Markets Weekly August 5

Hello, my friends. Today is August 5th. My name is Joseph and this is Markets Weekly. This week was an exciting week in Global Macro, so we have a lot to talk about.

大家好，亲爱的朋友们。今天是8月5日。我叫Joseph，欢迎收看本期的《市场周报》。这个星期在全球宏观经济领域是非常令人兴奋的一周，所以我们有很多话题要讨论。

First, we've got to talk about Treasury yields. Treasury yields soared higher this week. They gave back a bit on Friday, but it was still a pretty big move over the week. We're going to talk about the drivers of that move and what it means for asset prices more broadly.

首先，我们需要讨论一下国债收益率。本周国债收益率大幅攀升。虽然周五稍有回落，但整体上仍是一个相当大的波动。我们将讨论此次波动的驱动因素以及对资产价格的更广泛影响。

Secondly, we'll dig into the latest bank credit standards data, both in the US and in the Eurozone, and show that monetary policy, at least in this aspect, has been working in slowing down the economy. But this also has implications for the policy differential between the ECB and the Fed and the potential implications for the year-old dollar exchange rate.

其次，我们将深入挖掘美国和欧元区的最新银行信贷标准数据，并展示货币政策至少在这个方面对经济放缓起到了作用。但这也对欧洲央行和美联储的政策差异以及对一年来美元汇率的潜在影响具有重要意义。

Lastly, we'll go over the most recent non-farm payroll on Friday, which printed a comfortable, let's say, 180,000 in jobs created last month, but slower than the trend has been over the past several months. This could indicate that the U.S. economy is slowing or alternatively, which is what I think. It actually means that the U.S. economy is running out of people and how that suggests that wages might re-accelerate later in the year and inflation with it.

最后，我们将在周五回顾最新的非农业就业数据，上个月新增的就业岗位数量达到了一个舒适的180,000个，但增速较过去几个月有所放缓。这可能表明美国经济正在放缓，或者亦有可能是我认为的，即美国经济正逐渐出现人才短缺，而这暗示着工资可能会在今年晚些时候重新加速增长，并伴随着通胀。

Starting with treasury yields. If you're looking at longer-dated treasury yields, the 10-year and 30-year, over the past week, they surged higher. They gave back a chunk on Friday, but over the week, it's still a pretty big move. What drove this sudden increase? There's a few potential drivers. I'll go over them.

从国债收益率开始说起。如果你关注较长期的国债收益率，如10年期和30年期国债收益率，在过去一周内它们上涨了。虽然在周五回落了一部分，但总体上仍是一个相当大的波动。是什么推动了这一突然增长？有几个可能的原因，我会逐一解释。

First, of course, we have the ratings downgrade by Fitch. Fitch, which is one of the major rating agencies in the world, Fitch, Moody, and S&P, downgraded the U.S. from its highest rating to one notch below. This is not the first time this has happened with the U.S. In 2011, S&P, which is also a major ratings agency, downgraded the U.S. one notch below from their highest rating. At that time, the downgrade caused a lot of volatility in markets. Equities sold off and treasury yields went lower as people basically fled into safety.

首先，我们当然有惠誉的降级评级。惠誉是世界上主要的评级机构之一，和穆迪、标普一起，将美国评级从最高级别降至稍低一级。这并非美国第一次遭遇降级。在2011年，同样是一家主要的评级机构标准普尔将美国评级从最高级别降低了一级。当时，这次降级引发了市场的不稳定性。股票遭到抛售，国债收益率下降，因为人们基本上都转而寻求安全资产。

Now, this time around, I don't actually think Fitch's ratings downgrade played much of a role, if any, in what happened in the treasury market. I think it's helpful to think about why credit ratings might actually impact asset prices. I think the closest analogy to this is what you would see in the corporate bond market.

现在，就这次而言，我实际上并不认为惠誉的评级下调在国债市场所发生的事情中起到了什么作用，即使有，也极小。我认为思考信用评级为何对资产价格产生影响可能会有所帮助。我认为最接近这个情况的类比是企业债券市场。

The corporate bond market investors, big money managers, really don't have time to go through the balance sheets of every single corporate issuer, so they rely heavily on ratings to decide what they can buy and what they should pay for it. So you'll see a very close relationship between ratings and credit spreads in the corporate bond markets.

在企业债券市场中，大型资金管理者实在没有时间去仔细审查每个企业发行者的资产负债表，因此他们非常依赖信用评级来决定他们可以购买哪些债券以及应该支付多少价格。所以你会发现企业债券市场中信用评级与信用利差之间存在着密切的关系。

A big division in the corporate ratings is between investment grade, which are those rated triple B and above, and junk, which are those that are rated below triple B minus. Now, there's a lot of investors in the world who can only buy investment grade debt. So once a company is downgraded from investment grade to junk, there could potentially be a lot of investment managers who can no longer hold that debt and thus have to sell it.

在企业评级中的一个重大区分是投资级别和垃圾级别。投资级别是指那些获得三B以上评级的企业，而垃圾级别则是指那些获得三B减级以下评级的企业。现在，世界上有很多投资者只能购买投资级别的债务。因此，一旦一个公司从投资级别降级为垃圾级别，可能会有很多投资经理无法再持有该债务，因此不得不将其出售。

And that kind of foreselling, it's always feared, would create this allocation to the markets since you suddenly have a whole bunch of debt being sold into the market, which is not very liquid. This is called a fallen angel problem. And so I think the analogy in the sovereign space would be that, well, now that two ratings agencies have downgraded the US to less than their top ratings, maybe there would be people who are no longer able to buy US Treasury securities and thus they're selling may create disallocations such that when they sell yields go higher.

这种预测往往令人担忧，因为它会导致市场上的资源配置问题，由于突然增加了大量不太流动的债务出售。这被称为“堕落天使问题”。所以在主权领域，我认为类似的情况是，既然有两家评级机构将美国的评级降低到不及最高评级，可能会有人无法再购买美国国债证券，因此他们的抛售可能会导致资源错配，进而推高债券收益率。

Now, I'm pretty sure that's not happening at all. Now, one of the things that happened after the 2011 downgrade of S&P was that everyone basically changed the rules so that people who in the past had said they have to only buy stuff that is top rated basically change the rule so that they can buy stuff that is not just top rated but government issued liabilities. So by changing the air mandates from top rated to top rated and government issued liabilities, they basically sidestepped a problem of what would happen if a government like the United States was ever downgraded so they can definitely continue to hold US Treasuries.

现在，我非常确定这根本不会发生。在2011年标普降级后，有一件事发生了变化，那就是每个人基本上都改变了规则，以前说必须购买仅为顶级评级的东西的人，基本上改变了规则，他们现在可以购买不仅是顶级评级的东西，而且是政府发行的债务。因此，通过将前提条件从顶级评级变为顶级评级和政府发行的债务，他们基本上绕过了这样一个问题，即如果像美国这样的政府被降级，会发生什么事情，因此他们肯定可以继续持有美国国债。

And to be clear, if anyone didn't do this, there's no way they would just suddenly start selling their Treasuries. I mean, what are they going to do with the money if they were holding Treasuries and now had to rotate out of it? There's simply no other asset that has as much liquidity as the US Treasury markets. And so they would really just get either an exception from their board or just rewrite the rule so that they can continue to hold US Treasuries.

要明确一点，如果有人没有这样做，他们不可能突然开始出售自己的国债。我的意思是，如果他们持有国债，并且现在不得不转让，他们会拿这笔钱做什么呢？没有其他任何资产像美国国债市场那样具有如此高的流动性。因此，他们要么得到董事会的豁免，要么修改规则，以便继续持有美国国债。

This fish, I actually have no idea why anyone would have credit ratings on sovereign issuers. I mean, for the US, for example, they print their own currency. So credit is never really a problem. Now, the rationale that fish and S&P gave in the past was political dysfunction. That is to say that although the US could potentially print as much money as they want so that they never have to default, politically they might have restrictions that such as they are a self-imposed, self-chosen default like a debt ceiling issue. And that's fair for sure. And so I definitely don't think that the US merits a top credit rating because we have these periodic threats. But the thing is, I think if you are a big investor, nobody cares about credit ratings when it comes to US Treasuries. There's just no alternative. And really, it's just ridiculously silly to think that you'd have to sell US Treasuries and say go to Microsoft, which is triple A rated instead. It's just you get fired really if you did that.

这个问题，其实我不明白为什么有人对主权发行人进行信用评级。我的意思是，以美国为例，他们发行自己的货币，所以信用其实从来不是一个问题。过去，鱼和标普给出的理由是政治机能紊乱。也就是说，虽然美国可以潜在地无限制地印钱，以免违约，但从政治角度来看，他们可能会受到一些限制，比如一些自我设定的、自愿的违约，比如债务上限问题。这个观点当然是合理的。因此，我绝对不认为美国应该获得最高的信用评级，因为我们会面临定期的威胁。但问题是，我认为如果你是一个大投资者，对于美国国债来说，根本没有人会在意信用评级。根本没有其他选择。而且真的很愚蠢，认为你必须卖掉美国国债，转而购买三A级的微软股票。如果你这样做了，你肯定会被解雇的。

Okay, so if the fish ratings agencies downgrade was not meaningfully impacting treasure yields, what caused yields to surge higher? In my perspective, what really caused yields to surge higher was the treasure's refunding statement where they gave their forecasts for future issuance of treasuries. Now, their forecasts for the coming future was basically about in line with what it was in the past. And that is to say that treasure issuance is going to be trillions in truants a year, a year forever. But what they also showed is that they're going to slightly increase their coupon sizes going forward each quarter. So I think of treasury yields as determined by supply and demand. And when the US Treasury comes out with a new report that tells you they're going to be issuing more coupons that is to say more longer data treasuries this quarter, next quarter and the quarter afterwards for the foreseeable future, then yeah, that that's going to have an impact on prices simply because there's more supply.

好的，所以如果鱼类评级机构的降级并没有实质性地影响国债收益，那是什么导致了收益上涨呢？在我看来，导致收益上涨的真正原因是国债的退款声明，其中他们提供了未来国债发行的预测。现在，他们对未来的预测基本上与过去相似。也就是说，国债发行每年会长期保持在数万亿的水平上。但他们也表明，他们将在未来每个季度逐渐增加优惠券规模。所以我认为国债收益是由供求决定的。当美国国债部发布了一份新报告，告诉你本季度、下个季度以及可预见的未来几个季度他们将发行更多的优惠券，也就是更多的长期国债，那么是的，这将对价格产生影响，因为供应增加了。

Now, another concerning thing that I would focus on is that if you look at the reason why the treasure issuance is surging this quarter, it has to do with tremendous physical mismanagement. Now, this year, a year today compared to last year, the treasury actually received 10% less in tax revenue. And it's also spending 10% more compared to the same period last year. So you're spending 10% more and you're receiving 10% less, thus you're issuing more debt. And it doesn't seem like this trajectory is changing. So if you listen to me, if you've been following me, then you know that my view has always been treasure use structurally higher simply because the supply is basically infinite. You're issuing trillions and trillions of treasuries every year and you have no political motivation, no political will to actually bring that in. It's simply too easy for a politician to go and just you know, promise to give a lot of money to their constituents or some of their special interest groups and get elected. So politicians basically buy support by deficit spending. And that that motto of politics is not going to go away. And as long as it's not going to go away, treasury is going to be structurally higher. And so yields, in my view, will continue to march higher. And even though I think we were as high as I'd say 4.2 something in a 10 year, I still think the highs are not in for this year. I still expect treasury yields to approach 4.5% by the end of the year in the 10 year segment. And this has tremendous implications on all asset classes.

现在，我想要关注的另一个令人担忧的事情是，如果你看一下为什么本季度发行债券数量激增，这与巨大的实物管理失控有关。今年与去年相比，国库实际上收到的税收减少了10%，同时支出比去年同期增加了10%。因此，你花费的金额增加了10%，而收入减少了10%，所以你发行更多的债券。而且看起来这个趋势并没有改变。所以如果你听我的话，如果你一直在关注我的讲话，你就知道我一直认为国债使用在结构上是更高的，因为供应基本上是无限的。你每年都要发行数万亿的国债，而且没有政治动机，也没有政治意愿来实际控制这个情况。对政治家来说，去向选民或一些特殊利益集团承诺提供大量资金以获得选举支持太容易了。所以政治家基本上是通过赤字支出来购买支持。而这种政治观点不会消失。只要它不消失，国债就会在结构上持续增加。在我看来，收益率将继续上升。即使我认为我们10年期收益率已经达到了4.2%左右的高点，我仍然认为今年的高点尚未出现。我仍然预计，10年期国债收益率将在今年年底接近4.5%。这对所有资产类别都有巨大的影响。

Higher yields, as we saw in the equity markets today, is usually frowned upon by risky assets like US equities. So I think this actually caps the upside potential for US equities, which of course I have not been very warm to the these past months. So when equity markets top, it's really not it's really more of a process. So I think there will be still more people trying to buy the dip. But if you have yields structurally marching higher, it's really, really hard in my view for for equities to make new highs this year. And I think the balance of risk would favor more of a downwards trend. And a bit of a correction here.

较高的收益率，就像我们今天在股票市场中所见到的一样，通常不受美国股票等高风险资产的青睐。所以我认为这实际上限制了美国股票的上行潜力，过去几个月来我对此并不看好。所以当股票市场达到高点时，这实际上是一个更加复杂的过程。因此，我认为仍会有更多人试图买入低点。但如果收益率结构上升，我认为今年股市很难创新高。我认为风险的平衡将更有利于下行趋势和一定程度的修正。

An interesting note that I would also add is that the dollar did not seem to strengthen as yields go higher as it sometimes does. So I think the dollar is trying to decide how to interpret this on the one side, massive just because it's spending obviously not good for the dollar. On the other side, higher yields would be especially as the interest rate differential pulls wider with vis-a-vis the rest of the world. So I think that market is still making up its mind.

有一个有趣的观点我也想补充一下，就是尽管收益率上升，美元似乎并没有像有时候那样增值。因此我认为美元正在思考如何解读这个问题，一方面，庞大的财政支出显然对美元不利；另一方面，随着利率差异与其他国家拉大，较高的收益率可能会对美元有益。所以我认为市场仍在摇摆不定，尚未下定论。

Okay, the next thing we'll talk about is the Fed's latest senior loan officer survey. So periodically, the Fed surveys a whole bunch of banks and asks them what their lending standards are. What the Fed is trying to figure out is that is the supply of bank loans increasing or decreasing because when credit standards rise, there's less of a supply of bank lending. And if there's less of a supply of bank lending, that means people with companies and individuals have less money to spend. And that means slower growth and slower inflation.

好的，接下来我们要谈论的是美联储最新的高级贷款主管调查。所以周期性地，美联储会对许多银行进行调查，询问他们的贷款标准是什么。美联储想要弄清楚的是，银行贷款的供应是增加还是减少，因为当信贷标准提高时，银行贷款的供应就会减少。而如果银行贷款的供应减少，这意味着企业和个人的资金减少。这就意味着经济增长和通货膨胀放缓。

The Fed, the ECB, basically all the global central banks have been raising interest rates trying to slow down the economy. What really obvious way that they do this, of course, is through the bank lending channel, when you raise interest rates, well, if you're a borrower, you don't want to borrow as much because interest rates are higher. And if you're a bank, you also don't want to lend as much because you see that interest rates are going up, maybe the economy is slowing, there's more default risk.

美联储、欧洲央行以及其他全球中央银行一直在提高利率，试图放缓经济增长。而他们所采取的一个显而易见的方式，当然就是通过银行贷款渠道。当利率上升时，若你是借款人，你就不希望借入更多的钱，因为利率变高了。而如果你是银行，你也不愿意贷款得太多，因为你看到利率上涨，可能意味着经济正在放缓，存在更多违约风险。

And that's kind of what the senior loan officer survey is showing. It's showing that bank lending standards are tightening. Now, I want to be careful here. Now, this graph here, it shows that they are tightening. It doesn't show how tight they are. So it's kind of, it could be going from, let's say, 10 miles an hour to 15 miles an hour, which is still slow, but accelerating, or it could be going, let's say from 10 miles an hour to 100 miles an hour, which is, you know, accelerating, but accelerating a lot. So this survey only shows the direction of bank lending standards rather than the level. So you got to be very careful when you interpret this.

这就是高级贷款主管调查所展示的情况。这表明银行的贷款标准正在收紧。现在，我想要小心一点。现在，这张图表明它们正在收紧，但并未显示收紧的程度。因此，可能从每小时10英里加速到15英里，速度仍然缓慢但在加快，或者可能从每小时10英里加速到100英里，速度加快很多。所以这项调查只显示了银行贷款标准的方向，而非水平。因此，在解读时必须非常谨慎。

And broadly seeing it shows that banks are tightening lending standards. And that is completely in line with what we see in the aggregate data. So loans and leases by commercial banks in the US have basically flatlined for the past several months. That shows monetary policy is working. And this channel of monetary policy is doing as the Fed would like it to do. And we see the same exact thing happening in the Eurozone. So the Eurozone also have a similar survey. And according to their survey, bank credit creation is also slowing significantly.

广泛来看，此表明银行正在收紧贷款标准。这完全符合我们在总体数据中观察到的情况。因此，美国商业银行的贷款和租赁几乎在过去几个月中保持不变。这表明货币政策正在发挥作用。而这种货币政策工具正按照美联储的意愿进行。欧元区也出现了同样的情况。欧元区也有类似的调查。根据他们的调查，银行信贷创造也在显著放缓。

On top of that, it seems like monetary policy in the way that it feels through interest rates is also a lot more effective. Recent data from the ECB shows that depositors in banks in the Eurozone are receiving pretty high interest rates compared to, okay, so interest rates much closer to the ECB's policy rate compared to the US, where a lot of people are still receiving around 0% on their deposit accounts, even though the Fed is high to 5%. So monetary policy seems to be transmitting much more effectively in the Eurozone compared to the US.

另外，此外，通过利率传达的货币政策在欧元区似乎也更加有效。欧洲央行最近的数据显示，与美国相比，欧元区的银行存款人获得的利率相当高，接近欧洲央行的政策利率。与此不同，很多美国人仍在他们的存款账户上获得接近0%的利率，尽管美联储的利率已经提高到5%。因此，与美国相比，欧元区的货币政策传递似乎更加有效。

And this is important to me because the Eurozone is financially structured in a very different way. In the US, we have banks where you could that lend money, but in the US, we also have a lot of other ways that borrowers can borrow money. Borrowers, for example, can issue a bond in the capital markets. The US has very deep and liquid capital markets, deepest and most liquid in the entire world. So a company like Apple or Google, they're not going to go to a bank to get a loan. What they will do is they will just show up in New York and sell bonds to investors. So they're not dependent upon bank lending, and many companies are like that. But even if you can't get a loan from a bank, you will also have a whole lot of other shadow banks, let's say private equity funds, private credit funds, or business development companies in the US where you can get a loan.

对我来说这很重要，因为欧元区在金融结构上与美国有很大的不同。在美国，我们有可以贷款的银行，但是在美国，借款人还有很多其他融资途径。比如，借款人可以在资本市场发行债券。美国拥有非常深厚和流动的资本市场，在全球范围内最深、最流动。因此，像苹果或谷歌这样的公司不会去银行贷款。他们会直接来到纽约，向投资者出售债券。因此，他们并不依赖银行贷款，很多公司都是这样。即使你无法从银行获得贷款，你还有很多其他的非银行机构，比如私募股权基金、私募信贷基金或商业发展公司可以给你贷款。

So the US, as, generally speaking, is not that bank dependent. The Eurozone, but in contrast, is very bank dependent. They don't have capital markets that are nearly as deep, in part because it's really fragmented. You have France, Germany, and so forth. They all have their own capital markets with their own laws. They're working to unify it, but it's not there yet. So the capital markets are not as developed. They don't have a biggest presence of shadow banks, lending, and so forth. They're lending. So their lending is really predominantly from banks.

所以美国不太依赖银行，而欧元区则截然相反，非常依赖银行。这部分原因是由于欧元区的资本市场非常零散，没有像美国一样深厚的资本市场。你有法国、德国等各自拥有自己法律的资本市场。虽然他们正努力统一，但目前还没有达到统一。因此，资本市场不太发达。他们没有像美国那样大量存在影子银行、借贷等。他们的借贷基本上是由银行主导的。

Now, if in the Eurozone, people are more bank dependent, and banks are tight, banks are tiny conditions quickly and passing on interest rate hikes quickly, in my view, that makes policy monetary policy much more effective in the Eurozone. And you could see inflation come down a lot faster there than in the US. It seems like the economy really is slowing a lot faster than it is in the US. You see, your zone growth has never been great. It seems to be slowing faster than it is in the US, whereas we discussed earlier, it seems to be accelerating. So that tells me that the ECB does not have to be as aggressive as a Fed. And in my mind, that means that the dollar is probably going to strengthen against the Euro. Now, this has always been my view since the beginning of the year, and the year has not turned out this way. But I think we're getting to the point where these policy differentials will become more apparent simply because the financial structure of the two economies is different. And so that's what I would expect going forward.

现在，如果在欧元区，人们更加依赖银行，而银行又比较紧缩，利率上调的速度又很快，那么在我看来，这会使欧元区的货币政策更加有效。你会看到通胀在那里下降得比美国快得多。看起来经济放缓的速度比美国要快得多。你知道，欧元区的增长从来都不是太好的。它似乎比美国的经济增长放缓得更快，而我们之前讨论的时候，它似乎加速了。所以这告诉我，欧洲央行不必像美联储那样积极。在我看来，这意味着美元可能会对欧元升值。这一直是我今年以来的观点，只是今年的情况并非如此。但我认为我们正越来越接近这些政策差异变得更加明显的时刻，因为这两个经济体的金融结构是不同的。所以这是我对未来的预期。

Now, the last thing I want to talk about is non-form payrolls on Friday. So on Friday, we got our monthly non-form payrolls, which shows the state gives you a glimpse of the state of the labor market. And non-form payrolls was, I guess, a little bit below expectations. It printed about 180,000 jobs created last month, which is slower than the trend over the past few months. So if you are a recession person or a bear on the economy, you can point to this and say, Aha, the US economy is slowing down. Look at the job growth. It's slowing down. But there's another way to look at this. It's the way that I look at this and that it's not so much that the US economy is slowing down. It's that the US economy is running out of people. Now, if you look at volumes, let's say volumes are declining. Does that mean there's less demand or does that mean there's less supply, not easy to tell? But if volumes decline and prices go higher, that suggests that it's not enough supply. And that's what we see in the labor market. Fewer jobs created but average earnings, average hourly earnings accelerating higher.

现在，我想谈的最后一件事是上周五的非农就业数据。所以在上周五，我们得到了每月一次的非农就业数据，这些数据显示了劳动力市场的状况。非农就业数据可能略低于预期。上个月新增大约18万个就业岗位，增速比过去几个月要慢。所以如果你属于衰退预测者或对经济悲观的人，你可以指出这点并说，啊哈，美国经济正在放缓。看看就业增长，它正在减缓。但还有另一种看待这个问题的方式。这是我个人的观点，即不是美国经济正在放缓，而是美国经济正在用尽人力资源。现在，如果你观察交易量，比如交易量下降了。这是表示需求减少了还是供应减少了，很难判断。但如果交易量下降而价格上涨，那意味着供应不足。这也是我们在劳动力市场上看到的情况。新增就业岗位减少，但平均工资、平均时薪不断上涨。

Now, this is going to be a messy process because the labor market, there's a lot of things happening. Past couple years, you had boomers, a lot of boomers and a lot of boomers suddenly leave the labor market and so forth. But the overall big picture as I look at this is that over the past few years, I've passed several years, the working age population in the US just hasn't been growing because of demographics. People had smaller families in the 1980s and now that's impacting labor market growth today. And if you have a labor market that's not growing and you continue to have a lot of growth in part because of significant fiscal spending, well, that means that you're going to have a structurally shortage of people and prices, which labor prices are going to go higher. And if that's the case, that has enormous implications because it's not that the US economy is slowing, wages are going to go lower and inflation is going to go under control. It's that the US economy is running out of people, wages are going to go higher and inflation is going to re-accelerate.

现在，这将是一个混乱的过程，因为劳动力市场上发生了很多事情。在过去的几年里，你们有很多婴儿潮一代人，突然离开了劳动力市场等等。但就我所看，总体来说，过去几年里，美国的劳动年龄人口并没有增长，这是由于人口结构的问题。人们在20世纪80年代生的家庭比较小，现在这对劳动力市场的增长产生了影响。而如果劳动力市场不断增长，并且有很多增长，部分原因是因为巨额财政支出，那么这意味着你们将面临结构性的人员和价格短缺问题，劳动力价格将上涨。如果情况是这样，那将产生巨大的影响，因为这不是美国经济放缓，工资下降和通胀得到控制，而是美国经济正在人员流失，工资将上涨，通胀将重新加速。

Now, this is a very, very different vision of the world because it implies that the Fed is either going to have to height again or at the very least, it's going to have to stay higher for longer. And that again, gives you a whole bunch of different asset implications. It's going to be negative for risk assets, it was going to be positive for the dollar and negative for the bond market that is, say, higher yields.

现在，这是一个非常非常不同的世界观，因为这意味着美联储要么不得不再次加息，或者至少要保持更高的利率更长时间。而且，这将产生各种不同的资产影响。对于风险资产来说将是负面的，对于美元来说将是积极的，对于债券市场来说将是负面的，也就是说，会有更高的收益率。

Now, we've had two prints this month and the past month, which both showed slower job growth and accelerating wages. So it's really too early to say this. And to be clear, I think of this as a structural change in the US economy that we haven't seen before in the past. So it's something we definitely have to wait to see more data to see if this really is what I think it is. But again, this is a minority view. And to be clear, the majority of you continues to be that small, slower pace of wage, slower pace of job growth suggests a slowing US economy. And we'll see over the coming months, which narrative is correct.

现在，这个月和上个月，我们已经有两次的数据显示就业增长放缓而工资增长加速。所以现在说这个还为时过早。而且要明确的是，我认为这是美国经济中之前没有见过的结构性变化。所以我们肯定要等待更多的数据才能确定这是否确实是我所认为的情况。但再次强调，这只是少数观点。明确的是，多数人的看法仍然是薪资增长和就业增长放缓表明美国经济正在减速。在接下来的几个月中，我们将会看到哪种说法是正确的。

Okay, and that's all I've prepared for today. Thanks so much for joining in. If you like what I'm producing, please remember to like and subscribe. And of course, if you're interested in learning more about the financial system or my views on the markets, check out my blog at FedGuy.com. And if you're interested in learning more about understanding the financial system, I also have a great series of courses called Markets 101. I think of them as the next step after my book, Central Banking 101. All right, talk to you guys next week.

好的，这就是我今天准备的全部内容。非常感谢大家的参与。如果你喜欢我制作的内容，请记得点赞和订阅。当然，如果你对了解更多关于金融体系或者我的市场观点感兴趣，可以去我的博客FedGuy.com了解。如果你对了解金融体系也有兴趣，我还有一系列很棒的课程叫做《市场学101》。我认为它们是我撰写的《央行学101》一书之后的下一步。好的，下周再见。