the first to usher in a rebound. In other words,<b>The \"policy bottom\" is ahead of the \"market bottom\", and the \"market bottom\" is ahead of the \"economic bottom\".</b>From the data point of view, the bottom of the S&P 500 index all occurred during recession periods.</p><p><b>However, the extent of the adjustment in U.S. stocks does not depend entirely on the extent of the recession:</b>In the \"soft landings\" of 1970 and 1980, and in the \"hard landings\" of 1981-82, the S&P 500 index fell no more than 20%; Only in the \"hard landing\" of 1973-75, the S&P 500 index fell nearly 40%. Judging from the magnitude of the rebound, after four rounds of recession and the adjustment of U.S. stocks, the rebound of U.S. stocks is relatively strong, and the S&P 500 index has rebounded by more than 30% from the trough.</p><p><b>The logic behind it may be:</b>The overall market after the \"soft landing\" remains optimistic. Although the market after the \"hard landing\" is not so optimistic, due to the previous low \"base\", the price-performance ratio of US stocks can still attract capital inflows. This means that no matter what the degree of the recession is, as long as the bottom is found and the U.S. stock market is moderately \"tilted forward\", it is possible to obtain good returns.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/164eaafd25fa17da2d93917b48fdcdc5\" tg-width=\"1063\" tg-height=\"500\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The Federal Reserve is not the \"eternal enemy\" of US stocks.</b>Comparing the performance of U.S. stocks after 1970 and 1980, even though the U.S. CPI inflation rate was higher, the Federal Reserve rate hike was more aggressive, and the degree of recession was not weak after 1980, the overall performance of U.S. stocks was significantly better than that in the 1970s. In the 1970s, the S&P 500 index remained almost sideways amid volatility, while after 1980, the S&P 500 index maintained a volatile upward trend. Especially compared with 1973-75 and 1981-82, they were both \"hard landings\", but the latter U.S. stocks fell less and rebounded more. The biggest difference between the two periods is that<b>The latter is more tightening by the Federal Reserve and may have played a more important role in \"creating\" a recession.</b>During the aggressive rate hike of the Federal Reserve, the inflation rate dropped significantly: on the one hand, it eased the suppression of high inflation on economic growth; on the other hand, the market had more confidence in the Federal Reserve, which in turn made recovery expectations stronger and risk appetite higher. In addition, after 1980, \"Reaganomics\" entered the historical stage, and after the market was fully and painfully cleared, American productivity increased rapidly. Therefore, U.S. stocks rebounded even stronger due to the \"two-wheel drive\" of the decline in policy interest rates after inflation was controllable and the profit growth of listed companies. From this perspective, inflation is the \"biggest enemy\" of US stocks, but the Federal Reserve is not; The Federal Reserve, which has the ability to curb inflation, eventually became a \"friend\" of the US stock market!</p><p><b>4.2. U.S. debt: \"dancing\" with monetary policy</b></p><p><b>In the 1970s, the U.S. bond market experienced a long-term bear market, with high inflation and high interest rates driving the US Treasury yields upward.</b>However, the volatility of 10-year US Treasury yields is significantly smaller than that of CPI inflation rate and policy interest rate. It is worth mentioning that the correlation between the U.S. economic recession and US Treasury yields is not obvious: before and after the four rounds of recessions in 1970, 1974-75, 1980 and 1982, the 10-year US Treasury yields fell back in the first round, the second round fluctuated upward, the third round rose sharply, and the fourth round fluctuated stronger. This may reflect the evolution of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy logic, that is, the emphasis on inflation continues to increase and the balance of the economy continues to weaken. Then<b>Over time, the market trades less \"recession\" and more \"tightening\".</b>It was not until after the third quarter of 1982, when the CPI inflation rate was lower than 5% and GDP shrank year-on-year, that the market believed that the Federal Reserve could cut interest rates without distractions, and US Treasury yields dropped significantly.</p><p><b>In the 1980s, the trend of 10-year US Treasury yields was more closely related to the trend of policy interest rates.</b>From 1980 to 81, the U.S. CPI inflation rate showed a downward trend, but the 10-year US Treasury yields rose rapidly, mainly driven by the strong tightening of monetary policy. After 1982, the 10-year US Treasury yields was relatively consistent with the fluctuation trend of policy interest rates, which reflected the effectiveness of monetary policy reform in the Volcker era, that is, the Federal Reserve's driving force for bond interest rates increased significantly.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d465d535d3e18340e29dfe32d95faea\" tg-width=\"1068\" tg-height=\"502\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>Although the 10-year US Treasury yields \"danced\" with the policy rate, the volatility was even smaller.</b>Before the 1970s, the absolute levels and trends of US Treasury yields and Federal Funds rate were very similar in 10 years. In the 1970s, when high inflation came and the Federal Reserve rate hike, although the 10-year US Treasury yields would also rise, the increase was even smaller, and then \"underperformed\" the policy interest rate. The reasons are: on the one hand, the emergence of high inflation and high interest rates has reduced market risk appetite, and U.S. debt has played a certain safe-haven attribute; On the other hand, due to concerns about economic growth, the market doubts the sustainability of high interest rates, which in turn depresses the medium and long-term US Treasury yields (the maturity premium of U.S. bonds is negative). When inflation fell and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates, although the 10-year US Treasury yields also fell, the magnitude was still limited, making US Treasury yields \"outperform\" the policy interest rate. The reason for this phenomenon may be the rise in inflation expectations. In fact, after 1983, the 10-year decline in US Treasury yields was insufficient, which once became a new problem faced by the Federal Reserve: the inflation rate in the United States has dropped to around 2%, but because the market inflation expectation has not dropped in time, the bond market interest rate has dropped slowly, hindering the economic recovery. Later, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker began to regard the bond market interest rate as the yardstick of inflation expectations, and paid more attention to the management of inflation expectations. It took 10 years for the trend of US Treasury yields to further align with the policy interest rate.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/73d7be6ac6bef4e338dc445e6ab9169f\" tg-width=\"1065\" tg-height=\"503\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>4.3. US dollar: Multiple factors create a strong US dollar</b></p><p><b>Factors such as the Federal Reserve's rate hike, rising market demand for safe havens, and the impact on non-US economies jointly created a strong US dollar in 1981-84.</b>In the 1970s, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system caused the rapid depreciation of the US dollar exchange rate. During this period, the US dollar exchange rate did not have a strong correlation with the US economic and monetary cycle. From 1981 to 84, the US dollar exchange rate continued to strengthen, and the the US Dollar Index once rose above the historical peak of 160 from around 85 in the second half of 1980; It was not until the Plaza Accord was signed in 1985 that the strong dollar came to an end.</p><p><b>How to understand the strong dollar during this period?</b>First of all, after 1980, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker strictly controlled the money supply, and the scarcity of the US dollar rose; Second, from 1981 to 82, the U.S. economy fell into recession due to the aggressive rate hike of the Federal Reserve, and U.S. stocks experienced significant adjustments. Economic and market risks stimulated the safe-haven attribute of the U.S. dollar; Third, in 1983-84, the U.S. economy bid farewell to high inflation and entered a strong recovery. The Federal Reserve's policy interest rate and US Treasury yields remained relatively high. During this period, the US dollar exchange rate is still strengthening: on the one hand, the market's confidence in the Federal Reserve has increased; On the other hand, the spillover effects of the Fed's tightening in the early stage on non-US economies appeared (such as the deep debt crisis in Latin America in 1982-85), which made US dollar assets fully attractive.</p><p>It is worth mentioning that<b>During the aggressive Fed rate hike, both the US Dollar Index and US Treasury yields are trending upward.</b>However,<b>The reaction of the US dollar exchange rate lags behind US Treasury yields:</b>For example, in June 1980, US Treasury yields had begun to rise rapidly in 10 years, while the US Dollar Index's rise lagged by about 3 months; In June, 1984, the 10-year US Treasury yields began to fall due to market expectations of interest rate cuts, but the US Dollar Index's decline lagged behind by nine months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/61242bb3f7016cf966b35fefe3930648\" tg-width=\"1067\" tg-height=\"452\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>05. New enlightenment to the present</b></p><p><b>1. The causes of this round of U.S. inflation have many similarities with those in the 1970s and 1980s, but the overall pressure is more limited.</b></p><p>Similar to the 1970s, the current high inflation in the United States is also the result of multiple factors such as monetary and fiscal easing, the slow action of the Federal Reserve, and supply shocks. But in comparison,<b>We tend to think that U.S. inflation will not get out of control as it was then:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>This time, the U.S. government did not implement rude price controls like the Nixon administration did, and the balancing effect of price signals on supply and demand did not disappear, reducing the risk of recurrent inflation in the future;</p><p></li><li><b>And second,</b>At present, the risk of the \"wage-price\" spiral in the United States is relatively low. On the one hand, it benefits from the medium-and long-term inflation expectations that are still relatively stable, and on the other hand, it benefits from the long-term weakening of the power of American trade unions;</p><p></li><li><b>And third,</b>At present, the United States has a stronger ability to digest the \"oil crisis\". Especially after the shale oil revolution in 2010, the proportion of energy consumption in the United States in total private consumption has declined, and the United States has also changed from a net importer of crude oil to a net exporter. Therefore, the transmission of oil prices to the core inflation rate in the United States has declined. Therefore, even though the current U.S. CPI energy sub-item growth rate is as high as 40% year-on-year, reaching the level of the two oil crises in 1970s and 1980s, the core CPI inflation rate is significantly lower than at that time.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8e9d6130cfa6c71161fdc10b5eaa79c0\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"411\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2. Although the Federal Reserve has \"made mistakes\" in this round, it has taken the initiative in fighting inflation.</b></p><p>The \"capriciousness\" of monetary policy and the market's lack of confidence in monetary policy were important backgrounds for repeated stagflation in 1970s and 1980s. In comparison,<b>The Fed now has more initiative, and even if it underestimated the sustainability of inflation in 2021 (the \"inflation temporary theory\"), there may still be room for recovery from this mistake:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>In terms of understanding and responding to \"stagflation\", the Federal Reserve is no longer \"crossing the river by feeling the stones\", and its monetary policy has already defined the goal of \"price stability\". Since the beginning of this year, the Federal Reserve has declared that \"price stability\" is the prerequisite for \"maximum employment\" and regards curbing inflation as the top priority of monetary policy.</p><p></li><li><b>Secondly,</b>After the Volcker-Greenspan era, the Federal Reserve had a stronger ability to monitor inflation expectations (such as the birth of inflation-protected bonds after 2000), communicated with the market more efficiently, and established a relatively good reputation. Since the beginning of this year, the Fed's tightening signal has significantly raised the nominal interest rate of U.S. debt, and the quick response of the capital market reflects the credibility of monetary policy. At present, U.S. inflation expectations have not been \"unanchored\". The ten-year inflation expectations monitored by the Cleveland Fed model do not exceed 2.5%, far below the level of 4-5% in the 1980s.</p><p></li><li><b>Finally,</b>The Federal Reserve is more independent today. Currently, inflation is the \"enemy\" faced by the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve, and the Fed's tightening is supported by the president. Even if economic pressure increases in the future and the president puts pressure on the Federal Reserve, it is expected that the Federal Reserve will defend its credibility more firmly. Just as Powell's Federal Reserve conducted four rate hike in 2018, despite criticism from then-President Trump.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/aeb68357b44663ea8caedbf43793c2db\" tg-width=\"1074\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3. This round of U.S. economic recession is almost inevitable, and there is a risk of a \"hard landing\".</b></p><p>In the 1970s and 1980s, when the U.S. CPI inflation rate rose above 5%, the economic recession came as expected. Compare the current:</p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>This year, the U.S. CPI inflation rate reached a maximum of 9.1%, which not only exceeded the previous level that triggered the recession, but also exceeded the level during the \"soft landing\" period of the U.S. economy in 1970;</p><p></li><li><b>And second,</b>At present, the Federal Reserve has shown great determination to curb inflation, or maintain policy interest rates at a \"sufficiently restrictive level\" for a long time, at the cost of economic recession (refer to our previous report \"The Defense of the Federal Reserve's Credibility\"). This means that, similar to the Volcker period in 1981-82, the Fed's tightening may be enough to \"create\" a recession;</p><p></li><li><b>And third,</b>At present, the risk of recurrent inflation in the future cannot be ruled out. If a new supply shock unfortunately occurs in the future, or the actual tightening of the Fed is insufficient (for example, when the U.S. economy actually enters a recession, political pressure rises, or financial risks occur in the future, the Fed stops tightening or even cuts interest rates prematurely), then U.S. inflation may still be repeated, leading to a greater recession.</p><p></li></ul><b>4. The price trend of this round of major asset classes may be strongly similar to that of 1970s and 1980s.</b></p><p><b>1) U.S. stocks: Inflation is still the core influencing factor, and there will still be adjustment pressure in the future, but the adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may wait for the recession to materialize.</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Similar to the 1970s and 1980s, the current inflation trend also has a strong correlation with the performance of US stocks.</b>In the first half of this year, as the U.S. CPI inflation rate continued to rise, U.S. stocks ushered in a round of deep adjustments; From mid-June to mid-August, commodity prices and inflation expectations cooled down, and U.S. stocks rebounded in stages; Since late August, as the persistence of high inflation has exceeded expectations, the Fed's policy orientation has become tougher, and U.S. stocks have paid more attention to monetary policy, staging a new round of \"tightening panic.\"</p><p></li><li><b>The U.S. stock market may remain under pressure for some time to come, similar to the 1981-82 period when Volcker fought inflation and \"created\" a recession.</b>From 1981 to 82, although the U.S. CPI inflation rate continued to fall, the Federal Reserve's tightening had an impact on the economy and stock market. Similarly, the current Federal Reserve seems to want to return to the \"Volcker era\" and is bound to ensure that inflation falls back at the cost of recession. At present, U.S. inflation is still at a high level, the economy has not yet experienced a substantial recession, and the market's valuation of the recession is not yet sufficient, and there may still be room for subsequent adjustments in U.S. stocks. Judging from historical experience, U.S. stocks may still fall in the early stages of the economic recession. It is not until monetary policy begins to relax in the middle and late stages of the recession that U.S. stocks will usher in a sustained rebound.</p><p></li><li><b>However, the Fed will not be the \"eternal enemy\" of U.S. stocks. If the Fed successfully helps inflation fall, the adjustment of U.S. stocks may not be too deep.</b>When Volcker \"created\" a recession in 1981-92, the adjustment of U.S. stocks was relatively limited and did not fall below the bottom in early 1980. Although the Fed's vigorous fight against inflation brings \"short-term pain\", it can avoid the \"long-term pain\" of repeated inflation. Considering that this round of inflation situation is more optimistic than in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Fed's actions are not too passive, this round of U.S. stock adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may be earlier than historical experience.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7f004d3c8a3173e8965e08861dace942\" tg-width=\"1077\" tg-height=\"417\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2) U.S. debt: Monetary policy is still the core influencing factor, and it may not fall back immediately when the recession materializes. It needs to wait until monetary policy clearly begins to relax.</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Similar to the 1970s and 1980s, the core influencing factor of US Treasury yields in the current decade is also monetary policy.</b>The experience of the 1970s-1980s was that the bond market teetered between a \"recession trade\" and a \"tightening trade\". But as the Fed is more determined to fight inflation, the bond market is trading less \"recession\" and more \"tightening.\" In July this year, due to cooling inflation expectations and rising recession expectations, the 10-year US Treasury yields dropped significantly. However, since late August, as the Fed's policy orientation has become tougher, the market has paid more attention to tightening. Therefore, US Treasury yields has continued to rebound in the past 10 years and has risen above 4%, exceeding the stage high of 3.5% in mid-June.</p><p></li><li><b>If the Fed also insists on tightening during a recession, then the US Treasury yields in the early 10-year recession may not fall back soon.</b>Just as in the early days of the U.S. economic recession in 1981-82, even though the U.S. CPI inflation rate has dropped significantly from its high point, it is still far from the 2% target. Monetary policy has not been relaxed, and the 10-year US Treasury yields has remained at a high level. We expect that even if the U.S. economy begins to decline in the first half of 2023, the Federal Reserve may choose to stick to tightening and not cut interest rates, and the bond market may not trade in a recession prematurely.</p><p></li><li><b>A 10-year decline in US Treasury yields may require a substantial decline in policy interest rates.</b>In the second half of 1982, when the U.S. CPI inflation rate fell below 5% and the economic recession was deep, the Federal Reserve began to cut interest rates sharply, and the U.S. bond bull market really started. And note that the starting point of the decline in policy interest rates at that time was ahead of the 10-year US Treasury yields, and the decline was deeper. This means that after the monetary policy clearly begins to relax, the 10-year US Treasury yields may not drop significantly.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/18e234a92705cc42b9b876c30857ee92\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"410\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3) U.S. dollar: The \"strong U.S. dollar\" may last for a long time, and the fall in the U.S. dollar exchange rate may require US Treasury yields to fall</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Looking at the mid-cycle, the current logic of the \"strong dollar\" is very similar to that of the 1980s.</b>From 1980 to 84, the US Dollar Index came out of the \"historical peak\". Even though the Federal Reserve cut interest rates during this period, the US dollar exchange rate remained strong for a long time. At present, the logic of supporting the US dollar is very similar to that in the 1980s: the US economy has obvious advantages over non-US regions, and the Fed's tightening confidence is stronger than other developed economies. Looking back, even if the U.S. economy moves from \"stagflation\" to \"recession\", non-U.S. economic and financial risks may not be eliminated (this can be seen from the fluctuations in European and Japanese bond and exchange rate markets this year). On the contrary, the market's trust in U.S. dollar assets will increase (for example, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin have weakened at present). Therefore, for at least the next 1-2 years, the volatility center of the the US Dollar Index is expected to continue to be higher than the pre-COVID-19 level.</p><p></li><li><b>In the short term, US Treasury yields may be a \"leading indicator\" to judge the trend of the US dollar.</b>In 1980, the 10-year US Treasury yields started its upward cycle earlier than the US Dollar Index; In 1984-85, US Treasury yields fell back before the US Dollar Index in 10 years. In fact, past market performance has basically confirmed US Treasury yields's leadership over the US Dollar Index:<b>1-3 months after the 10-year US Treasury yields peaks and falls, the US Dollar Index usually also peaks and falls.</b>As mentioned earlier, the start of this round of U.S. bond bull market may have to wait until the recession materializes and monetary policy becomes loosened. After that, the signs of the US Dollar Index peaking and falling may become increasingly clear.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fa0454ffd0dbe555b8d8d2e59c3c5c0d\" tg-width=\"1075\" tg-height=\"408\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b><i>Risk warning:</i></b></p><p><b><i>1. The resilience of the US economy is less than expected.</i></b><i>Although there is still room for the recovery of the U.S. service industry, under the environment of high inflation and high interest rates, residents' consumer confidence is insufficient or actual consumption is suppressed, which in turn makes the economic growth weaker than the benchmark expectation; As the Federal Reserve's rate hike and demand cool, the pace of cooling in the U.S. job market may exceed expectations.</i></p><p><b><i>2. A new supply shock occurs.</i></b><i>If new supply shocks occur in the future and raise international energy, food and other commodity prices again, the pressure of \"stagflation\" in the United States may rise significantly, the Federal Reserve may have to \"create\" a recession to curb inflation, and market sentiment will turn pessimistic.</i></p><p><b><i>3. The Fed's tightening is insufficient or too strong.</i></b><i>If the Fed's insufficient tightening causes repeated inflation, the cost of the Fed's subsequent inflation control will be even greater; If the Fed's tightening efforts are significantly stronger than market expectations, the risk of market volatility may rise and may eventually threaten the real economy.</i></p><p><b><i>4. Economic and financial risks in non-US regions exceed expectations, etc.</i></b><i>At present, the economic and financial risks of large economies such as Europe and Asia are showing signs of rising. If large-scale economic and financial risk events occur in the future, the U.S. economy and market may be affected.</i></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/49ae9add1640b1e283a53b027b0227c7\" tg-width=\"1040\" tg-height=\"868\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fc83db9c8a7fe6fe220fca7ca329cf0d\" tg-width=\"1040\" tg-height=\"513\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/580ee36c20670ad5f1a888d715380e06\" tg-width=\"999\" tg-height=\"928\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p></body></html></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Rethink the \"Great Stagflation\" in the United States! Also on the enlightenment to the current asset price</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nRethink the \"Great Stagflation\" in the United States! Also on the enlightenment to the current asset price\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/70\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/86f6d9605fc344e28cd4247a93dcdc2b);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">钟正生经济分析 </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2022-10-02 09:35</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><html><head></head><body><b>1. The complexity of high inflation.</b>The causes of high inflation in the United States from 1970s to 1980s were extremely complicated: first, excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus initially pushed up inflation; Then, rude price control and hesitant monetary policy failed to effectively douse inflation; Furthermore, supply shocks represented by the two oil crises triggered cost-push inflation; Finally, the long-term overshoot inflation rate destabilizes inflation expectations, triggers a wage-price spiral, and deepens the obstinacy of inflation.</p><p><b>Second, the Fed's \"faults\" and \"merits\".</b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve was not resolute enough in tightening for many reasons: first, the Federal Reserve once believed that inflation was a \"non-monetary phenomenon\"; Second, the primary goal of the Federal Reserve at that time was \"full employment\" rather than \"price stability\"; Finally, the Fed's decision-making is also influenced by political factors. After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\", regarded curbing inflation as its own responsibility, strengthened its rate hike and controlled the money supply. Since then, the Federal Reserve has been committed to stabilizing inflation expectations for a long time, reshaping its credibility.</p><p><b>3. \"Soft landing\" and \"hard landing\".</b>From 1970s to 1980s, there were four rounds of economic recessions in the United States, which can be divided into two \"soft landings\" (1970 and 1980) and two \"hard landings\" (1973-75 and 1981-82). The result of the combined effect of high inflation, high interest rates and supply shocks. However, the conditions for achieving a \"soft landing\" are relatively harsh: first, the CPI inflation rate may need to fall in time in the early stage of the recession; Secondly, the Fed's rate hike cannot be too aggressive, and even needs to cut interest rates in time when a recession comes; Finally, if a new supply shock occurs, a \"hard landing\" may be more difficult to avoid.</p><p><b>4. Clues to asset prices.</b>In the 1970s and 1980s, inflation became the vane of the capital market. The U.S. CPI inflation rate has peaked three times in stages, and U.S. stocks have bottomed out in stages. But in this process, the market has a process of understanding and digesting the inflation situation and the logic of monetary policy. Over time, the U.S. bond market has traded less \"recession\" and more \"austerity.\" In the \"Volcker era\" after 1980, monetary policy began to become the key clue of asset prices. After the end of the \"Great Stagflation\", safe-haven assets such as the US dollar still performed positively for a long time.</p><p><b>5. New enlightenment to the present.</b>First, the causes of this round of inflation in the United States have many similarities with those in the 1970s and 1980s, but the overall pressure is more limited; Second, although the Federal Reserve has \"made mistakes\" in this round, it has taken the initiative in fighting inflation; Third, this round of U.S. economic recession is almost inevitable, and there is a risk of a \"hard landing\"; Fourthly, the price trend of this round of major asset classes may be strongly similar to that of 1970s and 1980s:<b>1）</b>U.S. stocks: Inflation is still the core influencing factor, and there will still be adjustment pressure in the future, but the adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may wait for the recession to materialize.<b>2）</b>U.S. debt: Monetary policy is still the core influencing factor, and it may not fall back immediately when the recession materializes. It needs to wait until monetary policy clearly begins to relax.<b>3）</b>US dollar: The \"strong US dollar\" may last for a long time, and the US dollar may require US Treasury yields to fall back.</p><p><i>Risk warning: The U.S. economy is weaker than expected, there are new supply shocks, and non-U.S. financial risks are rising.</i></p><p>Since 2022, the U.S. CPI inflation rate once rose above 9%, real GDP has shrunk for two consecutive quarters, the (quasi-) stagflation characteristics of the economy have become more distinct, and the capital market has also experienced large fluctuations. Since the Jackson Hole meeting in late August, the Federal Reserve has repeatedly mentioned \"historical experience\" on various occasions, indicating that the current economic environment in the United States is very similar to that in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Federal Reserve will also fully learn from the response experience at that time and do something. Something is not done in order to help the United States overcome \"stagflation.\"</p><p>What is the current inflationary pressure in the United States? How will monetary policy respond? Can the U.S. economy still achieve a \"soft landing\"? When will the capital market usher in \"spring\"? In this report, with questions about the present, we review the inflation, monetary policy, economic growth and asset price performance during the \"Great Stagflation\" period in the United States from 1970s to 1980s, and try to understand the logic and laws, with a view to judging the U.S. economy, monetary policy and market trends in the future.</p><p><b>01. The complexity of high inflation</b></p><p><b>The causes of high inflation in the United States from 1970s to 1980s were extremely complicated: first, excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus initially pushed up inflation; Then, rude price control and hesitant monetary policy failed to effectively douse inflation; Furthermore, supply shocks represented by the two oil crises triggered cost-push inflation; Finally, the long-term overshoot inflation rate destabilizes inflation expectations, triggers a wage-price spiral, and deepens the obstinacy of inflation.</b></p><p><b>From 1969 to 1982, the United States fell into a crisis of high inflation. The CPI inflation rate was generally higher than 5%, with the highest reaching 14.8%.</b>The year-on-year growth rate of CPI in the United States has risen rapidly at a rate of more than 3% since 1968. In March 1969, the CPI exceeded 5% year-on-year, and the 13-year era of \"high inflation\" began. From 1969 to 1982, there were three peaks in the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. CPI, with the peaks in January 1970 (6.2%), December 1974 (12.3%) and March 1980 (14.8%). In February 1982, the CPI fell below 5% year-on-year.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0135dfd0a18c15e058312be783380d12\" tg-width=\"1066\" tg-height=\"490\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1965 to 1970, blind fiscal and monetary expansion gave birth to higher inflation.</b>With the end of economic reconstruction after World War II and the rise of European and Asian economies, the economic growth momentum of the United States has weakened, but blind stimulation at the policy level has led to obvious overheating of the economy. From 1965 to 1970, the real GDP growth rate of the United States continued to be higher than the potential growth rate, and the output gap (the difference between real GDP and potential GDP) accounted for as much as 3-6% of potential GDP. In other words, 3-6 percentage points of the U.S. economic growth rate at that time were stimulated by policies. During this period, the natural unemployment rate in the United States was 5.6-5.9%, but the actual unemployment rate basically remained within 4%. At that time, the role of fiscal stimulus was stronger than that of money. The proportion of U.S. federal fiscal expenditure to GDP increased by 3.2 percentage points from 1966 to 68, and the deficit ratio expanded from 0.2% in 1965 to 2.8% in 1968. In 1968, the U.S. government began to worry about fiscal balance. Then President Johnson signed the \"Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968\" in June to supplement fiscal revenue by increasing taxes. The Federal Reserve \"technically cut interest rates\" in August of the same year to hedge against the impact of tax increases, adding to the overheating of the economy.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fb7621fa84eb213f441091515980951c\" tg-width=\"1077\" tg-height=\"426\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1971 to 74, rough price controls turned \"short pain\" into \"long pain\".</b>In August 1971, the Nixon administration imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze. But in fact, the scope of price control continued to expand, and it was not until 1974 that the U.S. government completely canceled its intervention in prices. During this period, except for special circumstances, all price increases of goods and services need to be approved by the government. In mid-1972, the U.S. CPI inflation rate fell below 3%. This price control is regarded as a special case of comprehensive government intervention in prices in peacetime in American economic history, and it is also regarded as a failed attempt. This is because, while the price limit measures curbed the price increase, they also severely dampened the enthusiasm of production enterprises, resulting in insufficient supply of social commodities, and paving the way for the subsequent deterioration of inflation. In 1974, Nixon stepped down due to the Watergate Incident, and the new President Carter came to power, and the price control measures gradually failed. Slightly funny, both the Nixon and Carter administrations tried to control prices through verbal \"exhortation\". For example, when Carter first came to power, he encouraged people to buy \"bargains\": \"Dare to show off to others, choose bargains yourself, and be proud of them\". These admonitions are almost futile in controlling prices. The U.S. CPI inflation rate broke 5% again in April 1973, and has since reached a stage high of 12.3% in December 1974.</p><p><b>A food crisis and two oil crises in 1973 and 1979 demonstrated the destructive power of supply shocks on American prices.</b>In 1973, the grain harvest in the former Soviet Union failed due to bad weather, and then entered the international market to buy a large amount of grain, which triggered the most serious food crisis since World War II. At the end of 1973, the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. food CPI once rose above 20%. From October 1973 to March 1974, the first oil crisis broke out: the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on countries that supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, with the United States bearing the brunt. The average price of crude oil at the World Bank jumped from US $2.7/barrel in September 1973 to US $13/barrel in early 1974, an increase of nearly 500%. From March to September 1974, the year-on-year growth rate of U.S. energy CPI exceeded 30%. From the beginning of 1979 to the beginning of 1980, the second oil crisis broke out: the Islamic Revolution broke out in Iran, and then the \"Iran-Iraq War\" broke out between Iran and Iraq, which led to a sharp drop in global oil production. World Bank international oil prices rose from less than US $15/barrel in December 1978 to more than US $40/barrel in November 1979. In March 1980, the U.S. energy CPI peaked at 47.1% year-on-year, and the U.S. CPI immediately peaked at 14.8% year-on-year.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/368b46087ff151100ed782e7aa94b78d\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"417\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1980, after the headline inflation rate in the United States continued to overshoot, inflation expectations got out of control. With the help of trade unions, a \"wage-price spiral\" gradually formed.</b>After the CPI inflation rate has been higher than 2% or even higher than 5% for many years, American residents have lost their original confidence in prices and inflation expectations have risen. At that time, both the Fed and the market had limited awareness and tracking of inflation expectations. The widely quoted University of Michigan survey and Cleveland Fed model expectations were only born around 1980. The earliest inflation expectation monitoring tool in the United States was The Livingston Survey, which was born in 1946, and summarized inflation forecasts from businesses, governments, banking, and academia. The survey shows that inflation expectations in the United States have gradually increased since 1970, especially after the two oil crises, and inflation expectations have also risen sharply with the headline inflation rate. The reverse impact of inflation expectations on prices is mainly transmitted through wages: workers demand wage increases, and then the spending power of residents and the cost pressure of enterprises rise, which at the same time contributes to price increases, that is, a \"wage-price spiral\" is formed.<b>In particular, in the 1970s, American trade unions were huge, and the transmission of wage demands was relatively smooth:</b>According to the data of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), at that time, trade union members in the United States accounted for nearly 30% of the total employees in the society, and there were as many as 200-400 strikes by more than 1,000 people every year (since 2000, this number has been less than 30 all the year round). From mid-1976 to mid-1978, the CPI inflation rate in the United States fell back to around 5-7%, but the average hourly wage of non-agricultural and non-managerial personnel in the United States increased by 6-8% year-on-year, which continued to be higher than the CPI inflation rate. The stickiness of wage increases prevented inflation from falling further and paved the way for a subsequent rebound in inflation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fa062f9510e45fda47f5e682ec9ba17b\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"457\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>From 1970 to 79, the Federal Reserve's policy response was relatively negative, continuing to \"lag behind the curve\" and failing to effectively curb inflation.</b>Before 1980, U.S. policy interest rates and inflation trends showed strong synchronization, reflecting that the Federal Reserve had been \"lagging behind the curve\" and \"catching up with the curve\" for a long time. In May 1969, the third month after the inflation rate exceeded 5%, the U.S. policy interest rate began to rise significantly and exceeded the inflation rate by more than 3 percentage points. After that, the inflation rate kept rising for about half a year before it began to fall. In the second half of 1973, while the inflation rate in the United States was still rising, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates due to economic pressure, and then the inflation rate accelerated. In 1978, the U.S. policy interest rate was basically the same as the inflation rate, and kept rising step by step. Until December 1978, the monthly federal funds rate rose above 10% and was 1 percentage point higher than the inflation rate, but soon the policy interest rate began to lag behind the inflation rate. Later, when the U.S. policy interest rate was significantly higher than the spot inflation rate, inflation dropped significantly, and the Federal Reserve took the initiative in curbing inflation: after 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker raised interest rates sharply to fight inflation; In mid-1981, the U.S. policy interest rate reached a peak of more than 19%. In October of the same year, the CPI fell both month-on-month and year-on-year; Since then, Federal Funds rate has continued to be 4-9 percentage points higher than the CPI inflation rate, and the inflation rate has continued to fall.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/707eeb51701422548c5e1b935b53479d\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>02. The Federal Reserve's \"faults\" and \"merits\"</b></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve was not resolute enough in tightening due to insufficient understanding of the relationship between inflation and monetary policy, as well as the lack of independence of monetary policy. After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\", regarded curbing inflation as its own responsibility, strengthened its rate hike and controlled the money supply. Since then, the Federal Reserve has been committed to stabilizing inflation expectations for a long time, reshaping its credibility.</b></p><p><b>2.1. Reasons for the Fed's hesitation</b></p><p><b>From 1970 to 1979, the Federal Reserve continued to \"lag behind the curve\" for many reasons.</b></p><p><b>First, the Federal Reserve once considered inflation a \"non-monetary phenomenon.\"</b>At that time, the Federal Reserve was divided on the causes of high inflation, and tended to believe that inflation was mainly caused by non-monetary factors, and then monetary policy chose to respond negatively. For example, in 1970, the Federal Reserve led by Burns believed that the power of trade unions triggered cost-push inflation, and then advocated the use of \"income policy\" regulation rather than tightening the money supply. It also fueled the wage and price freeze later imposed by the Nixon administration. In 1974, Burns also believed that \"improper fiscal discipline\" was the main cause of inflation.</p><p><b>Second, the Fed's primary goal at that time was \"full employment\" rather than \"price stability.\"</b>Before the 1970s, Keynesian ideas dominated the logic of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve focused on aggregate demand management and firmly believed in the existence of the Phillips curve (the negative correlation between unemployment rate and inflation). Therefore, the primary goal of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is to achieve \"full employment\", hoping to maintain a low and stable unemployment rate. Then, when the unemployment rate rises, the balance of monetary policy is tilted more towards the job market. When \"stagnation\" and \"inflation\" occurred at the same time, the Federal Reserve once believed that inflation would not continue to worsen. For example, Miller's Federal Reserve in 1978-79 believed that monetary easing would not deepen inflation as long as the unemployment rate was above full employment levels (above 5.5%).</p><p><b>Finally, the Fed's decision-making is also influenced by political factors.</b>Burns, who served as chairman from 1970 to 1978, and Miller, who served from 1978 to 79, were both influenced by the then president and lacked independence, wavering in balancing the relationship between inflation and economic growth. In hindsight, the Fed's tolerance for inflation in the 1970s may be exactly what the rulers wanted to see: on the one hand, the rulers did not want the Fed to undermine economic growth and affect votes by curbing inflation; On the other hand, higher inflation is also regarded as a hidden tax means, because the increase of nominal wages increases the progression of the whole tax system, resulting in a sharp increase in fiscal revenue. Data show that the proportion of personal income tax in GDP in the United States increased significantly during the periods of high inflation in 1969-70, 1974 and 1979-83.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/85870c4ece63c7cae63758bc6db5a828\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2.2. The achievements of the Volcker era</b></p><p><b>After 1979, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker absorbed the concept of the \"monetary school\" and took curbing inflation as its own responsibility. It firmly conducted rate hike and controlled the money supply. Although it \"created\" an economic recession, it finally defeated inflation.</b>In August, 1979, Volcker became the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He adopted the \"monetary school\" view represented by Friedman. The Federal Reserve led by him made it more clear that monetary policy was the core position of price stability, and incorporated the growth rate of money supply (M1) into the monetary policy goal, followed by a substantial rate hike, which made the Federal Funds rate higher than the CPI inflation rate, so as to achieve the goal of controlling money supply. In March 1980, Volcker carried out an ill-advised but short-lived experiment of credit control (the \"Special Credit Restriction Program\") in order to slow down the rate hike, but then restarted monetary policy tightening, and finally pushed Federal Funds rate to a peak of more than 20% in mid-1981. Although the sharp rate hike brought about the economic recession, it ultimately helped inflation fall.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7ab3004dd4948baa80533fe718adebaf\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"422\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>In addition, in the era of Volcker and Greenspan, the Federal Reserve established a new \"nominal anchor\" to stabilize inflation expectations and reshape the credibility of the Federal Reserve. This is also an important background for U.S. prices to return to long-term stability in the future.</b>In the 1980s, after experiencing the \"great stagflation\", the original expectation of price stability suffered serious damage. Even in the Volcker era, when the Federal Reserve defined its money supply target and firmly raised interest rates, the credibility of monetary policy was still questioned. It is not clear to the public whether the Fed can maintain its focus on inflation for a long time and have the ability to influence medium and long-term price trends. Therefore, Volcker and his next Federal Reserve President Greenspan are more committed to reconstructing stable inflation expectations, making them the \"nominal anchor\" of monetary policy, and ultimately re-establishing the credibility of monetary policy.</p><p><b>This is a complicated and long process: Volcker's experience of defeating inflation was a good starting point, and then the Fed shifted from money supply targeting to \"hidden inflation targeting.\"</b>In practice, the Federal Reserve focuses on the \"growth gap\" and the \"inflation expectation gap\" at the same time. In fact, it sets policy interest rates through the Taylor Rule, pursues stable medium-and long-term inflation targets, and achieves stable economic growth. In terms of inflation expectation management, the Federal Reserve monitors inflation expectations through changes in bond yields, and at the same time strengthens communication with the capital market, which enhances the credibility of monetary policy and the stability of market expectations. The monetary policy framework after the Volcker era achieved long-term results in price stability, creating the later era of Great Moderation (1984-2007).</p><p><b>03. \"Soft landing\" and \"hard landing\"</b></p><p><b>From 1970s to 1980s, there were four rounds of economic recessions in the United States, which were the result of the combined effects of high inflation, high interest rates and supply shocks. High inflation has a direct inhibitory effect on consumption, and drives the Federal Reserve to rate hike and further curb investment. Therefore, the degree of recession depends on the severity of inflation and the response of monetary policy, and the conditions for achieving a \"soft landing\" are relatively harsh.</b></p><p><b>3.1. The three major drivers of economic recession</b></p><p><b>According to the classification of the National Economic Research Bureau (NBER), the U.S. economy experienced four rounds of recessions from 1970s to 1980s:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>The first round was from January to November 1970 (11 months).</b>The real GDP of the United States fell from 3.2% in 1969 to 0.2% in 1970, but the economy hardly shrank. However, the unemployment rate in the United States rose significantly, from 3.5% in December 1969 to 6.1% in December 1970 (a stage high), and remained above 5% for the next 24 months.</p><p></li><li><b>The second round was from December 1973 to March 1975 (16 months).</b>The real GDP of the United States fell off a cliff from 5.6% year-on-year in 1973, and shrank year-on-year for five consecutive quarters, with the deepest quarterly year-on-year contraction reaching 2.3%. The unemployment rate in the United States has been higher than 7% for 31 consecutive months, rising from a low of 4.6% in October 1973 to 9.0% in May 1975, and then declining slowly.</p><p></li><li><b>The third round was from February to July 1980 (6 months).</b>The annualized rate of real GDP in the United States shrank sharply by 8% in the second quarter of 1980, but only by 0.8% year-on-year. During this period, the unemployment rate in the United States rose from 6.3% to 7.8%. In the second half of 1980, the U.S. economy immediately began to recover. In the fourth quarter, GDP rose sharply by 7.7% month-on-month, and the unemployment rate began to fall in August.</p><p></li><li><b>The fourth round was from August 1981 to November 1982 (16 months)</b>。 The real GDP of the United States has shrunk year-on-year for four consecutive quarters, with the deepest contraction of 2.6%. The unemployment rate in the United States began to rebound significantly from a stage low of 7.2% in August 1981, exceeded 8% in November of the same year, reached a peak of 10.8% in November 1982, and then slowly fell back, falling below 8% in February 1984.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93377c7b4f0d061e8d18147cc001a54a\" tg-width=\"1061\" tg-height=\"483\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><b>One of the recession drivers: high inflation.</b>Comparing the economic and inflation trends at that time, the two showed a very close correlation:<b>The nodes at which the U.S. economic recession occurs all correspond to the time when the CPI inflation rate rises or peaks.</b>For example, when the CPI inflation rate peaked in 1970, it happened to be the beginning of the rebound in the unemployment rate and the economic recession; From 1973 to 75, this round of unemployment rate rebounded and the economy was recognized as a recession, both after the CPI inflation rate broke 8%; At the beginning of 1980, when the CPI inflation rate hit a very high level of more than 14%, the unemployment rate rebounded significantly and the economy began to decline.<b>If the inflation rate is still rising when the recession occurs, the U.S. economy will continue to decline; Only after the inflation rate dropped did the U.S. economy begin to recover.</b>For example, in late 1970, the U.S. economy did not begin to recover until inflation fell below 5%; In 1975, when the inflation rate peaked and fell for a quarter, the U.S. GDP growth rate turned positive quarter-on-quarter and the unemployment rate began to decline.</p><p><b>The direct impact of inflation on the economy is mainly reflected in consumption.</b>Compared with policy interest rates, the negative correlation between U.S. inflation rate and private consumption growth rate is more obvious. Especially in the 1980s, when the policy interest rate jumped sharply, the inflation rate had already fallen early, and private consumption also began to pick up at that time, indicating that the easing of inflation was obviously helpful to the recovery of consumption.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/157a3ac9e6b19301fad3ca7e2e88c069\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"419\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The second driver of recession: high interest rates.</b>Overall, the cooling effect of the Fed's rate hike on the economy at that time was obvious:<b>When the U.S. economy is overheating, rate hike's cooling effect on the economy can be described as immediate:</b>For example, in mid-1973, the U.S. manufacturing PMI exceeded 60, and the Federal Reserve rate hike quickly cooled the \"overheated\" economy.<b>When the U.S. economy itself is in a downturn or even recession, rate hike has deepened the economic contraction:</b>For example, in mid-1974, after the policy interest rate peaked, the downturn of the U.S. economy accelerated, and the U.S. GDP shrank sharply by 3.7% in the third quarter; From March to April 1980, after the monthly rate of federal funds reached a stage high of more than 17%, U.S. GDP shrank sharply by 8.0% in the second quarter of the same year.<b>On the contrary, interest rate cuts can help the economy recover:</b>In December 1970, when the policy interest rate fell below the inflation rate, the U.S. economy immediately recovered; In early 1975, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and kept the policy rate nearly 5 percentage points below the inflation rate. The U.S. economy began to recover in the second quarter of 1975.<b>However, premature and immature interest rate cuts when inflation is not effectively controlled may end in \"repeated inflation + higher rate hike\", thus leading to a greater degree of recession or delaying the recovery that should have started earlier:</b>At the beginning of 1974, the Federal Reserve chose to cut interest rates, but as inflation continued to rise and the negative impact on the economy continued, the U.S. economy was still in recession; In May 1980, the monthly rate of federal funds had dropped to about 11% (supplemented by credit controls). In August, the U.S. economy temporarily left the recession range. However, since inflation repeatedly forced the Federal Reserve to choose greater rate hike, the U.S. economy fell into a new round of deeper recession in 1981.</p><p><b>The impact of interest rates on the economy is mainly reflected in investment.</b>Compared with inflation, the negative correlation between policy interest rate and private investment (lagging by one year) is more obvious. In the second half of 1980, the Federal Reserve briefly cut interest rates, and a year later, private investment in the United States rebounded significantly; In 1981, when the Federal Reserve resumed its sharp rate hike, the growth rate of private investment declined significantly a year later, but inflation also dropped significantly during this period, indicating that private investment is more sensitive to interest rate trends.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d940f253f486815be3e542cd6e173587\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The third driver of recession: supply shocks.</b>The food and oil crises of 1973 and 1979 caused many drags on U.S. economic growth, thus triggering economic recessions.<b>First,</b>As mentioned above, supply shocks have raised the CPI inflation rate, and rising consumer prices have suppressed aggregate demand. In particular,<b>Supply shocks have triggered higher energy consumption costs and crowded out other consumption.</b>After 1974, the proportion of consumption of energy products and services in private consumption in the United States increased from about 6% before the shock to 7-9%, and did not drop significantly until after 1985.<b>Second, the supply shock has increased the cost of U.S. oil imports, causing GDP to \"evaporate\".</b>The first oil crisis caused oil prices to rise by about $10/barrel. In 1974, the net oil imports of the United States were about 6 million barrels per day. We estimate that rising oil prices will drag down U.S. GDP by approximately US $21.9 billion by increasing net import costs, dragging down nominal GDP growth by 1.4 percentage points; Similarly, after the second oil crisis, the rising cost of net oil imports dragged down the nominal growth rate of US GDP in 1979 by 2.8 percentage points.<b>Third, the supply shock caused a shortage of raw materials, weakening the industrial production capacity of the United States.</b>After two rounds of supply shocks in the 1970s, the total industrial production index of the United States fell sharply year-on-year. Comparing the two shocks, it can be found that during the first shock, the CPI inflation rate in the United States was lower, while the PPI inflation rate was higher, and then the industrial production was hit deeper, which also reflected that the impact of supply shocks on economic output was more important. It is mainly manifested on the \"supply side\".</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bbaa840667be8378540c48fd32436e79\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"439\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3.2. What does the degree of recession depend on</b></p><p><b>For the above four rounds of recession, according to the degree of GDP contraction and the duration of the recession, they can be divided into two \"soft landings\" (1970 and 1980) and two \"hard landings\" (1973-75 and 1981-82).</b></p><p><ul><li><b>1970 \"soft landing\"</b>The background is that inflationary pressures are relatively limited. At that time, the highest CPI inflation rate was only 6.2%, and then the Federal Reserve did not make a substantial rate hike, and the highest policy interest rate was only about 9%. Inflation is limited. On the one hand, it has not suffered from supply shocks, and on the other hand, it is also related to the price controls of the Nixon administration.</p><p></li><li><b>1980 \"soft landing\"</b>The background is that inflation peaked and fell, and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates in a timely manner. At that time, the U.S. CPI inflation rate once reached an all-time high of 14.8%, and the monthly federal funds rate once reached 17.6%. However, when the recession began, the Federal Reserve quickly cut interest rates, and the policy rate dropped sharply to around 9%, and the economy quickly began to recover.</p><p></li><li><b>1973-75 \"hard landing\"</b>The main reason is that under the supply shock, the inflation rate is still rising during the recession, and then the policy interest rate has to rise rapidly with inflation (even if the policy interest rate is not significantly higher than the inflation rate);</p><p></li><li><b>1981-82 \"hard landing\"</b>The background is that the Federal Reserve is eager to curb inflation, so it has taken very aggressive rate hike measures (Federal Funds rate once reached about 20%). Although the inflation rate soon began to decline, the policy interest rate continued to be significantly higher than the inflation rate, which delayed the economic recovery process.</p><p></li></ul><b>From this, we can conclude that the requirements for \"soft landing\" are relatively stringent-first of all,</b>Inflationary pressure cannot be too great, and the CPI inflation rate may need to fall back in time in the early stages of the recession.<b>Secondly,</b>The Fed's rate hike cannot be too aggressive, and even needs to cut interest rates in time when a recession comes.<b>Finally,</b>If the government intervenes excessively in prices, or a new supply shock unfortunately occurs, then the \"soft landing\" may only be temporary, and inflation may rebound in the future, and a \"hard landing\" will be more difficult to avoid.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c05ee90fc4945e31d8dc59cbb9f3a8c\" tg-width=\"1073\" tg-height=\"367\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>04. Clues to asset prices</b></p><p><b>From the 1970s to the 1980s, high inflation was the \"biggest enemy\" of the U.S. economy and policies, so the inflation situation also became the vane of the capital market. In this process, the market has a process of understanding and digesting the inflation situation and the logic of monetary policy. In the \"Volcker era\" after 1980, monetary policy began to become the key clue of asset prices. In addition, the \"Great Stagflation\" has brought long-term pain to the economy and market, and then safe-haven assets such as the US dollar have performed positively for a long time.</b></p><p><b>4.1. U.S. stocks: Inflation is the biggest enemy</b></p><p><b>During this period, the trend of U.S. stocks was dominated by inflation. Whenever the inflation rate turned downward, U.S. stocks rebounded immediately.</b>July 1970, December 1974, and March 1980 corresponded to the three peaks of the U.S. CPI inflation rate, and were also the beginning of the rebound of the S&P 500 index. This may show that in the period of high inflation, the trend of inflation is what the market is most concerned about: as long as inflation remains high, the Federal Reserve may continue to tighten, and the U.S. economy will be threatened by both high inflation and high interest rates; As long as inflation falls, even if the economy is temporarily weak, the market believes that falling prices are conducive to economic recovery, and the Fed's tightening is expected to be relaxed, and the stock market will be included in the recovery expectation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f3acab3e6f335ccd1d9e96b22ddd4750\" tg-width=\"1069\" tg-height=\"519\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>U.S. stocks are bottom out in the middle of a recession, and the extent of the adjustment does not entirely depend on the degree of the recession.</b>At the beginning of the four rounds of recessions defined by NBER, U.S. stocks were all under pressure. However, when the recession was not over, as monetary policy expectations loosened, inflationary pressures began to ease, and market recovery expectations increased, U.S. stocks were often the first to usher in a rebound. In other words,<b>The \"policy bottom\" is ahead of the \"market bottom\", and the \"market bottom\" is ahead of the \"economic bottom\".</b>From the data point of view, the bottom of the S&P 500 index all occurred during recession periods.</p><p><b>However, the extent of the adjustment in U.S. stocks does not depend entirely on the extent of the recession:</b>In the \"soft landings\" of 1970 and 1980, and in the \"hard landings\" of 1981-82, the S&P 500 index fell no more than 20%; Only in the \"hard landing\" of 1973-75, the S&P 500 index fell nearly 40%. Judging from the magnitude of the rebound, after four rounds of recession and the adjustment of U.S. stocks, the rebound of U.S. stocks is relatively strong, and the S&P 500 index has rebounded by more than 30% from the trough.</p><p><b>The logic behind it may be:</b>The overall market after the \"soft landing\" remains optimistic. Although the market after the \"hard landing\" is not so optimistic, due to the previous low \"base\", the price-performance ratio of US stocks can still attract capital inflows. This means that no matter what the degree of the recession is, as long as the bottom is found and the U.S. stock market is moderately \"tilted forward\", it is possible to obtain good returns.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/164eaafd25fa17da2d93917b48fdcdc5\" tg-width=\"1063\" tg-height=\"500\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>The Federal Reserve is not the \"eternal enemy\" of US stocks.</b>Comparing the performance of U.S. stocks after 1970 and 1980, even though the U.S. CPI inflation rate was higher, the Federal Reserve rate hike was more aggressive, and the degree of recession was not weak after 1980, the overall performance of U.S. stocks was significantly better than that in the 1970s. In the 1970s, the S&P 500 index remained almost sideways amid volatility, while after 1980, the S&P 500 index maintained a volatile upward trend. Especially compared with 1973-75 and 1981-82, they were both \"hard landings\", but the latter U.S. stocks fell less and rebounded more. The biggest difference between the two periods is that<b>The latter is more tightening by the Federal Reserve and may have played a more important role in \"creating\" a recession.</b>During the aggressive rate hike of the Federal Reserve, the inflation rate dropped significantly: on the one hand, it eased the suppression of high inflation on economic growth; on the other hand, the market had more confidence in the Federal Reserve, which in turn made recovery expectations stronger and risk appetite higher. In addition, after 1980, \"Reaganomics\" entered the historical stage, and after the market was fully and painfully cleared, American productivity increased rapidly. Therefore, U.S. stocks rebounded even stronger due to the \"two-wheel drive\" of the decline in policy interest rates after inflation was controllable and the profit growth of listed companies. From this perspective, inflation is the \"biggest enemy\" of US stocks, but the Federal Reserve is not; The Federal Reserve, which has the ability to curb inflation, eventually became a \"friend\" of the US stock market!</p><p><b>4.2. U.S. debt: \"dancing\" with monetary policy</b></p><p><b>In the 1970s, the U.S. bond market experienced a long-term bear market, with high inflation and high interest rates driving the US Treasury yields upward.</b>However, the volatility of 10-year US Treasury yields is significantly smaller than that of CPI inflation rate and policy interest rate. It is worth mentioning that the correlation between the U.S. economic recession and US Treasury yields is not obvious: before and after the four rounds of recessions in 1970, 1974-75, 1980 and 1982, the 10-year US Treasury yields fell back in the first round, the second round fluctuated upward, the third round rose sharply, and the fourth round fluctuated stronger. This may reflect the evolution of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy logic, that is, the emphasis on inflation continues to increase and the balance of the economy continues to weaken. Then<b>Over time, the market trades less \"recession\" and more \"tightening\".</b>It was not until after the third quarter of 1982, when the CPI inflation rate was lower than 5% and GDP shrank year-on-year, that the market believed that the Federal Reserve could cut interest rates without distractions, and US Treasury yields dropped significantly.</p><p><b>In the 1980s, the trend of 10-year US Treasury yields was more closely related to the trend of policy interest rates.</b>From 1980 to 81, the U.S. CPI inflation rate showed a downward trend, but the 10-year US Treasury yields rose rapidly, mainly driven by the strong tightening of monetary policy. After 1982, the 10-year US Treasury yields was relatively consistent with the fluctuation trend of policy interest rates, which reflected the effectiveness of monetary policy reform in the Volcker era, that is, the Federal Reserve's driving force for bond interest rates increased significantly.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d465d535d3e18340e29dfe32d95faea\" tg-width=\"1068\" tg-height=\"502\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>Although the 10-year US Treasury yields \"danced\" with the policy rate, the volatility was even smaller.</b>Before the 1970s, the absolute levels and trends of US Treasury yields and Federal Funds rate were very similar in 10 years. In the 1970s, when high inflation came and the Federal Reserve rate hike, although the 10-year US Treasury yields would also rise, the increase was even smaller, and then \"underperformed\" the policy interest rate. The reasons are: on the one hand, the emergence of high inflation and high interest rates has reduced market risk appetite, and U.S. debt has played a certain safe-haven attribute; On the other hand, due to concerns about economic growth, the market doubts the sustainability of high interest rates, which in turn depresses the medium and long-term US Treasury yields (the maturity premium of U.S. bonds is negative). When inflation fell and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates, although the 10-year US Treasury yields also fell, the magnitude was still limited, making US Treasury yields \"outperform\" the policy interest rate. The reason for this phenomenon may be the rise in inflation expectations. In fact, after 1983, the 10-year decline in US Treasury yields was insufficient, which once became a new problem faced by the Federal Reserve: the inflation rate in the United States has dropped to around 2%, but because the market inflation expectation has not dropped in time, the bond market interest rate has dropped slowly, hindering the economic recovery. Later, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker began to regard the bond market interest rate as the yardstick of inflation expectations, and paid more attention to the management of inflation expectations. It took 10 years for the trend of US Treasury yields to further align with the policy interest rate.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/73d7be6ac6bef4e338dc445e6ab9169f\" tg-width=\"1065\" tg-height=\"503\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>4.3. US dollar: Multiple factors create a strong US dollar</b></p><p><b>Factors such as the Federal Reserve's rate hike, rising market demand for safe havens, and the impact on non-US economies jointly created a strong US dollar in 1981-84.</b>In the 1970s, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system caused the rapid depreciation of the US dollar exchange rate. During this period, the US dollar exchange rate did not have a strong correlation with the US economic and monetary cycle. From 1981 to 84, the US dollar exchange rate continued to strengthen, and the the US Dollar Index once rose above the historical peak of 160 from around 85 in the second half of 1980; It was not until the Plaza Accord was signed in 1985 that the strong dollar came to an end.</p><p><b>How to understand the strong dollar during this period?</b>First of all, after 1980, the Federal Reserve led by Volcker strictly controlled the money supply, and the scarcity of the US dollar rose; Second, from 1981 to 82, the U.S. economy fell into recession due to the aggressive rate hike of the Federal Reserve, and U.S. stocks experienced significant adjustments. Economic and market risks stimulated the safe-haven attribute of the U.S. dollar; Third, in 1983-84, the U.S. economy bid farewell to high inflation and entered a strong recovery. The Federal Reserve's policy interest rate and US Treasury yields remained relatively high. During this period, the US dollar exchange rate is still strengthening: on the one hand, the market's confidence in the Federal Reserve has increased; On the other hand, the spillover effects of the Fed's tightening in the early stage on non-US economies appeared (such as the deep debt crisis in Latin America in 1982-85), which made US dollar assets fully attractive.</p><p>It is worth mentioning that<b>During the aggressive Fed rate hike, both the US Dollar Index and US Treasury yields are trending upward.</b>However,<b>The reaction of the US dollar exchange rate lags behind US Treasury yields:</b>For example, in June 1980, US Treasury yields had begun to rise rapidly in 10 years, while the US Dollar Index's rise lagged by about 3 months; In June, 1984, the 10-year US Treasury yields began to fall due to market expectations of interest rate cuts, but the US Dollar Index's decline lagged behind by nine months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/61242bb3f7016cf966b35fefe3930648\" tg-width=\"1067\" tg-height=\"452\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>05. New enlightenment to the present</b></p><p><b>1. The causes of this round of U.S. inflation have many similarities with those in the 1970s and 1980s, but the overall pressure is more limited.</b></p><p>Similar to the 1970s, the current high inflation in the United States is also the result of multiple factors such as monetary and fiscal easing, the slow action of the Federal Reserve, and supply shocks. But in comparison,<b>We tend to think that U.S. inflation will not get out of control as it was then:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>This time, the U.S. government did not implement rude price controls like the Nixon administration did, and the balancing effect of price signals on supply and demand did not disappear, reducing the risk of recurrent inflation in the future;</p><p></li><li><b>And second,</b>At present, the risk of the \"wage-price\" spiral in the United States is relatively low. On the one hand, it benefits from the medium-and long-term inflation expectations that are still relatively stable, and on the other hand, it benefits from the long-term weakening of the power of American trade unions;</p><p></li><li><b>And third,</b>At present, the United States has a stronger ability to digest the \"oil crisis\". Especially after the shale oil revolution in 2010, the proportion of energy consumption in the United States in total private consumption has declined, and the United States has also changed from a net importer of crude oil to a net exporter. Therefore, the transmission of oil prices to the core inflation rate in the United States has declined. Therefore, even though the current U.S. CPI energy sub-item growth rate is as high as 40% year-on-year, reaching the level of the two oil crises in 1970s and 1980s, the core CPI inflation rate is significantly lower than at that time.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8e9d6130cfa6c71161fdc10b5eaa79c0\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"411\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2. Although the Federal Reserve has \"made mistakes\" in this round, it has taken the initiative in fighting inflation.</b></p><p>The \"capriciousness\" of monetary policy and the market's lack of confidence in monetary policy were important backgrounds for repeated stagflation in 1970s and 1980s. In comparison,<b>The Fed now has more initiative, and even if it underestimated the sustainability of inflation in 2021 (the \"inflation temporary theory\"), there may still be room for recovery from this mistake:</b></p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>In terms of understanding and responding to \"stagflation\", the Federal Reserve is no longer \"crossing the river by feeling the stones\", and its monetary policy has already defined the goal of \"price stability\". Since the beginning of this year, the Federal Reserve has declared that \"price stability\" is the prerequisite for \"maximum employment\" and regards curbing inflation as the top priority of monetary policy.</p><p></li><li><b>Secondly,</b>After the Volcker-Greenspan era, the Federal Reserve had a stronger ability to monitor inflation expectations (such as the birth of inflation-protected bonds after 2000), communicated with the market more efficiently, and established a relatively good reputation. Since the beginning of this year, the Fed's tightening signal has significantly raised the nominal interest rate of U.S. debt, and the quick response of the capital market reflects the credibility of monetary policy. At present, U.S. inflation expectations have not been \"unanchored\". The ten-year inflation expectations monitored by the Cleveland Fed model do not exceed 2.5%, far below the level of 4-5% in the 1980s.</p><p></li><li><b>Finally,</b>The Federal Reserve is more independent today. Currently, inflation is the \"enemy\" faced by the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve, and the Fed's tightening is supported by the president. Even if economic pressure increases in the future and the president puts pressure on the Federal Reserve, it is expected that the Federal Reserve will defend its credibility more firmly. Just as Powell's Federal Reserve conducted four rate hike in 2018, despite criticism from then-President Trump.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/aeb68357b44663ea8caedbf43793c2db\" tg-width=\"1074\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3. This round of U.S. economic recession is almost inevitable, and there is a risk of a \"hard landing\".</b></p><p>In the 1970s and 1980s, when the U.S. CPI inflation rate rose above 5%, the economic recession came as expected. Compare the current:</p><p><ul><li><b>First,</b>This year, the U.S. CPI inflation rate reached a maximum of 9.1%, which not only exceeded the previous level that triggered the recession, but also exceeded the level during the \"soft landing\" period of the U.S. economy in 1970;</p><p></li><li><b>And second,</b>At present, the Federal Reserve has shown great determination to curb inflation, or maintain policy interest rates at a \"sufficiently restrictive level\" for a long time, at the cost of economic recession (refer to our previous report \"The Defense of the Federal Reserve's Credibility\"). This means that, similar to the Volcker period in 1981-82, the Fed's tightening may be enough to \"create\" a recession;</p><p></li><li><b>And third,</b>At present, the risk of recurrent inflation in the future cannot be ruled out. If a new supply shock unfortunately occurs in the future, or the actual tightening of the Fed is insufficient (for example, when the U.S. economy actually enters a recession, political pressure rises, or financial risks occur in the future, the Fed stops tightening or even cuts interest rates prematurely), then U.S. inflation may still be repeated, leading to a greater recession.</p><p></li></ul><b>4. The price trend of this round of major asset classes may be strongly similar to that of 1970s and 1980s.</b></p><p><b>1) U.S. stocks: Inflation is still the core influencing factor, and there will still be adjustment pressure in the future, but the adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may wait for the recession to materialize.</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Similar to the 1970s and 1980s, the current inflation trend also has a strong correlation with the performance of US stocks.</b>In the first half of this year, as the U.S. CPI inflation rate continued to rise, U.S. stocks ushered in a round of deep adjustments; From mid-June to mid-August, commodity prices and inflation expectations cooled down, and U.S. stocks rebounded in stages; Since late August, as the persistence of high inflation has exceeded expectations, the Fed's policy orientation has become tougher, and U.S. stocks have paid more attention to monetary policy, staging a new round of \"tightening panic.\"</p><p></li><li><b>The U.S. stock market may remain under pressure for some time to come, similar to the 1981-82 period when Volcker fought inflation and \"created\" a recession.</b>From 1981 to 82, although the U.S. CPI inflation rate continued to fall, the Federal Reserve's tightening had an impact on the economy and stock market. Similarly, the current Federal Reserve seems to want to return to the \"Volcker era\" and is bound to ensure that inflation falls back at the cost of recession. At present, U.S. inflation is still at a high level, the economy has not yet experienced a substantial recession, and the market's valuation of the recession is not yet sufficient, and there may still be room for subsequent adjustments in U.S. stocks. Judging from historical experience, U.S. stocks may still fall in the early stages of the economic recession. It is not until monetary policy begins to relax in the middle and late stages of the recession that U.S. stocks will usher in a sustained rebound.</p><p></li><li><b>However, the Fed will not be the \"eternal enemy\" of U.S. stocks. If the Fed successfully helps inflation fall, the adjustment of U.S. stocks may not be too deep.</b>When Volcker \"created\" a recession in 1981-92, the adjustment of U.S. stocks was relatively limited and did not fall below the bottom in early 1980. Although the Fed's vigorous fight against inflation brings \"short-term pain\", it can avoid the \"long-term pain\" of repeated inflation. Considering that this round of inflation situation is more optimistic than in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Fed's actions are not too passive, this round of U.S. stock adjustment may not be too deep, and the rebound may be earlier than historical experience.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7f004d3c8a3173e8965e08861dace942\" tg-width=\"1077\" tg-height=\"417\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>2) U.S. debt: Monetary policy is still the core influencing factor, and it may not fall back immediately when the recession materializes. It needs to wait until monetary policy clearly begins to relax.</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Similar to the 1970s and 1980s, the core influencing factor of US Treasury yields in the current decade is also monetary policy.</b>The experience of the 1970s-1980s was that the bond market teetered between a \"recession trade\" and a \"tightening trade\". But as the Fed is more determined to fight inflation, the bond market is trading less \"recession\" and more \"tightening.\" In July this year, due to cooling inflation expectations and rising recession expectations, the 10-year US Treasury yields dropped significantly. However, since late August, as the Fed's policy orientation has become tougher, the market has paid more attention to tightening. Therefore, US Treasury yields has continued to rebound in the past 10 years and has risen above 4%, exceeding the stage high of 3.5% in mid-June.</p><p></li><li><b>If the Fed also insists on tightening during a recession, then the US Treasury yields in the early 10-year recession may not fall back soon.</b>Just as in the early days of the U.S. economic recession in 1981-82, even though the U.S. CPI inflation rate has dropped significantly from its high point, it is still far from the 2% target. Monetary policy has not been relaxed, and the 10-year US Treasury yields has remained at a high level. We expect that even if the U.S. economy begins to decline in the first half of 2023, the Federal Reserve may choose to stick to tightening and not cut interest rates, and the bond market may not trade in a recession prematurely.</p><p></li><li><b>A 10-year decline in US Treasury yields may require a substantial decline in policy interest rates.</b>In the second half of 1982, when the U.S. CPI inflation rate fell below 5% and the economic recession was deep, the Federal Reserve began to cut interest rates sharply, and the U.S. bond bull market really started. And note that the starting point of the decline in policy interest rates at that time was ahead of the 10-year US Treasury yields, and the decline was deeper. This means that after the monetary policy clearly begins to relax, the 10-year US Treasury yields may not drop significantly.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/18e234a92705cc42b9b876c30857ee92\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"410\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>3) U.S. dollar: The \"strong U.S. dollar\" may last for a long time, and the fall in the U.S. dollar exchange rate may require US Treasury yields to fall</b></p><p><ul><li><b>Looking at the mid-cycle, the current logic of the \"strong dollar\" is very similar to that of the 1980s.</b>From 1980 to 84, the US Dollar Index came out of the \"historical peak\". Even though the Federal Reserve cut interest rates during this period, the US dollar exchange rate remained strong for a long time. At present, the logic of supporting the US dollar is very similar to that in the 1980s: the US economy has obvious advantages over non-US regions, and the Fed's tightening confidence is stronger than other developed economies. Looking back, even if the U.S. economy moves from \"stagflation\" to \"recession\", non-U.S. economic and financial risks may not be eliminated (this can be seen from the fluctuations in European and Japanese bond and exchange rate markets this year). On the contrary, the market's trust in U.S. dollar assets will increase (for example, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin have weakened at present). Therefore, for at least the next 1-2 years, the volatility center of the the US Dollar Index is expected to continue to be higher than the pre-COVID-19 level.</p><p></li><li><b>In the short term, US Treasury yields may be a \"leading indicator\" to judge the trend of the US dollar.</b>In 1980, the 10-year US Treasury yields started its upward cycle earlier than the US Dollar Index; In 1984-85, US Treasury yields fell back before the US Dollar Index in 10 years. In fact, past market performance has basically confirmed US Treasury yields's leadership over the US Dollar Index:<b>1-3 months after the 10-year US Treasury yields peaks and falls, the US Dollar Index usually also peaks and falls.</b>As mentioned earlier, the start of this round of U.S. bond bull market may have to wait until the recession materializes and monetary policy becomes loosened. After that, the signs of the US Dollar Index peaking and falling may become increasingly clear.</p><p></li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fa0454ffd0dbe555b8d8d2e59c3c5c0d\" tg-width=\"1075\" tg-height=\"408\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b><i>Risk warning:</i></b></p><p><b><i>1. The resilience of the US economy is less than expected.</i></b><i>Although there is still room for the recovery of the U.S. service industry, under the environment of high inflation and high interest rates, residents' consumer confidence is insufficient or actual consumption is suppressed, which in turn makes the economic growth weaker than the benchmark expectation; As the Federal Reserve's rate hike and demand cool, the pace of cooling in the U.S. job market may exceed expectations.</i></p><p><b><i>2. A new supply shock occurs.</i></b><i>If new supply shocks occur in the future and raise international energy, food and other commodity prices again, the pressure of \"stagflation\" in the United States may rise significantly, the Federal Reserve may have to \"create\" a recession to curb inflation, and market sentiment will turn pessimistic.</i></p><p><b><i>3. The Fed's tightening is insufficient or too strong.</i></b><i>If the Fed's insufficient tightening causes repeated inflation, the cost of the Fed's subsequent inflation control will be even greater; If the Fed's tightening efforts are significantly stronger than market expectations, the risk of market volatility may rise and may eventually threaten the real economy.</i></p><p><b><i>4. Economic and financial risks in non-US regions exceed expectations, etc.</i></b><i>At present, the economic and financial risks of large economies such as Europe and Asia are showing signs of rising. If large-scale economic and financial risk events occur in the future, the U.S. economy and market may be affected.</i></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/49ae9add1640b1e283a53b027b0227c7\" tg-width=\"1040\" tg-height=\"868\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fc83db9c8a7fe6fe220fca7ca329cf0d\" tg-width=\"1040\" tg-height=\"513\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/580ee36c20670ad5f1a888d715380e06\" tg-width=\"999\" tg-height=\"928\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p></body></html></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4f6ec6e99c0c8b9feb7f296b78c65a54","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1100486117","content_text":"一、高通胀的复杂性。1970-80年代美国高通胀的成因是极为复杂的：首先，财政和货币刺激过度，初步推升通胀；然后，粗暴的价格管制与犹豫的货币政策，未能有效浇灭通胀；再者，以两次石油危机为代表的供给冲击引发了成本推动型通胀；最后，长期超调的通胀率破坏了通胀预期的稳定，引发工资-物价螺旋，加深了通胀的顽固性。二、美联储的“过”与“功”。1970-1979年，美联储紧缩不够坚决，原因是多方面的：首先，美联储一度认为通胀是“非货币现象”；其次，当时美联储的首要目标是“充分就业”而非“物价稳定”；最后，美联储决策还受到政治因素影响。1979年以后，沃尔克领导的美联储吸收“货币学派”理念，将遏制通胀视为己任，坚定加息和控制货币供给。此后，美联储在较长时间里致力于稳定通胀预期，重塑了美联储的信誉。三、“软着陆”与“硬着陆”。1970-80年代美国共出现4轮经济衰退，可分为两次“软着陆”（1970年和1980年）和两次“硬着陆”（1973-75年和1981-82年），这是高通胀、高利率和供给冲击共同作用的结果。但实现“软着陆”的条件是较为苛刻的：首先，CPI通胀率或需在衰退初期及时回落；其次，美联储加息不能过于激进，甚至需要在衰退到来时及时降息；最后，若发生新的供给冲击，“硬着陆”可能更难避免。四、资产价格的线索。1970-80年代，通胀成为资本市场的风向标。美国CPI通胀率三次阶段性触顶，美股皆阶段性触底。但在此过程中，市场对通胀形势以及货币政策逻辑都有一个理解与消化的过程。随时间推移，美债市场更少地交易“衰退”、更多地交易“紧缩”。在1980年以后的“沃尔克时代”，货币政策开始成为资产价格的关键线索。“大滞胀”结束后，美元等避险资产仍在较长时间里表现积极。五、对当下的新启示。第一，本轮美国通胀成因与1970-80年代有诸多相似性，但整体压力更为有限；第二，本轮美联储虽然也曾“犯错”，但在抗击通胀方面更占据主动；第三，本轮美国经济衰退几成必然，且存在“硬着陆”风险；第四，本轮大类资产价格走势与1970-80年代或有较强相似性：1）美股：通胀仍是核心影响因素，未来仍有调整压力，但调整幅度或不会太深，反弹或待衰退兑现。2）美债：货币政策仍是核心影响因素，衰退兑现时也未必立即回落，需等到货币政策明确开始放松。3）美元：“强势美元”可能持续较久，美元回落或需美债利率回落。风险提示：美国经济弱于预期，出现新的供给冲击，非美金融风险上升等。2022年以来，美国CPI通胀率一度升破9%，实际GDP连续两个季度环比萎缩，经济的（类）滞胀特征更加鲜明，资本市场也经历了大幅波动。8月下旬杰克逊霍尔会议以来，美联储在各类场合不断提到“历史经验”，说明当前美国经济环境与1970-80年代极为相似，而美联储也将充分借鉴当时的应对经验，有所为而有所不为，以期帮助美国战胜“滞胀”。当前美国通胀压力几何？货币政策会如何应对？美国经济是否还能实现“软着陆”？资本市场何时迎来“春天”？在本篇报告中，我们带着对当下的疑问，重温1970-80年代美国“大滞胀”时期的通胀、货币政策、经济增长和资产价格表现，并尝试理解其中的逻辑与规律，以期对判断未来一段时间美国经济、货币政策和市场走向有所启发。01、高通胀的复杂性1970-80年代美国高通胀的成因是极为复杂的：首先，财政和货币刺激过度，初步推升通胀；然后，粗暴的价格管制与犹豫的货币政策，未能有效浇灭通胀；再者，以两次石油危机为代表的供给冲击引发了成本推动型通胀；最后，长期超调的通胀率破坏了通胀预期的稳定，引发工资-物价螺旋，加深了通胀的顽固性。1969-1982年，美国陷入高通胀危机，CPI通胀率普遍高于5%，最高曾达到14.8%。美国CPI同比增速自1968年开始便以3%以上的速度较快上升，1969年3月CPI同比破5%，从此开始了长达13年的“高通胀”时代。在1969-1982年里，美国CPI同比增速走势出现三轮波峰，峰值分别在1970年1月（6.2%）、1974年12月（12.3%）和1980年3月（14.8%）。1982年2月CPI同比回落至5%以下。1965-70年，财政和货币盲目扩张，孕育通胀走高。随着二战后经济重建告一段落，加上欧洲与亚洲经济的兴起，美国经济增长动能趋弱，但政策层面盲目刺激，导致经济明显过热。1965-1970年，美国实际GDP增速持续高于潜在增速水平，且产出缺口（实际GDP与潜在GDP差值）占潜在GDP的比重高达3-6%。换言之，当时美国经济增速中有3-6个百分点都是政策刺激出来的。这一时期，美国自然失业率在5.6-5.9%，但实际失业率基本保持在4%以内。在当时，财政刺激的角色强于货币。美国联邦财政支出占GDP比重由在1966-68年期间上升了3.2个百分点，赤字率由1965年的0.2%扩大至1968年的2.8%。1968年，美国政府开始担心财政平衡问题，时任总统约翰逊6月签署了“1968收支控制法”，通过加税补充财政收入。而美联储于同年8月“技术性降息”以对冲加税的影响，为经济过热添火助力。1971-74年，粗暴的价格管制将“短痛”变为“长痛”。1971年8月，尼克松政府实行了为时90天的工资和物价冻结。但实际上，随后价格管制的范围不断扩大，直至1974年美国政府才完全取消对物价的干预。这期间，除特殊情况外，所有商品和服务涨价都需要经过政府审批。1972年中，美国CPI通胀率回落至3%以下。这一次价格管制，被视为美国经济史上和平时期政府全面干预价格的一个特例，也被认为是一次失败的尝试。这是因为，限价措施在抑制物价上涨的同时，也严重打击了生产企业的积极性，造成社会商品供应不足，为后来通胀的恶化埋下伏笔。1974年尼克松因“水门事件”下台，新总统卡特上台，价格管制措施逐步失效。略显滑稽的是，尼克松和卡特政府均尝试通过口头“劝诫”来管控物价。例如，卡特刚上台时曾鼓励民众买“便宜货”：“要敢于向他人炫耀，自己专挑便宜货买，并为此感到自豪”。这些劝诫对于管控物价几乎是徒劳的，美国CPI通胀率自1973年4月重新破5%，此后一路上行并于1974年12月达到12.3%的阶段高点。1973年和1979年的一次粮食危机和两次石油危机，展示了供给冲击对美国物价的破坏力。1973年，前苏联谷物受恶劣天气影响而歉收，继而进入国际市场大量购买粮食，引发了二战以来最为严重的粮食危机。1973年末，美国食品CPI同比增速一度升破20%。1973年10月至1974年3月，第一次石油危机爆发：以沙特为首的石油输出国组织成员国宣布，对赎罪日战争期间支持以色列的国家实施石油禁运，美国首当其冲。世界银行原油均价由1973年9月的2.7美元/桶，跃升至1974年初的13美元/桶，涨幅接近500%。1974年3-9月，美国能源CPI同比增速均超过30%。1979年初至1980年初，第二次石油危机爆发：伊朗爆发伊斯兰革命，而后伊朗和伊拉克爆发“两伊战争”，导致全球石油产量锐减。世界银行国际油价由1978年12月的不到15美元/桶升，至1979年11月的40美元/桶以上。1980年3月，美国能源CPI同比达到47.1%的峰值，美国CPI同比也随即达到14.8%的顶点。1970-80年，美国标题通胀率持续超调后，通胀预期失控，在工会力量助推下，“工资-物价螺旋”逐渐形成。在CPI通胀率连续多年高于2%、甚至高于5%后，美国居民对物价失去原有的信心，通胀预期上升。当时，无论是美联储还是市场，对于通胀预期的认知和跟踪都比较有限。当下广泛引用的密歇根大学调查和克利夫兰联储模型预期，在1980年前后才陆续诞生。美国最早的通胀预期监测工具是1946年诞生的利文斯顿调查（The Livingston Survey），它总结了来自企业、政府、银行业和学术界的通胀预测。该调查显示，1970年以后美国通胀预期逐渐走高，尤其两次石油危机后，通胀预期也随标题通胀率陡然上升。通胀预期对于物价的反向影响主要通过工资传导：劳工要求涨薪，继而居民的消费能力与企业的成本压力上升，同时促成物价上涨，即形成“工资-物价螺旋”。尤其是，1970年代美国工会力量庞大，工资诉求的传导较为通畅：据美国劳工统计局（BLS）数据，当时美国工会成员占社会总雇员的近三成，每年发生千人以上罢工运动高达200-400起（2000年以后这一数字已常年低于30起）。1976年中至1978年中，美国CPI通胀率回落至5-7%左右，但美国非农非管理人员平均时薪同比增速达到6-8%、持续高于CPI通胀率。工资上涨的粘性阻碍了通胀的进一步回落，并为后来通胀的反弹做铺垫。1970-79年，美联储的政策应对较为消极，持续“落后于曲线”，未能有效遏制通胀。1980年以前，美国政策利率与通胀走势呈现较强同步性，体现了美联储在较长的时间里都在“落后于曲线”、“追赶曲线”。1969年5月，在通胀率破5%后的第三个月，美国政策利率才开始明显上升并超过通胀率3个百分点以上，此后通胀率保持上升了半年左右才开始回落。1973年下半年，美国通胀率仍在上升的情况下，美联储迫于经济压力而降息，继而通胀率加速上升。1978年，美国政策利率与通胀率基本持平，并保持亦步亦趋地上升，直到1978年12月，联邦基金月率升破10%并高出通胀率1个百分点，但很快政策利率又开始落后于通胀率。后来，当美国政策利率显著高于即期通胀率后，通胀才明显回落，美联储在遏制通胀方面才算拥有了主动：1979年以后，沃尔克领导的美联储大幅升息抗击通胀；1981年中，美国政策利率到达19%以上的高峰，同年10月CPI环比和同比同时下降；此后联邦基金利率持续高于CPI通胀率4-9个百分点不等，通胀率持续回落。02、美联储的“ 过” 与“ 功”1970-1979年，美联储紧缩不够坚决，原因既包括对通胀与货币政策的关系认知不足，也包括货币政策的独立性缺失。1979年以后，沃尔克领导的美联储吸收“货币学派”理念，将遏制通胀视为己任，坚定加息和控制货币供给。此后，美联储在较长时间里致力于稳定通胀预期，重塑了美联储的信誉。2.1、美联储犹豫的原因1970-1979年，美联储持续“落后于曲线”，原因是多方面的。首先，美联储一度认为通胀是“非货币现象”。当时，美联储对于高通胀的成因出现分歧，并倾向于认为通胀主要由非货币因素造成，继而货币政策选择消极应对。例如，1970年，伯恩斯领导的美联储认为，工会力量引发了成本推动型通胀，继而主张动用“收入政策”调控，而不愿收紧货币供给。这也推动了尼克松政府后来实施的工资和物价冻结。1974年，伯恩斯又认为，“不恰当的财政纪律”是导致通胀的主因。其次，美联储在当时的首要目标是“充分就业”而非“物价稳定”。1970年代以前，凯恩斯主义理念主导货币政策逻辑，美联储专注于总需求管理，并坚信菲利普斯曲线（失业率与通胀的负相关性）的存在。因此，美联储将货币政策的首要目标落脚在实现“充分就业”，希望维持较低且稳定的失业率水平，继而当失业率上升时，货币政策的天平更向就业市场倾斜。当“滞”与“胀”同时发生时，美联储一度认为通胀不会继续恶化。例如，1978-79年米勒领导的美联储认为，只要失业率在充分就业水平之上（5.5%以上），货币宽松就不会加深通胀。最后，美联储决策还受到政治因素影响。1970-1978年担任主席的伯恩斯、以及1978-79年任职的米勒，均受到时任总统的影响而缺乏独立性，在平衡通胀与经济增长的关系时摇摆不定。事后来看，1970年代美联储对通胀的容忍可能正是执政者所希望看到的：一方面，执政者不希望美联储因遏制通胀而破坏经济增长、影响选票；另一方面，较高的通胀也被视为一种隐性的税收手段，因名义工资上涨提高了整个税收体系的累进程度，使财政收入大幅上升。数据显示，美国个人所得税占GDP比重在1969-70年、1974年以及1979-83年的高通胀时期，均有明显上升。2.2、沃尔克时代的功绩1979年以后，沃尔克领导的美联储吸收“货币学派”理念，将遏制通胀为己任，坚定地加息和控制货币供给，虽然“制造”了经济衰退，但也最终战胜了通胀。1979 年8月，沃尔克就任美联储主席，其采取了以弗里德曼为代表的“货币学派”观点，其领导的美联储更加明确了货币政策对于物价稳定的核心地位，并将货币供给（M1）增速纳入货币政策目标，继而大幅加息，使联邦基金利率高于CPI通胀率，以达到控制货币供给的目标。1980年3月，沃尔克曾实施了一次不甚明智但短暂的信贷控制试验（“特别信贷限制计划”），以期减缓加息幅度，但随后又重启货币政策紧缩，并最终在1981年中将联邦基金利率一度推升至20%以上的峰值。大幅加息虽然带来了经济衰退，但最终帮助通胀回落。此外，在沃尔克和格林斯潘时代，美联储建立了新的“名义锚”，以稳定通胀预期并重塑美联储的信誉，这也是日后美国物价回归长期稳定的重要背景。1980年代，在经历“大滞胀”后，原本的物价稳定预期遭遇严重损害。即便在沃尔克时代，美联储明确了货币供给目标、坚定地提高了利率，但货币政策的可信度仍受质疑。公众并不清楚美联储能否长期保持对通胀的重视，并有能力影响中长期物价走势。因此，沃尔克和其下任联储主席格林斯潘，更致力于重构稳定的通胀预期，使其成为货币政策的“名义锚”，最终重新树立货币政策的可信度。这是一个复杂而漫长的过程：沃尔克战胜通胀的经历是良好起点，而后美联储由货币供给目标转向“隐性通胀目标制”。实际操作中，美联储同时盯住“增长缺口”和“通胀预期缺口”，事实上通过泰勒规则制定政策利率，追求稳定的中长期通胀目标，实现稳定的经济增长。在通胀预期管理上，美联储通过债券收益率变动来监测通胀预期，同时加强与资本市场的沟通，增强了货币政策的可信度与市场预期的稳定性。沃尔克时代后的货币政策框架，在物价稳定方面取得了长期性成果，造就了后来的大稳健时代（Great Moderation，1984-2007年）。03、“ 软着陆” 与“ 硬着陆”1970-80年代美国共出现4轮经济衰退，这是高通胀、高利率和供给冲击共同作用的结果。高通胀对于消费产生直接的抑制作用，并驱使美联储加息、进一步抑制投资。因此，衰退的程度取决于通胀的严峻性以及货币政策的应对，实现“软着陆”的条件是较为苛刻的。3.1、经济衰退的三大推手按照美国国民经济研究局（NBER）的划分，1970-80年代美国经济共出现四轮衰退：第一轮是1970年1月至11月（11个月）。美国实际GDP同比由1969年的3.2%下滑至1970年的0.2%，但经济几乎没有萎缩。而美国失业率却显著攀升，由1969年12月的3.5%升至1970年12月的6.1%（阶段高点），在此后的24个月里均保持在5%以上。第二轮是1973年12月至1975年3月（16个月）。美国实际GDP同比由1973年的5.6%断崖式下滑，曾连续5个季度同比萎缩，季度同比萎缩最深达2.3%。美国失业率连续31个月高于7%，由1973年10月阶段低点的4.6%，一路走高至1975年5月的9.0%，此后缓慢下降。第三轮是1980年2月至7月（6个月）。美国实际GDP环比折年率于1980年二季度大幅萎缩8%，不过同比仅萎缩0.8%。在这一时期，美国失业率由6.3%最高升至7.8%。1980年下半年，美国经济立即开始复苏，四季度GDP环比大幅上涨7.7%，失业率于8月开始回落。第四轮是1981年8月至1982年11月（16个月）。美国实际GDP曾连续4个季度同比萎缩、最深萎缩2.6%。美国失业率在1981年8月开始从7.2%的阶段低点显著回升，同年11月破8%，1982年11月达到10.8%的峰值，此后缓慢回落，1984年2月才降至8%以下。衰退推手之一：高通胀。比较当时的经济与通胀走势，二者呈现出十分紧密的相关性：美国经济衰退发生的节点，均对应CPI通胀率上升或触顶的时候。例如，1970年CPI通胀率触顶时点，恰好是失业率反弹与经济衰退的开端；1973-75年，这一轮失业率反弹和经济被认定为衰退的时点，都在CPI通胀率破8%以后；1980年初，当CPI通胀率触及14%以上的极高水平时，失业率显著反弹、经济开始衰退。如果衰退发生时，通胀率仍在上升，则美国经济继续下行；只有通胀率回落后，美国经济才开始复苏。例如，1970年末，直到通胀回落至5%以下，美国经济才开始复苏；1975年，当通胀率触顶回落一个季度后，美国GDP环比增速转正、失业率开始下降。通胀对经济的直接影响主要体现在消费上。相比政策利率，美国通胀率与私人消费增速的负相关性更为明显。尤其在1980年代，当政策利率大幅跃升时，通胀率已经提早回落，当时私人消费也开始回升，说明通胀缓和对于消费回暖有明显帮助。衰退推手之二：高利率。整体而言，当时美联储加息对经济的降温效应是明显的：当美国经济处于过热时，加息对经济的降温效果可谓立竿见影：如1973年中，美国制造业PMI超过60，美联储加息使“过热”的经济快速降温。当美国经济本身处于下行甚至衰退时，加息则深化了经济萎缩的幅度：如1974年中，政策利率达峰后，美国经济下行速度加快，三季度美国GDP环比大幅萎缩3.7%；1980年3-4月，联邦基金月率达到17%以上的阶段高点后，同年二季度美国GDP环比大幅萎缩8.0%。反之，降息可助力经济复苏：1970年12月，当政策利率降至通胀率之下时，美国经济立刻处于复苏状态；1975年初，美联储降息并使政策利率低于通胀率近5个百分点，美国经济于1975年二季度开始复苏。但是，在通胀未得到有效控制时过早地、不成熟地降息，可能会以“通胀反复+更高幅度的加息”收场，从而酿至更大程度的衰退，或延缓本应更早开始的复苏：1974年初，美联储选择降息，但由于通胀继续走高、对经济的负面影响持续，美国经济仍步入衰退；1980年5月，联邦基金月率已降至11%左右（辅以信贷管制），8月美国经济暂时脱离衰退区间，但由于此后通胀反复迫使美联储选择更大力度地加息，1981年美国经济陷入新一轮程度更深的衰退。利率对经济的影响主要体现在投资上。相比通胀，政策利率与私人投资（滞后1年）的负相关性更为明显。1980年下半年，美联储短暂降息，一年后美国私人投资明显反弹；1981年，当美联储重新大幅加息后，一年后的私人投资增速明显下滑，但该时期通胀也已明显回落，说明私人投资对利率走势更为敏感。衰退推手之三：供给冲击。1973年和1979年的粮食和石油危机，对美国经济增长造成了多方面拖累，因此都引发了经济衰退。第一，如上文提到，供给冲击抬升了CPI通胀率，消费价格上涨抑制了总需求。尤其是，供给冲击引发能源消费成本上升，并挤占了其他消费。1974年以后，美国能源产品和服务消费占私人消费比重，由冲击前的6%左右上升至7-9%，直到1985年以后才明显回落。第二，供给冲击增大了美国石油进口成本，导致GDP“蒸发”。第一次石油危机导致油价上涨约10美元/桶，1974年美国石油净进口量约为600万桶/日。我们测算，石油涨价通过增加净进口成本对美国GDP的拖累约为219亿美元，拖累GDP名义增速1.4个百分点；类似地，第二次石油危机后，石油净进口成本上升拖累了1979年美国GDP名义增速2.8个百分点。第三，供给冲击引发原材料紧缺，削弱了美国工业生产能力。1970年代的两轮供给冲击后，美国工业生产总指数同比均出现大幅下降。对比两次冲击可以发现，第一次冲击时，美国CPI通胀率较低、而PPI通胀率更高，继而工业生产所受冲击程度更深，这也体现了供给冲击对经济产出的影响更主要地表现在“供给端”。3.2、衰退程度取决于什么对于上述4轮衰退，按照GDP萎缩程度、以及衰退时长划分，可分为两次“软着陆”（1970年和1980年）和两次“硬着陆”（1973-75年和1981-82年）。1970年“软着陆”的背景是，通胀压力相对有限。当时CPI通胀率最高仅为6.2%，继而美联储也未大幅加息，政策利率最高仅为9%左右。而通胀有限，一方面是没有遭受供给冲击，另一方面也和尼克松政府的价格管制有关。1980年“软着陆”的背景是，通胀见顶回落、美联储及时降息。当时美国CPI通胀率一度达到14.8%的历史高点，联邦基金月率曾经达到17.6%，但当衰退开始时，美联储迅速降息，政策利率大幅下降至9%左右时，经济很快开始复苏。1973-75年“硬着陆”的主要原因是，供给冲击下，衰退期间通胀率仍在上行，继而政策利率也不得不跟随通胀快速上升（即使政策利率并未显著高于通胀率）；1981-82年“硬着陆”的背景是，美联储迫切希望遏制通胀，从而采取十分激进的加息措施（联邦基金利率曾达到20%左右），虽然通胀率很快开始下降，但政策利率仍持续、显著高于通胀率，使经济复苏进程延缓。由此，我们可以得出结论：“软着陆”的要求是较为苛刻的——首先，通胀压力不能太大，CPI通胀率或需要在衰退初期及时回落。其次，美联储加息不能过于激进，甚至需要在衰退到来时及时降息。最后，如果政府对价格进行过度干预，或者不幸发生了新的供给冲击，那么“软着陆”可能只是暂时的，日后通胀可能反弹、“硬着陆”更难避免。04、资产价格的线索1970-80年代，高通胀是美国经济和政策的“最大敌人”，因而通胀形势也成为资本市场的风向标。在此过程中，市场对通胀形势以及货币政策逻辑都有一个理解与消化的过程。在1980年以后的“沃尔克时代”，货币政策开始成为资产价格的关键线索。此外，“大滞胀”为经济和市场带来了长期伤痛，继而美元等避险资产在较长时间里表现积极。4.1、美股：通胀是最大的敌人这一时期美股走势由通胀主导，每当通胀率调头向下，美股便立即反弹。1970年7月、1974年12月和1980年3月，对应着美国CPI通胀率的三轮顶点，同时也是标普500指数反弹的开端。这或说明，在高通胀时期，通胀走势是市场最为关注的：只要通胀居高不下，美联储就有继续紧缩的可能，美国经济便受到高通胀和高利率的共同威胁；而只要通胀回落，即便经济暂时疲弱，市场相信回落的物价有利于经济复苏、且美联储紧缩有望放松，股市便计入复苏预期。美股在衰退中期触底反弹，调整幅度不完全取决于衰退程度。在NBER定义的4轮衰退初期，美股均承压，但衰退尚未结束时，由于货币政策预期趋松、通胀压力开始缓和，市场复苏预期增强，美股往往率先迎来反弹。换言之，“政策底”领先于“市场底”，“市场底”又领先于“经济底”。从数据上看，标普500指数的底部均出现在衰退时期内。不过，美股调整幅度并不完全取决于衰退程度：1970年和1980年的“软着陆”中，以及1981-82年的“硬着陆”中，标普500指数跌幅均不超过20%；只有1973-75年的“硬着陆”中，标普500指数跌幅接近40%。从反弹幅度看，四轮衰退和美股调整后，美股反弹都是较为强劲的，标普500指数由低谷反弹的幅度均超30%。其背后的逻辑或许在于：“软着陆”后的市场整体保持乐观，“硬着陆”后的市场虽然没有那么乐观，但由于此前“基数”较低，美股的性价比仍能吸引资金流入。这意味着，无论衰退程度如何，只要找准底部适度“前倾”布局美股，均有可能获得不错的收益。美联储不是美股“永远的敌人”。对比1970年后和1980年后的美股表现，即便1980年后美国CPI通胀率更高、美联储加息更为激进、衰退程度也不弱，但美股的整体表现显著好于1970年代。1970年代，标普500指数在波动中几乎保持横盘，而1980年以后标普500指数维持震荡上行趋势。尤其对比1973-75年和1981-82年，都是“硬着陆”，但后者美股下跌幅度更小、反弹幅度更大。两段时期最大的区别在于，后者美联储紧缩力度更强，在“制造”衰退中可能发挥了更重要的作用。在美联储激进加息过程中，通胀率显著下降：一方面缓解了高通胀对经济增长的抑制，另一方面市场对于美联储更有信心，继而令复苏预期更强、风险偏好更高。此外，1980年后，“里根经济学”登上历史舞台，在市场充分而痛苦地出清后，美国生产率快速提升。因而，美股受到通胀可控后的政策利率下降、以及上市公司盈利增长的“双轮驱动”，反弹更为强劲。从这个角度来看，通胀才是美股“最大的敌人”，而美联储不是；有能力遏制通胀的美联储，反而最终成为了美股的“朋友”！4.2、美债：与货币政策“共舞”1970年代，美债市场经历了一段长期熊市，高通胀和高利率共同驱动美债利率上行。但是，10年美债利率的波幅明显小于CPI通胀率和政策利率的波幅。值得一提的是，美国经济衰退与美债利率的相关性并不明显：在1970年、1974-75年、1980年和1982年的四轮衰退前后，10年美债利率在第一轮有所回落，第二轮震荡上行，第三轮大幅走高，第四轮震荡偏强。这或体现了美联储货币政策逻辑的演进过程，即对通胀的重视不断提高、对经济的兼顾不断弱化。继而随时间推移，市场更少地交易“衰退”、更多地交易“紧缩”。直到1982年三季度以后，当CPI通胀率低于5%、GDP同比萎缩时，市场相信美联储能够心无旁骛地降息，美债利率才明显走低。1980年代，10年美债利率走势与政策利率走势更加紧密。1980-81年，美国CPI通胀率呈下行走势，但10年美债利率快速上行，主要由货币政策强力紧缩驱动。1982年以后，10年美债利率与政策利率波动趋势比较贴合，这体现了沃尔克时代货币政策改革的成效，即美联储对债券利率的驱动力显著提升。虽然10年美债利率与政策利率“共舞”，但波动幅度更小。1970年代以前，10年美债利率与联邦基金利率的绝对水平和走势都很相近。1970年代，当高通胀到来、美联储加息时，10年美债利率虽然也会上升，但上升幅度更小，继而“跑输”政策利率。原因在于：一方面，高通胀和高利率的出现，降低了市场风险偏好，美债发挥了一定避险属性；另一方面，市场出于对经济增长的担忧，怀疑高利率的可持续性，继而压低了中长端美债利率（美债期限溢价为负）。当通胀回落、美联储降息后，10年美债利率虽也回落，但幅度仍然有限，使美债利率“跑赢”政策利率，这一现象的原因或许在通胀预期的上升。事实上，1983年以后，10年美债利率下降幅度不足，一度成为美联储面临的新问题：美国通胀率已回落至2%附近，但由于市场通胀预期仍未及时回落，债券市场利率下降缓慢，阻碍了经济复苏。后来，沃尔克领导的美联储开始将债券市场利率视为通胀预期的标尺，更加重视对通胀预期的管理，10年美债利率走势才进一步贴合政策利率。4.3、美元：多因素造就强美元美联储加息、市场避险需求上升、非美经济受冲击等因素，共同造就了1981-84年的强势美元。1970年代，布雷顿森林体系崩溃造成美元汇率迅速贬值，这一时期的美元汇率与美国经济和货币周期相关性不强。1981-84年，美元汇率持续走强，美元指数由1980年下半年的85左右，一度升破160的历史峰值；直到1985年《广场协议》签署，强势美元才得以终结。如何理解这一时期的强势美元？首先，1980年以后，沃尔克领导的美联储严格控制货币供给，美元的稀缺性上升；第二，1981-82年，美国经济因美联储激进加息而陷入衰退，美股经历明显调整，经济和市场风险激发了美元的避险属性；第三，1983-84年，美国经济告别了高通胀，步入强劲复苏，美联储政策利率和美债利率仍维持着相对高位。这一时期美元汇率仍在走强：一方面，市场对美联储的信心提升；另一方面，前期美联储紧缩对非美经济的外溢效应显现（如1982-85年拉美深陷债务危机），这使美元资产具备十足的吸引力。值得一提的是，在美联储激进加息时期，美元指数和美债利率均呈上行趋势。不过，美元汇率的反应滞后于美债利率：例如1980年6月，10年美债利率已经开始快速上行，而美元指数的上行滞后了3个月左右；1984年6月，10年美债利率受市场降息预期影响而开始回落，但美元指数的回落滞后了9个月。05、对当下的新启示1、本轮美国通胀成因与1970-80年代有诸多相似性，但整体压力更为有限。类似1970年代，当前美国的高通胀同样是货币和财政宽松、美联储行动迟缓、供给冲击等多重因素交织的结果。但对比来看，我们倾向于认为美国通胀不会像当时那般失控：第一，这一次美国政府并未像当年尼克松政府那样实施粗暴的价格管制，价格信号对供需的平衡作用并未消失，降低了日后通胀反复的风险；第二，当前美国“工资-物价”螺旋风险相对更低，一方面得益于目前仍较稳定的中长期通胀预期，另一方面得益于美国工会力量的长期削弱；第三，当前美国消化“石油危机”的能力更强，尤其2010年页岩油革命后，美国能源消费占私人消费总额的比重已下降，美国也从原油的净进口国转变为净出口国，因此油价对美国核心通胀率的传导下降。因此，即便当前美国CPI能源分项同比增速高达40%、达到1970-80年代两次石油危机的程度，但核心CPI通胀率明显低于当时。2、本轮美联储虽然也曾“犯错”，但在抗击通胀方面更占据主动。货币政策的“反复无常”，以及市场对货币政策缺乏信心，是1970-80年代滞胀反复的重要背景。对比来看，美联储如今掌握更多主动，即便在2021年低估了通胀的可持续性（“通胀暂时论”），但这一错误或仍有挽回的余地：首先，在认识和应对“滞胀”上，如今美联储已不再“摸着石头过河”，货币政策早已明确“物价稳定”的目标。今年以来，美联储宣称“物价稳定”是“最大就业”的前提，将遏制通胀视为货币政策的首要任务。其次，沃尔克-格林斯潘时代后，美联储监控通胀预期的能力更强（如2000年以后通胀保值债券诞生），与市场沟通的效率更高，建立了较为良好的信誉。今年以来，美联储紧缩信号显著抬升了美债名义利率，资本市场的敏捷反应折射出货币政策的可信性。当下美国通胀预期并未“脱锚”，克利夫兰联储模型监测的十年通胀预期不超过2.5%，远不及1980年代4-5%的水平。最后，如今美联储的独立性更强。当前，通胀是拜登政府和美联储共同面对的“敌人”，美联储紧缩受到总统的支持。即便未来经济压力加大、总统向美联储施压，预计美联储也会较为坚定地捍卫信誉。正如鲍威尔领导的美联储曾在2018年四次加息，不顾时任总统特朗普的批评一样。3、本轮美国经济衰退几成必然，且存在“硬着陆”风险。1970-80年代，当美国CPI通胀率升高至5%以上时，经济衰退便如期而至。对比当前：第一，今年美国CPI通胀率最高达到9.1%，不仅超过了此前触发衰退的水平，且已超过1970年美国经济“软着陆”时期水平；第二，当前美联储表现出很大决心遏制通胀，或将政策利率维持在“足够限制性水平（sufficiently restrictive level）”较长时间，不惜付出经济衰退的代价（参考我们此前报告《美联储信誉保卫战》）。这意味着，类似1981-82年沃尔克时期，本次美联储紧缩力度可能足以“制造”一场衰退；第三，目前尚不能排除未来通胀反复的风险。如果未来不幸发生了新的供给冲击，或者美联储实际紧缩力度不足（如未来当美国经济切实进入衰退、政治压力上升、或发生金融风险时，美联储过早停止紧缩甚至降息），那么美国通胀仍可能反复，从而酿至更大程度的衰退。4、本轮大类资产价格走势与1970-80年代或有较强相似性。1）美股：通胀仍是核心影响因素，未来仍有调整压力，但调整幅度或不会太深，反弹或待衰退兑现。类似1970-80年代，当前通胀走势与美股表现也有较强相关性。今年上半年，随着美国CPI通胀率不断上升，美股迎来一轮深度调整；6月中旬至8月中旬，大宗商品价格与通胀预期降温，美股阶段性反弹；8月下旬以来，随着高通胀的持续性超出预期，美联储政策取向更加强硬，美股对货币政策的关注加强，上演了新一轮“紧缩恐慌”。未来一段时间美股市场或仍将承压，类似1981-82年沃尔克抗击通胀并“制造”衰退的时期。1981-82年，虽然美国CPI通胀率持续回落，但美联储紧缩对经济和股市造成冲击。类似地，当前美联储似乎想要重回“沃尔克时代”，势必确保通胀回落，不惜付出衰退代价。目前，美国通胀仍处高位、经济尚未实质性衰退，市场对衰退的计价尚不充分，后续美股或仍有调整空间。从历史经验看，美股在经济衰退初期仍可能下跌，直到衰退中后期货币政策开始放松，美股才迎来持续性反弹。不过，美联储不会是美股“永远的敌人”，若美联储顺利帮助通胀回落，美股调整幅度或不会太深。1981-92年沃尔克“制造”衰退时，美股调整幅度相对有限，并未跌破1980年初的底部。美联储大力抗击通胀虽带来“短痛”，但可避免通胀反复的“长痛”。考虑到，本轮通胀形势比1970-80年代还更乐观一些，美联储行动也不算太过被动，这一轮美股调整幅度或不会太深、反弹也可能较历史经验更提前一些。2）美债：货币政策仍是核心影响因素，衰退兑现时也未必立即回落，需等到货币政策明确开始放松时。类似1970-80年代，当前10年美债利率的核心影响因素也是货币政策。1970-80年代的经验是，债券市场在“衰退交易”和“紧缩交易”之间徘徊。但随着美联储抗击通胀更加坚决，债券市场更少地交易“衰退”、更多地交易“紧缩”。今年7月，因通胀预期降温、衰退预期升温，10年美债利率明显回落。但8月下旬以来，随着美联储政策取向更加强硬，市场更加关注紧缩，因而近期10年美债利率持续反弹并已升破4%，超过6月中旬3.5%的阶段高点。如果美联储在衰退时也坚持紧缩，那么衰退初期10年美债利率未必很快回落。正如在1981-82年美国经济衰退初期，即便美国CPI通胀率已由高点明显回落，但与2%的目标仍有很大距离，货币政策并未放松，10年美债利率保持在高位。我们预计，即便2023年上半年美国经济开始衰退，但美联储可能选择坚持紧缩、不会降息，债市可能也不会过早交易衰退。10年美债利率下降或需政策利率实质性下降。1982年下半年，美国CPI通胀率回落至5%以下、经济衰退程度较深时，美联储开始大幅降息，美债牛市才真正开启。且注意到，当时政策利率下降的起点领先于10年美债利率、下降幅度也更深。这意味着，待货币政策明确开始放松后，10年美债利率或才能明显下降。3）美元：“强势美元”可能持续较久，美元汇率回落或需美债利率回落中周期看，当前“强势美元”的逻辑与1980年代十分相似。1980-84年，美元指数走出了“历史大顶”，即便期间美联储降息，美元汇率也长期保持强势。当前，支撑美元的逻辑与1980年代十分相似：美国经济相对非美地区有明显优势，美联储紧缩底气强于其他发达经济体。往后看，即便美国经济由“滞胀”走向“衰退”，非美经济金融风险也未必消除（这从今年欧洲、日本债券和汇率市场波动中便可窥见一斑），反而市场对美元资产的信任会增强（如当前比特币等加密货币已然走弱）。因此，至少在未来1-2年，美元指数波动中枢有望持续高于新冠疫情前水平。短周期看，美债利率或是判断美元走势的“领先性指标”。1980年，10年美债利率早于美元指数开启上行周期；1984-85年，10年美债利率先于美元指数回落。事实上，过往的市场表现也基本印证了美债利率对美元指数的领先性：在10年美债利率触顶回落后的1-3个月，美元指数通常也见顶回落。如前所述，本轮美债牛市的开启或需等到衰退兑现且货币政策趋松，在此之后美元指数触顶回落迹象或才能日渐清晰。风险提示：1、美国经济韧性不及预期。虽然美国服务业复苏仍有空间，但高通胀和高利率环境下，居民消费信心不足或压制实际消费，继而使经济增长状况弱于基准预期；随着美联储加息和需求降温，美国就业市场降温节奏或超预期。2、发生新的供给冲击。如果未来新的供给冲击发生，并再度抬升国际能源、食品等商品价格，美国“滞胀”压力或将显著抬升，美联储可能不得不“制造”衰退才能遏制通胀，市场情绪将转为悲观。3、美联储紧缩力度不足或过强。如果美联储紧缩力度不足造成通胀反复，美联储后续治理通胀的成本更大；如果美联储紧缩力度明显强于市场预期，市场波动风险或将上升并可能最终威胁实体经济。4、非美地区经济金融风险超预期等。当前欧洲、亚洲等大型经济体的经济金融风险出现上升迹象。如果未来发生大型经济金融风险事件，美国经济和市场或受到波及。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":329,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9916214155,"gmtCreate":1664598390277,"gmtModify":1676537483283,"author":{"id":"4095548256553960","authorId":"4095548256553960","name":"xiaochoochoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/daa4c71aeb75832cfccf0bf892d1f6ec","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4095548256553960","idStr":"4095548256553960"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>y","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TIGR\">$老虎证券(TIGR)$</a>y","text":"$老虎证券(TIGR)$y","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/550dfc5e067a6c99899e6edff7307e3e","width":"1080","height":"1920"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9916214155","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":701,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}