Marque的个人主页 - 老虎社区

Marque

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

1关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-06-23

Cool

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

Nice

Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Nice

Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In "Heat-Seeking Missiles": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Nice

5 Stocks To Watch For June 21, 2021<blockquote>2021 年 6 月 21 日值得关注的 5 只股票</blockquote>

2021-06-18

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3574901589558734","uuid":"3574901589558734","gmtCreate":1611807566244,"gmtModify":1611807566244,"name":"Marque","pinyin":"marque","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":1,"tweetSize":12,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-4","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"明星虎友","description":"加入老虎社区2000天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dddf24b906c7011de2617d4fb3f76987","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53d58ad32c97254c6f74db8b97e6ec49","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6304700d92ad91c7a33e2e92ec32ecc1","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.07.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":123091858,"gmtCreate":1624402472174,"gmtModify":1634006804989,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123091858","repostId":"1190428306","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3471,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":123091034,"gmtCreate":1624402459928,"gmtModify":1634006805352,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123091034","repostId":"1169498109","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3620,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":123093291,"gmtCreate":1624402447713,"gmtModify":1634006805795,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123093291","repostId":"1118580429","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2050,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129775610,"gmtCreate":1624401537630,"gmtModify":1634006820111,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129775610","repostId":"1180651681","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1180651681","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624374662,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1180651681?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 23:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1180651681","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary ","content":"<p><b>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder</b></p><p><blockquote><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</b></blockquote></p><p> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动快速周期性增长反弹，甚至欢迎通胀回升。这与老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似的周期性反弹形成鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote></p><p> <i><b>Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.</b></i></p><p><blockquote><i><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了需要的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情况时设计的软着陆相比，目前的方法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> <u><b>2021 vs. 1994</b></u></p><p><blockquote><u><b>2021年对1994年</b></u></blockquote></p><p> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的经济有很多与1994年相同的特点。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲的反弹反映了经济的重新开放以及宽松的货币和财政刺激。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote></p><p> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.</p><p><blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021 年的快速增长更快、更广泛。普遍估计，2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote></p><p> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.<b>Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.</b></p><p><blockquote>2021 年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率年化率为 5%，而通胀率在 1994 年达到峰值 3%。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。<b>中间材料的核心价格上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</b></blockquote></p><p> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.</p><p><blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，认为多个产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote></p><p> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.<b>A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.</b></p><p><blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者终止所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划削减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前，它不能这样做。那毫无意义。<b>一项推动不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策，今天是错误的，明天会更加错误。</b></blockquote></p><p> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.</p><p><blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者看到强劲的订单和材料价格上涨，证明公司需要更多的库存来保护生产计划。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年，决策者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%翻了一番，提高到6%。官方利率的上升导致了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\"><b>The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome</b>. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.</p><p><blockquote><b>目前零利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性更大</b>.美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在经济快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策已不再必要，在此过程中，经济将走上一条不可持续的道路，最终结局将很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSomeone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-22 23:11</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder</b></p><p><blockquote><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</b></blockquote></p><p> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动快速周期性增长反弹，甚至欢迎通胀回升。这与老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似的周期性反弹形成鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote></p><p> <i><b>Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.</b></i></p><p><blockquote><i><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了需要的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情况时设计的软着陆相比，目前的方法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> <u><b>2021 vs. 1994</b></u></p><p><blockquote><u><b>2021年对1994年</b></u></blockquote></p><p> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的经济有很多与1994年相同的特点。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲的反弹反映了经济的重新开放以及宽松的货币和财政刺激。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote></p><p> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.</p><p><blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021 年的快速增长更快、更广泛。普遍估计，2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote></p><p> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.<b>Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.</b></p><p><blockquote>2021 年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率年化率为 5%，而通胀率在 1994 年达到峰值 3%。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。<b>中间材料的核心价格上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</b></blockquote></p><p> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.</p><p><blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，认为多个产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote></p><p> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.<b>A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.</b></p><p><blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者终止所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划削减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前，它不能这样做。那毫无意义。<b>一项推动不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策，今天是错误的，明天会更加错误。</b></blockquote></p><p> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.</p><p><blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者看到强劲的订单和材料价格上涨，证明公司需要更多的库存来保护生产计划。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年，决策者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%翻了一番，提高到6%。官方利率的上升导致了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\"><b>The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome</b>. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.</p><p><blockquote><b>目前零利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性更大</b>.美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在经济快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策已不再必要，在此过程中，经济将走上一条不可持续的道路，最终结局将很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1180651681","content_text":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.\nSomeone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.\n2021 vs. 1994\nThe economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.\n2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.\nCore consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.\nThe current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.\nInstitutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.\nIn 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.\nThe current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3784,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120107540,"gmtCreate":1624312281780,"gmtModify":1634008117498,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120107540","repostId":"1193353084","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2538,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104404,"gmtCreate":1624312219508,"gmtModify":1634008118321,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104404","repostId":"1127414335","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2579,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104885,"gmtCreate":1624312206647,"gmtModify":1634008118689,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104885","repostId":"1146982088","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146982088","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624259620,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1146982088?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 15:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146982088","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpect","content":"<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPowell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-21 15:13</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146982088","content_text":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.\nWhat does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.\nBut what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.\nThe problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:\n\n When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.\n\nBottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"\nIn retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.\nNeedless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"\nWhat he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.\nIn other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"\nHe's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"\nIndeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.\nTo help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.\nThis process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.\nAnd here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"\nBottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.\nOr, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.\nBottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"\nTranslation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1676,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104105,"gmtCreate":1624312193107,"gmtModify":1634008118812,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104105","repostId":"1155858890","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2679,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120073619,"gmtCreate":1624290175831,"gmtModify":1634008285604,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120073619","repostId":"1155858890","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1671,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120073072,"gmtCreate":1624290158596,"gmtModify":1634008285972,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120073072","repostId":"1150200078","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3679,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167793340,"gmtCreate":1624283973480,"gmtModify":1634008416181,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167793340","repostId":"2145086044","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2145086044","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Stock Market Quotes, Business News, Financial News, Trading Ideas, and Stock Research by Professionals","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Benzinga Earnings","id":"1052270027","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d08bf7808052c0ca9deb4e944cae32aa"},"pubTimestamp":1624263746,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/2145086044?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 16:22","market":"us","language":"en","title":"5 Stocks To Watch For June 21, 2021<blockquote>2021 年 6 月 21 日值得关注的 5 只股票</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2145086044","media":"Benzinga Earnings","summary":"Some of the stocks that may grab investor focus today are:","content":"<p>Some of the stocks that may grab investor focus today are:</p><p><blockquote>今天可能吸引投资者关注的一些股票是：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><b>Amazon.com, Inc. </b> (NASDAQ:AMZN) will remain in focus with the company’s two-day Prime shopping event beginning today. Amazon Prime Day was first observed on July 15, 2015, in celebration of the company’s 20th anniversary. Amazon shares slipped 0.1% to settle at $3,486.90 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Pfizer Inc </b>(NYSE:PFE) COVID-19 vaccine received provisional approval for use in the age group 12 to 15 from New Zealand's medical regulator, Stuff reported. Pfizer shares fell 0.3% to close at $38.70 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Orphazyme A S ADR </b>(NASDAQ:ORPH) shares dipped around 50% on Friday after the company announced it received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for its treatment for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C and also cut its FY2021 outlook. Orphazyme shares tumbled 49.7% to close at $7.33 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Globus Maritime Ltd </b>(NASDAQ:GLBS) reported total comprehensive loss of $0.8 million for the first quarter, compared to $9 million loss in the year-ago period. Its voyage revenues surged to $5.2 million from $2.3 million. Globus Maritime shares gained 0.8% to close at $5.06 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Beigene Ltd </b>(NASDAQ:BGNE) disclosed that BRUKINSA received an approval from the China National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Beigene shares dropped 2.2% to settle at $321.81 on Friday.</li> </ul></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><b>亚马逊公司。</b>(纳斯达克股票代码：AMZN）将继续成为该公司为期两天的 Prime 购物活动的焦点。亚马逊 Prime Day 于 2015 年 7 月 15 日首次举办，以庆祝公司成立 20 周年。亚马逊股价周五下跌 0.1%，收于 3,486.90 美元。</li><li><b>辉瑞公司</b>据 Stuff 报道，（纽约证券交易所股票代码：PFE）COVID-19 疫苗已获得新西兰医疗监管机构的临时批准，可在 12 至 15 岁年龄段使用。辉瑞股价周五下跌 0.3%，收于 38.70 美元。</li><li><b>Orphazyme As ADR</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：ORPH）周五股价下跌约 50%，此前该公司宣布收到 FDA 对其治疗 C 型尼曼匹克病的完整回复信，并下调了 2021 财年展望。Orphazyme 股价周五暴跌 49.7%，收于 7.33 美元。</li><li><b>环球海事有限公司</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：GLBS）报告第一季度综合亏损总额为 80 万美元，而去年同期亏损 900 万美元。其航行收入从 230 万美元飙升至 520 万美元。Globus Maritime 股价周五上涨 0.8%，收于 5.06 美元。</li><li><b>百济神州有限公司</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：BGNE）披露，BRUKINSA获得中国国家药品监督管理局批准，用于治疗复发或难治性Waldenström巨球蛋白血症成人患者。百济神州股价周五下跌 2.2%，收于 321.81 美元。</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>5 Stocks To Watch For June 21, 2021<blockquote>2021 年 6 月 21 日值得关注的 5 只股票</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n5 Stocks To Watch For June 21, 2021<blockquote>2021 年 6 月 21 日值得关注的 5 只股票</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<div class=\"head\" \">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/d08bf7808052c0ca9deb4e944cae32aa);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Benzinga Earnings </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-06-21 16:22</p>\n</div>\n</div>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Some of the stocks that may grab investor focus today are:</p><p><blockquote>今天可能吸引投资者关注的一些股票是：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><b>Amazon.com, Inc. </b> (NASDAQ:AMZN) will remain in focus with the company’s two-day Prime shopping event beginning today. Amazon Prime Day was first observed on July 15, 2015, in celebration of the company’s 20th anniversary. Amazon shares slipped 0.1% to settle at $3,486.90 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Pfizer Inc </b>(NYSE:PFE) COVID-19 vaccine received provisional approval for use in the age group 12 to 15 from New Zealand's medical regulator, Stuff reported. Pfizer shares fell 0.3% to close at $38.70 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Orphazyme A S ADR </b>(NASDAQ:ORPH) shares dipped around 50% on Friday after the company announced it received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for its treatment for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C and also cut its FY2021 outlook. Orphazyme shares tumbled 49.7% to close at $7.33 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Globus Maritime Ltd </b>(NASDAQ:GLBS) reported total comprehensive loss of $0.8 million for the first quarter, compared to $9 million loss in the year-ago period. Its voyage revenues surged to $5.2 million from $2.3 million. Globus Maritime shares gained 0.8% to close at $5.06 on Friday.</li>  <li><b>Beigene Ltd </b>(NASDAQ:BGNE) disclosed that BRUKINSA received an approval from the China National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Beigene shares dropped 2.2% to settle at $321.81 on Friday.</li> </ul></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><b>亚马逊公司。</b>(纳斯达克股票代码：AMZN）将继续成为该公司为期两天的 Prime 购物活动的焦点。亚马逊 Prime Day 于 2015 年 7 月 15 日首次举办，以庆祝公司成立 20 周年。亚马逊股价周五下跌 0.1%，收于 3,486.90 美元。</li><li><b>辉瑞公司</b>据 Stuff 报道，（纽约证券交易所股票代码：PFE）COVID-19 疫苗已获得新西兰医疗监管机构的临时批准，可在 12 至 15 岁年龄段使用。辉瑞股价周五下跌 0.3%，收于 38.70 美元。</li><li><b>Orphazyme As ADR</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：ORPH）周五股价下跌约 50%，此前该公司宣布收到 FDA 对其治疗 C 型尼曼匹克病的完整回复信，并下调了 2021 财年展望。Orphazyme 股价周五暴跌 49.7%，收于 7.33 美元。</li><li><b>环球海事有限公司</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：GLBS）报告第一季度综合亏损总额为 80 万美元，而去年同期亏损 900 万美元。其航行收入从 230 万美元飙升至 520 万美元。Globus Maritime 股价周五上涨 0.8%，收于 5.06 美元。</li><li><b>百济神州有限公司</b>（纳斯达克股票代码：BGNE）披露，BRUKINSA获得中国国家药品监督管理局批准，用于治疗复发或难治性Waldenström巨球蛋白血症成人患者。百济神州股价周五下跌 2.2%，收于 321.81 美元。</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PFE":"辉瑞","03086":"华夏纳指","AMZN":"亚马逊","QNETCN":"纳斯达克中美互联网老虎指数","GLBS":"Globus Maritime Limited","09086":"华夏纳指-U"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2145086044","content_text":"Some of the stocks that may grab investor focus today are:\n\nAmazon.com, Inc.  (NASDAQ:AMZN) will remain in focus with the company’s two-day Prime shopping event beginning today. Amazon Prime Day was first observed on July 15, 2015, in celebration of the company’s 20th anniversary. Amazon shares slipped 0.1% to settle at $3,486.90 on Friday.\nPfizer Inc (NYSE:PFE) COVID-19 vaccine received provisional approval for use in the age group 12 to 15 from New Zealand's medical regulator, Stuff reported. Pfizer shares fell 0.3% to close at $38.70 on Friday.\nOrphazyme A S ADR (NASDAQ:ORPH) shares dipped around 50% on Friday after the company announced it received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for its treatment for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C and also cut its FY2021 outlook. Orphazyme shares tumbled 49.7% to close at $7.33 on Friday.\nGlobus Maritime Ltd (NASDAQ:GLBS) reported total comprehensive loss of $0.8 million for the first quarter, compared to $9 million loss in the year-ago period. Its voyage revenues surged to $5.2 million from $2.3 million. Globus Maritime shares gained 0.8% to close at $5.06 on Friday.\nBeigene Ltd (NASDAQ:BGNE) disclosed that BRUKINSA received an approval from the China National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Beigene shares dropped 2.2% to settle at $321.81 on Friday.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"ORPH":0.9,"03086":0.9,"GLBS":0.9,"QNETCN":0.9,"09086":0.9,"AMZN":0.9,"PFE":0.9,"BGNE":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":803,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":168349394,"gmtCreate":1623953994518,"gmtModify":1634025285632,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/168349394","repostId":"2144742672","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":810,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":123091034,"gmtCreate":1624402459928,"gmtModify":1634006805352,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123091034","repostId":"1169498109","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3620,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104105,"gmtCreate":1624312193107,"gmtModify":1634008118812,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104105","repostId":"1155858890","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2679,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":123093291,"gmtCreate":1624402447713,"gmtModify":1634006805795,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123093291","repostId":"1118580429","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2050,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":123091858,"gmtCreate":1624402472174,"gmtModify":1634006804989,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123091858","repostId":"1190428306","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3471,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129775610,"gmtCreate":1624401537630,"gmtModify":1634006820111,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129775610","repostId":"1180651681","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1180651681","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624374662,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1180651681?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 23:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1180651681","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary ","content":"<p><b>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder</b></p><p><blockquote><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</b></blockquote></p><p> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动快速周期性增长反弹，甚至欢迎通胀回升。这与老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似的周期性反弹形成鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote></p><p> <i><b>Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.</b></i></p><p><blockquote><i><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了需要的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情况时设计的软着陆相比，目前的方法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> <u><b>2021 vs. 1994</b></u></p><p><blockquote><u><b>2021年对1994年</b></u></blockquote></p><p> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的经济有很多与1994年相同的特点。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲的反弹反映了经济的重新开放以及宽松的货币和财政刺激。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote></p><p> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.</p><p><blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021 年的快速增长更快、更广泛。普遍估计，2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote></p><p> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.<b>Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.</b></p><p><blockquote>2021 年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率年化率为 5%，而通胀率在 1994 年达到峰值 3%。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。<b>中间材料的核心价格上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</b></blockquote></p><p> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.</p><p><blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，认为多个产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote></p><p> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.<b>A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.</b></p><p><blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者终止所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划削减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前，它不能这样做。那毫无意义。<b>一项推动不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策，今天是错误的，明天会更加错误。</b></blockquote></p><p> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.</p><p><blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者看到强劲的订单和材料价格上涨，证明公司需要更多的库存来保护生产计划。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年，决策者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%翻了一番，提高到6%。官方利率的上升导致了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\"><b>The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome</b>. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.</p><p><blockquote><b>目前零利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性更大</b>.美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在经济快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策已不再必要，在此过程中，经济将走上一条不可持续的道路，最终结局将很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSomeone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-22 23:11</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder</b></p><p><blockquote><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</b></blockquote></p><p> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动快速周期性增长反弹，甚至欢迎通胀回升。这与老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似的周期性反弹形成鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote></p><p> <i><b>Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.</b></i></p><p><blockquote><i><b>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了需要的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情况时设计的软着陆相比，目前的方法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> <u><b>2021 vs. 1994</b></u></p><p><blockquote><u><b>2021年对1994年</b></u></blockquote></p><p> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.</p><p><blockquote>2021年的经济有很多与1994年相同的特点。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲的反弹反映了经济的重新开放以及宽松的货币和财政刺激。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote></p><p> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.</p><p><blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021 年的快速增长更快、更广泛。普遍估计，2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote></p><p> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.<b>Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.</b></p><p><blockquote>2021 年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率年化率为 5%，而通胀率在 1994 年达到峰值 3%。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。<b>中间材料的核心价格上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</b></blockquote></p><p> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.</p><p><blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，认为多个产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote></p><p> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.<b>A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.</b></p><p><blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者终止所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划削减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前，它不能这样做。那毫无意义。<b>一项推动不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策，今天是错误的，明天会更加错误。</b></blockquote></p><p> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.</p><p><blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者看到强劲的订单和材料价格上涨，证明公司需要更多的库存来保护生产计划。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年，决策者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%翻了一番，提高到6%。官方利率的上升导致了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\"><b>The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome</b>. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.</p><p><blockquote><b>目前零利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性更大</b>.美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在经济快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策已不再必要，在此过程中，经济将走上一条不可持续的道路，最终结局将很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1180651681","content_text":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.\nSomeone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.\n2021 vs. 1994\nThe economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.\n2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.\nCore consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.\nThe current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.\nInstitutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.\nIn 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.\nThe current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3784,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104404,"gmtCreate":1624312219508,"gmtModify":1634008118321,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104404","repostId":"1127414335","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2579,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120104885,"gmtCreate":1624312206647,"gmtModify":1634008118689,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120104885","repostId":"1146982088","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146982088","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624259620,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1146982088?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 15:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146982088","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpect","content":"<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPowell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-21 15:13</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146982088","content_text":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.\nWhat does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.\nBut what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.\nThe problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:\n\n When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.\n\nBottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"\nIn retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.\nNeedless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"\nWhat he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.\nIn other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"\nHe's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"\nIndeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.\nTo help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.\nThis process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.\nAnd here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"\nBottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.\nOr, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.\nBottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"\nTranslation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1676,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120107540,"gmtCreate":1624312281780,"gmtModify":1634008117498,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120107540","repostId":"1193353084","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2538,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120073619,"gmtCreate":1624290175831,"gmtModify":1634008285604,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120073619","repostId":"1155858890","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1671,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120073072,"gmtCreate":1624290158596,"gmtModify":1634008285972,"author":{"id":"3574901589558734","authorId":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorIdStr":"3574901589558734"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120073072","repostId":"1150200078","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3679,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}