Markets Weekly February 21, 2026
发布时间 2026-02-21 18:28:31 来源
Hello, my friends. Today is February 21st and this is markets weekly. So this past week, the major indexes basically went nowhere. We did have the S&P 500 regained the 50-day moving average, but when you zoom out a bit, it really looks to me that the indexes have gone nowhere for months, are losing momentum, and that is not good. So the biggest news past week of was of course the Supreme Court bombshell on Friday ruling that the president cannot impose tariffs under emergency IEPA powers. So today, let's first talk about what happened there and what could be the next steps.
你好，朋友们。今天是2月21日，欢迎收看《市场周报》。在刚过去的一周，主要股指基本没有太大变化。虽然标普500指数重新站上了50日移动均线，但如果拉长时间来看，我觉得这些股指已经停滞了几个月，并且势头减弱，这不是什么好事。上周最大的新闻当然是最高法院在周五作出的重大判决，裁定总统不能在紧急情况下根据IEPA权力征收关税。今天，我们先来聊聊这个事件的经过，并讨论下一步可能的发展。
And secondly, let's talk about some miscellaneous topics like data, Fed Minutes, ECB. All right, starting with the tariffs. So just for some context, remember last April, the operation day, the president stood in the Rose Garden with his giant poster board with all sorts of random numbers on it and declared that he was going to impose tariffs bigly on many countries throughout the world unless they came and made a deal. That panicked the markets, but in the months that followed, many countries did come and signed memorandums of understanding with the US.
其次，让我们来谈一些杂项话题，比如数据、美联储会议纪要和欧洲央行。好的，我们先从关税开始讲起。为了给大家提供背景信息，记得去年四月，在执行日，总统站在玫瑰园里，手拿一块写满各种随机数字的大海报板，宣布他将会对世界许多国家大幅征收关税，除非这些国家愿意前来达成协议。这一声明引发了市场恐慌，但在接下来的几个月里，许多国家果然前来，并与美国签署了谅解备忘录。
In some cases, they did result in concrete investment. There's reporting that Japan, a very, very good US ally, is making investments according to their trade deal. However, many people are wondering, does the president actually have authority to do that? That seems kind of excessive. I mean, does is there really a fentanyl crisis with Canada such that the president can declare an emergency and impose tariffs? Well, we were all about to find out on Friday.
在某些情况下，他们确实带来了具体的投资。据报道，日本这个与美国关系非常好的盟友，正在根据贸易协议进行投资。然而，很多人都在想，总统真的有权这样做吗？这看起来有点过头。我的意思是，加拿大真的有严重的芬太尼危机，以至于总统可以宣布紧急状态并施加关税吗？好吧，我们将在周五揭晓答案。
This Supreme Court ruled that actually IEPA doesn't give the president power to impose tariffs. The president can do things like embargoes, but a tariff is a tax, taxation power resizing Congress, so the president can't do that. And the Supreme Court is completely correct. Congress has the power of the tax, but over the past few decades, Congress has, through legislation, delegated a lot of tariff power to the president. So where is the president cannot?
最高法院裁定，实际上《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEPA）并未赋予总统征收关税的权力。总统可以采取一些措施，比如实行禁运，但关税是一种税收，而税收权属于国会，因此总统不能征收关税。对此，最高法院的判断完全正确。税收权是归属于国会的，但在过去的几十年中，国会通过立法，将许多关税相关的权力委托给了总统。那么，总统到底不能做什么呢？
We find out imposed tariffs under our IEPA. The president had a news conference right after the Friday ruling and declared that he would impose global tariffs of 10% through section 122 powers, which is on much sounder legal grounds. On Saturday morning, through truth social tweet, he declared that he's actually going to raise them to 15% globally. Now, under section 122, the president can have 15% tariffs globally, but for a maximum of 150 days.
我们发现根据我们的《初级经济伙伴协定》（IEPA）施加的关税。总统在周五裁决后立即召开了新闻发布会，宣布他将通过第122条权力施加10%的全球关税，这有更稳固的法律依据。周六早上，他通过Truth Social平台发推文宣布他实际上会将全球关税提高到15%。根据第122条，总统可以在全球范围内施加15%的关税，但最长只能持续150天。
However, that is not the only avenue where the president can impose tariffs. He can also impose tariffs through other more traditional means, such as section 301. During his first term, the president imposed section 301 tariffs on China that continued under the Biden administration and continued to this day. The difference is that in order to impose tariffs under section 301, you have to have an investigation, a hearing, and then you can impose tariffs.
然而，这并不是总统可以加征关税的唯一途径。他还可以通过其他更传统的方法来加征关税，比如使用301条款。在他的第一个任期中，总统对中国实施了301条款关税，这一政策在拜登政府期间继续延续至今。不同之处在于，根据301条款加征关税需要进行调查和听证，然后才能实施关税。
However, tariffs under that section are under much, on much sturdier legal ground. So the game plan seems to be that sure we're losing IEPA tariffs, but we'll replace them with section 122 tariffs for 150 days. And in the meantime, we'll conduct all the necessary investigations so that we can have other section 301 tariffs ready to go. So according to analysis from Bloomberg, it seems like at the end of the day, overall, the tariffs rates will basically be unchanged.
不过，那一节下的关税在法律上更加稳固。因此，计划似乎是，虽然我们正在失去《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEPA) 的关税，但我们会用第122节的关税替代，期限为150天。同时，我们将进行所有必要的调查，以便准备好其他第301节的关税。因此，根据彭博社的分析，最终看来，整体关税水平基本上不会改变。
The president would simply shift his legal authority from IEPA to other legal authority that's less likely to be overturned by the court. So it looks like we are going to have this tariff wall. It's going to continue. This has been a hiccup, but the president is ultimately going to get what he wants. Now, I would also remind everyone that president Biden also continued a lot of the tariffs that Trump put on.
总统会简单地将他的法律权力从IEPA转移到不太可能被法院推翻的其他法律权威。因此，看起来我们将继续面临这道关税壁垒。这虽然是一个小波折，但总统最终会实现他的目标。我还要提醒大家，拜登总统也延续了很多特朗普施加的关税。
So these tariffs will probably going to continue under a democratic administration as well. This really does look to be the new trade policy for the United States of America. However, what about all those tariff revenue connected the past year? There were a few hundred billion under IEPA. Now, surely, those are legal and they have to be refunded, right? Because the president could not impose tariffs under IEPA.
因此，这些关税可能在民主党政府下也会继续。这确实看起来像是美国的新贸易政策。不过，那些与过去一年相关的关税收入怎么办呢？根据《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEPA），有几千亿美元的收入。那么，这些收入肯定是合法的，因此必须退还，对吧？因为总统不能依据《国际紧急经济权力法案》征收关税。
Well, actually, the Supreme Court did not rule on that. So that's going to be a decision that's going to be litigated in the lower courts. So this kind of sets up this huge messy showdown because, well, who is going to get the refund? Now, some new data, new study from the New York Fed shows that actually tariffs were mostly paid by U.S. importers and U.S. consumers. This is also what happened in 2017-2018 when Trump did tariffs the first time around.
实际上，最高法院并没有对此作出裁决。因此，这将会由下级法院来裁定。这就引发了一场纷乱的对决，因为谁将获得退款呢？来自纽约联邦储备局的一项新研究显示，其实大部分关税是由美国进口商和消费者支付的。这与2017-2018年特朗普首次实施关税时的情况相同。
The exporters did pay some tariffs, but not a whole lot. The tariffs did seem to successfully have an impact on rewiring global trade, looking at New York Fed study. There is much less imports coming from China, but keep in mind that a lot of it was simply re-routing. We're, for example, Chinese companies sitting up shop in Mexico, in Thailand, in Vietnam, and basically producing and exporting from those countries, some kind of tariff arbitrage. However, this subs probably did seem to have some impact likely.
出口商确实支付了一些关税，但并不是很多。根据纽约联邦储备银行的研究，这些关税确实成功地影响了全球贸易的重组。从中国进口的商品大大减少了，但请注意，这其中有很多只是重新分配。例如，中国公司在墨西哥、泰国和越南设立工厂，并基本上从这些国家生产和出口，这是一种关税套利。然而，这种调整可能确实产生了一定的影响。
Now, the problem with giving tariff refunds is that when an item comes across the border, the importer is the one that concretely pays the tariff. However, in some cases, the importer turns around and raises the prices to the consumer, or whoever he resells it to, they try to pass along some of the cost. How much that is? That's going to be honestly a kind of a subjective thing. I think it's unlikely for an importer to actually have a paper trail and tell the consumer, or whoever, that we're raising your prices by this much because of the tariffs.
现在，关于退还关税的问题在于，当商品穿过边境时，具体支付关税的是进口商。然而，在某些情况下，进口商会转而提高对消费者或转售对象的价格，试图将部分费用转嫁给他们。具体多大程度是一个比较主观的事情。我认为进口商不太可能有明确的书面记录，然后告诉消费者或其他人，我们因为关税提高了你的价格。
If we were to get a big tariff refund to whoever pay the tariff invoice, which would be the easiest way of doing this, the importer would get a huge one-fall of hundreds of billions of dollars, right? Because they would be able to keep the extra revenue they received from raising prices to consumers, and they would also get their tariff payments back. So that's going to be a big mess. So we're not really sure how that's going to be untangled. So the most likely outcome is that we are stuck in litigation for a few years, and none of that tariff revenue gets refunded at least for some time.
如果我们要给支付关税发票的公司一个大额关税退款，哪种方法是最简单的呢？进口商会获得数千亿美元的巨额收益，对吗？因为他们不仅会得到通过提高消费者价格而获得的额外收入，还会拿回他们支付的关税款项。这将会是一团糟。所以我们不太确定要如何解决这个问题。因此，最可能的结果是我们会陷入几年的法律诉讼，而且这些关税收入在一段时间内不会被退还。
So the impact on the markets on Friday was unambiguously paused, right? Tariffs are taxing now that we have the tax removed, at least perceived to remove for that one day. But again, tariffs are coming right back, so it doesn't seem like that's something to be concerned of. Now some people were thinking that if we had super court overturned tariffs, the bond market would revolve, because that means the deficit would go much higher.
所以周五对市场的影响显然是暂停了，对吧？关税现在已经取消，至少在那一天是被认为取消了。但是，关税很快就会回来，所以这似乎不是什么值得担忧的事情。现在，有些人认为，如果最高法院推翻关税，债券市场会有波动，因为这意味着赤字会大幅增加。
We did seem to have yields go up a little bit, but really that could just be a risk on episode. And to be clear, rates are largely the expected path of fit policy, and we don't actually know how the strategy was going to issue debt going forward, suppose that the deficit really is going to be a few hundred billion higher due to the lack of tariffs. You know, maybe they just issue more in the short end, and the short end, it largely follows very, very strongly follows the expected path of fit policy. So you really wouldn't expect to see much of a change in yield to there.
我们似乎确实看到收益率有所上升，但这可能只是一次风险上升的情况。需要明确的是，利率在很大程度上反映了预期的货币政策路径。我们实际上并不知道未来政府会如何发债。假设因为缺少关税，赤字真的会高出几千亿美元。可能他们会在短期内发行更多债务，而短期利率通常紧随预期的货币政策路径。因此，你不会期待短期期限的收益率有太大变化。
So all in all, tariffs are here to stay. Guys just have to get used to it. All right, secondly, let's talk about also the miscellaneous things that happened last week. So we did have GDP data, we did have some inflation data. GDP was notably weaker than expected, surprisingly weaker than expected, largely due to the government shutdown. Remember, last quarter, the government was shut down for several weeks, and we had a whole lot of people not working.
总的来说，关税将会继续存在，人们只能慢慢习惯这一点。好了，接下来我们来谈谈上周发生的其他一些事情。我们确实获取了GDP数据和一些通胀数据。GDP数据明显比预期要弱，令人惊讶地低于预期，这主要是由于政府停摆造成的。记得上个季度，政府关闭了好几周，导致很多人无法工作。
Now, inflation was also surprising to the upside, but zooming out really GDP inflation has been where it's been for the past several quarters, inflation a little bit below 3% and GDP, you know, stronger than some expected on third quarter, but again, weaker than expected. Fourth quarter, you average that out still seems to be like we're around 2% and change. So it seems to me that really we're just kind of pretty stable here.
现在，通货膨胀也出乎意料地上升了，但从整体来看，过去几个季度的GDP和通货膨胀基本是稳定的。通货膨胀率略低于3%，第三季度的GDP比一些人预期的强劲，但第四季度却不如预期。综合来看，平均起来我们大约在2%左右的变动。因此，在我看来，我们的经济状况其实相对稳定。
And so what does that mean for monetary policy? Well, surprisingly in the Fed minutes, there was some commentary from some, let's just say Fed presidents that maybe we should talk about rates are too excited that we could not just cut rates, but we could also raise rates as well, seemingly thinking that inflation is still stubborn, maybe that we're not being restricted enough, maybe we should high rates later on in the year, or at least have the possibility of doing so.
那么，这对货币政策意味着什么呢？令人惊讶的是，在美联储的会议记录中，有一些美联储主席提出了一些评论。可以说，他们觉得利率问题值得讨论，不仅仅是降息的问题，还有可能加息。这样的看法似乎认为通货膨胀仍然顽固，也许我们的限制力度还不够，也许我们应该在今年晚些时候提高利率，或者至少保留这样做的可能性。
Now, for context, the market is pricing in two cuts this year. And I think it's kind of ridiculous for anyone on the FOMC to be suggesting that it would high rates. I mean, the trend for the unemployment rate is clearly upwards. The trend for inflation is clearly downwards. Although, of course, it has been plateauing. So it's a high rates in that context given that the broader public is feeling down on consumer sentiment given that administration is insisting on lower rates and given that, you know, back in 2021 when inflation was 5% many people were saying that, hey, it's transitory.
现在，为了提供背景信息，市场预计今年会有两次降息。我认为任何FOMC成员提议加息都是荒谬的。失业率趋势显然在上升，而通胀率趋势显然在下降，尽管通胀已经趋于平稳。在这样的背景下，加息显然是不合时宜的，尤其是在公众消费信心低迷、政府坚持要求降低利率的情况下。回想2021年，当时通胀率达到5%时，很多人还在说通胀是暂时的。
We shouldn't do anything. That's just too ridiculous. And it shows me that, you know, these, what I actually already know that many of these guys have no idea what they're doing. So I don't pay an intention to that. Honestly, the path of monetary policy is going to be more dictated by events that are happening in the background that are far more important than whatever happens with inflation in the coming months, which we'll talk about a little bit.
我们不应该做任何事情，那太荒谬了。实际上，这让我看到，我早就知道，这些人中有很多根本不知道自己在做什么。所以我根本不关注他们。老实说，货币政策的走向将更多地由那些在幕后发生的更重要事件决定，而不是未来几个月通胀的变化，关于通胀我们等会再聊。
And the last thing, miscellaneous thing that I'll mention is that there's an interesting article in the financial times saying that Madame Lagarde, president of the ECB, is going to enter term earlier than before he expires because she would like to have president Macron play a role in appointing her successor. For context, the president of the Banc de France also resigned earlier than expected so that Macron can name his successor.
最后，我想提到的一件事是，《金融时报》上有一篇有趣的文章提到，欧洲中央银行（ECB）行长拉加德女士可能会在任期到期之前提前卸任，因为她希望法国总统马克龙能够在她继任者的任命中发挥作用。作为背景，法国银行行长也曾在任期结束前提前辞职，以便让马克龙可以任命他的继任者。
So the fear is, according to the article that you could have someone from the right populist party win and then appoint someone of their choosing to be president of the Banc de France or have a say in who becomes president of the ECB. So it's playing a political game that we see sometimes in the US when it comes to the Supreme Court. As we know, oftentimes a liberal justice would like to resign during a democratic president so that the replacement named could also be a liberal justice and a conservative justice would also like to resign during the time when a Republican president is in charge so that a Republican president can name a Republican successor.
根据这篇文章的说法，人们担心的是，右翼民粹党派的人可能会赢得胜利，然后任命他们自己选择的人担任法国央行行长，或者对谁成为欧洲央行行长发表意见。这有点像我们有时在美国看到的政治游戏，比如最高法院的问题。众所周知，通常情况下，自由派的大法官希望在民主党总统任期内辞职，这样被任命的继任者也能够是自由派的大法官；同样，保守派大法官也希望在共和党总统执政期间辞职，以便继任者可以由共和党总统指定为共和党人。
So there are many people, for example, suggesting that maybe Justice Thomas, who is a very conservative justice should resign at the moment so that Trump can replace him. Otherwise, he could suddenly pass away on natural causes during a democratic administration and get replaced by a democratic justice and tip the balance of power. So that's a game that we play in the US for the Supreme Court and now it seems that they're playing the same game in the European Union.
有许多人建议，保守派大法官托马斯应该立即辞职，以便由特朗普来提名接替他。否则，他可能会在民主党政府期间因自然原因突然去世，结果被民主党任命的人取代，从而打破如今的权力平衡。这是美国在最高法院中玩的一种“游戏”，而现在似乎欧盟也在玩类似的游戏。
So I thought that was an interesting development and it does show that they are very worried about perhaps if you could have a different political makeup in the EU that would leak into monetary policy. In the case of France, actually the inflation is very much below target. The economy is not doing well and we all know they have a fiscal situation that would really appreciate lower rates. So that's an interesting political dynamic to think about when thinking about the ECB going forward.
我觉得这是一个很有趣的发展，它确实显示出他们非常担心欧盟内部可能出现的不同政治格局，这种变化可能会影响货币政策。在法国的情况下，通货膨胀率实际上远低于目标。经济表现不佳，我们都知道他们的财政状况非常希望能有更低的利率。所以，在考虑欧洲央行未来动向时，这是一种值得思考的政治动态。
So one thing to keep in mind and the last thing we'll talk about is that it does seem that war with Iran is very likely, maybe this weekend, maybe in the coming days. Now recall, there was an Israeli attack against Iran last year that the US participated in in a defensive way and the US also through operation, midnight basically flew a bunch of bombers to Iran and bombed their nuclear facility. So there has been ongoing conflict in the Middle East involving the US for a year now.
需要注意的一件事，也是我们最后要讨论的事情，就是我们似乎很可能即将与伊朗发生战争，可能就在这个周末或接下来的几天里。回想一下，去年以色列曾对伊朗发动过一次攻击，美国以防御性方式参与其中。此外，美国还通过“午夜行动”向伊朗派遣了一批轰炸机，轰炸了他们的核设施。因此，涉及美国的中东冲突已经持续了一年。
And now with all the US Air Force assets being moved there and there is a huge amount of assets we have another carrier that will be in position this Sunday. So they are in a position to have a major operation against Iran. Again, they say that negotiations on ongoing but negotiations were also ongoing during the first operation as well. So there's a lot of tender there and in all it needs is a spark and sometimes when you have powerful political interests, those sparks can be created.
现在，美军正在将所有的空军装备转移到那里，本周日将会有另一艘航母到位。因此，美军处于能够对伊朗发动大型军事行动的状态。虽然他们声称谈判仍在进行中，但在第一次行动期间谈判也同样在进行。所以局势非常紧张，只需一点火花就可能引发冲突，有时候当涉及到强大的政治利益时，这些火花可能会被人为点燃。
So that is something that could, if it happens, really dominate an overshadow anything that happens in trade policy or GDP or whatnot. There's a potential for this to become very messy. The president has had tremendous success in extracting Maduro in bombing Iran last year but again, there's many, many unknowns when it comes to an operation of the scale.
所以这件事情如果发生，确实可能会完全主导并影响任何贸易政策、GDP等方面的发展。这可能会变得非常复杂。总统去年在推动马杜罗下台以及轰炸伊朗方面取得了巨大成功，但涉及这样大规模的行动时，依然存在许多未知因素。
So that's something I think is going to be the biggest event to watch in the coming weeks. It would be tremendously risk off. So that's what I would focus on for the coming days. All right. So that's all I prepared for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. I'll talk to you guys next week.
这就是我认为在接下来几周中最值得关注的一件大事。这可能会大大减少风险。因此，这将是我在未来几天关注的重点。好的，这就是我今天准备的全部内容。非常感谢大家的收听。我们下周再见。