Markets Weekly August 1, 2026

以下是内容的中文翻译： 本周的《市场周报》，录制于8月1日，涵盖了四个主要议题：人工智能交易的近期反弹，伊朗冲突即将升级，美日联合干预日元市场，以及有关美联储会议频率的惊人消息。 **人工智能交易：“死猫反弹”** 演讲者将近期人工智能交易的回暖——以Kohlspie指数和存储公司实现两位数增长为例——视为一次“死猫反弹”。此前，该指数在一个月内暴跌40%，经历了一次剧烈的内爆。其论点是，最初的飙升是由动量和杠杆推动的，特别是来自散户投机者，他们此后已基本被清除出局。Leo的Situational Awareness对冲基金（据报道在人工智能/半导体领域有400%的杠杆）的清算被引述为一个重要例子，很可能只是“冰山一角”。许多高位买入者现在变得谨慎，或者急于在第一时间退出。演讲者总结说，“魔法已经消失”，这次反弹是熊市行为的典型特征，旨在在进一步下跌之前吸引新的买家。 **伊朗冲突即将升级及其市场影响** 在比比和特朗普会晤后，美国总统宣布计划“严厉打击伊朗”，可能在以色列的参与下，目标是经济和军事地点。这标志着一个转变，即伊朗已主动攻击美国基地。演讲者高度批评美国为此冲突设定的限制条件——避免美方伤亡和防止金融市场下行——认为这些限制条件在面对一个愿意承受痛苦的对手时，注定会导致失败。他预言这将是一场“灾难”和美国的“屈服”。 演讲者提出，伊朗的一个潜在策略是对美国造成最大的经济损害（例如，通过扰乱石油市场），以影响美国大选，并最终迫使战争资金被削减，这让人想起越南战争的结束。虽然原油价格约为90美元，但由于全球炼油厂限制（例如，俄罗斯和海湾地区炼油厂受到攻击），汽油期货价格显著上涨。这种成品油供应受限加剧了通货膨胀和经济损害，推高了全球收益率（10年期和30年期国债收益率飙升），并提高了抵押贷款利率，从而严重拖累美国经济，并限制了任何升级的持续时间。 **日元市场干预：日本与美国** 日元兑美元汇率（美元兑日元走高）数月来持续贬值，主要原因是日本的货币政策。尽管通胀率已轻松超过2%，日本央行（BOJ）仍将利率维持在低位（约1%），导致日本债券收益率上升和货币贬值。演讲者将日本央行的不作为部分归因于首相Takeichi的政治干预。 虽然日本财务省和日本央行曾定期干预，但这些努力只是“争取时间”，未能解决利率差异这一核心问题。上周发生了一次重大干预，值得注意的是美国也参与其中，据报道通过出售欧元买入日元。美国财政部的外汇稳定基金，尽管规模不大（300亿美元），也被动用了。演讲者驳斥了美国干预是为了阻止日本出售美国国债的说法，他解释说日本的外汇储备主要投资于短期流动性资产，而非长期国债，因此对国债市场不构成威胁。他总结说，这次干预长期来看不太可能奏效，并指出日元与“避险”情绪的历史相关性在近年已基本脱钩。 **美联储消息：未来会议次数将减少？** 《纽约时报》的一篇报道称，美联储主席凯文（鲍威尔）正在考虑减少美联储会议的次数，可能从目前的八次减少到每年法定要求的四次。这符合他减少美联储沟通的更广泛目标，包括可能取消“点阵图”并缩短新闻发布会。 演讲者尖锐地批评了鲍威尔的根本理由：“让市场决定利率，而不是美联储”。他认为这是“魔法思维”和“荒谬的”，源于一种基于意识形态、教科书式的市场理解，而非市场的实际运作方式。在一个美联储控制隔夜利率的货币体系中，市场参与者对国债收益率的定价*完全*基于他们对未来美联储政策的预期，而不是基于他们认为利率“应该”是多少。 减少会议频率意味着调整利率的机会减少，可能导致更大、非渐进性的变化（例如，一次加息50-75个基点而不是25个基点）。这将增加短期利率的波动性。虽然紧急会议可以弥补这一空白，但它们通常是为危机而非例行政策调整而保留的。最终，演讲者认为此举将导致更大的市场波动性、更少的不确定性，并可能在整个收益率曲线上带来更高的风险溢价。

This week's Markets Weekly, recorded on August 1st, covered four key topics: the recent rebound in the AI trade, an impending escalation in the Iran conflict, joint U.S.-Japan intervention in the yen market, and surprising news regarding Federal Reserve meeting frequency. **The AI Trade: A "Dead Cat Bounce"** The speaker views the recent rekindling of the AI trade, exemplified by the Kohlspie index and memory companies seeing double-digit gains, as a "dead cat bounce." This follows a dramatic implosion where the Kohlspie index fell 40% in a month. The argument is that the initial surge was driven by momentum and leverage, particularly from retail speculators who have since been largely wiped out. The liquidation of Leo's Situational Awareness hedge fund (reportedly 400% leveraged into AI/semiconductors) is cited as a significant example, likely just "the tip of the iceberg." Many who bought high are now cautious or eager to exit at the first opportunity. The speaker concludes that the "magic is over," and this rally is characteristic of bear market behavior designed to draw in new buyers before further declines. **Imminent Iran Escalation and Market Impact** Following a meeting between Bibi and Trump, the U.S. president announced plans to "strike Iran hard," potentially with Israeli involvement, targeting economic as well as military sites. This marks a shift where Iran has proactively targeted U.S. bases. The speaker is highly critical of the stated U.S. constraints for this conflict—avoiding U.S. casualties and preventing financial market downturns—arguing that such limitations guarantee failure against an adversary willing to endure pain. He predicts a "catastrophe" and U.S. capitulation. A potential strategy for Iran, suggested by the speaker, is to inflict maximum economic damage on the U.S. (e.g., by disrupting oil markets) to influence U.S. elections and ultimately force a de-funding of the war, reminiscent of the Vietnam War's end. While crude oil is around $90, gasoline futures are significantly elevated due to global refinery constraints (e.g., attacks on Russian and Gulf refineries). This limitation on refined products exacerbates inflation and economic damage, pushing global yields higher (10-year and 30-year treasuries are surging), and increasing mortgage rates, thus weighing heavily on the U.S. economy and limiting the duration of any escalation. **Yen Market Intervention: Japan and the U.S.** The Japanese yen has been on a continuous depreciating trend (USDJPY higher) for months, primarily due to Japan's monetary policy. Despite inflation comfortably above 2%, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has kept interest rates low (around 1%), leading to higher Japanese bond yields and a weaker currency. The speaker attributes the BOJ's inaction partly to political interference from Prime Minister Takeichi. While Japan's Ministry of Finance and BOJ have intervened periodically, these efforts only "buy time" and fail to address the core problem of interest rate differentials. This past week saw a significant intervention, notably with the U.S. also participating, reportedly selling Euros and buying yen. The U.S. Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund, though small ($30 billion), was utilized. The speaker dismisses the idea that the U.S. intervened to prevent Japan from selling Treasuries, explaining that Japanese foreign reserves are primarily in short-term, liquid assets, not long-term Treasuries, posing no threat to the Treasury market. He concludes that the intervention is unlikely to work long-term and observes that the yen's historical correlation with "risk-off" sentiment has largely decoupled in recent years. **Fed News: Fewer Meetings Ahead?** A report from The New York Times suggests Fed Chair Kevin (Powell) is considering reducing the number of Federal Reserve meetings, possibly as few as the legally mandated four per year, down from the current eight. This aligns with his broader goal of less Fed communication, including potentially eliminating the "dot plot" and shortening press conferences. The speaker sharply criticizes Powell's underlying rationale: "let the market decide interest rates rather than the Fed." He argues this is "magical thinking" and "ridiculous," stemming from an ideological, textbook-based understanding of markets rather than their practical functioning. In a monetary system where the Fed controls the overnight rate, market participants price treasury yields based *entirely* on their expectations of future Fed policy, not on what they believe rates *should* be. Reducing meeting frequency would mean fewer opportunities to adjust interest rates, likely leading to larger, less incremental changes (e.g., 50-75 basis point hikes instead of 25bp). This would increase front-end interest rate volatility. While emergency meetings could fill the gap, they are typically reserved for crises, not routine policy adjustments. Ultimately, the speaker believes this move would lead to greater market volatility, less certainty, and potentially a higher risk premium across the entire yield curve.