流动性陷阱

Search documents
降息救不了美国!居民不买房,企业不生产,美联储陷入死循环
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-27 16:11
最近不少人都在聊美国的利率政策,觉得只要美联储一降息,美国经济就能重回正轨。 可事实真没这么简单,现在的美国经济就像一团乱麻,光靠降息这一把剪刀,根本剪不开眼前的困境。 就业数据被动手脚、降息传导链条断裂、通胀成了"顽固派",这三大矛盾凑到一起,让美国的经济迷局越来越难破。 想搞懂美国的利率政策,得先看美联储最在意的两个指标,通胀和就业。 以前美联储把重心放在压通胀上,现在明显开始往就业上靠,按道理说,只要就业数据不好看,降息就有了理由,可偏偏在这个节骨眼上,美国的就业数据 出了"幺蛾子"。 现在要是就业数据再被动手脚,美联储的独立性就更没谱了,以前大家还觉得美联储能根据经济实际情况做决策。 现在看来,政治因素已经开始绑架经济数据,这样一来,利率政策怎么可能贴合真实的经济需求? 很多人觉得降息是"万能药",只要利率一降,企业愿意投资、居民愿意花钱,经济自然就活了。 可现在的美国,偏偏卡在了最关键的一步,没人愿意加杠杆。 先捋捋降息的正常传导逻辑,降息后,居民、企业或者政府得有人敢借钱花钱(也就是加杠杆),这样才能拉动新增需求。 需求上来了,企业才会扩大生产、招人;就业好了,居民收入增加,又能反过来刺激消费,形 ...
央行不只是印钱!降息、当最后贷款人,都是它救经济的招
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-26 06:54
奶茶店老板高晓琴最近愁眉不展——店门口没了往日的排队长龙,一天仅卖出几杯奶茶。放眼小岛,工厂机器只开半天,街上招聘招牌换成转让广告,银行 窗口冷冷清清,经济仿佛被按下暂停键。 小岛电视台推出《谁能拯救小岛经济》特别节目,邀请凯恩斯与哈耶克展开辩论。凯恩斯直言:"问题不在生产能力,而在需求不足!消费者捂紧钱包,企 业才会停工,政府必须通过修路、补贴、降息激活需求。" 政府手握两大工具箱:央行的"货币政策"与财政部的"财政政策"。此时,小岛居民纷纷把钱存入银行,商业银行存款创下新高。王富贵深知这是危险信号: 居民囤钱不消费、不投资,企业拿不到订单就会减产裁员,家庭收入下降又会进一步抑制消费,形成恶性循环。更棘手的是,银行作为"资金中介",吸收存 款后需放贷赚利差,如今贷款需求冷清,银行运营举步维艰。 S T 王富贵果断打开央行工具箱,首先祭出"降息"这一常用法宝。基准利率下调50个基点后,市场连锁反应迅速显现:高晓琴看到股市从2700点涨到3800点,便 将20万到期定存转入股市和基金;奶茶原料供应商原本搁置的扩产计划重新启动,100万贷款年利率从6%降至4%,一年少付2万利息,原本不盈利的项目变 得可行,随即下 ...
经典重温 | 制造通胀:日央行如何逃逸“流动性陷阱”?(申万宏观·赵伟团队)
申万宏源宏观· 2025-09-25 05:14
文 | 赵伟、陈达飞 联系人 | 陈达飞 摘要 上世纪90年代末以来,日本经济陷入"通缩二十年",日央行因此成了前沿货币政策的"实验室"。"制造通胀"逐渐成为日央行 货币政策的优先事项。 一、日央行70年:政策框架的演变及经济解释 在日本经济发展的不同阶段,主次矛盾各有不同,金融市场与货币政策框架也会随之而变: 1955-1970年,经济高速发展与金融抑制并存,货币金融政策最典型的特征是强监管,具体表现为:资本管制+固定汇率+数 量目标+利率管制 。日本央行采用的是 数量型货币政策框架 :中介目标是银行信贷或货币供给增速等数量型指标,窗口指 导则是主要的操作方式。 1971-1990年,经济增速放缓和金融自由化。本阶段,日本经济和金融的方方面面均表现出典型的"转轨"特征 ,第一阶段强 监管的4个特征均持续弱化。日央行政策框架渐进从数量型转向价格型(但仍以数量为主)。无抵押隔夜拆借利率于1985年 设立,90年代成为操作目标。 后地产泡沫时代,日本经济逐步滑向长期通缩陷阱,日央行非常规货币政策实验进入"无人区" 。1999年2月,政策利率降至 零,经历一次短暂、失败的加息后,日央行于2001年3月开启量化宽松政 ...
央行印钞为什么不是救世良方?
Hu Xiu· 2025-09-19 07:10
Group 1 - Debt is a "commitment to deliver currency," influenced by psychological expectations and short-term fluctuations, making it difficult to control [1] - The quantity of money in modern economies is primarily determined by central bank monetary policy [1][2] - A debt crisis becomes inevitable when debt commitments exceed the available currency [2] Group 2 - Central banks face two distinct choices that significantly impact long-term wealth: maintaining "hard" currency or adopting "soft" currency policies [3][4] - A "hard" currency approach involves limiting money supply to hard assets, which can ensure wealth preservation but may lead to widespread defaults and deflationary recessions [5][6][7] - A "soft" currency approach allows for large-scale money printing to address crises, providing liquidity to markets but resulting in currency and debt devaluation [8][9][10] Group 3 - Historical patterns show that central banks often choose to print money and devalue currency to avoid severe market disruptions and economic downturns [11][12][13] - This approach, while temporarily effective, leads to long-term consequences such as reduced purchasing power and increased wealth inequality [18][20][30] Group 4 - The long-term effects of money printing include a decrease in the purchasing power of currency, impacting middle-class savers and low-risk investors [20][22][23] - Wealth concentration increases as asset prices rise disproportionately, benefiting the wealthy while leaving ordinary savers behind [30][32][36] Group 5 - The concept of "antibiotic resistance" applies to monetary policy, where over-reliance on money printing diminishes its effectiveness in addressing economic crises [37][39][40] - In long-term debt cycles, the ability to stimulate the economy through liquidity injections becomes limited as debt levels reach unsustainable limits [41][42][45] Group 6 - The current situation suggests a high probability of significant debt restructuring or monetization in the coming years if long-term debt issues are not addressed [49][50] - The myth of government bonds as risk-free assets may be challenged as currency devaluation impacts real wealth storage [52][53] Group 7 - Historical data indicates that during periods of currency devaluation and debt reduction, assets like gold, commodities, and equities tend to perform well [54][55] - The distinction between nominal wealth growth and real purchasing power stability is crucial, as inflation can erode the value of perceived wealth [56][57]
2025年,到底是“咬牙买房”还是“尽快卖房”,曹德旺给出忠告:别傻了,再等或许更危险
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-04 22:31
Core Viewpoint - The core message from Cao Dewang emphasizes the disconnect between the wealthy who own multiple properties and the ordinary people who genuinely need housing, suggesting that the future real estate market will primarily involve transactions among the wealthy [2][5][10]. Group 1: Real Estate Market Dynamics - Cao Dewang points out that the real estate market is increasingly becoming a game where "rich people sell to rich people," leaving ordinary families unable to afford homes [5][8]. - He warns that the current situation resembles "The Emperor's New Clothes," where everyone knows the truth about the market but is afraid to speak out due to potential repercussions on property values [7][10]. - The hidden costs of property ownership, such as maintenance fees, vacancy losses, and potential property taxes, could lead to significant financial burdens for homeowners [7][10]. Group 2: Advice for Ordinary Buyers - For those who have not yet purchased a home, Cao advises to focus on the primary purpose of housing, which is to live in it, rather than viewing it as an investment [10][21]. - He suggests that individuals with multiple properties should consider selling them before the market becomes less favorable for selling [11][21]. - The emphasis is placed on the importance of being cautious and rational in the current real estate environment, as the market may not always provide the expected returns [10][21]. Group 3: Economic Implications - Cao Dewang expresses concern that the excessive focus on real estate is detrimental to the manufacturing sector, which is essential for economic stability [15][21]. - He highlights that high property prices lead to increased rents, making it difficult for businesses to thrive, as they end up paying substantial amounts to landlords [15][21]. - The overall message is a call for a return to valuing manufacturing and practical economic activities over speculative real estate investments [15][21].
2019年恐慌一幕将重演?回购市场暗藏“流动性陷阱”!
Jin Shi Shu Ju· 2025-08-28 02:36
Core Viewpoint - The usage of the Federal Reserve's overnight reverse repurchase agreement (ON RRP) tool has significantly decreased, raising concerns about potential liquidity issues in the market, reminiscent of the 2019 crisis [2][3] Group 1: Federal Reserve's Tools and Market Impact - The ON RRP usage fell below $50 billion, a recent low compared to peaks of $2 trillion in 2022 and 2023, indicating a shift in strategy among money market funds towards short-term Treasury purchases [2] - Analysts predict that ON RRP usage may drop to zero by the end of August but could see a slight increase in September due to quarter-end financing demands [2] - The Federal Reserve established a standing repo facility post-2019 to provide liquidity to primary dealers, aiming to stabilize short-term financing rates [2][3] Group 2: Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Management - The Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains significantly below pre-crisis levels, currently around $6.6 trillion, down from nearly $9 trillion at the pandemic peak [3] - Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan indicated that banks may turn to the standing repo facility for liquidity if they face funding pressures next month, suggesting a potential further reduction in reserves [3] - Recent trends show that repo rates have averaged about 8 basis points lower than reserve rates, indicating room for further reserve reductions [3] Group 3: Market Conditions and Future Projections - The Federal Reserve is expected to continue reducing its balance sheet by the end of the year unless a significant market shock occurs [5] - Current market conditions are characterized by low volatility, with no immediate concerns prompting investor anxiety [5] - The impact of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet adjustments is often overlooked, despite its significant influence on market dynamics [4]
为何不建议存“大额存单”?内行人透露:主要有以下“4个原因”
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-08-19 02:17
Core Viewpoint - The article highlights that large-denomination certificates of deposit (CDs) are not an ideal wealth management choice in the current economic environment, revealing four core contradictions that investors should be aware of [1]. Group 1: Interest Rate Trends - The downward trend in interest rates is irreversible, with large-denomination CD rates generally reduced by 20-50 basis points in 2023, and three-year products yielding below 3% [3]. - Investors locking in long-term CDs may miss out on potentially higher future returns, as some banks have introduced "segmented interest" clauses that significantly reduce interest upon early withdrawal [3]. Group 2: Liquidity Issues - Although large-denomination CDs can be transferred, secondary market trading often results in significant discounts, undermining the advertised liquidity [5]. - Certain banks have imposed restrictions on partial redemptions, limiting daily withdrawals to 5% of the principal, which can delay full liquidation for up to 20 working days [5]. Group 3: Hidden Costs and Inflation - The apparent 3% yield may not outpace inflation when considering opportunity costs, with alternative investments potentially offering higher returns [8]. - A survey indicated that 73% of investors were recommended additional products when purchasing large-denomination CDs, with 28% ultimately buying unnecessary financial products [8]. Group 4: Outdated Wealth Management Strategies - The reliance on traditional wealth management paths is seen as a risk, as the safety advantage of large-denomination CDs diminishes in the context of low-risk returns compared to GDP growth [9]. - Financial experts suggest a diversified asset allocation strategy, recommending that the proportion of funds allocated to deposits should not exceed 50% [9]. Group 5: Alternative Strategies - A "three-three" strategy is proposed for risk-averse investors, involving staggered investments in government bonds to maintain liquidity and smooth interest rate fluctuations [11]. - Cash management tools like money market funds offer better short-term returns while maintaining liquidity, with annualized yields typically between 2.2%-2.8% [11]. Group 6: Future Regulatory Changes - The implementation of the "Commercial Bank Liability Quality Management Measures" in June 2025 will further diminish the interest rate advantages of large-denomination CDs, as banks will be restricted from using high-interest rates to attract deposits [13]. Group 7: Long-term Risks - In a low-interest-rate environment, the real risk is not short-term volatility but the continuous depreciation of purchasing power, emphasizing the need for diversified asset allocation to achieve reasonable returns [14].
真闹心:房价跌掉一半,房贷却未减少,千万元房产也卖不出?
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-08-15 12:46
Core Viewpoint - The real estate market is experiencing significant price declines, with many homeowners facing the challenge of high mortgage payments despite the drop in property values [3][5][11] Market Conditions - In the first half of 2025, 53 out of 70 major cities reported new home prices lower than the previous year, with 16 cities experiencing price drops of over 30% [3] - The transaction volume for high-end properties (over 10 million) has decreased by more than 60% compared to the previous year, while the number of sellers has increased by nearly 50% [3][5] - The average time to sell properties in first and second-tier cities has increased significantly, with high-end properties taking an average of 412 days to sell, compared to 89 days in 2021 [7] Mortgage and Financial Implications - Despite falling property prices, mortgage payments remain unchanged, leading to increased financial pressure on homeowners [8] - As of May 2025, the total mortgage debt in China reached 38.7 trillion yuan, with a non-performing loan rate of 2.1%, the highest in a decade [5] - The real estate sector accounts for approximately 25% of GDP, and related industries such as home appliances and building materials have seen significant sales declines, with home appliance sales down 18.7% and building materials down 22.3% in the second quarter of 2025 [8] Government and Policy Responses - In response to the market downturn, 27 cities have introduced home purchase subsidy policies, offering up to 5% of the purchase price [9] - Some developers are exploring "rent-to-own" schemes, allowing potential buyers to rent before purchasing, with rental payments contributing to the purchase price [9] - Banks are beginning to trial "mortgage replacement" programs, allowing for reassessment of loan amounts in light of falling property values, although this is still in the early stages [9] Long-term Market Outlook - The Chinese real estate market is shifting from a focus on new construction to optimizing existing properties, with an emphasis on housing for living rather than investment [11] - Buyers are encouraged to adjust their expectations regarding property appreciation and focus on the residential function of homes [11]
固收深度报告:欧美日流动性陷阱启示—低利率时代系列(八)
Soochow Securities· 2025-08-04 09:38
Group 1: Economic Conditions and Responses - The Eurozone faced a liquidity trap with inflation dropping to 0.55% and the ECB lowering the deposit facility rate to negative values, reaching -0.4% by March 2016[4] - Japan experienced a prolonged liquidity trap from 1990 to 2023, with the Bank of Japan reducing the benchmark interest rate from 6% to 0.5% between 1991 and 1995, and later implementing a zero interest rate policy[6] - The U.S. responded swiftly to the liquidity trap during the 2008 financial crisis, cutting the federal funds rate from 5.25% to 0.25% and launching multiple rounds of quantitative easing, totaling $1.75 trillion in asset purchases[12] Group 2: Economic Performance Indicators - Eurozone GDP contracted by 4.46% in 2009, with unemployment rising from 7.68% to 9.68% during the same period[47] - Japan's GDP saw a significant decline of 6.23% in 2009 due to the global financial crisis, with unemployment peaking at 5.38% in 2002[80] - The Eurozone's GDP growth rebounded to 6.33% in 2021 after a sharp contraction of 6.01% in 2020 due to the pandemic[51] Group 3: Policy Implications and Lessons - The experiences of the Eurozone, Japan, and the U.S. highlight the importance of timely and decisive monetary policy in addressing liquidity traps, with the U.S. approach being the most effective[13] - The Eurozone's reliance on monetary policy without sufficient fiscal coordination led to prolonged economic stagnation, emphasizing the need for structural reforms alongside monetary easing[78] - Japan's prolonged low growth and inflation despite aggressive monetary policies illustrate the diminishing returns of such measures over time, necessitating a shift towards policy normalization[11]
低利率时代系列:欧美日流动性陷阱启示
Soochow Securities· 2025-08-04 05:51
1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core View of the Report The report analyzes the policy responses of the EU, Japan, and the US to liquidity traps and provides insights for China's future policy directions. It emphasizes that China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy rhythm, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to avoid falling into a liquidity trap and stimulate economic growth [9][11][98]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 When an economy falls into a "liquidity trap", what characteristics will it exhibit? - **Core characteristics of a liquidity trap**: - **Near-zero nominal interest rates**: When policy rates are at or near 0%, borrowing and investment motives are weak, and market rates cannot be further reduced [18]. - **Deflation**: Increased preference for cash leads to reduced consumption, forcing businesses to lower prices and causing deflation [19]. - **Abundant market liquidity but low investment willingness**: Deflation expectations lead economic agents to postpone consumption and investment, resulting in low investment returns and weak investment willingness [22]. - **Ineffective monetary policy transmission**: Nominal interest rates have reached the zero lower bound, and banks are reluctant to lend, preventing liquidity from flowing into the real economy [23]. - **Transmission mechanism analysis**: Negative events prompt central banks to implement expansionary monetary policies. However, in a liquidity trap, low interest rates lead the public to hoard cash, reducing consumption and investment, and causing the economy to fall into a policy - failure situation [24][25]. 3.2 Overseas economies have successively fallen into liquidity traps 3.2.1 EU: Timely but conventional and indecisive policy responses (2008 - 2016) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the ECB cut interest rates, launched bond - buying programs, and implemented LTRO and OMT. In 2015, it started the APP. GDP growth recovered in 2015 but slowed later. Unemployment declined, but inflation remained low. After the COVID - 19 pandemic, the ECB launched the PEPP, and the economy rebounded, but inflation concerns emerged [2][31][33]. - **Core characteristics of the EU's liquidity trap**: Policy rates were near zero or negative and stable until 2022. GDP growth was slow, CPI fluctuated, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high, indicating deflation. Investment was pessimistic initially but recovered after 2015 [37][40][43]. 3.2.2 Japan: "The Lost Thirty Years" (1990 - 2023) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: After the asset bubble burst in the 1990s, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates, implemented QE, and later adopted "Abenomics". The economy showed short - term improvement, but low inflation and growth persisted. In 2023, Japan began to normalize policies and showed signs of recovery [3][5][52]. - **Core characteristics of Japan's liquidity trap**: Policy target rates were near zero or negative. GDP growth was low, CPI showed deflation, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high. Investment was low, and funds were deposited in banks, indicating ineffective monetary policy transmission [56][60][64]. 3.2.3 US: A classic and correct self - rescue case (2008 - 2013) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: In response to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, the Fed quickly cut interest rates, launched QE1, QE2, and QE3, and implemented the "Operation Twist". The economy recovered, and the Fed ended QE in 2014 and normalized policies in 2015 [7][68][69]. - **Core characteristics of the US's liquidity trap**: Federal funds rates were near zero after 2008. GDP growth was low, inflation was weak, retail sales were volatile, and unemployment was high. Investment declined sharply during the crisis and showed short - term recovery but remained structurally weak [72][76][80]. 3.3 China's liquidity risk assessment and analysis - **Current policy environment**: China faces challenges in traditional manufacturing investment, financial institution risk preferences, and high household savings rates. Traditional monetary policy tools have diminishing marginal utility, requiring more precise policy combinations [86]. - **Risk factor identification and assessment**: China's policy rates still have room for operation. GDP growth has declined and been volatile, and the real estate sector has a negative impact. Consumption willingness is weak, and the M2 - M1 gap indicates low money activation [91][92][95]. - **Policy recommendations**: China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to stimulate consumption and investment and avoid a liquidity trap [9][11][98].