Group 1 - The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on November 5 regarding Trump's IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, with a majority of justices (6 out of 9) leaning towards declaring the tariffs illegal, raising concerns about the future of U.S. trade policy and capital markets [1][6][34] - The likelihood of the reciprocal tariffs being ruled illegal has increased, with potential outcomes including a ruling of illegality with delayed implementation to allow for government adjustment, partial illegality focusing on specific tariffs like those on fentanyl, or a ruling upholding the legality of the tariffs [6][11][12] Group 2 - If the reciprocal tariffs are deemed illegal, Trump may resort to existing tariff laws such as Sections 232, 301, and 338, with a low probability of widespread tax refunds and a higher chance of targeted refunds [2][35] - The current tariff structure shows that reciprocal tariffs account for 45% of U.S. tariff revenue, with projections indicating a potential 25% decrease in tariff revenue if the reciprocal tariffs are invalidated [3][19][29] Group 3 - The U.S. effective tariff rate stands at 9.75%, with the highest rates applied to Chinese imports at 40.4%, and if the reciprocal tariffs are ruled illegal, the overall tariff levels may not reach previous heights, potentially dropping to 7.3% [27][29][36] - The anticipated tariff revenue for the fiscal year 2025 is approximately $195.9 billion, with significant contributions from various tariff categories, including $89 billion from reciprocal tariffs and $35.1 billion from Section 301 tariffs [19][31]

Group 1 - The U.S. government has ended its shutdown after a bipartisan agreement, impacting 670,000 federal employees who were furloughed, while 1.52 million continued to work without pay [52][53]. - The U.S. ADP employment data for October exceeded expectations, with an increase of 42,000 jobs compared to the forecast of 30,000, alleviating concerns about economic weakness [65][67]. - The ISM manufacturing PMI for October fell to 48.7, indicating contraction, while the services PMI rose to 52.4, suggesting stability in the employment market [61][65]. Group 2 - Global stock indices mostly declined, with the S&P 500 down 1.6% and the Nasdaq down 3.0%, while the Hang Seng Index rose by 1.3% [2][3]. - The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield remained stable at 4.11%, while yields in other developed markets increased, such as France's 10-year yield rising to 3.46% [17][21]. - The dollar index decreased by 0.2% to 99.55, with most currencies appreciating against the dollar, including the euro and yen [25][32]. Group 3 - Commodity prices mostly fell, with WTI crude oil down 2.0% to $59.8 per barrel and Brent crude down 2.2% to $63.6 per barrel [36][41]. - Precious metals showed mixed performance, with COMEX gold remaining stable at $3,995.2 per ounce, while COMEX silver fell by 1.4% to $48.0 per ounce [41][45]. - The prices of industrial metals also declined, with LME copper down 1.6% to $10,744 per ton [41].

Legal Analysis - The U.S. Supreme Court's debate on the legality of "reciprocal tariffs" shows a 3:6 split, with 6 justices leaning towards declaring them illegal[2] - The likelihood of a ruling against reciprocal tariffs is increasing, but a delayed effect is probable, allowing the government time to adjust[2][10] - Possible outcomes include a ruling of illegality with a delay (45%-55% probability), partial illegality focusing on specific tariffs like fentanyl (20%-30% probability), or a ruling upholding their legality (10%-20% probability)[16][17] Economic Implications - If reciprocal tariffs are deemed illegal, U.S. tariff revenue could decline by 25%, potentially dropping from $3,412 billion to $2,554 billion[4][23] - Current tariff structure: reciprocal tariffs account for 45% of U.S. tariff revenue, with 301 tariffs at 18% and 232 tariffs at 17%[4][23] - The effective tariff rate for the U.S. is currently 9.75%, with the highest rate on Chinese imports at 40.4%[4][29] Political Response - Trump may pivot to existing tariff laws (Sections 232, 301, and 338) if reciprocal tariffs are invalidated, with a low probability of widespread tax refunds[3][20] - The likelihood of targeted tax refunds is higher, but broad automatic refunds are unlikely due to legal constraints[3][22] Market Reactions - Following the Supreme Court's deliberations, market expectations for tariff legality have shifted, impacting capital markets and trade policies[5][10] - The recent government shutdown affected 670,000 federal employees, with 1.52 million remaining on payroll, highlighting the political stakes involved[5]

Legal Analysis - The U.S. Supreme Court's debate on the legality of "reciprocal tariffs" shows a 3:6 ratio in favor of declaring them illegal, indicating a high probability of a ruling against them[2] - The main arguments for declaring the tariffs illegal include the assertion that tariff authority belongs to Congress and that the IEEPA was intended to limit presidential power, not expand it[2][11] - Three potential outcomes of the ruling are identified: a likely illegal ruling with delayed effect (45%-55% probability), partial illegality with possible allowance for fentanyl tariffs (20%-30% probability), and a low probability (10%-20%) of upholding the legality of reciprocal tariffs[17][18] Economic Implications - If reciprocal tariffs are deemed illegal, the U.S. tariff structure may decline by approximately 25%, with total tariff revenue potentially dropping from $1,959 billion to $1,554 billion[4][26][37] - Current tariff revenue composition shows reciprocal tariffs account for 45%, Section 301 tariffs for 18%, and Section 232 tariffs for 17%[4][26] - The effective tariff rate for the U.S. is currently 9.75%, with the highest rate on Chinese imports at 40.4%[4][32] Political Response - In response to a potential ruling against reciprocal tariffs, Trump may resort to existing tariff laws such as Sections 232, 301, and 338, but the likelihood of broad tax refunds is low due to legal constraints[3][22] - The probability of universal tax refunds is low, with refunds likely limited to specific plaintiffs rather than a blanket return to all importers[3][25] - Trump's proposal to distribute tariff revenues to citizens faces significant legislative hurdles, requiring Congressional approval[3][25]

Macro Economic Overview - China's CPI year-on-year growth has turned positive, driven by rising food prices and core inflation, with the core CPI growth reaching a six-month high of 1.2% [5] - PPI recorded its first month-on-month increase in a year, with a year-on-year decline narrowing, indicating a potential improvement in profitability for leading enterprises [5] - China's exports have significantly declined in October, particularly to developed countries, highlighting increasing economic growth pressures [6] Industry Insights - The MSCI China Healthcare Index has risen by 59.5% year-to-date, outperforming the MSCI China Index by 24% [6] - The healthcare sector has seen a recent pullback of 10% since October, presenting opportunities in undervalued stocks [6] - The demand for innovative drug research and development is recovering, supported by capital market financing and increased overseas clinical trials [6] Company Analysis - BeiGene (百济神州) has shown continuous improvement in profitability, with a strong sales growth trend driven by its drug Zanu, which is gaining market share in the CLL market [10] - The company achieved a revenue of $3.81 billion in the first nine months of 2025, a 43% year-on-year increase, and expects to exceed its revenue guidance for the fiscal year [10] - BeiGene's operational efficiency has improved, with a reduction in sales and management expenses as a percentage of product sales, leading to a net profit of $125 million in Q3 2025 [10] Investment Recommendations - The report recommends a cautious approach in the healthcare sector, focusing on undervalued stocks such as 三生制药 (3SBio), 固生堂 (Gusongtang), and others [9] - BeiGene is rated as a "Buy" with a target price raised to $392.43, reflecting its strong market position and growth potential in the CLL market [12] - Hua Hong Semiconductor (华虹半导体) reported a record revenue of $635 million in Q3 2025, with a maintained "Hold" rating and a target price of HKD 68, indicating that its valuation is already reflected in the current market price [12]

Core Viewpoint - A legal challenge against the Trump administration's key tariff powers is leading the market to anticipate a significant, albeit possibly temporary, reversal of trade barriers [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Market Reaction - The market's expectation of the Trump administration winning the IEEPA tariff case has significantly decreased, with the probability dropping from approximately 40% to 27% following preliminary comments from judges during the hearing [4][5]. - The market sentiment is shifting towards the likelihood that the Supreme Court will overturn the IEEPA-based tariff policy, which is a key variable affecting current market emotions [5][6]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Avenues - Despite setbacks in court, the Trump administration still has other legal avenues to impose tariffs, as indicated by Treasury Secretary Bessent's optimism and readiness to utilize alternative legal authorizations [6]. - Potential alternative measures include Section 122, allowing a broad 15% tariff within 150 days, Section 338, permitting tariffs up to 50% on countries discriminating against U.S. businesses, and the concept of "licensing fees" for tariffs, although the latter faced skepticism during the hearing [7][8][9]. Group 3: Short-term Winners and Losers - If the IEEPA tariffs are overturned, the effective tariff rate in the U.S. is expected to drop from an estimated 12.5% to around 9% [11]. - The biggest beneficiaries in the short term are likely to be economies heavily reliant on trade with the U.S. and most affected by the IEEPA tariffs, particularly Vietnam and Mexico [11][15]. - Other countries, such as India, may also see significant tariff reductions, while the EU and the UK are expected to benefit the least [15]. Group 4: Market Performance and Trading Strategies - On the day of the hearing, the market showed a favorable response, with the Mexican peso and Brazilian real appreciating, aligning with the analysis of potential winners [13]. - The Russell 2000 small-cap index outperformed the S&P 500, reflecting a positive market sentiment towards tariffs [16]. - One-year inflation swap rates fell by over 5 basis points, indicating that investors quickly adjusted their expectations regarding inflation pressures from tariffed goods [16].

Core Viewpoint - A legal challenge against the Trump administration's key tariff powers is leading to market expectations of a significant, albeit possibly temporary, reversal of trade barriers [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Market Reaction - The market's expectation of the Trump administration winning the IEEPA tariff case has significantly decreased, with the probability dropping from approximately 40% to 27% following initial court comments perceived as unfavorable [2]. - The outcome of this legal challenge is a key variable influencing current market sentiment [2]. Group 2: Potential Market Impact - If the court ultimately overturns the tariffs imposed under IEEPA, it could trigger a trading surge, leading to a decrease in inflation expectations, an increase in stock prices (especially small-cap stocks), and a strengthening of certain emerging market currencies like the Mexican peso and Brazilian real [1][4]. - The effective tariff rate in the U.S. is projected to drop from 12.5% to around 9% if IEEPA tariffs are overturned, which would benefit countries heavily reliant on trade with the U.S. [4][6]. Group 3: Beneficiaries and Losers - The primary beneficiaries of a potential IEEPA overturn would be countries with high trade dependency on the U.S., such as Vietnam and Mexico, while the EU and the UK would benefit the least [6]. - Other countries like India, which has not reached a trade agreement with the U.S., could see significant tariff reductions [6]. Group 4: Trading Strategies - Market performance on the day of the hearing indicated a favorable sentiment towards small-cap stocks, with the Russell 2000 index outperforming the S&P 500 [8]. - The foreign exchange market saw the Mexican peso and Brazilian real rise, aligning with the analysis of potential winners [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's potential response to a Supreme Court ruling against his tariff policies, indicating that a "second plan" may be necessary if the court rules against him, which he believes would have devastating consequences for the U.S. economy [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of Trump's core tariff mechanism, "reciprocal tariffs," with several justices expressing skepticism about the legal basis for these tariffs [4]. - The current tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs, leading to claims of overreach by the Trump administration [5]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Frameworks - Alternatives to IEEPA include the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for a maximum 50% tariff increase, and the Trade Act of 1974, which permits a maximum 15% tariff on imports within 150 days to address balance of payments deficits [6]. - Specific tariffs on steel and aluminum are based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which has already seen over 700 "derivative products" added to the tariff list since spring [6]. Group 3: Implementation and Timing Concerns - Trump noted that while alternative legal frameworks could be explored, they would likely take more time compared to the current IEEPA-based approach, which allows for rapid implementation of tariffs through presidential executive orders [7]. - He emphasized the need for quick decision-making, stating that the current method is the best defense measure available [7]. Group 4: Financial Consequences of a Supreme Court Loss - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury will need to address potential refund procedures for taxpayers, with estimates suggesting that the tax revenue at stake could reach between $750 billion and $1 trillion, half of which may require actual refunds [8]. - The U.S. Trade Representative indicated that not only the plaintiffs but also other taxpayers might seek refunds, with the specific procedures to be determined through discussions between the Treasury and the courts [8].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration's comprehensive tariff policy, with concerns raised about potential abuse of executive power and the implications for trade negotiations and national security [1][5][7]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The case traces back to April when President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose "reciprocal tariffs," leading to appeals from a liquor importer and a toy company questioning the legality of such actions [1][3]. - The liquor importer case successfully progressed through the U.S. International Trade Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the federal government to appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case on September 9 [3]. Group 2: Constitutional and Legal Implications - According to the U.S. Constitution, the power to levy taxes belongs to Congress, while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the president to take economic measures in response to foreign threats, but does not explicitly grant the authority to impose tariffs [5]. - The legality of deriving the authority to impose tariffs from the regulation of imports is a central question, raising concerns about whether this would transfer congressional taxing power to the president [7]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Implications - There are three possible outcomes from the Supreme Court's decision: 1. Upholding the legality of the tariff policy, which could increase global trade uncertainty and disrupt the value chain established in the early 21st century [11]. 2. Rejecting the tariff policy, allowing importers to seek refunds and potentially creating new opportunities in international trade [11]. 3. Allowing tariffs in certain scenarios but creating an unpredictable environment for traders, which could negatively impact investment, exports, and global economic prosperity [11].

综合央视新闻报道，作为美国高院开庭的背景，美国国际贸易法院今年5月就小企业主和美国12州所提诉讼裁定，特朗普无权援引《国际紧急经济权力法》 征收所谓的"对等关税"，以及其他的同类关税。随后美国联邦巡回上诉法院在8月维持原判。 随着事关全球经贸前景的"特朗普关税案"周三在美国高院开庭审理，大法官们接力抛出的质疑论调令市场对这项关键政策的前景愈发看衰。 据悉，在周三逾两个半小时的辩论中，美国高院的大法官们轮番对双方代表提问。整体节奏表明，多数大法官对政府依靠宣布紧急状态来无限制地实施大范 围全球关税感到疑虑。 倍受关注的是，在美国高院的保守派多数中，多名关键成员对关税合法性公开提出质疑。 美国高院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在庭审中表示，这些关税是"对美国人征税，而征税历来是国会的核心权力" 。罗伯茨同时表示，本案应受"重大问题原 则"约束——联邦机构在采取具有深远经济或政治影响的行动时，需要国会的明确授权。 另一名保守派大法官戈萨奇，也对美国政府代表声称国会已经授权特朗普实施关税提出质疑。 按照特朗普政府的逻辑，《国际紧急经济权力法》赋予总统一系列工具以应对国家安全、外交和经济紧急情况。其中有一项关键条款写明总统可以 ...