低利率时代系列：欧美日流动性陷阱启示

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core View of the Report The report analyzes the policy responses of the EU, Japan, and the US to liquidity traps and provides insights for China's future policy directions. It emphasizes that China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy rhythm, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to avoid falling into a liquidity trap and stimulate economic growth [9][11][98]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 When an economy falls into a "liquidity trap", what characteristics will it exhibit? - Core characteristics of a liquidity trap: - Near-zero nominal interest rates: When policy rates are at or near 0%, borrowing and investment motives are weak, and market rates cannot be further reduced [18]. - Deflation: Increased preference for cash leads to reduced consumption, forcing businesses to lower prices and causing deflation [19]. - Abundant market liquidity but low investment willingness: Deflation expectations lead economic agents to postpone consumption and investment, resulting in low investment returns and weak investment willingness [22]. - Ineffective monetary policy transmission: Nominal interest rates have reached the zero lower bound, and banks are reluctant to lend, preventing liquidity from flowing into the real economy [23]. - Transmission mechanism analysis: Negative events prompt central banks to implement expansionary monetary policies. However, in a liquidity trap, low interest rates lead the public to hoard cash, reducing consumption and investment, and causing the economy to fall into a policy - failure situation [24][25]. 3.2 Overseas economies have successively fallen into liquidity traps 3.2.1 EU: Timely but conventional and indecisive policy responses (2008 - 2016) - Policy changes and economic performance: In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the ECB cut interest rates, launched bond - buying programs, and implemented LTRO and OMT. In 2015, it started the APP. GDP growth recovered in 2015 but slowed later. Unemployment declined, but inflation remained low. After the COVID - 19 pandemic, the ECB launched the PEPP, and the economy rebounded, but inflation concerns emerged [2][31][33]. - Core characteristics of the EU's liquidity trap: Policy rates were near zero or negative and stable until 2022. GDP growth was slow, CPI fluctuated, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high, indicating deflation. Investment was pessimistic initially but recovered after 2015 [37][40][43]. 3.2.2 Japan: "The Lost Thirty Years" (1990 - 2023) - Policy changes and economic performance: After the asset bubble burst in the 1990s, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates, implemented QE, and later adopted "Abenomics". The economy showed short - term improvement, but low inflation and growth persisted. In 2023, Japan began to normalize policies and showed signs of recovery [3][5][52]. - Core characteristics of Japan's liquidity trap: Policy target rates were near zero or negative. GDP growth was low, CPI showed deflation, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high. Investment was low, and funds were deposited in banks, indicating ineffective monetary policy transmission [56][60][64]. 3.2.3 US: A classic and correct self - rescue case (2008 - 2013) - Policy changes and economic performance: In response to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, the Fed quickly cut interest rates, launched QE1, QE2, and QE3, and implemented the "Operation Twist". The economy recovered, and the Fed ended QE in 2014 and normalized policies in 2015 [7][68][69]. - Core characteristics of the US's liquidity trap: Federal funds rates were near zero after 2008. GDP growth was low, inflation was weak, retail sales were volatile, and unemployment was high. Investment declined sharply during the crisis and showed short - term recovery but remained structurally weak [72][76][80]. 3.3 China's liquidity risk assessment and analysis - Current policy environment: China faces challenges in traditional manufacturing investment, financial institution risk preferences, and high household savings rates. Traditional monetary policy tools have diminishing marginal utility, requiring more precise policy combinations [86]. - Risk factor identification and assessment: China's policy rates still have room for operation. GDP growth has declined and been volatile, and the real estate sector has a negative impact. Consumption willingness is weak, and the M2 - M1 gap indicates low money activation [91][92][95]. - Policy recommendations: China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to stimulate consumption and investment and avoid a liquidity trap [9][11][98].