证券研究报告 | 宏观深度 分析师：马家进 执业编号：S0300522110002 电话：13645711472 邮箱：majiajin@ykzq.com 研究助理：孙文婷 邮箱：sunwenting1@ykzq.com 近期报告 《【粤开宏观】从化债到化险，厘清地方债 务风险的五个认知》2025-10-08 2025 年 10 月 12 日 投资要点 分析师：罗志恒 执业编号：S0300520110001 电话：010-83755580 邮箱：luozhiheng@ykzq.com 《【粤开宏观】历次牛市回调的原因是什 么？有哪些特征？该如何应对？》 2025-09-25 摘要 当地时间 10 月 10 日，特朗普在社交媒体发文，将对中国加征 100%的关税， 并对"所有关键软件"实施出口管制，于 11 月 1 日生效。尽管这被视为中美 新一轮关税谈判前的极限施压手段，但若 100%关税最终落地，将对中美双边 贸易乃至全球贸易体系造成显著冲击，并进一步重塑美国的贸易格局。 2025 年以来，特朗普持续加码"对等关税""232 关税"等多重关税措施，使 得美国关税收入和平均关税税率均大幅跃升，并引发进出口贸易 ...

特朗普政府继续动用进口关税工具来重振美国制造业，以及强化所谓的国家安全。 最新关税措施始于美国商务部在今年3月根据《贸易扩展法》第232条启动对进口木材、板材、橱柜和家具等衍生产品的调查。 "232调查"是特朗普两个任期内众多关税政策工具之一，涉及具体的商品类别。该条款授权商务部对特定产品进口威胁国家安全立案调查，并规定由总统决 定实施关税、配额或其他限制措施。 具体从进口国家来看，美国使用的软木中约有30%来自北边邻国加拿大。加拿大绝大部分森林资源属公共土地，采伐成本更低。从加拿大进口的木材已被美 国征收14.5%的反补贴和反倾销税。 特朗普政府希望通过关税来促进其国内产业链重构，但是其本土木材难以在短期内满足建筑商的要求，行业内部也存在分歧。 另外，全球化的支持者、南加州大学政治学与国际关系教授（Jonathan Aronson）此前在接受智通财经采访时表示，美国制造业很难吸引到足够多的年轻 人，因为他们不愿意从事重复性的制造业工作，而宁愿成为网络红人、时装设计师。 美东时间9月29日，这位美国总统宣布对进口软木原木及木材征收10%关税，并对进口橱柜、浴室柜及软包木制品加征25%关税。 新措施于10月14 ...

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the "V.O.S. Selections v. Trump" case in the first week of November, indicating a swift resolution to the matter [1][3] - The case arises after the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were illegal, leading the White House to request expedited review [1][4] - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the average effective tariff rate of 16.3% could be reduced by at least half, potentially resulting in the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs [1][5] Legal Context - The Trump administration's tariffs are claimed to be authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly grant the power to impose tariffs [4] - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the IEEPA does not authorize such broad tariffs, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress the power to set tariffs, not the President [4] Financial Implications - U.S. Treasury Secretary indicated that if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs illegal, the government may have to refund about half of the tariffs collected, which would be a significant financial burden [5] - As of August 12, the U.S. had collected $142 billion in tariff revenue for the fiscal year [5] Case Developments - The Court of Appeals upheld parts of the lower court's ruling but sent back the issue of a nationwide permanent injunction for further review, ensuring judicial authority is not overstepped [5] - The case reflects the ongoing tension between executive power and legislative authority regarding tariff imposition [4][5] Stakeholder Reactions - Legal representatives for companies affected by the tariffs are advocating for the protection of small businesses and adherence to the rule of law in light of what they describe as excessive tariff actions [6]

Core Points - The U.S. government has been ruled illegal in its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, marking a significant setback for the aggressive trade policies of the Trump administration [1][3] - The ruling raises questions about the validity of previous trade agreements made with the U.S. [1][5] - The ruling was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court, which stated that the power to impose tariffs is a core authority of Congress, not the President [3][5] Summary by Sections Legal Ruling - The Federal Circuit Court maintained the previous ruling that the Trump administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal, with a vote of 7 to 4 [3] - The court emphasized that while the Act allows the President to take certain economic measures in emergencies, it does not grant the authority to impose tariffs through executive orders [3] Economic Impact - The ruling could have direct implications for the U.S. economy and may trigger reactions in global markets, as trade partners reassess the legal standing of U.S. tariffs [5] - The Trump administration collected approximately $107 billion in tariffs from February to July, a significant portion of which was based on the now-ruled illegal measures [4] Ongoing Trade Negotiations - The U.S. is still engaged in trade negotiations with multiple countries, including the UK, Vietnam, and the EU, but the legal uncertainty surrounding tariffs may complicate these discussions [6][7] - Japan's trade representative canceled a trip to the U.S. due to dissatisfaction with proposed U.S. tariffs, indicating potential friction in ongoing negotiations [7]

南华早报：知情人士认为，中国与美国周一在瑞典首都斯德哥尔摩开始的贸易谈判将使关税休战期再度延长三个月，双方将承诺不彼此征收额外关税，也不会以其他方式升级贸易战。双方将就主要症结（例如美国对中国工业产能过剩的担忧）阐述自己的观点，而非取得具体突破。料中方将就芬太尼关税向美方施压。 https://t.co/CuLhQq7oHc ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. has not lifted the so-called "fentanyl tariffs" imposed on Chinese imports, which is viewed as a bullying tactic that undermines trust and dialogue in drug control efforts between the two countries [1] Group 1: U.S.-China Relations - The Chinese National Narcotics Control Commission criticized the U.S. for its actions, stating that it severely damages the foundation for cooperation in drug control [1] - China is recognized as one of the countries with the strictest and most comprehensive drug control policies in the world [1] Group 2: International Cooperation - China actively engages in international cooperation on drug control and has offered humanitarian assistance to help the U.S. address its fentanyl crisis, with visible results [1] - The Chinese government urges the U.S. to reflect seriously and adopt a responsible approach to reduce drug demand at the source, rather than shifting blame [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court (CIT) ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs, leading to the annulment of related tariff measures [1][7]. Group 1: Court Ruling Details - The CIT combined two cases, one initiated by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses challenging the "reciprocal tariffs" and another by the Oregon Attorney General representing twelve states against global tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and fentanyl tariffs [3]. - The court confirmed that the IEEPA does not explicitly authorize the President to impose unlimited tariffs, which have significant economic and political implications [4][5]. - The ruling stated that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration exceeded the authority granted by the IEEPA and violated constitutional principles [6][7]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling could represent a significant policy shift, particularly benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises that struggle to absorb the costs of tariffs [6]. - The decision emphasizes that trade decisions should not be made unilaterally by the President without Congressional authorization, reaffirming the importance of legislative oversight [4][5]. - The CIT's ruling applies nationwide, affecting all importers, but does not address tariffs authorized under other laws, such as those related to steel and aluminum [7].

Group 1 - The recent ruling by the U.S. International Trade Court has blocked the "reciprocal tariffs" imposed by the Trump administration, indicating a significant check on the government's tariff policies [1][3]. - The initial round of tariffs against China, initiated in 2018, has established a legal framework that is unlikely to change in the short term, with a focus on the newly introduced tariffs this year [3][5]. - The "Fentanyl Tariff," which imposes a 20% tariff on Chinese goods, remains unaffected by the court's ruling, while the 10% "reciprocal tariff" is currently frozen but not entirely canceled [5][8]. Group 2 - The Trump administration has initiated an appeal against the court's decision, which may eventually reach the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority could potentially overturn the lower court's ruling [5][6]. - Even if the "reciprocal tariff" is deemed illegal, the Trump administration may find alternative justifications to impose tariffs, as demonstrated by the strategic use of the "Fentanyl Tariff" [8]. - The ongoing trade tensions necessitate a robust response strategy, including utilizing WTO dispute resolution mechanisms and enhancing domestic supply-side reforms to stabilize the economy [10].

Group 1 - The core point of the article is the recent adjustment of tariffs between China and the United States, where both countries have agreed to cancel 91% of additional tariffs and suspend 24% of reciprocal tariffs, marking a temporary easing of trade tensions [1][3] - Following the tariff adjustments, there has been a surge in demand from American buyers for Chinese goods, with many U.S. companies pre-loading containers in anticipation of the changes [3][5] - The logistics company ITS Logistics predicts a 20% increase in shipping costs from China to the U.S. West Coast in the coming weeks, indicating a critical period for inventory accumulation for shippers and carriers [3][5] Group 2 - Despite the short-term benefits, U.S. businesses, especially small enterprises, express concerns about the potential policy shifts after the 90-day period, as they still face a 30% tariff burden [5][6] - The ongoing fentanyl tariff issue remains contentious, with the U.S. imposing additional tariffs on China under the pretext of fentanyl control, which China disputes [6][8] - The future trajectory of U.S.-China trade relations hinges on negotiations regarding the suspended tariffs and the fentanyl tariffs, emphasizing the need for constructive dialogue to resolve underlying tensions [8][9]

Core Points - The Chinese Foreign Ministry criticized the U.S. for imposing a "fentanyl tariff," claiming it undermines dialogue and cooperation in drug control between the two countries and harms China's interests [1] - A CGTN poll indicated that 91.8% of respondents view the U.S. action as political manipulation and tariff bullying, aimed at covering up its own failures in drug control [1] - The poll revealed that 91% of respondents believe drug abuse is a major threat to American lives, and 94.8% see drug proliferation as a chronic issue in U.S. society [1] Summary by Sections U.S. Drug Problem - Fentanyl is identified as a U.S. issue rather than a Chinese one, with the responsibility lying within the U.S. itself [1] - The CDC reports that among approximately 280 million Americans aged 12 and older, 1 in 12 is involved in drug use, with around 60% of global drug production entering the U.S. [1] Public Sentiment - Concerns about the rising trend of drug use among American youth are prevalent, with respondents expressing disbelief that the country with the highest drug prevalence is also the largest economy [1] - 92.8% of respondents believe the current situation reflects a significant failure of the U.S. government in regulating drug abuse [1] Government Response - The U.S. government has been criticized for its lack of action in controlling prescription drugs and educating the public about drug dangers, while also being accused of promoting drug legalization for economic interests [1] - 90.8% of respondents think the U.S. is attempting to shift the blame for its drug abuse issues onto other countries, which undermines international drug control cooperation [1]