1 | | 收盘价 | 区间涨幅 | 日均成交 | 持仓量 | 持仓变化 | 投机度 | CTD券 | IRR | IRR变化 远期收益 | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | 量 | | | | | | | 率 | | 两年期 | | | | | | | | | | | | TS2506 | 102.23 | -0.13% | 20925 | 4293 | -88782 | 4.87 | 240024.IB | 0.9% | -1.1% | 1.50% | | TS2509 | 102.40 | -0.23% | 28237 | 111638 | 59652 | 0.25 | 250006.IB | 1.9% | 2.6% | 1.38% | | TS2512 | 102.56 | -0.21% | 338 | 3565 | 2343 | 0.09 | 220016.IB | 1.7% | 5.6% | 1.37% | | 五年期 | | | | | | | | | | | | TF250 ...

摘要：日内瓦协议，关税加征幅度减至 30%，额外 24%延后 90 天视谈判结果而定。当 前美国对中国货物加征幅度为基础关税+一阶段协议约定关税+今年 30%。关税协议很 难扭转脱钩大局，并且后续仍有美国要挟他国围堵中国的风险，2 季度可能呈现抢出口， 科技与品牌含量低的行业获得更多优惠变量。虽然关税边际递减，但一方面高额关税的 客观存在，另一方面一旦外压降低形成普遍共识，财政政策加码的迫切性进一步降低。 当资产定价回归内因后，财政发力节奏与幅度仍是决定境内资产定价方向的主轴。 1、协议后美国对中国究竟征收多少关税？ 在讨论之前，很多人尚不确定，协议中到底把关税撤到多少？是当前中美之间普遍 30% 的关税，还是加征 30%？首先笔者从对方的官方网站进行科普。 查看具体关税，可以搜索美国国际贸易委员会 hts.usitc.gov 官方网站，输入产品具体 HS 编码进行查询。例如 HS 编码 6211.42.05 是休闲外套，普遍关税为 8.1%；澳大利 亚、韩国等在第二列豁免；像朝鲜、白俄罗斯、古巴等制裁国家适用 90%的超高关税。 具体查询对中国的关税定价，需要搜索第一列 8.1%后边"1/"注释中的 990 ...

Economic Overview - The GDP growth rate for Q1 is 5.4%, indicating robust economic performance supported by domestic demand and policy measures[22] - CPI decreased by 0.1%, suggesting some deflationary pressure in the economy[30] - Industrial value-added output grew by 7.7%, surpassing the expected 5.8%, reflecting strong recovery in industrial production[30] Investment and Consumption - Fixed asset investment increased by 4.2%, with manufacturing investment rising by 9.1% and infrastructure investment by 11.5%, while real estate investment fell by 9.9%[30] - Retail sales grew by 5.9%, exceeding the expected 4.2%, although consumption in major cities showed significant decline[30] Market Trends - TS2509 futures rose by 0.20%, TF2509 by 0.72%, T2509 by 1.17%, and TL2506 by 4.18% in April, indicating positive market sentiment[22] - The IRR for various bonds showed slight fluctuations, with TL2506 at 1.90% and T2509 at 1.62%[6] Policy Implications - The political bureau meeting emphasized timely and opportunistic policy measures, with potential for accelerated issuance of special bonds and interest rate cuts in Q2[31] - The report suggests a cautious approach to real estate as a short-term economic stimulus, focusing instead on infrastructure investment[31] Trade Relations - The ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. have led to increased tariffs, impacting trade dynamics and prompting retaliatory measures from China[22]

1 | | 收盘价 | 区间涨幅 | 日均成交 | 持仓量 | 持仓变化 | 投机度 | CTD券 | IRR | IRR变化 远期收益 | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | 量 | | | | | | | 率 | | 两年期 | | | | | | | | | | | | TS2506 | 102.31 | -0.15% | 33869 | 95758 | -16497 | 0.35 | 240024.IB | 2.1% | -0.2% | 1.44% | | TS2509 | 102.56 | -0.06% | 6446 | 48223 | 12828 | 0.13 | 250006.IB | 2.3% | 2.2% | 1.27% | | TS2512 | 102.73 | -0.05% | 88 | 1164 | 147 | 0.08 | 240016.IB | 2.0% | 5.3% | 1.34% | | 五年期 | | | | | | | | | | | | TF2506 | ...

1 白糖周度报告 中環期货 · FUTURES FOR FUTURE 第一部分 回顾与展望 1. 期货现货行情回顾 国内方面,郑糖主力合约在上周呈现高位回落调整的状况,前期由于糖浆 政策有收紧的动作，盘面偏强修复。后期随着对等关税政策的影响，商品 回落,郑糖有调整,最终周线收涨。其中,郑糖主力合约当周累计收跌 103 元/吨，或-1.66%，收盘价 6086 元/吨。 国际方面,原糖上周整体呈现持续回落的态势,前期北半球增产不及预期, 原糖反弹。但盘面需求难寻，巴西主产区降水恢复、叠加对等关税造成的 系统性影响, 最终周线收跌, 纽糖主力合约当周累计收跌 1.1 美分, 或-5.81% 至 17.83 美分/磅。 图表 1:纽糖与郑糖走势(美分/磅)(元/吨) 免责声明 本报告信息全部来源于公开性资料，本报告观点可能会与相应公司的投资发展策略或相关商品价格趋势产生分歧，本报告不对所涉及信息的推确性 和完整性作任何保证。因此本报告仅可视为经济及金融信息参考但并不构成任何投资建议且不为任何投资行为负责。 - 1 - 7000 28.00 6800 26.00 6600 6400 24.00 6200 6000 2 ...

如果回顾过去两年两会报告，财政货币政策的制定围绕精准高效展开。但是随着化债 进入深水期，上半年财政始终收力下，需求逐级承压。过去两年在三季度政策均开始 加码，以 2023 年发行特别国债、2024 年一篮子组合拳，超出了原先两会的既定额 度。今年既定额度的加码仍然更倾向审慎，可以关注是否节奏与过去两年仍然一致， 亦或在外部加压下存在更早的发力加码。 话题转到外部压力，对于中美贸易纷争 2.0，渐进税是双方的共识。但是近期美国两轮 加税，已经显著超出了年初市场对于中美关系边际回暖的最乐观预期。后续可能随着 中国对美国 AI 泡沫的持续施压，美国或继续通过关税，侧面阻碍中国的科技破局。 结论：1、两会财政货币政策边际加码，但并未超出去年年底预期；中央加杠杆、地方 去杠杆的组合，确定今年政策仍然围绕高质量转型；2、中国 AI 突破，更易招致美国 关税要价（已验证）；国内稳杠杆、美国高债息，双方均认可时间换空间；渐进关税 可能在第三次（二季度）加征见顶；3、如果今年仍为托而不举，境内品种的上行驱动 可能只限于供给侧，或者需求过度承压的修复；美元兑人民币维持偏弱格局，但贬值 幅度有限。 对比 2023 至 2025 三 ...

所以如果分析政策内核，2025年继续围绕高质量发展的基调已经得到确认，两会只是从量上落地了去年政治局 会议的精神。即使通胀下调至2.0%，但如果没有全面加杠杆的提振，又确认AI加速推广，可能今年国内仍然是 一个供给端为主的逻辑路径，需求无法构成挺价主导。假使境内商品年内出现上行波段，将大概率依赖于其自 身供给端，该逻辑得到了政策的右侧确认。 最后，附上用了很久的老图，笔者觉得国内政策的底层逻辑没有变化，只需按图索骥。 作者简介 范永嘉 中粮期货研究院 宏观资深研究员 交易咨询证号：Z0014840 风险揭示 摘要 5.0%的经济目标，在关税大棒下显得尤为重要。外部压力与政策发力的节奏，仍为未来二三季度境内偏好及商品博弈 的主导方向。从特别国债及专项债额度来看，符合去年人大既定预期，2025年稳中求进，转型优先的基调确定。通胀 目标下调至2.0%，更倾向于贴近现实，而非主动拉升。假使境内商品有上行波段，将大概率依赖于其自身供给端，这 条逻辑路径得到了政策的右侧确认。 今年5.0%的经济目标，特别在面对外部关税大棒的地缘环境下确立。去年实现5.0%所做的努力，意味着今年 政策需要加码，才能在更大压力下兑现。所以赤 ...

全年加码基调已定，过去 2 年的经验，未来关注点仍在发力节奏。一季度开门红，二 三季度放缓，四季度加码提速是过去 2 年政策节奏的特征。特征的背后，体现为政策 托而不举，服务高质量转型优先的大局。今年叠加上关税压力，关税对产业的额外压 力，可能政策更为前瞻对冲。所以究竟是现实倒逼还是预期管理，是二季度针对境内 基本面主要的博弈核心。可以参考新一轮消费刺激、特别国债的落地节奏，究竟两会 后快速落地，还是如前 2 年一样在 5-9 月徐徐落地。针对货币政策，在汇率仍有压力 的环境下，关注纠偏顺周期的定调是否更早发生转变。如果国内债市尤其短债端未能 大幅反弹，可能货币适度宽松仍需时日。 重点的财政端：4.0%赤字率，4.4 万亿专项债，1.3 万亿超长特别国债，5000 亿特别国 债用于补充银行资本。包含去年人大过会的 5 年 4 万亿专项债用于化债的额度，减去 8000 亿后 3.6 万亿新增地方专项债，低于去年 3.9 万亿额度。这确定了中央扩杠杆， 地方缩杠杆，从而整体稳杠杆的格局。其次 1.3 万亿直接用于提振经济的超长特别国 债，略低于市场 2-3 万亿的预期。所以综上，本次两会的加码，属于预期之内，需要 ...

Group 1: Market Overview - The two-year treasury bond (TS2503) closed at 102.48 with a decline of 0.27% and an average daily transaction volume of 33,433[2] - The five-year treasury bond (TF2503) closed at 106.00, down 0.49%, with a daily trading volume of 55,871[2] - The ten-year treasury bond (T2503) closed at 108.86, decreasing by 0.50%, with a trading volume of 57,519[2] - The thirty-year treasury bond (TL2503) closed at 121.26, down 0.51%, with a daily transaction volume of 59,514[2] Group 2: Market Dynamics - The two-year bond has seen a significant decline since reaching a peak yield of 1.0%, with current funding rates at 1.8%-2.0%, indicating a serious inversion[27] - The short-term bonds are leading the decline due to speculative retreat as the market anticipates a significant rate cut by the central bank[27] - Despite the downward trend, the long-term bonds maintain a basic expectation of price support due to fundamental factors[27] - The report suggests that the current environment makes it more challenging to take long positions in bonds compared to the previous year[27]

Group 1: Macroeconomic Trends - The macroeconomic landscape for 2025 is expected to revolve around three main lines: 1) Tight fiscal policy in the U.S.; 2) Gradual tariffs; 3) Domestic policies continuing to support without significant changes[1] - The U.S. fiscal tightening could lead to a rapid decline in government employee contributions to non-farm payrolls, potentially resulting in a significant downturn in demand for goods[2] - The new debt ceiling may need to exceed $10 trillion to ensure continued fiscal support, given the previous $2 trillion deficit and an additional $5 trillion already exceeded[2] Group 2: Tariff Implications - Gradual tariffs are anticipated, reflecting market expectations, with potential risks of escalating trade tensions, particularly with China[3] - The internal pressure from U.S. citizens may limit the government's ability to impose sudden and significant tariff increases, as this could lead to immediate demand reductions[3] - If a friendly trade agreement is reached with Canada and Mexico, it could pose a significant risk for China in the context of a potential "Trade War 2.0"[3] Group 3: Commodity Market Dynamics - The correlation between tight fiscal expectations, demand recession, U.S. Treasury yields, and commodity prices has been evident over the past two years[5] - If demand weakens, the logic of U.S. Treasury yields and commodity prices being under pressure will likely be reinforced, with a focus on monitoring Treasury yield movements[5] - The emergence of Chinese AI technology could significantly impact U.S. financing capabilities, potentially compressing overseas premiums and leading to a demand recession similar to the 2000 internet bubble[6] Group 4: Domestic Policy and Market Sentiment - The Chinese government is expected to continue its strategic planning, with a focus on transitioning to a service-oriented economy while managing external pressures[4] - Market sentiment may trigger reversals when prices are low enough, but ongoing policy adjustments may keep the long-term transformation trajectory unchanged[4] - The domestic market's upward potential may still rely on supply-side contributions amidst external tariff threats[6]