JCSnap的个人主页 - 老虎社区

JCSnap

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

3关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-07-01

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-10

Wow

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Nice

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

2021-06-22

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-29

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-24

Nice

The Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</blockquote>

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3581034479181431","uuid":"3581034479181431","gmtCreate":1617940457741,"gmtModify":1617940457741,"name":"JCSnap","pinyin":"jcsnap","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":3,"tweetSize":12,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-1","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"精英交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到30次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.07.26","exceedPercentage":"60.99%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":4,"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":"hot","tweets":[{"id":141688335,"gmtCreate":1625867236327,"gmtModify":1633936658572,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/141688335","repostId":"2150371690","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3386,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":151688789,"gmtCreate":1625083979441,"gmtModify":1633945061617,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/151688789","repostId":"1105779613","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2291,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":159037285,"gmtCreate":1624930797347,"gmtModify":1633946861281,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/159037285","repostId":"1157343235","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2170,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":121402198,"gmtCreate":1624487039514,"gmtModify":1634005557936,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/121402198","repostId":"1191722749","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1191722749","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624455982,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1191722749?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-23 21:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1191722749","media":"zerohedge","summary":"3 Key Takeaways\n\nThe US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt\nMuch of the debt is short-term, mak","content":"<p><b>3 Key Takeaways</b></p><p><blockquote><b>3个关键要点</b></blockquote></p><p> <ol>  <li>The US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt</li>  <li>Much of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates</li>  <li>Higher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget</li> </ol> <b>Introduction</b></p><p><blockquote><ol><li>美国政府有超过28万亿美元的债务</li><li>大部分债务都是短期的，因此对利率上升特别敏感</li><li>更高的利率将立即开始给联邦预算带来压力</li></ol><b>介绍</b></blockquote></p><p> The US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.</p><p><blockquote>美国有超过28万亿美元的债务，并且还在以惊人的速度增长。甚至在 COVID-19 出现之前，这个问题就变得越来越棘手。具有讽刺意味的是，尽管去年增加了 4 万亿美元以上的债务，但疫情可能给了美国政府短期喘息之机，因为它为美联储将利率降至零开了绿灯。</blockquote></p><p> First and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a&nbsp;<b>$4.5T loan at 0% interest</b>&nbsp;in 15 months!</p><p><blockquote>首先，这减轻了财政部的压力，因为它以较低的利率为膨胀的短期未偿债务进行了再融资。然而，随着美联储吸收了自去年3月以来发行的+90%的长期债务，出现了更多的缓解。这使得私人市场有更多空间购买新的短期国库券。因为美联储将利息收入返还给财政部，而且由于国库券的利率为 0%，这实际上给了财政部一个<b>4.5T 美元贷款，0% 利息</b>15个月后!</blockquote></p><p> While this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.</p><p><blockquote>虽然这听起来是一件大事，但它伴随着重大风险，现在已经把美联储关进了一个盒子里。这将在两篇文章中详细解释。第一部分将解释为什么美联储不能再加息，第二部分将展示美联储如何无法缩减规模，甚至可能需要增加国债购买来维持对收益率曲线长端的控制。</blockquote></p><p> <b>$28 Trillion and Growing</b></p><p><blockquote><b>28万亿美元且不断增长</b></blockquote></p><p> The US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府不能停止花钱。现在的支出远远超过了税收收入。美国经济继续经历名义增长，这增加了联邦税收收入，但联邦支出增长速度要快得多。下图1显示了这一明显的趋势。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b5576e9901f1f8310629d45af16836a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> Excess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.</p><p><blockquote>超额支出必须用债务来支付。这种巨大的超支导致联邦政府借款激增，导致未偿债务总额超过28万亿美元。参见下图2。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed345b06ec4a35726fe7d9847937cf34\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> For anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great&nbsp;visual. Now, multiply that by 28!</p><p><blockquote>对于任何努力理解 1 吨美元大小的人来说，请看这张精彩的图片。现在，乘以28!</blockquote></p><p> For most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The&nbsp;petro-dollar&nbsp;should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.</p><p><blockquote>对于大多数政府来说，这将是不可持续的，因为利率将会上升。这给借款人带来了减少支出的压力。美国政府受益于大多数政府所不具备的三大优势。首先，它拥有发行全球储备货币的过高特权（目前），这为美元创造了比其他情况下更多的需求。石油美元应该有自己的专门文章，因此本分析将跳过这一点。</blockquote></p><p> It is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要强调另外两个关键事实，这两个事实使得支出和借贷有增无减。它已经能够从社会保障信托基金借款，美联储近年来吸收了很大一部分债务发行。这不仅相当于 11 万亿美元的无息贷款（因为所有利息支付都会返还给财政部），而且还阻止了私人市场吸收所有新的债务发行，从而保持较低的利率。如下图 3 所示，自 2010 年 1 月以来，在发行的 14.5 万亿美元债券中，私人市场 “只 ”吸收了 9 万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2dee6e735c0a3c1421eb321c0eae4b54\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov 和https://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></blockquote></p><p> Since Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (<i>Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt</i>). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!</p><p><blockquote>自2020年1月以来，数字更加明显。财政部发行了4.5万亿美元，其中美联储承担了2.6万亿美元（<i>注：美联储资产负债表扩张超过 4 万亿美元，但并非全部是国债</i>).深入研究这些数据会发现，美联储对期限更长的国债有更大的兴趣。由于短期利率为 0%，财政部可以向私营部门出售国库券，并且仍然拥有无息贷款。因此，美联储吸收财政部发行的几乎所有（约90%）长期债务以保持较低的利息支付是至关重要的!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/89bf299c6c054e65d3317aa72d0f686a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>The Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments</b></p><p><blockquote><b>到目前为止，财政部一直避免支付更高的利息</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Zooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds &gt;10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.</p><p><blockquote>缩小范围，下面的三张图表显示了为什么去年的演习如此重要。再看看美国债务负担，这次是按工具分类的。非市场债务是政府欠自己的债务，票据代表1-10年到期，票据少于1年，债券&gt;10年。下面的两张图表显示了债务的绝对增长以及债务构成的变化。自2008年以来，票据经历了最大的增长，从未偿还总额的25%增加到42%。非市场资产则相反，由于社会保障信托基金不再是借款来源，其份额从 45% 缩减至 25%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a144f0f9250c364637205e8bd0178bc0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2c1851784731b81544c30c5338624a03\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> It is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要注意上面国库券的增长。票据是财政部面临的最高风险，因为较高的利率将在几个月内影响票据，因此值得注意的是，在 2015 年上一次加息周期中，票据仅占 1.4 万亿美元，但现在占 4.3 万亿美元。这意味着每加息0.25%，几乎会立即增加100亿美元的联邦支出。下图清楚地显示了上一次加息周期的影响。粉线显示了票据如何跟随美联储加息周期，最高接近 2.25%。</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储试图以类似的方式加息，它将立即为联邦支出增加 1000 亿美元，仅用于国库券到期利息。在美联储将资产负债表缩减至1万亿美元（不再有无息贷款）并将利率提高到4%的情况下，财政部将额外增加1600亿美元的国库券利率，高达2900亿美元的国库券利率!这还不包括在此期间增加的任何新债务，现在仅利息支付就包括每年额外的 0.5 万亿美元!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04501c54f465fba412ffbf77b81a559f\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> The chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.</p><p><blockquote>下图显示了近20年来利率下降如何保持债务支付相对稳定的更清晰的影响。该图显示了平均加权利率和年化每月利息支付。橙色线（加权平均利率）与上面看到的债务增长直接相反。在上一个利率紧缩周期中，图表显示了利率上升增加债务负担的速度（$1500）。美联储拥有的国库券很少（3200亿美元），因此这些利息支付不会返还给财政部。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c859933a1e991d3e6ba191ccb6a7609e\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> One final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.</p><p><blockquote>要考虑的最后一张图表。这些利息支付与国税局征收的税收相比如何？在这种背景下，2015年加息周期对债务支付的影响变得非常明显。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/585708ace254d0b79ecddcc77c9c8ca0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Wrapping Up</b></p><p><blockquote><b>包装</b></blockquote></p><p> Nothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).</p><p><blockquote>对于任何密切关注美国债务形势或关注金融市场的人来说，这篇文章中的任何内容都不应该感到惊讶。图表和图形试图显示趋势，并将硬数字放在大多数人已经知道的轶事背后。这篇文章甚至没有涉及更高的利率对房地产市场、公司债务市场和消费者债务市场的破坏性有多大。相反，它只关注财政部，而财政部恰好由美联储前主席（珍妮特·耶伦）管理。</blockquote></p><p> None of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury&nbsp;<i>relief</i>&nbsp;from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.<b>Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.</b>If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,<b>even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.</b>That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!</p><p><blockquote>这些数学都不过分复杂，所有数据都可以在财政部和美联储网站上免费获得。这就引出了一个问题，美联储是意识到利率不能上升，还是只是在照镜子，假设加息至 2.25% 将类似于 2015 年，而 2015 年 “只是 ”被 COVID-19 打乱了轨道？重申一下，利率下降给财政部带来了<i>宽慰</i>来自更高的利息支付。下一次，随着债务负担的增加，他们甚至可能达不到2%的一半。<b>不幸的是，对于美联储来说，他们的盒子比大多数人意识到的要紧。</b>如果美联储现在还没想明白，<b>即使在他们未能提高利率之前，他们也无法缩减量化宽松（债务货币化），更不用说缩减资产负债表了，而不会产生严重后果。</b>这些数据将在第2部分进行审查。敬请期待!</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>The Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</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\">\nThe Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-23 21:46</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>3 Key Takeaways</b></p><p><blockquote><b>3个关键要点</b></blockquote></p><p> <ol>  <li>The US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt</li>  <li>Much of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates</li>  <li>Higher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget</li> </ol> <b>Introduction</b></p><p><blockquote><ol><li>美国政府有超过28万亿美元的债务</li><li>大部分债务都是短期的，因此对利率上升特别敏感</li><li>更高的利率将立即开始给联邦预算带来压力</li></ol><b>介绍</b></blockquote></p><p> The US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.</p><p><blockquote>美国有超过28万亿美元的债务，并且还在以惊人的速度增长。甚至在 COVID-19 出现之前，这个问题就变得越来越棘手。具有讽刺意味的是，尽管去年增加了 4 万亿美元以上的债务，但疫情可能给了美国政府短期喘息之机，因为它为美联储将利率降至零开了绿灯。</blockquote></p><p> First and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a&nbsp;<b>$4.5T loan at 0% interest</b>&nbsp;in 15 months!</p><p><blockquote>首先，这减轻了财政部的压力，因为它以较低的利率为膨胀的短期未偿债务进行了再融资。然而，随着美联储吸收了自去年3月以来发行的+90%的长期债务，出现了更多的缓解。这使得私人市场有更多空间购买新的短期国库券。因为美联储将利息收入返还给财政部，而且由于国库券的利率为 0%，这实际上给了财政部一个<b>4.5T 美元贷款，0% 利息</b>15个月后!</blockquote></p><p> While this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.</p><p><blockquote>虽然这听起来是一件大事，但它伴随着重大风险，现在已经把美联储关进了一个盒子里。这将在两篇文章中详细解释。第一部分将解释为什么美联储不能再加息，第二部分将展示美联储如何无法缩减规模，甚至可能需要增加国债购买来维持对收益率曲线长端的控制。</blockquote></p><p> <b>$28 Trillion and Growing</b></p><p><blockquote><b>28万亿美元且不断增长</b></blockquote></p><p> The US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府不能停止花钱。现在的支出远远超过了税收收入。美国经济继续经历名义增长，这增加了联邦税收收入，但联邦支出增长速度要快得多。下图1显示了这一明显的趋势。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b5576e9901f1f8310629d45af16836a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> Excess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.</p><p><blockquote>超额支出必须用债务来支付。这种巨大的超支导致联邦政府借款激增，导致未偿债务总额超过28万亿美元。参见下图2。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed345b06ec4a35726fe7d9847937cf34\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> For anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great&nbsp;visual. Now, multiply that by 28!</p><p><blockquote>对于任何努力理解 1 吨美元大小的人来说，请看这张精彩的图片。现在，乘以28!</blockquote></p><p> For most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The&nbsp;petro-dollar&nbsp;should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.</p><p><blockquote>对于大多数政府来说，这将是不可持续的，因为利率将会上升。这给借款人带来了减少支出的压力。美国政府受益于大多数政府所不具备的三大优势。首先，它拥有发行全球储备货币的过高特权（目前），这为美元创造了比其他情况下更多的需求。石油美元应该有自己的专门文章，因此本分析将跳过这一点。</blockquote></p><p> It is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要强调另外两个关键事实，这两个事实使得支出和借贷有增无减。它已经能够从社会保障信托基金借款，美联储近年来吸收了很大一部分债务发行。这不仅相当于 11 万亿美元的无息贷款（因为所有利息支付都会返还给财政部），而且还阻止了私人市场吸收所有新的债务发行，从而保持较低的利率。如下图 3 所示，自 2010 年 1 月以来，在发行的 14.5 万亿美元债券中，私人市场 “只 ”吸收了 9 万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2dee6e735c0a3c1421eb321c0eae4b54\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov 和https://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></blockquote></p><p> Since Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (<i>Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt</i>). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!</p><p><blockquote>自2020年1月以来，数字更加明显。财政部发行了4.5万亿美元，其中美联储承担了2.6万亿美元（<i>注：美联储资产负债表扩张超过 4 万亿美元，但并非全部是国债</i>).深入研究这些数据会发现，美联储对期限更长的国债有更大的兴趣。由于短期利率为 0%，财政部可以向私营部门出售国库券，并且仍然拥有无息贷款。因此，美联储吸收财政部发行的几乎所有（约90%）长期债务以保持较低的利息支付是至关重要的!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/89bf299c6c054e65d3317aa72d0f686a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>The Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments</b></p><p><blockquote><b>到目前为止，财政部一直避免支付更高的利息</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Zooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds &gt;10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.</p><p><blockquote>缩小范围，下面的三张图表显示了为什么去年的演习如此重要。再看看美国债务负担，这次是按工具分类的。非市场债务是政府欠自己的债务，票据代表1-10年到期，票据少于1年，债券&gt;10年。下面的两张图表显示了债务的绝对增长以及债务构成的变化。自2008年以来，票据经历了最大的增长，从未偿还总额的25%增加到42%。非市场资产则相反，由于社会保障信托基金不再是借款来源，其份额从 45% 缩减至 25%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a144f0f9250c364637205e8bd0178bc0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2c1851784731b81544c30c5338624a03\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> It is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要注意上面国库券的增长。票据是财政部面临的最高风险，因为较高的利率将在几个月内影响票据，因此值得注意的是，在 2015 年上一次加息周期中，票据仅占 1.4 万亿美元，但现在占 4.3 万亿美元。这意味着每加息0.25%，几乎会立即增加100亿美元的联邦支出。下图清楚地显示了上一次加息周期的影响。粉线显示了票据如何跟随美联储加息周期，最高接近 2.25%。</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储试图以类似的方式加息，它将立即为联邦支出增加 1000 亿美元，仅用于国库券到期利息。在美联储将资产负债表缩减至1万亿美元（不再有无息贷款）并将利率提高到4%的情况下，财政部将额外增加1600亿美元的国库券利率，高达2900亿美元的国库券利率!这还不包括在此期间增加的任何新债务，现在仅利息支付就包括每年额外的 0.5 万亿美元!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04501c54f465fba412ffbf77b81a559f\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> The chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.</p><p><blockquote>下图显示了近20年来利率下降如何保持债务支付相对稳定的更清晰的影响。该图显示了平均加权利率和年化每月利息支付。橙色线（加权平均利率）与上面看到的债务增长直接相反。在上一个利率紧缩周期中，图表显示了利率上升增加债务负担的速度（$1500）。美联储拥有的国库券很少（3200亿美元），因此这些利息支付不会返还给财政部。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c859933a1e991d3e6ba191ccb6a7609e\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> One final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.</p><p><blockquote>要考虑的最后一张图表。这些利息支付与国税局征收的税收相比如何？在这种背景下，2015年加息周期对债务支付的影响变得非常明显。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/585708ace254d0b79ecddcc77c9c8ca0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Wrapping Up</b></p><p><blockquote><b>包装</b></blockquote></p><p> Nothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).</p><p><blockquote>对于任何密切关注美国债务形势或关注金融市场的人来说，这篇文章中的任何内容都不应该感到惊讶。图表和图形试图显示趋势，并将硬数字放在大多数人已经知道的轶事背后。这篇文章甚至没有涉及更高的利率对房地产市场、公司债务市场和消费者债务市场的破坏性有多大。相反，它只关注财政部，而财政部恰好由美联储前主席（珍妮特·耶伦）管理。</blockquote></p><p> None of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury&nbsp;<i>relief</i>&nbsp;from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.<b>Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.</b>If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,<b>even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.</b>That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!</p><p><blockquote>这些数学都不过分复杂，所有数据都可以在财政部和美联储网站上免费获得。这就引出了一个问题，美联储是意识到利率不能上升，还是只是在照镜子，假设加息至 2.25% 将类似于 2015 年，而 2015 年 “只是 ”被 COVID-19 打乱了轨道？重申一下，利率下降给财政部带来了<i>宽慰</i>来自更高的利息支付。下一次，随着债务负担的增加，他们甚至可能达不到2%的一半。<b>不幸的是，对于美联储来说，他们的盒子比大多数人意识到的要紧。</b>如果美联储现在还没想明白，<b>即使在他们未能提高利率之前，他们也无法缩减量化宽松（债务货币化），更不用说缩减资产负债表了，而不会产生严重后果。</b>这些数据将在第2部分进行审查。敬请期待!</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-box-part-1-they-cannot-raise-interest-rates\">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/fed-box-part-1-they-cannot-raise-interest-rates","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1191722749","content_text":"3 Key Takeaways\n\nThe US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt\nMuch of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates\nHigher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget\n\nIntroduction\nThe US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.\nFirst and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a $4.5T loan at 0% interest in 15 months!\nWhile this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.\n$28 Trillion and Growing\nThe US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nExcess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nFor anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great visual. Now, multiply that by 28!\nFor most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The petro-dollar should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.\nIt is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/\nSince Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nThe Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments\nZooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds >10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nIt is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.\nIf the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nThe chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nOne final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nWrapping Up\nNothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).\nNone of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury relief from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2156,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129558682,"gmtCreate":1624378492946,"gmtModify":1634006975502,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129558682","repostId":"2145056554","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2321,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120115141,"gmtCreate":1624314582783,"gmtModify":1634008093613,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120115141","repostId":"1146982088","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146982088","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624259620,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1146982088?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 15:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146982088","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpect","content":"<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPowell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-21 15:13</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146982088","content_text":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.\nWhat does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.\nBut what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.\nThe problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:\n\n When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.\n\nBottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"\nIn retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.\nNeedless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"\nWhat he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.\nIn other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"\nHe's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"\nIndeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.\nTo help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.\nThis process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.\nAnd here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"\nBottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.\nOr, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.\nBottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"\nTranslation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1849,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120112765,"gmtCreate":1624314553357,"gmtModify":1634008094083,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120112765","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1788,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120112686,"gmtCreate":1624314523645,"gmtModify":1634008094608,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120112686","repostId":"1186997776","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3983,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120968858,"gmtCreate":1624292260974,"gmtModify":1634008236485,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120968858","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1811,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":164271275,"gmtCreate":1624221631697,"gmtModify":1634009422179,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164271275","repostId":"1197466929","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3208,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165863002,"gmtCreate":1624116742606,"gmtModify":1634010558708,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Oh no","listText":"Oh no","text":"Oh no","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165863002","repostId":"2144491778","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":681,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":162373301,"gmtCreate":1624037270003,"gmtModify":1634023679988,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3581034479181431","authorIdStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/162373301","repostId":"2144774740","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144774740","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"The leading daily newsletter for the latest financial and business news. 33Yrs Helping Stock Investors with Investing Insights, Tools, News & More.","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Investors","id":"1085713068","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/608dd68a89ed486e18f64efe3136266c"},"pubTimestamp":1624030096,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/2144774740?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-18 23:28","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Adobe Getting Lift From Economic Reopening Post-Pandemic<blockquote>Adobe 从疫情后经济重新开放中获得提振</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144774740","media":"Investors","summary":"Software giant Adobe is benefiting as the economy reopens following the Covid-19 pandemic, a senior executive says.","content":"<p>Software giant <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ADBE\">Adobe</a></b> is benefiting as the economy reopens as the Covid-19 pandemic wanes, a senior executive says. The company's beat-and-raise quarterly report provided proof of that. ADBE stock jumped on Friday.</p><p><blockquote>软件巨头<b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ADBE\">土坯</a></b>一位高级管理人员表示，随着 Covid-19 大流行的减弱，经济重新开放将受益。该公司的击败加薪季度报告提供了证据。ADBE 股价周五上涨。</blockquote></p><p> The maker of digital media and marketing software late Thursday reported fiscal second-quarter earnings that easily topped expectations. Adobe also guided above views for the current quarter.</p><p><blockquote>这家数字媒体和营销软件制造商周四晚间公布的第二财季收益轻松超出预期。Adobe 还指导了本季度的上述观点。</blockquote></p><p> The San Jose, Calif.-based company earned an adjusted $3.03 a share on sales of $3.84 billion in the quarter ended June 4. On a year-over-year basis, Adobe earnings rose 24% while sales climbed 23%.</p><p><blockquote>这家总部位于加利福尼亚州圣何塞的公司调整后每股收益为 3.03 美元，截至 6 月 4 日的季度销售额为 38.4 亿美元。与去年同期相比，Adobe 盈利增长 24%，销售额增长 23%。</blockquote></p><p> For the current quarter, Adobe expects to earn an adjusted $3 a share, up 17%, on sales of $3.88 billion, up 20%.</p><p><blockquote>本季度，Adobe 预计调整后每股收益为 3 美元，增长 17%，销售额为 38.8 亿美元，增长 20%。</blockquote></p><p> <h2>ADBE Stock Rises After Earnings Report</h2> In morning trading on the stock market today, ADBE stock advanced 2.2%, near 563.35. Earlier in the session, ADBE stock notched a record high 570.</p><p><blockquote><h2>收益报告发布后 ADBE 股价上涨</h2>今天股市早盘交易中，ADBE 股价上涨 2.2%，接近 563.35。盘中早些时候，ADBE 股价创下 570 点的历史新高。</blockquote></p><p> \"All three of our businesses — Creative Cloud, Document Cloud and <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/EXP.AU\">Experience</a> Cloud — just killed it this quarter with excellent performance,\" Chief Financial Officer John Murphy told Investor's Business Daily. \"Content creation and customer experience engagement in personalized ways are resonating across all of our businesses. And it's really driving the momentum and acceleration in the business.\"</p><p><blockquote>“我们的所有三个业务——创意云、文档云和<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/EXP.AU\">经验</a>云——本季度以出色的表现杀死了它，”首席财务官约翰·墨菲告诉《投资者商业日报》。“以个性化的方式创建内容和客户体验参与正在我们所有的业务中引起共鸣。它确实推动了业务的势头和加速。”</blockquote></p><p> That momentum will continue in the company's seasonally weaker fiscal third quarter, Murphy said. The current quarter includes the summer months of June, July and August.</p><p><blockquote>墨菲表示，这种势头将在公司季节性疲软的第三财季继续下去。本季度包括夏季的六月、七月和八月。</blockquote></p><p> \"The macroeconomic stability is giving a lot of enterprises confidence to invest again,\" Murphy said. \"Companies are prioritizing digital transformation.\"</p><p><blockquote>“宏观经济的稳定给了许多企业再次投资的信心，”墨菲说。“企业正在优先考虑数字化转型。”</blockquote></p><p> The reopening of the economy and return to offices after the pandemic should provide a tailwind for Adobe's business, he said.</p><p><blockquote>他说，疫情后经济的重新开放和办公室的重返应该会为 Adobe 的业务提供推动力。</blockquote></p><p> <h2>Analysts Raise Price Targets On Adobe Stock</h2> At least 15 Wall Street analysts raised their price targets on ADBE stock after the earnings report.</p><p><blockquote><h2>分析师上调 Adobe 股票目标价</h2>财报发布后，至少 15 名华尔街分析师上调了 ADBE 股票的目标价。</blockquote></p><p> Mizuho Securities analyst Gregg Moskowitz reiterated his buy rating on ADBE stock and upped his price target to 640 from 600.</p><p><blockquote>瑞穗证券分析师 Gregg Moskowitz 重申了对 ADBE 股票的买入评级，并将目标价从 600 点上调至 640 点。</blockquote></p><p> \"Adobe's expansive portfolio of software solutions has made it the gold standard in content creation, consumption, and collaboration,\" Moskowitz said in a note to clients. \"Adobe is very well positioned to benefit from digital transformation with its comprehensive end-to-end offering that differentiates it from competitors.\"</p><p><blockquote>莫斯科维茨在给客户的一份报告中表示：“Adobe 广泛的软件解决方案组合使其成为内容创建、消费和协作的黄金标准。”“Adobe 完全有能力从数字化转型中受益，其全面的端到端产品使其与竞争对手区分开来。”</blockquote></p><p> On June 11, ADBE stock broke out of a 40-week&nbsp;consolidation period&nbsp;at a&nbsp;buy point&nbsp;of 536.98, according to&nbsp;IBD MarketSmith charts.</p><p><blockquote>根据 IBD MarketSmith 图表，6 月 11 日，ADBE 股票以 536.98 的买入点突破了 40 周盘整期。</blockquote></p><p> However, IBD Leaderboard analysis offered investors an earlier buy point of 525.54 from a cup base within the larger consolidation pattern.</p><p><blockquote>然而，IBD 排行榜分析为投资者提供了 525.54 的早期买入点，该买入点来自较大的盘整模式中的杯子基数。</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>Adobe Getting Lift From Economic Reopening Post-Pandemic<blockquote>Adobe 从疫情后经济重新开放中获得提振</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\">\nAdobe Getting Lift From Economic Reopening Post-Pandemic<blockquote>Adobe 从疫情后经济重新开放中获得提振</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<div class=\"head\" \">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/608dd68a89ed486e18f64efe3136266c);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Investors </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-06-18 23:28</p>\n</div>\n</div>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Software giant <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ADBE\">Adobe</a></b> is benefiting as the economy reopens as the Covid-19 pandemic wanes, a senior executive says. The company's beat-and-raise quarterly report provided proof of that. ADBE stock jumped on Friday.</p><p><blockquote>软件巨头<b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ADBE\">土坯</a></b>一位高级管理人员表示，随着 Covid-19 大流行的减弱，经济重新开放将受益。该公司的击败加薪季度报告提供了证据。ADBE 股价周五上涨。</blockquote></p><p> The maker of digital media and marketing software late Thursday reported fiscal second-quarter earnings that easily topped expectations. Adobe also guided above views for the current quarter.</p><p><blockquote>这家数字媒体和营销软件制造商周四晚间公布的第二财季收益轻松超出预期。Adobe 还指导了本季度的上述观点。</blockquote></p><p> The San Jose, Calif.-based company earned an adjusted $3.03 a share on sales of $3.84 billion in the quarter ended June 4. On a year-over-year basis, Adobe earnings rose 24% while sales climbed 23%.</p><p><blockquote>这家总部位于加利福尼亚州圣何塞的公司调整后每股收益为 3.03 美元，截至 6 月 4 日的季度销售额为 38.4 亿美元。与去年同期相比，Adobe 盈利增长 24%，销售额增长 23%。</blockquote></p><p> For the current quarter, Adobe expects to earn an adjusted $3 a share, up 17%, on sales of $3.88 billion, up 20%.</p><p><blockquote>本季度，Adobe 预计调整后每股收益为 3 美元，增长 17%，销售额为 38.8 亿美元，增长 20%。</blockquote></p><p> <h2>ADBE Stock Rises After Earnings Report</h2> In morning trading on the stock market today, ADBE stock advanced 2.2%, near 563.35. Earlier in the session, ADBE stock notched a record high 570.</p><p><blockquote><h2>收益报告发布后 ADBE 股价上涨</h2>今天股市早盘交易中，ADBE 股价上涨 2.2%，接近 563.35。盘中早些时候，ADBE 股价创下 570 点的历史新高。</blockquote></p><p> \"All three of our businesses — Creative Cloud, Document Cloud and <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/EXP.AU\">Experience</a> Cloud — just killed it this quarter with excellent performance,\" Chief Financial Officer John Murphy told Investor's Business Daily. \"Content creation and customer experience engagement in personalized ways are resonating across all of our businesses. And it's really driving the momentum and acceleration in the business.\"</p><p><blockquote>“我们的所有三个业务——创意云、文档云和<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/EXP.AU\">经验</a>云——本季度以出色的表现杀死了它，”首席财务官约翰·墨菲告诉《投资者商业日报》。“以个性化的方式创建内容和客户体验参与正在我们所有的业务中引起共鸣。它确实推动了业务的势头和加速。”</blockquote></p><p> That momentum will continue in the company's seasonally weaker fiscal third quarter, Murphy said. The current quarter includes the summer months of June, July and August.</p><p><blockquote>墨菲表示，这种势头将在公司季节性疲软的第三财季继续下去。本季度包括夏季的六月、七月和八月。</blockquote></p><p> \"The macroeconomic stability is giving a lot of enterprises confidence to invest again,\" Murphy said. \"Companies are prioritizing digital transformation.\"</p><p><blockquote>“宏观经济的稳定给了许多企业再次投资的信心，”墨菲说。“企业正在优先考虑数字化转型。”</blockquote></p><p> The reopening of the economy and return to offices after the pandemic should provide a tailwind for Adobe's business, he said.</p><p><blockquote>他说，疫情后经济的重新开放和办公室的重返应该会为 Adobe 的业务提供推动力。</blockquote></p><p> <h2>Analysts Raise Price Targets On Adobe Stock</h2> At least 15 Wall Street analysts raised their price targets on ADBE stock after the earnings report.</p><p><blockquote><h2>分析师上调 Adobe 股票目标价</h2>财报发布后，至少 15 名华尔街分析师上调了 ADBE 股票的目标价。</blockquote></p><p> Mizuho Securities analyst Gregg Moskowitz reiterated his buy rating on ADBE stock and upped his price target to 640 from 600.</p><p><blockquote>瑞穗证券分析师 Gregg Moskowitz 重申了对 ADBE 股票的买入评级，并将目标价从 600 点上调至 640 点。</blockquote></p><p> \"Adobe's expansive portfolio of software solutions has made it the gold standard in content creation, consumption, and collaboration,\" Moskowitz said in a note to clients. \"Adobe is very well positioned to benefit from digital transformation with its comprehensive end-to-end offering that differentiates it from competitors.\"</p><p><blockquote>莫斯科维茨在给客户的一份报告中表示：“Adobe 广泛的软件解决方案组合使其成为内容创建、消费和协作的黄金标准。”“Adobe 完全有能力从数字化转型中受益，其全面的端到端产品使其与竞争对手区分开来。”</blockquote></p><p> On June 11, ADBE stock broke out of a 40-week&nbsp;consolidation period&nbsp;at a&nbsp;buy point&nbsp;of 536.98, according to&nbsp;IBD MarketSmith charts.</p><p><blockquote>根据 IBD MarketSmith 图表，6 月 11 日，ADBE 股票以 536.98 的买入点突破了 40 周盘整期。</blockquote></p><p> However, IBD Leaderboard analysis offered investors an earlier buy point of 525.54 from a cup base within the larger consolidation pattern.</p><p><blockquote>然而，IBD 排行榜分析为投资者提供了 525.54 的早期买入点，该买入点来自较大的盘整模式中的杯子基数。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"ADBE":"Adobe"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2144774740","content_text":"Software giant Adobe is benefiting as the economy reopens as the Covid-19 pandemic wanes, a senior executive says. The company's beat-and-raise quarterly report provided proof of that. ADBE stock jumped on Friday.\nThe maker of digital media and marketing software late Thursday reported fiscal second-quarter earnings that easily topped expectations. Adobe also guided above views for the current quarter.\nThe San Jose, Calif.-based company earned an adjusted $3.03 a share on sales of $3.84 billion in the quarter ended June 4. On a year-over-year basis, Adobe earnings rose 24% while sales climbed 23%.\nFor the current quarter, Adobe expects to earn an adjusted $3 a share, up 17%, on sales of $3.88 billion, up 20%.\nADBE Stock Rises After Earnings Report\nIn morning trading on the stock market today, ADBE stock advanced 2.2%, near 563.35. Earlier in the session, ADBE stock notched a record high 570.\n\"All three of our businesses — Creative Cloud, Document Cloud and Experience Cloud — just killed it this quarter with excellent performance,\" Chief Financial Officer John Murphy told Investor's Business Daily. \"Content creation and customer experience engagement in personalized ways are resonating across all of our businesses. And it's really driving the momentum and acceleration in the business.\"\nThat momentum will continue in the company's seasonally weaker fiscal third quarter, Murphy said. The current quarter includes the summer months of June, July and August.\n\"The macroeconomic stability is giving a lot of enterprises confidence to invest again,\" Murphy said. \"Companies are prioritizing digital transformation.\"\nThe reopening of the economy and return to offices after the pandemic should provide a tailwind for Adobe's business, he said.\nAnalysts Raise Price Targets On Adobe Stock\nAt least 15 Wall Street analysts raised their price targets on ADBE stock after the earnings report.\nMizuho Securities analyst Gregg Moskowitz reiterated his buy rating on ADBE stock and upped his price target to 640 from 600.\n\"Adobe's expansive portfolio of software solutions has made it the gold standard in content creation, consumption, and collaboration,\" Moskowitz said in a note to clients. \"Adobe is very well positioned to benefit from digital transformation with its comprehensive end-to-end offering that differentiates it from competitors.\"\nOn June 11, ADBE stock broke out of a 40-week consolidation period at a buy point of 536.98, according to IBD MarketSmith charts.\nHowever, IBD Leaderboard analysis offered investors an earlier buy point of 525.54 from a cup base within the larger consolidation pattern.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"ADBE":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":645,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":151688789,"gmtCreate":1625083979441,"gmtModify":1633945061617,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/151688789","repostId":"1105779613","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2291,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":164271275,"gmtCreate":1624221631697,"gmtModify":1634009422179,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164271275","repostId":"1197466929","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3208,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129558682,"gmtCreate":1624378492946,"gmtModify":1634006975502,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129558682","repostId":"2145056554","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2321,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120112765,"gmtCreate":1624314553357,"gmtModify":1634008094083,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120112765","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1788,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120112686,"gmtCreate":1624314523645,"gmtModify":1634008094608,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120112686","repostId":"1186997776","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3983,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":141688335,"gmtCreate":1625867236327,"gmtModify":1633936658572,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/141688335","repostId":"2150371690","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3386,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120115141,"gmtCreate":1624314582783,"gmtModify":1634008093613,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120115141","repostId":"1146982088","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146982088","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624259620,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1146982088?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 15:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146982088","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpect","content":"<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPowell Just Launched $2 Trillion In \"Heat-Seeking Missiles\": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis<blockquote>鲍威尔刚刚发射了2万亿美元的“寻热导弹”：佐尔坦解释美联储如何引发下一次回购危机</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-21 15:13</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.</p><p><blockquote>上周，在市场对美联储意外鹰派转向的震惊反应引发的火焰和硫磺中，我们注意到有两个切实的变化，尽管不太引人注目：美联储调整了两个关键的“管理”利率，将 IOER 和 RRP 利率均上调 5 个基点（美国银行、摩根大通、莱特森、德意志银行和富国银行正确预测，而花旗、牛津经济、杰富瑞、瑞士信贷、渣打银行、蒙特利尔银行预测利率不会变化是错误的），以推动有效联邦基金利率走高，远离即将到来的 0%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31e3c93e7ae558cd9f2fdb7e4a2769f1\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"377\">What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP&nbsp; facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.</p><p><blockquote>这是什么意思？正如 Curvature Securities 回购大师 Scott Skyrm 上周所写，“显然美联储打算将隔夜利率推至零以上，并耗尽 RRP 工具的现金。”不幸的是，最终结果将与美联储想要实现的目标完全相反。</blockquote></p><p> But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.</p><p><blockquote>但这对隔夜费率和建议零售价交易量到底意味着什么呢？正如Skyrm进一步指出的那样，IOER的增加应该会使每日联邦基金利率上升5个基点，进而给回购GC带来上行压力。再加上建议零售价上涨 5 个基点，GC 应该会上涨 5 个基点，而且确实如此。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e8b99df7af1731b4bdcbcf072dcf39ce\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\">The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:</p><p><blockquote>正如 Skyrm 警告的那样，问题在于美联储的技术性调整无助于缓解 RRP 数量：</blockquote></p><p>   When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"<i>the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"</i></p><p><blockquote>当市场回购利率为0%，建议零售价利率为零时，约5000亿美元进入了建议零售价。好吧，如果市场回购利率和建议零售价利率都高出 5 个基点，就没有理由从建议零售价中提取现金。例如，如果GC利率升至0.05%，而RRP利率保持在零，投资者以更高利率投资的偏好将从RRP中移除现金。底线：由于市场利率和建议零售价均为 0.05%，现金投资者确实没有经济动机将现金转移到回购市场。或者，正如我们总结的那样，“<i>美联储的利率变化可能对美联储的逆回购工具或存放在那里的创纪录的五万亿现金产生零影响。”</i></blockquote></p><p> In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.</p><p><blockquote>回想起来，boy 是一种轻描淡写的说法，因为仅仅一天后，美联储逆回购工具的使用量就创纪录地飙升了 50%，作为政府支持企业，激增至惊人的 7,560 亿美元（周五收盘价为 7,470 亿美元）。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0fba18d7808300abc3bdf4ffaa3d5fb6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">Needless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"<b>the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:</b><b><u>the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market</u></b><b>).\"</b></p><p><blockquote>不用说，充斥美联储的RRP设施和清空储备几乎不是美联储的意图，正如瑞士信贷自己的回购大师（前纽约联储工作人员）Zoltan Pozsar在他的尸检中写道，“<b>重新定价的建议零售价贷款将很快成为银行系统的一个问题：</b><b><u>银行体系正在从资产约束（存款大量涌入，但除了美联储，无处可借贷）转变为负债约束（存款流失，除了货币市场，无处可替代</u></b><b>).\"</b></blockquote></p><p> What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not<i>reward</i>allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.</p><p><blockquote>他的意思是，之前 0.00% 的建议零售价率并没有<i>奖励</i>分配惰性、超额准备金，但只是提供了一个存放它们的地方，现在美联储正在提供与数万亿美元票据提供的利率相比的慷慨收益率，我们即将看到一夜之间货币市场的巨大变化，数万亿美元的资本从传统投资重新分配到美联储的建议零售价中。</blockquote></p><p> In other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed<i><b>also</b></i>made a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “<b>yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>换句话说，正如波萨尔所说，“RRP 设施开始对储备进行消毒……未来还会有更多储备。”正如德意志银行解释为什么美联储的信号是一个r*政策错误一样，对波萨尔来说，美联储<i><b>也</b></i>该公司犯了一个政策错误--只是这次是在技术利率方面--取消了准备金，因为 “在严格来说没有必要提高 RRP 设施的利率时提高利率是一回事，而将利率提高 ‘过度 ’又是另一回事--正如一位货币基金经理所说，”<b>昨天我们一年连一个基点都拿不到；从最值得信赖的交易对手那里以五个基点获得无尽的纸张是梦想成真。”</b></blockquote></p><p> He's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),<b>5bps is too generous</b>, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate<b>will upset the state of \"singularity\"</b>and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –<b>at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"</b></p><p><blockquote>他是对的：虽然许多人可能认为 0 个基点太低，但目前还不是灾难性的（瑞士信贷是预测不会有管理加息的机构之一），<b>5bps太慷慨了</b>波萨尔警告说，新的逆回购利率<b>会扰乱“奇点”的状态</b>“就像寻求热量的导弹一样，货币市场投资者移动数千亿美元，进行急剧的 90 度转弯，寻找零区间哪怕一个基点的收益率——<b>在 5 个基点的情况下，货币基金有动力交易所有国库券并将现金存放在 RRP 设施中。”</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,<b>and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.</b>They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.<b>So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.</b></p><p><blockquote>事实上，如下所示，6 个月内票据收益率低于 5 个基点，<b>货币基金有超过2万亿美元的钞票。</b>他们有卖出的动机，而其他人则有买入的动机： 那些存款一直被银行 “容忍 ”的机构，到目前为止赚取零利息，他们有动机收获票据曲线提供的 0-5 个基点范围。将现金放在账单的基点比存款为零要好。<b>因此，准备金的冲销开始了，因此o/n RRP工具从一个基本上被动的工具转变为一个主动的工具，该工具为大型银行一直在推走的存款提供利率下限，该工具“吸走”银行决定保留的存款。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf593f7b1d2d665f39384ed6a998d3bf\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"403\">To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with<i><b>too few</b></i>intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.</p><p><blockquote>为了帮助读者了解正在发生的事情，瑞士信贷的策略师建议进行以下 “极端 ”思维实验： 目前银行的大部分 “Covid-19 ”存款都进入了利率较高的票据市场。货币基金向目前将现金存入银行的机构投资者出售票据，货币基金将票据交换为o/n RRP。简单地说，虽然之前美联储为银行提供了一个方便的地方来存放准备金，但现在它将积极抽干准备金，以至于我们可能会陷入另一场 2019 年式的回购危机，因为大多数金融机构突然发现自己陷入了困境<i><b>太少</b></i>日内储备，迫使他们使用美联储的其他融资工具（如外汇掉期额度）来保持持续的偿付能力。</blockquote></p><p> This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.</p><p><blockquote>这个过程不是一蹴而就的。需要几周时间才能观察美联储冲销的后果。</blockquote></p><p> And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,<b>some bond-heavy banks cannot.</b>As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who can<i><b>not</b></i>handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"</p><p><blockquote>这就是为什么这个问题与 2019 年的回购危机相似：很快我们就会发现，虽然现金充裕的银行可以处理资金流出，<b>一些债券重的银行不能。</b>因此，佐尔坦预测，接下来“我们将注意到一些银行（那些能够<i><b>不</b></i>处理资金外流）正在从 FHLB 借入预付款，而现金充裕的银行停止在外汇掉期市场上放贷，因为建议零售价机制将准备金从它们手中抽走，美联储不得不重新启动外汇掉期额度来抵消。”</blockquote></p><p> Bottom line:<i><b>whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.</b></i></p><p><blockquote>底线：<i><b>尽管之前我们看到Libor-OIS崩溃，但这一关键的资金利差将不得不从这里扩大，除非美联储再次将o/n RRP利率降至之前的水平。</b></i></blockquote></p><p> Or, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,<b>in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"</b>While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,<b>the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.</b></p><p><blockquote>或者，正如佐尔坦总结的那样，“要么是数量，要么是价格”--事实上，<b>2019年，美联储选择了价格而不是数量，这适得其反，并导致了回购危机，结束了美联储的加息周期，并开始了“非量化宽松”。</b>虽然美联储在2月份挽回了自己，当时它扩大了建议零售价的使用，但没有使其受到负债约束，因为它选择了数量而不是价格——这很有效——上周三，<b>美联储将 “无限 ”数量变成了 “免费资金”，并开始对储备进行冲销。</b></blockquote></p><p> Bottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"</p><p><blockquote>底线：“我们正在目睹最后手段交易商 (DoLR) 学习交易艺术，犯下非受迫性错误——如果美联储用定价过高的 o/n RRP 工具进行冲销，它必须准备好通过掉期额度增加流动性……”</blockquote></p><p> Translation:&nbsp;<b>by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.</b></p><p><blockquote>翻译：<b>通过5个基点支付数万亿美元的准备金，美联储只是埋下了下一次流动性危机的种子。</b></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/powell-just-launched-2-trillion-heat-seeking-missiles-zoltan-explains-how-fed-started-next","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146982088","content_text":"Last week, amid thefire and brimstone surroundingthe market's shocked response to the Fed's unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key \"administered\" rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.\nWhat does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru,Scott Skyrm wrote last week, \"clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.\" Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.\nBut what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.\nThe problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed's technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:\n\n When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there's no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.\n\nBottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there's really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, \"the Fed's rate change may have zero impact on the Fed's reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.\"\nIn retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed's Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.\nNeedless to say, flooding the Fed's RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse's own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, \"the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast:the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).\"\nWhat he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did notrewardallocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed's RRP.\nIn other words, as Pozsar puts it, \"the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves... with more to come.\" And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed's signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fedalsomade a policy error - only this time with its technical rates - by steriling reserves because \"it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.\"\nHe's right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike),5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo ratewill upset the state of \"singularity\"and \"like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound –at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.\"\nIndeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months,and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills.They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero.So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that \"sucks\" the deposits away that banks decided to retain.\nTo help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following \"extreme\" thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves withtoo fewintraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed's other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.\nThis process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed's reserve sterilization.\nAnd here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows,some bond-heavy banks cannot.As a result, Zoltan predicts that next \"we will notice that some banks (those who cannothandle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.\"\nBottom line:whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.\nOr, as Zoltan summarizes, \"It’s either quantities or prices\" - indeed,in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed's hiking cycle and started \"NOT QE.\"While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices - which worked well - last Wednesday,the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.\nBottom line: \"we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…\"\nTranslation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1849,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120968858,"gmtCreate":1624292260974,"gmtModify":1634008236485,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120968858","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1811,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":159037285,"gmtCreate":1624930797347,"gmtModify":1633946861281,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/159037285","repostId":"1157343235","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2170,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":121402198,"gmtCreate":1624487039514,"gmtModify":1634005557936,"author":{"id":"3581034479181431","authorId":"3581034479181431","name":"JCSnap","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581034479181431","idStr":"3581034479181431"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/121402198","repostId":"1191722749","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1191722749","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624455982,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1191722749?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-23 21:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1191722749","media":"zerohedge","summary":"3 Key Takeaways\n\nThe US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt\nMuch of the debt is short-term, mak","content":"<p><b>3 Key Takeaways</b></p><p><blockquote><b>3个关键要点</b></blockquote></p><p> <ol>  <li>The US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt</li>  <li>Much of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates</li>  <li>Higher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget</li> </ol> <b>Introduction</b></p><p><blockquote><ol><li>美国政府有超过28万亿美元的债务</li><li>大部分债务都是短期的，因此对利率上升特别敏感</li><li>更高的利率将立即开始给联邦预算带来压力</li></ol><b>介绍</b></blockquote></p><p> The US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.</p><p><blockquote>美国有超过28万亿美元的债务，并且还在以惊人的速度增长。甚至在 COVID-19 出现之前，这个问题就变得越来越棘手。具有讽刺意味的是，尽管去年增加了 4 万亿美元以上的债务，但疫情可能给了美国政府短期喘息之机，因为它为美联储将利率降至零开了绿灯。</blockquote></p><p> First and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a&nbsp;<b>$4.5T loan at 0% interest</b>&nbsp;in 15 months!</p><p><blockquote>首先，这减轻了财政部的压力，因为它以较低的利率为膨胀的短期未偿债务进行了再融资。然而，随着美联储吸收了自去年3月以来发行的+90%的长期债务，出现了更多的缓解。这使得私人市场有更多空间购买新的短期国库券。因为美联储将利息收入返还给财政部，而且由于国库券的利率为 0%，这实际上给了财政部一个<b>4.5T 美元贷款，0% 利息</b>15个月后!</blockquote></p><p> While this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.</p><p><blockquote>虽然这听起来是一件大事，但它伴随着重大风险，现在已经把美联储关进了一个盒子里。这将在两篇文章中详细解释。第一部分将解释为什么美联储不能再加息，第二部分将展示美联储如何无法缩减规模，甚至可能需要增加国债购买来维持对收益率曲线长端的控制。</blockquote></p><p> <b>$28 Trillion and Growing</b></p><p><blockquote><b>28万亿美元且不断增长</b></blockquote></p><p> The US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府不能停止花钱。现在的支出远远超过了税收收入。美国经济继续经历名义增长，这增加了联邦税收收入，但联邦支出增长速度要快得多。下图1显示了这一明显的趋势。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b5576e9901f1f8310629d45af16836a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> Excess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.</p><p><blockquote>超额支出必须用债务来支付。这种巨大的超支导致联邦政府借款激增，导致未偿债务总额超过28万亿美元。参见下图2。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed345b06ec4a35726fe7d9847937cf34\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> For anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great&nbsp;visual. Now, multiply that by 28!</p><p><blockquote>对于任何努力理解 1 吨美元大小的人来说，请看这张精彩的图片。现在，乘以28!</blockquote></p><p> For most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The&nbsp;petro-dollar&nbsp;should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.</p><p><blockquote>对于大多数政府来说，这将是不可持续的，因为利率将会上升。这给借款人带来了减少支出的压力。美国政府受益于大多数政府所不具备的三大优势。首先，它拥有发行全球储备货币的过高特权（目前），这为美元创造了比其他情况下更多的需求。石油美元应该有自己的专门文章，因此本分析将跳过这一点。</blockquote></p><p> It is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要强调另外两个关键事实，这两个事实使得支出和借贷有增无减。它已经能够从社会保障信托基金借款，美联储近年来吸收了很大一部分债务发行。这不仅相当于 11 万亿美元的无息贷款（因为所有利息支付都会返还给财政部），而且还阻止了私人市场吸收所有新的债务发行，从而保持较低的利率。如下图 3 所示，自 2010 年 1 月以来，在发行的 14.5 万亿美元债券中，私人市场 “只 ”吸收了 9 万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2dee6e735c0a3c1421eb321c0eae4b54\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov 和https://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></blockquote></p><p> Since Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (<i>Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt</i>). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!</p><p><blockquote>自2020年1月以来，数字更加明显。财政部发行了4.5万亿美元，其中美联储承担了2.6万亿美元（<i>注：美联储资产负债表扩张超过 4 万亿美元，但并非全部是国债</i>).深入研究这些数据会发现，美联储对期限更长的国债有更大的兴趣。由于短期利率为 0%，财政部可以向私营部门出售国库券，并且仍然拥有无息贷款。因此，美联储吸收财政部发行的几乎所有（约90%）长期债务以保持较低的利息支付是至关重要的!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/89bf299c6c054e65d3317aa72d0f686a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>The Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments</b></p><p><blockquote><b>到目前为止，财政部一直避免支付更高的利息</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Zooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds &gt;10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.</p><p><blockquote>缩小范围，下面的三张图表显示了为什么去年的演习如此重要。再看看美国债务负担，这次是按工具分类的。非市场债务是政府欠自己的债务，票据代表1-10年到期，票据少于1年，债券&gt;10年。下面的两张图表显示了债务的绝对增长以及债务构成的变化。自2008年以来，票据经历了最大的增长，从未偿还总额的25%增加到42%。非市场资产则相反，由于社会保障信托基金不再是借款来源，其份额从 45% 缩减至 25%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a144f0f9250c364637205e8bd0178bc0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2c1851784731b81544c30c5338624a03\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> It is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要注意上面国库券的增长。票据是财政部面临的最高风险，因为较高的利率将在几个月内影响票据，因此值得注意的是，在 2015 年上一次加息周期中，票据仅占 1.4 万亿美元，但现在占 4.3 万亿美元。这意味着每加息0.25%，几乎会立即增加100亿美元的联邦支出。下图清楚地显示了上一次加息周期的影响。粉线显示了票据如何跟随美联储加息周期，最高接近 2.25%。</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储试图以类似的方式加息，它将立即为联邦支出增加 1000 亿美元，仅用于国库券到期利息。在美联储将资产负债表缩减至1万亿美元（不再有无息贷款）并将利率提高到4%的情况下，财政部将额外增加1600亿美元的国库券利率，高达2900亿美元的国库券利率!这还不包括在此期间增加的任何新债务，现在仅利息支付就包括每年额外的 0.5 万亿美元!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04501c54f465fba412ffbf77b81a559f\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> The chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.</p><p><blockquote>下图显示了近20年来利率下降如何保持债务支付相对稳定的更清晰的影响。该图显示了平均加权利率和年化每月利息支付。橙色线（加权平均利率）与上面看到的债务增长直接相反。在上一个利率紧缩周期中，图表显示了利率上升增加债务负担的速度（$1500）。美联储拥有的国库券很少（3200亿美元），因此这些利息支付不会返还给财政部。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c859933a1e991d3e6ba191ccb6a7609e\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> One final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.</p><p><blockquote>要考虑的最后一张图表。这些利息支付与国税局征收的税收相比如何？在这种背景下，2015年加息周期对债务支付的影响变得非常明显。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/585708ace254d0b79ecddcc77c9c8ca0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Wrapping Up</b></p><p><blockquote><b>包装</b></blockquote></p><p> Nothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).</p><p><blockquote>对于任何密切关注美国债务形势或关注金融市场的人来说，这篇文章中的任何内容都不应该感到惊讶。图表和图形试图显示趋势，并将硬数字放在大多数人已经知道的轶事背后。这篇文章甚至没有涉及更高的利率对房地产市场、公司债务市场和消费者债务市场的破坏性有多大。相反，它只关注财政部，而财政部恰好由美联储前主席（珍妮特·耶伦）管理。</blockquote></p><p> None of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury&nbsp;<i>relief</i>&nbsp;from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.<b>Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.</b>If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,<b>even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.</b>That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!</p><p><blockquote>这些数学都不过分复杂，所有数据都可以在财政部和美联储网站上免费获得。这就引出了一个问题，美联储是意识到利率不能上升，还是只是在照镜子，假设加息至 2.25% 将类似于 2015 年，而 2015 年 “只是 ”被 COVID-19 打乱了轨道？重申一下，利率下降给财政部带来了<i>宽慰</i>来自更高的利息支付。下一次，随着债务负担的增加，他们甚至可能达不到2%的一半。<b>不幸的是，对于美联储来说，他们的盒子比大多数人意识到的要紧。</b>如果美联储现在还没想明白，<b>即使在他们未能提高利率之前，他们也无法缩减量化宽松（债务货币化），更不用说缩减资产负债表了，而不会产生严重后果。</b>这些数据将在第2部分进行审查。敬请期待!</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>The Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</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\">\nThe Fed In A Box, Part 1: They Cannot Raise Interest Rates<blockquote>盒子里的美联储，第 1 部分：他们无法加息</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-23 21:46</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>3 Key Takeaways</b></p><p><blockquote><b>3个关键要点</b></blockquote></p><p> <ol>  <li>The US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt</li>  <li>Much of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates</li>  <li>Higher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget</li> </ol> <b>Introduction</b></p><p><blockquote><ol><li>美国政府有超过28万亿美元的债务</li><li>大部分债务都是短期的，因此对利率上升特别敏感</li><li>更高的利率将立即开始给联邦预算带来压力</li></ol><b>介绍</b></blockquote></p><p> The US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.</p><p><blockquote>美国有超过28万亿美元的债务，并且还在以惊人的速度增长。甚至在 COVID-19 出现之前，这个问题就变得越来越棘手。具有讽刺意味的是，尽管去年增加了 4 万亿美元以上的债务，但疫情可能给了美国政府短期喘息之机，因为它为美联储将利率降至零开了绿灯。</blockquote></p><p> First and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a&nbsp;<b>$4.5T loan at 0% interest</b>&nbsp;in 15 months!</p><p><blockquote>首先，这减轻了财政部的压力，因为它以较低的利率为膨胀的短期未偿债务进行了再融资。然而，随着美联储吸收了自去年3月以来发行的+90%的长期债务，出现了更多的缓解。这使得私人市场有更多空间购买新的短期国库券。因为美联储将利息收入返还给财政部，而且由于国库券的利率为 0%，这实际上给了财政部一个<b>4.5T 美元贷款，0% 利息</b>15个月后!</blockquote></p><p> While this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.</p><p><blockquote>虽然这听起来是一件大事，但它伴随着重大风险，现在已经把美联储关进了一个盒子里。这将在两篇文章中详细解释。第一部分将解释为什么美联储不能再加息，第二部分将展示美联储如何无法缩减规模，甚至可能需要增加国债购买来维持对收益率曲线长端的控制。</blockquote></p><p> <b>$28 Trillion and Growing</b></p><p><blockquote><b>28万亿美元且不断增长</b></blockquote></p><p> The US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.</p><p><blockquote>美国政府不能停止花钱。现在的支出远远超过了税收收入。美国经济继续经历名义增长，这增加了联邦税收收入，但联邦支出增长速度要快得多。下图1显示了这一明显的趋势。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b5576e9901f1f8310629d45af16836a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> Excess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.</p><p><blockquote>超额支出必须用债务来支付。这种巨大的超支导致联邦政府借款激增，导致未偿债务总额超过28万亿美元。参见下图2。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed345b06ec4a35726fe7d9847937cf34\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> For anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great&nbsp;visual. Now, multiply that by 28!</p><p><blockquote>对于任何努力理解 1 吨美元大小的人来说，请看这张精彩的图片。现在，乘以28!</blockquote></p><p> For most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The&nbsp;petro-dollar&nbsp;should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.</p><p><blockquote>对于大多数政府来说，这将是不可持续的，因为利率将会上升。这给借款人带来了减少支出的压力。美国政府受益于大多数政府所不具备的三大优势。首先，它拥有发行全球储备货币的过高特权（目前），这为美元创造了比其他情况下更多的需求。石油美元应该有自己的专门文章，因此本分析将跳过这一点。</blockquote></p><p> It is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要强调另外两个关键事实，这两个事实使得支出和借贷有增无减。它已经能够从社会保障信托基金借款，美联储近年来吸收了很大一部分债务发行。这不仅相当于 11 万亿美元的无息贷款（因为所有利息支付都会返还给财政部），而且还阻止了私人市场吸收所有新的债务发行，从而保持较低的利率。如下图 3 所示，自 2010 年 1 月以来，在发行的 14.5 万亿美元债券中，私人市场 “只 ”吸收了 9 万亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2dee6e735c0a3c1421eb321c0eae4b54\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov 和https://fred.stlouisfed.org/</i></blockquote></p><p> Since Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (<i>Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt</i>). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!</p><p><blockquote>自2020年1月以来，数字更加明显。财政部发行了4.5万亿美元，其中美联储承担了2.6万亿美元（<i>注：美联储资产负债表扩张超过 4 万亿美元，但并非全部是国债</i>).深入研究这些数据会发现，美联储对期限更长的国债有更大的兴趣。由于短期利率为 0%，财政部可以向私营部门出售国库券，并且仍然拥有无息贷款。因此，美联储吸收财政部发行的几乎所有（约90%）长期债务以保持较低的利息支付是至关重要的!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/89bf299c6c054e65d3317aa72d0f686a\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>The Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments</b></p><p><blockquote><b>到目前为止，财政部一直避免支付更高的利息</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Zooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds &gt;10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.</p><p><blockquote>缩小范围，下面的三张图表显示了为什么去年的演习如此重要。再看看美国债务负担，这次是按工具分类的。非市场债务是政府欠自己的债务，票据代表1-10年到期，票据少于1年，债券&gt;10年。下面的两张图表显示了债务的绝对增长以及债务构成的变化。自2008年以来，票据经历了最大的增长，从未偿还总额的25%增加到42%。非市场资产则相反，由于社会保障信托基金不再是借款来源，其份额从 45% 缩减至 25%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a144f0f9250c364637205e8bd0178bc0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2c1851784731b81544c30c5338624a03\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> It is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.</p><p><blockquote>重要的是要注意上面国库券的增长。票据是财政部面临的最高风险，因为较高的利率将在几个月内影响票据，因此值得注意的是，在 2015 年上一次加息周期中，票据仅占 1.4 万亿美元，但现在占 4.3 万亿美元。这意味着每加息0.25%，几乎会立即增加100亿美元的联邦支出。下图清楚地显示了上一次加息周期的影响。粉线显示了票据如何跟随美联储加息周期，最高接近 2.25%。</blockquote></p><p> If the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!</p><p><blockquote>如果美联储试图以类似的方式加息，它将立即为联邦支出增加 1000 亿美元，仅用于国库券到期利息。在美联储将资产负债表缩减至1万亿美元（不再有无息贷款）并将利率提高到4%的情况下，财政部将额外增加1600亿美元的国库券利率，高达2900亿美元的国库券利率!这还不包括在此期间增加的任何新债务，现在仅利息支付就包括每年额外的 0.5 万亿美元!</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04501c54f465fba412ffbf77b81a559f\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> The chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.</p><p><blockquote>下图显示了近20年来利率下降如何保持债务支付相对稳定的更清晰的影响。该图显示了平均加权利率和年化每月利息支付。橙色线（加权平均利率）与上面看到的债务增长直接相反。在上一个利率紧缩周期中，图表显示了利率上升增加债务负担的速度（$1500）。美联储拥有的国库券很少（3200亿美元），因此这些利息支付不会返还给财政部。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c859933a1e991d3e6ba191ccb6a7609e\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> One final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.</p><p><blockquote>要考虑的最后一张图表。这些利息支付与国税局征收的税收相比如何？在这种背景下，2015年加息周期对债务支付的影响变得非常明显。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/585708ace254d0b79ecddcc77c9c8ca0\" tg-width=\"1024\" tg-height=\"512\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>Source – Treasurydirect.gov</i></p><p><blockquote><i>资料来源 – Treasurydirect.gov</i></blockquote></p><p> <b>Wrapping Up</b></p><p><blockquote><b>包装</b></blockquote></p><p> Nothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).</p><p><blockquote>对于任何密切关注美国债务形势或关注金融市场的人来说，这篇文章中的任何内容都不应该感到惊讶。图表和图形试图显示趋势，并将硬数字放在大多数人已经知道的轶事背后。这篇文章甚至没有涉及更高的利率对房地产市场、公司债务市场和消费者债务市场的破坏性有多大。相反，它只关注财政部，而财政部恰好由美联储前主席（珍妮特·耶伦）管理。</blockquote></p><p> None of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury&nbsp;<i>relief</i>&nbsp;from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.<b>Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.</b>If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,<b>even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.</b>That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!</p><p><blockquote>这些数学都不过分复杂，所有数据都可以在财政部和美联储网站上免费获得。这就引出了一个问题，美联储是意识到利率不能上升，还是只是在照镜子，假设加息至 2.25% 将类似于 2015 年，而 2015 年 “只是 ”被 COVID-19 打乱了轨道？重申一下，利率下降给财政部带来了<i>宽慰</i>来自更高的利息支付。下一次，随着债务负担的增加，他们甚至可能达不到2%的一半。<b>不幸的是，对于美联储来说，他们的盒子比大多数人意识到的要紧。</b>如果美联储现在还没想明白，<b>即使在他们未能提高利率之前，他们也无法缩减量化宽松（债务货币化），更不用说缩减资产负债表了，而不会产生严重后果。</b>这些数据将在第2部分进行审查。敬请期待!</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-box-part-1-they-cannot-raise-interest-rates\">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/fed-box-part-1-they-cannot-raise-interest-rates","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1191722749","content_text":"3 Key Takeaways\n\nThe US Government has over $28 Trillion in Debt\nMuch of the debt is short-term, making it extra sensitive to higher rates\nHigher Interest Rates would immediately start putting strain on the Federal Budget\n\nIntroduction\nThe US has over $28 Trillion dollars in debt and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Even before COVID-19, the problem was becoming unwieldy. Ironically, despite adding $4T+ in debt over the last year, the pandemic may have given the US Government short-term reprieve as it gave the Federal Reserve a green light to drop rates back to zero.\nFirst and foremost, this took pressure off the Treasury as it refinanced the ballooning short-term debt outstanding at lower rates. However, even more relief occurred as the Federal Reserve absorbed +90% of the long term debt issued since last March. This allowed more room in the private markets to purchase the issuance of new short-term Treasury Bills. Because the Fed pays interest revenue back to the Treasury, and since interest rates on Treasury Bills are sitting at 0%, this has effectively given the Treasury a $4.5T loan at 0% interest in 15 months!\nWhile this sounds like a great deal, it comes with major risks and has now put the Fed in a box. This will be explained in detail over two articles. Part 1 will explain why the Fed can no longer raise interest rates, and Part 2 will show how the Fed is unable to taper and may even need to increase Treasury purchases to maintain control over the long end of the yield curve.\n$28 Trillion and Growing\nThe US Government cannot stop spending money. Spending is now far in excess of what is being collected in tax revenues. The US economy continues to experience nominal increases in growth, which has increased Federal Tax receipts, but Federal Spending is growing far faster. Figure 1 below, shows this clear trend.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nExcess spending has to be paid for using debt. This massive excess in spending has led to proliferate borrowing by the Federal Government resulting in over $28T in total debt outstanding. See figure 2 below.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nFor anyone struggling to wrap their mind around the size of $1T, please see this great visual. Now, multiply that by 28!\nFor most governments, this would be unsustainable as interest rates would rise. This puts pressure on a borrower to bring down spending. The US Government has benefited from three major advantages that are not available to most governments. First, it has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the global reserve currency (for now), which creates far more demand for dollars than would otherwise be the case. The petro-dollar should have its own dedicated article, so that will be skipped in this analysis.\nIt is important to highlight two other key facts that have allowed spending and borrowing to continue unabated. It has been able to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Federal Reserve has absorbed a large chunk of debt issuance in recent years. Not only does this equate to $11T in interest-free loans (as all interest payments return back to the Treasury), but it has prevented the private markets from absorbing all new debt issuance keeping interest rates lower. As Figure 3 below shows, since Jan 2010, the private markets have “only” had to absorb $9T of the $14.5T issued.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov andhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/\nSince Jan 2020, the numbers are even more stark. The Treasury has issued $4.5T, of which the Fed has taken on $2.6T (Note: The Fed balance sheet has expanded by greater than $4T, but not all of this was Treasury Debt). Looking deeper into the numbers shows the Fed had an even bigger appetite for longer-dated maturities. With Short Term rates at 0%, the Treasury can sell Treasury Bills to the private sector and still have an interest-free loan. Thus, it has been critical for the Fed to absorb almost all (~90%) the long-term debt issued by the Treasury to keep interest payments low!\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nThe Treasury has so far avoided higher interest payments\nZooming back out, the three charts below show why the maneuvers over the last year have been so important. Take one more look at the US Debt load, this time categorized by vehicle. Non-Marketable is debt the government owes itself, Notes represent 1-10 year maturity, Bills less than 1 year, and Bonds >10 years. The two charts below show both the absolute growth in debt and how the makeup of the debt has changed. Since 2008, Notes have experienced the largest growth increasing from 25% of total outstanding to 42%. Non-Marketable went the other way, shrinking from 45% to 25% as the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer a source to borrow from.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nIt is important to notice the growth in Treasury Bills above. Bills are the highest risk to the Treasury because higher interest rates will affect Bills within months, so it is important to note that in 2015 during the last rate hike cycle they accounted for only $1.4T but now make up $4.3T. This means every .25% rate hike will almost immediately add $10B to Federal spending. The chart below clearly shows the impact of the last interest rate hike cycle. The Pink line shows how Bills followed the Fed hike cycle topping out near 2.25%.\nIf the Fed attempted to raise rates in a similar fashion it would immediately add $100B to Federal Spending on ONLY interest due for Treasury Bills. In a scenario where the Fed shrunk its balance sheet back to $1T (no more interest free loans) AND raised interest rates back to 4%, the Treasury would incur an extra $160B in interest rates for Treasury Bills and a whopping $290B on Treasury Notes! This would not factor in any new debt added over that time, which now includes an extra $.5T a year just on interest payments!\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nThe chart below shows a much clearer impact of how falling interest rates have kept debt payments relatively stable for nearly 20 years. The chart shows the average weighted interest rate and the annualized monthly interest payments. The orange line (average weighted interest rate) is moving in direct opposition to the growth in debt seen above. In the last rate tightening cycle, the chart shows just how quickly higher interest rates increased the debt burden ($150B). The Fed owns very few Treasury Bills ($320B), so those interest payments are NOT returning to the Treasury.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nOne final chart to consider. How do these interest payments compare to tax revenue collected by the IRS? In this context, it becomes very clear how much impact the 2015 rate cycle increases had on debt payments.\n\nSource – Treasurydirect.gov\nWrapping Up\nNothing in this article should be surprising to anyone who even closely watches the US Debt situation or follows financial markets. The charts and graphs attempted to show the trends and put hard numbers behind what most people already know anecdotally. This article does not even touch on how devastating higher interest rates would be on the housing market, corporate debt market, and consumer debt market. Instead it only focuses on the Treasury, which just so happens to be run by the old chair of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen).\nNone of this math is overly complex, and all the data is freely available on the Treasury and Fed website. This begs the question, does the Fed realize interest rates cannot go up or are they only looking in the rear-view mirror and assuming that an increase to 2.25% will be similar to 2015 which was “only” derailed by COVID-19? To reiterate, the drop in interest rates gave the Treasury relief from the higher interest payments. Next time they might not even get halfway to 2% with the added debt burden.Unfortunately, for the Fed, their box is tighter than most realize.If the Fed hasn’t figured it out by now,even before they fail to raise interest rates, they will be unable taper Quantitative Easing (debt monetization) much less shrink their balance sheet, without serious consequences.That data will be reviewed in Part 2. Stay tuned!","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2156,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}