Samuelkor的个人主页 - 老虎社区

Samuelkor

Samuelkor

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

6关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-06-22

Wow

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Up up up....

A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>

2021-06-18

Comment and like please

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-16

Like and comment please.

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-16

Moon

ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</blockquote>

2021-06-15

Ok

Investors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</blockquote>

2021-06-15

Like

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-15

Like like..

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-15

$Twitter(TWTR)$go go go...

2021-06-13

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-13

like

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-13

Like 👍

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-12

Next week to moon?

AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>

2021-06-12

Amc

AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3581676054477891","uuid":"3581676054477891","gmtCreate":1618582273043,"gmtModify":1624350632033,"name":"Samuelkor","pinyin":"samuelkor","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":6,"tweetSize":14,"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":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.09.01","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"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,"redirectLink":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}],"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":129046012,"gmtCreate":1624347732536,"gmtModify":1634007446126,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129046012","repostId":"1129393435","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1515,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129041884,"gmtCreate":1624347597948,"gmtModify":1634007447290,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Up up up....","listText":"Up up up....","text":"Up up up....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129041884","repostId":"1195801914","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195801914","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624346913,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1195801914?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 15:28","market":"us","language":"en","title":"A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195801914","media":"zerohedge","summary":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that ","content":"<p>In its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.</p><p><blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote></p><p> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.</p><p><blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expects<b>the corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.</b>A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计<b>企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。</b>资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,<b>with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.</b>This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.</p><p><blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，<b>颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。</b>这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:</i></p><p><blockquote><i>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</i></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.</b>Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.</p><p><blockquote><b>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。</b>参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote></p><p> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.</p><p><blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote></p><p> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.</p><p><blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.</p><p><blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote></p><p> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.</p><p><blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.</p><p><blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote></p><p> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.</p><p><blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.</b>While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.</p><p><blockquote><b>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。</b>虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote></p><p> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.</p><p><blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote></p><p> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.</p><p><blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote></p><p> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.</p><p><blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law</b>. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.</p><p><blockquote><b>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性</b>.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote></p><p> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.</p><p><blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</i></blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.</b>Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).</p><p><blockquote><b>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。</b>过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.</p><p><blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote></p><p> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.</p><p><blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote></p><p> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\"><i>Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.</b>Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。</b>假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote></p><p> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.</p><p><blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will taxes increase?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：税收会增加吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.</b>Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.</p><p><blockquote><b>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。</b>任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote></p><p> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.</p><p><blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote></p><p> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.</p><p><blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: When will all of this happen?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.</b>As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。</b>如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote></p><p> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.</p><p><blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.</p><p><blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote></p><p> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.</p><p><blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.</p><p><blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</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>A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</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\">\nA Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</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 15:28</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>In its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.</p><p><blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote></p><p> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.</p><p><blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expects<b>the corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.</b>A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计<b>企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。</b>资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,<b>with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.</b>This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.</p><p><blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，<b>颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。</b>这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:</i></p><p><blockquote><i>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</i></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.</b>Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.</p><p><blockquote><b>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。</b>参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote></p><p> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.</p><p><blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote></p><p> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.</p><p><blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.</p><p><blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote></p><p> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.</p><p><blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.</p><p><blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote></p><p> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.</p><p><blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.</b>While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.</p><p><blockquote><b>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。</b>虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote></p><p> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.</p><p><blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote></p><p> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.</p><p><blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote></p><p> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.</p><p><blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law</b>. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.</p><p><blockquote><b>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性</b>.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote></p><p> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.</p><p><blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</i></blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.</b>Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).</p><p><blockquote><b>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。</b>过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.</p><p><blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote></p><p> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.</p><p><blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote></p><p> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\"><i>Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.</b>Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。</b>假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote></p><p> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.</p><p><blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will taxes increase?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：税收会增加吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.</b>Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.</p><p><blockquote><b>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。</b>任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote></p><p> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.</p><p><blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote></p><p> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.</p><p><blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: When will all of this happen?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.</b>As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。</b>如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote></p><p> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.</p><p><blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.</p><p><blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote></p><p> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.</p><p><blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.</p><p><blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman\">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",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1195801914","content_text":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.\nReading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.\nMeanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expectsthe corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.\nFinally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.\nBelow we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&A:\nQ: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.\nUnsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.\nMore controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.\n\nOther areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.\nThe greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.\nThe most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.\nIn our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.\nQ: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?\nIf a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.\nFirst, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.\nSecond, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.\nThird, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.\nQ: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.\nBy contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.\nQ: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?\nCongress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).\nHowever, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.\nAt the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.\nThe uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.\nThat said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.\nQ: How much will legislation this year increase spending?\nWe think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.\nCentrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.\nAssuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.\nQ: Will taxes increase?\nAssuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.\nInstead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.\nOn the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.\n\nQ: When will all of this happen?\nWe expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.\nIn September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.\nSecond, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.\nThird, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.\nWith those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2724,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166616016,"gmtCreate":1624005748535,"gmtModify":1634024229516,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Comment and like please","listText":"Comment and like please","text":"Comment and like please","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166616016","repostId":"2144056746","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1878,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":169082010,"gmtCreate":1623809207430,"gmtModify":1634027791054,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like and comment please.","listText":"Like and comment please.","text":"Like and comment please.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/169082010","repostId":"2143768355","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1292,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":169034711,"gmtCreate":1623808711433,"gmtModify":1634027804720,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Moon","listText":"Moon","text":"Moon","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/169034711","repostId":"1185254731","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1185254731","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1623764438,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1185254731?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-15 21:40","market":"us","language":"en","title":"ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1185254731","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"(June 15) ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago.  ContextLogic gained nearly 6% for n","content":"<p>(June&nbsp;15)&nbsp;ContextLogic gained as much as 10%&nbsp;a few minutes ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;ContextLogic gained&nbsp;nearly&nbsp;6%&nbsp;for&nbsp;now.</p><p><blockquote>（6月15日）ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅一度高达10%ContextLogic暂涨近6%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/83f3eeb6c29b019970adceac690d15c3\" tg-width=\"663\" tg-height=\"440\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> ContextLogic&nbsp;signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop&nbsp;yesterday.</p><p><blockquote>ContextLogic昨天与电子商务平台PrestaShop签署了为期两年的合作伙伴关系。</blockquote></p><p> More than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.</p><p><blockquote>PrestaShop平台上超过300,000家商家和品牌将能够在Wish marketplace上轻松向数百万消费者销售产品。</blockquote></p><p> Alan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”</p><p><blockquote>Wish欧洲高级业务开发经理Alan Small表示：“Wish通过以实惠的价格提供高质量的产品和个性化、有趣的购物体验，为全球数百万消费者提供服务。与PrestaShop合作将使我们能够为消费者提供更多优质商家和品牌，并为PrestaShop商家提供全球交易平台。”</blockquote></p><p> Last week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.</p><p><blockquote>上周，该公司股价因在WallStreetBets Reddit论坛上引起关注而飙升。</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>ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</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\">\nContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-06-15 21:40</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(June&nbsp;15)&nbsp;ContextLogic gained as much as 10%&nbsp;a few minutes ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;ContextLogic gained&nbsp;nearly&nbsp;6%&nbsp;for&nbsp;now.</p><p><blockquote>（6月15日）ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅一度高达10%ContextLogic暂涨近6%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/83f3eeb6c29b019970adceac690d15c3\" tg-width=\"663\" tg-height=\"440\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> ContextLogic&nbsp;signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop&nbsp;yesterday.</p><p><blockquote>ContextLogic昨天与电子商务平台PrestaShop签署了为期两年的合作伙伴关系。</blockquote></p><p> More than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.</p><p><blockquote>PrestaShop平台上超过300,000家商家和品牌将能够在Wish marketplace上轻松向数百万消费者销售产品。</blockquote></p><p> Alan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”</p><p><blockquote>Wish欧洲高级业务开发经理Alan Small表示：“Wish通过以实惠的价格提供高质量的产品和个性化、有趣的购物体验，为全球数百万消费者提供服务。与PrestaShop合作将使我们能够为消费者提供更多优质商家和品牌，并为PrestaShop商家提供全球交易平台。”</blockquote></p><p> Last week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.</p><p><blockquote>上周，该公司股价因在WallStreetBets Reddit论坛上引起关注而飙升。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1185254731","content_text":"(June 15) ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago.  ContextLogic gained nearly 6% for now.\n\nContextLogic signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop yesterday.\nMore than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.\nAlan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”\nLast week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"WISH":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1352,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160304529,"gmtCreate":1623771278761,"gmtModify":1634028509375,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160304529","repostId":"1145996523","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145996523","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623751116,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1145996523?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-15 17:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145996523","media":"cnn","summary":"New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it co","content":"<p>New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.</p><p><blockquote>纽约（CNN Business）在通货膨胀方面，大街和华尔街之间存在巨大的脱节。总得有所让步。</blockquote></p><p> The US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府上周报告称，5月份不包括食品和能源的消费者价格涨幅为1992年以来最快。宣伟(SHW)正在提高油漆价格，这是众多应对大宗商品成本上涨的公司之一。</blockquote></p><p> Food prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).</p><p><blockquote>食品价格也在飙升。Chipotle(CMG)刚刚提高了价格。金宝汤（CPB）也是如此。</blockquote></p><p> And the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave &amp; Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.</p><p><blockquote>餐厅和街机连锁店Dave&amp;Buster's(PLAY)的首席财务官在最近与分析师举行的财报看涨期权上表示，由于鸡肉、牛肉和乳制品价格上涨，他预计2021年食品成本将上涨6%至8%。</blockquote></p><p> Wages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.</p><p><blockquote>工资也在上涨，尤其是随着经济重新开放而重返工作岗位的零售、休闲和酒店行业的工人。这增加了通胀压力，因为一些公司会选择提高价格以维持利润。</blockquote></p><p> Labor shortages aren't helping.</p><p><blockquote>劳动力短缺无济于事。</blockquote></p><p> The CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.</p><p><blockquote>在线宠物零售商Chewy(CHWY)的首席执行官在最新财报发布后致股东的一封信中写道，该公司“面临着与全国许多公司类似的劳动力短缺问题”。因此，Chewy继续“投资于更高的工资和福利”，以填补职位空缺。</blockquote></p><p> Yet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.</p><p><blockquote>然而，投资者和美联储对通胀上升不屑一顾，认为这是“暂时的”。长期债券收益率正在下降，这通常不会在通胀加剧时发生。如果债券投资者认为价格上涨将持续下去，他们就会要求更高的收益率。</blockquote></p><p> And the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.</p><p><blockquote>市场预计美联储年底加息的可能性仅为3%。这低于一个月前10%的加息可能性。投资者知道加息是央行对抗通胀上升的最佳工具，当美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔在周三的新闻发布会上发表讲话时，他们希望听到更多有关该主题的信息。</blockquote></p><p> \"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.</p><p><blockquote>沃伦金融公司首席执行官兰迪·沃伦表示：“债券市场仍然不担心通胀。它正在购买美联储正在出售的东西。”</blockquote></p><p> The problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.</p><p><blockquote>问题是，美联储可能会等待太久才对通胀做出反应。</blockquote></p><p> \"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"</p><p><blockquote>“通货膨胀是暂时的还是更具结构性的？”PineBridge Investments信贷和固定收益全球主管Steven Oh问道。“美联储将来会失去对它的控制，犯政策错误，没有能力控制它吗？”</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储和债券市场对通胀的看法是错误的，那么央行可能不得不以比其和投资者希望的更快的速度结束疫情刺激措施。这将意味着取消大规模资产购买并尽早加息。</blockquote></p><p> Oh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.</p><p><blockquote>哦，我不认为会是这样。许多其他人也同意。他们认为，投资者必须牢记经济复苏的速度有多快。</blockquote></p><p> For that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.</p><p><blockquote>因此，就业市场和供应链出现混乱也就不足为奇了。恢复到2019年底和2020年初新冠肺炎之前的水平需要时间。</blockquote></p><p> \"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"</p><p><blockquote>财富管理公司Clarus Group的负责人布莱恩·科斯洛(Bryan Koslow)表示：“关于通货膨胀有很多问题，因为你在日常生活中都会看到它。”“但我们可能已经看到了峰值，尤其是在工资增长方面。”</blockquote></p><p> Even if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.</p><p><blockquote>即使事实证明这是真的，投资者和消费者如此关注价格这一事实也值得注意。十多年来，通货膨胀基本上不是问题。</blockquote></p><p> \"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.</p><p><blockquote>SkyBridge Capital联席首席投资官兼高级投资组合经理Troy Gayeski表示：“美联储必须认真对待通胀担忧。”他补充说，他认为通胀压力有20%的可能性变得更加持久，而不是暂时的。</blockquote></p><p> \"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.</p><p><blockquote>“自2008年以来，有意义的通胀风险一直不存在。直到现在，”Gayeski说。</blockquote></p><p> <b>What's getting more expensive</b></p><p><blockquote><b>什么越来越贵</b></blockquote></p><p> Food and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.</p><p><blockquote>食物和油漆并不是唯一变得更贵的东西。正如CNN商业频道的莫伊拉·里特(Moira Ritter)指出的那样，最近几乎所有东西的价格都在上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Lumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.</p><p><blockquote>木材价格飙升。房地产市场继续繁荣。这导致沙发和其他家居用品的价格大幅上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Used cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.</p><p><blockquote>二手车也贵得多。这归因于人们重返工作岗位，以及由于芯片供应短缺损害了新车的生产，经销商处新车短缺。</blockquote></p><p> People are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.</p><p><blockquote>人们也越来越多地旅行。由于预期一些人所说的“炙手可热的疫苗之夏”，机票价格飙升。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Up next</b></p><p><blockquote><b>下一个</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Tuesday: </b>US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H &amp; R Block (HRB)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期二：</b>美国零售额；美国生产者价格指数；Oracle(ORCL)和H&amp;R Block(HRB)的收益</blockquote></p><p> <b>Wednesday: </b>Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期三：</b>美联储利率决定；美国新屋开工和建筑许可；EIA原油库存；Lennar(LEN)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Thursday: </b>US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期四：</b>美国初请失业金人数；克罗格(KR)和Adobe(ADBE)的收益</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>Investors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</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\">\nInvestors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">cnn</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-15 17:58</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.</p><p><blockquote>纽约（CNN Business）在通货膨胀方面，大街和华尔街之间存在巨大的脱节。总得有所让步。</blockquote></p><p> The US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府上周报告称，5月份不包括食品和能源的消费者价格涨幅为1992年以来最快。宣伟(SHW)正在提高油漆价格，这是众多应对大宗商品成本上涨的公司之一。</blockquote></p><p> Food prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).</p><p><blockquote>食品价格也在飙升。Chipotle(CMG)刚刚提高了价格。金宝汤（CPB）也是如此。</blockquote></p><p> And the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave &amp; Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.</p><p><blockquote>餐厅和街机连锁店Dave&amp;Buster's(PLAY)的首席财务官在最近与分析师举行的财报看涨期权上表示，由于鸡肉、牛肉和乳制品价格上涨，他预计2021年食品成本将上涨6%至8%。</blockquote></p><p> Wages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.</p><p><blockquote>工资也在上涨，尤其是随着经济重新开放而重返工作岗位的零售、休闲和酒店行业的工人。这增加了通胀压力，因为一些公司会选择提高价格以维持利润。</blockquote></p><p> Labor shortages aren't helping.</p><p><blockquote>劳动力短缺无济于事。</blockquote></p><p> The CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.</p><p><blockquote>在线宠物零售商Chewy(CHWY)的首席执行官在最新财报发布后致股东的一封信中写道，该公司“面临着与全国许多公司类似的劳动力短缺问题”。因此，Chewy继续“投资于更高的工资和福利”，以填补职位空缺。</blockquote></p><p> Yet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.</p><p><blockquote>然而，投资者和美联储对通胀上升不屑一顾，认为这是“暂时的”。长期债券收益率正在下降，这通常不会在通胀加剧时发生。如果债券投资者认为价格上涨将持续下去，他们就会要求更高的收益率。</blockquote></p><p> And the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.</p><p><blockquote>市场预计美联储年底加息的可能性仅为3%。这低于一个月前10%的加息可能性。投资者知道加息是央行对抗通胀上升的最佳工具，当美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔在周三的新闻发布会上发表讲话时，他们希望听到更多有关该主题的信息。</blockquote></p><p> \"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.</p><p><blockquote>沃伦金融公司首席执行官兰迪·沃伦表示：“债券市场仍然不担心通胀。它正在购买美联储正在出售的东西。”</blockquote></p><p> The problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.</p><p><blockquote>问题是，美联储可能会等待太久才对通胀做出反应。</blockquote></p><p> \"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"</p><p><blockquote>“通货膨胀是暂时的还是更具结构性的？”PineBridge Investments信贷和固定收益全球主管Steven Oh问道。“美联储将来会失去对它的控制，犯政策错误，没有能力控制它吗？”</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储和债券市场对通胀的看法是错误的，那么央行可能不得不以比其和投资者希望的更快的速度结束疫情刺激措施。这将意味着取消大规模资产购买并尽早加息。</blockquote></p><p> Oh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.</p><p><blockquote>哦，我不认为会是这样。许多其他人也同意。他们认为，投资者必须牢记经济复苏的速度有多快。</blockquote></p><p> For that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.</p><p><blockquote>因此，就业市场和供应链出现混乱也就不足为奇了。恢复到2019年底和2020年初新冠肺炎之前的水平需要时间。</blockquote></p><p> \"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"</p><p><blockquote>财富管理公司Clarus Group的负责人布莱恩·科斯洛(Bryan Koslow)表示：“关于通货膨胀有很多问题，因为你在日常生活中都会看到它。”“但我们可能已经看到了峰值，尤其是在工资增长方面。”</blockquote></p><p> Even if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.</p><p><blockquote>即使事实证明这是真的，投资者和消费者如此关注价格这一事实也值得注意。十多年来，通货膨胀基本上不是问题。</blockquote></p><p> \"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.</p><p><blockquote>SkyBridge Capital联席首席投资官兼高级投资组合经理Troy Gayeski表示：“美联储必须认真对待通胀担忧。”他补充说，他认为通胀压力有20%的可能性变得更加持久，而不是暂时的。</blockquote></p><p> \"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.</p><p><blockquote>“自2008年以来，有意义的通胀风险一直不存在。直到现在，”Gayeski说。</blockquote></p><p> <b>What's getting more expensive</b></p><p><blockquote><b>什么越来越贵</b></blockquote></p><p> Food and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.</p><p><blockquote>食物和油漆并不是唯一变得更贵的东西。正如CNN商业频道的莫伊拉·里特(Moira Ritter)指出的那样，最近几乎所有东西的价格都在上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Lumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.</p><p><blockquote>木材价格飙升。房地产市场继续繁荣。这导致沙发和其他家居用品的价格大幅上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Used cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.</p><p><blockquote>二手车也贵得多。这归因于人们重返工作岗位，以及由于芯片供应短缺损害了新车的生产，经销商处新车短缺。</blockquote></p><p> People are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.</p><p><blockquote>人们也越来越多地旅行。由于预期一些人所说的“炙手可热的疫苗之夏”，机票价格飙升。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Up next</b></p><p><blockquote><b>下一个</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Tuesday: </b>US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H &amp; R Block (HRB)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期二：</b>美国零售额；美国生产者价格指数；Oracle(ORCL)和H&amp;R Block(HRB)的收益</blockquote></p><p> <b>Wednesday: </b>Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期三：</b>美联储利率决定；美国新屋开工和建筑许可；EIA原油库存；Lennar(LEN)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Thursday: </b>US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期四：</b>美国初请失业金人数；克罗格(KR)和Adobe(ADBE)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/13/investing/stocks-week-ahead/index.html\">cnn</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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/13/investing/stocks-week-ahead/index.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145996523","content_text":"New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.\nThe US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.\nFood prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).\nAnd the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave & Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.\nWages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.\nLabor shortages aren't helping.\nThe CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.\nYet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.\nAnd the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.\n\"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.\nThe problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.\n\"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"\nIf the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.\nOh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.\nFor that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.\n\"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"\nEven if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.\n\"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.\n\"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.\nWhat's getting more expensive\nFood and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.\nLumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.\nUsed cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.\nPeople are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.\nUp next\nTuesday: US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H & R Block (HRB)\nWednesday: Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)\nThursday: US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2274,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160306948,"gmtCreate":1623771199584,"gmtModify":1634028512114,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like","listText":"Like","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160306948","repostId":"1127088935","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1654,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160308359,"gmtCreate":1623771181971,"gmtModify":1634028512822,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like like..","listText":"Like like..","text":"Like like..","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160308359","repostId":"1127088935","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1830,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160975674,"gmtCreate":1623770986598,"gmtModify":1631888437114,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">$Twitter(TWTR)$</a>go go go...","listText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">$Twitter(TWTR)$</a>go go go...","text":"$Twitter(TWTR)$go go go...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160975674","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1407,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182163418,"gmtCreate":1623558190534,"gmtModify":1634031714224,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"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/182163418","repostId":"2142878860","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3081,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182163972,"gmtCreate":1623558161996,"gmtModify":1634031714966,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like","listText":"like","text":"like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182163972","repostId":"2142378818","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":711,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182135636,"gmtCreate":1623557173125,"gmtModify":1634031735780,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like 👍","listText":"Like 👍","text":"Like 👍","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182135636","repostId":"2142204074","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":704,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186326685,"gmtCreate":1623474628347,"gmtModify":1634032627117,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Next week to moon?","listText":"Next week to moon?","text":"Next week to moon?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186326685","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</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":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":668,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186360390,"gmtCreate":1623474039310,"gmtModify":1634032639900,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Amc","listText":"Amc","text":"Amc","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186360390","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</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":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":233,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":129041884,"gmtCreate":1624347597948,"gmtModify":1634007447290,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Up up up....","listText":"Up up up....","text":"Up up up....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129041884","repostId":"1195801914","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195801914","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624346913,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1195801914?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 15:28","market":"us","language":"en","title":"A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195801914","media":"zerohedge","summary":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that ","content":"<p>In its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.</p><p><blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote></p><p> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.</p><p><blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expects<b>the corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.</b>A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计<b>企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。</b>资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,<b>with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.</b>This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.</p><p><blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，<b>颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。</b>这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:</i></p><p><blockquote><i>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</i></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.</b>Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.</p><p><blockquote><b>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。</b>参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote></p><p> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.</p><p><blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote></p><p> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.</p><p><blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.</p><p><blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote></p><p> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.</p><p><blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.</p><p><blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote></p><p> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.</p><p><blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.</b>While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.</p><p><blockquote><b>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。</b>虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote></p><p> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.</p><p><blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote></p><p> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.</p><p><blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote></p><p> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.</p><p><blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law</b>. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.</p><p><blockquote><b>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性</b>.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote></p><p> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.</p><p><blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</i></blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.</b>Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).</p><p><blockquote><b>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。</b>过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.</p><p><blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote></p><p> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.</p><p><blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote></p><p> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\"><i>Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.</b>Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。</b>假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote></p><p> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.</p><p><blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will taxes increase?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：税收会增加吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.</b>Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.</p><p><blockquote><b>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。</b>任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote></p><p> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.</p><p><blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote></p><p> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.</p><p><blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: When will all of this happen?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.</b>As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。</b>如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote></p><p> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.</p><p><blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.</p><p><blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote></p><p> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.</p><p><blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.</p><p><blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</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>A Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</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\">\nA Broad Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Unlikely: Goldman<blockquote>高盛：不太可能达成广泛的两党基础设施协议</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 15:28</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>In its latest Q&amp;A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.</p><p><blockquote>高盛经济团队在对美国财政政策状况的最新问答评估中写道，虽然“看起来仍基本有望满足我们的预期，但风险继续倾向于支出增长和增税幅度小于美国的预期。”我们预计十年内将达到3万亿美元和1.5万亿美元。”该银行随后指出，“虽然不能排除两党就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成协议的可能性，但我们仍然认为可能性很小，因为在融资方面似乎几乎没有达成一致。”相反，高盛预计国会将通过一项范围较窄的基础设施计划，主要关注交通运输。如果是这样，预计国会民主党人将在和解进程下开始推进更广泛的财政方案。</blockquote></p><p> Reading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&amp;D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.</p><p><blockquote>阅读最近的头条新闻，人们会留下广泛的支出结果的印象——十年内增加了几千亿美元到高达6万亿美元——但结果的范围并不像这些数字暗示的那样广泛。拜登总统提出的大部分“传统”基础设施看起来很可能会获得通过，同时还有大量的研发支出和年底到期的个人税收抵免的更新。在接下来的几年里，这些费用每年约占GDP的1%。拜登议程的其余部分可能会将支出再增加GDP的1%，但预计国会将大幅削减这些提案。</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expects<b>the corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.</b>A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，假设民主党利用和解程序通过立法，增税看起来仍有可能。这就是为什么高盛在这方面的观点没有太大改变，并且仍然预计<b>企业税率将稳定在25%左右，以及拜登提出的更多增量版本的国际税收改革。</b>资本利得税率上调是一个接近看涨期权，但28%的资本利得税率比现状的可能性略大。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,<b>with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.</b>This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.</p><p><blockquote>最后，财政行动的可能时机也发生了更明显的变化，<b>颁布可能会从第三季度中后期推迟到第四季度。</b>这在很大程度上是由于两党谈判持续的时间比我们预期的要长，这导致国会民主党领导人推迟了通过和解法案所需的第一步程序步骤。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Below we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&amp;A:</i></p><p><blockquote><i>下面我们重新发布高盛财政政策状况检查问答的关键方面：</i></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：两党会就一项广泛的基础设施法案达成协议吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.</b>Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.</p><p><blockquote><b>在我们看来，广泛的两党基础设施一揽子计划仍然不太可能。</b>参议院的谈判取得了进展，涵盖拜登总统计划中许多领域的两党法案获得通过的可能性有所增加。然而，我们仍然认为达成广泛协议存在障碍，并预计国会今年批准的大部分财政刺激将通过一项只有民主党支持才能通过的和解法案。</blockquote></p><p> Unsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.</p><p><blockquote>不出所料，在增加传统基础设施支出方面似乎达成了最多的共识。如图表1所示，目前参议院两党提案在交通基础设施的大多数领域接近白宫提案。</blockquote></p><p> More controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.</p><p><blockquote>更有争议的是如何解决非传统基础设施以及如何为任何新支出的成本融资。两党的最新努力似乎在前者上取得了一些进展。其中包括650亿美元的宽带投资，低于白宫提议的约1000亿美元，但这将是迄今为止最大的联邦投资，而且似乎足够接近民主党的目标，仅这个问题似乎不太可能阻碍达成协议。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70d0d7b968b10f5764ef17cd3c787d53\" tg-width=\"944\" tg-height=\"1186\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Other areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.</p><p><blockquote>两党讨论中的其他非传统基础设施领域与白宫的目标相去甚远。例如，参议院共和党人看起来不太可能支持为电动汽车或经济适用房建设提供大量资金。清洁能源更多是一个灰色地带；国会此前已在两党基础上批准了一系列针对能源效率和风能、太阳能和生物燃料等可再生能源的不同激励措施。然而，拜登总统提出的计划比现有补贴规模大得多，最新的两党提案仅包括白宫在这一领域寻求的一小部分。</blockquote></p><p> The greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.</p><p><blockquote>之前制定基础设施计划的政治努力的最大障碍是融资。在这里，进展似乎要小得多（图表2）。双方都划定了他们似乎不太可能跨越的界限：大多数共和党人反对推翻2017年的任何税法或以其他方式增加所得税（企业或个人）来支付该提案。包括白宫在内的大多数民主党人已经排除了增加为当前大多数基础设施支出提供资金的使用费的可能性，并且似乎对重新分配未用完的新冠救助资金不感兴趣。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9578698f5c5efa5311cc0e31be31f715\" tg-width=\"939\" tg-height=\"509\">The most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.</p><p><blockquote>重叠支持最有可能的领域是通过加强现有税法的执行来缩小“税收差距”，但即使这样也面临挑战。国会对缩小税收差距的潜在收入收益的估计远小于政府的估计。国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office）在2020年估计，在十年内增加200亿美元的国税局资金将产生600亿美元的额外收入，而增加400亿美元将筹集1030亿美元（即，第一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的支出筹集3美元，而下一个200亿美元的增加将为每1美元的额外支出筹集2美元）。虽然CBO可能会根据政府的论点修改其估计，或者共和党人可能会同意国税局增加资金以外的政策，但国税局的额外资金似乎不太可能接近支付基础设施提案的成本，至少根据国会将依赖的官方估计。</blockquote></p><p> In our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.</p><p><blockquote>我们认为，国会就广泛的基础设施一揽子计划达成两党协议的唯一途径是立法者决定不用其他地方的储蓄来抵消新支出。到目前为止，白宫和国会共和党人坚持认为该法案应该得到支付。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果没有两党协议，基础设施立法会发生什么？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>If a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.</b>While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.</p><p><blockquote><b>如果广泛的两党协议失败，狭隘的协议很可能会通过。</b>虽然涵盖拜登提案几个方面的广泛两党协议看起来很难实现，但一项主要促进交通基础设施建设的范围较窄的协议看起来很可能成为法律，原因有三。</blockquote></p><p> First, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.</p><p><blockquote>首先，针对传统基础设施大多数领域——高速公路、公共交通、铁路、机场、水路和饮用水/废水处理——的联邦计划已经存在。其中最大的一笔由公路信托基金（HTF）集体资助，将于9月30日到期。传统上，国会以五年为增量重新授权这些项目，有时在一次或多次短期延期之后，直到立法者达成协议。更新这些项目的立法无法通过和解程序，民主党人将需要共和党的支持才能进行任何短期或长期的延期。结果是，几乎可以肯定的是，某种类型的基础设施立法将在两党的基础上通过，以避免项目中的失误。</blockquote></p><p> Second, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.</p><p><blockquote>其次，一些进步民主党人似乎可能会反对一项不包括与气候和清洁能源相关的实质性新政策的基础设施法案。如果没有他们的投票，众议院和参议院共和党人的更大支持将是必要的。为了赢得更大的支持，该法案可能需要进一步缩小其范围，主要扩展现有的基础设施支出计划。</blockquote></p><p> Third, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.</p><p><blockquote>第三，为一项狭隘的基础设施交易融资不会像为目前正在讨论的那种法案融资那么困难。现有的交通基础设施项目已经有专门的收入来源，为其大部分支出提供资金。为增加现有项目的支出提供资金比就数千亿美元的新收入或削减支出达成两党协议要容易得多。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：如果国会就基础设施达成两党协议，会有什么不同？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>A broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law</b>. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.</p><p><blockquote><b>一项广泛的两党基础设施法案可能会降低拜登财政议程其余部分成为法律的可能性</b>.一项与拜登提案的许多领域重叠的更广泛的两党协议可能会减少中间派民主党对通过和解进程通过后续财政立法的支持。如果发生这种情况，未来几年的支出增长可能会小于我们的预期，但公司税和资本利得税也不太可能增加。</blockquote></p><p> By contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.</p><p><blockquote>相比之下，仅限于传统基础设施的范围较窄的两党协议仍将为民主党通过和解进程通过单独的财政方案敞开大门，该方案解决了拜登总统其余大部分提案。相对于国会通过一项广泛的两党基础设施协议的情况，通过一项狭隘的交通法案，然后通过一项单独的和解法案，可能会导致支出的总体增加，部分被增税抵消。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：不同情景下支出水平的风险是什么？</i></blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Congress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.</b>Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).</p><p><blockquote><b>国会似乎很有可能在未来几年批准至少相当于GDP 1%的支出和税收优惠，但不太可能超过GDP的2%。</b>过去几周关于财政提案的头条新闻涵盖了从低端仅增加几千亿美元（共和党的基础设施提案）到高端十年内增加6万亿美元（参议院民主党人正在考虑的报告支出总额）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c29c240e9afe9bc1a84d4f359152bb57\" tg-width=\"937\" tg-height=\"675\">However, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&amp;D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.</p><p><blockquote>然而，这些大数字夸大了现实情景的范围。至少，我们预计国会今年将颁布三套政策：已经获得两党支持的基础设施提案、参议院最近通过的研发和制造激励措施，以及国会今年早些时候批准的个人税收抵免延期。如图表3所示，到2023年，这些政策总计将占GDP的1%左右，未来十年将花费约1.6万亿美元。在这一点上，很难想象国会今年会批准更少。</blockquote></p><p> At the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>另一方面，国会似乎不太可能制定每年超过GDP 2%的支出。如图表3所示，国会需要通过拜登总统的几乎所有提案才能达到这一水平，即未来十年约4.25万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.</p><p><blockquote>不确定性主要与“美国家庭计划”下的儿童保育、教育和带薪休假的新福利以及任何两党基础设施协议都可能忽略的剩余基础设施领域有关。这些领域最依赖于预算调节立法的使用，因为任何提案似乎都不太可能吸引共和党的支持。</blockquote></p><p> That said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，即使国会颁布了拜登总统提出的几乎所有政策，从2021年到2022年，财政支持也将大幅减少。图表4显示了自疫情开始以来颁布的立法的赤字效应，以及拜登总统使用我们自己的分类提出的提案的财政效应。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/812bd47cecb22835bb2a223a3ddecb8f\" tg-width=\"925\" tg-height=\"620\"><i>Q: How much will legislation this year increase spending?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：今年的立法将增加多少支出？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.</b>Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们认为未来十年的总体增长可能达到2.5至3万亿美元。</b>假设国会民主党人利用和解程序通过财政立法，国会可能批准的额外支出金额仍将受到两个限制。</blockquote></p><p> Centrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.</p><p><blockquote>众议院和参议院的中间派民主党人可能会反对在未来十年大幅增加赤字的立法。这将在未来几周国会审议其预算决议时变得相关。要使用调节程序，决议必须包括对相关委员会的指示，以具体金额增加赤字（或增加支出和增加税收）。随后的调节法案对赤字的影响将仅限于这些金额。任何共和党人都不太可能投票支持民主党的预算决议，因此每一位民主党参议员和几乎每一位众议院民主党议员都需要投票支持该决议。目前尚不清楚民主党人愿意支持多少赤字扩张，但我们预计中间派民主党人将在1万亿美元左右划清界限。作为背景，拜登总统最近向国会提交的预算提议在未来十年将赤字增加8000亿美元。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Assuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.</p><p><blockquote>假设赤字扩张的总量受到限制，立法者能够同意的增税和其他预算节省的金额将决定他们能够增加多少支出。目前，我们预计国会可能能够就约1.5万亿美元的预算节省达成一致，其中几乎所有资金都可能来自增税，正如稍后讨论的那样。如果是这样，和解法案将被限制在2.5万亿美元左右的新支出。然而，我们预计一些额外支出可能会作为其他立法的一部分获得批准。参议院最近通过的美国创新和竞争力法案将授权高达2500亿美元的支出（其中约2000亿美元似乎是与现有支出不重叠的新资金）。大多数提议与拜登总统的美国就业计划中的政策类似。然而，这笔支出的大部分将取决于未来的国会拨款，这使得总金额有些不确定。同样，与更大的和解法案分开通过的狭隘的基础设施法案可能会在一定程度上增加总数。总体而言，如果国会批准十年内约2.5万亿美元的和解法案，这意味着在此期间支出总额将接近3万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: Will taxes increase?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：税收会增加吗？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Assuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.</b>Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.</p><p><blockquote><b>假设国会利用和解程序通过任何立法，增税似乎仍有可能。</b>任何关于基础设施或竞争力的两党协议都不太可能包括有意义的增税。如果这些法案获得通过并减少对后续和解立法的支持，可以想象，国会可能无法在今年或2022年中期选举之前颁布任何增税措施。然而，这种情况看起来不太可能发生。</blockquote></p><p> Instead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.</p><p><blockquote>相反，我们假设国会将在未来十年通过约1.5万亿美元的增税，如图表5所示。我们认为，公司税上调的可能性仍然很大，税率在25%左右。拜登政府提出的其他一些国际企业条款看起来也有可能获得通过，尽管我们预计具体细节将与财政部的提案有所不同。尽管全球最低税最近受到了关注，但我们预计国会将重点放在修订现有的GILTI税上，这也有类似的目的。我们预计国会不会通过政府提议的单独的账面收入最低税，因为它看起来不太可能赢得民主党人的一致支持，而且会在不产生大量收入的情况下增加复杂性。</blockquote></p><p> On the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.</p><p><blockquote>就个人而言，我们仍然认为资本利得税上调的可能性略大，尽管我们预计它只会升至28%，而不是普通所得税税率。国会似乎也不太可能采纳政府关于未实现资本收益应在死亡时征税的提议，因为中间派民主党人已经反对这一概念。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ce834610ea19589696b1afcd4ca32a3\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"1379\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Q: When will all of this happen?</i></p><p><blockquote><i>问：这一切什么时候会发生？</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>We expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.</b>As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.</p><p><blockquote><b>我们预计7月份将通过一项预算决议，9月份将通过一项狭义的基础设施法案，并在第四季度通过和解立法。</b>如前所述，在利用预算协调立法通过财政方案之前，国会民主党人首先需要通过一项预算决议。我们预计细节将在未来几周内变得清晰，并在8月6日开始的国会休会前通过。</blockquote></p><p> In September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.</p><p><blockquote>9月份，我们预计国会将关注其他问题。首先，在9月30日高速公路计划到期之前，某种类型的基础设施立法似乎可能会在9月下旬通过。如果没有就长期延期达成协议，短期延期是可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Second, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.</p><p><blockquote>其次，国会需要将联邦政府其他部门的支出授权延长至9月30日（本财年结束）之后。在这一点上，短期的持续解决方案看起来是可能的，这将把更长期的决定留到今年晚些时候。我们认为，在此截止日期前后政府关门的风险很低。</blockquote></p><p> Third, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.</p><p><blockquote>第三，国会需要解决债务上限问题。我们预计国会需要在10月初之前提高限额，并有可能在9月份提高。理论上，这可以作为和解法案的一部分（要么是我们希望国会考虑的大型和解方案，要么是仅处理债务限额的独立法案）。然而，在和解程序下，债务限额不能暂停，只能提高，这将涉及指定一个明确的和非常大的美元数额。相反，我们预计民主党领导人将在延长支出权力的同时通过暂停债务限额，尽管其他情况显然是可能的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> With those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.</p><p><blockquote>随着这些问题的解决，我们预计国会民主党人将试图在第四季度敲定财政方案。这项立法最早可能在10月份进行投票。然而，由于国会参众两院的每个民主党人都需要同意，达成最终的政治妥协可能需要更长的时间。国会完全有可能要到12月才能在年底假期休会之前敲定财政方案。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman\">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",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/broad-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-unlikely-goldman","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1195801914","content_text":"In its latest Q&A assessment of the state of US fiscal policy, Goldman's economics team writes that while it \"still looks broadly on track to meet our expectations, risks continue to tilt in the direction of a smaller spending boost and smaller tax hike than the roughly $3 trillion and $1.5 trillion over ten years that we expect.\" The bank then notes that \"while a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure package cannot be ruled out, we continue to think the odds are against it, as there seems to be little agreement on financing it.\" Instead, Goldman expects Congress to pass a narrower infrastructure package focused mainly on transportation. If so, expect congressional Democrats to begin moving a broader fiscal package under the reconciliation process.\nReading recent headlines, one would be left with the impression of a wide range of spending outcomes – a boost of a few hundred billion to as much as $6 trillion over ten years – but the range of outcomes is not as wide as these figures imply. Most of the “traditional” infrastructure President Biden has proposed looks likely to pass, along with substantial R&D spending and renewal of personal tax credits that expire at year end. Together, these cost around 1% of GDP on an annual basis over the next few years. The remainder of the Biden agenda might boost spending by another1% of GDP, but Congress is expected to pare these proposals considerably.\nMeanwhile, tax increases also still look likely, assuming that Democrats pass legislation using the reconciliation process. That's why Goldman has not changed its views much in this area, and still expectsthe corporate tax rate to settle around 25% along with more incremental versions of the international tax changes Biden has proposed.A capital gains rate increase is a close call, but a 28%capital gains rate is slightly more likely than the status quo.\nFinally, the likely timing of fiscal action has also changed more noticeably,with likely enactment slipping from mid/late Q3 to Q4.This is due in large part to the continuation of bipartisan negotiations for longer than we had expected, which has led congressional Democratic leaders to delay the first procedural steps necessary to pass a reconciliation bill.\nBelow we republish the key aspects of Goldman's FIscal Policy Status Check Q&A:\nQ: Will there be a bipartisan deal on a broad infrastructure bill?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure package still looks somewhat unlikely to us.Negotiations in the Senate have progressed and the odds have increased somewhat that a bipartisan bill covering many areas in President Biden’s program might pass. However, we still think there are obstacles to a broad deal and expect that most of the fiscal boost Congress approves this year will come through a reconciliation bill that passes with only Democratic support.\nUnsurprisingly, there appears to be the most agreement on boosting traditional infrastructure spending. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current Senate bipartisan proposal comes close to matching the White House proposal in most areas of transportation infrastructure.\nMore controversial is how to address non-traditional infrastructure and how to finance the cost of any new spending. The latest bipartisan effort appears to have made some inroads on the former. It includes $65bn for broadband, which falls short of the roughly $100bn that the White House proposed but it would be the greatest federal investment to date and seems close enough to the Democratic target that this issue alone looks unlikely to hold up an agreement.\n\nOther areas of non-traditional infrastructure in bipartisan discussions are much farther away from White House goals. Senate Republicans look unlikely to support substantial funding for electric vehicles or construction of affordable housing, for example. Clean energy is more of a gray area; Congress has previously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a number of different incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels. However, the program President Biden proposes is on a much larger scale than existing subsidies and the latest bipartisan proposal includes only a fraction of what the White House is seeking in this area.\nThe greatest obstacle to prior political efforts at enacting an infrastructure program has been financing it. Here, there appears to have been much less progress (Exhibit 2). Each side has drawn lines they seem unlikely to cross: most Republicans oppose reversing any of the 2017 tax law or otherwise increasing income taxes—corporate or personal—to pay for the proposal. Most Democrats, including the White House, have ruled out increasing the user fees that finance most current infrastructure spending and appear uninterested in redirecting unspent COVID-relief funds.\nThe most likely area of overlapping support is closing the “tax gap” through greater enforcement of existing tax laws, but even this faces challenges. Congressional estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing the tax gap are much smaller than the Administration’s. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2020 that increasing IRS funding by $20 billion over ten years would produce $60bn in additional revenue, while a $40bn increase would raise $103bn (i.e., the first $20bn bump would raise $3 for each dollar spent, while the next $20bn bump in funding would raise only $2 for each dollar of extra spending). While it is possible that CBO might revise its estimate in light of arguments from the Administration, or that Republicans might agree to policies beyond an IRS funding increase, it seems unlikely that additional IRS funding would come anywhere close to covering the cost of an infrastructure proposal, at least according to the official estimate that Congress will rely on.\nIn our view, the only way that Congress will reach a bipartisan agreement on a broad infrastructure package is if lawmakers decide not to offset the new spending with savings elsewhere. So far, the White House and congressional Republicans have insisted that the bill should be paid for.\nQ: Without a bipartisan deal, what happens with infrastructure legislation?\nIf a broad bipartisan deal fails, a narrow one is likely to pass.While a broad bipartisan agreement covering several aspects of the Biden proposal looks difficult to achieve, a narrower deal that primarily boosts transportation infrastructure looks likely to become law, for three reasons.\nFirst, federal programs for most areas of traditional infrastructure—highways, public transit, rail, airports, waterways and drinking/ wastewater—already exist. The largest of them, which are collectively funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), expire September 30. Traditionally, Congress reauthorizes these programs in five-year increments,sometimes after one or more short-term extensions until lawmakers reach agreement.The legislation to renew these programs cannot pass via the reconciliation process, soDemocrats will need Republican support for any short- or long-term extension. Theupshot is that it is nearly certain that some type of infrastructure legislation passes on abipartisan basis to avoid a lapse in the programs.\nSecond, some progressive Democrats seem likely to oppose an infrastructure bill that does not include substantial new policies related to climate and clean energy. Without their votes, greater support among congressional Republicans in the House and Senate would be necessary. To win greater support, the bill might need to narrow its scope further, to the point that it mainly extends existing infrastructure spending programs.\nThird, financing a narrow infrastructure deal would not be nearly as difficult as financing the sort of bill currently under discussion. Existing transportation infrastructure programs already have dedicated revenue streams that fund most of their spending. Financing an incremental boost in spending on existing programs would be far easier than finding bipartisan agreement on several hundred billion dollars in new revenue or spending cuts.\nQ: What difference does it make if Congress reaches a bipartisan deal on infrastructure?\nA broad bipartisan infrastructure bill could reduce the odds that the rest of the Biden fiscal agenda becomes law. A broader bipartisan deal that overlaps with many areas of the Biden proposal could reduce centrist Democratic support for passing subsequent fiscal legislation through the reconciliation process. If this occurred, the spending boost over the next few years might be smaller than we have been expecting but corporate and capital gains taxes would also be less likely to increase.\nBy contrast, a narrower bipartisan deal limited to traditional infrastructure would still leave the door open for Democrats to pass a separate fiscal package through the reconciliation process that addresses much of the remainder of President Biden’s proposals. Relative to the scenario in which Congress passes a broad bipartisan infrastructure deal, passing a narrow transportation bill followed by a separate reconciliation bill would likely result in a greater overall increase in spending, partly offset by tax increases.\nQ: What are the risks around spending levels under the different scenarios?\nCongress seems very likely to approve spending and tax benefits equal to at least 1% of GDP over the next few years, but unlikely to go beyond 2% of GDP.Headlines regarding fiscal proposals over the last few weeks have run the gamut from a boost of only a few hundred billion at the low end (the Republican infrastructure proposal) to $6 trillion over ten years at the high end (the reported spending total Senate Democrats are considering).\nHowever, these large figures overstate the range of realistic scenarios. At a minimum, we expect Congress to enact three sets of policies this year: the infrastructure proposals that already have bipartisan support, the R&D and manufacturing incentives that recently passed the Senate, and extension of the personal tax credits that Congress approved earlier this year. As Exhibit 3 shows, these policies would total around 1% of GDP by 2023, and would cost about $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Congress approving less this year.\nAt the other end of the range of outcomes, it seems unlikely that Congress will enact spending worth more than 2% of GDP on an annual basis. As shown in Exhibit 3, Congress would need to pass nearly all of President Biden’s proposals to reach this level, or around $4.25 trillion over the next ten years.\nThe uncertainty is mainly related to new benefits for child care, education, and paid leave under the “American Families Plan” as well as the remaining areas of infrastructure that any sort of bipartisan infrastructure deal would likely omit. These areas depend most on the use of budget reconciliation legislation, as it seems very unlikely that any of the proposals would attract much Republican support.\nThat said, even if Congress enacts nearly all of President Biden’s proposed policies, fiscal support will diminish substantially from 2021 to 2022. Exhibit 4 shows the deficit effect of legislation enacted since the pandemic began, as well as the fiscal effects of President Biden’s proposals using our own categorization.\nQ: How much will legislation this year increase spending?\nWe think the overall boost could amount to $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next ten years.Assuming congressional Democrats take advantage of the reconciliation process to pass fiscal legislation, there will still be two constraints on the amount of additional spending Congress might approve.\nCentrist Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to object to legislation that raises the deficit substantially over the next ten years. This will become relevant in the next few weeks, when Congress considers its budget resolution. To use the reconciliation process, the resolution must include instructions to the relevant committees to increase the deficit (or alternatively to increase spending and increase taxes) by specific amounts. The deficit impact of the reconciliation bill that follows will be limited to those amounts. It is extremely unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the Democratic budget resolution, so every Democratic senator and virtually every Democratic member of the House will need to vote for the resolution. It is not yet clear how much deficit expansion Democrats will be willing to support, but we expect centrist Democrats to draw the line at somewhere around $1 trillion. For context, President Biden’s recent budget submission to Congress proposed increasing the deficit by $800bn over the next ten years.\nAssuming a limit on the overall amount of deficit expansion, the amount of tax increases and other budgetary savings that lawmakers can agree to will determine how much they can increase spending. At the moment, we expect that Congress might be able to agree on around $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings, nearly all of which could come from tax increases, as discussed later. If so, a reconciliation bill would be limited to around $2.5 trillion in new spending. However, we expect that some additional spending might be approved as part of other legislation. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that recently passed the Senate would authorize up to $250bn in spending (around $200bn of this appears to be new money that does not overlap with existing spending). Most of the proposals are similar to policies in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. However, much of this spending would depend on future Congresses to appropriate, making the overall amount somewhat uncertain. Similarly, a narrow infrastructure bill that passes separately from the larger reconciliation bill might add somewhat to the total. Overall, if Congress approves a reconciliation bill of around $2.5 trillion over ten years, this suggests a total bump to spending approaching $3 trillion over that period.\nQ: Will taxes increase?\nAssuming Congress passes any legislation using the reconciliation process, tax increases still seem likely.Any bipartisan agreement on infrastructure or competitiveness is unlikely to include meaningful tax increases. If those bills pass and reduce support for subsequent reconciliation legislation, it is conceivable that Congress could fail to enact any tax increases this year, or before the mid-term election in 2022. However, this scenario looks fairly unlikely.\nInstead, we assume that Congress will pass around $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years, as outlined in Exhibit 5. A corporate tax increase still seems fairly likely, in our view, with a rate of around 25%. Some of the other international corporate provisions the Biden Administration has proposed also look likely to pass, though we expect the specifics to diverge from the Treasury proposals. Despite the recent attention a global minimum tax has received, we expect Congress to focus instead on revising the existing GILTI tax, which serves a similar purpose. We do not expect Congress to pass the separate minimum tax on book income that the Administration has proposed, as it looks unlikely to win unanimous support among Democrats and would add complexity without generating substantial revenue.\nOn the individual side, we continue to believe a capital gains tax increase is slightly more likely than not, though we expect it would rise only to 28% rather than the ordinary income tax rate. It also seems fairly unlikely that Congress will adopt the Administration’s proposal that unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, as there has already been pushback among centrist Democrats against the concept.\n\nQ: When will all of this happen?\nWe expect a budget resolution to pass in July, a narrow infrastructure bill in September, and reconciliation legislation in Q4.As noted earlier, before they use the budget reconciliation legislation to pass a fiscal package, congressional Democrats will first need to pass a budget resolution. We expect the details to become clear over the next few weeks, with passage ahead of the congressional recess that starts August 6.\nIn September, we expect Congress to focus on other issues. First, some type of infrastructure legislation seems likely to pass by late September ahead of the Sep. 30 expiration of the highway program. A short-term extension is possible absent an agreement on a long-term extension.\nSecond, Congress will need to extend spending authority for the rest of the federal government past September 30, the end of the fiscal year. At this point, a short-term continuing resolution looks likely, which will leave longer-term decisions until late in the year. The risk of a government shutdown around this deadline is low, in our view.\nThird, Congress will need to address the debt limit. We expect that Congress will need to raise the limit by early October, with a chance it might need to be raised in September. In theory, this could be done as part of a reconciliation bill (either the large reconciliation package we expect Congress to consider, or a standalone bill dealing with just the debt limit). However, the debt limit cannot be suspended under the reconciliation process, only raised, and this would involve specifying an explicit and very large dollar amount. Instead, we expect Democratic leaders to pass a debt limit suspension along with the extension of spending authority, though other scenarios are clearly possible.\nWith those issues out of the way, we expect congressional Democrats to attempt to finalize a fiscal package in Q4. It is possible that the legislation could be ready for a vote as early as October. However, since essentially every Democrat in both chambers of Congress will need to agree, reaching a final political compromise could take longer. It is entirely possible that it takes until December for Congress to finalize the fiscal package, ahead of the holiday recess at year-end.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2724,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129046012,"gmtCreate":1624347732536,"gmtModify":1634007446126,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129046012","repostId":"1129393435","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1515,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166616016,"gmtCreate":1624005748535,"gmtModify":1634024229516,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Comment and like please","listText":"Comment and like please","text":"Comment and like please","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166616016","repostId":"2144056746","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1878,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":169082010,"gmtCreate":1623809207430,"gmtModify":1634027791054,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like and comment please.","listText":"Like and comment please.","text":"Like and comment please.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/169082010","repostId":"2143768355","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1292,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186360390,"gmtCreate":1623474039310,"gmtModify":1634032639900,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Amc","listText":"Amc","text":"Amc","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186360390","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</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":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":233,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182163418,"gmtCreate":1623558190534,"gmtModify":1634031714224,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"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/182163418","repostId":"2142878860","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3081,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":169034711,"gmtCreate":1623808711433,"gmtModify":1634027804720,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Moon","listText":"Moon","text":"Moon","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/169034711","repostId":"1185254731","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1185254731","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1623764438,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1185254731?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-15 21:40","market":"us","language":"en","title":"ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1185254731","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"(June 15) ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago.  ContextLogic gained nearly 6% for n","content":"<p>(June&nbsp;15)&nbsp;ContextLogic gained as much as 10%&nbsp;a few minutes ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;ContextLogic gained&nbsp;nearly&nbsp;6%&nbsp;for&nbsp;now.</p><p><blockquote>（6月15日）ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅一度高达10%ContextLogic暂涨近6%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/83f3eeb6c29b019970adceac690d15c3\" tg-width=\"663\" tg-height=\"440\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> ContextLogic&nbsp;signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop&nbsp;yesterday.</p><p><blockquote>ContextLogic昨天与电子商务平台PrestaShop签署了为期两年的合作伙伴关系。</blockquote></p><p> More than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.</p><p><blockquote>PrestaShop平台上超过300,000家商家和品牌将能够在Wish marketplace上轻松向数百万消费者销售产品。</blockquote></p><p> Alan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”</p><p><blockquote>Wish欧洲高级业务开发经理Alan Small表示：“Wish通过以实惠的价格提供高质量的产品和个性化、有趣的购物体验，为全球数百万消费者提供服务。与PrestaShop合作将使我们能够为消费者提供更多优质商家和品牌，并为PrestaShop商家提供全球交易平台。”</blockquote></p><p> Last week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.</p><p><blockquote>上周，该公司股价因在WallStreetBets Reddit论坛上引起关注而飙升。</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>ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</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\">\nContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago<blockquote>ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅高达10%</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-06-15 21:40</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(June&nbsp;15)&nbsp;ContextLogic gained as much as 10%&nbsp;a few minutes ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;ContextLogic gained&nbsp;nearly&nbsp;6%&nbsp;for&nbsp;now.</p><p><blockquote>（6月15日）ContextLogic几分钟前涨幅一度高达10%ContextLogic暂涨近6%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/83f3eeb6c29b019970adceac690d15c3\" tg-width=\"663\" tg-height=\"440\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> ContextLogic&nbsp;signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop&nbsp;yesterday.</p><p><blockquote>ContextLogic昨天与电子商务平台PrestaShop签署了为期两年的合作伙伴关系。</blockquote></p><p> More than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.</p><p><blockquote>PrestaShop平台上超过300,000家商家和品牌将能够在Wish marketplace上轻松向数百万消费者销售产品。</blockquote></p><p> Alan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”</p><p><blockquote>Wish欧洲高级业务开发经理Alan Small表示：“Wish通过以实惠的价格提供高质量的产品和个性化、有趣的购物体验，为全球数百万消费者提供服务。与PrestaShop合作将使我们能够为消费者提供更多优质商家和品牌，并为PrestaShop商家提供全球交易平台。”</blockquote></p><p> Last week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.</p><p><blockquote>上周，该公司股价因在WallStreetBets Reddit论坛上引起关注而飙升。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1185254731","content_text":"(June 15) ContextLogic gained as much as 10% a few minutes ago.  ContextLogic gained nearly 6% for now.\n\nContextLogic signed a two-year partnership with an ecommerce platform,PrestaShop yesterday.\nMore than 300,000 merchants and brands on the PrestaShop platform will be able to easily sell to millions of consumers on the Wish marketplace.\nAlan Small, Senior Business Development Manager for Wish in Europe said: “Wish serves millions of consumers around the world by providing high-quality products at affordable prices and a personalized, entertaining shopping experience. Partnering with PrestaShop will enable us to offer our consumers even more quality merchants and brands and to provide Prestashop merchants with a global platform to transact on.”\nLast week,the company's shares surged on attracting attention on the WallStreetBets Reddit forum.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"WISH":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1352,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160304529,"gmtCreate":1623771278761,"gmtModify":1634028509375,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160304529","repostId":"1145996523","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145996523","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623751116,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1145996523?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-15 17:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145996523","media":"cnn","summary":"New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it co","content":"<p>New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.</p><p><blockquote>纽约（CNN Business）在通货膨胀方面，大街和华尔街之间存在巨大的脱节。总得有所让步。</blockquote></p><p> The US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府上周报告称，5月份不包括食品和能源的消费者价格涨幅为1992年以来最快。宣伟(SHW)正在提高油漆价格，这是众多应对大宗商品成本上涨的公司之一。</blockquote></p><p> Food prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).</p><p><blockquote>食品价格也在飙升。Chipotle(CMG)刚刚提高了价格。金宝汤（CPB）也是如此。</blockquote></p><p> And the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave &amp; Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.</p><p><blockquote>餐厅和街机连锁店Dave&amp;Buster's(PLAY)的首席财务官在最近与分析师举行的财报看涨期权上表示，由于鸡肉、牛肉和乳制品价格上涨，他预计2021年食品成本将上涨6%至8%。</blockquote></p><p> Wages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.</p><p><blockquote>工资也在上涨，尤其是随着经济重新开放而重返工作岗位的零售、休闲和酒店行业的工人。这增加了通胀压力，因为一些公司会选择提高价格以维持利润。</blockquote></p><p> Labor shortages aren't helping.</p><p><blockquote>劳动力短缺无济于事。</blockquote></p><p> The CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.</p><p><blockquote>在线宠物零售商Chewy(CHWY)的首席执行官在最新财报发布后致股东的一封信中写道，该公司“面临着与全国许多公司类似的劳动力短缺问题”。因此，Chewy继续“投资于更高的工资和福利”，以填补职位空缺。</blockquote></p><p> Yet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.</p><p><blockquote>然而，投资者和美联储对通胀上升不屑一顾，认为这是“暂时的”。长期债券收益率正在下降，这通常不会在通胀加剧时发生。如果债券投资者认为价格上涨将持续下去，他们就会要求更高的收益率。</blockquote></p><p> And the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.</p><p><blockquote>市场预计美联储年底加息的可能性仅为3%。这低于一个月前10%的加息可能性。投资者知道加息是央行对抗通胀上升的最佳工具，当美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔在周三的新闻发布会上发表讲话时，他们希望听到更多有关该主题的信息。</blockquote></p><p> \"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.</p><p><blockquote>沃伦金融公司首席执行官兰迪·沃伦表示：“债券市场仍然不担心通胀。它正在购买美联储正在出售的东西。”</blockquote></p><p> The problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.</p><p><blockquote>问题是，美联储可能会等待太久才对通胀做出反应。</blockquote></p><p> \"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"</p><p><blockquote>“通货膨胀是暂时的还是更具结构性的？”PineBridge Investments信贷和固定收益全球主管Steven Oh问道。“美联储将来会失去对它的控制，犯政策错误，没有能力控制它吗？”</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储和债券市场对通胀的看法是错误的，那么央行可能不得不以比其和投资者希望的更快的速度结束疫情刺激措施。这将意味着取消大规模资产购买并尽早加息。</blockquote></p><p> Oh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.</p><p><blockquote>哦，我不认为会是这样。许多其他人也同意。他们认为，投资者必须牢记经济复苏的速度有多快。</blockquote></p><p> For that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.</p><p><blockquote>因此，就业市场和供应链出现混乱也就不足为奇了。恢复到2019年底和2020年初新冠肺炎之前的水平需要时间。</blockquote></p><p> \"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"</p><p><blockquote>财富管理公司Clarus Group的负责人布莱恩·科斯洛(Bryan Koslow)表示：“关于通货膨胀有很多问题，因为你在日常生活中都会看到它。”“但我们可能已经看到了峰值，尤其是在工资增长方面。”</blockquote></p><p> Even if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.</p><p><blockquote>即使事实证明这是真的，投资者和消费者如此关注价格这一事实也值得注意。十多年来，通货膨胀基本上不是问题。</blockquote></p><p> \"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.</p><p><blockquote>SkyBridge Capital联席首席投资官兼高级投资组合经理Troy Gayeski表示：“美联储必须认真对待通胀担忧。”他补充说，他认为通胀压力有20%的可能性变得更加持久，而不是暂时的。</blockquote></p><p> \"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.</p><p><blockquote>“自2008年以来，有意义的通胀风险一直不存在。直到现在，”Gayeski说。</blockquote></p><p> <b>What's getting more expensive</b></p><p><blockquote><b>什么越来越贵</b></blockquote></p><p> Food and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.</p><p><blockquote>食物和油漆并不是唯一变得更贵的东西。正如CNN商业频道的莫伊拉·里特(Moira Ritter)指出的那样，最近几乎所有东西的价格都在上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Lumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.</p><p><blockquote>木材价格飙升。房地产市场继续繁荣。这导致沙发和其他家居用品的价格大幅上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Used cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.</p><p><blockquote>二手车也贵得多。这归因于人们重返工作岗位，以及由于芯片供应短缺损害了新车的生产，经销商处新车短缺。</blockquote></p><p> People are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.</p><p><blockquote>人们也越来越多地旅行。由于预期一些人所说的“炙手可热的疫苗之夏”，机票价格飙升。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Up next</b></p><p><blockquote><b>下一个</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Tuesday: </b>US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H &amp; R Block (HRB)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期二：</b>美国零售额；美国生产者价格指数；Oracle(ORCL)和H&amp;R Block(HRB)的收益</blockquote></p><p> <b>Wednesday: </b>Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期三：</b>美联储利率决定；美国新屋开工和建筑许可；EIA原油库存；Lennar(LEN)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Thursday: </b>US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期四：</b>美国初请失业金人数；克罗格(KR)和Adobe(ADBE)的收益</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>Investors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</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\">\nInvestors and the Fed aren't freaking out about inflation. Should they?<blockquote>投资者和美联储并没有对通胀感到恐慌。他们应该吗？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">cnn</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-15 17:58</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.</p><p><blockquote>纽约（CNN Business）在通货膨胀方面，大街和华尔街之间存在巨大的脱节。总得有所让步。</blockquote></p><p> The US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府上周报告称，5月份不包括食品和能源的消费者价格涨幅为1992年以来最快。宣伟(SHW)正在提高油漆价格，这是众多应对大宗商品成本上涨的公司之一。</blockquote></p><p> Food prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).</p><p><blockquote>食品价格也在飙升。Chipotle(CMG)刚刚提高了价格。金宝汤（CPB）也是如此。</blockquote></p><p> And the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave &amp; Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.</p><p><blockquote>餐厅和街机连锁店Dave&amp;Buster's(PLAY)的首席财务官在最近与分析师举行的财报看涨期权上表示，由于鸡肉、牛肉和乳制品价格上涨，他预计2021年食品成本将上涨6%至8%。</blockquote></p><p> Wages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.</p><p><blockquote>工资也在上涨，尤其是随着经济重新开放而重返工作岗位的零售、休闲和酒店行业的工人。这增加了通胀压力，因为一些公司会选择提高价格以维持利润。</blockquote></p><p> Labor shortages aren't helping.</p><p><blockquote>劳动力短缺无济于事。</blockquote></p><p> The CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.</p><p><blockquote>在线宠物零售商Chewy(CHWY)的首席执行官在最新财报发布后致股东的一封信中写道，该公司“面临着与全国许多公司类似的劳动力短缺问题”。因此，Chewy继续“投资于更高的工资和福利”，以填补职位空缺。</blockquote></p><p> Yet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.</p><p><blockquote>然而，投资者和美联储对通胀上升不屑一顾，认为这是“暂时的”。长期债券收益率正在下降，这通常不会在通胀加剧时发生。如果债券投资者认为价格上涨将持续下去，他们就会要求更高的收益率。</blockquote></p><p> And the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.</p><p><blockquote>市场预计美联储年底加息的可能性仅为3%。这低于一个月前10%的加息可能性。投资者知道加息是央行对抗通胀上升的最佳工具，当美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔在周三的新闻发布会上发表讲话时，他们希望听到更多有关该主题的信息。</blockquote></p><p> \"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.</p><p><blockquote>沃伦金融公司首席执行官兰迪·沃伦表示：“债券市场仍然不担心通胀。它正在购买美联储正在出售的东西。”</blockquote></p><p> The problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.</p><p><blockquote>问题是，美联储可能会等待太久才对通胀做出反应。</blockquote></p><p> \"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"</p><p><blockquote>“通货膨胀是暂时的还是更具结构性的？”PineBridge Investments信贷和固定收益全球主管Steven Oh问道。“美联储将来会失去对它的控制，犯政策错误，没有能力控制它吗？”</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储和债券市场对通胀的看法是错误的，那么央行可能不得不以比其和投资者希望的更快的速度结束疫情刺激措施。这将意味着取消大规模资产购买并尽早加息。</blockquote></p><p> Oh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.</p><p><blockquote>哦，我不认为会是这样。许多其他人也同意。他们认为，投资者必须牢记经济复苏的速度有多快。</blockquote></p><p> For that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.</p><p><blockquote>因此，就业市场和供应链出现混乱也就不足为奇了。恢复到2019年底和2020年初新冠肺炎之前的水平需要时间。</blockquote></p><p> \"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"</p><p><blockquote>财富管理公司Clarus Group的负责人布莱恩·科斯洛(Bryan Koslow)表示：“关于通货膨胀有很多问题，因为你在日常生活中都会看到它。”“但我们可能已经看到了峰值，尤其是在工资增长方面。”</blockquote></p><p> Even if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.</p><p><blockquote>即使事实证明这是真的，投资者和消费者如此关注价格这一事实也值得注意。十多年来，通货膨胀基本上不是问题。</blockquote></p><p> \"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.</p><p><blockquote>SkyBridge Capital联席首席投资官兼高级投资组合经理Troy Gayeski表示：“美联储必须认真对待通胀担忧。”他补充说，他认为通胀压力有20%的可能性变得更加持久，而不是暂时的。</blockquote></p><p> \"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.</p><p><blockquote>“自2008年以来，有意义的通胀风险一直不存在。直到现在，”Gayeski说。</blockquote></p><p> <b>What's getting more expensive</b></p><p><blockquote><b>什么越来越贵</b></blockquote></p><p> Food and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.</p><p><blockquote>食物和油漆并不是唯一变得更贵的东西。正如CNN商业频道的莫伊拉·里特(Moira Ritter)指出的那样，最近几乎所有东西的价格都在上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Lumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.</p><p><blockquote>木材价格飙升。房地产市场继续繁荣。这导致沙发和其他家居用品的价格大幅上涨。</blockquote></p><p> Used cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.</p><p><blockquote>二手车也贵得多。这归因于人们重返工作岗位，以及由于芯片供应短缺损害了新车的生产，经销商处新车短缺。</blockquote></p><p> People are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.</p><p><blockquote>人们也越来越多地旅行。由于预期一些人所说的“炙手可热的疫苗之夏”，机票价格飙升。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Up next</b></p><p><blockquote><b>下一个</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Tuesday: </b>US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H &amp; R Block (HRB)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期二：</b>美国零售额；美国生产者价格指数；Oracle(ORCL)和H&amp;R Block(HRB)的收益</blockquote></p><p> <b>Wednesday: </b>Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期三：</b>美联储利率决定；美国新屋开工和建筑许可；EIA原油库存；Lennar(LEN)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <b>Thursday: </b>US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)</p><p><blockquote><b>星期四：</b>美国初请失业金人数；克罗格(KR)和Adobe(ADBE)的收益</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/13/investing/stocks-week-ahead/index.html\">cnn</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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/13/investing/stocks-week-ahead/index.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145996523","content_text":"New York (CNN Business)There is a gigantic disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street when it comes to inflation. Something's got to give.\nThe US government reported last week that consumer prices, excluding food and energy, rose at their fastest clip since 1992 in May. Sherwin-Williams (SHW) is lifting the price of paint, one of many companies that's responding to higher commodities costs.\nFood prices are also surging. Chipotle (CMG) just raised prices. So did Campbell Soup (CPB).\nAnd the chief financial officer of restaurant and arcade chain Dave & Buster's (PLAY) said during a recent earnings call with analysts that he expects a 6% to 8% increase in food costs for 2021 due to higher chicken, beef and dairy prices.\nWages are rising too, especially for workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors that are returning to jobs as the economy reopens. That adds to inflationary pressures, because some companies will choose to hike prices in order to maintain profits.\nLabor shortages aren't helping.\nThe CEO of online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY) wrote in a letter to shareholders after its latest earnings report that it \"faced labor shortages in our fulfillment centers similar to those being faced by many companies nationwide.\" As a result, Chewy continues \"to invest in higher wages and benefits\" in order to fill job vacancies.\nYet investors — and the Federal Reserve — are shrugging off rising inflation as \"transitory.\" Long-term bond yields are falling, which isn't what normally happens when inflation runs hot. If bond investors believed that price hikes are here to stay, they'd be demanding higher yields.\nAnd the market is pricing in just a 3% chance of a rate hike from the Fed by the end of the year. That's down from a 10% likelihood of higher rates just a month ago. Investors know a rate hike is the central bank's best tool to fight rising inflation, and they'll want to hear more on the subject when Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference on Wednesday.\n\"The bond market is still not concerned about inflation. It's buying what the Fed is selling,\" said Randy Warren, CEO of Warren Financial.\nThe problem is that there is a chance the Fed could wait too long to react to inflation.\n\"Is inflation transitory or something more structural?\" asked Steven Oh, global head of credit and fixed income with PineBridge Investments. \"Will the Fed lose control of it down the road and make a policy error and not have the ability to rein it in?\"\nIf the Fed and bond market are wrong about inflation, the central bank may have to wind down its pandemic stimulus much more quickly than it — and investors — would like. That would mean unwinding its big asset purchases and raising rates sooner rather than later.\nOh doesn't think that will be the case. And many others agree. They argue that investors must keep in mind how rapidly the economy has roared back.\nFor that reason, it should not be that big of a surprise that there are dislocations in the job market and supply chain. It will take time for conditions to revert to what they were like in late 2019 and early 2020 before Covid-19.\n\"There are a lot of questions about inflation because you see it in everyday life,\" said Bryan Koslow, principal of Clarus Group, a wealth management firm. \"But we may have seen the peak, especially in terms of wage growth.\"\nEven if that does turn out to be true, the mere fact that investors and consumers are so focused on prices is noteworthy. Inflation has essentially been a non-issue for more than a decade.\n\"The Fed has to take the inflation concerns seriously,\" said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager at SkyBridge Capital. He added that he thinks there is a 20% chance that inflation pressures turn out to be more persistent as opposed to transitory.\n\"The risk of meaningful inflation has been non-existent since 2008. Until now,\" Gayeski said.\nWhat's getting more expensive\nFood and paint aren't the only things getting more expensive. As CNN Business' Moira Ritter points out, the prices of just about everything have gone up lately.\nLumber prices have soared. And the housing market continues to boom. That's led to a big spike in the prices of couches and other household furnishings.\nUsed cars are a lot more expensive too. Chalk that up to people returning to work and a dearth of new cars on dealership lots due to the chip supply shortage that has hurt production of new vehicles.\nPeople are traveling more as well. Airfares have shot up in anticipation of what some are dubbing the red hot vaccine summer.\nUp next\nTuesday: US retail sales; US producer price index; Earnings from Oracle (ORCL) and H & R Block (HRB)\nWednesday: Federal Reserve rate decision; US housing starts and building permits; EIA crude oil inventories; Earnings from Lennar (LEN)\nThursday: US jobless claims; Earnings from Kroger (KR) and Adobe (ADBE)","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2274,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160306948,"gmtCreate":1623771199584,"gmtModify":1634028512114,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like","listText":"Like","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160306948","repostId":"1127088935","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1654,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160308359,"gmtCreate":1623771181971,"gmtModify":1634028512822,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like like..","listText":"Like like..","text":"Like like..","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160308359","repostId":"1127088935","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1830,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160975674,"gmtCreate":1623770986598,"gmtModify":1631888437114,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">$Twitter(TWTR)$</a>go go go...","listText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">$Twitter(TWTR)$</a>go go go...","text":"$Twitter(TWTR)$go go go...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160975674","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1407,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182163972,"gmtCreate":1623558161996,"gmtModify":1634031714966,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like","listText":"like","text":"like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182163972","repostId":"2142378818","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":711,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182135636,"gmtCreate":1623557173125,"gmtModify":1634031735780,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like 👍","listText":"Like 👍","text":"Like 👍","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182135636","repostId":"2142204074","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":704,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186326685,"gmtCreate":1623474628347,"gmtModify":1634032627117,"author":{"id":"3581676054477891","authorId":"3581676054477891","name":"Samuelkor","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/896e206d867dc73364a5f12baf0597c6","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581676054477891","idStr":"3581676054477891"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Next week to moon?","listText":"Next week to moon?","text":"Next week to moon?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186326685","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约10%，因为AMC股价的上涨意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助GameStopCorp.GME5.88%和其他股票的价格在1月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森·穆德里克(Jason Mudrick)几个月来一直在交易AMC股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的AMC战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital的高管正在与AMC就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。6月1日，AMC披露，Mudrick Capital已同意以每股27.12美元的价格直接从该公司购买2.305亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6月1日，Reddit华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6月2日，AMC股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克的基金今年仍上涨了约12%。与此同时，年初购买AMC股票并持有的投资者已上涨约2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立了几家特殊目的收购公司，就AMC而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于AMC，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1月下旬，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近10亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与AMC首席执行官亚当·阿伦(Adam Aron)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</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":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":668,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}