Markets Weekly May 6
发布时间 2023-05-06 21:57:52 来源
Hello my friends, today is May 6th, my name is Joseph and this is Markets Weekly. Now this week was super exciting so we have a lot to talk about.
大家好，今天是5月6日，我叫约瑟夫，欢迎来到本期《市场周报》。这一周真是太精彩了，我们有很多话题要讨论。
First and for most of course we're going to talk about the implosion in regional bank stock prices. I was saying that the regional bank panic is over and then we see their stock prices implode. Seems like it's ongoing or maybe things are not necessarily what they appear to be. We'll talk about it.
首先，我们当然要谈谈地区银行股价格的崩盘。我曾经说过地区银行的恐慌已经结束，然而现在我们看到它们的股价出现了崩盘。这个趋势似乎在继续，或者可能事实并非像表面看起来那样。我们会谈论这个问题。
Secondly we'll talk about the update the Treasury offered us on its projected issuance over the coming years and lastly we'll talk about the big data print this week that is the non-farm payroll print.
其次，我们将谈论财政部提供给我们有关其未来几年发行的最新动态更新，最后我们将讨论本周发布的大数据非农就业数据。
Okay starting with the regional bank stock price implosion. So of course over the weekend first republic was bought by JP Morgan and things seem to be going well. Sure Apollo had his cut press conference and he told us that from what he sees things are broadly getting better. Jamie Diamond of course suggested the same thing and then right after his press conference we see a few stock prices of the regional banks just completely implode by 30% and the day after they continue to sink. Notably there was Pacific Western and Western Alliance which I'm showing here. You can see that things were stabilizing, stabilizing, stabilizing and then poof they kind of fell off a cliff. Now a wide range of regional banks were impacted. These smaller ones particularly so but even the bigger ones like PNC, US bank they were also sold.
首先讲一下区域银行股价格崩溃的情况。当然，在周末，JP摩根收购了第一银行，情况看起来很好。阿波罗也召开了一个新闻发布会，告诉我们他所看到的情况整体上正在好转。杰米·戴蒙德当然也提出了同样的建议，然后在他的新闻发布会之后，我们看到一些区域银行的股票价格完全暴跌了30%，而第二天它们继续下跌。特别要注意的是太平洋西部和西部联盟，我在这里展示。你可以看到，情况正在稳定，稳定，稳定，然后忽然之间它们就直线下跌了。现在影响了广泛的区域银行，特别是这些较小的银行，但即使像PNC，美国银行这样的大银行也受到了影响。
Now this is kind of interesting in a sense. Now let's think back a month ago. So Silicon Valley Bank first republic were having tremendous, tremendous deposit withdrawals. Their depositors mostly tech companies were running from them. So they were under a bank run and you saw their stock price reflect that. Just basically plummet. This time though it's a little bit different because during this episode Western Alliance actually came out and issued a statement. And they said that you know I'm sitting in my office and I'm looking at my own books and it's the bank has not experienced unusual deposit flows following the sale of first republic bank and other recent industry news.
现在这非常有趣。让我们回想一下一个月前。硅谷银行和第一共和银行出现了巨大的存款提取。他们的存款人大多是科技公司，正在逃离他们。他们陷入了银行挤兑，你可以看到他们的股价反映了这一点，基本上是暴跌。但这一次有点不同，因为在这一情况下，Western Alliance实际上发表了一份声明。他们说，我坐在办公室里看着自己的账簿，银行并没有在第一共和银行的销售和其他最近的行业新闻之后经历异常的存款流动。
Total deposits were 48.8 billion as of Tuesday, May 2nd, up 48.2 billion as of Monday, May 1st and flat to Friday, April 28th. So they're saying that gosh guys I nothing has changed for us. There's no deposit flight. There's no bank run but then the stock price seems to tell a different story. Now if there's nothing actually going on with the bank, why is the stock price declining?
截至5月2日星期二，总存款为488亿，比5月1日星期一的482亿增加了48.2亿，与4月28日星期五持平。他们说，噢，伙计们，对我们来说没有什么改变。没有存款外流。没有银行挤兑，但股价似乎讲述了不同的故事。现在，如果实际上与银行没有发生任何事情，为什么股价会下跌呢？
Well, there is a reporter at the Wall Street Journal called Eric Wallerstein who is a really good reporter and who actually used to work with me at the Fed. He did some digging into this and he discovered this. Now this is the options volumes for Pacific West and Western Alliance. And from this chart you can actually see that yes, there wasn't that much options volumes. Earlier in the year we had some around the collapse of Silicon Valley bank and just this past week they absolutely soared.
好的，有一位叫Eric Wallerstein的《华尔街日报》记者非常好，其实他曾经和我在美联储一起工作。他进行了一些调查，发现了这个情况。现在这是太平洋西区(Pacific West)和西部联盟(Western Alliance)的期权交易量。从该图表可以看出，的确没有那么多的期权交易量。早些时候，在硅谷银行破产时我们有一些，而在过去的一周里，它们绝对飙升了。
Put option volumes for these guys were to the moon all time highs. And as we've learned during the Memstock episode when all everyone goes and buys a lot of options say on AMC or GameStop that can make the underlying stock price go to the moon. And it seems like some people also discovered that when you buy a whole lot of put options the reverse can also happen. So when you're looking at stock prices you want to there is some connection to the actual company just like there's some connection between the stock market and the real economy but it's some connection it's not necessarily the same thing.
这些人的认沽期权数量一直飙升到历史新高。正如我们在股市暴涨期间所学到的，当所有人都购买大量选项，如AMC或GameStop时，这可能会使潜在股票价格飙升。而当你购买大量认沽期权时，貌似一些人也发现了反向效应。因此，当你看股票价格时，你需要注意实际公司和股票市场之间的某种关系，但这只是某种联系，未必是完全一致的。
Stock prices like anything else is just supply and demand. Market participants buy and sell for different reasons not necessarily because they have a view on the company. Obviously when everyone went and bought call options on GameStop I don't think they were thinking that the GameStop company was just a super great business the same with AMC but they understood that if they bought a lot of those call options and the stock went up well they would make money.
股票价格与其他任何事物一样，仅仅是供求关系的体现。市场参与者买卖股票的原因不一定是因为他们对公司有什么看法。当每个人都去购买GameStop的看涨期权时，我不认为他们是因为GameStop公司是个超级好的公司，AMC也是如此，但他们理解如果购买了大量的这些看涨期权，股票价格上涨了，他们就能赚到钱。
And I think you have a similar occurrence here where a lot of people bought put options and dealers because they take the other side of the straight have to sell the underslaping to hedge themselves so that pushes the stock price lower in the same way that buying call options pushes the stock price higher. Okay so that seems to be the driver of these stock prices.
我认为在这里你们有一个类似的情况，许多人购买了看跌期权，而交易者则因为需要承担另一方的风险而不得不进行对冲以出售低估价格，这就会导致股价下跌，类似地，购买看涨期权会推高股价。因此，这似乎是这些股票价格的驱动因素。
Now I noted earlier that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the banks but here's the thing though now most depositors in a bank don't really pay close attention to what's actually going on in the bank all they see are the stock price. So if they see the stock of their bank tank then they're going to panic and so what was a okay bank totally normal totally stabilizing could actually end up in a bad situation a tanking stock price could precipitate a bank run.
我之前指出过银行似乎没有什么问题，但是现在有个问题，银行存款者大多数并没有真正关注银行内部的运营，他们只看到股票价格。如果他们看到他们银行的股票价格暴跌，他们就会惊慌失措，一个本来正常、稳定的银行真的可能会陷入危机，一旦股票价格暴跌，就有可能会爆发银行抢购潮。
So we're in this situation here in a sense it's kind of like you know being able to buy insurance on your neighbor's house so you buy a lot of insurance and you sit back to their house.
所以我们处于这种情况中，有点像你能够为你的邻居的房子买保险，你买了很多保险，然后坐在邻居的房子后面。这种情况好比是一种保险投资行为。
Perception can influence reality when it comes to banks especially in the climate where there's some degree of nervousness. So I think this has to be something that we watch closely.
感知可能会影响现实，特别是在银行业中，特别是在存在某种程度的紧张气氛时。因此，我认为我们必须密切关注这一点。
If now there's also rumors right now that the SEC may institute a short sell ban on banks they did that during the great financial crisis as well but we want to watch the see if the sentiment improves because if it doesn't improve in every day even though there's nothing wrong with the bank people seeing this the stock price of the big tank they can actually get nervous and actually you know precipitate a run and that's not really what we want to happen.
现在也有传言称，证券交易委员会可能对银行实施限制空头卖出交易的规定。在大规模金融危机期间，他们也这样做了，但我们希望观察情绪是否改善，因为即使银行没有问题，如果每天情绪不好，人们看到这种情况，大型银行的股价也可能会使人们感到紧张，进而引发风险，这并不是我们希望看到的。
We want banks to survive those banks employ people they make loans to the real economy it's it's in our interest everyone's interest actually except the certain investors for good businesses to survive.
我们希望银行能够生存下来，因为它们雇用人员并向实体经济提供贷款。这符合我们的利益，实际上符合每个人的利益，除了某些仅关注投资利润的投资者，因为好的企业能够生存下来。
Now I also want to address a couple topics that I've been hearing a lot. Those topics are saying that regional banks are not taking because because they have because of these options but they're taking because of poor fundamentals.
现在我也想谈一下我经常听到的一些问题。这些问题是关于区域银行不断出现问题的说法，认为这些银行之所以不行，不是因为拥有这些选择，而是因为基本面较差。
Now again we have a temptation to link fundamentals with market prices directly some relationship but not really strong but I think those objections are worthy of addressing.
现在，我们再次面临一个诱惑，即将基本面与市场价格直接联系起来，表现出某种关系，但实际上并不是非常强烈。但我认为这些反对意见值得探讨。
The first objection is that these banks are having tremendous deposit runs because they're not willing to pay up for deposits and so they can't compete with money market funds so all the depositors are taking their deposits out of the bank and leaving for money market funds. And the banks they can't afford to pay higher deposit rates because their assets are lower yielding so that means that if they actually raise their deposit rates to compete with money market funds they'll go broke and so because the bank is in a no one situation their budget business models are broken and so their stock prices should be very low.
首先，这些银行面临巨大的存款流失，因为它们不愿意支付更高的存款利率，因此无法与货币市场基金竞争，导致所有存款人将其存款从银行转移到货币市场基金。而银行无法支付更高的存款利率，因为它们的资产收益较低，这意味着如果它们实际上提高存款利率以与货币市场基金竞争，它们将破产。由于银行处于一个无解的境地，它们的商业模式被打破了，因此它们的股价应该非常低。
That objection is very obviously not true and I want to go over why in just a moment. Now the second objection that I hear about is that banks are basically insolvent because the fed rates are aggressively and so a lot of their assets who are perhaps longer dated perhaps fixed income securities they declined in market price following the aggressive rate hikes because the banks are insolvent their equities of course should be zero.
这个反对意见很明显是不正确的，我想再过几分钟解释一下原因。现在我听到的第二个反对意见是，银行基本上是无力偿付债务的，因为联邦基金利率非常激进，所以它们的资产，可能是较长期限的固定收益证券，随着激进的利率上涨而下降。由于银行是无力偿付债务的，所以它们的股票当然应该为零。
Now that is definitely nonsense.
现在绝对是胡说八道。
Okay now first I'll talk about now in order to talk about why these two arguments are without merit in my view I'm going to pull up the investor presentation from Western Alliance Bank or which is one of the of course one of the highlighted banks in this week's stock market price declines.
好的，现在我将首先谈论当前情况，以便讲述为什么我认为这两个论点没有任何价值，我将打开西方联盟银行的投资者展示文稿，这当然是本周股市价格下跌中的一个重要银行之一。
Before I go into that one more thing worth mentioning so the financial times reported that Western Alliance was exploring a sale of course if you're selling yourself you're probably going to fail and the stock price taint because of that it turns out that was a fake story so Western Alliance immediately disputed that issue depressed release and is saying that they're going to sue the financial times.
在我继续之前，有一件值得一提的事情，即《金融时报》报道了西方联盟正在考虑出售。当然，如果你在出售自己，你可能会失败，并且股票价格也会受到影响。但事实证明，这是一篇虚假的报道，因此西方联盟立即辟谣并发表声明，称他们将起诉《金融时报》。
So again you have huge speculative positioning and then you have what appears to be fake news. So there could be something more to this than what it then on the one appears on the surface.
再说一遍，你有着巨大的投机头寸，还有看起来是假新闻的东西。因此，这可能不仅仅是表面上所展现的那样简单。
Okay now here is the interest bearing deposits of Western Alliance regional bank not like a big big not particularly important but what you want to notice is that even as the Fed hiked rates to about 5% their deposit costs their interest bearing deposit costs are about 2.75%.
现在这里有西部联盟区域银行的利息付存款，虽然不像大型机构那么重要，但你要注意的是，即使美联储将利率提高到约5％，他们的存款成本-即其利息付存款成本大约为2.75％。
So when the Fed hikes rates it never completely flows through to the depositors that that's never been the case. Usually let's say about 40% 50% flows through. The bank doesn't actually have to pass through the entire rate hike to the consumer because the consumer is able to get benefits from the banks in other ways and this has always been the case and again we all bank we all bank with someone so we we should have this in our own experience.
当联邦储备委员会加息时，涨息并不会完全流向存款人，这种情况从未出现过。通常，大约40%到50%的涨息会流入存款人的口袋。银行实际上不必向消费者完全传递全部涨息，因为消费者可以通过其他方式从银行获得利益，这种情况一直存在，我们所有人都有银行账户，应该有自己的经验。
Let's try to retain depositors not necessarily through interest rates though some people care a lot about that but they can also do a lot of other things.
让我们尝试保留存款人，不一定通过利率，虽然有些人非常关心利率，但他们也可以做很多其他的事情。
意思是，我们应该尝试以不同的方式留住存款人，而不仅仅是提高利率。虽然有些人非常看重利率，但我们还可以尝试其他的方法来吸引他们。
A common thing in the 80s was they would give you a free toaster but today they could also offer things like you know business loans mortgage loans good cool technology or if you're a business they could very much offer payment processing services treasury functions. So let's say you're a business with 100 employees every month you have to make payroll for 100 employees well that's a processing thing that the bank could do as a service and in exchange the bank would maybe not pay you as much interest.
在80年代非常常见的一件事情是买某种物品时商家会送你一个免费的烤面包机，而如今他们也会提供许多其他的服务，比如商业贷款，抵押贷款，高端科技产品等，如果你是一家企业，银行也可以为你提供支付处理服务、财务管理等。例如，假如你是一家有100名员工的企业，每月都需要为100名员工发放薪资，这是银行可以为你提供的服务，而作为交换，银行可能会降低支付给你的利息。
And the fact is that banks don't purely compete on interest rates so that that's why even as the Fed rate hikes rates banks have to pay more interest but it's never in the sense that they they can't handle it. If there was ever an instance where they would not be able to afford deposit interest payments I mean if it was ever experienced where they had lots of deposit or flight because of interest rates they could simply raise interest rates to stop them it's a really really easy thing to fix.
银行并不仅仅通过利率竞争，所以即使联邦基金利率上涨，银行必须支付更高的利息，但这从来不是他们无法应对的情况。如果出现无法支付存款利息的情况，也就是因为利率问题导致了大量存款外流，他们可以简单地提高利率来停止这种情况，这是一件非常简单的事情。
One other thing that I would note here is that in this example again Western Alliance not a super important bank 35% of the deposits are non interest bearing. So you got the interest rate deposits paying 2.75% and then 35% of the deposits don't even bear an interest. So again Fed hikes rates the interest rate costs for a bank rise but just by a little because the bank is of able to compete in other areas of service as well.
这里还有另一个要注意的问题，就是在这个例子中，西方联盟并不是一个很重要的银行，其中35%的存款不计息。因此，你有2.75%的利率存款，而35%的存款甚至不计利息。因此，如果联邦加息，银行的利率成本会略微上升，但由于该银行在其他服务领域也能竞争，影响不大。
Okay now the second thing related to what was mentioned is that the banks can't offer higher payments because if they do offer higher interest on their deposits their asset sides is really low they'll go broke through negative carry their interest income will be lower than their interest expense and that's really obviously not true either. So again just looking at Western Alliance not as particularly special bank now their investment portfolio so their securities things like treasuries and agency and BS and other things like that. Munis yields okay investment yields increase the 4.69% and far above what they're paying on their deposits.
现在提到的第二个问题是银行无法提供更高的付款，因为如果他们在存款上提供较高的利率，他们的资产面是非常低的，他们会因为负担而破产，他们的利息收入将低于利息支出，这显然是不真实的。所以再看西联银行（Western Alliance）作为一个普通的银行投资组合，包括类似国库券、债券和其他证券的投资。税收收益率增加达到4.69%，远高于他们支付的存款利率。
Now notice that they only have 9.1 billion dollars in investments like any other bank most of their assets are in loans and here we see 46 billion in loans 46 billion dollars in loans and what are they receiving on loans 6.45% okay so again the bank is making a good interest margin all banks are making good interest margins. So when people are saying that the banks can afford to hike the deposit rates obviously obviously not true can easily afford to.
现在注意到他们只有91亿美元的投资，像任何其他银行一样，他们的大部分资产都是贷款，我们在这里看到了46亿美元的贷款，他们在贷款上的收益是6.45%，所以银行又赚了一个很好的利润。所有银行都可以获得很好的利润。当人们说银行可以负担得起提高存款利率时，这显然是不真实的，他们很容易负担得起。
Now the second argument that I'd like to address is that the banks are insolvent. My gosh fed hike the bunch of rates all their fixed income securities fixed rate loans underwater they must be insolvent. So that is a much trickier question to answer and I'll answer it using an example. Now when you're talking about solvency it's assets minus liabilities right so we know that the assets prices have declined because interest rates went higher.
现在我想讨论的第二个论点是银行都破产了。天啊，联储加息了，他们所有的固定收益证券和固定利率贷款都亏了，他们一定破产了。所以这是一个更棘手的问题，我将用一个例子来回答它。现在当你谈论财务稳定性时，它是资产减去负债，对吧，所以我们知道资产价格已经下跌了，因为利率上升了。
Now what about the liabilities? In case a let's say the bank borrows overnight $100 and uses it to purchase $100 worth of mortgages. Fed hikes rates mortgages decline in price from $100 to $90. Now all those overnight lenders see that the bank oh my gosh you lost $10. I want all my money back. The bank is forced to sell that mortgage realizes a $10 loss and goes broke because they only have $90 worth of assets and they have to repay $100 worth of loans. That's case A.
现在我们来看看负债方面。假设银行借了100美元并用它购买价值100美元的抵押贷款。如果联邦加息，抵押贷款的价格会从100美元下降到90美元。现在，所有那些隔夜借款人都会看到银行的亏损，因为它损失了10美元。他们都要求归还自己的钱。银行被迫出售抵押贷款，意识到了10美元的损失，因为他们只有90美元的资产，但必须偿还100美元的贷款。这就是案例A。
Now let's go to case B. The bank borrows $100 in 10 year loans and invests it in 10 year treasuries or 10 year security. So interest rates go higher yes that 10 year security that they own declines in price. Oh no. But let's say after 10 years of course because the 10 year treasury, the 10 year treasury security is money good then at the end of the day the bank receives $100 back. So it doesn't have any losses. For the course of the 10 year period the market value converges to the power value because all you're seeing is fluctuations in price due to interest rate risk. There's no credit risk.
现在让我们来看看案例B。银行借款100美元进行10年的贷款，并将其投资于10年期国库券或10年期证券。如果利率上升，那么它们所拥有的10年期证券价格会下跌。不过别担心，如果在10年后，由于10年期国库券是货币安全的，银行最终会收到100美元回报，因此不会有任何损失。在10年期间，市场价值会趋于强制价值，因为你所看到的只是由于利率风险而导致的价格波动，而没有信用风险。
So the bank holds the security over to maturity and it pays down a hundred cents to the dollar. And at the same time because the bank borrowed a 10 year loan to fund that investment it has $100 and it can use that $100 to pay off the 10 year loan. No loss to the bank. Bank is not bank. Bank is not insolvent. Now the key difference between these two cases between case A and case B is that in one case the bank borrowed an overnight money and the other case the bank borrowed 10 year money.
因此，银行持有抵押品直到到期日，并支付每一美元的一百美分。与此同时，由于银行借了一个10年期贷款来资助这项投资，它有了100美元，并可以用这100美元来偿还10年期贷款。银行没有损失。银行并不是银行。银行不破产。现在，这两种情况A和B之间的关键区别在于，在一个情况下，银行借了隔夜资金，而在另一个情况下，银行借了10年期资金。
Now a deposit. Is it overnight money or is it 10 year money? Well in practice of course no one goes to the bank the next day it takes back all their deposits that doesn't happen. But it's also true that no one keeps their money in a bank forever. So it's also not 10 year money. It's somewhere in between. Now therein lies the detail. If I'm a bank and I have someone depositing money with me when is that person going to take their money out? It's that they're not going to take it all out tomorrow and they're not going to leave it in forever.
现在是一个存款。它是隔夜的钱还是十年的钱？实际上，当然没有人会在第二天就把所有的存款取回来，这是不可能的。但同样正确的是，没有人会永远把钱放在银行里。所以它位于两者之间。现在问题就在于这个细节。如果我是一家银行，有人向我存款，那这个人什么时候会取出他们的钱？他们不会明天全部取走，也不会永远留在银行里。
So I have to have an estimate as to when someone would take that money out. In a sense I'm borrowing term money. I'm not borrowing overnight. I'm borrowing term. I just don't know exactly what term it is.
所以我必须要估计出什么时候有人会取走那笔钱。从某种意义上说，我正在借长期资金，而不是过夜资金。我借的是长期资金，只是我不确定这个长期是多久。
Now banks try to estimate that based on who is making the deposit. Is it a retail mom and pop guaranteed by FDIC insurance? There's a good chance that they're going to keep their money there for a long time. Maybe it's I can estimate it to be five year money as in like a five year loan to the bank. Or it can be someone like a Silicon Valley investor who has lots of uninstalled money and is very volatile.
现如今，银行试图根据存款者的身份来估计资金使用期限。如果是由FDIC保险保障的零售小商家，他们有很大概率会将钱存在银行很长时间。或者，如果是像硅谷投资人这样有很多未安装资金并且非常不稳定的人，则可以将其估计为五年期贷款，就像向银行借款五年。
Well maybe that's closer to overnight money. So a bank would try to understand its clients and try to build relationships to make its money stickier. But it's an art more than a science. So the first republic's strategy was to go find lots of really rich people and ask them to keep their money with first republic.
也许这更接近于短期获利的方式。因此，银行会尝试了解其客户并建立关系，使其资金更稳定。但这是一门更多艺术而非科学的技术。因此，第一共和国的策略是去寻找很多非常富有的人，并请他们将自己的钱放在第一共和国的账户中。
But any exchange offer them really really sweet mortgage deals. So super low rates on their big mortgages. Silicon Valley bank strategy was to find a whole bunch of startups and offer them loans when no one else was willing to offer them loans. On the condition that they would keep their deposits with Silicon Valley bank. Again, these are banks trying to control the stickiness of the deposits.
然而，不论哪家银行都会向初创企业提供非常优惠的抵押贷款。它们会提供极低的利率，来满足初创企业的大额贷款需求。硅谷银行的策略是寻找大量初创企业，向它们提供贷款，而其他银行并不愿意提供。条件是它们必须将储蓄存入硅谷银行。再次强调，这些银行试图控制储蓄的“挂钩性”。
It turns out those two strategies did not work. What was thought to be, let's say a long term loan to the bank ended up to be an overnight loan to the bank and the bank went bust. So how you run your bank, how you manage your deposit franchise, which is what they call it, really determines how stickier your money is. And thus whether or not your bank actually is insolvent when it has losses on its assets.
原来这两种策略并没有起到作用。原本被认为是一笔长期贷款给银行，结果最终成为了一笔隔夜贷款，结果银行破产了。因此，你如何经营银行，管理存款特许经营权（他们称之为），真正决定了你的资金有多稳定。因此，当银行资产出现损失时，你的银行是否真正破产，取决于你如何经营它。
The vast majority of banks in the US manage their banks very conservatively. They have high degree of deposit granularity that is to say other than having a few rich people or a few big VCs, they would have about 10,000 mom and pop leaving $10,000 in the banks. Those banks are super sturdy. Now from what I see, the vast majority of banks really are like that. And I know it sounds crazy, but if you really think about what happened during the banking episode, it was really concentrated in more volatile sectors.
大部分美国银行都非常保守地管理自己的银行业务。它们拥有高度的存款细粒度，也就是说除了一些富人或大风投公司外，它们会拥有大约10,000个小商家或个体户，每个人在银行里留下$10,000。这些银行非常坚固稳定。现在从我所看到的情况来看，大部分银行确实是这样的。我知道这听起来很疯狂，但如果你真正思考银行业务中发生了什么事情，你会发现问题更集中在更具波动性的领域。
Let's say VC and crypto and those sectors went bust in the banks that relied on them as customers went bust with them. So we'll see going forward if there really is more trouble or really this was just a panic driven by stock prices, definitely something to watch in the coming weeks. All right, let's go on to our next topic.
假设风险投资、加密货币和那些行业在银行倚赖他们作为客户的情况下都破产了。所以我们将会看到未来是否会有更多麻烦，或者这只是由股价恐慌引起的问题，今后几周肯定是需要观察的。好的，让我们转到下一个话题。
Okay, now this is what I find to be the craziest thing. So every quarter the US Treasury updates us with what they're doing with their Treasury issuance. What are they projecting for the next few years?
好的，现在我觉得这是最疯狂的事情。因为美国财政部每个季度都会更新他们的国库发行情况，他们预计未来几年会发行什么？
Now here you want to see look up here, you want to look at the dots here. So these are dots based on the projections of the private sector, so the banks and also the projections of the OMB, which is a government agency and the CBOA as well. So the triangle is the OMB, I forgot the acronym, it's one of the government agencies and Congressional Budget Office is the blue dots. And the square is from the private sector.
现在，您想要查看，请看这里，您想要查看这些点。这些点基于私人部门的贡献和银行的投资，还有政府机构OMB和CBOA的预测。三角形代表OMB，我忘记了这个缩写，这是一个政府机构，蓝色的点是国会预算办公室。方形是来自私人部门的预测。
So what you want to see here is that the net issuance of treasuries and in another way, the deficit is going to be between $1.5 to $2 trillion for the next five years. Now I want to rewind a little bit. 20 years ago we didn't really have much of a budget deficit. 30 years ago we had budget surpluses.
所以你想看到这里的是，国债的净发行与赤字的差额在未来五年内将在1.5至2万亿美元之间。现在我想回顾一下。20年前我们并没有太多的预算赤字。30年前我们有预算盈余。
There was a lot of people in Congress who cared a lot about the budget deficit. Those people are all gone now and we really are in a very, very different era. We are in an era where no one cares about the budget deficit. And so that has two implications. One, if you continue to have fiscal spending, it's really hard to get inflation under control because you have basically a huge price insensitive market participant.
国会里曾有很多关心预算赤字的人，但现在他们已经都离开了，我们真的进入了一个非常不同的时代。现在的时代是没人关心预算赤字的时代。这有两个影响。其一是，如果你继续进行财政支出，那么很难控制通货膨胀，因为你基本上有一个非常不敏感于价格的市场参与者。
Now in the economy, if prices get too high, people can afford them and so prices come down. But if you have the government in there, of course the government is never going to say that prices are too high, I'm not going to afford it. They're just going to print treasuries to afford it. So if you have a government that continues to spend, well that's inelastic demand and that seems to be, that seems to continue.
在经济中，如果价格变得太高，人们就买不起，因此价格会下降。但如果政府参与其中，当然政府永远不会说价格太高，我买不起。他们只会印刷国债来支付。所以，如果你有一個不断花钱的政府，那就是无弹性需求，并且这似乎在继续。
Now the second thing I'll note is that now treasury yield, treasury prices, again like anything else, it's supply and demand. People look at treasuries from a wide range of angles. Some people have to buy treasuries because they're highly regulated.
现在我要注意的第二件事是国库收益率和国库价格，就像其他任何事情一样，都是供需关系。人们从各种角度来看待国库债券。某些人必须购买国库债券，因为它们受到高度的监管。
Some people are macro investors, they look at things like growth and inflation. Other people are like foreign central banks who have a whole bunch of dollars they need to invest so they don't really care about inflation and things like that. Again, if you want to understand how markets work, you really have to see things through the perspective of different market participants. I really recommend my free course at centralbanking101.com about this.
有些人是宏观投资者，他们关注增长和通货膨胀等方面。而其他一些人则像外国中央银行一样，持有大量美元需要进行投资，因此并不关心通货膨胀等问题。如果您想了解市场运作的原理，真的需要从不同市场参与者的角度来看待问题。我强烈推荐我在centralbanking101.com上提供的免费课程。
Now anyway, the thing is that you have demand, demand side, totally different people, totally different participants, different perspectives. But the supply side though, the issuance of treasuries is going to be historically, historically high. If you're just doing 1.5 to 2 trillion, you can even think of the supply as infinite. The price of anything who supplies infinite is not very high. Now, I look at this and I think that we really are in an era where interest rates are going to structurally be higher. You just can't keep issuing 1.5 to 2 trillion in treasuries every year and expect interest rates to stay low. They'll be bought for sure, but at what price? 10 years or 3.5 percent? I don't think so. I know there are many who disagree with me on this, but this chart is not something that you would have seen even a few years ago.
现在看来，你们有需求，需要方面完全由不同的人组成，拥有不同的观点。但是供应方面，国债的发行量将创历史新高。如果只发行1.5到2万亿美元，实际上你甚至可以认为这个供应是无限的。供应无限的物品价格并不会很高。现在，我认为我们真的处于一个利率结构可能会更高的时代。你不能每年都发行1.5到2万亿美元的国债，同时期望利率保持低位。肯定会有人购买，但是价格是多少？10年期的国债利率3.5%？我不这么认为。我知道有很多人不同意我的观点，但这个图表几年前是不可能出现的。
Okay, last thing I'll talk about today is the really positive, the modestly positive, a non-farm payroll report. So in the market data world, non-farm payrolls are tier A, tier 1 data, tier A, tier 1 data. They are really important in market moving data. And it looks like payrolls, beat expectations, $250,000, $250,000 jobs created in April. Notably, of course, average hourly earnings were also pretty solid as well. So again, it's pitting a picture of the U.S. economy as basically fine, continues to create jobs at a good pace and here you go. Average hourly earnings increased by 4.4 percent.
今天我最后要说的是非农就业报告，这是一个相当正面的、适度的积极信号。在市场数据世界中，非农就业数据是A级，一线数据，非常重要的市场推动数据。它看起来像是超出预期，4月创造了25万个就业岗位。当然，平均每小时工资也相当不错。所以，它再次呈现出美国经济基本良好的形象，继续以良好的步伐创造就业，就像这样，平均实际小时工资增加了4.4％。
Okay, so the U.S. economy seems to be fine. Notwithstanding everything that people are talking about or the poor sentiments, people are getting jobs and people are making more money through their wages. Now inflation has gradually come down as well. So we're at a point where the wage gains that people have are just about outplacing inflation. It really depends on what level of wage you are. Low wage workers have been outpacing inflation for some time. That seems like a good thing for the broader economy. Another really good thing to note is that labor force participation for primates workers, so workers 25 to 50, four years old, has exceeded its pre-pandemic high. So it's 83.3 percent now. So there has been a tremendous recovery in the primates, primates, employment demographic group in labor. That's not surprising to me.
嗯，美国经济似乎很好。尽管人们对此持有负面看法，大家仍然能够找到工作并透过薪资获得更多收入。通货膨胀也渐渐降低了。现在我们正处于这样的阶段：人们的薪资增长基本上已经跑赢了通货膨胀。当然，这取决于你的薪资水平。低薪工人在某段时间内一直跑得比通货膨胀快。这似乎对整个经济而言是一件好事。另一个需要注意的好消息是，年龄介于25岁到50岁之间的成年工作人口的劳动参与率已经超过了疫情前的最高值，现在是83.3%。因此，在非人灵长类就业群体中，就业情况得到了显著改善。对我来说，这并不令人惊讶。
Of course, wages are growing at 4 or 5 percent. A year that's going to draw more people in. Again, the peak was 83.1 pre-pandemic and now it's 83.3. What's changed, of course, is that the labor force participation for those who are 55 and above the older demographic, the boomers. Now the 55 and above labor force participation was around 40 percent pre-pandemic. And it's just plummeted to 38.4 percent and it did not rebound. It doesn't look like it's going to rebound. I think that's the big reason for labor market tightness. We just lost a lot of workers who left and didn't want to come back.
当然，薪资增长率为4或5％。这会吸引更多的人参加劳动力市场。在疫情之前的峰值是83.1，现在是83.3。当然，55岁及以上的老年群体的劳动参与率发生了变化。疫情之前，55岁及以上的劳动参与率约为40％。现在它直线下降至38.4％，并未反弹。看起来它不会反弹。我认为这是劳动力市场紧缩的主要原因。我们失去了很多离开并不打算回来的工人。
It could be that they're concerned about health. It could be that, well, if you're a boomer, honestly, you did really well in life. You bought houses when they were cheap. Now they're, you rode the wave up in house prices and asset prices and you can easily retire if you want to. But if they're not coming back, that means that the labor market, of course, will structurally stay strong.
可能是他们担心健康问题。也可能是因为，如果你是婴儿潮一代，老实说，你在生活中做得很出色。你在房价低时买了房子。现在，你随着房价和资产价格上涨，可以随意退休。但如果他们不回来，那么劳动力市场结构性强劲将继续存在。
All right, so that's all I've prepared for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. Next week, we have to focus on CPI because, of course, the Fed focuses on CPI and the Fed is the most important force in markets these days. All right, talk to you guys next week.
好的，这就是我今天准备的全部内容。非常感谢你们的收听。下周，我们需要专注于消费者价格指数，因为当然，美联储专注于消费者价格指数，而美联储是目前市场上最重要的力量。好的，下周再和你们聊。