转自：新华财经 新华财经纽约1月2日电（记者刘亚南） 由于市场交易保持清淡和市场人气未有明显改善，纽约股市三 大股指2日高开，早盘走势出现分化，收盘时纽约股市三大股指涨跌不一。 截至当天收盘，道琼斯工业平均指数比前一交易日上涨319.10点，收于48382.39点，涨幅为0.66%；标 准普尔500种股票指数上涨12.97点，收于6858.47点，涨幅为0.19%；纳斯达克综合指数下跌6.362点，收 于23235.629点，跌幅为0.03%。 哈特菲尔德认为，标普500指数在2026年年底将达到8000点。随着区域性银行跑赢大市和特斯拉等高估 值科技股表现落后，股市上涨将更为平衡。除了科技，有其他题材在2026年非常有可能成为热点。 德意志银行分析师认为，除了人工智能以外，美国贸易政策尤其是美国最高法院关于特朗普关税措施合 法性的裁决等可能会塑造2026年的市场。随着特朗普预计提名新一任美联储主席人选，美联储将会是另 一个关注焦点。 美国利普乐金融集团（LPL Financial）的首席技术策略师亚当·特恩奎斯特（Adam Turnquist）表示，由 于利率升至令人不适的水平，股市新年开局不顺。如果美国1 ...

Core Insights - Japanese chemical companies are facing a decline in both revenue and profit due to multiple market challenges, including global economic slowdown and uncertainties from U.S. trade policies [1][4] Company Performance Summary - **Mitsubishi Chemical**: Achieved a remarkable net profit increase of 169% year-on-year, rising from 40.9 billion yen to 110.1 billion yen, despite a 10.5% decline in revenue to 1.79 trillion yen. The company benefited from China's economic stimulus and positive fiscal spending in some European countries, but overall economic growth remains under pressure due to U.S. trade policies [1] - **Shin-Etsu Chemical**: Experienced a slight revenue increase of 1.4% to 1.28 trillion yen, but net profit fell by 12.3% to 257.8 billion yen, with operating profit down 17.7% to 333.9 billion yen. The company attributed its performance challenges to global economic turmoil caused by U.S. policies and recent export control measures from China [1] - **Toray Industries**: Reported a significant net profit drop of 25% to 58.1 billion yen, with revenue declining by 4.6% to 1.23 trillion yen. The fiber and textile segment showed resilience with a 1.7% increase in operating profit, but the industrial applications market has not fully recovered, prompting the company to initiate cost-cutting measures [2] - **Sumitomo Chemical**: Achieved a turnaround with net profit of 39.6 billion yen, compared to a net loss of 6.5 billion yen in the previous year, despite an 11.8% revenue decline to 1 trillion yen. The core business and green materials segment faced challenges due to maintenance shutdowns and exit from aluminum business, leading to a 27% revenue drop in that segment [2] - **Mitsui Chemicals**: Experienced a significant revenue decline of 8.6% to 813.6 billion yen and a drastic net profit drop of 65% to 7.8 billion yen. The decline was attributed to lower product prices due to falling raw material costs, reduced sales in core and green materials, and impairment losses related to investments in phenol business in China [3] - **Asahi Kasei**: Reported a 7% revenue decline to 637.8 billion yen and a 33.3% drop in operating profit to 31 billion yen. While sales in the electronics sector contributed positively, negative factors such as inventory valuation adjustments and maintenance shutdowns offset gains [3] - **Tosoh**: Showed poor performance with a 5.4% revenue decline to 499.1 billion yen and a 70.4% drop in net profit to 7.3 billion yen. The decline was driven by a stronger yen, lower product prices due to falling raw material costs, and reduced shipments due to extended maintenance at its Nanyo plant [3] Industry Overview - Overall, Japanese chemical companies are under significant pressure from U.S. trade policy uncertainties, weak global demand, raw material price fluctuations, and periodic maintenance of production facilities. Only a few companies have managed to achieve localized improvements through business structure optimization or breakthroughs in niche markets [4]

Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by the U.S. Senate to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy highlights the ongoing volatility of U.S. trade policy, which oscillates between protectionism and openness, driven by conflicting interests among various economic groups [2][3][4]. Group 1: The Eternal Struggle of Interest Groups - James Madison's insights in "The Federalist Papers" reveal that trade policy is fundamentally a conflict among different economic interest groups, including landowners, manufacturers, and financial sectors [3][4]. - The historical context shows that trade policy has been a source of intense political conflict in the U.S., as it directly impacts money and jobs, benefiting some industries while harming others [4][5]. Group 2: Historical Policy Shifts - U.S. trade policy has evolved through three distinct eras, each prioritizing different goals: revenue generation through tariffs, protection of domestic manufacturers, and reciprocal trade agreements to reduce barriers [8][9]. - Major external shocks, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression, have led to significant shifts in trade policy objectives, reflecting the political realignments of the time [9]. Group 3: Stability of Trade Policy - The stability of U.S. trade policy is influenced by the country's economic geography and political system, where different regions have specialized economic activities that shape their trade interests [11][12]. - The political structure makes it challenging to change established policies, leading to a tendency to maintain the status quo despite ongoing debates and conflicts among interest groups [11][12]. Group 4: The Interplay of Economics and Politics - Understanding U.S. trade policy requires an analysis of both economic and political factors, as historical and political contexts significantly influence policy outcomes [13][14]. - The book "The Conflict of Trade" serves as a comprehensive framework for understanding the complexities of U.S. trade policy, emphasizing the interplay of lobbying, regional interests, and political calculations [16].

Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by the U.S. Senate to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy highlights the ongoing volatility of U.S. trade policy, which oscillates between protectionism and openness, driven by conflicting interests among various economic groups [2][3][4]. Group 1: The Eternal Struggle of Interest Groups - James Madison's insights in "The Federalist Papers" reveal that trade policy is fundamentally a conflict among different economic interest groups, including landowners, manufacturers, and financial sectors [3][4]. - The historical context shows that trade policy has been a source of intense political conflict in the U.S., as it directly impacts money and jobs, with certain industries benefiting while others suffer [4][5]. Group 2: Historical Policy Shifts - U.S. trade policy has evolved through three distinct eras, each prioritizing different goals: revenue generation through tariffs, protection of domestic manufacturers, and reciprocal trade agreements to reduce barriers [8][9]. - Major external shocks, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression, have significantly shifted the focus of trade policy, demonstrating the influence of political realignments on trade objectives [9]. Group 3: Stability of Trade Policy - The stability of U.S. trade policy is attributed to the country's economic geography and political system, where different regions have specialized economic activities that shape their trade interests [11][12]. - The political structure makes it challenging to change established policies, leading to a tendency to maintain the status quo despite ongoing debates and conflicts among interest groups [11][12]. Group 4: The Role of Political and Economic Factors - Understanding U.S. trade policy requires an analysis of both economic and political factors, as historical context and the legislative process significantly influence policy outcomes [13][14]. - The book "The Conflict of Trade" emphasizes the importance of examining the political and economic interactions that shape trade policy, rather than focusing solely on specific policy outcomes [14][15].

Core Insights - The German Economic Expert Committee forecasts weak economic growth for Germany in 2025 and 2026, lower than previous expectations, attributing this to U.S. tariff policies hindering recovery [1][3]. Economic Performance - The report indicates that Germany's GDP growth for this year is projected at 0.2%, with a revised forecast of 0.9% for 2026, down from an earlier estimate of 1% and below the German government's expectation of 1.3% [3]. - After two years of recession, Germany's economy is experiencing minimal growth, necessitating improvements in productivity, innovation, and investment to return to a growth trajectory [3]. Global Trade and Protectionism - The current global economic landscape is characterized by protectionist tendencies and unpredictable U.S. trade policies, negatively impacting Germany as an export-oriented nation [5]. - The decline in global trade poses significant challenges for Germany, which has not benefited from the economic recovery in import and export markets due to U.S. tariffs and the appreciation of the euro [5]. Domestic Economic Measures - The German government has implemented a series of economic stimulus measures, including increased investment, simplified approval processes, and expanded infrastructure projects [7]. - However, experts argue that to overcome low growth, Germany must achieve breakthroughs in digitalization, reduce energy costs, and enhance foreign trade, as short-term stimulus measures may not yield long-term results [7]. Recommendations for Future Growth - The German Economic Expert Committee emphasizes the need to eliminate trade barriers within the EU, strengthen capital markets, and address fragmentation in the defense market to fully leverage opportunities in the European single market [5].

Core Points - The U.S. Senate has voted to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with a vote of 51 in favor and 47 against, signaling a potential shift in U.S. trade policy [3] - Despite the Senate's decision, the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, is likely to block the resolution, making it difficult to overturn Trump's policies [5] - U.S. Trade Representative Tai has stated that investigations into China's compliance with the Phase One trade agreement will continue, indicating ongoing scrutiny of China's trade practices [5][7] - The U.S. is using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to investigate China's adherence to commitments regarding intellectual property and agricultural purchases, suggesting a continuation of aggressive trade tactics [7] - The recent developments reflect a complex U.S. trade strategy that combines conciliatory gestures with continued pressure on China, indicating that the trade relationship remains contentious [9] Summary by Sections U.S. Senate Actions - The Senate passed a resolution to end Trump's global tariff policy, aiming to alleviate economic pressures caused by trade wars [3] - Previous resolutions to remove tariffs on Canada and Brazil were also passed, indicating a broader shift in trade policy [3] House of Representatives Dynamics - The Republican-controlled House is expected to block the Senate's resolution, making it unlikely for the tariff termination to proceed [5] - Overturning a potential presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which poses significant challenges [5] Ongoing Investigations - U.S. Trade Representative Tai confirmed that investigations into China's compliance with the Phase One trade agreement are ongoing, initiated under the previous administration [5][7] - The investigations focus on China's commitments related to intellectual property and agricultural purchases, suggesting a strategy to maintain leverage in negotiations [7] Trade Policy Implications - The U.S. is employing a dual strategy of offering conciliatory measures while simultaneously investigating and pressuring China, reflecting a complex trade relationship [9] - The approach indicates that the U.S. is attempting to manage its trade narrative while maintaining a hardline stance on compliance issues [9]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court ruling on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration is seen as a critical test of Trump's economic policies, which could reshape U.S. trade dynamics and have significant implications for the global economy [2][3]. Group 1: Economic Perspectives - Nearly 50 economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairs Bernanke and Yellen, have urged the Supreme Court to overturn the tariffs, arguing that they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of global economics [4]. - The economists contend that trade deficits are a result of macroeconomic imbalances rather than a security threat, and that tariffs have led to increased costs for American households, raising annual expenses by $2,400 [4][5]. - The potential ruling could require the U.S. government to refund between $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariffs, which would have catastrophic effects on the Treasury and could undermine existing trade agreements [3][4]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Following the release of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, gold prices experienced significant volatility, initially dropping below $4,070 before rising above $4,110, only to decline again [1]. - The CPI data for September showed a year-over-year increase of 3%, which was below expectations, and core inflation rose by only 0.2%, the slowest growth in three months [6][7]. - The release of the CPI data has cleared the way for anticipated interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, as indicated by previous comments from Fed Chair Powell [7]. Group 3: Fund Flows and Investment Trends - Despite a historic drop in gold prices, gold funds saw record inflows, attracting $8.7 billion in a week, with total inflows over the past four months reaching $50 billion, surpassing the cumulative inflows of the previous 14 years [10][13]. - In the context of broader market trends, stock funds are projected to attract $693 billion, cash funds $1.1 trillion, and gold funds $108 billion in inflows, marking significant historical records [13][14]. - The ongoing uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policies has become a central factor in market volatility, challenging investors' asset allocation strategies [14].

Core Insights - The current U.S. trade policies are causing significant instability in domestic and global supply chains, impacting port operations, goods exports, and business confidence [1][2] - The Port of Los Angeles has seen a year-on-year increase of approximately 5% in cargo volume, but this is overshadowed by over 100 trade and tariff announcements from the U.S. government causing chaotic fluctuations [1] - High tariff policies have led to a "stop-and-go" effect in trade, with businesses awaiting clarity on regulations before making decisions [1][2] Trade and Tariff Impact - The recent trade policies have resulted in a decrease in demand for U.S. exports, as traditional trading partners are shifting to other countries for procurement [1] - For instance, countries are sourcing soybeans from Brazil and Argentina, and almonds from Australia instead of the U.S. [1] Business Confidence and Investment - Business confidence across the U.S. is fragile due to the impact of trade policies, leading to a slowdown in capital investment and hiring processes [2] - Companies are reportedly pausing long-term decisions and investments while waiting for trade policy stability [2]

Core Viewpoint - The current U.S. trade policies are causing significant instability in domestic and global supply chains, impacting port operations, goods exports, and business confidence [1][2] Group 1: Port Operations - The Port of Los Angeles has seen a year-on-year increase of approximately 5% in cargo volume, but this is overshadowed by over 100 trade and tariff announcements from the U.S. government causing chaotic fluctuations [1] - High tariff policies have led to a "brake" effect, where businesses are hesitant to act until there is clarity on tariff implementations [1] Group 2: Goods Exports - The U.S. government's trade policies are negatively affecting exports, as evidenced by a decrease in demand for U.S. products from traditional trading partners, who are now sourcing from other countries like Brazil and Argentina for soybeans and Australia for almonds [1] - The weakening dollar typically enhances the competitiveness of U.S. goods abroad, but current trade policies have created an "anomalous" situation where this is not occurring [1] Group 3: Business Confidence - Business confidence across the U.S. is fragile due to the impacts of trade policies, with many companies reporting a pause in operations [2] - There is a notable decline in capital investment, prolonged decision-making processes, and slow hiring rates as businesses await stabilization in trade policies to understand the rules and proceed with their plans [2]

Core Viewpoint - The interim financial results of Xiangjiang Electric (02619) for the six months ending June 30, 2025, show a decline in performance, marking the company's first financial report since its listing [1] Group 1: Financial Performance - The company's revenue for the reporting period was 543 million yuan, a decrease of 11.7% from 614 million yuan in the same period last year [1] - Gross profit fell from 137 million yuan to 108 million yuan, representing a decline of 21.7% [1] - Net profit decreased from 60.5 million yuan to 25.3 million yuan, a drop of 58.2% [1] Group 2: Reasons for Decline - The primary reason for the revenue decline was the uncertainty caused by U.S. trade policies [1] - The drop in gross profit was attributed to a decrease in both sales volume and overall gross margin [1] - The sales volume decreased by 15.4%, from 10.6 million units in the six months ending June 30, 2024, to 9 million units in the same period of 2025 [2] Group 3: Operational Costs - Administrative expenses increased by 20.9% to 55.4 million yuan, up from 45.8 million yuan in the previous year, mainly due to the addition of management personnel for production facilities in China and Indonesia [2] - Sales expenses decreased by 17.1% to 12.4 million yuan, down from 14.9 million yuan, primarily due to reduced sales personnel costs resulting from lower sales volume [2] - Exchange gains fell by 49.2% to 4.5 million yuan due to overall currency fluctuations during the reporting period [2] Group 4: Historical Performance - Prior to the listing, the company's net profit showed consistent growth, with figures of 71.8 million yuan, 80.26 million yuan, 121.5 million yuan, and 140.4 million yuan from 2021 to 2024 [3]