Bloomberg：市场不再轻信停火预期，油价与美债联动受算法驱动

Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts radio news. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Pharaoh along with Lisa Abramitz and Amarie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. From our global headquarters in New York City, we are live on Bloomberg television weekday mornings from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen.

And as always, on the Bloomberg terminal and the Bloomberg business app, we begin this hour with stocks creeping as crude and bond pressure eases on hopes for a homeless deal. Peter Cher Academy writing, "Markets seem to react positively to any story, rumor, or hope that is positive. That relationship might need to change." Pete joins us now for more. Pete, good morning.

Good morning.

Just elaborate on that if you can. What do you mean by You know, I think as you Lisa just said, the markets now finally starting to realize we shouldn't get overly excited about these talks, right? It's for a while felt like anytime we had talks, we, you know, you know, sold off on oil. Anytime there was actually physical damage done to oil pipelines, we kind of shoved it off. And I think we're starting to shift. It's almost a show me sort of stage where, yeah, we need to see real progress on this and real shipments to really get comfortable.

And some of that's going on, but not enough.

Where do you want to see more of an adjustment in bonds, in equities? Where do you expect to see it? You know, I would think in oil prices, I think that could go a bit higher. I think oil bonds, if anything, maybe got ahead of themselves a little bit. You know, I was very surprised how aggressively bonds reacted to the S&P data. It tends not to respond that much. And that looked like maybe it was a wash out of a lot of people who were betting on Besson.

You know, a lot of hedge funds were telling me, well, you don't want to bet against Bessin. Well, I think we found it was safe to bet against Besson. So, I think bonds have already priced in a lot. I think it's really in oil and probably equities a little bit. Does it make sense to you that bond yields and oil prices are trading so much in lock step?

Not really though again I think this all comes back to my overall view that liquidity is very narrow and thin in a lot of these markets and it's very algo driven. So whatever the algos are trading it works right if we wake up every morning and you can look at the price of oil and guest treasuries the alos are all doing that. So until something breaks and determines that, we're going to get those correlations because it's very electronic.

It's very thin trading, which again is why we move so much on Tuesday when yields blew out.

I want to elaborate on the idea of the faith in Scott Besset and the Bessant put that had been baked into the market that maybe now is getting unwound. Yesterday, there was a second round of buybacks of those 20 to 30year treasuries. And Scott Besset, the Treasury Secretary, had said previously that he was willing to buy back up to $6 billion worth. yesterday as yields reach the highest levels going back to 2007. He bought $4 billion worth less than that.

What does that tell you about when he plans to go in hard and how big of a put this actually is?

So one, this is nothing close to when we had the groggy whatever it takes moment, right? He said to buy up to 6 billion, but they're only looking to buy the liquid bonds and they're not looking to pay through the market. Right? If you're really trying to drive bond yields lower, you buy through the market, especially if we're at the highest yields ever. So this is still kind of tweaking at the nuances like oh this bond's a liquid we can take it out of your portfolio so maybe you can buy something liquid.

This is not all in trying to get the yields down otherwise we would have bought all six billion or more and said this is dirt cheap.

Well as we've been talking about on this program for Besson it's that the president needs to solve a foreign policy issue. What are your generals telling you about potentially these deals that could be on the table for a ceasefire? We've been here before and talks have broken down. You know, I think our overall view is that one, Iran's really good at negotiating. So, if we get back and sucked into the negotiating table, it's really unlikely that we do anything.

I think as a whole, we've liked the fact that Trump has tried to take the midterm elections off as a deadline, that gives us some more flexibility. A couple of our generals are talking about maybe that opens up the possibility to take over some of these smaller islands, not Car Island, but start somewhere in the straight. So, one thing we're watching closely is to see if any of the Marine Expeditionary Forces, if they move their hospital ships close enough, so kind of as a rule of thumb, the hospital ships would have to be within an hour of where we're attacking so that you can evacuate by helicopter any soldier that's hurt.

It's a huge part of the military culture is ensuring the best possible treatment. So, right now, we're not close to doing that. So, watch for any troop movements where we would put our hospital ships, which are phenomenal, closer to where we would attack. Those are the things again we might not have to attack. I think revamping pressure would be the right way to go. I also feel we missed a huge opportunity. We had the civilian leadership here.

I don't know how much power they really have, but we could have sent a much different messaging rather than we might bomb you again, we might not bomb you again. So, I I think we're not overly impressed and that this would be truly just to get oil back flowing and not really do much longer.

It was a huge week for diplomacy. Where do you stand right now in terms of how do you view potentially a ceasefire on energy infrastructure between Russia and Ukraine? because going into this week that was a huge message from this White House. You

know, I think we it's a very confusing element. It's, you know, at one side if you asked our generals and admirals what Ukraine should do when they were invaded on day one. Hit Russian infrastructure, hit Russian train lines, all these things. And we didn't allow them to do that. So, they're finally freeing up and doing some of this. One thing that I think is really interesting and kind of nuanced is the attack weapons that Ukraine is using are really almost homegrown at this stage, right?

So, they're not relying on the US weaponry as much for the attack. Clearly they need Patriot missiles. We have some issues I guess whether we have enough Patriot missiles, how much we want to sell. I think we're getting very mixed messaging on who the US really supports and is diesel now driving everything rather than Russia Ukraine. I think that's probably a bit unfortunate. We would like to see I think more pressure put on Russia and Russia come back to the table to get Ukraine to ease off.

Do you think diesel is dictating everything?

I think diesel is definitely dictating everything at this stage.

What are the consequences for markets if that's the case? You know, it's I think I would regret if we actually do some sort of export restriction. I think short term we might get some benefits. Longer term, just thinking this from a practical standpoint, right? The US is one of the best places to do business, right? We honor contracts. We do all these things. You start putting these artificial export constraints. We move down a notch.

We're probably still one of the best places to do business, but it's slightly different. I think it accelerates things. You I was waiting for uh when Amry was interviewing uh Ruda yesterday, he was talking to me Proac, right? is like we need to build refineries. I don't think you'll have much success, but everywhere across the globe has to realize we c

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。