Core Viewpoint - The recent news about 105 stocks in the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets experiencing continuous net buying through financing may appear positive, but it raises concerns about potential market manipulation and the risks for retail investors [1][16]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - Many investors have a misconception that bull markets guarantee easy profits, but the reality is that the stock market operates as a zero-sum game where gains for some come at the expense of others [3][4]. - During bull markets, retail investors often develop two major illusions: the belief that their stocks will inevitably rise and that market corrections present buying opportunities [4][5]. Group 2: Institutional Behavior - Institutional investors actively participate in the market, as indicated by the "institutional inventory" data, which shows that they continue to buy even during price declines [13][16]. - The disappearance of "institutional inventory" during a stock's final adjustment serves as a clear signal for institutions to exit, highlighting the importance of monitoring institutional behavior for retail investors [16]. Group 3: Investment Strategies - Retail investors should avoid path dependence, as historical performance does not guarantee future results, and they must be cautious of relying solely on past trends to make investment decisions [17]. - Utilizing quantitative tools can help retail investors discern the true intentions of market participants and navigate the complexities of the market more effectively [16][17].

广告等商务合作，请点击这里 本文为转载内容，授权事宜请联系原著作权人 中国学者：AI这片蓝海容得下中美 也容得下所有想搭智能发展快车的国家 2025年世界互联网大会乌镇峰会日前在浙江乌镇举办。峰会期间，围绕在AI等高技术领域，中国应如 何突破美国试图构建的"小圈子"和"去中国化"生态，中国现代国际关系研究院科技与网络安全研究所所 长李艳在接受中新网采访时表示，当前，尽管中美两国在AI领域的竞争已成既定事实，但面对美国的 敌对政策，中国坚决反对美国主导的"零和博弈"。 她指出，AI代表着未来技术和应用的发展趋势，目前尚处在发展初级阶段，并且未来发展空间非常广 阔。她强调， AI这片蓝海足够宽广，不仅容得下中美两国，也容得下全球所有希望能搭上智能发展快 车的国家。(记者 薛凌桥) 来源：中国新闻网 编辑：徐世明 中新经纬版权所有，未经书面授权，任何单位及个人不得转载、摘编或以其它方式使用。 关注中新经纬微信公众号(微信搜索"中新经纬"或"jwview")，看更多精彩财经资讯。 ...

Core Insights - The high number of losses in stock index futures trading is attributed to a combination of trading mechanisms and human psychological weaknesses [3][4][6] Group 1: Human Psychological Traps - Emotional decision-making leads to hesitation in stop-loss actions, with many traders holding onto losing positions in hopes of a market reversal, resulting in greater losses [3] - Anxiety over profits causes traders to close positions prematurely, missing out on larger trends [3] Group 2: Leverage Effects - Leverage amplifies mistakes; for instance, a 10x leverage can result in a 30% loss of capital with just a 3% adverse market movement [4] - Margin pressure from leveraged trading can lead to forced liquidation during market downturns, disconnecting traders from potential rebounds [5] Group 3: Market Characteristics - The nature of the market is a zero-sum game, where gains for some traders mean losses for others, often leaving retail investors at a disadvantage [6] - A significant portion of traders struggle to differentiate between ranging and trending markets, leading to frequent stop-loss executions in sideways markets and missed opportunities in trending markets [6] Group 4: Trading Costs and Strategies - Price volatility in futures markets can lead to discrepancies between expected and actual closing prices, contributing to losses [8] - Transaction costs, including commissions and fees, can erode profits and exacerbate losses [8] - Effective trading strategies and risk management are crucial; inadequate planning can lead to significant losses [8][9]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the evolving U.S.-China trade relations, particularly under Trump's administration, highlighting a shift from tariffs to temporary agreements while maintaining a confrontational stance towards China [1][3][4] - The U.S. has seen an increase in average tariffs to 50%, more than double the rates during Biden's presidency, indicating a more aggressive trade policy [3] - Trump's strategy appears chaotic but follows a consistent pattern aimed at countering China's rise, as evidenced by his 2017 National Security Strategy labeling China as a "revisionist power" [4][11] Group 2 - Trump's unpredictability is a key tactic, oscillating between friendly gestures and increased sanctions, which has led to a decline in trust among U.S. allies, particularly Japan [6] - The "America First" policy underpins Trump's actions, including imposing tariffs on allies and leveraging trade negotiations to boost domestic manufacturing [6][11] - Despite the aggressive tariff strategy, the U.S. trade deficit has increased from $760 billion in 2016 to $1.21 trillion in 2024, suggesting that the tariff war has not achieved its intended economic outcomes [6][9] Group 3 - The rise of the "losing out" narrative in the U.S. reflects a shift in perception regarding trade with China, as many believe that previous policies have undermined American manufacturing [8] - Trump's approach contrasts with traditional politicians who often seek long-term strategies, focusing instead on immediate trade victories and leveraging public sentiment against globalization [9][11] - The complexity of global economic structures challenges Trump's simplistic "zero-sum game" assumptions, as countries begin to respond more assertively to U.S. pressure [11]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent tensions between the U.S. and China following a meeting in South Korea, highlighting China's willingness to make concessions while the U.S. responds with threats, indicating a lack of understanding and respect for diplomatic relations [1][3][4]. Group 1: U.S.-China Relations - The U.S. Treasury Secretary's threats against China after receiving concessions reflect a short-sighted tactical approach, undermining the potential for cooperation [3][4]. - The U.S. has labeled China as an "unreliable partner," revealing its own insecurities and lack of confidence in the negotiation process [3][6]. - The U.S. approach of issuing threats while receiving concessions creates discomfort and raises questions about China's commitment to fulfilling agreements [4][6]. Group 2: Economic Leverage - Traditional economic leverage, such as tariffs, is losing effectiveness as China's export markets diversify and U.S. industries become increasingly reliant on Chinese materials [6][9]. - The lack of a clear framework for what constitutes "fulfilling commitments" complicates trust-building and adds uncertainty to the execution of agreements [7][12]. - The U.S. dollar's dominance is facing challenges due to domestic economic pressures and a global trend towards "de-dollarization," with increasing use of the Chinese yuan [9][10]. Group 3: Technological and Financial Tools - U.S. attempts to block Chinese access to advanced technologies have inadvertently strengthened China's domestic industries, showcasing resilience and self-sufficiency [10][11]. - The U.S. has employed all available leverage tools against China's rare earth policies, indicating a shift in the balance of power in the ongoing competition [11][12]. Group 4: Historical Context and Future Outlook - China's consistent record of fulfilling commitments since joining the WTO contrasts with the U.S.'s recent history of withdrawing from agreements, highlighting a credibility gap [12][13]. - The article suggests that future negotiations will depend more on stability and trust rather than coercive tactics, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to achieve mutual understanding [13].

中美经贸领域"合则两利、斗则俱伤"的特征十分突出。 中美经贸关系作为全球最重要的双边经济纽带之一，其本质是建立在资源互补与市场共享基础上的互利 共赢关系。中美经贸领域"合则两利、斗则俱伤"的特征十分突出。过去几年，由美国发起的对华贸易 战，从关税摩擦到技术封锁，从供应链"脱钩"到市场准入限制，让以往作为双边关系"压舱石"的经贸往 来成为了大国博弈的主战场，双边经贸关系经历了剧烈的摩擦，给双方以及全球经贸发展都带来巨大的 挑战。因此，不仅中美，全球都在关注中美经贸未来的走向。通过中美双方团队在吉隆坡经贸磋商中达 成的相关共识与安排，更让我们看到那些支撑"中美经贸关系的本质是互利共赢"的论据依旧坚挺且值得 重视。 总之，中美经贸关系绝非"零和博弈"。过去几十年的发展已经说明，从宏观经济结构互补，到中观产业 链深度融合，再到微观消费市场相互依存，中美通过经贸合作，各自获得了巨大的发展红利，实现了真 正意义上的互利共赢。期待未来双方认真落实两国元首达成的共识，继续本着平等、尊重、互惠的原则 谈下去，不断压缩问题清单，拉长合作清单，让经贸继续成为中美关系的压舱石和推进器。 （本文作者为中国社科院美国研究所助理研究员 刘 ...

Core Viewpoint - The necessity of maintaining a baseline of non-conflict and non-confrontation in Sino-U.S. relations is emphasized, highlighting the importance of mutual respect for core interests and major concerns [1] Group 1: Key Points on Sino-U.S. Relations - Disagreements and occasional friction between China and the U.S. are inevitable, but dialogue is preferred over confrontation, and cooperation is better than zero-sum games [1] - The four red lines for China include Taiwan, human rights, institutional paths, and development rights, urging the U.S. not to provoke or cross boundaries [1] - The current priority is to implement the consensus reached during the meetings between the leaders of China and the U.S., as well as the joint arrangements from the Kuala Lumpur economic discussions, to provide reassurance to both nations and the global economy [1] Group 2: Globalization and Mutual Interests - In today's globalized world, the common interests between China and the U.S. far exceed their differences, and avoiding engagement is unrealistic [1] - Viewing each other as partners allows for problem-solving, while treating each other as adversaries can create new issues even when none exist [1] - A broader perspective and long-term planning are necessary to explore the correct way for China and the U.S. to coexist in the new era [1]

Core Viewpoint - The warning from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán highlights the heightened risk of war in Europe, the implications of military expansion, and the underlying tensions within the EU regarding security policies and energy dependence on Russia [1][3][4]. Group 1: Military Expansion and Security Concerns - Orbán's assertion that Europe faces the highest risk of war since the Ukraine conflict emphasizes the urgency of the situation [1]. - The EU is rapidly advancing military initiatives, including an €800 billion rearmament plan, which reflects a growing trend of military expansion among member states [1][4]. - The fragmentation of military resources within the EU, with multiple types of main battle tanks and warships, leads to inefficiencies and waste, undermining collective security efforts [4]. Group 2: Economic Implications of Military Spending - The rising military expenditures are straining national budgets, with France's public debt to GDP ratio reaching 113% and Italy's at 135%, necessitating potential tax increases or cuts to social services [5]. - Ordinary citizens are feeling the impact of military spending, as funds are diverted from essential services like healthcare and education to support military initiatives [5][6]. Group 3: Diplomatic Solutions and the Call for Peace - Orbán's stance against military escalation and his call for dialogue over confrontation reflect a broader sentiment among smaller nations that prioritize economic stability and peace [3][6]. - The need for genuine dialogue and negotiation, rather than unilateral demands, is emphasized as essential for achieving lasting peace in Europe [6].

Core Insights - The meeting in Busan is seen as a stabilizing factor for the turbulent global economy, with leaders from the two largest economies, the U.S. and China, conveying a clear message of improved relations [1] - Trump's statement that "China is America's largest partner" signifies a shift in the narrative from competition to cooperation, highlighting the economic realities that necessitate collaboration [1] - The recent trade discussions in Kuala Lumpur resulted in the U.S. canceling a 10% tariff on Chinese goods and pausing certain export controls, indicating a willingness to compromise for mutual benefit [3] Economic Cooperation - The meeting reflects a departure from the "zero-sum game" mentality, with both nations recognizing that their development can coexist and even promote each other [5] - Trade between the U.S. and China is projected to exceed $700 billion in 2024, with millions of people traveling between the two countries, underscoring the deep economic interdependence [6] - Continuous communication between the two nations has been maintained, with three phone calls and five rounds of economic discussions in the past year, indicating a commitment to dialogue [7][8] Global Responsibilities - Both countries have acknowledged their roles in addressing global challenges such as the Ukraine conflict, Middle Eastern turmoil, and climate change, emphasizing the need for international cooperation [8][9] - The upcoming APEC and G20 meetings, hosted by China and the U.S. respectively, signal a collaborative approach rather than a competitive one [9] Conflict Resolution - The meeting established a framework for handling disagreements through dialogue rather than confrontation, promoting a culture of negotiation [12] - The commitment to maintain regular communication channels is seen as a way to prevent misunderstandings and strategic miscalculations [12] - The emphasis on actionable outcomes from the meeting, such as the implementation of tariff reductions and addressing specific business issues, is crucial for the future of U.S.-China relations [13]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the U.S. aims to maintain its competitive edge over China, as articulated by former U.S. Ambassador to China, Burns, who emphasizes the need for the U.S. to not fall behind China in various sectors [1][3] - Burns describes the current U.S.-China relationship as being in a "highly competitive state," focusing on key areas such as AI, biotechnology, quantum computing, and cybersecurity, indicating that this competitive situation is unlikely to change in the short term [3] - The article highlights that while Burns criticizes China for being aggressive in these sectors, he fails to acknowledge the U.S.'s own actions, such as semiconductor export controls and trade tariffs against China [3] Group 2 - The article notes that recent communications between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State Rubio emphasize the importance of a healthy and stable U.S.-China relationship for global stability, with discussions on maritime logistics, tariffs, and fentanyl cooperation [5] - It mentions that tensions have escalated in U.S.-China relations, particularly in trade, with China reducing its soybean purchases from the U.S. to zero, while Japan emerges as a significant "buyer" of U.S. agricultural products [5][6] - The article discusses the recent agreements between the U.S. and Japan, including a commitment for Japan to purchase $8 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products annually, while also highlighting the implications of these agreements for Japan's economy and potential debt issues [6][8] Group 3 - The article indicates that the U.S. is pressuring Japan and other Asian allies to increase defense spending, with Japan committing to accelerate its defense budget goals [6] - It raises concerns that if South Korea follows Japan's lead in increasing investments and defense spending, it could exacerbate military tensions in Northeast Asia [8] - The article concludes that Trump's approach reflects a hegemonic mindset, using allies as stepping stones, which may provide short-term benefits for Japan but could lead to long-term complications [8]