Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the increasing discourse on "de-dollarization" in the context of U.S. tariff policies, highlighting the reliance of U.S. companies on overseas business and the potential impact on their performance due to changing global economic dynamics [2][4]. Group 1: Overseas Revenue Proportion - In the S&P 500 index, the proportion of non-U.S. revenue is approximately 30%, which is higher for large enterprises compared to small enterprises, where it is about 20% [6][18]. - The companies disclosing non-U.S. revenue in the S&P 500 represent about 83% of the total market capitalization, indicating a high level of representativeness [6][18]. Group 2: Industry Exposure to Overseas Revenue - The technology sector has the highest exposure to overseas revenue, with over 50% of its revenue coming from non-U.S. sources, followed by materials, healthcare, and communications, all exceeding 30% [7][21]. - Key industries like technology and communications account for nearly half of the total market capitalization of the S&P 500, indicating their significant reliance on overseas business [7][21]. Group 3: Major Companies' Overseas Business - More than half of the major companies in the S&P 500 have overseas business proportions exceeding their respective industry averages [9][26]. - For instance, Apple has 57% of its revenue from overseas, while Nvidia and Broadcom have 56% and 75%, respectively, which are above the technology sector's average of 51% [10][26]. Group 4: Importance of Asian and European Markets - Asian and European markets are nearly equally important, with Asian revenue accounting for 45% and European revenue for 40% of non-U.S. income [12][40]. - In the technology and energy sectors, Asian revenue is significantly higher than European revenue, while in consumer and financial sectors, European revenue dominates [12][40]. Group 5: Growth Rates of Domestic vs. Overseas Revenue - The growth of overseas revenue is generally outpacing domestic revenue growth, particularly in the communications sector, which shows a consistent trend of higher growth in non-U.S. revenue [13][44]. - The materials sector also exhibits higher growth in overseas revenue compared to total revenue for 2023-2024 [13][44]. Group 6: Profitability of Overseas Business - Certain industries, including essential and non-essential consumer goods, materials, and technology, show higher profit margins for overseas business compared to domestic operations [15][50]. - For example, the average operating profit margin for overseas business in the technology sector is 33%, which is higher than the overall average of 20% [15][50]. Group 7: Dependence on Chinese Market - The technology and communications sectors have a higher proportion of revenue from China, at 25.1%, compared to the overall average of 16.5% [16][57]. - However, revenue growth from China for these sectors has slowed in the past two years, potentially due to U.S. restrictions on technology [16][57].

Group 1 - The document emphasizes that the research material is intended solely for professional investors and should not be shared with non-professional investors [1][2] - It highlights the potential misunderstanding that ordinary investors may face due to the lack of interpretative services regarding key assumptions, ratings, and target prices in the reports [2] - The content is derived from previously published research reports by Huachuang Securities, and any discrepancies should refer to the complete report published on the same date [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent trends in the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the potential impacts of tariffs on inflation, highlighting that the CPI has been consistently below market expectations for three consecutive months [2][10]. Group 1: CPI Trends - In May, the CPI year-on-year increased from 2.3% to 2.4%, which was below Bloomberg's expectation of 2.5%. The core CPI remained stable at 2.8%, also below the expected 2.9% [2][20]. - The month-on-month CPI rose by 0.1%, lower than both the expected and previous values of 0.2%. The core CPI also increased by 0.1%, below the expected 0.3% [2][20]. - The proportion of CPI items with a year-on-year increase exceeding 2% rose from 37.7% to 40.8%, indicating a widening inflation breadth [20]. Group 2: Tariff Impact on Inflation - The article identifies several factors that may have suppressed the impact of tariffs on inflation, including the suspension and reduction of reciprocal tariffs and micro-level tax avoidance measures [3][10]. - The effective tariff rate in April was only 7.07%, significantly lower than estimates of 13-20% from overseas institutions, suggesting that various avoidance strategies have mitigated the tariff impact [3][10]. - The first sale rule allows importers to calculate tariffs based on the initial sale price, which may further reduce the effective tariff burden [11]. Group 3: Market Expectations and Consumer Behavior - Market expectations for interest rate cuts have increased, with the futures market pricing in an average of 1.97 rate cuts for the year, up from 1.73 [2][29]. - Consumer inflation expectations have risen, with one-year and five-year inflation expectations remaining at their highest levels in 45 and 25 years, respectively [5][13]. - Despite concerns about price increases, a significant majority of retail executives plan to raise prices, indicating ongoing pressure for price transmission in the market [6][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025," focusing on tax reform, spending cuts, increased spending, and raising the debt ceiling, highlighting the potential impacts on the U.S. economy and fiscal deficit [1][9]. Group 1: Key Issues - Tax Reform: The act extends and expands personal tax cuts from the 2017 tax reform, leading to an estimated increase in the primary deficit of approximately $3.8 trillion from 2025 to 2034 [2][10]. - Spending Cuts: The act proposes cuts in healthcare, education, food assistance, and energy, which are expected to reduce the primary deficit by about $1.95 trillion over the same period [2][17]. - Increased Spending: Additional spending in military defense and immigration is projected to increase the primary deficit by approximately $480 billion from 2025 to 2034 [2][18]. - Debt Ceiling: The act raises the statutory debt ceiling by $4 trillion to $40.1 trillion, addressing the current public debt situation [2][21]. Group 2: Impact on Deficit, Economic Growth, and Distribution Effects - Deficit Impact: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the act will increase the primary deficit by about $2.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, while other estimates range from $2.6 trillion to $2.8 trillion [4][26]. - Economic Growth: The act is expected to have a minimal impact on GDP growth, with estimates suggesting an increase of about 0.4% over the period from 2025 to 2034 [4][32]. - Distribution Effects: The act may exacerbate income inequality, as it is projected to benefit higher-income households more than lower-income ones, potentially widening the income gap [4][37][43]. Group 3: Future Developments - Legislative Process: The act requires agreement between the House and Senate to become law, facing internal divisions within the Republican Party that may complicate its passage [4][46]. - Key Dates: Important timelines include the desire for the act to be signed into law by July 4, the "X date" around August when the debt ceiling must be addressed, and the end of the fiscal year in September [4][47][49].

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人：夏雪（微信SuperSummerSnow） 核心观点 5 月出口整体来看，考虑到前期抢出口以及 5 月上半月高关税的压力，全月同比 4.8% ，并不算低。按照 《出口不确定性的"β、α"二分法——4月进出口数据 点评》 分析框架， 5 月贸易数据反映出的或是： 3 ）后续从高频来看， 6 月整体出口量增速或边际回落，仍具韧性，中国对美国直接出口或有所反弹。此外，欧盟或是重要增量（其制造业 PMI 未来产出预 期指数持续回升，或指向工业生产的复苏）。 报告摘要 一、"β、α"二分法看 5 月出口 （一）需求（β）风险如何？ 事项 5 月，中国美元计价出口同比 4.8% ，基本符合彭博一致预期 5% ， 4 月同比 8.1% ；美元计价进口同比 -3.4% ，弱于彭博一致预期 -0.9% ， 4 月同比 -0.2% 。 1 ）对于β风险，通俗来说即美国进口崩盘的风险。目前从美国进口数据来看，还暂看不出风险的爆发，但是景气前瞻指标和高频都指向美国进口或面临持续 趋弱的压力。 2 ）对于α风险，即中国市场份额损失风 ...

Core Viewpoint - The analysis emphasizes the importance of month-on-month (MoM) price changes over year-on-year (YoY) changes, providing a clearer understanding of price differentiation trends in the current year [4][14]. CPI Analysis - Overall, the cumulative MoM increase in CPI for the first five months of this year is 0%, which is weaker than the 0.4% increase during the same period from 2021 to 2024. However, the core CPI shows a cumulative MoM increase of 0.5%, slightly better than the 0.4% increase in the same period [5][15]. - In terms of categories, food prices have a cumulative MoM increase of -0.6% (compared to -1% in the past four years), rent at 0.1% (0% previously), and core goods at 0.9% (0.1% previously) are considered "strong." Conversely, energy prices at -2.3% (3.8% previously) and core services (excluding rent) at 0.5% (1.2% previously) are deemed "weak" [5][15]. - Detailed breakdowns show that within food, fresh fruits, beef, lamb, and pork prices are "strong" with declines of -7.4% and -16.4%, while grains, cooking oils, fresh vegetables, seafood, and dairy prices are "weak." In energy, water, electricity, and fuel prices are "weak" with a decline of -5.4% [6][16]. PPI Analysis - The cumulative MoM increase in PPI for the first five months of this year is -1.5%, which is weaker than the -0.5% increase during the same period last year [8][23]. - In terms of categories, clothing (0% this year vs. -0.2% last year) and general daily necessities (0.2% vs. 0.1%) are "strong," while mining (-8.7% vs. -1.2%), raw materials (-2.4% vs. 0.9%), and durable goods (-1.4% vs. -1.2%) are "weak" [8][23]. - Among 32 comparable industries, 10 show "strong" prices, mainly in downstream manufacturing and electric water industries. In mining, black metal extraction is "strong," while coal extraction and oil and gas extraction are "weak" [9][24]. May Inflation Data Review - CPI shows a slight decline both YoY and MoM, with food prices experiencing a small YoY drop and energy prices seeing a deeper YoY decline. Core CPI shows a slight YoY increase [29][39]. - The MoM CPI decreased by 0.2%, which is 0.1 percentage points higher than the average of the past five years. Food prices shifted from a 0.2% increase to a 0.2% decrease, while energy prices dropped by 1.7% [31][39]. - The core CPI reflects a 0.1% decrease in rent, which is lower than the 2015-2019 average, and a stable core goods price. Durable goods prices continue to decline, with transportation tools down by 0.4% [32][36]. Price Change Proportions - The proportion of CPI items with price increases has expanded, with the ratio rising from 24% to 29%, which is at the 11% percentile since 2016 [44]. - Conversely, the proportion of PPI industries with price increases has significantly narrowed, with the number of industries increasing prices dropping from 8 to 5, resulting in a decrease from 27% to 17% [46].

Group 1 - The document emphasizes that the research is intended for professional investors only, and it should not be shared with non-professional investors [1][2][3] - It highlights the potential misunderstanding that ordinary investors may face due to the lack of interpretative services regarding key assumptions, ratings, and target prices in the reports [3] - The content is derived from previously published research reports by Huachuang Securities, and any discrepancies should refer to the complete report from the publication date [3]

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人： 陆银波（15210860866） 袁玲玲（微信 Yuen43） 报告摘要 继 5 月 10 日日内瓦经贸会谈后，近一周中美关税会谈再次出现新的积极变化： （一）总书记同美国总统特朗普通电话。总书记指出，"校正中美关系这艘大船的航向，需要我们把好 舵、定好向"，并"欢迎特朗普再次访华" ； 特朗普表示，"美方愿同中方共同努力落实协议。美方欢迎 中国留学生来美学习"；两国元首同意双方团队继续落实好日内瓦共识，尽快举行新一轮会谈。 （二）中美经贸磋商机制将举行首次会议 。 6 月 7 日，外交部发言人宣布：应英国政府邀请，中共 中央政治局委员、国务院副总理何立峰将于 6 月 8 日至 13 日访问英国。其间，将与美方举行中美经 贸磋商机制首次会议。 （三）稀土出口管制措施出现变化 。 6 月 7 日，商务部新闻发言人就中重稀土出口管制措施答记者 问，"已依法批准一定数量的合规申请，并将持续加强合规申请的审批工作。中方愿就此进一步加强与 相关国家的出口管制沟通对话"。 近一周，其他值得关注的政策： （一）外交：与 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the "trade-in" program for consumer goods is accelerating, particularly in the categories of home appliances and automobiles, while electric bicycles remain stable [1][2][3] - In May, the average daily trade-in volume for automobiles was approximately 38,000 units, a slight decrease from April's 39,000 units, while projections for September to December 2024 suggest an increase to 47,000 units per day [2][10] - Home appliances saw an increase in trade-in activity, with May's average daily volume reaching about 829,000 units, up from 630,000 units in April [2][10] - The trade-in volume for electric bicycles remained relatively stable, with May's average daily volume at approximately 62,000 units, compared to 65,000 units in April [2][11] Group 2 - The overall trade-in activity for the three consumer goods categories (automobiles, home appliances, and electric bicycles) showed an increase in May, with a weighted average daily trade-in volume rising from 92,000 units in April to 109,000 units in May [3][12] - The trade-in program is projected to drive significant sales, with the Ministry of Commerce estimating that the program will generate over 1.3 trillion yuan in product sales in 2024, and approximately 1.1 trillion yuan in the first five months of 2025 [4][5] - The macroeconomic indicators suggest a mixed outlook, with infrastructure projects and durable goods consumption being the main drivers of economic activity, while industrial production and external demand remain weak [15][16][22] Group 3 - The trade-in program's impact on consumer spending is significant, as evidenced by the strong sales figures driven by the program [4][5] - The weekly economic observations indicate a slight decline in the macroeconomic activity index, but it remains above 5%, suggesting ongoing economic recovery [15][16] - The trade-in program is part of a broader strategy to stimulate consumption and support economic growth, particularly in the context of fluctuating external trade dynamics [28][29]

Core Insights - The rapid growth of stablecoins and the introduction of regulations such as Hong Kong's Stablecoin Regulation and the US GENIUS Act have made stablecoins a focal point in the market [2][11] - The impact of stablecoin flows on short-term US Treasury yields is significant, with a net inflow of $3.5 billion leading to a decrease in 3-month Treasury yields by approximately 2-2.5 basis points within 10 days [2][6] - Conversely, outflows have a more pronounced effect, with a $3.5 billion outflow resulting in an increase of about 6-8 basis points in yields [2][6] - The influence of stablecoin flows is primarily concentrated in the short end of the yield curve, particularly affecting 3-month Treasury yields, while having minimal spillover effects on 2-year and 5-year yields [2][6] - Continued rapid expansion of the stablecoin market could significantly depress short-term Treasury yields, potentially disrupting the effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy transmission [2][7] Group 1: Stablecoins and Safe Asset Prices - The total asset management scale of dollar stablecoins exceeded $200 billion by March 2025, surpassing the holdings of major foreign investors like China in short-term US securities [4][12] - Stablecoin issuers, particularly Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC), support their tokens primarily through US Treasury bills and money market instruments, making them key players in the short-term debt market [4][12] - In 2024, dollar stablecoins purchased nearly $40 billion in US Treasury bills, comparable to the largest government money market funds in the US [4][12] Group 2: Data and Methodology - The research utilized daily frequency data from January 2021 to March 2025, sourced from various platforms including CoinMarketCap and Yahoo Finance [5][16] - The study focused on the 3-month Treasury yield as the primary variable, employing a simple univariate local projection model to analyze the impact of stablecoin flows [5][23] Group 3: Empirical Research on Stablecoin Flows - The empirical results indicate that a total inflow of $3.5 billion in stablecoins correlates with a decrease of approximately 2.5 basis points in the 3-month Treasury yield within 10 days, and up to 5 basis points within 20 days [6][35] - The contributions of different stablecoin issuers to yield changes were analyzed, with USDT accounting for approximately -1.54 basis points (70% of the total impact) and USDC contributing about 19% [6][38] Group 4: Discussion and Policy Implications - The potential for stablecoin market expansion to compress short-term Treasury yields raises concerns about the Federal Reserve's control over short-term interest rates [7][40] - The transparency of reserves is crucial, with USDC's disclosures being more transparent compared to USDT, highlighting the need for standardized reporting to mitigate systemic risks [7][41] - The strong demand for Treasuries from stablecoins may exacerbate the "safe asset scarcity" issue faced by non-bank financial institutions, affecting liquidity premiums [8][40]