Group 1 - The average monthly job growth in the U.S. dropped to the lowest level in decades, with the unemployment rate rising to 4.4%, an increase of 0.4 percentage points from the previous year [1] - The tightening job market prior to 2025 was exacerbated by extensive and frequently adjusted tariff policies, contributing to employment market weakness [1] Group 2 - Companies are adopting a cautious approach to hiring due to the uncertain business environment influenced by tariff policies, with some even initiating layoffs [2] - Economic experts indicate that the unclear policy outlook diminishes companies' motivation to expand their workforce, leading to a more cautious stance on hiring and investment decisions [2] - Tariff policies have altered how companies assess profitability, resulting in increased costs and squeezed profit margins, making previously viable investment projects unprofitable [2] Group 3 - Consumer spending decisions are also being affected by tariff policies, with manufacturers reporting a decrease in new orders due to uncertain tariff prospects [3] - The repeated adjustments in trade policies have left many companies in a state of paralysis, absorbing the increased costs without passing them on to consumers, although the sustainability of this situation remains uncertain [3] - The slowdown in job growth and rising prices, while appearing different, are closely linked to the uncertainty surrounding U.S. policies [3]

据央视新闻报道，当地时间9日（周五），美国最高法院表示，当天不会就特朗普政府关税案作出裁决。 作为背景，这场诉讼源于特朗普经济议程的核心——关税政策。特朗普政府2025年上台后援引美国《国际紧急经济权力法》，以 不经过国会批准、直接颁布行政令的方式出台一系列加征关税措施。 此前下级法院已裁定，特朗普援引的紧急经济权力法并未赋予总统"几乎无限制地设定和调整进口税率"的权力。而美国宪法明确 规定，征收关税的权力属于国会。但特朗普政府辩称，在"国家紧急状态"下，总统有权调节包括关税在内的进口税。 贝森特在最新采访中表示，他对法院是否会裁定特朗普关税政策无效仍不确定，但他认为，任何退款对于那些将额外成本转嫁给客户的公司 来说都将是一场徒劳无功的商业闹剧。 他还补充说，任何不利的裁决可能不是简单的"是"或"否"的结果，而是更为微妙的情况，这可能会使退款过程变得复杂。 "如果非做不可，那也没关系，但我可以告诉你，即便真的发生了——虽然我觉得不太可能——那也只是一场企业闹剧，"贝森特说："Costco （好市多）起诉美国政府，他们会把钱退还给顾客吗？" 贝森特还补充称，企业通常不会将关税转嫁给消费者，称"几乎没有转嫁效应" ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision on tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, highlighting the administration's contingency plans if the court rules against them [3][4]. Group 1: Supreme Court Decision - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, with the next hearing scheduled for January 14 [3]. - The court is expected to announce its decision on the case by February 3, 2026, with indications that the Trump administration may lose [7][11]. Group 2: Contingency Plans - Trump administration officials have indicated they are prepared with a "Plan B" if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, suggesting the use of alternative legal frameworks [4][10]. - The administration has identified several legal tools, including the 1974 Trade Act Section 122, the "232 investigation," and the "301 investigation," to potentially impose tariffs without relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [13][14]. Group 3: Financial Implications - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the Trump administration could face a refund obligation ranging from $133.5 billion to $150 billion [10][11]. - The administration's statements suggest that even if they lose the case, they will find ways to continue imposing tariffs through different legal mechanisms [11][12]. Group 4: Legal Frameworks - The article outlines various legal frameworks available to the Trump administration for imposing tariffs, including: - IEEPA: Immediate effect under national emergency [14] - Section 301: Takes 9-12 months to implement [14] - Section 232: Related to national security, takes about 9 months [14] - Section 122: Allows for quick imposition of tariffs within 150 days [14] - Section 338: Can impose tariffs up to 50% for discriminatory practices [14][16].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, stated that if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration's tariff policies, the Treasury has sufficient funds to pay any tariff refunds [1] Group 1 - There has been little evidence that tariffs have been passed on to U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices [1] - Any potential tariff refunds may be distributed gradually over weeks, months, or even up to a year [1]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the legality of the Trump administration's tariff policy is highly anticipated, as it could significantly impact U.S. trade policy and the global market [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Implications - The Supreme Court's decision will determine the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, marking a critical legal test for presidential authority [2]. - The court's ruling will clarify the boundaries between executive and legislative powers in the context of trade, influencing how future U.S. presidents exercise trade authority [2][3]. Group 2: Market Reactions - If the court upholds the tariffs, it may lead to increased uncertainty in global trade, potentially raising commodity prices and trade costs [3]. - Conversely, if the tariffs are deemed illegal, affected product prices may decrease, and importers could seek refunds, potentially leading to a boost in international trade [3][4]. - The S&P 500 index has risen approximately 40% since its low in April of the previous year, driven by factors including the AI boom and the partial rollback of tariffs [4]. Group 3: Economic Impact - Analysts predict that if the court rules against the tariffs, S&P 500 companies could see a 2.4% increase in earnings in 2026, which may catalyze a rebound in stock prices [4]. - The removal of tariffs could reignite fiscal concerns, leading to a potential rise in long-term yields and a steeper yield curve, although the impact is expected to be limited [5]. - Investors are closely monitoring the potential need for the government to refund tariffs to importers, which could affect the issuance of government treasury securities [5].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, and the next scheduled hearing is on January 14. The administration has prepared alternative legal strategies in case of an unfavorable ruling regarding tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1][2][5]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Tariff Strategies - The Trump administration has various legal tools available, including the 1974 Trade Act Section 122, Section 232 investigation, Section 301 investigation, and the 1930 Tariff Act Section 338, which can be utilized to impose tariffs if IEEPA is deemed invalid [3][11][13]. - The IEEPA is considered the most straightforward method for imposing tariffs, granting significant negotiation power to the President, but other methods, while more complex, can still achieve similar outcomes [6][7][8]. Group 2: Potential Financial Implications - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, the government may face a refund obligation ranging from $133.5 billion to $150 billion [9][10]. - The administration has indicated that even if tariffs are overturned, they will seek alternative methods to maintain tariff revenue, suggesting a strategy to continue imposing tariffs through different legal avenues [10][11]. Group 3: Immediate Actions and Future Considerations - The administration is expected to utilize the Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows for the rapid imposition of tariffs up to 15% within 150 days, as an immediate response [13]. - Experts believe that while the Section 301 investigation is currently being used against certain countries, it is less likely to be employed immediately due to its lengthy process [13][14].

Group 1 - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, focusing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and potential refunds to importers if deemed illegal [1] - The Trump administration's tariffs were initially intended as an emergency measure to prevent fentanyl influx into the U.S. [1] - U.S. Treasury Secretary emphasized that a negative ruling could limit the President's flexibility in using tariffs as negotiation tools, which would be a loss for the American public [1] Group 2 - The actual impact of the Trump administration's tariff policy has differed from initial analyst predictions, showing limited effects on U.S. inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, which fell to its lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis by October 2025 [2] - The decline in imports associated with the trade deficit reduction is linked to the recession triggered by the financial crisis [2] - The implications of the tariff ruling on U.S. trade dynamics, fiscal health, and global economic interactions will gradually become apparent, warranting ongoing monitoring of policy adjustments and market responses [2]

【导读】科技股暴涨，白银暴涨，石油暴涨 中国基金报记者 泰勒 大家好，今晚继续关注海外市场的表现。 美股上涨 1月9日晚间，美股三大指数盘中拉升，道指涨超100点，纳指涨约0.5%，标普500指数涨约0.4%。 美国12月就业报告显示，上月非农新增就业仅5万人，低于道琼斯调查的经济学家预期的7.3万人。虽然数据略弱于预期，但也 说明美国经济仍在"慢慢往前挪"，投资者预期后续经济增速有望回升。 另外，失业率小幅降至4.4%，而经济学家此前预测为4.5%。交易员将此解读为经济改善可能会更快到来。 | 均价:43.99 最新:44.00 +2.89 +7.03% | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 44.99 | | 9.44% | | 成交明细 | | | 44.00 | | 7.08% | 10:42 | 44.01 | 2816 | | | | | 10:42 | 44.01 | 57 | | 43,05 | | 4.72% | 10:42 | 44.02 | 1084 | | 42.08 | | 2.36% | 10:42 | 44.02 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, focusing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and potential refunds to importers if deemed illegal [1]. Group 1: Tariff Legality and Implications - The Supreme Court's review centers on whether the Trump administration had the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA and if the government must refund tariffs paid by importers if the tariffs are found illegal [1]. - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bansen emphasized the importance of maintaining tariff revenue levels, noting that an unfavorable ruling would limit the President's flexibility in using tariffs as negotiation tools, which could be detrimental to the American public [1]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - The actual effects of the Trump administration's tariff policy have diverged from initial analyst predictions, showing limited impact on U.S. inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, which fell to its lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis by October 2025 [2]. - The upcoming tariff ruling is expected to gradually reveal its effects on U.S. trade dynamics, fiscal health, and global economic interactions, warranting ongoing monitoring of policy adjustments and market responses [2].

格隆汇1月9日丨美国股市周五小幅走高，12月非农就业报告并未改变美联储维持利率不变的预期。与此 同时，交易员正密切关注最高法院可能就特朗普加征关税是否合法作出的裁决。道富银行宏观多资产策 略师Cayla Seder,表示："今天的劳动力数据表明劳动力市场更多处于平衡状态，而非疲软。这一数值足 够强劲，显示出经济状况尚可，但又没有强到需要市场大幅改变其货币政策预期的程度，这对股市构成 了利好。"关于关税裁决方面，美国最高法院即将就特朗普总统4月份推出的全面关税政策的合法性作出 裁决，这成为美国股票和债券面临的下一个重大考验之一，该政策曾一度令市场感到震动。若裁决判定 关税违宪，由于利润率有望改善且消费者负担得以减轻，股市可能会受到提振。与此同时，国债可能会 承压，因为这种潜在的刺激政策会使美联储的降息路径变得复杂，并有加剧政府预算赤字的风险。 ...