周二，欧洲股市与美股期货走势缺乏方向，投资者正等待大西洋两岸的政治动态。黄金在逼近每盎司 4000 美元后回落。 标普 500 指数期货小幅下跌，此前该指数在周一创下历史新高 —— 这一涨势得益于 科技股受人工智能（AI）支出热潮推动。随着美国政府停摆持续，美国国债收益率小幅上升。美元实 现两日连涨，黄金则从每盎司 3977 美元的历史高点回落。 欧洲斯托克 600 指数（Stoxx 600）基本持 平。法国 CAC40 指数扭转早盘跌势，此前法国总理塞巴斯蒂安・勒科尼（Sebastien Lecornu）于周一辞 职，总统埃马纽埃尔・马克龙（Emmanuel Macron）正为挽救政府做出最后努力。沃尔沃集团（Volvo AB）、戴姆勒卡车控股公司（Daimler Truck Holding AG）等卡车制造商股价下跌，原因是美国总统特 朗普（Donald Trump）表示，将于下月对中型和重型卡车征收 25% 的关税。 尽管全球股市接连创下历 史新高，但对美国政府停摆及法国政治危机的担忧，仍推动投资者转向黄金、比特币等另类资产，推动 二者均创下新高。与此同时，芯片制造商间一系列与 AI 相关的交易推动股价 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles highlights a significant rise in high-risk tech stocks due to market expectations of continued interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, raising concerns about potential rapid declines if these expectations change [1][4][8] - A basket of unprofitable tech stocks tracked by UBS has surged 21% since the end of July, while profitable tech stocks only increased by 2.1%, and the Nasdaq 100 index rose by 5.9% during the same period [1] - The recent rally in unprofitable tech stocks is characterized as a "junk rebound," driven by speculative excess and the revival of "animal spirits," with warnings about the high risks involved [4][8] Group 2 - Goldman Sachs reports that a similar unprofitable investment portfolio has nearly doubled since its low in April, reaching its highest level since February 2022, with notable stock price increases for companies like OpenDoor Technologies Inc. and IonQ Inc. [5] - Despite the recent rebound, the current performance of unprofitable tech stocks remains about 50% lower than their peak in 2021, indicating a significant decline from previous highs [5] - Some investors view the recent surge as justified, citing higher earnings transparency in the tech sector and favorable macroeconomic conditions, although they caution that unprofitable tech stocks are vulnerable to reversals in the event of a broader economic downturn [8]

Core Viewpoint - The current speculative activity in the market is primarily focused on small-cap and low-priced stocks, with minimal impact on major indices like the S&P 500, contrasting with the 2021 meme stock frenzy led by GameStop and AMC [1][3]. Group 1: Speculative Activity - The most notable feature of the market in July was the intense pursuit of low-priced stocks, with the median increase of the lowest-priced decile of stocks reaching 16% by July 23, significantly outpacing the 1.4% increase of the highest-priced stocks [5]. - This investment logic, based on stock price rather than company fundamentals, is viewed as absurd by institutional investors, as companies can easily alter their stock prices through stock splits without affecting shareholder proportions or profit sharing [5]. - Many retail investors either do not understand or choose to ignore this fundamental principle, leading to a situation where their strategies worked during the trading frenzy in July, but when the speculation reversed at the end of the month, the cheapest stocks experienced the largest declines, averaging 6% [6]. Group 2: Capital Allocation Concerns - Excessive speculation may lead to improper capital allocation, as evidenced by the 2021 meme stock craze where companies like GameStop and AMC issued billions in new shares at inflated prices, only to see their stock prices plummet afterward [8]. - Historical warnings from economists, such as Keynes, highlight the risks of capital flowing to the wrong companies during speculative bubbles, which could harm growth and employment, a concern that remains relevant today [8]. Group 3: Market Impact and Sentiment - The current speculative activities have a relatively limited impact on the broader market, as there are no low-priced stocks within the S&P 500, and cheaper stocks among large companies did not show significant performance patterns in July [9]. - Investor sentiment, while more positive than at the beginning of the year, has not reached excessive optimism levels, and futures traders are less bullish compared to 2021 [10]. - Retail investors may have contributed to the rise of the S&P 500 index since April through buying on dips, but their influence in July was relatively limited, with the new meme stocks representing a public manifestation of summer speculation among private traders [11].

Group 1 - The resurgence of meme stocks has ignited retail investor speculation in July, raising concerns about market bubbles, but analysts believe the spillover effects on the overall market are relatively limited [1] - Current speculative activities are primarily focused on small-cap and low-priced stocks, with minimal impact on major indices like the S&P 500, unlike the meme stock frenzy of 2021 led by GameStop and AMC [1][3] - Historical experiences indicate that such speculative bubbles typically do not affect the broader market significantly when they burst [3] Group 2 - July's market was characterized by a frenzy for low-priced stocks, with the bottom decile of stocks seeing a median price increase of 16% by July 23, compared to just 1.4% for the highest-priced stocks [2] - The investment logic based on stock price rather than company fundamentals is viewed as absurd by institutional investors, as companies can easily alter stock prices through stock splits without affecting shareholder equity [2] - Retail investors either do not understand or choose to ignore the fundamental principles, leading to significant price drops in the cheapest stocks when the speculative trend reversed at the end of July, with declines reaching 6% [2] Group 3 - Concerns about capital misallocation arise from excessive speculation, with the 2021 meme stock craze serving as a clear example of this issue [3] - The current speculative activities are limited in scope, with no low-priced stocks present in the S&P 500, and cheaper stocks among large companies showing no significant performance patterns in July [3] - Historical patterns indicate that the bursting of bubbles in sectors like green stocks, SPACs, and loss-making tech stocks in 2021 had minimal impact on the broader market [3] Group 4 - Investor sentiment has become more rational, with current levels of optimism not reaching excessive heights, as indicated by surveys from the American Association of Individual Investors and Investors Intelligence [4] - Analysts estimate that retail investors may have contributed to the rise of the S&P 500 index since April, but their influence in July was relatively limited [4] - The new wave of meme stocks, referred to as DORK stocks, represents a public manifestation of private trader speculation during the summer, with limited spillover effects on the rest of the market [4]

Group 1 - Bitcoin's value is entirely dependent on people's belief in it, lacking intrinsic utility compared to gold and the US dollar [1] - The historical comparison to the Dutch tulip bubble suggests that speculative assets without real backing may ultimately return to zero [1] - The rise of Bitcoin from skepticism to a widely accepted investment reflects a significant shift in perception, driven by institutional interest [5] Group 2 - Investors are advised to avoid putting all their funds into Bitcoin, treating it as a high-risk investment rather than a savings product [2] - A gradual investment strategy is recommended to mitigate risks associated with Bitcoin's price volatility [2] - Taking profits promptly is emphasized to avoid losses due to greed, as Bitcoin's price can fluctuate dramatically [2] Group 3 - Institutional investors are increasingly dominating the Bitcoin market, which raises concerns about potential manipulation and risks for retail investors [3] - The relationship between Bitcoin's price and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy indicates that Bitcoin's value is influenced more by liquidity than by its own fundamentals [4] - The introduction of the GENIUS Act has provided legitimacy to Bitcoin, encouraging institutional participation and further driving up its price [5]

Group 1: Core Views - Deutsche Bank believes that the strong fundamentals of platinum will continue until 2026, supported by four consecutive years of supply deficits and structural demand [1][2]. - The ongoing fundamental shortage of platinum is expected to eventually reflect in prices, although the exact timing is uncertain [3]. Group 2: Demand Analysis - Demand for platinum in the automotive catalyst sector remains robust compared to levels from 2018 to 2022, with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) showing stronger sales than battery electric vehicles (BEVs), potentially slowing the decline in demand for platinum group metal catalysts [4]. - Deutsche Bank notes a shift in the platinum landscape over the past two months, driven by trends such as the substitution of gold with platinum in jewelry manufacturing, rising platinum leasing rates indicating physical shortages, and the need to replenish industrial inventories due to years of deficits [5]. Group 3: Price Forecast - Based on optimistic expectations, Deutsche Bank forecasts that platinum prices could reach $1,550 per ounce by 2026, indicating potential upside from its base forecast of $1,400 per ounce [6]. Group 4: Diverging Views from Goldman Sachs - Goldman Sachs warns that the recent surge in platinum prices to $1,280 per ounce is primarily driven by speculation and ETF demand rather than fundamental improvements, suggesting that a price correction is inevitable once speculative enthusiasm wanes [8]. - Goldman Sachs highlights the price sensitivity of Chinese buyers, who account for about 60% of global new platinum supply, indicating that their buying behavior is influenced by price fluctuations, which has already suppressed jewelry and investment demand since mid-May [9]. Group 5: Automotive Industry Demand Discrepancies - There is a significant divergence in outlook regarding automotive industry demand between Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs emphasizes a structural decline in automotive demand due to the rapid adoption of electric vehicles, while Deutsche Bank maintains a more optimistic view, suggesting that platinum demand for automotive catalysts remains high compared to 2018-2022 levels [10]. - On the supply side, Goldman Sachs expects stable or moderate growth in global platinum supply unless power restrictions in South Africa re-emerge, while Deutsche Bank acknowledges seasonal factors affecting supply but believes the weak performance in the first quarter may be temporary [10].

Group 1 - Deutsche Bank believes that the strong fundamentals of platinum will continue until 2026, supported by four consecutive years of supply deficits and structural demand [1] - Since 2023, platinum has experienced a significant shortage, and this shortage is expected to persist into the fourth year by next year, providing solid price support [1] - Deutsche Bank projects that platinum prices could reach $1,550 per ounce by 2026, indicating potential upside from their base forecast of $1,400 per ounce [2] Group 2 - Goldman Sachs warns that the recent rise in platinum prices to $1,280 per ounce is primarily driven by speculation and ETF demand rather than fundamental improvements [5] - The price sensitivity of Chinese buyers acts as a natural ceiling for platinum prices, with China accounting for approximately 60% of global new platinum supply [5] - The rebound in prices since mid-May has suppressed jewelry and investment demand in China, confirming the price sensitivity of Chinese buyers [5] Group 3 - There is a significant divergence in the outlook for automotive demand between Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, with Goldman Sachs highlighting a structural decline due to the rapid adoption of electric vehicles [6] - Deutsche Bank maintains a more optimistic view, suggesting that demand for platinum in automotive catalysts remains high compared to 2018-2022 levels, particularly due to the strong performance of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [6] - On the supply side, Goldman Sachs expects global platinum supply to remain stable or grow moderately, unless power restrictions in South Africa re-emerge, which accounts for about 70% of global platinum production [6] Group 4 - Trends indicate a shift from gold to platinum as a jewelry manufacturing substitute, supported by rising platinum leasing rates, which are seen as signs of physical shortages [7] - Continuous deficits over the years may have eroded industrial inventories, necessitating some replenishment [7] - Deutsche Bank acknowledges seasonal factors affecting supply, noting that weak performance in the first quarter may be temporary due to adverse weather conditions [8]

昨天晚上有人在评论席问黄金是不是庞氏骗局，之前还有人问比特币是不是庞氏骗局，这都属于对"庞氏骗局"这个词的定义不清楚，我解释一下。 庞氏骗局的起源是1919年查尔斯旁兹在美国波士顿搞的一个投资骗局，他说自己可以通过倒卖邮政票据获得高额利润，为了吸引大家投资，他承诺45天可 以获得40-50%收益。这吸引了数万名波士顿当地的投资者，累计募集资金1500万美元，这在当时是一笔天文数字。 实际上庞兹一共只买过2张邮政票据，他只是一直用后面投资者的资金去支付前面投资者的本金+收益，这个骗局到了第二年就资金链断裂玩不下去了。 旁兹也被抓进去坐牢，判刑5年。 看明白了么，旁氏骗局的一个核心要素，是承诺保本+收益，但事实上做不到，只能拿后期投资者的钱去支付给前期投资者。 黄金算庞氏骗局吗，当然不是了，比特币算吗，也不算，投资这两个品种没人承诺你能保本，你自己也知道投机风险很大。你可以说它们有投机泡沫，但 不是庞氏，用词要准确。 a股算嘛？也不算，开户的时候都告知了有风险需谨慎。 之前一些山寨平台的p2p理财算庞氏骗局，金融传销也算。 还有哪些是承诺了未来收益，但实际上无法实现，一直用新人的钱去填老人的窟窿，你们自己判断。 ...