首页  >>  来自播客: The MacroVisor Podcast 更新   反馈

MacroVisor Fednesday Forum

发布时间 2023-06-15 01:06:14    来源
We're going to talk a little bit about what's going on with the Fed, the meeting that we just had, the contrast between the statement and the press conference and more. But before we go into it, I'd like to welcome my wonderful co-host, Aisha.
我们稍微谈一谈联邦储备委员会的现状，我们刚刚开完的会议，声明和新闻发布会之间的对比，等等。但在我们开始之前，我想欢迎我的出色合作伙伴Aisha。

Hey everyone, thank you for joining us today. We're going to keep this brief. We're not going to make it too long because I think most of what was said and what was done is pretty self-explanatory. So not much to go over.
大家好，谢谢今天参加我们的活动。我们会简短明了地进行讲解，因为我认为大部分的内容和做过的事情都非常容易理解。所以没有太多需要再介绍的了。

In fact, I think this meeting was a little boring. What do you think, man? Yeah, it was a bit of a yawn fast. I mean, it kind of reminded me of February's meeting. Howled just doesn't seem very certain of the Fed's trajectory here. And while the statement was quite hawkish, the SEP added to that hawkishness, revising the median dot plot from 5.1 to 5.6, Powell kind of came out and just didn't really seem sure of himself.
实际上，我觉得这次会议有点无聊。你觉得呢，伙计？是啊，有点令人打哈欠的感觉。我的意思是，这让我想起了二月份的会议。鲍威尔似乎并不确定联储局的轨迹。虽然声明相当鹰派，但SEP进一步强化了这种鹰派态度，将中值点图从5.1修订为5.6，但鲍威尔似乎并不确定自己的立场。

Yeah, it seemed like he wanted to talk that down. So I think quite possibly, the Fed doesn't like to surprise the market. They've been very cautious about that over the last couple of months. They've been very transparent, far more transparent than most of the Fed has ever been. So I think in line with that, when they raised the dot plot by 50 basis points from 5.1 to 5.6, that's like pretty hawkish. So I think he was trying to top that down a little bit. Yeah, that is what it felt like. And it was just very reserved.
是的，看起来他想要把那个话题说小一些。因此，我认为很有可能美联储不想让市场感到惊讶。在过去几个月里，他们非常谨慎。他们非常透明，远比大多数美联储曾经的透明度高。因此，我认为当他们将斜率说明图从5.1上调到5.6时，这相当鹰派。所以，我认为他试图降低一些。是的，那就是这种感觉。这只是非常保守。

And I was thinking maybe if they were trying to get some of the hiking done in advance by setting expectations that he could come out just a little bit more hawkish, try to guide sentiment to tighten financial conditions in the markets, we saw pretty much the opposite of that S&P closed positive. And I think it makes sense that it did because if we look at it from a trading perspective, 43.50 was a pretty key level. We saw call buying start to come back in, particularly when it was clear that Powell was not moving forward with that hawkish tone.
我在想，也许他们试图通过设定预期来提前完成一些徒步旅行，即让鹰派立场稍微更加强硬，试图引导情绪收紧市场的金融条件，但我们看到的实际上是相反的，标普500指数收盘上涨。我认为这是有道理的，因为从交易的角度来看，43.50是一个相当关键的水平。当鲍威尔没有采取鹰派立场时，我们看到看涨期权交易开始回归，尤其是在这一点变得清晰之后。

And then on top of that, we also have on the other side a ceiling around 4400 on SPX with so much call open interest, that's sort of the call wall. But having tested below 43.50 and then move back up, the market had the clearance to move higher. And of course, with Powell kind of guiding sentiment accordingly, there was reason for that.
然后我们还有另一边SPX 4400左右的天花板，有很多看涨期权敞口，那是看涨期权墙。但是，由于市场已经测试了43.50以下并回升，市场具备上涨的条件。当然，在鲍威尔引导情绪的情况下，也有原因支持市场上涨。

And it was interesting. And we had an interesting reaction to the statement itself. We saw two year yields pop up 14 dips and we saw 12,000 two year note futures contracts sold to open for September, which was a pretty big block trade. That's the biggest block trade in the two year I think I've seen since March.
这个情况很有趣。我们对这个声明本身的反应也很有趣。我们看到两年期收益率上涨了14个基点，同时我们看到开放卖出了12,000份两年期国债期货合约，这是一个相当大的区块交易。这是自三月以来我看到的两年期最大的区块交易。

So when that statement came out, expectations started to become a little bit more concerned about where Fed policy could go. And I think we talked about this a little bit off mic. The market didn't really expect to see two rate hikes being discussed by this Fed's SEP. Right. In fact, I was looking at the projections from various banks and so on and so forth.
当那个声明出来后，人们开始更加关注联邦政策可能走向的预期。我认为我们在麦克风外谈到了这个问题。市场并没有真正预期这个联储委员会将会讨论两次加息。事实上，我正在研究各家银行等机构的预测。

So I think most said that they would pause. So most of the banks got that right. So did we. But the majority also said one more rate hike. So sort of in line with what we thought as well, we were kind of uncertain as to whether he leaves the door open for one more further hike. So two hikes, but it wasn't certain at all. So I don't think anyone expected that they would go ahead and sort of raise it by two hikes at this stage.
大多数人表示他们会暂停，因此大多数银行做得很对，我们也是。但是大多数人还说要再加息一次。基本上符合我们的想法，但我们有点不确定他是否会为进一步加息留下余地。虽然加息了两次，但并不确定。所以我认为没有人预料到他们会在这个阶段将加息率提高两次。

But what is interesting is the core inflation, right? So I didn't think that they would increase their core inflation. I did think they would reduce the unemployment rate, which they did. And rightfully so, we've had a very tight labor market. But. And he talked a lot about the core inflation in fact, right? And I think this is something that's beginning to be problematic. And they're seeing this. So while they've increased it from 3.6 to 3.9, I think we could see far stickier core inflation than 3.9. So while their transmit while their rate hikes are working, the transmission mechanism has been very slow.
但有趣的是核心通胀率，对吧？所以我认为他们不会增加核心通胀率。我确实认为他们会降低失业率，而他们确实这样做了。毫无疑问，我们已经经历了一个非常紧张的劳动力市场。但是，他实际上谈了很多关于核心通胀率的问题。我认为这是一些问题开始显现了。他们正在注意到这一点。因此，虽然他们将其从3.6提高到3.9，但我认为我们可能会看到比3.9更严重的核心通胀率。虽然他们的加息计划正在起作用，但是传递机制非常缓慢。

Yeah, it has and the lagged and variable impacts of monetary policy are something we have to account for. The first rate hike was really March 15th of last year. QE started our QT, I should say started about a year ago in smaller size in June and kicked up to 95 billion a month in September. So it's fair to say we're still only in the early stages of realizing the impacts of monetary policy. And I think the point you raised about core inflation is so, so important. It's really something we can't understate.
是的，货币政策的延迟和不稳定影响是我们需要考虑的。首次加息实际上是去年3月15日。量化宽松刚开始在去年6月以较小规模启动，到9月增加到每月95亿美元的规模。因此，可以说我们仍然只是在早期阶段实现货币政策的影响。我认为你提出的核心通胀问题非常重要，这是我们不能低估的。

What have we seen with inflation with these readings underneath the surface on a month over month and year over year basis? Core inflation remains robust. This is the opposite of what the Fed wants to see. And most of it is concentrated in the services section sector where we continue to see positive ISM.
从月度和年度基础来看，通胀的读数下面我们看到了什么？核心通胀依然强劲，这与美联储想要看到的截然相反。大部分核心通胀集中在服务业，我们在那里持续看到积极的ISM。

Now the last ISM services PMI was just barely positive at 50.3, but it's still marginal expansion. And one of the things we've talked about at macro visor is that we don't really think that unemployment kicks up in the economy weakens too much until we see ISM services roll over. But if we don't see ISM services roll over, core inflation remains sticky, right? That's a bit of an issue.
现在最近的ISM服务业PMI只有50.3，但仍处于微弱扩张状态。在宏观视角上，我们谈论的一件事情是，在ISM服务业指数开始下滑之前，我们并不认为失业率会因经济疲弱而上升。但如果我们不见得这个服务业指数下滑，核心通胀仍保持不变，这就是一个问题了。

Absolutely. And the tightness in the labor market, I mean, we're seeing some softening. So Powell was right. Even though the non-farm payroll numbers came out higher, we are seeing certain signs. So for example, average hours work is coming down, the quit rate is coming down. So sorry, going up, rather. No, it's coming down. It's coming down. Yeah. So all these various factors, sorry, it's very late for me here. It's past midnight, so I'm getting muddled a little. But all these data points within the labor market sort of is actually pointing towards some kind of softening. But it's not nearly enough to bring down the services inflation, to bring down core services, and in fact to break the labor market the way they want to see it.
当然。而劳动力市场的紧缩，我是说，我们正在看到一些软化。所以鲍威尔是对的。虽然非农就业数据实际上更高，但我们看到某些迹象。例如，平均工作时间正在下降，辞职率在上升。所以，很抱歉，我可能有点混淆了。但劳动力市场中的所有这些数据点实际上都在指向某种软化趋势。但这还远远不足以降低服务通胀，降低核心服务，事实上，也不能破坏他们想要看到的劳动力市场。

So there have been certain studies where they say that the labor market or rather the unemployment rate needs to go above 5% to be commensurate with a 2% inflation rate, right? So we're not getting anywhere close to that. So we're still at 3.7 by whatever measure you look at where between maybe 3.5 to 3.8, let's say, depending on whose measure you're looking at, because there are adjustments to be made to the labor numbers. And I think that's another problem, right? So we do get the labor data. It is lag, but it isn't very accurate. So there are a lot of adjustments there as well. So we have to sort of look at various other data points to kind of tell us which we were heading. But either way, even though there is some softening, it's not nearly enough.
曾经有一些研究表明，劳动力市场或失业率需要上升到5%以上，以满足2%的通货膨胀率，对吗？但我们还很远。无论你用哪种衡量标准，我们仍然在3.7，可能在3.5到3.8之间，这取决于你看的是谁的数据，因为有劳动力数据需要进行调整。这也是另一个问题，我们确实获得了劳动力数据，但它是滞后的，而且并不是非常准确。因此，还有很多调整需要进行。因此，我们必须从各种其他数据点来了解我们的趋势。但无论如何，即使有一些软化，它还远远不够。

Yes. It's a surprisingly tight labor market. It's interesting because there's two sides to the story too. And the other side of the story is the labor force participation rate remains near historic lows. And this has been a trend since the dot com bus that the labor force participation rate would fall meaningfully into a recession as more and more people lost their jobs. And then during the recovery, it would recover, but not quite anywhere near to the prior peak or even the prior sort of averaged a highs in labor force participation. We saw this trend continue during the great financial crisis where labor force participation fell below the dot com lows. It recovered, but then during COVID, it fell very, very significantly. And it's recovered well versus prior recoveries. This recovery in labor force participation has been better, but still nowhere near our 20 year average.
是的。奇妙的是，劳动市场仍然相当紧张。有趣的是，这个情况有两个方面的故事。另一个方面的故事是，劳动力参与率仍然接近历史低点。这是自点com大规模失业以来的趋势，即随着越来越多的人失去工作，劳动力参与率会显著下降。然后在复苏期间，它会恢复，但不会达到之前的峰值甚至是过去的平均劳动力参与率高峰。我们在大金融危机期间看到这种趋势继续下降到点com的低点以下。它恢复了，但在COVID期间显着下降。与以前的复苏相比，它恢复得不错。虽然劳动力参与率的恢复情况要好些，但仍然远低于我们20年的平均水平。

And so on the one hand, we have a tight labor market where there's about, like, what is it at this point? There's a pretty significant amount of open jobs, like 1.7 open jobs for every insured unemployed person seeking work. As long as that situation remains intact, we had surprisingly strong, jolt data. So the opening, the open jobs are not going anywhere. As long as that remains intact, it's likely the labor market stays stronger than what the Fed wants to see. And this is sort of the interconnectivity between the services part of our economy that contributes about three quarters of GDP and that same labor market that connects into it.
一方面，我们面临紧缩的劳动力市场，目前，每个有保障的失业人士寻找工作的情况下，大约有1.7个空缺职位。只要这种情况仍然存在，我们会有出乎意料的强劲就业数据。这些空缺职位不会消失。只要情况保持不变，劳动力市场将比联邦储备委员会所希望的更强劲。这就是我们的服务业在经济中贡献了四分之三的同时也与劳动力市场有关系的互联性。

And I think that it goes back to the steam that we've again, we've been discussing this at macrovisor that we can't see really inflation at the core level coming down meaningfully, or the economy really going into a recession or employment really breaking until the services sector goes into a meaningful multi quarter contraction. Right. And I think the other thing as well, which wasn't very clear, but then he did a loot to it is the rents, right? So look, rents have remained stagnant. So when I was looking at the CPI yesterday, year on year, shelter inflation has come down.
我认为，这与我们一直在宏观层面上讨论的问题有关，即我们无法看到核心水平的通胀明显下降，也无法看到经济真正陷入衰退或就业真正下降，直到服务行业进入具有意义的多季度萎缩。另外，一个不太清楚的问题是租金，他会提到这个问题，租金一直保持不变。所以，当我昨天看CPI时，庇护下的通胀率下降了。

The main thing that's keeping shelter inflation high in the CPI data is hotels and lodging. So we all know that hotel prices have gone up like massively, right?
CPI数据中使得住房通胀率居高不下的主要因素是酒店和住宿。我们都知道酒店价格已经飙升了，对吧？

But the rental data, if you look at the rental data, it's been stagnant. So it's 0.5% month on month. And that's what it has been for the last, I think, three or four months now, right?
但是，如果你看租赁数据，你会发现租赁数据一直没有变化，每个月只有0.5%的增长率。我认为这已经持续了三到四个月了。

So we aren't increasing the rate of change is not increasing. The rate of change is not decreasing. So we're very, very stagnant here.
因此，我们没有加快变化的速度，也没有减少变化的速度。所以我们在这里非常地停滞不前。

And the problem with the way the rent is calculated, there's about a six month lag between which time, like, you know, the rental rates start to readjust. So we are seeing rentals come down on a year on your basis.
租金计算方式存在问题，主要是租金调整与实际房价存在大概6个月的时间差，导致租赁价格在一年内有所下降。

However, if you look at the Zillow data or if you look at, you know, various other, you know, data sources, what you see is that there's been a re acceleration in the rental rates for the last two months.
然而，如果你查看Zillow数据或其他各种数据来源，你会发现过去两个月租金率已经重新加速增长。这句话的意思是说，最近两个月租金率又开始上涨。

And it's not just the data. So I put out this question earlier on Twitter, I think a few days ago. And most of the people came back with anecdotal data saying or anecdotal comments saying that they're seeing rents go up. And there's many of them said they've seen rents go up 40% or so.
这不仅仅是数据问题。我几天前在Twitter上发布了这个问题。大多数人回答说，他们看到房租上涨，这些都是些经验性的数据或者评论。他们中的许多人说他们看到房租上涨了40%左右。

Now this is something that we talked about during the last Fed meeting as well, that we might see rents re-accelerate.
现在，这是我们上次联邦会议所讨论的话题之一，我们可能会看到租金重新加速上涨。

It was a fear that I had simply because you have people being priced out of the home market. People cannot buy houses anymore because market rates are too high. And they're probably deferring their purchases until such time that rates come down because everybody's hoping for a rate cut, right, whether end of this year or next year.
我有这样一个恐惧，就是因为有很多人被房地产市场的高房价挤出了市场，他们已经买不起房子了。他们可能会推迟购买，直到利率降低，因为每个人都希望利率能够降低，不是吗？无论是今年年底还是明年。

So these things are now pretty well telegraphed. Let's put it this way. So 10 years ago, 15 years ago, we never knew what the Fed was going to do.
现在这些事情已经很清楚了。这么说吧，10年前、15年前，我们从不知道联邦储备委员会会做什么。

Now there are so many analysts. There's so many people talking about it.
现在有很多分析师，有很多人在谈论这个问题。

It's all over the media. So they're probably hoping that when rates come down next year, we're going to buy next year. That's one.
这在媒体上都有报道。因此，他们可能希望在明年降低利率时，我们会购买。这是其中一个原因。

Second, the supply of housing is very, very low.
第二，住房供应非常非常少。意思是目前的住房供应非常有限。

So existing homes is less than three months availability. So less than three months of homes are available. And for new homes, less than eight months, so somewhere between seven to eight months of homes are available.
目前已有的住房少于三个月的供应。新房少于八个月的供应，大约在七至八个月之间的住房可供选购。

So that's actually very, very tight. So what we have is that inventory problem that we were talking about last year. And it's come back again, because I think the home builders, obviously, they stopped building for a while.
这实际上是非常非常紧张的。所以我们面临的是去年我们谈论过的库存问题。由于房屋建造商显然停工了一段时间，这一问题再次出现。

We saw that in the numbers for the home builders. In fact, Lenar is actually reporting tonight. So we'll see what happens there. But right.
我们从房屋建筑商的数据中看到了这一点。实际上，Lenar今晚会有报告。因此我们会看看那里会发生什么。但是没错。

The backlog of orders were coming down, drying up. People had stopped, but now we can see construction go up again. And this is mostly in the housing sector.
订单积压正在减少，逐渐消失。人们之前停止下来了，但现在我们可以看到建筑投入了再次增长。而这主要是在住房领域。

It's simply because there's no inventory. So all of this, the bottom line, all of this is sort of pushing up housing prices even more, making it even more unaffordable for people to buy houses.
这是因为没有存货，所以所有的这些，基本上都推高了房价，使得人们购买房屋变得更加不可承受。

And so your only choice is to rent. And now people know this, right?
因此你唯一的选择是租房。现在人们知道这个，对吧？

So it's the real estate market is pretty transparent in that way as well.
因此房地产市场比较透明，这方面也有很好的表现。

People know what's going on. So those who are landlords, they're increasing their rents substantially, even if they don't need to.
人们知道发生了什么事。因此，那些是房东的人，即使他们不需要，也会大幅度提高房租。

So everything combined, this is not a good housing market. I mean, it's not what the Fed wants to see.
将所有因素结合起来看，现在的住房市场并不理想。我的意思是，这不是美联储想看到的局面。

And I do believe he did kind of hint at this that housing is coming down, but it's not where they want to see it. And there perhaps may be a re-acceleration in rentals, something that they may fear.
我确实相信他有点暗示房屋价格正在下降，但它还没有到他们想看到的水平。可能会出现租赁市场的重新加速，这是他们可能担心的。

Yeah, it's really interesting because Powell was the first Fed chairman ever to talk about a housing bubble.
是的，这很有趣，因为鲍威尔是美联储历史上第一个谈论房地产泡沫的主席。

And yet ironically, the Fed's policy of raising interest rates as rapidly as they did, of course, that raises the price of a mortgage as well, made it so less people wanted to sell their existing homes. And as a result of that, we've got such a tight supply that it's constrained the ability of existing homeowners to move because they're like, why would I want to move somewhere and get a six and a half, six and a three quarter, seven percent mortgage, right?
然而具有讽刺意味的是，美联储像他们这样迅速地提高利率政策，当然也会提高抵押贷款的价格，这使得更少的人想要卖掉他们的现有房屋。因此，我们出现了这样一种供应非常紧张的情况，这限制了现有房主的能力，使他们无法搬家，因为他们认为为什么要搬到另一个地方去并接受六分之五、六分之三刻、甚至七分之一的抵押贷款呢？

I'll just stand pat and of course more jobs are amiable to remote work and hybrid work. So there's less pressure to move as well.
我会保持现状，当然更多的工作适合远程和混合工作。因此，迁移的压力也会减少。

So I think that's one component of it and then going back to the concern about rent, I think it's a valid one moving forward for another reason too.
所以我认为这是其中的一个组成部分，回到对租金的担忧，我认为这也是另一个课题前进的合理原因。

The average mortgage is $2300 a month. The average rent is $1900 a month. So landlords still have some flexibility to continue to increase prices and people still don't have the alternative of just buying a home.
平均每月房贷为2300美元，而平均每月房租为1900美元。因此，房东仍有一定的灵活性来继续增加价格，而人们仍然没有选择购买房屋的替代方案。

And I think that's sort of the irony of the Fed policy just expanding on that point though, is as much as the of hiked rates. It actually adds different types of inflation to the system to hike rates as much as they have and to hold them here.
我认为这就是美联储政策的讽刺之处——就扩大这一点而言，即使他们加息，实际上也会给系统带来不同种类的通胀。他们已经加息了这么多，将利率保持在这里，实际上会给经济系统带来不同种类的通胀。

And that is to say the cost of capital is rising. And so if you're a business, you have to pass on that increased cost or you eat it in your margin if you have one at all. So one of the things that higher cost of capital actually does is it structurally embeds a different type of inflation. And so that's one of the ironies that we're seeing a little bit of this in how housing is priced. Yeah, it's almost like the Fed is going to have to play whack-a-mole a little bit, right? So they sort of suppress inflation in one area and then it like kind of pops up in a different area.
换言之，资本成本正在上升。如果您是一家企业，您必须将增加的成本传递给消费者，否则您的利润可能会受到影响。因此，更高的资本成本实际上会使一种不同类型的通胀结构化嵌入到经济中。这是我们在住房定价方面看到的一些讽刺之处。似乎联邦储备局需要在某种程度上玩“打地鼠”的游戏，即在一个领域抑制通胀，然后在另一个领域出现。

So one thing that's interesting is he didn't talk much about quantitative tightening with the runoff of the balance sheet though. But they did talk a little bit about the treasury issuances. Yeah they did. I thought that was very interesting that Powell actually said, look, from our point of view that the volume of treasury issuance, which is particularly in bills, then notes and then bonds and that order of volume and in size, that it could impact both bank reserves and reverse repo markets in that they're not really sure how, but they don't see reserves becoming in Powell's words scarce.
有趣的一件事情是，他在谈到资产负债表的逐渐缩减过程中，并没有太多地提及数量的紧缩。但是，他们确实谈到了财政部的债券发行。是的，他们谈到了。我认为，鲍威尔实际上说，从我们的角度来看，特别是在票据、票据和债券的顺序中，债券发行的规模会影响银行准备金和逆回购市场，尽管他们并不确定具体会有怎样的影响，但他们并不认为准备金将会像鲍威尔所说的那样稀缺。

Now we also got information from the FDIC about unrealized losses for quarter one 2023 and they actually fell, which is good news. They came down to $500 billion, which is a notable improvement. That was a shrinkage of $102.2 billion from the prior reading from quarter four and this was a 16.5% improvement on unrealized losses. But we still have about half of banks with more liabilities and assets. We're not out of the woods yet and we do have some potential catalysts about how these systemic risks that could impact banks may be rising in the back half of this year and going into the first half of next year as we look at areas like commercial real estate.
现在我们从FDIC得知了2023年第一季度未经实现的损失信息，而事实上它们减少了，这是个好消息。它们下降到了5000亿美元，这是一个显著的改善。这是从季度四之前的阅读减少了1022亿美元，这是未经实现的亏损的16.5%的改善。但是我们仍然有大约一半的银行拥有更多的负债和资产。我们还没有走出困境，我们有一些潜在的催化剂，关于这些系统性风险如何可能在今年下半年和明年上半年上升，比如商业房地产。

And I think this is a really big area of concern that's worth paying attention to because if we look at what's happening, there's a wall of maturing debt for office buildings, for retail, for leisure and hotels, for industrial and commercial buildings of all kind. And this is really starting from the second half of 2023 and intensifying as we get into the first half of 2024. Now if we look at the breakdown of who owns this commercial real estate debt, banks own half and of the bank owned commercial real estate debt, regionals own three quarters. So we can see that there's some concentration risk in an already vulnerable area.
我认为这是一个非常值得关注的重要领域，因为如果我们看一下正在发生的情况，就会发现各种写字楼、零售、休闲和酒店、工业和商业建筑的到期债务墙。这将从2023年下半年开始，并随着进入2024年上半年而愈演愈烈。现在，如果我们看看谁拥有商业房地产债务的详细信息，我们会发现银行拥有其中一半，而在银行拥有的商业房地产债务中，地区银行拥有三分之二。因此，我们可以看到，在一个已经脆弱的领域中存在一些集中风险。

So we've had a vacation from the banking crisis, you could say in regional banks, but it's not necessarily over sort of an eye of the storm moment. And how do we navigate the next year is going to be exceedingly important, particularly given that if we look at credit conditions, they've been tightening meaningfully. Banks that have been impacted or even banks that have not have reduced how much they're willing to lend to clients of all kinds, whether it's individuals, small, medium, large businesses, but they're also going to likely have to pull back meaningfully on commercial debt lending, which means that all this debt coming due, especially from landlords that are struggling with cash flows, is not all likely to be refinanced in an orderly or affordable manner. And so this is something that we've been talking about at macro visor. It's an area of risk that I think we need to pay close attention to. And it's even something that Powell himself has directly identified prior Fed meetings.
可以说，在区域银行中，我们已经从银行危机中休息了一段时间，但这并不一定意味着风暴的眼睛已经过去。在未来一年中，我们如何导航将变得非常重要，特别是考虑到如果我们看一下信贷条件，它们一直在显著收紧。受影响的银行甚至没有受影响的银行已经减少了他们愿意向各种类型的客户发放贷款的数量，无论是个人、小型、中型、大型企业，但它们也很可能必须大幅缩减商业债务贷款，这意味着所有这些到期的债务，特别是那些有现金流问题的房东，不太可能以有序或负担得起的方式得到再融资。因此，这是我们在宏观观察家中一直在谈论的问题。我认为这是需要密切关注的一个风险领域。这甚至是鲍威尔本人在之前的联邦会议中直接确定的问题。

Yes, I think so he kind of ended on this note, right? So this was, I think, one of the last questions with someone asked. And so the one thing that kind of struck me as interesting is he said that we haven't seen how the banking crisis has actually played out, right? So which means that they are expecting further issues in the banking sector. And for all the reasons that Mahin just pointed out, this all rings true. So today we had fifth, third bank, which is a pretty large bank in the US coming out and saying that they're no longer going to do office lending, right? And it makes sense because we saw, okay, some improvement in the occupancy numbers, but they're far, far below what they should be, right? And you can't sustain a building with 50% occupancy.
是的，我认为他的观点大致是这样的，对吧？我认为这是最后一个问答环节之一，由有人提出。有一件让我感到有趣的事情是他说我们还没有看到银行危机的真正影响，这意味着他们预计银行业将进一步遇到问题。正如Mahin刚才指出的所有原因，这都是正确的。今天，美国一家相当大的银行第五第三银行宣布他们将不再提供办公场所贷款了，这很有道理，因为我们看到，虽然入住率有所改善，但仍远远低于预期水平。但是，50%的入住率并不能维持一栋建筑的运营。

I mean, I've worked in real estate and the numbers just don't stack up. And most of these loans would have been done on a certain level of projections. And most of the projections have occupancy rates of at least 70 to 75%. That's like the bare minimum kind of thing that you look at. So anything below that is terrible.
我的意思是，我在房地产行业工作，数字根本无法匹配。大多数这些贷款都是基于一定的预测水平进行的。而大多数预测都基于至少70到75％的出租率。这就像是您要查看的最低标准。因此，低于此水平的任何事情都是糟糕的。

And the numbers we're getting say, for example, from New York is that it's only at 50%, which is far below what can sustain a bank loan. So there are sort of companies that are in fact going ahead and saying, you know what, we would rather just default on the loan, take the property. But that sort of doesn't help the system because now the bank is out of money and they're sitting with a property that they need to manage. They need to find someone to manage. They need to find someone to occupy. And there's no cash flow coming in.
我们现在获取到的数据显示，比如纽约的房屋出租率只有50%，这已经远低于可以维持银行贷款的合适比例。因此，有一些公司已经开始采取放弃贷款、直接取得房产的做法。但这并不能帮助整个体系，因为银行会亏损，同时他们还需要管理这些物业，找人来管理、租赁，但这并没有带来现金流。

So at the end of the day, when you have massive scale, you know, sort of repossession of massive buildings, you know, commercial towers, you can just sit on these towers. So the banks, it's not worth it for the banks to repossess these towers. It's actually worse for them because they're not making any money out of it. And there's no one to sell to because there's no one out there who will really buy.
总的来说，当你拥有大规模的资产，比如大型建筑物——商业塔楼，你可以坐在这些楼上。所以银行没有必要收回这些楼，因为这样不值得，反而会增加银行的风险和成本。因为银行不会从它们那里赚到任何钱，而且也没有人愿意买下这些楼，因为市场上并没有真正的购买者。

So you might have a, you know, one blackstone or you might have a starwood property who's still kind of okay. But even they're not big buyers anymore in this market. So they might be waiting on the sidelines for one or two or three distress properties. But when you have mass scale distress properties, there's no one who's going to be stepping in.
可能你会拥有黑石集团或斯达伍德地产这样的公司，它们目前还算不错。但即使是它们在当前市场上也不再是大买家了。它们可能正在等待一两个或三个处于困境的物业。但是当大规模的贫困物业涌现时，就没有人会步入其中了。

So the size of these properties, the size of the loans, they can be anywhere between 70 to $100 million to $4 or $500 million, which is big enough to sort of, if a bank is lending to against two or three properties, one of the smaller regional banks, it's big enough to take down the whole bank, you know.
这些房产的规模和贷款金额可以在7000万到4到5亿美元之间不等。如果银行对两个或三个房产进行贷款，这些贷款规模已经足够大了，可以轻松导致一家较小的区域银行崩溃。

So, and we have about 1.1 trillion of debt maturity coming up like this year and next year, and about 45% of these are on floating rates. So which means as the Fed is raising rates, their interest payments are going higher, which means they aren't going to be able to service this debt very comfortably.
因此，我们今年和明年面临大约1.1万亿的债务到期, 其中大约45%是浮动利率。这意味着当联邦储备委员会升息时，他们的利息支付会增加，意味着他们将不能很舒适地偿还这些债务。

Now so you have occupancy coming down, cash flows are not coming in. So it's just, it's a horrible situation. And I think, I think the Fed Chairman, Der Powell, he kind of brought both of these things up to light and he wasn't very comfortable. I mean, he kind of tackled it very well. But I think he left the door open to the idea that we might see further stresses in the banking system.
现在，入住率正在下降，现金流也没有进来。这是一种可怕的情况。我认为，美联储主席鲍威尔将这两件事都提到了台面上，但他并不太舒服。他应对得还不错，但我认为他为银行系统可能面临进一步压力敞开了大门。

And perhaps that might be one of the reasons why they have paused here. So Aisha, this is a good opportunity to A, just let folks out there know that you have nearly two decades of experience in corporate banking, but also that a lot of your experience is in real estate.
也许这就是他们暂停在这里的原因之一。所以，Aisha，这是一个很好的机会，一方面让大家知道你在企业银行业务上有将近20年的经验，另一方面也让大家知道你在房地产领域有很丰富的经验。

And the reason I mention that in commercial real estate is that that brings a unique opportunity to talk just a little bit about that. What are you seeing with your experience having seen some of these variants or analogs of this in the past, what do you see moving forward over the next year in commercial real estate as one of the potential risks moving forward?
我提及这一点是因为在商业房地产领域，这带来了一个独特的机会，可以稍微谈谈这方面。根据您看到过类似或类比的情况的经验，您认为商业房地产未来一年可能面临的潜在风险是什么？

So I think, as I said, one of the major risks is that a lot of these office towers remain vacant for a while. So another issue that we recently saw is that we work is in trouble, right? So now we work was a major major, let's say lesser for big office properties or, you know, expenses or floors at least of office properties and they're in trouble big time. So people are not going back to offices. Now, when you have abandoned buildings like this, I don't know what happens because, you know, in during the great financial crisis, we saw something completely different.
我认为，正如我所说，一个主要的风险是很多办公大楼暂时空置。最近我们又发现另外一个问题，就是WeWork陷入了困境。WeWork是一个重要的、对于大型办公物业来说至关重要的公司，他们可能降低了大办公物业的价格、租金或至少是楼层的价值。现在，人们不再返回办公室。当你有像这样荒废的建筑物时，我不知道会发生什么，因为在大金融危机期间，我们看到了完全不同的情况。

That was residential properties. And residential properties are so much easier to sort of offload, repossess, do something with, you know, you will find buyers eventually commercial properties. It's not like this. I mean, I was listening to Sam Zell's book and he was brilliant, right? At real estate. And he went through the last massive property crash and he bought a lot of great properties at distress prices.
那是住宅物业。住宅物业很容易处理，重新取得、处理或出售，你知道的，最终会找到买家。商业物业不是这样。我听了山姆·泽尔的书，他真的很出色，在房地产方面。他经历了最近一次大规模的房地产崩盘，并以危机价购买了许多优质物业。

But you don't have those anymore. And if you have it across the US and now you're seeing it across Europe, you're seeing it in the UK, you're seeing it in Australia. So it's not like there are very many big sovereign buyers either who can step in and take over these properties. So I think there's going to be a real problem here and we're just going to have to see how it plays out.
但是现在你已经不再拥有这些了。如果你在美国有它，在欧洲现在也看到了它，你在英国、澳大利亚也看到了。这并不意味着还有很多主权买家可以接手这些产业。因此，我认为这里会出现真正的问题，我们只能看看它会如何发展。

Yeah, absolutely. All good points appreciate the color on this. And it's certainly a topic that we'll be following moving forward. So at this point, we want to open things up to questions and answers. If you have any questions for us, feel free to raise your hand, request to speak and we'll be happy to try to help out any way we can. And we also want to thank everyone while you all are thinking of your questions for tuning in.
“是的，完全正确。感谢你提供意见并为此增色添彩。这绝对是一个我们以后会继续跟进的话题。所以现在，我们想开放讨论，回答大家的问题。如果你有任何问题，请随时举手发言，我们会尽可能地帮助。同时，我们也要感谢所有参与，谢谢你们收听。”

This whole thing is brought to you by Macrovisor. We actually have a 30% off sale for your first year, whether you get a monthly or yearly plan. Visit us today until Tuesday to take advantage of our Fed Nest Day sale.
这段话是由Macrovisor赞助的。我们提供30%的折扣，适用于您的第一年，无论你选择月度计划或年度计划。请在今天到周二之间来到我们这里，利用我们的"联邦之巢日"促销活动。

And I see Jero's asked to come up as speaker. Let me just go ahead and add him here. Hey, friend, how's it going? Thank you so much for tuning in. What's on your mind? And I don't know if you're speaking right now, but I cannot hear you.
"我看到Jero被邀请来担任演讲者。让我去添加他。嘿，朋友，最近怎么样？谢谢你的收听。你有什么想说的吗？不知道你现在在讲话吗，但是我听不到你的声音。" 这是一段关于添加演讲者的对话。演讲者可能是Jero。发言人问Jero最近怎么样，邀请他发表意见。发言人提到他无法听到Jero的声音，可能是因为Jero没有开麦或网络出现问题。

No, we were showing he's connecting and then he's popped off. Okay. So Twitter spaces is being Twitter spaces. Something like that. I think maybe there might be too many spaces out there at the same time. There's not enough space for all these spaces. Is that what's going on? Something like that. Okay, here's back. All right, let's get him in here. Hey, friend, thank you so much for tuning in. What's on your mind? You have to unmute.
不，我们正在展示他连接上了，然后又断掉了。好的，Twitter空间就是这样。我想也许同时存在太多空间了。所有这些空间都没有足够的空间吗？是这样的吗？好的，他回来了。让我们把他放进来。嘿，朋友，非常感谢你收听。你在想什么？你需要取消静音。

Hi, thank you very much for picking up my question. I actually don't have a question. I just wanted to add also what was surprising was the GDP upward revision or the upward estimates of the members, right? Like in March, they estimated 0.4% for the year of 2023. And now they have it up to 1%.
嗨，非常感谢您回复我的问题。实际上我并没有问题。我只是想补充一下最令人惊讶的是GDP上调或成员的上调估计，对吧？就像在3月份，他们估计2023年的增长率为0.4％。现在他们已经将其升级到1％。

I'm just wondering if that might be also because the banking crisis was relatively fresh back then. But also, how do you say what I'm a little bit confused about is actually there is no recession or whatsoever pricing, right? Because if you have 1% real GDP growth for 2023, you have no recession to 2023. They say 1.1% and in 2025, we are back at 1.8%. And this, although they actually increased, I would say they also increased the terminal rate by 50 basis points. And still they have GDP growth 0.6% higher than before. What do you think about this would be my first question and then I would have a second question for Aisha later if that's okay.
我在想，那可能也是因为当时银行业危机相对较新的缘故。但是，我有点困惑的是，你怎么说这里实际上没有衰退或任何的定价，对吧？因为如果你2023年实际GDP增长率为1％，那么在2023年就没有衰退。他们说2025年为1.1％，2025年我们将回到1.8％。尽管他们实际上提高了终期利率50个基点，但他们的GDP增长率仍比以前高0.6％。对于这个你有什么看法，这将是我的第一个问题，然后我会有一个问题留给艾沙，如果可以的话。

Yeah, no, absolutely. I do know that at least she's having some trouble hearing you. I'm hearing you okay, but I think spaces is a little bit glitchy. Okay, some questions. But yeah, no, no, I'll pass on anything you want to ask to her directly though. So no worries at all about that. But in terms of your query, I mean, the confusion is well placed, right? Like there's no recession anywhere here in March we were talking about the potential, the increasing potential for maybe a soft landing not being as probable.
“是的，没错。我知道她听你说话有些困难。我听得还好，但我觉得Spaces有点故障。有问题的话，我会直接转达给她的。所以不用担心。关于你的问题，我觉得你的困惑是合理的，对吧？像三月份我们曾经谈过，可能出现经济软着陆的概率在增加，但并不是那么有可能。”

Now they're like, well, we're not going to land at all, right? In the sense that we're not going to have any kind of recession. We're pretty much like smooth sailing. There's going to be a Federal Reserve refueling of the economic plane mid flight, right? That's kind of what the SCP is talking about. I think that's interesting, but I think it also coalesces with what we're seeing in labor and what we're seeing in the services sector, which is as Powell was saying, surprising resilience in the economy, particularly in that part.
现在他们好像在说，“嗯，我们不会陷入经济衰退，对吧？我们现在的发展就像一条平稳的航线。联邦储备局会在中途为经济再注入“燃料”，这正是SCP所谈到的。我认为这很有趣，但这也与我们在劳动力和服务产业中所看到的情况相吻合，正如鲍威尔所说，经济有出乎意料的弹性，尤其是在服务业中。

And I think that might speak to why, A, they're leaving the door open to some more tightening here, which, you know, quite frankly would make a lot of sets to at least set the expectation that they could do another 50 bits. But on the other side of it, it is interesting and a little bit puzzling that they would say, look, we're not going to see any meaningful contraction on at least an overall year over year GDP projection basis.
我认为这可能是为什么他们保持对此进行更多紧缩的机会敞开的原因，这样做实际上至少会使很多人认为他们可能会再次加息50点。但是另一方面，有趣的是也有一些令人费解的事情，他们说我们至少不会在整体年度GDP预测的基础上看到任何有意义的收缩。

Aisha, what do you think about that?
"Aisha，你对此有何看法？"。在这句话中，对话者询问Aisha关于某件事或某个主题的想法或看法。这可能是一个问题或一个请求，以获取Aisha的观点或意见。

Yeah, so yes, he's right. The upper provision was actually quite surprising and it's a steep upper provision. So we were at 0.4% an hour at 1% at the end of the year. So that's real GDP growth. But I think you and I, we had a debate around this last weekend and where we kind of discussed that one of the reasons that we might not see a recession right now would probably be because again, that government spending level, right?
“是的，他说的没错。上限条款实际上非常令人惊讶，是一个相当高的上限。所以我们最终为1%的实际GDP增长率，每小时只有0.4%。但我认为，上周末我们曾就此进行过一场辩论，讨论我们现在可能看不到衰退的原因之一可能是政府支出的水平，对吧？” 这段话是关于经济增长和未来的讨论，提到了今年的GDP增长率和上限条款，以及政府支出的影响可能有助于避免衰退。

So I think when, you know, the whole debt ceiling deal was going through most people thought that there were going to be a lot of cuts to government spending. And that would sort of bring down the entire GDP number. Now, there are two things that have happened since then. The spending has been capped, but it hasn't been significantly reduced. And that was a large part, that was a major reason for sort of GDP going up last quarter. And then further to that, you have this tight, tight, tight labor market where wages are still going up and people are still working. So there's still consumption in the economy, right?
我认为，在债务上限协议达成时，大多数人都认为政府开支将有很多削减，这将会降低整个国内生产总值。然而，自那时以来发生了两件事情。一方面，支出上限已经被设定，但实际上并没有显著减少。这是上个季度GDP增长的主要原因之一。另一方面，现在有着非常紧张的劳动力市场，工资仍在上涨，人们仍在工作。这使得经济中仍然存在消费。

So again, this transmission mechanism has been extremely slow. And one of the biggest reasons for that has been the very high rate of consumption in the economy. Now, you have student loan that coming up, you've got credit card to the max, you've got all these issues which are slowly starting to take shape and slowly starting to destroy demand. And this will sort of bring consumption down. But the biggest factor here is breaking the labor market.
所以，这种传输机制一直非常缓慢。其中最大的原因之一是经济中非常高的消费率。现在，你有学生贷款即将到期，你的信用卡也已经达到极限，你有所有这些问题正在慢慢开始显现并慢慢破坏需求。这会抑制消费。但是最大的因素是打破劳动市场。

So until and unless we actually see unemployment rate go up significantly, consumption will not come down enough. That will not bring GDP down enough.
所以除非我们实际看到失业率明显上升，否则消费不会减少得足够多。这不会使GDP下降足够多。

So the thing that we were discussing was we still think there will be a recession, but we still think that it's going to be delayed, but not canceled. So by that we mean we might see a recession sometime in the first half of next year.
我们一直在讨论的是，我们仍然认为会有经济衰退，但我们认为它会被推迟，而不是被取消。因此，我们的意思是，在明年上半年，我们可能会看到一次经济衰退。

And because I just want to add one thing also to wage inflation because average hourly earnings in my opinion is actually a terrible measure of wage growth, right? Because you don't account for the composition of the pool of people that you compared with. So, for instance, when you had so many people living in the tech industry, and in the finance industry, those people earn much more than, for instance, like people who work in a restaurant, right? So automatically average hourly earnings will automatically come down because higher earning people left the labor force, right?
我还想说一件事，有关工资通货膨胀的问题。在我看来，平均每小时工资实际上是一种糟糕的工资增长衡量标准。为什么呢？因为你没有考虑与你进行比较的人群的构成。例如，在科技行业和金融行业中有很多人生活，这些人的收入比餐厅工作的人要高得多。因此，高收入人群离开劳动力市场，平均每小时工资自然会下降。

So but looking at Atlanta Fed wage tracker, and I think that's also what Powell is looking at, it's still at 6%. And so it's troubling to me, you know, and that's why I don't understand if they are looking at the 6% growth in the Atlanta Fed median wage tracker, I actually don't understand why they actually skipped today, right? Because if they are really so worried about inflation in the wage area.
但是，看看亚特兰大联邦储备银行的工资跟踪器，我认为这也是鲍威尔关注的问题，它仍然处于6%。所以我感到不安，这就是我不理解他们为什么今天跳过了会议的原因，因为如果他们真的那么担心工资领域的通货膨胀，那我实际上不明白为什么会跳过。

Yeah. Okay, that was less of a question, actually. I think it was just a statement. But I actually also have a question, Aisha, sorry. Because I think they're working. Yeah, sorry. I think there is a question in there though. I mean, I think it is something to expound upon. I think you're making a really good plan. I'd love to hear Aisha speak on it more.
“嗯，好的。实际上这不是一个问题，我认为这只是一个陈述。但我也有一个问题，对不起，Aisha。因为我认为它们在工作。是的，对不起。虽然我认为里面有一个问题。我的意思是，你正在制定一个真正好的计划，我很想听Aisha更多地发言。”

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think this is a great point about the average hourly earnings. You know, it's not a good measure. It's not a uniform measure. That's why what the Fed likes to look at is the employment cost index.
“是的，绝对是这样的。我认为这个平均每小时收入的观点很有道理。但它并不是一个好的衡量标准，也不是一个统一的衡量标准。这就是为什么联邦储备委员会喜欢看就业成本指数的原因。”

The ECI and that comes out on a quarterly basis. So it's a little bit more smoothed down, you know, like over the last few quarters. And that is coming down a little bit, but it's not coming down enough. I think it's still above 4.5% if I'm not mistaken. And so you're at Atlanta wage tracker is sort of a little bit more real time. And it kind of goes hand in hand with the employment cost index.
ECI是每季度发布的指标。因此，它相对平滑，类似于过去几个季度。尽管它有所下降，但还不够低。如果没有记错，我认为它仍高于4.5%。所以亚特兰大工资监测器在某种程度上更符合实时情况。它与就业成本指数相辅相成。

Now with regard to why it's a play. Yes, they are concerned about core inflation, but I also think it's got something to do with the treasury issuances. So despite what people are saying and how people want to take this, I do think that the treasury issuances will have an effect on the market. And so does mayhem.
现在关于为什么这是一场演戏，人们确实担心核心通胀，但我认为这也与国库发行有关。所以尽管人们所说和人们想要的不同，我确信国库发行将对市场产生影响。而且也有混乱之意。

We both discussed this. We have the view that it will cause some upward revision to the short term rate. So that's tightening in and of itself. Secondly, he spoke about the banking system and the tightening within the banking system will take some time. So what you are seeing right now in the senior loan officer survey is dated data, right? So it's all data. But if you look at the numbers like more on a real time basis, you can look at the small business surveys, which show you better numbers and more accurate numbers for small businesses because they're the ones that are hurt the most.
我们都讨论过这个问题。我们认为这将会导致短期利率上调，因此自然而然会有收紧的趋势。其次，他谈到了银行系统和银行系统内部的收紧需要一些时间。所以，现在你看到的高级贷款主管调查是过时的数据，只是数据而已。但如果你看实时的小型企业调查，那么你可以看到更准确的数字和更准确的数据，因为他们受到的影响最大。

And what you'll see is the standards are tightening significantly. So as these lending conditions tighten, it's kind of doing the work for the Fed. So they kind of want to see how this works out, whether there's a change in, say, small business employment and therefore, you know, trouble in the labor market, whether it comes down significantly enough or cool significantly enough for them not to have to raise immediately.
你会看到，标准正在明显收紧。因此，随着这些贷款条件的收紧，它们在某种程度上为美联储做了工作。所以他们想看看这个结果如何，比如小企业就业是否会发生变化，因此劳动力市场是否会出现麻烦，是否会大幅下降或降温而不必立即提高利率。

Cool, cool. Thank you very much. I have a final question actually for Eureisha because you said you worked in the past, you worked in the real estate sector. So I was just wondering like, how do you say like a base case, a normal case, what do you say when a developer comes to you and they want to finance a project?
「很棒，非常感谢。实际上我有最后一个问题要问Eureisha，因为你说过你曾经在房地产领域工作过。所以我想知道，当开发商向你融资项目时，你会怎么说一个基本情况、一个正常情况？」

Like when they look at the occupancy rate, I can imagine it's a very long project, right? It takes five years probably to build the whole building and stuff. So what kind of vacancy rates do you account for? Like let's say, do you account for okay in the beginning, you can have a vacancy rate of 30% and then I expect you after a couple of years to have a vacancy rate of 20% and then down to 10% or how do you say, what's an average project like in that area?
当他们看到入住率时，我想这是一个很长的项目，对吗？建造整个建筑物可能需要五年时间等等。那么你们考虑了什么样的空置率？比如说，你们考虑了一开始可以有30%的空置率，但是我希望你们几年后能有20%的空置率，然后下降到10%，或者你们认为，在那个地区，平均项目是怎样的？

And the reason why I'm asking is because of this, how do you say, because of the commercial really state sector issue that we have, because if they vacancy rate, because if they account for a relatively high vacancy rate anyway, right, if they, if the finance project and they have a buffer and say, okay, we expect on average a 20% vacancy rate.
我问这个问题的原因是因为我们在商业房地产领域存在一个问题，即空置率相对较高，如果他们是融资项目，那么他们会有一个缓冲，即假设平均空置率为20%。

So obviously the way, okay, so, okay, sorry, I mean, because I can't hear him. So I'm just watching what me and Ms. Taipin. Yeah, I'm prescribing in real time here, folks, so, okay, so obviously there is a buffer built in.
显然，这样做，好的，那么，抱歉，我的意思是因为我听不见他。所以我只能观察我和Taipin女士的情况。是的，在这里我是实时开处方，那么，显然有一个缓冲区内置。

So when it's from a bank's perspective, when somebody comes to me and asks for a loan, they would give me an occupancy rate of say anywhere between 90 and 95%, because they want to show that their project is doing really well.
当从银行的角度看待时，当有人来找我要贷款时，他们会给我一个占用率，比如说90到95％之间，因为他们想要表现出他们的项目非常成功。

But what the bank does is they kind of stress test this and bring them down. So they have like a lower level of occupancy. So there are a couple of things that they can do. They will either raise, you know, the rate, so the margins will be higher. But if the occupancy sort of doesn't stack up, and what we're seeing right now is a really, really terrible situation, what you'll see is that projects are not going to get financed.
但银行所做的是他们会进行压力测试，让他们降低一些。因此，他们会有一个较低的入住率。所以他们可以做一些事情。它们会提高利率，这样利润就会更高。但如果入住率不够好，而当前情况非常糟糕，那么你会看到一些项目将无法获得融资。

And that's exactly what we're seeing, what I mentioned about fifth, third bank, right? So he's not, they're not going to do office lending anymore, because they know there's a problem here. They know that no matter what a company comes and tells them about filling their building, this building will likely not get filled up.
这正是我们看到的，也就是我之前提到的第五和第三银行，对吧？因为他们知道这里存在问题，所以他们不会再做办公室贷款了。他们明白无论公司怎样告诉他们关于填满这栋建筑的承诺，这座建筑很可能永远无法达到满租状态。

So I think it's going to be a very tough situation for developers in this market, very, very tough situation, in fact. And most of these projects will be stalled.
所以我认为对于开发者来说，这个市场将会是一个非常艰难的局面，非常、非常困难的局面。事实上，大多数项目都将停滞不前。

And I can tell you one more data point here, hotel projects that were in the pipeline. Many of them have been canceled. I think there's a cancellation rate of, I think maybe 40% or something like it's one of the highest cancellation rates in a very long time.
我还可以告诉你更多数据点，就是那些正在规划中的酒店项目。其中许多项目已经被取消了。我认为取消率可能达到了40%或者相似的数字，在很长一段时间内是最高的。

So all these projects were meant to come online, but they're not anymore because people don't want to take that risk of building out all these hotel properties and then not having the occupancy they want. And hotels still have good occupancy on average, but because they turn around rooms faster.
所有这些项目原本是要上线的，但是现在不再这样，因为人们不愿意承担建造所有这些酒店物业的风险，然后没有满足他们预期的房间入住率。尽管酒店仍然有相对较好的平均入住率，但由于它们快速更换房间，因此不被人们信任。

So when you consider the real estate market or the office real estate market, that's even worse. So you're not going to see a lot of new projects getting built. That's the situation. Thank you.
所以，当你考虑房地产市场或办公房地产市场时，情况更为糟糕。因此，你不会看到很多新项目的建设。这就是现状。谢谢。

All right. Awesome. So I see we have a couple other folks that requested. I saw baby bear, you were out there earlier and you requested again, let me get you up here and thank you so much everyone for listening. Really appreciate all of you out there for tuning in.
好的，棒极了。我看到还有几个人请求加入。我早些时候看到Baby Bear在外面，并再次请求加入。非常感谢大家收听，真的很欣赏你们所有人的收听。

If you didn't get the catch the whole thing, good news. We're going to be recording this on Twitter after we close out the spaces, but we'll also be putting it out as a podcast. And if you haven't checked out the macrovisor podcast, you go to your favorite service, Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify, type in macrovisor and you can find us there and become a subscriber to our episodes. You can also visit us at our website at macrovisor.com. We have both free and premium content.
如果你没有完全听懂的话，好消息是，我们会在结束空间后在Twitter上记录下来，但我们也会把它制作成播客。如果你还没有听过MacroVisor Podcast，可以前往你喜欢的服务（苹果，亚马逊，谷歌，Spotify），搜索MacroVisor，然后成为我们的订阅者。你也可以访问我们的网站macrovisor.com，我们有免费和付费内容。

Baby bear, how's it going out there, my friend? What's on your mind? Hey, how you doing? Great to have you. Great to have you on, great to have Aisha. You guys are amazing. I admire and really value you guys' content that you guys post up. So great job putting this together.
"宝宝熊，你在外面怎么样，我的朋友？你在想些什么？嘿，你怎么样？很高兴有你。很高兴有你加入，很高兴有Aisha。你们很棒。我很欣赏并真正珍视你们发布的内容。做得非常好，很棒的组织。"

I wanted to add to what Aisha was saying is Aisha was talking about earlier about how projects are now getting stalled. So let me tell you, I had a meeting not too long ago. There's a few points that I'd like to add which will kind of open inside from the other side.
我想补充一下艾沙之前谈到的项目现在被搁置的事情。所以让我告诉你吧，我不久前开了一次会。有几个观点我想要补充，这将从另一个角度打开这个话题。

I had a meeting with some bankers, you know, where I'm the development side and I'm heavy on the real estate. The CRE. Hey, you still with us, my friend? You kind of come out there. I'm here. I'm here.
我和一些银行家开了个会，你知道，我作为开发人员，重点在于房地产。商业不动产。嘿，你还在吗，我的朋友？你有点走神了。我在这里。我在这里。

So what I'm seeing is they are, there's a lot of debts that are going to be coming up for renewal from 2019 which were financed at the lower interest rate. And now they're coming up for those five year terms.
所以我看到的是，有很多债务将在2019年到期，这些债务是以较低的利率融资的。现在这些债务正在到期履行那五年期限。

Those are coming up from renewal soon. So based on that, the debts were serviced at 2%. And a lot cheaper rate. And now those when they're going to be being serviced at 7%, 8%, a lot of them will simply be handing over the keys.
这些债务即将到期。因此根据这个情况，债务以2%的低利率得到了处理，费用也便宜了很多。但是现在，当这些债务的利率变成7％，8％时，很多人都会直接交还钥匙。

The cap rates have changed as well. So banks are getting a lot more conservative. And once people will not be able to service the difference of that debt, simply they'll be handing over the keys. So I do see a big turmoil right around the corner.
「资本化率也有所变化。因此，银行正在变得更加谨慎。一旦人们无法支付债务差额，他们就会交出钥匙。因此，我看到即将出现一场大混乱。」

I am, I hate to sound like a, obviously it's, it's, it's oxymoron because I sound like I am a bear. My name is a bear, but then I always want to be butlish. But nonetheless, there is turmoil on the CRE side which Jay Powell did emphasize today in the meeting.
我，我不想听起来像一个……显然，这是矛盾的，因为我听起来像一个熊。我的名字是熊，但我总想成为一个古怪的人。但尽管如此，在 CRE 领域存在动荡，杰伊·鲍威尔今天在会议上强调了这一点。

And I think they see that as well as much as they're trying to sugarcoat this, smaller banks who did lend to on the commercial real estate side, heavy on these projects will be having some, will be feeling some pain.
我认为他们也看到了这一点，虽然他们试图美化这个问题，但那些向商业房地产方面提供贷款的小银行，特别是重度依赖这些项目的银行，将会感受到一些痛苦。

So one thing is that next thing, a big commercial, somebody who's big on the office space aside, I'm sure everybody has heard is Brookfield. So Brookfield is, is having a dumpster fire right now.
所以，有一件事情就是接下来的事情，一个很大的商业活动，有一个在办公空间方面很重要的人，我相信大家都听说过Brookfield。现在，Brookfield正在遭遇一个垃圾堆火灾的困境。

They're literally sitting there either handing over the keys right back to their lender, which a majority of their debts are service to the Royal Banks of Canada or, or they're simply just having the hand over the keys or restructure that debt.
他们真的坐在那里，要么直接把钥匙交回给他们的贷款人，其中大部分欠款是服务于加拿大皇家银行的，要么就是简单地交出钥匙或重组债务。 意思是：他们正在面临债务问题，可能会转交房屋的钥匙给贷款人或者重新安排债务。

So debt is going to be a really big issue here, here shortly. So I don't know, that's, I didn't know, honestly the Aisha was in the banking side. So that's good to know. Aisha we need to link up because maybe you can lend some of my projects as well, you know.
因此债务将成为一个非常大的问题，很快就会出现。所以我不知道，老实说我不知道艾沙在银行业方面。所以了解这点很好。艾沙，我们需要联系起来，因为也许你也可以借一些我的项目，你知道的。

Yeah, I made this joke with someone today, someone was asking me about borrowing money and I said, I don't lend money anymore now, I give out stock tips.
“是的，我今天和某人开玩笑，有人问我借钱，我说我不再借钱了，现在我发股票提示。” 这句话的意思是说，当有人问他借钱时，他不再借钱给对方，而是给出股票建议。这是一个玩笑，可能意味着他不再愿意借钱给别人。

So yeah, nobody's seen about this. And an owner for sure. Because we actually, I think about two weeks ago we saw Park hotels do exactly this. So their loan was coming up for, you know, it was coming due and instead of sort of restructuring it or refinancing it, they actually just handed back the keys.
所以，没人关注这件事。肯定有一位业主。因为我认为大概两个星期前，我们看到Park酒店正是这样做的。他们的贷款到期了，而不是重新安排或者重新融资，他们实际上只是把钥匙拿回去了。

So they gave up these two hotels, I think, and they chose to default, right? Because right now it's like, as I said, it's easier to just, because you have your property, you can just give back your asset. If it's not occupied anyway, you're not earning money from it. So you just might as well just give it up.
所以他们放弃了这两家酒店，我想，他们选择了违约，对吧？因为现在的情况是，正如我所说的，更容易的做法是，因为你拥有这个产权，你可以把资产归还。如果它现在没有被占用，你也无法从中赚钱。因此，你最好就是放弃它。

I mean, it's, it's a weird, weird situation and I don't think anybody would want to do that. But if banks are not restructuring the loans, if banks are not refinancing you, you don't have a choice other than for someone big to step in. And if people like Brookfield, who's really, really big as well, are not stepping in, then you know that this is going to be a serious problem very soon.
我是说，这是一个奇怪的、奇怪的情况，我不认为有人想这么做。但是，如果银行不重组贷款，如果银行不给你重新融资，你就没有选择，只能等待一个大公司出手相助。如果像布鲁克菲尔德这样的大公司没有介入，那么很快这将成为一个严重的问题。

Absolutely, absolutely. But let me ask you this now. So we're seeing in certain sectors how on my side we're focused on two different industries. One second, hold on. Try to fix this in your bod once.
“当然，当然。但是现在让我问你一下。所以我们正在看到某些领域中，我方专注于两个不同的行业。等等，先把你身体里的问题解决一下。” 这段话意思大概是在讨论某些具体领域和行业的情况，但是语句略显口语化，表述上有些不太清晰，建议在表达上做一些调整，以方便更好的理解。

And folks, if you have any questions for us, feel free to request to speak and we'll be sure to get you up here.
大家，如果你们有任何问题需要向我们提问，请随意请求发言，我们一定会让你上来的。

All right. So basically, I apologize. So basically, what I am seeing is concentration in certain fields are still thriving. Industrial is thriving. Industrial is still thriving. There's a lot of money to be made in industrial still because industry has got slowed down.
“好的，基本上，我道歉。基本上，我看到的是某些领域的集中度仍在蓬勃发展。工业仍在蓬勃发展，因为工业已经放缓，所以仍有很多钱可赚。”

So I think on the real estate side, only certain people will hand over the keys. It's not going to be, I wouldn't make a blanket statement where it's going to be throughout the whole board because some people will absorb the 7.8 point.
所以我认为在房地产方面，只有某些人会交出钥匙。我不会给出一个笼统的声明，认为这会发生在整个板块中，因为有些人会承担这7.8点（税收）的费用。 意思是，不是所有人都会交出房产的钥匙，因为有些人可能会选择承担税收成本。

There are higher interest rates, restructuring loans on a higher interest rate. They will service that debt. But some banks are still servicing debts on industrial property. So industrial, I do see still boom. I'm also very bullish on Class A buildings, which is if there's a jewel in every city, which is brand new construction, I'm still bullish that those will thrive.
这段话主要讲到当前利率较高，一些银行将重新安排高利率贷款的还款。他们会优先还清这些债务。但仍有一些银行在为工业房产的债务提供服务。因此，我认为工业房产市场仍在蓬勃发展。我也对甲级建筑市场充满信心，这些是城市中的明珠，就是崭新的建筑，我相信这些建筑仍会繁荣兴旺。

Those office spaces will thrive. But all the old offices, which have been sitting there 20 years, 30 years, which have just had a lipstick on it. I think those guys are going to be suffering the most.
"这些办公空间将会繁荣起来。但是那些旧办公室，已经坐了20年、30年，只是打了个口红的地方。我认为这些人会受到最大的痛苦。" 这段话表达了作者对于办公空间行业的看法，他认为即将兴起的办公空间会很繁荣，但是那些老旧的办公室只是表面上改变了一下，长期来看会遭受最大的困难。

So that's my thing overall. What do you think about that, Isha? So are you seeing it on certain sectors being affected or is it real estate just right across the board?
这就是我的总体想法。艾莎，你对此有什么看法？你看到受影响的特定行业，还是房地产全片面都有影响？

No, of course, there are certain sectors that are still doing okay, right? So office properties are the worst. And as you said, even within the office properties, the newer built, Class A properties, you know, the properties with the bells and whistles, they're doing slightly better. However, you're right, industrial is doing okay.
当然，还有一些行业仍然很好，对吧？因此办公物业是最糟糕的一种。就像你所说的，即使在办公物业中，新建的一流物业，那些有着各种便利设施的物业，它们的情况稍微好一些。然而，你说得对，工业行业还不错。

And not just here, even in Europe, I have some friends working there. They're doing very well with industrial properties in the UK and in Europe. So there are pockets of strength in the market. Yes. But overall, I think there's also, when you're talking about stocks in general or rates in general, I think the whole market has been beaten down quite a bit because some of what we're seeing in the office property sector will of course replicate to others. So I think just as a sector as a whole, people are just afraid to touch it now for all the reasons that we've discussed. So all great points. I think, yeah, I completely agree with you on these things. And I think it's a good time just to stay away from the rate sector or the real estate sector for now. Yeah, absolutely agreed.
这段文字表达了对房地产市场的看法。作者认为尽管市场上有一些强势的领域，比如英国和欧洲的工业地产，但总体来说，整个房地产市场被一些办公地产领域的问题所影响，导致人们对整个行业的信心不足。因此，作者建议目前最好远离房地产和利率领域。

All right. So I see we have a couple folks out there that have requested. I think, Abhi, you've been waiting for a little bit here. Let me get you in. And thanks again, everyone, for tuning in. Really appreciate it.
好的，我看到有几位观众提出了请求。我想，Abhi，你已经等了一小会了。让我把你加进来。再次感谢大家收听。真的很感谢。

Abhi, I hope I'm pronouncing your name properly. Thank you so much for joining us. What's on your mind?
```阿比，我希望我能准确地发音。非常感谢你加入我们。你有什么想说的？``` 这是一个人向一个名叫Abhi的人问好，并询问他有什么想说的。

Hi, ma'am. And Aisha, thank you very much, first of all, for the tremendous work you folks are doing at Microvisor. I'm a big fan and I'll continue to be. So I had a few questions and just I was curious what you and Aisha's opinions are on this.
您好，女士。首先非常感谢您和Aisha在Microvisor所做的巨大工作，我是您的忠实粉丝，并且会一直支持。我有几个问题，只是好奇您和Aisha对此有何看法。

So first of all, what are your opinions on Jerome Powell's effort to combat inflation and has he succeeded in overcoming it or is it just a mandate thanks to Biden's government flooding the market with oil from the reserves? And the other thing is, what's your take on the new method of calculating the CPI consumer price index? Like as in, okay, well, they're tackling the core CPI now. So what's your take on this? The other part of the question is, why did we get a pause today? Did Powell not want to see the banking system fail and thought it's worth pausing right now? And why do we consider this a hawkish pause? Additionally, from a historical perspective, what do you think Powell's playbook, like, what playbook is he following? Look at the circumstances that's happening in the macroeconomics right now. And last question is, since many banks are backed up by real-state, why aren't we seeing real-state prices go down simultaneously with banks' systems failing? I know I threw a lot of points out there, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak.
首先，你对杰罗姆·鲍威尔为抗击通货膨胀所做的努力有何看法？他成功克服了通货膨胀吗？还是这只是因为拜登政府从储备中涌入了大量的石油？另一个问题是，你认为如何计算消费者物价指数CPI的新方法？例如，现在他们正在解决核心CPI问题，你对此有何看法？问题的其他部分是，为什么我们今天看到了停顿？鲍威尔不想看到银行系统崩溃，并认为暂停是值得的吗？为什么我们认为这是一次鹰派暂停？另外，从历史的角度来看，你认为鲍威尔的策略是什么？看看当前宏观经济状况下发生的情况。最后一个问题是，由于许多银行都是由房地产支撑的，为什么我们没有看到房地产价格同时下降和银行的系统崩溃？我知道我提出了很多问题，但我很想听听你的看法。谢谢给我说话的机会。

Sure, yeah. Thank you so much. Some great questions in there. I'll address a few of them here. In terms of inflation and weather Powell's conquered it, I think core PCE and core CPI decisively say no. That the Fed has not conquered inflation, that in fact parts of it are becoming more sticky. And that's actually a really big concern. And the unrelenting strength of the service sector is really where that's coming from, right?
“当然，谢谢你。这里有一些非常好的问题，我会在这里回答其中的一些。在通货膨胀和气象方面，我认为核心个人消费支出和核心消费者物价指数都明确地表示没有。联邦储备委员会没有征服通货膨胀，事实上部分因素变得更加顽固，这是一个非常大的问题。而服务业的不断增长是导致这一问题的根源。”

We've seen relief and goods. We've seen weakness in manufacturing. We have nine months in a row of ISM manufacturing PMI in contraction. We have new orders slipping. We have backlog slipping there. So we know that part of the economy, which is only about a quarter percent or I'm sorry, a quarter of GDP contribution. We know that part of the economy is slowing. But in terms of ISM services, it's still marginally in contraction last reading 50.3. And prices are still going up there from wage growth. So I think that if wages are still rising, and we heard from baby bear, or we heard from Cheryl earlier that the Atlanta Fed wage tracker was showing 6%, then that's another issue, right? Wages are still growing at a rate that's beyond what the Fed wants to see.
我们看到了救援和商品。我们看到制造业的疲软。我们已有九个月的制造业ISM采购经理人指数下降。我们的新订单下降，积压订单也在下降。因此，我们知道经济中仅占国内生产总值的四分之一的部分正在放缓。但是在ISM服务领域，目前读数仍处于微弱萎缩状态，为50.3。来自工资增长的价格仍在上涨。因此，我认为，如果工资持续上涨，而我们早前听到财经界人士分享亚特兰大储备银行工资指标显示增长了6％，那么这是另一个问题。工资仍在以超出联邦储备委员会希望看到的速度增长。

I think the Fed's more comfortable, 2.5, maybe 3% wage growth. And so as long as wages are rising, as long as the services sector is resilient, there are some drivers for inflation here.
我认为美联储对于工资增长2.5%到3%更为适宜。只要工资继续上涨，服务行业保持弹性，就存在一些引导通货膨胀的因素。

Let's also remember, labor force participation remains historically low. It is off the all time lows we saw during or at least the lows that we've seen in this half of the last century. It's well off that. But it still has not recovered. We still have a rather tight labor force. And then on the other side of that, we have structural scarcity too. So we have a scarcity of actual participating people in labor force. And then we also do not have enough energy. We do not have enough raw materials. We do not have enough agricultural capacity. So there's some structural drivers of inflation that ironically the Fed's policy is actually going to make a bit worse.
让我们还记得，劳动力参与率仍处于历史低位。虽然已经脱离了我们在上个世纪的这半个世纪中看到的纪录低点，但仍未完全恢复。我们仍然有一个相当紧张的劳动力市场。另一方面，我们也存在结构性稀缺问题。我们实际参与劳动力的人口很少，能源、原材料和农业产能也不足。因此，通货膨胀有些结构性驱动因素，讽刺的是美联储的政策实际上会使情况变得更糟。

The longer they have to keep rates high and the higher that they go, there's pass through pressures to inflation from a higher cost of capital. But there's also other ancillary impacts of a higher cost of capital. For example, if you were the CEO of an oil gas company or a metals company and you were being told that you're board meeting that for one, your cost capital is going up.
当利率越长时间越高并且涨幅越大时，资本成本的上升会给通货膨胀带来压力。但资本成本上升还会带来其他附带影响。例如，如果你是一家石油天然气公司或金属公司的CEO，并被告知在董事会会议上，你的资本成本正在上升。

Secondly, business is slowing down. Three, the cost that you have to pay people to work for you is going up too. Are you going to expand supply in that environment when you know that demand is down and your costs are going up? No, you're not. And when you start to slow down, it takes a long time to get back into full swing.
其次，生意在放缓。另外，你雇人工作的成本也在上涨。如果你知道需求下降且成本上涨，你会在这种环境下扩大供应吗？不会。当你开始放缓时，要恢复到全力运作需要很长时间。

Second, we have over a decade of lack of investment in some of these key areas. We've had the least new oil discoveries in 2021 that we saw in 75 years. So there's not enough exploration. There's not enough production. There's some structural supply issues that are sadly being a bit exacerbated by Fed policy, but the Fed only has a set of tools that they have.
其次，我们在某些关键领域缺乏十年以上的投资。我们在2021年发现的新石油最少，这是75年来最少的。因此，探索不足，生产不足，在某些结构性供应问题上，联邦政策会加剧这些问题，但联邦政策只有一组本身具备的工具。

All they can do is kind of take a sledgehammer to demand and hope that that helps. And unfortunately, where we are right now, not yet, but as we discussed earlier, the lagged and variable impacts of monetary policy often takes somewhere between 12 and 18 months before we realized in the economy, and only 15 months out from the first hike. So I'd say for now, they haven't nailed it, but it also hasn't been enough time to really see what those impacts are.
他们所能做的就是对需求进行一定程度的破坏，希望这有所帮助。不幸的是，就我们现在的情况而言，这还不够。但正如我们之前所讨论的，货币政策的滞后和变动的影响通常需要12到18个月才会在经济中体现出来，距离第一次加息已经过去了15个月。所以我想现在他们还没有完全掌握，但还不足以看到这些影响。

In terms of why did they pause and how is it hawkish? I think that the statement itself was hawkish. When they came out with the statement that said, we're going to do 50, not 25 more bits of hikes. That was hawkish. That was not priced in by the market. It wasn't really expected. Remember, the last dot plot that they gave us in March was 5.1%. This is now 5.6%. So that's a pretty big change. They also revised up their inflation expectations, full well admitting to the world that their fight against inflation is even going towards their expectations. It's not going quite as hope.
在为什么他们暂停以及它为什么鹰派方面，我认为声明本身就是鹰派的。当他们宣布说，我们将加息50个基点而不是25个基点时，这是鹰派的。这没有被市场定价。这并不是真正预料到的。请记住，他们在3月份给我们的最后一个点阵图是5.1％。现在是5.6％。所以这是一个相当大的变化。他们还上调了通胀预期，完全承认他们对抗通胀的斗争正在走向他们的预期。这并不像他们希望的那样顺利进行。

Now in terms of the banking system, Powell directly identified that there are some growing risks there. I think that there certainly are, particularly within commercial real estate. And so why would they pause here? They need to assess the impact of monetary policy. But also, I think that there are some concerns about how much this issuance could push up the very front of the curb and possibly absorb some liquidity. He even acknowledged that saying that reverse repose and bank reserves may fall. Not sure exactly what the distribution of those drops may be and the overall impact. But he also went on to say that he didn't think that we were going to see bank reserves become scarce in his words.
在银行系统方面，鲍威尔明确指出存在一些不断增加的风险。特别是商业房地产领域，我认为确实存在问题。所以为什么他们要暂停呢？他们需要评估货币政策的影响。但我认为也存在一些担忧，即这种发行可能会推高路边的价格，并可能吸收一些流动性。他甚至承认说，反向回购和银行准备金可能会下降。不确定这些下降的分布情况及其整体影响。但他还说，他认为我们不会看到银行准备金短缺。

And in terms of his playbook, I think Aishan and I have talked a little bit about how he's trying to follow Volker. He sort of idolized the man. He carries his book around, or at least he used to, he did it at the Jackson Hall speech. But the speech we got today from Powell was a sharp contrast in the statement. It was very reserved. It was very toned down. So we had the statement play bad cop. We had Powell play good cop. And I think he is, as you kind of spoke to, a bit nervous. He seems just a little bit uncertain.
“就他的剧本而言，我认为艾珊和我谈到了他如何模仿沃尔克。他有点崇拜这个人。他曾经携带着他的书，至少在杰克逊霍尔演讲时是这样。但是今天我们从鲍威尔那里得到的讲话则与此形成了强烈对比，相当保守、相当缓和。所以我们让声明发挥了“坏的警察”的角色。鲍威尔则扮演“好的警察”。但我想他还是有点紧张，有点不确定。”

So for your other questions, I want to give Aishan a chance to talk about the CPI calculation and also what's going on in real estate. Yeah, thanks. So, yeah, I just want to add to the playbook. Yeah, I do think that he is following Volker. But in general, the Fed has always been of the idea that it's better to over tighten. And so I've been saying that they can and will tighten into a recession. And the reason I say this is because they're very, let's say, overconfident that they have the tools to walk things back if they over tighten. So I don't think this is an issue.
所以对于你的其他问题，我想给艾山一个谈论CPI计算和房地产市场的机会。是的，谢谢。所以，我只是想补充一下参考手册。是的，我确实认为他在跟随沃尔克。但总的来说，联邦储备委员会一直认为过紧比过松更好。所以我一直在说，他们可以并将在衰退时收紧，这是因为他们非常自信，认为如果过紧了，他们有工具可以把事情缩回来。所以我不认为这是个问题。

And this is a problem with every Fed that comes around. And so I don't think that they want to, let's say, pause too early because they're afraid of inflation coming back. And they're seeing that already. So and I think this is why they increased the dot plot or the terminal rate this time around.
这是每一任联邦储备委员会都会面临的问题。他们不想太早停止加息，因为他们担心通货膨胀会卷土重来。他们已经看到这样的情况了。所以我认为这就是他们这次提高点阵图或终端利率的原因。

Now to your question about the CPI changes. So I'm just remembering what they did last time. I think they did two things. They did the seasonal adjustments and then they changed some of the weighting in the CPI data. So as far as the seasonal adjustments are concerned, the projections that I saw was basically it was going to make inflation look stronger both on core and headline inflation. And we're kind of seeing that play out.
现在，关于CPI变化的问题。我记得他们上次做了两件事。他们进行了季节性调整，然后改变了CPI数据的一些权重。就季节性调整而言，我看到的预测基本上是会使核心和总体通胀看起来更强。我们现在正在看到这种情况。

So the base effects should have brought down core inflation slightly more, but they haven't. It's still running pretty hot. And then in terms of changes in the weighting, I think they increase the weighting in the housing and they decrease the and this is CPI. Yeah. So and then they decrease the weighting in new and used vehicles and to a certain extent, medical care and education.
所以，基础效应应该会稍微降低核心通货膨胀率，但事实未然。它仍然在相当高的水平上运行。至于权重的变化，我认为他们增加了住房的权重，减少了新旧车辆的权重，并在一定程度上削弱了医疗保健和教育的权重。这是指CPI。

Now funnily enough, yesterday's numbers showed us shelter inflation housing inflation was stable, as I said, but it also showed us that medical care has gone up and that was because of the pharmaceuticals. So the pharmaceutical companies are kind of front running the inflation reduction act. So they're increasing prices before the inflation reduction act comes into play. That's one. And then in terms of the used cars, we saw that running very hot. I think it was 4.4% if I'm not mistaken month on month. And we saw that in the manheim used car index as well. So now this again, yet another squeeze in the used car situation and we're seeing prices go up.
有趣的是，昨天的数据显示住房通胀率稳定，但医疗保健费用上涨，这是因为药品价格上涨。因此，制药公司在通胀减缓法案实施前提高了价格。至于二手车，我们看到销售非常火热，月度增长率达到4.4%。同时，我们在曼海姆二手车指数中也看到了这一趋势。这又是二手车市场紧缩，导致价格上涨的情况。

So basically both these issues were supposed to kind of make inflation or make core inflation go higher because just because of the housing component being so much more. And we're kind of seeing that, right? So we're seeing core running higher and hotter than expected.
所以基本上，这两个问题都应该会使通货膨胀或核心通货膨胀上升，因为住房组件占比更大。我们正在看到这一点，对吧？因此，我们看到核心通货膨胀高于预期水平。

The other question was on real estate. Why aren't real estate prices going down? So if you're talking about the housing sector, we talked about that earlier that there is a shortage in the housing sector. So real estate. So housing prices did go down. But I think people were so scared last year, they stopped building and then the inventory went down massively. So I think that's what's kind of pushing housing prices up again. Yeah, we've got that and then we've got the scarcity in existing homes as well.
这段话谈到了一个关于房地产的问题：为什么房价不下降？如果我们谈到住房行业，我们可以先回顾一下之前的对话，住房领域存在住房短缺问题，因此房地产价格应该会下降。但是去年人们的恐慌情绪导致建房减少，库存大幅下降，这是推动房价上涨的原因之一。此外现有房屋的稀缺也是导致房价上涨的原因之一。

We've got a lot of homeowners who just don't want to move with mortgage rates as they are. So there's lower supply. So it's a bit structural. And essentially for the Fed to unfortunately break down some of these wealth effects, it's going to require this sort of mantra that they've been echoing, which is higher for longer.
我们有很多业主因为当前的抵押贷款利率而不想搬家。因此房屋供应减少了，这是一个结构性的问题。不幸的是，为了削弱某些财富效应，联邦储备委员会需要坚持他们一直在重复的口号，即「高息久留」。

We've got a couple more questions here. We're going to get these folks up here. We want to be mindful of everyone's time. Dr. Hughes, we've seen you waiting for a little while patiently. Thank you so much. And what's on your mind, Dr. Hughes? Thank you so much for tuning in.
我们还有几个问题要提问。我们要请这些人上来。我们要注意每个人的时间。休斯博士，我们看到您一直在耐心等待。非常感谢您。休斯博士，您有什么问题吗？非常感谢您的收看。

Hi. So thanks for hosting this session. I just have two questions. The first is, could you speak on, I've been following your QQQTOT chart. And surprisingly, the jobs are very wide right now. So I'm just wondering if you can maybe elaborate on what you think is causing such a wide divergence. And also if you could maybe elaborate on maybe when do you expect, what are some signs to look out for when TLT might start to reverse upward?
嗨，感谢您主持此次会议。我有两个问题。首先，您能否谈谈我一直在关注的QQQTOT表。令人惊讶的是，工作范围现在非常广泛。所以我想知道是否可以详细说明您认为是什么导致了这样的巨大差异。同时，您能否详细说明一下，什么时候可以预计TLT开始向上逆转，需要注意哪些迹象。

Sure. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. You have another question? Yeah.
当然。嗯，好的。抱歉，你可以继续问问题。你还有另一个问题吗？是的。 这是一个简短的对话，其中一个人表示同意并允许对方继续问问题。

But I could just ask you after. Yeah, of course.
但是我之后可以问你。是的，当然。 这句话的意思是说，对方可能想要询问一些问题，但是暂时不方便回答，可以后续再回答。

So in terms of QQQQ versus TLT, we can also look at things like the NASDAQ composite or CompQ versus the 10-year note price. There's a couple of different correlations there, tips as well. They're all very large jaws, even LQD versus QQQ. And what that's telling me in my very oversimplified version of it is that risk premiums are getting extremely compressed. That we're seeing that tech is kind of diverging into its own little world right now. Where are 15% of the stocks in the S&P or, I'm sorry, the top 15 stocks in the S&P account for over 90% of the gains year to date.
所以在比较QQQQ与TLT时，我们也可以看一下纳斯达克综合指数或CompQ与10年期国债价格的走势。还有一些其他的相关性，例如tips。它们都表现出非常大的差异，甚至包括LQD与QQQ。根据我的简单理解，这意味着风险溢价正在被极度压缩。科技行业似乎正在独立于其他行业。在标准普尔指数中，前15%的股票占到年度收益的90%以上。

And of course, most of those are mega-cap tech. The NASDAQ, the top five stocks in the NASDAQ are about 44% of the index. And so when you're in this sort of end cycle environment, one thing that can happen with long-only money managers is they can start to rotate up size using factor or size as a heuristic for quality. So you're going up, up, up, up, up, and up. And so that means that people are going from small cap, mid cap, large cap, mega cap.
当然，其中的大部分都是超大型科技公司。纳斯达克指数中排名前五的股票约占这个指数的44％。因此，在这种末端周期的环境中，长期持股的资金管理人员可能会开始使用因素或规模作为品质的启发，来逐渐将投资组合重心向上转移。所以，你会看到人们从小市值股票、中市值股票、大市值股票，最后转向超大型市值公司。

Basically, if you're a long-only fund manager and you can only have 5%, 10% allocation and cash and maybe some marginal amount and bonds, the only thing you could do with your client's money is go into parts of the market that you think might be safer or more defensive. And there's a couple of different variations of that. One is chasing mega-caps, right? Particularly if you're a growth manager, you really can't get into defenses, you really can't get into low volatility, defensive type of stocks like aerospace or staples or healthcare or things like that. So I think that's one reason that it's significantly outperforming.
这段话大意是，如果你是一个只能分配5%、10%现金和一些债券的长线基金经理，你唯一能做的就是进入市场中你认为可能更安全或更具防御性的部分。有几种不同的变化，其中一种是追逐大型企业，特别是如果你是增长型经理，你真的无法进入防御性和低波动性的股票，例如航空航天、日用品或医疗保健等。因此，我认为这就是其明显优于市场的原因之一。

I think another reason is all of the positive sentiment around AI, some of it is warranted, a lot of it is not. AI does have a tremendous amount of potential and promise, but we're pulling forward a couple of years where the future returns into the present with the kind of hype exceeding maybe where the capabilities are right now. And I've looked at AI for quite a while. I think it's a very exciting space.
我认为另一个原因是AI周围的所有积极情绪，其中一些是有根据的，但很多则不是。 AI确实有巨大的潜力和前景，但我们正在提前几年，未来的回报已经在当下炒作，可能超出了现在的能力范围。我已经观察AI相当长时间了。我认为这是一个非常令人兴奋的领域。

I think there's a lot of stuff that's going to come out in the next 5 or 10 years. It's going to be groundbreaking and change the way that we use technology. But with the technology where it is right now, I still think there's a lot of time in the development cycle to really reach that point. And remember, it's similar to full self-driving, which is sort of considered a form of machine learning. Maybe some would even go out and a limb and call it AI.
我认为在未来的5-10年中，会有很多具有开创性的事情发生，这些事情会改变我们使用技术的方式。但是，就目前的技术而言，我认为在开发周期中还需要很长时间才能真正达到那个点。请记住，这与全自动驾驶相似，被认为是一种机器学习的形式。也许有些人甚至会认为它是人工智能。

But we've been told since 2015, 2016, we're going to have self-driving taxis on every street. They're not there yet. We're only in the very early iterations of it. Sadly enough, in I think San Francisco the other day, a small dog was run over by a self-driving Waymo car. So we know the safety protocols are not really there yet. There was an Air Force story. It was quickly retracted, whether it's sure or not, I don't know, but they did a simulation where AI drone killed its operator. Now, they very quickly came back and said, no, no, no, no, no, that didn't really happen. We're sorry. We said all that in error.
但自从2015年、2016年，我们就被告知将会在每个街道上都有自动驾驶出租车。然而现在它们还没有出现。我们只是处于最初的试验阶段。可悲的是，前些天我听说在旧金山，一辆 Waymo 自动驾驶汽车撞死了一只小狗。因此，我们知道安全协议还没有真正到位。还有一个美国空军的故事，它很快被撤回了。它是否真实，我不知道，但他们做了一个模拟，令AI无人机杀死了它的操作员。然后，他们非常快速地回来说，不，不，不，不，不，这不是真的。我们很抱歉。我们是错误地说了这些话。

I don't know how that could even be said in error. But it happened. And I think that basically we're in this environment where hype is getting a little further than reality. There's also a group of three people in France. They started an AI company four weeks ago. It got 105 million euros in funding. They don't have a product. They don't even really have a website. But they already got that kind of funding. So I think there's a lot of exuberance, there's a lot of excitement. There's a lot of passion about what's happening with language learning models and other areas of AI.
我不知道怎么可能会出现这样的错误。但是这确实发生了。我认为，我们现在的环境是炒作已经超越了现实。法国还有一群三个人。他们四周前创立了一个AI公司。它得到了1.05亿欧元的资金。他们没有产品。他们甚至没有真正的网站。但他们已经获得了这种资金。所以我认为现在存在着很多狂热，很多兴奋，对于语言学习模型和其他AI领域的发展。

And then finally, you have enormous amounts of call flow into NASDAQ stocks and into the NASDAQ itself. It's push single stock skew to the call side, which is pretty extraordinary because really for the back half of 2022, single stock skew was largely towards the put side, even for much of this year. And what that means is people are paying more for insurance than they were for upside speculation. Now we've seen that switch over to the other side. We've seen record inflows into the NASDAQ 100 over the last couple of weeks as well on the call option side. So I'd say we need to see these flows change.
然后最终，你会看到大量的电话流量涌入到纳斯达克股票和纳斯达克本身。这将推动单个股票偏向于看涨的一面，这是相当特别的，因为在2022年下半年，单个股票偏向于看跌的一面，在今年大部分时间里也是如此。这意味着人们为保险支付的费用比他们为看涨投机支付的费用更多。现在我们看到这种情况发生了转变。我们也看到在过去几周里，纳斯达克100在认购期权方面创下了创纪录的流入。因此，我认为我们需要看到这些流入发生变化。

Last week was the first week we've seen an outflow in tech in four weeks. We'll see if that continues. We've also got to pay close attention to the options market, particularly as we get past options, explorations, a pretty call heavy options expiration. So there's some left tail downside skew as we get through this. So I'd say we're looking for a momentum shift. That's really the key thing. And we're looking for a shift in flows and a shift in sentiment. And I think that's when you get that the possibility that maybe the jaws start to close.
上周是四周来科技行业首次出现资金流出的一周。我们将看看这种情况是否持续。我们还要密切关注期权市场，尤其是在期权到期日过后，这个期权到期日的看涨期权比例比较高。随着时间推移，左侧的下行偏移风险有所增加。因此，我认为我们正在寻找一种动量转移。这是关键所在。我们正在寻求流量和情绪的变化。我认为，当你发现可能开始收窄巨口时，就有了机会。

On the other side, TLT can very well start to come up as well, particularly if recession fears start to come back. Now, obviously that seems far fetched right now, but if you have something happen in the economy or in the banking system that gets people concerned, TLT can get a very significant bid in a short amount of time. And of course, while it's getting that flight to safety bid, you tend to see de-risking in risk assets, particularly those long duration or speculative risk assets. So I'd say we're going to have to pay attention. It's still an evolving situation, but I would personally want to see more buyers of puts and buyers of calls that open interest and volume starting to surge.
在另一方面，如果经济衰退的担忧开始回来，TLT可能也会出现反弹。现在，显然这似乎很难想象，但如果经济或银行系统出现问题，引起人们的担忧，TLT可能会在短时间内得到非常显著的买盘。当然，当它收到飞向安全的买盘时，你会看到风险资产的减仓，特别是那些长期或投机性的风险资产。因此，我认为我们将不得不注意这一点。这仍然是一个不断发展的情况，但我个人希望看到更多的购买看跌期权和看涨期权的买家，开仓量和成交量也开始激增。

I'd like to see complacency come out of the equity put call ratio where it's been oscillating between like 0.5 and 0.6. I'd like to see NWAIM coming lower. Last week's reading was above 90 showing that the National Association of Active Investment Managers are super duper long, the longest they've been since, I want to say, I think it was early 2022. We got double A, double I, active investment manager or active investor survey, retail survey. Also at highs we haven't seen in a very long time. There's just a lot of things that are kind of telling us we're at this moment where we're very stretched in positioning and inflows, but we haven't yet seen that turning point.
我希望看到股票认购-认沽比率中的自满情绪消失，它一直在0.5和0.6之间波动。我希望看到NWAIM回落。上周的数据显示，全国积极投资经理协会超级超级持有可能，他们是自2022年初以来最长时间的持有者。我们有双A，双I，积极投资经理或积极投资者调查，零售调查。此外，我们也看到了很久以来的高点。有很多事情都在告诉我们，我们目前处于持仓和流入非常高的时刻，但我们还没有看到转折点。

I'd say I think that's what it's going to be really important if one is looking to either ensure by hedges, raise cash or even take on short positions, we've got to see that turning point. And until we do, I think that we still have some upside risk and options expiration week as we go throughout this week, I'm really looking very intently at that 4,400 ceiling on SPX in terms of the amount of call interest that's there. That's the wall of calls. And then below that, if we look at 4,300 on SPX, that's kind of the bulk trigger.
我觉得，如果一个人想要通过对冲来保证资本、筹集资金或者甚至进行空头操作，那么找到市场的转折点就非常重要。在我们找到那个转折点之前，我认为还存在上行风险。在这个期权到期的星期里，我会非常关注 SPX 的 4,400 点这个阻力位上的看涨期权利益的数量，也就是被称为看涨期权的“壁垒”。而在这之下，如果我们看到 SPX 的 4,300 点，那么这个点就是整个市场的平均水平。

We've got a lot of call and put open interest, the most in aggregate of both across the entire chain. So we're going to get up to the downside. Volatility could get more intense. And on the other side of it, we take 4,400 out on a weekly closing basis. Bulls are definitely going to be in control. So I think we need to continue to watch, but my whole takeaway here is don't make a lot of opx week out of how this week trades. Look at how it closes on Friday and look at how we trade in the first couple of days the next week. I think that's going to be the most important part of this. So those would be the, that would be the overlay and the signs that I would be looking for.
我们有很多看涨和看跌利益，在整个中档中总数最多。所以我们要准备好面对下行风险。波动可能会更加剧烈。而另一方面，如果我们在一周的收盘基础上将4,400点突破，看涨方肯定会掌控局面。因此，我认为我们需要继续观察，但总的来说，不要把本周的交易过分看成一个期权交易周。关注周五的收盘情况和下周前几天的交易情况才是最重要的。这将是我关注的重点和迹象。

I hope that helps. Yeah, thank you. That was very helpful. You're very welcome. Did you have a follow up as well? Yeah.
希望这有所帮助。是的，谢谢。那很有帮助。你很欢迎。你还有后续问题吗？是的。

So I just had a question about, it's just like a question about like, what is, what do you predict the risk of deflationary bus considering based on the Fed's current trajectory? So like, for example, like some factors that I'm thinking about are like, like credit tightening the banking turmoil, I guess, high higher interest rates for longer. So people, you know, cash might be king. So I'm just like, I'm wondering, like, what were the chances of a deflationary bus where like maybe the Fed like over tight tends in the long term?
我有一个问题，关于如果联邦储备当前的轨迹继续下去，您预测通货紧缩风险的可能性有多大呢？例如，我正在考虑一些因素，如信贷收紧，银行动荡，较高的利率等等，可能导致现金变得更有价值。所以我想知道，如果联储过度从紧，是否会导致通货紧缩的风险？

Yeah, I mean, I think, look, when we talk about the Fed, there's one thing that I like to say. They have the dual policy mandate that the public knows, which is, you know, maximum employment stable prices, right? They also have their, they're sort of less known mandate, which is to inflate and destroy bubbles. And they're certainly in the bubble destroying component of their tightening cycle. That's what they want to do. That's what they hope to do. Powell was the first Fed chair, as I mentioned earlier, to ever mention a housing bubble. And so I think they're still intent on trying to do what they can. But we also see that they're a little more reserved in their follow through the statement was very hawkish. Powell's press conference was pretty bland.
对于美联储，我认为我们需要强调他们的两项政策任务，即最大限度地促进就业和稳定物价。此外，他们还有一个不太被人知道的任务，即通货膨胀和破坏泡沫。当前的货币政策已经进入了泡沫破灭的阶段，并且鲍威尔是历任美联储主席中首位提到房地产泡沫的人。美联储仍在努力尽力做到这一点，但我们也看到他们在执行这一政策时表现得更加谨慎，尽管声明非常鹰派，但鲍威尔的新闻发布会相对平淡。

In terms of the potential for a deflationary bust, look, it's always going to be there. There's always going to be that potential. But my opinion at where we are right now is actually the risk is to the upside with inflation that we've actually, we've actually created a situation where we have structurally embedded inflation where it's become more secular in nature. And it's to some of the points I was speaking to earlier, but essentially a rising cost of capital, labor scarcity, resource scarcity. And then if we start to get into a point where demand comes back, that does bode very poorly for making progress on inflation over the longer term.
关于通货紧缩崩溃的潜在可能性，它总是存在的。但我个人认为，当前风险实际上更可能出现在通货膨胀方面，我们实际上已经创造了一种结构性嵌入的通货膨胀，它已经变得更加持久。这与我之前所说的一些情况有关，基本上是成本上升、劳动力短缺和资源短缺。如果我们开始进入需求回升的阶段，这对于长期控制通货膨胀来说是非常不利的。

Can the feds have due the inflation rate in the short term? Sure. They certainly have on the headline level, eventually they probably will on core when the services industry goes into meaningful contraction. And as I just said, when we see employment go up, they'll assume it goes up at 5% or higher. But on the other side of that, when we get into the next new credit cycle, it's very likely that inflation is going to come back earlier and from all the yet higher prices. Because even if we have disinflation, that's just inflation running at a lower rate. That just means the cumulative impacts of price, prices going up, are just slowing down. But they're not providing relief. So I think it's unlikely that we see a deflationary bust unless things go really off the rails in the banking system. But on the other side of it, I think inflation is becoming more structurally embedded. And that's actually the bigger concern.
联邦政府能否控制短期通胀率？当然可以。他们肯定已经控制了一级预算，而当服务行业出现重要的收缩时，他们可能会控制核心预算。正如我刚才所说，当我们看到就业率上升时，他们会假设它上升了5%或更高。但在下一个新的信贷周期中，通货膨胀很可能会从更高的价格提前回来。因为即使我们有紧缩，那也只是通货膨胀以较低的速度运行。这只是意味着价格的影响正在减缓，但并没有提供救济。因此，除非银行系统出现真正的问题，否则我认为不太可能出现通货紧缩崩溃。但从另一方面来看，我认为通货膨胀越来越被结构性嵌入，这实际上是更大的问题。

And the irony here, if you think about it, is no one would really think on the surface level that raising interest rates would create more potential for structural inflation. But the rising cost of capital has to be passed down the chain. And that means that businesses that are incurring higher costs, they have to have their consumers incur their costs or eat lower margins, which are not likely to do it. Certainly won't make their investors very happy.
这里的讽刺是，如果你仔细想想，没有人会认为提高利率会为结构性通胀创造更多潜力。但资本成本的上升必须向下传递。这意味着正在承担较高成本的企业必须让其消费者承担这些成本或减少利润率，这很不可能。这肯定不会让他们的投资者很高兴。

Okay, thank you. That makes sense. I appreciate that. And yeah, that's the folder on all my questions. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Great question, Dr. Hughes. Um, Tony, I see you've been out there waiting to ask a question and everyone, we're going to wrap up after this question. We really appreciate everyone tuning in. This has been a lot of fun. We appreciate all your, uh, your support and, uh, just tuning in and asking great questions. And so Tony has a question. Then there's a text question that someone also asked in a reply that we'll get to as well. So Tony, what's going on, my friend, glad to have you on spaces here. What's on your mind?
好的，谢谢。那很有道理。我很感激。是的，那就是我所有问题的文件夹。非常感谢。休斯博士，问题很好。嗯，托尼，我看到你一直在那里等着问问题，大家在这个问题之后我们将结束。我们非常感激每个人的关注和支持，这很有趣。感谢你们提出了很棒的问题。托尼有个问题，还有一个人在回复中提出的文本问题，我们也会回答。所以托尼，朋友，很高兴你能在这里。你在想什么？

Hey, ma'am, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you just fine. Well, being his brother glad you're back on Twitter spaces. This the, like the milk of Magnesia to my macro over here. But hey, listen, uh, so for us, semiconductor followers, traders, you know, uh, you, we usually can watch certain indicators, uh, you know, uh, I send you orders, South Korean exports and Taiwan exports that are all on a downtrend. They've been on a downtrend for, I think, two or three months now. Um, but market doesn't seem to care. They're front running everything. What are you watching on the indicator side for semis? If you don't mind me asking.
“您好，夫人，您能听到我说话吗？是的，我可以听到你说话。作为他的兄弟，很高兴你回到Twitter空间。这就像我的宏观经济学里的益生菌一样。但是，请听我说，对于我们这些半导体追随者和交易者，我们通常可以观察某些指标，例如韩国出口和台湾出口，它们都在逐渐下降。已经持续了两三个月了。但是市场似乎并不在意，他们在预测一切。您现在在关注半导体指标方面的情况吗？如果你不介意的话。”

I mean, I think there's two letters that everyone that is playing those stocks has their body. Oh, don't say it. Don't say it. Yeah. You know, it's funny. I've been working with generative AI for like a year. I work for a fortune five 50. I think we are. So we got like early early on it and most of the stuff that we were using last year, we got shelved because, uh, security concerns, it wasn't working well. So when people are like, Oh my gosh, it's going to change everything. It's like, it's literally just shelves sitting in the dust in our, uh, our department. Well, well, look, I mean, Powell's speech was clearly written by Fed GPT. So they've got to be making some progress here somewhere, right? Let's go.
我是说，我认为每个持有这些股票的人都有两个信。哦，别说了，别说了。是啊，有趣的是，我已经和生成型AI一起工作了一年。我为一家Fortune 50公司工作。我想我们是吧。所以我们早早地就开始了大部分去年使用的东西，因为安全问题，它没有运行良好。所以当人们说，“哦，天哪，它将改变一切。”时，它其实就是在我们部门的灰尘中摆着的货架。嗯，好吧，我是说，鲍威尔的演讲显然是由联邦GPT编写的。所以他们一定在某个地方取得了进展，对吧？我们走吧。

Yeah. I mean, you know, you're hearing like even hedge funds are collecting a 100 chips to try to arb them out. And it's like, yeah, that works so well in the during the cycles, right? Right.
“是的，你知道的，就算是对冲基金也在收集100个芯片去试图去套利。但实际上，这在周期中真的很有效吗？对吧。”

And look, and I think you made a really good point. When we look at the hard data, it's not good, right? You look at Taiwan, you look at Korea, you look at the data from Samsung, you look at the data from Foxconn, you look at my economy, all these guys are slowing down. Even Nvidia, you know, if you take out their projections, you just look at their year over year, it's not terribly impressive either. AMD had a pretty bad quarter. They're now trading at a PE of what over 400 because of the compression of their bottom line. There's a lot of struggle in the sector. And last last quarter, not this quarter, but last quarter, AMD was actually marking up prices by keeping supply artificially scarce, right? So I'd say there's there's pain ahead for the sector.
“看吧，我认为你说得很有道理。当我们看到硬数据时，情况并不好，对吧？你看看台湾、韩国，看看三星和富士康的数据，看看我的经济，这些公司的增长速度都在放缓。甚至连英伟达，如果你把它的预测拿掉，只看看它的同比增长，也不是很惊人。AMD上一季度表现很糟糕，由于底线的压缩，它们现在的市盈率已经超过了400。这个行业正在经历着很多困难。上一个季度，AMD实际上通过保持供应人为稀缺来涨价。所以我想说，这个行业前方还有很多痛苦。”

I don't think that it's priced rationally right now. I do think that the AI hype cycle, if you look at the Gartner hype cycle curve, we're kind of closing in on peak hype. You know, AI has a lot of potential. It is eventually going to go places. I just don't think it's right here right now. I think there's more work to do. And so I would say that, you know, in the short to intermediate run, the stuff can run higher and it presents some pretty attractive opportunities to raise cash and to potentially hedge. But I wouldn't want to be getting along a lot of this stuff here because I think it's priced in extreme premium.
我认为现在它的价格不合理。我认为如果你看看Gartner的噱头周期曲线，我们正在接近高峰。你知道，人工智能有很多潜力。它最终会到达某个地方。我只是认为现在不是时候。我认为还有更多的工作要做。因此，我会说，在短期到中期，这些东西可能会上涨，并提供一些相当有吸引力的机会来筹集资金和可能进行对冲。但我不会想在这里参与过多，因为我认为它的价格超出了极端溢价。

Yeah, that's well said it. You know, before I hop off, if you guys have a chance, go look at MMS prediction. For 2020, I think you put him out November 2021. Yeah, frickin legend. Where'd it go? Oh, you're talking about the 2022s? Yeah, I think you put out the tweet November 2021 for the 2022 prediction heavy commodities. Yeah, that was legendary brother. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that. Really appreciate that.
“是的，说得好。你们知道的，在我离开之前，如果你们有机会，去看看MMS的预测。对于2020年，我想你把他放在了2021年11月。他简直是传奇。哦，你们在谈论2022年的吗？是的，我想你放出了推特，2022年预测重要商品，是在2021年11月。兄弟，这太传奇了。非常感谢你。真的非常感谢你。”

And it's good to know that you've been following on for a while my journey there on Twitter. And we've got one last question here. This is someone that asked it over text. So here's my question, ma'am. Please comment on the Fed saying they won't finance us U.S. fiscal debt and they go on to say that's extremely important.
"很高兴知道您一直在Twitter上关注我的旅程。现在我们有最后一个问题，这是一个通过短信提出的问题。我的问题是，请评论联邦储备委员会表示他们不会为美国财政债务提供资金，他们进一步表示这非常重要。" 意为：对于联邦储备委员会表示不会为美国财政债务提供资金，同时认为这非常重要，请发表您的看法。

And look, I think it's something even going back to post great financial crisis, even during the great financial crisis. Bernanke was asked flat out at a congressional hearing. Are is QE monetizing the debt? And he said no with a straight face, which is a little misleading. And here's why. The way QE works is the Fed is buying U.S. treasury debt at auctions and on the market, right? And when they're doing that, they're holding it on their balance sheet. They're collecting that interest. That interest is being used to fund the Fed's expenses. And then the balance after that, which is a lot, is given back to the treasury. So it's almost like having a sort of like interest free credit card where you get back the interest you paid at the end of the year. And so to say they're not financing the debt, it's, I mean, look at the mechanics of it. They clearly are financing the debt.
这段话谈到了量化宽松政策（QE）是否在为美国政府的债务提供资金，伯南克在国会听证会上回答说不是，但事实上QE是通过购买美国国债来进行操作。美联储持有国债并获得利息，这些利息用来支付联储的运作费用，余额则返还给财政部。这样做就好像是拥有一个零利息的信用卡，在年末返还你支付的利息一样。因此，说他们不在为债务融资是不准确的，毕竟从操作机制来看，他们明显是为债务提供资金的。

And then the other side of it is when they cut rates, the interest burden of the government, particularly in the very short end of the yield curve goes down. And the opposite of that is true when they high-grates, right? We can see the interest burden of the government all over the yield curve. But particularly the shorter end has gone up, commensurate with those Fed hikes. And so the U.S. Government is facing an interest burden of a trillion dollars or higher than that moving forward.
当他们降低利率时，尤其是在收益率曲线的短端时，政府的利息负担会降低。而当他们提高利率时，政府的利息负担会在整个收益率曲线上增加，尤其是短端。因此，美国政府将面临1万亿美元或更高的利息负担。

And I would say that, you know, the Fed has, if you look at everything that we've just discussed in terms of rates, in terms of QT versus QE and the impact, it's pretty obviously been monetizing the debt for well over a decade on and off. So I hope that's helpful to everyone out there.
我认为，如果你从利率、量化紧缩与量化宽松等方面来看，美联储在过去十多年里一直在有节制地货币化国债。希望对大家有帮助。

We really appreciate you all tuning in, Tony. You've got your hand up there. Go right ahead. Just really quick. Did you notice today, Paul said, quote, significantly reducing securities holdings. What is your take?
我们非常感谢你收听节目，Tony。你举起了手。请说吧。就是非常快地问一下，你有没有注意到保罗今天说了“显著减少证券持有量”的话？你怎么看？

So Paul, their goal here really with QT is to run down the balance sheet as much as they possibly can to give them the ammunition to fight whatever is coming down the pipe later. And I think that they also have to do that to further tighten financial conditions commensurate with their goal.
所以，保罗，他们在QT上的目标是尽可能地减少资产负债表，以此为武器来应对未来可能出现的挑战。我认为他们也必须这样做，以达到与他们的目标相对应的进一步收紧财务条件的目的。

And we've kind of been on a vacation from tightening for quite a while. We've had countervailing flows in the People's Bank of China, Bank of Japan, the Treasury General account. Now we see the other side of that where Treasury issuance is going up. Pretty significantly. And Fed policy may start to have a tightening effect in the back half of this year.
「我们在相当长的时间内一直没有收紧（金融政策）。人民银行、日本银行和国库总账户一直有相互抵消的流动资金，但现在我们正面临另一面，即国库发行量显著上升，而美联储的政策可能从今年下半年开始产生收紧效应。」

And I think what Paul is speaking to is that the Fed's balance sheet is still extraordinarily large. They have to try to run it down as much as they can. QE has been an incredible experiment. We've never seen anything like this in history. And we know from the US House of Lords study that they are, I'm sorry, the UK House of Lords study said that, you know, that no central bank is fully normalized in a post-QE world. But their balance sheets have always remained elevated. So on that side of the ledger for Treasuries, I'd say there's probably still a lot of work to do for the Fed.
保罗所说的是美联储的资产负债表仍然非常庞大，他们必须尽可能地减少。量化宽松是一次不可思议的实验，我们从英国上议院的研究中得知没有中央银行能够在后-QE时代完全实现正常化，但它们的资产负债表一直保持高水平。因此，就国债方面而言，我认为美联储还有很多工作要做。

Mortgage is, if that's what you're asking about, but like agency-backed securities, that's a whole other can of worms. I think that eventually the Fed may actually have to start selling those. The Treasuries that are content to roll off, a lot of that stuff can just roll off just fine.
抵押贷款，如果你在问这个的话。但像机构支持的证券一样，那就是另一回事了。我想最终美联储可能实际上不得不开始出售那些。那些愿意滚动下线的国库券，很多都可以顺利滚动下线。

But I, you know, I would defer to Aishan this. I think she has more expertise about how the MBS work. But I would say that, yeah, at some point they may have to sell them because the duration on these is very long.
"但是，你知道，我会听从艾山的意见。我觉得她比我更专业，了解MBS（抵押支持证券）的运作方式。但是我认为，随着时间的推移，他们可能不得不卖掉这些证券，因为其期限非常长。" 这段话是在讨论抵押支持证券的持有问题。说话人认为艾山比他更专业，能更好地了解这些证券的运作方式。但是他同意，随着时间的推移，可能需要卖掉这些证券，因为它们的期限太长。

It's very late at night for me to answer that question in brief. But yeah, no suffice to say, I do think you're right. I think we're coming to a point where we might see, and I think that's, that was actually a good catch. I caught that as well, Donya. He did say significantly. So I think they will probably have to start selling agency MBS soon. And perhaps this is the way that they're opening the door to that, right?
“对于我来说，现在已经太晚了，无法简要地回答那个问题。但是没错，我认为你是对的。我认为我们正处于一个可能会看到的时刻，这也是一个很好的发现。我也注意到了，Donya。他确实说了“显著”。因此，我认为他们可能很快就会开始出售代理机构抵押贷款支持证券。也许这是他们打开门户的方式，对吧？”

At the end of the day, now they're going to have to offset a lot of the liquidity that has been pumped into the system or has inadvertently come into the system from various sources, from the beginning of the year. So one of the side effects of this has obviously been, you know, the boom we're seeing or the rally we're seeing in the stock market. But obviously this doesn't help the Fed much, right? In tightening conditions. So I think they're going to have to do more from that perspective.
在一天结束的时候，现在他们需要抵消许多自年初以来已经将流动性注入系统或无意中从各种渠道注入系统的资金，这其中的一个副作用显然就是我们看到的股市繁荣。但是显然这对于美联储并没有帮助，因为这会收紧货币政策。所以我认为他们需要从这个角度做更多的工作。

Now it all seems really weird at this point in time because on the one hand they're pausing, but on the other hand, they're thinking about ramping up QT. And think about it like this. Once they do finish typing, once they do raise all the rates that they need to raise, they're not going to cut for a while. And then the only tool that they're actually going to have is QT. And they're hoping that the effect, the lag effect of QT is actually going to come into play sometime next year.
现在看起来有些奇怪，因为一方面美联储在暂停，但另一方面他们在考虑加速缩减量化宽松政策。可以这样想，一旦他们完成所有需要提高的利率，他们接下来不会再降利率一段时间。那时，他们实际上只有QT这个工具。他们希望QT的滞后效应能在明年的某个时候发挥作用。

So what we've been seeing now is of course a reduction in the debt, of course a reduction in the balance sheet. But it hasn't been as fast as we hope. And that's fine because they've been raising rates at the same time because if they do both at a very high pace, they do it both in, it's going to break the system. And they might induce a recession, but that doesn't mean they want to break the economy, right?
所以我们现在看到的是债务减少，资产负债表也在减少。但它没有我们希望的那么快。这并没有关系，因为他们同时还在提高利率，因为如果他们以非常快的速度同时做这两件事，那么就会破坏整个系统。他们可能会导致经济衰退，但这并不意味着他们想破坏经济，对吧？

As far as the Fed tightening has been concerned, I think they've done a pretty good job at holding everything together, keeping everything in balance. I know we saw a few blowups and a few big blowups, but they contained it very, very well. I mean, if you think about the GFC and think about now, totally different, right? Everything's still functioning. Things are still going pretty much okay.
就美联储的紧缩政策而言，我认为他们做得相当不错，成功地保持了一切平衡。虽然我们也看到了一些波动和大的波动，但他们成功地控制住了。如果你回想一下全球金融危机和现在，你会发现两个时期是完全不同的，现在一切仍然运行良好。

So I don't think they're going to ramp up QT just yet, but they might do it sometime next year once they finish typing. Oh, sorry, raising rates.
所以我不认为他们会立即加快QT，但如果他们完成了利率上调，他们可能会在明年的某个时候这样做。

And one thing to add to that too, that was really interesting. And New York Fed study also suggested that the Fed may actually continue doing QT as they get into their rate cutting cycle, which would be a very interesting dynamic.
而且还有一件非常有趣的事情要补充。 纽约联邦储备银行的研究还建议，随着他们进入降息周期，美联储实际上可能会继续进行 QT，这将是非常有趣的动态。

Yes, correct. This is something that not just in New York Fed, but I think a lot of the banks are also saying this, a lot of the analysts are saying this, that it's quite likely that QT will continue even if the Fed is cutting rates, because they might have to cut rates just to bring, you know, cool down the economy on one side of things, but that doesn't solve their problem of this massive, massive balance sheet that they have, right?
“是的，正确的。这不仅是在纽约联邦储备银行，我认为很多银行也在说这个话题，很多分析师也在说这个话题，即使美联储降息，削减资产负债表很可能会继续，因为他们可能需要降息才能平衡经济，但这并不能解决他们拥有庞大资产负债表的问题，对吧？”

And they have to run down this balance sheet. It's just massive. It's too big. And it served a purpose. It served its purpose during the pandemic. It helped things up. It kept the economy going. It kept the US out of trouble. It kept the world out of trouble, in fact. And now it's not needed anymore. You don't need a balance sheet. That's like a trillion dollars. So whatever the circumstances are, I think QT, so to speak, is going to continue at some level for a long time.
他们必须清理这张资产负债表。它太大了，过于庞大。它在疫情期间发挥了作用，帮助了经济的增长，维持了美国和整个世界的稳定。现在它已经不再需要了，一张万亿美元的资产负债表并不必要。所以无论情况如何，我认为QT这种清理方式会在较长时间内以某种程度继续推行。

And it's an interesting dichotomy, because we have a government that has a lot of debt. We're in a pretty leveraged country with 350% debt to GDP. At some point, somewhere down the line, the Fed has to you turn pretty meaningfully. But the real question is when and how does structural inflation impact that decision? And what does this do to government spend and their capacity to really respond meaningfully into a recessionary environment? Will the fiscal impulse be as strong when so much of that spending has already happened ahead of the recession with the inflation reduction act and the chips in science act and some of these others?
这是一个有趣的对立面，因为我们的政府有很多债务。我们处于一个负债率占国内生产总值350%的高杠杆国家。在某个时候，联邦储备委员会必须有显著的调整。但真正的问题是，什么时候和如何结构性通货膨胀会影响这个决定？这对政府支出和他们在经济衰退环境中真正有效应对能力产生了什么影响？当这么多支出已经在衰退之前完成，而且有关节约法和科学法案等法案在其中占据很大比重时，财政刺激是否仍然会像此前那样强大？

So, everyone, we really want to thank you for tuning in. It's very late for Aisha. It's about 1.22 AM, believe it or not. She's hung in there with us for that long. So I want to make sure that she can get some rest. But thank you so much for everyone tuning in. And if you want to learn more about our work, check us out on Macrovisor at Macrovisor.com.
大家好，我们非常感谢你们收看直播节目。对于艾莎来说，现在已经很晚了，相信不少人已经1:22 AM了，但她一直坚持到了现在。因此，我要确保她能够休息一下。非常感谢所有收看节目的观众。如果您想了解更多关于我们的工作，请在Macrovisor网站上查看。

That's our website. You can also check out our podcast by going to Apple, Amazon, Google, or Spotify, Punch in Macrovisor. You'll find our podcast. You can grab our episodes there and you can listen to recording the spaces or find it as a podcast. So we'll be putting that out there by the end of the week.
这是我们的网站。您还可以通过访问Apple，Amazon，Google或Spotify来查看我们的播客，然后搜索“Macrovisor”。您会找到我们的播客。您可以在那里获取我们的剧集，并可以在那里收听录音空间或将其作为播客发现。因此，我们将在本周末之前发布它。

So thanks again for everyone that tuned in. And if you wanted to check out Macrovisor's paid subscription, we actually have a 30% off sale for Fed Nest Day. That's what we call this going on until Tuesday of next week. So we will catch you all soon. Really appreciate the support, the great questions, the interaction. And we hope you all have a wonderful rest of your week.
感谢大家的关注，如果您想了解Macrovisor的付费订阅，我们在联邦鸟巢节期间提供30%的优惠，活动截止日期为下周二。非常感谢大家的支持、提出的好问题以及交流互动。祝愿大家度过美好的一周。



function setTranscriptHeight() { const transcriptDiv = document.querySelector('.transcript'); const rect = transcriptDiv.getBoundingClientRect(); const tranHeight = window.innerHeight - rect.top - 10; transcriptDiv.style.height = tranHeight + 'px'; if (false) { console.log('window.innerHeight', window.innerHeight); console.log('rect.top', rect.top); console.log('tranHeight', tranHeight); console.log('.transcript', document.querySelector('.transcript').getBoundingClientRect()) //console.log('.video', document.querySelector('.video').getBoundingClientRect()) console.log('.container', document.querySelector('.container').getBoundingClientRect()) } if (isMobileDevice()) { const videoDiv = document.querySelector('.video'); const videoRect = videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect(); videoDiv.style.position = 'fixed'; transcriptDiv.style.paddingTop = videoRect.bottom+'px'; } const videoDiv = document.querySelector('.video'); videoDiv.style.height = parseInt(videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect().width*390/640)+'px'; console.log('videoDiv', videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect()); console.log('videoDiv.style.height', videoDiv.style.height); } window.onload = function() { setTranscriptHeight(); }; if (!isMobileDevice()){ window.addEventListener('resize', setTranscriptHeight); }