Bloomberg：Warsh修复美联储信誉，通胀仍为风险
Warsh Restores Some Fed Credibility: 3-Minutes MLIV
Let's start with the aftermath, then, of Kevin Walsh's comments. Did he say more of market relevance than he thought he would repricing in the market then? More than you would have expected going into that Jackson Hole address? Definitely. I will admit that my expectations were very low. Uh, and so he over delivered relative to what I personally expected. And I think he nailed it. Uh, you know, I think the FOMC in July was a disaster, and he did a lot of damage to his credibility at that time.
那么，让我们先从凯文·沃尔什（Kevin Walsh）言论的后续影响开始。他当时在市场上的定价重估中，是否表达了比他认为更多的市场相关性？是否比他预期进入杰克逊霍尔（Jackson Hole）演讲时更多？绝对是。我必须承认，我的期望值非常低。嗯，所以相对于我个人预期的结果，他表现得更为出色。我认为他做得很到位。你知道，我认为美联储公开市场委员会（FOMC）7月的会议是一场灾难，他在那时对自己的信誉造成了很大损害。
And I think impressively, on Friday he went a long way to repairing his credibility there. He addressed some of the issues that everybody need to address and that you'll hear from see for example. He kind of undermined the Fed's target about like what the target was and implied that they're going to reassess it in January. Instead, on Friday he addressed that quite explicitly. No, no. They have a clear measurement. They have a clear target and they are focused on that target.
而且我认为令人印象深刻的是，周五他在很大程度上修复了自己的信誉。他解决了一些每个人都需要解决的问题，你们也会从例如[此处原文似有缺失或口误]听到。他某种程度上削弱了美联储的目标，暗示他们将在1月重新评估该目标。相反，周五他非常明确地解决了这个问题。不，不。他们有明确的衡量标准，有明确的目标，并且专注于该目标。
So I thought he did a good job, actually, of restoring the damage that was done in July. And therefore he did send a strong message to the markets. And it was a good message. And I think it's ultimately good for stocks, even though it's saying higher yields which is disrupted stocks in the short term. It's higher yields for good reason. It's about a restoration of credibility to the fed. And it's about higher rates because the economy is hot.
所以我认为他实际上很好地恢复了7月造成的损害。因此，他向市场发出了一个强烈的信号。这是一个积极的信号。我认为这最终对股市有利，尽管它意味着收益率上升，这在短期内会扰乱股票表现。但收益率上升是有充分理由的。这是为了恢复美联储的信誉。这也是因为经济火热而导致利率上升。
And a reminder today as well Mark of course of the the of the price pressure the impulse coming through with the oil prices back to back to $90 a barrel. We know much of the pressure is coming through from things like diesel and other parts of commodity space. But is is this a reminder that that inflation remains remains a risk? Yeah, but let the supply side issue won't be that that the main the main concern they have on inflation, because that's not the bit you can fix by higher rates.
此外，今天还要提醒一下，马克，当然还有油价再次回到每桶90美元所带来的价格压力冲击。我们知道大部分压力来自柴油和其他大宗商品领域。但这是否是一个提醒，表明通胀仍然是一个风险？是的，但供应方面的问题不会是他们对通胀的主要担忧，因为你无法通过提高利率来解决这部分问题。
Obviously if that helps the inflation expectations become an anchored. Well then that's why you need to raise rates. But it's more about the demand side. The fact is we haven't been anywhere near the inflation target for years. There's a cohort in markets who believe in disinflation theory, the belief that when we get beyond the base effects of tariffs, they believe because if I there's a bunch of reasons why inflation may come lower, I'm not in that camp.
显然，如果这有助于使通胀预期保持锚定，那么这就是你需要提高利率的原因。但重点更多在于需求侧。事实是，多年来我们从未接近过通胀目标。市场上有一批人相信去通胀理论，他们认为当我们摆脱关税的基础效应后，由于种种原因通胀可能会下降，我不属于这一阵营。
And I would say it's a minority camp out there. Um, and that so far over multiple years it has not proved particularly valid. So I think ultimately we're probably going to have to see higher yields, but there's probably not a rush. And I think Walsh got that balance very well by leaving September 60th percent priced I it's completely in play. Okay. And so that's in play is more intervention in play now given we went through 160 once again.
我认为持这种观点的人只是少数。到目前为止，在多年的时间里，这一观点并未被证明特别有效。因此，我认为最终我们可能不得不看到更高的收益率，但恐怕并不急于求成。我认为沃尔什很好地把握了这一平衡，将9月60%的定价完全纳入考量范围。好的。鉴于我们再次突破了160，现在干预的可能性更大。
No I don't think it's relevant at all. I think you know look we're not seeing disorderly moves in dollars yet. We've seen a slightly stronger dollar because of this message. We've seen a higher front end yields. So dollar ends violently lower. It's not running away. Um, so I don't think at intervention risk at all. I know that there are some people getting excited because the arbitrary level of 160, but these are the same people who go, oh, now they're worth three, 160.
不，我认为这完全不相关。我想你知道，我们还没有看到美元出现无序波动。由于这一消息，我们看到美元略微走强。我们也看到了前端收益率上升。所以美元并没有剧烈下跌，也没有失控。嗯，所以我根本不认为存在干预风险。我知道有些人因为160这个任意水平而感到兴奋，但这些也是那些会说‘哦，现在它们值三个160’的人。
Look at 161 and we get to 161 and look at 162, 163 and 164. They're just proving they can count numbers. None of that makes any sense. So no, I'm not in intervention. Watch one bit this week. I'm literally scrubbing out my 161162163. You make those lines on my notes right now. I'm not I'm not culpable. But I'm thinking I'm taking notes of some of those some of those levels. I'll discard them for now. Bloomberg Markets love, executive editor Mark Goldman.
看看161，当我们达到161时，再看看162、163和164。他们只是在证明他们会数数。这一切都毫无意义。所以，不，我不认为会有干预。本周密切关注一点。我 literally（字面上）正在擦除我的161、162、163。你现在在我笔记上画的那些线。我不是，我没有责任。但我正在记录其中一些水平。我现在先丢弃它们。彭博市场执行编辑马克·戈德曼。
Mark. Thank you.
马克，谢谢你。
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力