Like and comment_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-05-12

Like and comment

Three Places Where "Permanently" Higher Inflation Could Come From<blockquote>“永久”高通胀可能来自三个地方</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。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":193405759,"tweetId":"193405759","gmtCreate":1620805925671,"gmtModify":1634196162460,"author":{"id":3582026584233746,"idStr":"3582026584233746","authorId":3582026584233746,"authorIdStr":"3582026584233746","name":"cookiemonstr","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dfdda60d9914bdbf35bd08fe9ee92d34","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":2,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Like and comment&nbsp;</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Like and comment&nbsp;</body></html>","text":"Like and comment","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/193405759","repostId":1195374535,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195374535","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1620805173,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1195374535?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-05-12 15:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Three Places Where \"Permanently\" Higher Inflation Could Come From<blockquote>“永久”高通胀可能来自三个地方</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195374535","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Tomorrow we get a CPI number which according to consensus at least, will be historic: it will be the","content":"Tomorrow we get a CPI number which according to consensus at least, will be historic: it will be the first 0.3% sequential increase in core (not the much higher headline) prices this century...<blockquote>明天我们将得到一个CPI数据，至少根据共识，这将是历史性的：这将是本世纪核心价格（而不是更高的总体价格）首次连续上涨0.3%...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/27af6e7edc6cbaf6b622fb05b58c3c4b\" tg-width=\"719\" tg-height=\"451\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... a talking point which will merely underscore therecent surge in inflation fears across both companies(who can pass these rising costs on to consumers)...<blockquote>...这个话题只会凸显两家公司最近对通胀的担忧激增（他们可以将这些上升的成本转嫁给消费者）...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4a68a52569c972ded6b731f135eea4d6\" tg-width=\"811\" tg-height=\"576\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... and consumers (who can't).<blockquote>...和消费者（谁不能）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e5e6c688cc8aadf696b91436b5817082\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"631\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Yet while households are growing more convinced with each passing day that higher prices will stick, with the NY Fed's latest survey of consumer expectations revealing that over the next year consumers anticipate gasoline prices jumping 9.18%, food prices gaining 5.79%, medical costs surging 9.13%, the price of a college education climbing 5.93%, and rent prices increasing 9.49%...<blockquote>然而，尽管家庭越来越相信价格将持续上涨，但纽约联储最新的消费者预期调查显示，明年消费者预计汽油价格将上涨9.18%，食品价格将上涨5.79%，医疗费用将飙升9.13%，大学教育价格将上涨5.93%，租金价格将上涨9.49%...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/61a55ee10178ca6be09900dc2a1499ad\" tg-width=\"720\" tg-height=\"430\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... neither the Fed, nor sellside analysts are willing to concede as much yet. Take BofA's chief economist Michelle Meyer,who expects core PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred measure, to peak at 2.3% this quarter, before settling back down to 1.9% by the end of 2021.Meyer then expects prices to trend slightly higher over the medium term, eventually surpassing the Fed’s target consistently enough (and in an environment of full employment) that interest rate hikes will be warranted, possibly not until the second half 2023.<blockquote>...美联储和卖方分析师都不愿意做出这么多让步。以美国银行首席经济学家米歇尔·迈耶为例，世卫组织预计，美联储首选的核心PCE通胀率将在本季度达到2.3%的峰值，然后在2021年底回落至1.9%。迈耶随后预计，中期内物价将小幅走高，最终持续超过美联储的目标（并且在充分就业的环境下），加息将是合理的，可能要到2023年下半年。</blockquote>Needless to say, the market disagrees, and especially the bond market, where traders are pricing in far more inflation and faster Fed hikes than that. But, as BofA's Jared Woodard notes, they often do, and are usually very early: as shown in the chart below, since 2007, rates implied by Fed funds futures have been, on average, 54bp higher than actual interest rates one year later.<blockquote>不用说，市场并不同意，尤其是债券市场，交易员对通胀和美联储加息速度的定价远高于此。但是，正如美国银行的贾里德·伍德尔德(Jared Woodard)指出的那样，他们经常这样做，而且通常很早：如下图所示，自2007年以来，联邦基金期货隐含的利率平均比一年后的实际利率高出54个基点。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2a9e3f386c0eb83cb85332166639cfc2\" tg-width=\"814\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>But maybe this time will be different? As Woodard counters, the challenge for those who expect permanently higher or harmful inflation is to explain where it will come from. In response, the BofA strategist says he can see three possible sources of \"permanent\" inflation, if no no plausible ones.<blockquote>但也许这一次会有所不同？正如伍德尔德反驳的那样，对于那些预计通胀将永久上升或有害的人来说，面临的挑战是解释通胀将从何而来。作为回应，这位美国银行策略师表示，他可以看到“永久性”通胀的三个可能来源，如果没有的话，也没有可信的来源。</blockquote>1. Scarce goods<blockquote>1.稀缺商品</blockquote>In 2020, many firms cut capacity and reduced inventories, expecting a long recession. The faster rebound has meant shortages in lumber, corn, copper, etc. Some bottlenecks may lack quick fixes (e.g. semiconductors), but many others can be resolved.<blockquote>2020年，许多企业削减产能并减少库存，预计经济将长期衰退。更快的反弹意味着木材、玉米、铜等的短缺。一些瓶颈可能缺乏快速解决方案（例如半导体），但许多其他瓶颈是可以解决的。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d139daae62b51fa851325f547b12ff6\" tg-width=\"574\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>More importantly, whether necessitated by Covid or by the reorientation of supply chains toward reliable democracies, a period of higher capex should be tolerable. Many companies have proven pricing power, and in Q1, US corporate profit margins are at record highs.<blockquote>更重要的是，无论是新冠疫情还是供应链向可靠民主国家的重新定位所必需的，一段时间的较高资本支出应该是可以忍受的。许多公司已经证明了定价能力，在Q1，美国企业利润率处于历史新高。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/55166877bb7a954c6ecb42099092803a\" tg-width=\"572\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Scarce workers<blockquote>稀缺工人</blockquote>Woodard then predicts that there are also good reasons to think that any sharp surge in wages will end by Q4 for the following reasons:<blockquote>伍德尔德随后预测，也有充分的理由认为工资的任何大幅上涨都将在第四季度结束，原因如下：</blockquote><ul><li>Labor supply is set to rise sharply.</li><li>Generous unemployment insurance benefits expire in September,</li><li>children will return to public schools,</li><li>health concerns will be alleviated,</li><li>firms will be able to hire from a broader pool of remote workers.</li></ul>Indeed, we have 9.8 million unemployed workers and BofA economists expect an additional 2mm+ returning to the labor force by the fall, by which point the Biden unemployment checks will have expired.<blockquote><ul><li>劳动力供应将大幅上升。</li><li>优厚的失业保险金9月到期，</li><li>孩子们将回到公立学校，</li><li>健康担忧将得到缓解，</li><li>公司将能够从更广泛的远程员工中招聘员工。</li></ul>事实上，我们有980万失业工人，美国银行经济学家预计，到秋季，将有超过200万人重返劳动力市场，届时拜登的失业支票将到期。</blockquote>Meanwhile, those widespread reports of employers offering hiring bonuses...<blockquote>与此同时，那些关于雇主提供招聘奖金的广泛报道...</blockquote>... are a sign of a temporary mismatch, not an incipient spiral. \"A bonus is not a raise\", according to BofA... although it's a key part of one's compensation - we wonder how many BofA bankers would work without one.<blockquote>...是暂时不匹配的迹象，而不是初期的螺旋。美国银行表示，“奖金不是加薪”...尽管这是一个人薪酬的关键部分，但我们想知道有多少美国银行银行家没有它会工作。</blockquote>In any case, BofA believes that a higher long-term trend in wage growth would be positive for GDP and productivity: of the firms that said they will not raise capex in the latest Duke CFO survey, 2/3 said it is because they “have no need to expand capacity.” Persistent higher demand is necessary for sustained corporate investment. It’s, therefore, hard even to imagine a wage-spiral tail risk according to Woodard who argues thatit would take steady wage gains of 10-12% to push inflation to the levels of the 1970s &amp; 80s...<blockquote>无论如何，美国银行认为，更高的工资增长长期趋势将对GDP和生产率产生积极影响：在杜克大学最新首席财务官调查中表示不会提高资本支出的公司中，2/3表示这是因为他们“没有必要扩大产能。”持续的更高需求对于持续的企业投资是必要的。因此，伍德尔德认为，甚至很难想象工资螺旋尾部风险工资稳定增长10-12%才能将通胀率推至20世纪70年代和80年代的水平...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f79bff1023630f5919adc5fbbad205fd\" tg-width=\"806\" tg-height=\"575\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>...and the US economy is structured very differently today. Non-elite unions are politically toothless. Technology penetrates every industry. The offshoring of more services is coming.<blockquote>...如今，美国经济的结构非常不同。非精英工会在政治上没有影响力。技术渗透每个行业。更多服务的离岸化即将到来。</blockquote>Excess demand<blockquote>需求过剩</blockquote>The last argument against persistent inflation is that there are also no signs of excess demand. The latest BofA consumer appears to affirm a “fiscal liquidity trap” thesis.<blockquote>反对持续通胀的最后一个论点是，也没有需求过剩的迹象。最新的美国银行消费者报告似乎证实了“财政流动性陷阱”的论点。</blockquote><ul><li>High-income households have excess savings, but history shows they don’t spend; and a chill in high-income spending is more likely in 2021 from the threat of higher taxes (Ricardian equivalence);</li><li>Low-income households received excess stimulus but their spending has already peaked (Exhibit 7) and &lt;10% of new rounds of stimulus are being spent (Exhibit 8).</li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5df55809f076503eeb36dc7c238671c4\" tg-width=\"1203\" tg-height=\"516\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote><ul><li>高收入家庭有超额储蓄，但历史表明他们不消费；由于高税收的威胁（李嘉图等价），2021年高收入支出更有可能降温；</li><li>低收入家庭获得了过多的刺激，但他们的支出已经达到顶峰（图表7），新一轮刺激的支出不到10%（图表8）。</li></ul></blockquote>While we are confident that many readers will disagree, Woodard concludes that \"in sum, we expect high inflation levels to be transitory because structural deflationary forces are very strong, most supply shortages can be resolved, wage increases are modest (and helpful long-term in any case), and there is no evidence of excess demand.\"<blockquote>虽然我们相信许多读者会不同意，但伍德尔德的结论是，“总而言之，我们预计高通胀水平将是暂时的，因为结构性通缩力量非常强大，大多数供应短缺可以得到解决，工资增长温和（并且有助于长期增长）。在任何情况下），并且没有证据表明需求过剩。”</blockquote>Bullshit, you say. Between the trillions in stimulus and the monetary pump, this time is different.<blockquote>胡说，你说。在万亿刺激和货币泵之间，这一次是不同的。</blockquote>Perhaps, but there is another problem: anyone wishing to hedge against soaring inflation faces a daunting high cost (one could almost say \"inflationary\" cost).<blockquote>也许吧，但还有另一个问题：任何希望对冲飙升的通胀的人都面临着令人生畏的高成本（人们几乎可以说是“通胀”成本）。</blockquote>As shown in the chart below, historical data show that a permanent portfolio allocation to inflation assets only hurts returns (unlike a deflationary bias). Allocating $1 in 1974 equally to a basket of commodities, gold, global value, and European equities - i.e. inflationary assets -&nbsp; was worth $38 today; at the same time, an allocation to IG corporate bonds, Treasuries, US growth stocks, and the S&amp;P 500 was worth $104.<blockquote>如下图所示，历史数据显示，对通胀资产的永久投资组合配置只会损害回报（与通缩偏见不同）。1974年将1美元平均分配给一篮子大宗商品、黄金、全球价值和欧洲股票——即通胀资产——今天价值38美元；与此同时，IG公司债券、国债、美国成长股和标普500的配置价值104美元。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7e8b7135501c05cacea099ec1152a385\" tg-width=\"815\" tg-height=\"626\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Curiously, even a tactical allocation imposes a significant cost unless timed perfectly. BofA economists expect 3.6% average inflation for Q2. Over the last 30 years, there were five occasions when CPI surged above that level (May’01, Sept’05, June’06, Oct’07, June’11).<blockquote>奇怪的是，除非时机完美，否则即使是战术分配也会带来巨大的成本。美国银行经济学家预计第二季度平均通胀率为3.6%。在过去的30年里，CPI有五次飙升至该水平以上（2001年5月、2005年9月、2006年6月、2007年10月、2011年6月）。</blockquote>On average, investors who bought inflation assets on those triggers suffered losses over the next year: commodities -10%, value vs growth -2%, EU vs US equities -3% and cyclical vs defensives -1%. Only TIPS and small vs large saw positive average returns. And today, 10-year TIPS yield -0.93%, just 19bps from record lows.<blockquote>平均而言，在这些触发因素下购买通胀资产的投资者在下一年遭受了损失：大宗商品-10%，价值与成长-2%，欧盟与美国股票-3%，周期性与防御性-1%。只有TIPS和小型vs大型看到了正的平均回报。如今，10年期TIPS收益率为-0.93%，距离历史低点仅19个基点。</blockquote>In conclusion, Woodard writes that \"the best time to buy inflation protection would be after the next “natural” recession, not when inflation expectations are already at 13-year highs.\"<blockquote>总之，伍德尔德写道“购买通胀保护的最佳时机是在下一次‘自然’衰退之后，而不是在通胀预期已经处于13年高点的时候。”</blockquote>While that may true, one thing Woodard refuses to admit - or perhaps forgot to acknowledge - is that in a world where even the BIS admits it is in the business of manipulating gold lower, crypto has emerged as the best inflation hedge in the world. In that case, his entire argument about \"expensive\" inflation hedges can be thrown out, because one look at the return of bitcoin, ethereum, or the various DeFi tokens in the past year, and the conclusion is that the market is convinced that what is coming will make the Weimar and Zimbabwe hyperinflations seem like a walk in the park...<blockquote>虽然这可能是真的，但伍德沃德拒绝承认——或者可能忘记承认——的一件事是，在一个连国际清算银行都承认自己在操纵黄金走低的世界里，加密货币已经成为世界上最好的通胀对冲工具。在这种情况下，他关于“昂贵的”通胀对冲的整个论点可以被抛出，因为看看过去一年比特币、以太币或各种DeFi代币的回归，结论是市场确信即将到来的事情将使魏玛和辛巴威的恶性通胀看起来像是在公园散步...</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>Three Places Where \"Permanently\" Higher Inflation Could Come From<blockquote>“永久”高通胀可能来自三个地方</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\">\nThree Places Where \"Permanently\" Higher Inflation Could Come From<blockquote>“永久”高通胀可能来自三个地方</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-05-12 15:39\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nTomorrow we get a CPI number which according to consensus at least, will be historic: it will be the first 0.3% sequential increase in core (not the much higher headline) prices this century...<blockquote>明天我们将得到一个CPI数据，至少根据共识，这将是历史性的：这将是本世纪核心价格（而不是更高的总体价格）首次连续上涨0.3%...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/27af6e7edc6cbaf6b622fb05b58c3c4b\" tg-width=\"719\" tg-height=\"451\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... a talking point which will merely underscore therecent surge in inflation fears across both companies(who can pass these rising costs on to consumers)...<blockquote>...这个话题只会凸显两家公司最近对通胀的担忧激增（他们可以将这些上升的成本转嫁给消费者）...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4a68a52569c972ded6b731f135eea4d6\" tg-width=\"811\" tg-height=\"576\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... and consumers (who can't).<blockquote>...和消费者（谁不能）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e5e6c688cc8aadf696b91436b5817082\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"631\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Yet while households are growing more convinced with each passing day that higher prices will stick, with the NY Fed's latest survey of consumer expectations revealing that over the next year consumers anticipate gasoline prices jumping 9.18%, food prices gaining 5.79%, medical costs surging 9.13%, the price of a college education climbing 5.93%, and rent prices increasing 9.49%...<blockquote>然而，尽管家庭越来越相信价格将持续上涨，但纽约联储最新的消费者预期调查显示，明年消费者预计汽油价格将上涨9.18%，食品价格将上涨5.79%，医疗费用将飙升9.13%，大学教育价格将上涨5.93%，租金价格将上涨9.49%...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/61a55ee10178ca6be09900dc2a1499ad\" tg-width=\"720\" tg-height=\"430\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>... neither the Fed, nor sellside analysts are willing to concede as much yet. Take BofA's chief economist Michelle Meyer,who expects core PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred measure, to peak at 2.3% this quarter, before settling back down to 1.9% by the end of 2021.Meyer then expects prices to trend slightly higher over the medium term, eventually surpassing the Fed’s target consistently enough (and in an environment of full employment) that interest rate hikes will be warranted, possibly not until the second half 2023.<blockquote>...美联储和卖方分析师都不愿意做出这么多让步。以美国银行首席经济学家米歇尔·迈耶为例，世卫组织预计，美联储首选的核心PCE通胀率将在本季度达到2.3%的峰值，然后在2021年底回落至1.9%。迈耶随后预计，中期内物价将小幅走高，最终持续超过美联储的目标（并且在充分就业的环境下），加息将是合理的，可能要到2023年下半年。</blockquote>Needless to say, the market disagrees, and especially the bond market, where traders are pricing in far more inflation and faster Fed hikes than that. But, as BofA's Jared Woodard notes, they often do, and are usually very early: as shown in the chart below, since 2007, rates implied by Fed funds futures have been, on average, 54bp higher than actual interest rates one year later.<blockquote>不用说，市场并不同意，尤其是债券市场，交易员对通胀和美联储加息速度的定价远高于此。但是，正如美国银行的贾里德·伍德尔德(Jared Woodard)指出的那样，他们经常这样做，而且通常很早：如下图所示，自2007年以来，联邦基金期货隐含的利率平均比一年后的实际利率高出54个基点。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2a9e3f386c0eb83cb85332166639cfc2\" tg-width=\"814\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>But maybe this time will be different? As Woodard counters, the challenge for those who expect permanently higher or harmful inflation is to explain where it will come from. In response, the BofA strategist says he can see three possible sources of \"permanent\" inflation, if no no plausible ones.<blockquote>但也许这一次会有所不同？正如伍德尔德反驳的那样，对于那些预计通胀将永久上升或有害的人来说，面临的挑战是解释通胀将从何而来。作为回应，这位美国银行策略师表示，他可以看到“永久性”通胀的三个可能来源，如果没有的话，也没有可信的来源。</blockquote>1. Scarce goods<blockquote>1.稀缺商品</blockquote>In 2020, many firms cut capacity and reduced inventories, expecting a long recession. The faster rebound has meant shortages in lumber, corn, copper, etc. Some bottlenecks may lack quick fixes (e.g. semiconductors), but many others can be resolved.<blockquote>2020年，许多企业削减产能并减少库存，预计经济将长期衰退。更快的反弹意味着木材、玉米、铜等的短缺。一些瓶颈可能缺乏快速解决方案（例如半导体），但许多其他瓶颈是可以解决的。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d139daae62b51fa851325f547b12ff6\" tg-width=\"574\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>More importantly, whether necessitated by Covid or by the reorientation of supply chains toward reliable democracies, a period of higher capex should be tolerable. Many companies have proven pricing power, and in Q1, US corporate profit margins are at record highs.<blockquote>更重要的是，无论是新冠疫情还是供应链向可靠民主国家的重新定位所必需的，一段时间的较高资本支出应该是可以忍受的。许多公司已经证明了定价能力，在Q1，美国企业利润率处于历史新高。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/55166877bb7a954c6ecb42099092803a\" tg-width=\"572\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Scarce workers<blockquote>稀缺工人</blockquote>Woodard then predicts that there are also good reasons to think that any sharp surge in wages will end by Q4 for the following reasons:<blockquote>伍德尔德随后预测，也有充分的理由认为工资的任何大幅上涨都将在第四季度结束，原因如下：</blockquote><ul><li>Labor supply is set to rise sharply.</li><li>Generous unemployment insurance benefits expire in September,</li><li>children will return to public schools,</li><li>health concerns will be alleviated,</li><li>firms will be able to hire from a broader pool of remote workers.</li></ul>Indeed, we have 9.8 million unemployed workers and BofA economists expect an additional 2mm+ returning to the labor force by the fall, by which point the Biden unemployment checks will have expired.<blockquote><ul><li>劳动力供应将大幅上升。</li><li>优厚的失业保险金9月到期，</li><li>孩子们将回到公立学校，</li><li>健康担忧将得到缓解，</li><li>公司将能够从更广泛的远程员工中招聘员工。</li></ul>事实上，我们有980万失业工人，美国银行经济学家预计，到秋季，将有超过200万人重返劳动力市场，届时拜登的失业支票将到期。</blockquote>Meanwhile, those widespread reports of employers offering hiring bonuses...<blockquote>与此同时，那些关于雇主提供招聘奖金的广泛报道...</blockquote>... are a sign of a temporary mismatch, not an incipient spiral. \"A bonus is not a raise\", according to BofA... although it's a key part of one's compensation - we wonder how many BofA bankers would work without one.<blockquote>...是暂时不匹配的迹象，而不是初期的螺旋。美国银行表示，“奖金不是加薪”...尽管这是一个人薪酬的关键部分，但我们想知道有多少美国银行银行家没有它会工作。</blockquote>In any case, BofA believes that a higher long-term trend in wage growth would be positive for GDP and productivity: of the firms that said they will not raise capex in the latest Duke CFO survey, 2/3 said it is because they “have no need to expand capacity.” Persistent higher demand is necessary for sustained corporate investment. It’s, therefore, hard even to imagine a wage-spiral tail risk according to Woodard who argues thatit would take steady wage gains of 10-12% to push inflation to the levels of the 1970s &amp; 80s...<blockquote>无论如何，美国银行认为，更高的工资增长长期趋势将对GDP和生产率产生积极影响：在杜克大学最新首席财务官调查中表示不会提高资本支出的公司中，2/3表示这是因为他们“没有必要扩大产能。”持续的更高需求对于持续的企业投资是必要的。因此，伍德尔德认为，甚至很难想象工资螺旋尾部风险工资稳定增长10-12%才能将通胀率推至20世纪70年代和80年代的水平...</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f79bff1023630f5919adc5fbbad205fd\" tg-width=\"806\" tg-height=\"575\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>...and the US economy is structured very differently today. Non-elite unions are politically toothless. Technology penetrates every industry. The offshoring of more services is coming.<blockquote>...如今，美国经济的结构非常不同。非精英工会在政治上没有影响力。技术渗透每个行业。更多服务的离岸化即将到来。</blockquote>Excess demand<blockquote>需求过剩</blockquote>The last argument against persistent inflation is that there are also no signs of excess demand. The latest BofA consumer appears to affirm a “fiscal liquidity trap” thesis.<blockquote>反对持续通胀的最后一个论点是，也没有需求过剩的迹象。最新的美国银行消费者报告似乎证实了“财政流动性陷阱”的论点。</blockquote><ul><li>High-income households have excess savings, but history shows they don’t spend; and a chill in high-income spending is more likely in 2021 from the threat of higher taxes (Ricardian equivalence);</li><li>Low-income households received excess stimulus but their spending has already peaked (Exhibit 7) and &lt;10% of new rounds of stimulus are being spent (Exhibit 8).</li></ul><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5df55809f076503eeb36dc7c238671c4\" tg-width=\"1203\" tg-height=\"516\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote><ul><li>高收入家庭有超额储蓄，但历史表明他们不消费；由于高税收的威胁（李嘉图等价），2021年高收入支出更有可能降温；</li><li>低收入家庭获得了过多的刺激，但他们的支出已经达到顶峰（图表7），新一轮刺激的支出不到10%（图表8）。</li></ul></blockquote>While we are confident that many readers will disagree, Woodard concludes that \"in sum, we expect high inflation levels to be transitory because structural deflationary forces are very strong, most supply shortages can be resolved, wage increases are modest (and helpful long-term in any case), and there is no evidence of excess demand.\"<blockquote>虽然我们相信许多读者会不同意，但伍德尔德的结论是，“总而言之，我们预计高通胀水平将是暂时的，因为结构性通缩力量非常强大，大多数供应短缺可以得到解决，工资增长温和（并且有助于长期增长）。在任何情况下），并且没有证据表明需求过剩。”</blockquote>Bullshit, you say. Between the trillions in stimulus and the monetary pump, this time is different.<blockquote>胡说，你说。在万亿刺激和货币泵之间，这一次是不同的。</blockquote>Perhaps, but there is another problem: anyone wishing to hedge against soaring inflation faces a daunting high cost (one could almost say \"inflationary\" cost).<blockquote>也许吧，但还有另一个问题：任何希望对冲飙升的通胀的人都面临着令人生畏的高成本（人们几乎可以说是“通胀”成本）。</blockquote>As shown in the chart below, historical data show that a permanent portfolio allocation to inflation assets only hurts returns (unlike a deflationary bias). Allocating $1 in 1974 equally to a basket of commodities, gold, global value, and European equities - i.e. inflationary assets -&nbsp; was worth $38 today; at the same time, an allocation to IG corporate bonds, Treasuries, US growth stocks, and the S&amp;P 500 was worth $104.<blockquote>如下图所示，历史数据显示，对通胀资产的永久投资组合配置只会损害回报（与通缩偏见不同）。1974年将1美元平均分配给一篮子大宗商品、黄金、全球价值和欧洲股票——即通胀资产——今天价值38美元；与此同时，IG公司债券、国债、美国成长股和标普500的配置价值104美元。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7e8b7135501c05cacea099ec1152a385\" tg-width=\"815\" tg-height=\"626\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>Curiously, even a tactical allocation imposes a significant cost unless timed perfectly. BofA economists expect 3.6% average inflation for Q2. Over the last 30 years, there were five occasions when CPI surged above that level (May’01, Sept’05, June’06, Oct’07, June’11).<blockquote>奇怪的是，除非时机完美，否则即使是战术分配也会带来巨大的成本。美国银行经济学家预计第二季度平均通胀率为3.6%。在过去的30年里，CPI有五次飙升至该水平以上（2001年5月、2005年9月、2006年6月、2007年10月、2011年6月）。</blockquote>On average, investors who bought inflation assets on those triggers suffered losses over the next year: commodities -10%, value vs growth -2%, EU vs US equities -3% and cyclical vs defensives -1%. Only TIPS and small vs large saw positive average returns. And today, 10-year TIPS yield -0.93%, just 19bps from record lows.<blockquote>平均而言，在这些触发因素下购买通胀资产的投资者在下一年遭受了损失：大宗商品-10%，价值与成长-2%，欧盟与美国股票-3%，周期性与防御性-1%。只有TIPS和小型vs大型看到了正的平均回报。如今，10年期TIPS收益率为-0.93%，距离历史低点仅19个基点。</blockquote>In conclusion, Woodard writes that \"the best time to buy inflation protection would be after the next “natural” recession, not when inflation expectations are already at 13-year highs.\"<blockquote>总之，伍德尔德写道“购买通胀保护的最佳时机是在下一次‘自然’衰退之后，而不是在通胀预期已经处于13年高点的时候。”</blockquote>While that may true, one thing Woodard refuses to admit - or perhaps forgot to acknowledge - is that in a world where even the BIS admits it is in the business of manipulating gold lower, crypto has emerged as the best inflation hedge in the world. In that case, his entire argument about \"expensive\" inflation hedges can be thrown out, because one look at the return of bitcoin, ethereum, or the various DeFi tokens in the past year, and the conclusion is that the market is convinced that what is coming will make the Weimar and Zimbabwe hyperinflations seem like a walk in the park...<blockquote>虽然这可能是真的，但伍德沃德拒绝承认——或者可能忘记承认——的一件事是，在一个连国际清算银行都承认自己在操纵黄金走低的世界里，加密货币已经成为世界上最好的通胀对冲工具。在这种情况下，他关于“昂贵的”通胀对冲的整个论点可以被抛出，因为看看过去一年比特币、以太币或各种DeFi代币的回归，结论是市场确信即将到来的事情将使魏玛和辛巴威的恶性通胀看起来像是在公园散步...</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/three-places-where-permanently-higher-inflation-could-come\">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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/three-places-where-permanently-higher-inflation-could-come","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1195374535","content_text":"Tomorrow we get a CPI number which according to consensus at least, will be historic: it will be the first 0.3% sequential increase in core (not the much higher headline) prices this century...... a talking point which will merely underscore therecent surge in inflation fears across both companies(who can pass these rising costs on to consumers)...... and consumers (who can't).Yet while households are growing more convinced with each passing day that higher prices will stick, with the NY Fed's latest survey of consumer expectations revealing that over the next year consumers anticipate gasoline prices jumping 9.18%, food prices gaining 5.79%, medical costs surging 9.13%, the price of a college education climbing 5.93%, and rent prices increasing 9.49%...... neither the Fed, nor sellside analysts are willing to concede as much yet. Take BofA's chief economist Michelle Meyer,who expects core PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred measure, to peak at 2.3% this quarter, before settling back down to 1.9% by the end of 2021.Meyer then expects prices to trend slightly higher over the medium term, eventually surpassing the Fed’s target consistently enough (and in an environment of full employment) that interest rate hikes will be warranted, possibly not until the second half 2023.Needless to say, the market disagrees, and especially the bond market, where traders are pricing in far more inflation and faster Fed hikes than that. But, as BofA's Jared Woodard notes, they often do, and are usually very early: as shown in the chart below, since 2007, rates implied by Fed funds futures have been, on average, 54bp higher than actual interest rates one year later.But maybe this time will be different? As Woodard counters, the challenge for those who expect permanently higher or harmful inflation is to explain where it will come from. In response, the BofA strategist says he can see three possible sources of \"permanent\" inflation, if no no plausible ones.1. Scarce goodsIn 2020, many firms cut capacity and reduced inventories, expecting a long recession. The faster rebound has meant shortages in lumber, corn, copper, etc. Some bottlenecks may lack quick fixes (e.g. semiconductors), but many others can be resolved.More importantly, whether necessitated by Covid or by the reorientation of supply chains toward reliable democracies, a period of higher capex should be tolerable. Many companies have proven pricing power, and in Q1, US corporate profit margins are at record highs.Scarce workersWoodard then predicts that there are also good reasons to think that any sharp surge in wages will end by Q4 for the following reasons:Labor supply is set to rise sharply.Generous unemployment insurance benefits expire in September,children will return to public schools,health concerns will be alleviated,firms will be able to hire from a broader pool of remote workers.Indeed, we have 9.8 million unemployed workers and BofA economists expect an additional 2mm+ returning to the labor force by the fall, by which point the Biden unemployment checks will have expired.Meanwhile, those widespread reports of employers offering hiring bonuses...... are a sign of a temporary mismatch, not an incipient spiral. \"A bonus is not a raise\", according to BofA... although it's a key part of one's compensation - we wonder how many BofA bankers would work without one.In any case, BofA believes that a higher long-term trend in wage growth would be positive for GDP and productivity: of the firms that said they will not raise capex in the latest Duke CFO survey, 2/3 said it is because they “have no need to expand capacity.” Persistent higher demand is necessary for sustained corporate investment. It’s, therefore, hard even to imagine a wage-spiral tail risk according to Woodard who argues thatit would take steady wage gains of 10-12% to push inflation to the levels of the 1970s & 80s......and the US economy is structured very differently today. Non-elite unions are politically toothless. Technology penetrates every industry. The offshoring of more services is coming.Excess demandThe last argument against persistent inflation is that there are also no signs of excess demand. The latest BofA consumer appears to affirm a “fiscal liquidity trap” thesis.High-income households have excess savings, but history shows they don’t spend; and a chill in high-income spending is more likely in 2021 from the threat of higher taxes (Ricardian equivalence);Low-income households received excess stimulus but their spending has already peaked (Exhibit 7) and <10% of new rounds of stimulus are being spent (Exhibit 8).While we are confident that many readers will disagree, Woodard concludes that \"in sum, we expect high inflation levels to be transitory because structural deflationary forces are very strong, most supply shortages can be resolved, wage increases are modest (and helpful long-term in any case), and there is no evidence of excess demand.\"Bullshit, you say. Between the trillions in stimulus and the monetary pump, this time is different.Perhaps, but there is another problem: anyone wishing to hedge against soaring inflation faces a daunting high cost (one could almost say \"inflationary\" cost).As shown in the chart below, historical data show that a permanent portfolio allocation to inflation assets only hurts returns (unlike a deflationary bias). Allocating $1 in 1974 equally to a basket of commodities, gold, global value, and European equities - i.e. inflationary assets -  was worth $38 today; at the same time, an allocation to IG corporate bonds, Treasuries, US growth stocks, and the S&P 500 was worth $104.Curiously, even a tactical allocation imposes a significant cost unless timed perfectly. BofA economists expect 3.6% average inflation for Q2. Over the last 30 years, there were five occasions when CPI surged above that level (May’01, Sept’05, June’06, Oct’07, June’11).On average, investors who bought inflation assets on those triggers suffered losses over the next year: commodities -10%, value vs growth -2%, EU vs US equities -3% and cyclical vs defensives -1%. Only TIPS and small vs large saw positive average returns. And today, 10-year TIPS yield -0.93%, just 19bps from record lows.In conclusion, Woodard writes that \"the best time to buy inflation protection would be after the next “natural” recession, not when inflation expectations are already at 13-year highs.\"While that may true, one thing Woodard refuses to admit - or perhaps forgot to acknowledge - is that in a world where even the BIS admits it is in the business of manipulating gold lower, crypto has emerged as the best inflation hedge in the world. In that case, his entire argument about \"expensive\" inflation hedges can be thrown out, because one look at the return of bitcoin, ethereum, or the various DeFi tokens in the past year, and the conclusion is that the market is convinced that what is coming will make the Weimar and Zimbabwe hyperinflations seem like a walk in the park...","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":260,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":14,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/193405759"}