Core Viewpoint - The article critiques the common investment framework that relies on predicting export data to derive macroeconomic indicators and corporate profits, arguing that this approach is fundamentally flawed due to the high difficulty in accurately forecasting export data [3]. Group 1: Flaws in Current Investment Framework - The article emphasizes that predicting export data leads to significant misjudgments in macroeconomic indicators, such as PPI and GDP, with a 10% misjudgment in exports potentially causing a 2% misjudgment in PPI and a 0.4-0.5% misjudgment in GDP [3]. - An example is provided where the market expected a 0-2% growth in April exports, but the actual growth was 8.1%, highlighting the fragility of investment decisions based on export predictions [3]. Group 2: Recommended Analysis Logic - The article suggests focusing on the status of the U.S. discretionary consumer sector as a more reliable indicator for assessing export trends [4]. - It discusses the importance of predicting the "turnover rate" of exports, which is influenced by global demand stability, particularly the U.S. import growth rate [4]. - The U.S. accounts for approximately 15-16% of global imports and about one-third of global final consumption, making its import growth a critical factor for global trade dynamics [4]. Group 3: U.S. Tariff Impact and Consumer Power - The article notes that the current academic research on U.S. tariff elasticity may not apply due to recent high tariff changes, complicating the assessment of tariffs' impact on imports [5]. - It emphasizes the need to evaluate whether U.S. consumers can absorb the impact of tariffs, which is crucial for maintaining corporate revenues and economic stability [5]. - The discretionary consumer sector is highlighted as particularly sensitive to tariff changes, with a focus on the performance of high-yield corporate bonds in this sector as an early indicator of risk [5]. Group 4: Current Investment Context and Insights - The article identifies "certainty" as the current investment backdrop, contrasting the Chinese government's stability-focused approach with the uncertainty generated by U.S. policies [6]. - It suggests that the volatility of the Chinese financial market is likely to be lower than that of the U.S. due to the government's commitment to market stability [6]. - The article provides three insights: the potential for lower asset price volatility compared to economic data volatility, the need for caution regarding mid-term risks, and the importance of monitoring institutional behaviors in the market [6][8]. Group 5: Investment Strategy - The recommended investment posture is "high allocation, low volatility," suggesting that investors should maintain a high allocation to capitalize on potential government interventions that may mitigate risks [8]. - The article argues that excessive pessimism is unwarranted in the current environment, as government actions may counterbalance some downward risks [8].