Core Viewpoint - The Federal Reserve maintained the federal funds rate target range at 4.25-4.5% during the June 2025 FOMC meeting, marking the fourth pause since the rate cut cycle began in September 2024. The Fed will continue to reduce its balance sheet, indicating a cautious approach to future monetary policy [1][7]. Summary by Sections Federal Reserve's Decision - The FOMC unanimously voted to keep the federal funds rate unchanged, aligning with market expectations. The focus is on the implications of the decision, including the dot plot guidance for future policy, the Fed's understanding of the economy and inflation, and Powell's outlook [1][7]. Dot Plot Insights - The dot plot indicates a consensus among 19 participants, with 10 expecting at least two rate cuts in 2025, while 7 foresee no cuts. The projections for 2026 and 2027 suggest one cut each year, with policy rates expected to decline to 3.875%, 3.625%, and 3.375% respectively [2][9][10]. Economic Projections - The Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) reflects a cautious outlook, with GDP growth forecasts for 2025 and 2026 revised down to 1.4% and 1.6%. Unemployment rate expectations for 2025 and 2026 have been slightly increased to 4.5% [3][11][12]. Powell's Optimism - Powell expressed a relatively optimistic view on the economy, noting improved business sentiment and a stable job market. He acknowledged the delayed impact of tariffs on inflation and economic data [4][14][15]. FOMC Statement Changes - The FOMC statement showed minor changes, indicating a reduction in uncertainty regarding the economic outlook but still highlighting elevated risks. The committee no longer views the probability of rising unemployment and inflation as worsening [5][17][18]. Neutral Stance and Future Flexibility - The meeting's neutral stance allows for flexibility in responding to economic data changes. The Fed faces a dilemma between cutting rates to support employment and maintaining high rates to control inflation [6][20]. The market anticipates a low probability of rate cuts in July, with a 57.9% chance of a cut in September [6][21].

Core Viewpoint - The automotive and home appliance sectors remain key highlights of the economy under the "Two New" policy benefits, with steady growth in retail sales of passenger vehicles and significant increases in new energy vehicle sales [1][7][8]. Automotive Sector - From June 1 to June 15, retail sales of passenger vehicles increased by 20% year-on-year, compared to 13% in the previous month. Wholesale sales rose by 24% year-on-year, up from 14% [1][7]. - New energy vehicle sales during the same period reached 402,000 units, marking a 38% year-on-year increase, with a penetration rate of 57% [1][7]. Home Appliance Sector - The three major home appliances (air conditioners, refrigerators, and washing machines) maintained high sales growth, particularly in the first week of June, although growth slowed in the second week. Online sales from June 2 to June 8 showed year-on-year increases of 80.0% for air conditioners, 5.7% for refrigerators, and 42.6% for washing machines [8][9]. - In the subsequent week, online sales growth for these appliances dropped significantly, with air conditioners at 12.5%, refrigerators at -14.5%, and washing machines at 9.7% [8][9]. Industrial Sector - Container throughput growth has slowed, with domestic ports reporting a 0.6% year-on-year decline in cargo throughput from June 2 to June 15, while container throughput saw a slight increase of 0.7% [2][9]. - The industrial sector's operating rates and electricity consumption reflect seasonal characteristics, with steel and coking industries showing lower operating rates compared to May [3][11]. Real Estate Market - New home sales have shown signs of weakening, with the average daily transaction area in 30 major cities dropping by 7.6% year-on-year in mid-June [5][18]. - However, the second-hand housing market remains relatively active, with a 14.8% year-on-year increase in intermediary purchases across 84 cities [5][18]. Price Trends - Industrial product prices have seen a slight month-on-month recovery, particularly in non-ferrous metals, while consumer goods show mixed trends [19][20]. - The average wholesale price of pork has decreased by 2.0% month-on-month, indicating fluctuations in food prices [20].

摘要 第一， 5 月经济数据公布。六大口径数据中，消费、服务业高于前值；工业、投资、出口、地产销售低于前值。生产法 之下的 GDP 依旧较高，按照工业增加值、服务业生产指数公布值模拟，实际 GDP 同比大约在 5.35% 左右；支出法 之下的终端需求则有所分化，其中消费明显超预期，出口、投资、地产销售不同程度放缓 。 第二， 工业增加值韧性中放缓。5月同比5.8%，出口放缓所带来从需求向供给的传递可能是原因之一，可以看到同期 产销率有所下降。从主要产品来看，产量增速较高的仍主要是工业机器人、集成电路、太阳能电池、汽车等领域；新兴 产业产品中，增速较低的主要是智能手机，月度和年累计均在同比负增区间。手机内销增速较高，但出口增速较低。水 泥产量同比降幅扩大，反映建筑业投资处于偏弱状态 。 第三， 社零增速出现跃升。 5 月同比达 6.4% ，其中城市消费修复速度更快，城市消费在 2023 年下半年 - 今年 2 月一直弱于农村消费，今年 3 月起开始高于农村， 5 月领先幅度进一步扩大。增速较高的门类包括家电、通讯器材、 文化办公、体育娱乐、家具、金银珠宝、粮油食品、烟酒等，其中家电、通讯器材的增速均处于年内新高 ...

广发宏观周度述评（第18期） 广发宏观周度述评（第1-17期，复盘必读） 内容 第一， 严格账期是"反内卷"的第一步。 从实际增长来说，"924"以来的宏观经济政策已有明显成效，GDP同比已从2024年三季度低点的4.6%重新回升至5%以 上。这意味着后续更多政策可能会更集中于解决名义增长问题。所以今年二季度以来，我们看到政策关于"反内卷"的信号显著升温。 主要行业中，哪些"反内卷"的问题最为紧迫？我们理解包括钢铁（前5个月PPI同比-10.0%）、煤炭（前5个月PPI同比-14.1%）、光伏（电气机械行业前5个月 PPI同比-1.5%）、汽车（前5个月PPI同比-3.2%）等。 上周起，多家汽车企业相继宣布将供应商账期控制在60天以内[1]。 我们理解这一举动一则有助于产业链中小企业现金流的改善，有助于稳市场主体、稳就业；二则它实际上是"反内卷"的重要组成部分。 账期长意味着生产企业对于供应链企业资金存在额外的占用时间，客观上相当于微观层面叠加一层加杠杆。汽车行业严格账期相当于强制整车企业微观去杠杆，从 而可以显著降低企业价格"内卷"的能力。 严格账期只是"反内卷"的开始，基于行业数据特征，我们估计后续政策 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of effectively controlling risks and reducing volatility in asset management, advocating for a "macro factor" risk parity strategy that adapts to changing macroeconomic environments, contrasting it with traditional asset risk parity models [1][13][15]. Group 1: Macro Factor Risk Parity Framework - The construction of a macro factor risk parity framework involves four steps: selecting factors, calculating risk exposure, determining target risk exposure, and matching target risk exposure to asset weights [2][16][17]. - The mainstream methods for constructing macro factors include using low-frequency economic data, principal component analysis (PCA), and regression methods to fit higher-frequency macro factors [3][18][19]. Group 2: Factor Construction and High-Frequency Transformation - The article outlines a refined approach to factor construction, summarizing it as "defining dimensions, screening assets, and high-frequency transformation," which combines the advantages of various methods [3][18][19]. - The transformation of low-frequency macro factors into high-frequency factors is achieved through factor mimicking, which involves regression analysis to identify strong correlations with asset prices [5][29][31]. Group 3: Risk Exposure and Asset Sensitivity - A risk exposure matrix is created to show the sensitivity of assets to different macro variables, using robust OLS regression to capture dynamic features [6][33][34]. - The analysis reveals that large-cap stocks are more sensitive to economic growth, while mid-cap stocks are more sensitive to liquidity conditions [6][35][38]. Group 4: Performance of Different Strategies - The "lightweight" strategy, focusing on growth and inflation factors, has shown an annualized return of 7.7% with a volatility of 5.4% since 2016, outperforming traditional asset risk parity strategies [7][40][41]. - The "three-dimensional" strategy, incorporating M1, BCI, and PPI, has yielded an annualized return of 9.0% with a volatility of 7.8%, indicating a more diversified asset allocation [8][9]. - The "broad-spectrum" strategy, which includes multiple macro factors, has achieved an annualized return of 7.5% with a lower volatility of 4.0%, demonstrating a higher Sharpe ratio compared to simpler models [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the improvement in financial conditions in May, with social financing increasing by 2.3 trillion yuan, slightly exceeding market expectations, while credit growth remains weak due to demand-side factors [1][7][13]. Summary by Sections Social Financing - In May, social financing increased by 2.3 trillion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 227.1 billion yuan, slightly above the market average expectation of 2.05 trillion yuan [1][7]. - The total social financing scale for the first five months of 2025 reached 18.63 trillion yuan, an increase of 3.83 trillion yuan compared to the same period last year [7]. Credit Analysis - The increase in real credit was 596 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 223.7 billion yuan, indicating a weaker demand side [8]. - The BCI index showed an improvement in the financing environment for enterprises, suggesting that supply conditions may not be weak [8][9]. Corporate Loans - Long-term loans for enterprises increased by 330 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 170 billion yuan, reflecting weak investment in infrastructure and manufacturing [9]. - Short-term loans increased by 230 billion yuan year-on-year, while bill financing decreased by 282.6 billion yuan, indicating a preference for short-term loans due to higher yields [9]. Bond Financing - Corporate bonds increased by 149.6 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 121.1 billion yuan, likely due to lower deposit rates and increased credit bond financing [10][11]. - Government bonds increased by 1.46 trillion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 236.7 billion yuan, reflecting accelerated fiscal implementation [10][11]. Foreign Currency Loans - Foreign currency loans increased by 13.5 billion yuan, marking the first positive growth since March 2024, attributed to a weaker dollar and improved exchange rate expectations [11]. M1 Growth - M1 growth was 2.3%, an increase of 0.8 percentage points from the previous month, indicating a slight recovery in economic conditions [12]. - However, M1 performance remains weak, with a decrease of 230.7 billion yuan in May compared to previous years, influenced by debt replacement and shifts in deposit preferences [12]. Overall Financial Conditions - The article concludes that while supply-side conditions have improved, demand-side expectations remain uncertain, with ongoing impacts from debt replacement affecting financial data [13].

Core Insights - The article discusses the recent U.S. inflation data for May, which was slightly below expectations, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) year-on-year at 2.4%, matching the previous value and the forecast [1][6]. Inflation Data Summary - The CPI year-on-year was reported at 2.4%, with a month-on-month increase of 0.1%, compared to the previous month's 0.2% [1][6]. - Core CPI remained stable at 2.8% year-on-year, with a month-on-month increase of 0.1% [1][9]. - The Cleveland Fed's Trimmed Mean CPI for May was 3.03%, slightly higher than the previous 2.97% [9]. - The Atlanta Fed's Sticky CPI year-on-year was 3.16%, down from 3.21% [9]. Core Goods and Services Prices - Core goods prices remained unchanged month-on-month at 0%, with a year-on-year increase of 0.3% [11]. - Notable price changes included a decrease in clothing (-0.4%) and new cars (-0.3), while medical goods (0.6%) and personal computers (1.1%) saw increases [11][12]. - Core services prices increased by 0.2% month-on-month, with a year-on-year increase of 3.6% [12]. Corporate Responses to Tariffs - Major U.S. consumer companies are responding to high tariffs by stockpiling inventory, absorbing some tariff costs, prioritizing certain categories, and managing SKU levels [3][13]. - Retailers are indicating that some tariffs are difficult to absorb, with some planning to raise prices in batches from late May to June [3][15]. Interest Rate Outlook - The article suggests that the lack of significant inflation increases supports the argument for a temporary inflation outlook, which may influence the Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates [4][15]. - Market expectations indicate a slight increase in the probability of rate cuts later in the year, with a 61.6% chance of a cut in September [4][15]. Stock Market Reactions - U.S. stock markets experienced volatility, with tech stocks leading a decline after initial gains driven by inflation data [5][17]. - The Nasdaq index fell by 0.5%, while the S&P 500 dropped by 0.27% [5][17]. Tariff Impact on Inflation - The overall effective tariff rate in the U.S. has risen to 15.6%, the highest since 1937, indicating ongoing inflationary pressures from tariffs [16]. - The article notes that the impact of tariffs on prices has not yet fully materialized, suggesting that risks of economic recession or hard landing are reduced [17].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the weak performance of CPI and PPI in May 2025, highlighting a deflationary trend and the factors contributing to this situation, including energy and food prices, as well as the broader economic implications for GDP growth and investment opportunities [1][4][11]. CPI Analysis - In May 2025, the CPI year-on-year was -0.1%, unchanged from the previous value, while the PPI year-on-year was -3.3%, lower than the previous -2.7% [1][4]. - The simulated deflation index, based on CPI and PPI weights of 60% and 40%, was -1.38%, the lowest in the past 16 months [1][4]. - The decline in CPI is attributed to a 1.7% month-on-month decrease in energy prices, which negatively impacted CPI by approximately 0.13 percentage points, primarily due to the transmission of commodity price declines influenced by tariffs [6][7]. - Food prices also saw a month-on-month decrease of 0.2%, contributing to a 0.04 percentage point drag on CPI, with weak demand in the restaurant sector being a significant factor [6][7]. PPI Analysis - The PPI decline was exacerbated by two main factors: a decrease in global pricing raw materials and weak domestic construction product pricing [8][9]. - The oil extraction, processing, and chemical industries experienced expanded declines due to falling oil prices, with year-on-year price drops of -17.3% for oil extraction and -14.7% for oil processing [8][9]. - New industry products made a slight positive contribution to PPI, with some sectors like automotive and electronics showing a slight narrowing in their year-on-year decline [8][9]. Future Price Trends - Looking ahead, there is a potential for a slight narrowing of PPI declines in June due to recent rebounds in oil and copper prices, indicating a possible improvement in global pricing factors [10]. - However, to significantly alter the low PPI situation, prices in the construction and emerging industries need to exit the negative growth range, which requires effective local government investment strategies [10]. Economic Outlook - The macroeconomic environment since the "924" policy has shown signs of stabilization, with actual GDP growth expected to remain above 5% in the second quarter of 2025, despite pressures from exports to the U.S. [11]. - The current economic challenges are primarily related to low prices and nominal GDP, leading to high real interest rates and a heavier debt burden, which could affect investment and consumption opportunities [11].

Core Viewpoint - The export performance in May is characterized as "overall resilience with slight slowdown," with a year-on-year growth of 4.8%, which is lower than the first quarter's 5.7% and April's 8.1% [6][7][8] Export Performance - The export growth of 4.8% in May is still considered relatively low, and it is below the historical seasonal average for the month [6][8] - The decline in exports is primarily attributed to a significant drop in exports to the United States, which saw a year-on-year decrease of 34.5%, worsening from the previous month's decline of 21.0% [8][9] - There was a temporary "rush to export" observed in early May, but this trend weakened later in the month, likely due to uncertainty in expectations following tariff adjustments [9][10] Shipping Rates and Trade Dynamics - Despite the drop in export volumes, shipping rates to the U.S. have been rising, possibly due to a reallocation of shipping capacity to other routes and increased operational costs [10][11] - There is no significant evidence of a marked increase in third-party transshipment trade, as export growth rates to ASEAN and India have decreased compared to previous values [11][12] Export Market Structure - In May, ASEAN accounted for the largest share of China's exports at 18.5%, followed by the EU at 15.7%, while exports to the U.S. have dropped to 9.1% [11][12] - The impact of tariffs on Chinese exports is expected to be less severe than in 2018, when exports to the U.S. constituted 19.2% of total exports [11][12] Product Structure Changes - The export of labor-intensive products showed a slight decline of 0.9%, while electronic products saw a growth of 3.9%, with integrated circuits performing particularly well [13] - The export growth of automobiles and ships rebounded significantly, with increases of 13.7% and 43.7% respectively, while rare earth exports fell sharply by 48% [13][14] Future Outlook - The current trend of a 34.5% decline in exports to the U.S. may stabilize, with recent shipping data indicating a potential rebound in early June [14] - The resilience of export data is expected to support the lower bound of the economic fundamentals, while the upper bound will depend on reassessing risk preferences and nominal GDP elasticity [14][15]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent legislative developments regarding stablecoins, highlighting their potential impact on the financial market and the broader economy, particularly in the context of the U.S. dollar's dominance and the competition with digital currencies like China's digital yuan [1][29][30]. Group 1: Legislative Developments - A series of stablecoin-related legislations have gained attention since April 2025, including the passage of the STABLE Act and the advancement of the GENIUS Act in the U.S. Congress [1][10][11]. - The GENIUS Act aims to establish a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, ensuring a 1:1 backing with U.S. dollars and implementing strict disclosure and anti-money laundering requirements [6][27][29]. Group 2: Understanding Stablecoins - Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value by pegging to fiat currencies or low-volatility assets, with the global market cap growing from $5 billion in 2019 to $250 billion currently [2][15]. - They can be categorized into fiat-collateralized, commodity-collateralized, crypto-collateralized, and algorithmic types, with the first three being similar in principle [2][14]. Group 3: Supply and Demand Dynamics - The stablecoin ecosystem includes issuers, payment service providers, and DeFi protocol providers, each generating revenue through various means such as minting fees and transaction costs [3][16]. - Demand for stablecoins is driven by their advantages over traditional currencies, including faster transaction speeds, lower costs, and the ability to bypass traditional banking constraints [4][20]. Group 4: Market Projections - Projections suggest that stablecoin market capitalization could reach between $500 billion to $2 trillion by 2028, depending on regulatory developments and competition from central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) [5][23][32]. - The increasing use of stablecoins in cross-border payments and international trade could significantly enhance their market penetration [24][25]. Group 5: Impact on U.S. Treasury Bonds - Currently, major stablecoin issuers hold approximately $166 billion in U.S. Treasury bills, representing about 2.6% of the total T-Bill market, with potential for increased demand as stablecoin usage expands [8][32]. - The influx of stablecoin investments into U.S. Treasuries could exert downward pressure on short-term interest rates, influencing the broader financial market [33][35]. Group 6: Implications for Gold Demand - The rise of stablecoins may affect gold pricing dynamics, as they could enhance the credibility of the U.S. dollar while also providing an alternative to gold as a hedge against currency devaluation [34][36]. - If stablecoins become widely adopted, they may divert some demand away from gold, particularly in high-inflation economies where residents traditionally turn to gold for value preservation [36].