Ok_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

JohnLoh00
2021-10-11

Here's How Wall Street Defines "Stagflation" And Why "Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</blockquote>

It is easy to understand why Wall Street is increasingly worried about Stagflation: with the Citi gl

Here's How Wall Street Defines "Stagflation" And Why "Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":828250560,"tweetId":"828250560","gmtCreate":1633918243969,"gmtModify":1633918244063,"author":{"id":3580436163482352,"idStr":"3580436163482352","authorId":3580436163482352,"authorIdStr":"3580436163482352","name":"JohnLoh00","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":1,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Ok</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Ok</body></html>","text":"Ok","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/828250560","repostId":1199183279,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1199183279","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1633914792,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1199183279?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-10-11 09:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here's How Wall Street Defines \"Stagflation\" And Why \"Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced\"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1199183279","media":"zerohedge","summary":"It is easy to understand why Wall Street is increasingly worried about Stagflation: with the Citi gl","content":"It is easy to understand why Wall Street is increasingly worried about Stagflation: with the Citi global inflation surprise index surging to the highest level ever (granted, it only captures the period since 1999 so it's unclear how it compares to the 1970s or early 1980s inflation shock periods)..<blockquote>很容易理解为什么华尔街越来越担心滞胀：花旗全球通胀意外指数飙升至有史以来的最高水平（诚然，它只捕捉了1999年以来的时期，因此不清楚它与20世纪70年代或80年代初的通胀冲击时期相比如何）..</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/168c3070fdc609f96adddbe87fc8da99\" tg-width=\"1738\" tg-height=\"866\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... Citi's economic surprise index has turned negative and slumped to levels which historically have indicated an economic slowdown if not outright recession.<blockquote>...花旗的经济意外指数已转为负值，并跌至历史上表明经济放缓（如果不是彻底衰退）的水平。</blockquote> As a result, it's also easy to understand why some of Wall Street's strategists have taken it upon themselves to ease investor concerns that another 1970s stagflationary shock may be coming, most notably Morgan Stanley earlier today, which admits that \"it’s not hard to see why one term seems to come up again and again in conversations with investors: stagflation\" but counters that in its view the surge in energy prices is temporary, and that the most comparable period to the current stagflationary scare is more comparable to 2005 when \"CPI hit 3.5%Y while the US manufacturing PMI had fallen to 52. 'Stagflation' graced the cover of The Economist. These fears eventually passed as growth rebounded and inflation moderated, but we think that 2005 may provide a useful reference point for a scare that comes far short of the 1970s. Equity multiples de-rated throughout 2004-05, consistent with the current forecasts for my colleague Mike Wilson and our US equity strategy team.\"<blockquote>因此，也很容易理解为什么华尔街的一些策略师主动缓解投资者对另一场20世纪70年代滞胀冲击可能即将到来的担忧，最著名的是摩根士丹利今天早些时候承认，“不难理解为什么在与投资者的对话中似乎一次又一次地出现一个术语：滞胀”，但反驳说，在其看来，能源价格的飙升是暂时的，与当前滞胀恐慌最具可比性的时期更像是2005年，当时“CPI同比上涨3.5%，而美国制造业PMI跌至52。随着经济增长反弹和通胀放缓，这些担忧最终消失了，但我们认为2005年可能为远低于20世纪70年代的恐慌提供了一个有用的参考点。2004-05年，股票市盈率下调，这与我的同事迈克·威尔逊和我们的美国股票策略团队目前的预测一致。”</blockquote> Yet as Morgan Stanley also admits, while the \"market is focused on stagflation, it just hasn’t quite decided what that term really means.\"<blockquote>然而，正如摩根士丹利也承认的那样，虽然“市场关注的是滞胀，但它还没有完全决定这个词的真正含义。”</blockquote> So to help shed some light on what most Wall Street professionals think when they hear the term \"Stagflation\", today we publish a second post on the topic of stagflation, in which we point readers to the latest monthly survey conducted by Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid who asked just this question and agrees with Morgan Stanley that \"one of the problems that the survey throws up is how we define “Stagflation”. It also shows the perceived elevated risks of it.\"<blockquote>因此，为了帮助了解大多数华尔街专业人士在听到“滞胀”一词时的想法，今天我们发布了关于滞胀主题的第二篇文章，其中我们向读者指出德意志银行吉姆·里德进行的最新月度调查，他提出了这个问题，并同意摩根士丹利的观点，即“调查提出的问题之一是我们如何定义‘滞胀’。它还显示了人们认为滞胀的风险增加。”</blockquote> Here's what the survey found:<blockquote>调查结果如下：</blockquote> <ul> <li>43% define Stagflation as “growth around zero or negative and inflation well above target”</li> <li>30% define Stagflation as “growth below trend and inflation comfortably above target”</li> <li>25% define Stagflation as “a strong slowdown in growth and strong pickup in inflation”</li> </ul> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c1106e13503d4a8be89bb96fc1957fe\" tg-width=\"1312\" tg-height=\"640\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote><ul><li>43%的人将滞胀定义为“增长接近零或负增长，通胀远高于目标”</li><li>30%的人将滞胀定义为“增长低于趋势，通胀轻松高于目标”</li><li>25%的人将滞胀定义为“增长强劲放缓，通胀强劲回升”</li></ul></blockquote> As Reid notes, although the top most negative definition is the most popular, there is a relatively even split of definitions out there.\"This is important because there’s a huge potential difference in the impact of these scenarios on global markets over the next 12-18 months.So when the term is used we have to be careful to understand the definition behind it.\"<blockquote>正如里德指出的，尽管最负面的定义是最受欢迎的，但定义的分布相对均匀。“这很重要，因为这些情景在未来12-18个月内对全球市场的影响存在巨大的潜在差异。因此，当使用这个术语时，我们必须仔细理解其背后的定义。”</blockquote> Reid also admits that he was very surprised how strong the consensus is now that stagflation of some kind is more likely than not over the next 12 months: for the most aggressively negative definition, the very high or high risk is still “only” 22% and 33% for the US and Europe.It is a stunningly high 54% in the UK though.<blockquote>里德还承认，他对现在的共识如此强烈感到非常惊讶，即未来12个月更有可能出现某种滞胀：对于最激进的负面定义，美国和欧洲的非常高或高风险仍然“只有”22%和33%。不过，在英国，这一比例高达54%，令人震惊。</blockquote> Surprisingly around 40% think the US is at risk of growth being below trend over the next year which given that consensus forecasts for GDP growth in 2022 is c.4%, feels quite aggressive.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，大约40%的人认为美国明年的增长面临低于趋势的风险，鉴于对2022年GDP增长的普遍预测为约4%，这感觉相当激进。</blockquote> What this means in practical terms, is that if these numbers are proved correct, \"markets could be massively mis-priced\", according to the DB strategist. The silver lining to Reid, and here he is somewhat in agreement with Morgan Stanley, is that his \"gut feel\" is that while the risks are elevated, especially on the inflation side, \"the phrase “stagflation” is being used too aggressively at the moment.\"<blockquote>这实际上意味着，如果这些数字被证明是正确的，”市场可能被严重错误定价德银策略师表示：“里德的一线希望是，他在某种程度上同意摩根士丹利的观点，即他的“直觉”是，虽然风险很高，尤其是在通胀方面，但“滞胀”一词目前被过于激进地使用。”</blockquote> The next few months will prove if he is right.<blockquote>接下来的几个月将证明他是否正确。</blockquote>","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>Here's How Wall Street Defines \"Stagflation\" And Why \"Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced\"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</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\">\nHere's How Wall Street Defines \"Stagflation\" And Why \"Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced\"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-10-11 09:13\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIt is easy to understand why Wall Street is increasingly worried about Stagflation: with the Citi global inflation surprise index surging to the highest level ever (granted, it only captures the period since 1999 so it's unclear how it compares to the 1970s or early 1980s inflation shock periods)..<blockquote>很容易理解为什么华尔街越来越担心滞胀：花旗全球通胀意外指数飙升至有史以来的最高水平（诚然，它只捕捉了1999年以来的时期，因此不清楚它与20世纪70年代或80年代初的通胀冲击时期相比如何）..</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/168c3070fdc609f96adddbe87fc8da99\" tg-width=\"1738\" tg-height=\"866\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... Citi's economic surprise index has turned negative and slumped to levels which historically have indicated an economic slowdown if not outright recession.<blockquote>...花旗的经济意外指数已转为负值，并跌至历史上表明经济放缓（如果不是彻底衰退）的水平。</blockquote> As a result, it's also easy to understand why some of Wall Street's strategists have taken it upon themselves to ease investor concerns that another 1970s stagflationary shock may be coming, most notably Morgan Stanley earlier today, which admits that \"it’s not hard to see why one term seems to come up again and again in conversations with investors: stagflation\" but counters that in its view the surge in energy prices is temporary, and that the most comparable period to the current stagflationary scare is more comparable to 2005 when \"CPI hit 3.5%Y while the US manufacturing PMI had fallen to 52. 'Stagflation' graced the cover of The Economist. These fears eventually passed as growth rebounded and inflation moderated, but we think that 2005 may provide a useful reference point for a scare that comes far short of the 1970s. Equity multiples de-rated throughout 2004-05, consistent with the current forecasts for my colleague Mike Wilson and our US equity strategy team.\"<blockquote>因此，也很容易理解为什么华尔街的一些策略师主动缓解投资者对另一场20世纪70年代滞胀冲击可能即将到来的担忧，最著名的是摩根士丹利今天早些时候承认，“不难理解为什么在与投资者的对话中似乎一次又一次地出现一个术语：滞胀”，但反驳说，在其看来，能源价格的飙升是暂时的，与当前滞胀恐慌最具可比性的时期更像是2005年，当时“CPI同比上涨3.5%，而美国制造业PMI跌至52。随着经济增长反弹和通胀放缓，这些担忧最终消失了，但我们认为2005年可能为远低于20世纪70年代的恐慌提供了一个有用的参考点。2004-05年，股票市盈率下调，这与我的同事迈克·威尔逊和我们的美国股票策略团队目前的预测一致。”</blockquote> Yet as Morgan Stanley also admits, while the \"market is focused on stagflation, it just hasn’t quite decided what that term really means.\"<blockquote>然而，正如摩根士丹利也承认的那样，虽然“市场关注的是滞胀，但它还没有完全决定这个词的真正含义。”</blockquote> So to help shed some light on what most Wall Street professionals think when they hear the term \"Stagflation\", today we publish a second post on the topic of stagflation, in which we point readers to the latest monthly survey conducted by Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid who asked just this question and agrees with Morgan Stanley that \"one of the problems that the survey throws up is how we define “Stagflation”. It also shows the perceived elevated risks of it.\"<blockquote>因此，为了帮助了解大多数华尔街专业人士在听到“滞胀”一词时的想法，今天我们发布了关于滞胀主题的第二篇文章，其中我们向读者指出德意志银行吉姆·里德进行的最新月度调查，他提出了这个问题，并同意摩根士丹利的观点，即“调查提出的问题之一是我们如何定义‘滞胀’。它还显示了人们认为滞胀的风险增加。”</blockquote> Here's what the survey found:<blockquote>调查结果如下：</blockquote> <ul> <li>43% define Stagflation as “growth around zero or negative and inflation well above target”</li> <li>30% define Stagflation as “growth below trend and inflation comfortably above target”</li> <li>25% define Stagflation as “a strong slowdown in growth and strong pickup in inflation”</li> </ul> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5c1106e13503d4a8be89bb96fc1957fe\" tg-width=\"1312\" tg-height=\"640\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote><ul><li>43%的人将滞胀定义为“增长接近零或负增长，通胀远高于目标”</li><li>30%的人将滞胀定义为“增长低于趋势，通胀轻松高于目标”</li><li>25%的人将滞胀定义为“增长强劲放缓，通胀强劲回升”</li></ul></blockquote> As Reid notes, although the top most negative definition is the most popular, there is a relatively even split of definitions out there.\"This is important because there’s a huge potential difference in the impact of these scenarios on global markets over the next 12-18 months.So when the term is used we have to be careful to understand the definition behind it.\"<blockquote>正如里德指出的，尽管最负面的定义是最受欢迎的，但定义的分布相对均匀。“这很重要，因为这些情景在未来12-18个月内对全球市场的影响存在巨大的潜在差异。因此，当使用这个术语时，我们必须仔细理解其背后的定义。”</blockquote> Reid also admits that he was very surprised how strong the consensus is now that stagflation of some kind is more likely than not over the next 12 months: for the most aggressively negative definition, the very high or high risk is still “only” 22% and 33% for the US and Europe.It is a stunningly high 54% in the UK though.<blockquote>里德还承认，他对现在的共识如此强烈感到非常惊讶，即未来12个月更有可能出现某种滞胀：对于最激进的负面定义，美国和欧洲的非常高或高风险仍然“只有”22%和33%。不过，在英国，这一比例高达54%，令人震惊。</blockquote> Surprisingly around 40% think the US is at risk of growth being below trend over the next year which given that consensus forecasts for GDP growth in 2022 is c.4%, feels quite aggressive.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，大约40%的人认为美国明年的增长面临低于趋势的风险，鉴于对2022年GDP增长的普遍预测为约4%，这感觉相当激进。</blockquote> What this means in practical terms, is that if these numbers are proved correct, \"markets could be massively mis-priced\", according to the DB strategist. The silver lining to Reid, and here he is somewhat in agreement with Morgan Stanley, is that his \"gut feel\" is that while the risks are elevated, especially on the inflation side, \"the phrase “stagflation” is being used too aggressively at the moment.\"<blockquote>这实际上意味着，如果这些数字被证明是正确的，”市场可能被严重错误定价德银策略师表示：“里德的一线希望是，他在某种程度上同意摩根士丹利的观点，即他的“直觉”是，虽然风险很高，尤其是在通胀方面，但“滞胀”一词目前被过于激进地使用。”</blockquote> The next few months will prove if he is right.<blockquote>接下来的几个月将证明他是否正确。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/heres-how-wall-street-defines-stagflation-and-why-markets-could-be-massively-mispriced?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/heres-how-wall-street-defines-stagflation-and-why-markets-could-be-massively-mispriced?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1199183279","content_text":"It is easy to understand why Wall Street is increasingly worried about Stagflation: with the Citi global inflation surprise index surging to the highest level ever (granted, it only captures the period since 1999 so it's unclear how it compares to the 1970s or early 1980s inflation shock periods)..\n\n... Citi's economic surprise index has turned negative and slumped to levels which historically have indicated an economic slowdown if not outright recession.\nAs a result, it's also easy to understand why some of Wall Street's strategists have taken it upon themselves to ease investor concerns that another 1970s stagflationary shock may be coming, most notably Morgan Stanley earlier today, which admits that \"it’s not hard to see why one term seems to come up again and again in conversations with investors: stagflation\" but counters that in its view the surge in energy prices is temporary, and that the most comparable period to the current stagflationary scare is more comparable to 2005 when \"CPI hit 3.5%Y while the US manufacturing PMI had fallen to 52. 'Stagflation' graced the cover of The Economist. These fears eventually passed as growth rebounded and inflation moderated, but we think that 2005 may provide a useful reference point for a scare that comes far short of the 1970s. Equity multiples de-rated throughout 2004-05, consistent with the current forecasts for my colleague Mike Wilson and our US equity strategy team.\"\nYet as Morgan Stanley also admits, while the \"market is focused on stagflation, it just hasn’t quite decided what that term really means.\"\nSo to help shed some light on what most Wall Street professionals think when they hear the term \"Stagflation\", today we publish a second post on the topic of stagflation, in which we point readers to the latest monthly survey conducted by Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid who asked just this question and agrees with Morgan Stanley that \"one of the problems that the survey throws up is how we define “Stagflation”. It also shows the perceived elevated risks of it.\"\nHere's what the survey found:\n\n43% define Stagflation as “growth around zero or negative and inflation well above target”\n30% define Stagflation as “growth below trend and inflation comfortably above target”\n25% define Stagflation as “a strong slowdown in growth and strong pickup in inflation”\n\n\nAs Reid notes, although the top most negative definition is the most popular, there is a relatively even split of definitions out there.\"This is important because there’s a huge potential difference in the impact of these scenarios on global markets over the next 12-18 months.So when the term is used we have to be careful to understand the definition behind it.\"\nReid also admits that he was very surprised how strong the consensus is now that stagflation of some kind is more likely than not over the next 12 months: for the most aggressively negative definition, the very high or high risk is still “only” 22% and 33% for the US and Europe.It is a stunningly high 54% in the UK though.\nSurprisingly around 40% think the US is at risk of growth being below trend over the next year which given that consensus forecasts for GDP growth in 2022 is c.4%, feels quite aggressive.\nWhat this means in practical terms, is that if these numbers are proved correct, \"markets could be massively mis-priced\", according to the DB strategist. The silver lining to Reid, and here he is somewhat in agreement with Morgan Stanley, is that his \"gut feel\" is that while the risks are elevated, especially on the inflation side, \"the phrase “stagflation” is being used too aggressively at the moment.\"\nThe next few months will prove if he is right.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2839,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":2,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}

Here's How Wall Street Defines "Stagflation" And Why "Markets Could Be Massively Mispriced"<blockquote>以下是华尔街如何定义“滞胀”以及为什么“市场可能被严重错误定价”</blockquote>

评论（1）

热议股票