美国股市周一因劳动节休市，市场焦点转向美联储理事人选与利率政策动向。美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特表示， 数名美联储主席候选人同时也被考虑填补央行理事会的两个空缺席位。他指出，自己已与川普总统详细讨论过候 选人的条件与资格，并强调川普对美联储「怀有极大敬意」。至于市场对川普试图罢免美联储理事丽莎·库克的反 应，贝森特认为债市与汇市皆维持平静。 根据CME「美联储观察」工具，9月会议中降息25个基点的机率达89.6%，维持利率不变的机率为10.4%。展望10 月，市场对降息25与50个基点的预期几乎平分秋色，分别为47.3%与47.9%。 库克理事的留任概率从罢免传闻时的35%回升至62% 白宫特别强调不寻求颠覆现行货币政策框架 劳动节休市背后的政策暗流 9月2日美国劳动节休市期间，CME美联储观察工具显示89.6%的降息预期创年内新高。这种市场共识的形成源于 三重压力： 经济数据疲软：8月ISM制造业PMI连续三个月萎缩，核心PCE物价指数增速放缓至2.8% 全球央行转向：欧央行6月启动降息后，新兴市场货币宽松政策持续加码 政治干预隐忧：特朗普政府被曝考虑替换3名美联储理事，引发政策独立性争议 贝森特声明中的权力 ...

问题来了——美联储从1913年成立以来，一直号称"独立"，不受白宫直接干预。可要是真被特朗普"法外开人"成功，那美联储独立性的神话，恐怕就要破产 了。 听上去是不是很吓人？其实更可怕的是：这不是特朗普个人任性，而是美国制度里最深层的悖论正在浮出水面。 最近，美国政坛又来了一出大戏。特朗普要以"贷款欺诈"的理由，强行解职美联储理事莉萨·库克。别忘了，这位库克理事在货币政策上与美联储主席鲍威 尔立场一致。换句话说，特朗普直接把矛头对准了鲍威尔。 虚假的确定性，才是最大风险 问题是，美联储真的敢贸然降息吗？ 货币政策，被赤裸裸地政治化 别忘了，美联储的所谓"独立"，本质上是个"半吊子独立"。它既是技术官僚机构，又活在美国的选举政治里。 特朗普的动作，只不过是把这层遮羞布扯掉：既然货币政策能左右选情，那凭什么我不能动手？ 一旦这种逻辑被最高法院背书，未来谁还会相信美元政策的专业性？届时美联储将沦为总统的"私人提款机"，美元霸权看似坚挺，实则根基在被掏空。 演戏还是撕破脸？ 有人说，特朗普和鲍威尔可能是一唱一和，在"配合演戏"。这场戏的主题很简单：要让市场相信"9月一定会降息"。 几天前，鲍威尔在杰克逊霍尔会议上抛出一 ...

最近，美国政坛又抛出一个重磅消息。特朗普要以"贷款欺诈"的理由，强行解职美联储理事莉萨·库克。要知道，这位理事的立场和美联储主席鲍威尔高度 一致。而在美联储"降息"问题上，特朗普和鲍威尔的不和已经摆到台面上了。 大家都知道，美联储是个"半私营"的机构，理论上政府不能直接干预，更别提以这种"涉嫌欺诈"的理由。大概率这事会闹到最高法院。如果法院真支持特朗 普，那美联储自 1913 年成立以来维持的"独立性"，可能就要彻底断送在特朗普手上。 所以说，特朗普现在看似是在破坏美联储独立性，实际上更像是在配合演戏。最后戏会收得很平稳，大家都能体面下台。但这场戏带来的虚假信号，才是最 大的风险。它会麻痹市场，误导投资者，最后让全球为美国的"政治操弄"买单。 可问题是，降息意味着什么？意味着承认"抗通胀失败"。美国财政赤字今年预计会超过 1.8 万亿美元，高利率下利息支出本来就吓人。如果贸然降息，美元 会更脆弱，全球资本可能会大规模外逃。美联储敢不敢冒这个险？其实并不敢。 所以你会发现，美联储始终没有明确承诺。他们放的都是模糊信号。为什么？因为模糊本身就是武器。模糊能让市场自己去想象，自己骗自己，然后把筹码 推上桌子，等着被 ...

特朗普与美联储的"大战"持续升级。 北京时间8月27日晚间消息，美联储理事丽莎·库克（Lisa Cook）最早将于美东时间27日（就美国总统特 朗普解雇一事）提起诉讼。特朗普此前宣布，解除丽莎·库克职务。 美国纽约联储主席威廉姆斯最新表示：在适当时候下调利率是合适的。在政策上仍然保持适度限制性的 立场，如果中性利率是1%或略低，现在就处在限制区域。他还表示，对经济状况相当乐观。 另有报道称，特朗普政府正在研究对美联储12家地区银行施加更多影响的方案，尤其是审查美联储地区 银行行长的遴选过程。 关于下一任美联储主席的遴选进展，美国财长贝森特在最新的讲话中透露，"肯定"会在秋季知道特朗普 选择的美联储主席。 有分析人士警告称，特朗普的一系列举动可能标志着美联储自1951年以来享有的独立性走向终结，而金 融市场尚未真正消化这个重大风险。目前美债市场已出现扭曲陡峭化反应，预示着美联储独立性受威胁 将推高通胀预期和风险溢价。 美联储反击 谈及罢免多位地区联储主席的设想，布雷纳德表示："这正是我们现在看到的风险。试图改变联邦公开 市场委员会的整体投票多数派，是对美联储独立性前所未有的攻击。" 北京时间8月27日晚间，据美 ...

Group 1 - The core issue is the rare public confrontation between the President and the Federal Reserve, with Trump labeling the Fed as the "biggest enemy" of the U.S. economy, raising concerns about the independence of the Fed [2][4] - The independence of the Federal Reserve is crucial due to the inherent conflict between political short-term interests and the long-term goals of economic stability and inflation control [3] - Historical precedents show that political interference in monetary policy can lead to severe inflation, as seen in the 1970s, highlighting the importance of maintaining the Fed's independence [3] Group 2 - If Trump is re-elected in 2024, he may influence Fed decisions through appointments, potentially leading to aggressive interest rate cuts and subsequent inflation risks [4] - The politicalization of monetary policy could challenge the international status of the dollar, benefiting alternative assets like gold and cryptocurrencies [4] - The current conflict reflects the deepening political polarization in the U.S., necessitating investors to be cautious of "black swan" risks, including a decline in dollar credibility and sudden policy shifts [4]

每经记者｜高涵 郑雨航 每经编辑｜程鹏 美国联邦储备银行自1913年成立以来，上演了首次由总统直接罢免理事的历史性一幕。 据央视新闻报道，美国总统特朗普8月25日以涉嫌住房抵押贷款欺诈为由解雇美联储理事莉萨·库克（Lisa Cook）。这在美国历史上前所未有，也是特朗普 就任总统以来对美联储独立性的最强力的一次直接干预。 莉萨·库克（右一）图片来源：视觉中国（资料图） 国务院发展研究中心世界发展研究所研究员、太和智库高级研究员丁一凡向《每日经济新闻》记者（以下简称每经记者）指出，这明显超越了美国总统的 权限。如果总统可以随意干预中央银行的事务，独立货币政策就成了笑谈，金融市场势必产生动荡，甚至担心通货膨胀失控。 美国克里斯多夫纽波特大学副教授孙太一认为，"这已经不是单个美联储理事任期是否稳固的问题，而是整个美联储设置的初衷可能会因此失效。" 库克的律师8月26日宣布，将对特朗普的行为提起诉讼，正式向总统发起法律挑战。 特朗普 "空前"罢免美联储理事 理由站得住脚吗？ 图片来源：视觉中国 特朗普此举可谓开创了先河。回顾历史，自美联储1913年成立至今，从未有总统直接罢免过美联储理事。作为美国前总统拜登于2022 ...

Core Viewpoint - President Trump is set to announce new nominees for the Federal Reserve Board, which has significant implications for U.S. monetary policy and the independence of the Fed [1][4][20] Group 1: Importance of Federal Reserve Board Nomination - The Federal Reserve Board has seven members responsible for setting national monetary policy, supervising financial institutions, and managing liquidity and inflation expectations [5] - The recent vacancy due to the resignation of a board member provides Trump with a critical opportunity to influence the Fed's direction, especially amid current economic challenges [5][9] - The new appointee could shift the balance within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), impacting interest rates and asset pricing [5][8] Group 2: Potential Nominees - Trump may consider several candidates, including Scott Basset, Kevin Walsh, Kevin Hassett, and Christopher Waller, each with distinct policy orientations [9][12] - Basset is closely aligned with Trump and supports aggressive rate cuts, while Walsh has a more moderate stance with a history at the Fed [9][12] - The choice of nominee will likely affect the Senate confirmation process and the future direction of monetary policy [12] Group 3: Market Reactions and Implications - Following Trump's announcement, bond markets reacted swiftly, with increased expectations for early rate cuts [13] - Concerns have emerged regarding the potential erosion of the Fed's independence, which could undermine the dollar's status as a safe asset [17][20] - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned that political interference in central bank independence could jeopardize macroeconomic stability and market confidence [20]

Group 1 - The article discusses President Trump's unusual visit to the Federal Reserve, highlighting the rarity of such an event since the last presidential visit in 2006, and likens it to a scene from "House of Cards" [1] - Trump's approach to the Federal Reserve is characterized as treating it like a personal finance department, with a focus on potential interest rate cuts and their implications for the economy [3] - The market's reaction to Trump's statements about interest rate cuts shows a significant increase in rate cut expectations, jumping from 25 basis points to 76 basis points [3] Group 2 - The article presents a debate among economists regarding the implications of Trump's visit, with differing views on whether it signals a dangerous politicization of monetary policy or an indication of impending liquidity easing [3] - It emphasizes that market interpretations of news can vary widely, suggesting that the narratives constructed by institutions often shape retail investors' perceptions [3] Group 3 - A reference is made to the oil market dynamics during the 2025 oil price surge, indicating that institutional movements often precede major news events, allowing them to capitalize on market reactions [4][6] - The article critiques Deutsche Bank's analysis of Trump's proposed interest rate cuts, suggesting that the actual savings from such cuts would be minimal, yet the market remains unfazed by this reality [8] Group 4 - The article advises investors to focus on quantitative tools to track institutional movements, likening this to understanding the mechanics behind a magic trick rather than just the performance itself [10] - It concludes with a reflection on the changing nature of central bank independence in the face of populism, while asserting that the fundamental dynamics of financial markets remain unchanged [11]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing pressure from President Donald Trump on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, including potential threats of dismissal, represents an unprecedented challenge to the independence of the Federal Reserve, which is crucial for effective economic governance in the U.S. [1] Group 1: Federal Reserve Independence - The independence of the Federal Reserve is fundamental for fulfilling its dual mandate of maximizing employment and stabilizing prices, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on economic data rather than short-term political considerations [1][3] - Trump's actions directly challenge this principle by publicly demanding interest rate cuts and attempting to use cost overruns from the Fed's headquarters renovation as grounds for dismissal, which could undermine the Fed's credibility [1][2] Group 2: Legal Implications - If Trump were to dismiss Powell, it would likely lead to an unprecedented legal battle centered around the interpretation of "just cause" as outlined in Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, which aims to prevent politically motivated dismissals [2] - Legal experts suggest that proving "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance" requires clear evidence and strict legal procedures, making it difficult to justify a dismissal based on renovation cost overruns [2] Group 3: Market Reactions - Financial markets have reacted to the uncertainty surrounding the Fed's independence, evidenced by declines in stock indices, rising U.S. Treasury yields, and a weakening dollar, reflecting investor concerns over potential policy chaos [2][3] Group 4: Long-term Economic Impact - A compromised Federal Reserve could lead to questions about its ability to control inflation, with political interference potentially resulting in overly accommodative monetary policy and the risk of runaway inflation [3] - The scenario of a politically influenced Fed could hinder effective responses to economic cycles, damaging the long-term health of the U.S. economy and eroding global investor confidence, which may lead to capital outflows and a weakened dollar [3] Group 5: Future of Federal Reserve Leadership - Even if Powell were dismissed, Vice Chairman Philip Jefferson would temporarily assume the role, but the nomination and confirmation of a new chairman would be fraught with political maneuvering [3] - The decision-making power regarding interest rates lies with the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), not solely with the chairman, meaning that even a Trump-appointed chairman may struggle to achieve immediate policy goals [3] Group 6: Conclusion - The potential dismissal of Powell is not merely a personnel change but a significant test of the resilience of the U.S. constitutional system, the independence of the judiciary, and the Federal Reserve's role as an economic stabilizer [4][5] - This political and legal turmoil will serve as a critical case study on how American democracy responds to populist challenges, influencing the future trajectory of U.S. economic policy and the global financial landscape [5]

Core Viewpoint - Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, issued a rare warning to the U.S. government regarding the interference in the Federal Reserve's independence, highlighting concerns over the politicization of monetary policy and its impact on market confidence [1][3]. Group 1: Federal Reserve Independence - Maintaining the independence of the central bank is crucial for the stability of the financial system, as any interference could lead to unforeseen consequences [1]. - The ongoing verbal pressure from the White House and rumors of leadership changes have already impacted market confidence, emphasizing that the independence of the Fed is vital for its credibility [1][5]. - The independence of the Fed is a key indicator for global investors assessing the credibility of a country's financial system, and any perception of the Fed being influenced by the executive branch could undermine the safe-haven status of U.S. assets [7]. Group 2: Current Economic Context - The Federal Reserve is at a critical juncture in policy-making, facing high inflation and economic growth pressures, leading to significant divergence in expectations regarding interest rate hikes or cuts [3]. - The current interest rate path is no longer solely determined by economic variables, as public criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and discussions of a "shadow chair" could signal political interference in policy decisions [5]. - The need for a clear, transparent, and data-driven interest rate path is emphasized, as political maneuvering could exacerbate market volatility [7]. Group 3: Implications for Investors - Investors should closely monitor changes in the Fed's communication and the evolving market expectations, as these will be critical for future trading decisions [7]. - The potential for political interference in monetary policy could directly affect the U.S. dollar's performance, bond pricing, and the allocation of global liquidity [7].