市场回调与去杠杆：动能交易的脆弱性
上周市场迎来了一场如同“夜间盗贼”般的突发性回调。在过去几周，市场走势几乎呈垂直上涨，这种上涨完全是由杠杆和动能驱动的，而非基于公司基本面盈利。在过去，投资者通过融资买入股票来加杠杆，但如今的杠杆主要集中在看涨期权（Call Options: 一种赋予持有者在特定日期前以特定价格购买资产权利的金融衍生品）上，特别是美光等芯片板块的期权交易尤为拥挤。当市场高度杠杆化时，其结构必然变得异常脆弱。一旦价格出现微小回调，部分获利盘选择平仓去杠杆，就会引发连锁反应式的踩踏事件（Cascading Effect），导致价格全线暴跌。这种典型的羊群效应正是我们目前看到的市场生态。
Original English Source
Hello my friends. Today is June 6 and this is Markets Weekly. All right, so last week we were telling everyone about how boring the markets had become. I was warning you that the correction will come like a thief in the night. And on Friday, voila, very exciting day. We had a V event. So today, first let's talk about what's happening in the markets as well as a bit on the labor data front. And secondly, we have to talk about project 2025 because reporting suggests that Kevin is stepping up and he hired the author of the Fed chapter of Project 2025 as one of his advisers. So I think that's going to shed light on what a Kevin Fed would mean. All right, starting with the markets. So if you look back at the markets the past few weeks, it's basically gone straight up, right? Basically, like we've been talking about, it's all leverage and momentum, right? None of this bizarre earnings whatever markets are just leverage and momentum. In the past, people would just lever up by buying stock on margin and that could you know push up the markets. But today leverage is exposed through call options. And when you're looking at single stop call options, you can see very clearly whether it be through implied VA, whether it be through call or something like that, uh that the market a lot of people were just loaded up on calls, especially in the chip stocks like Micron and that was basically pushing everything up. But when you are highly levered, of course, the market becomes fragile because once you have a small decline in prices, you know, maybe someone decides to, you know, I've made enough money, I'm going to delever. I'm going to takes take some profits and that leads the price to drop even more. And so you can easily have a cascading effect where you have uh basically a huge deleveraging event where prices kind of all drop suddenly, right? It's herdlike behavior stuff that we see all the time.韩国股市异动：杠杆踩踏的催化剂
在建立这种心理防线后，我们需要关注触发去杠杆周期的具体催化剂。第一个催化剂是韩国KOSPI指数暴跌5%。韩国股市今年在三星（Samsung）和SK海力士两家存储芯片巨头的带动下几乎翻倍。这些公司是全球AI算力热潮的直接受益者，其动态随机存取存储器（RAM）价格飙升带来了巨额利润。韩国投资者本身具有极高的风险偏好，大量散户通过高杠杆追逐动能资产，甚至大举跨国投资美股的动能股和仙股。因此，当KOSPI指数暴跌时，它不仅直接冲击了市场情绪，更迫使那些在美股持有杠杆头寸的韩国投资者遭遇追加保证金通知（Margin Call: 券商要求投资者补充资金以维持杠杆头寸的警告），进而引发了跨市场连环爆仓与去杠杆抛售。
Original English Source
So that was the state of the market. It was in a fragile situation. All it needed was a catalyst. And we got a couple catalysts last week that seemed to be able to tip the market into more of a deleveraging cycle. So first off, of course, was the 5% drop in the Cosby index. The Cosby index is the Korean stock market. And if you look at the Korean stock market, it's basically gone vertical, right? It's basically doubled uh this year. So the Korean stock market has largely been driven by two memory chip stocks. Samsung and Highex, these guys have been benefiting from the huge AI boom. As the hyperscalers build out their data centers, they're needing to buy a lot of RAM. RAM is largely produced in just a few companies. And these Korean companies have are one of the big producers in RAM. And as demand exceeded supply, they have been able to raise prices. So the flip side of huge inflation in RAM is huge profits by these two Korean companies. And that huge surge in profits has been basically making their stocks go parabolic driving up a hu whole Cosby index go parabolic as well. Now one thing about Koreans is that they they really like to invest in the stock market. They have a very high risk appetite. So you see many reports of people in Korea basically taking out huge loans to go and just you know lever up and chase the momentum. Um this is something that you actually see uh in the US as well where you have a lot of Korean investors who actually come and invest in the US stock market chasing momentum as well. So um actually there's public data from the Korean security depository where you can actually see some of the largest overseas stock holdings from Korean investors. I looked at this a few months ago. It was basically all basically garbage basically penny stocks and huge momentum stocks stuff like that. So it's very much in the investor culture there. So you had kind of a crack in that uh in the call speed down 5% and that obviously is going to reverberate into the memory stocks the AI trade in the US uh both through just outright sentiment but but also as maybe some investors in Korea have to deliver um their US position. So that's one crack that one little uh crack in the momentum.劳动力市场回暖与利率重估
除了跨国杠杆爆仓，第二个打压风险资产的宏观力量是超预期的美国劳动力数据。上周的JOLTS数据（职位空缺和劳动力流动调查）显示职位空缺大幅激增；随后的非农就业报告（Non-farm Payrolls）更是呈现爆发式增长，新增近20万个工作岗位。从趋势上看，就业市场的移动平均线正在稳步向上，涵盖了地方政府等广泛领域。尽管失业率维持在4.3%并伴随着工资增长停滞的谜团，但整体数据已经足以打破市场的降息预期。当劳动力市场展现韧性时，美联储（Federal Reserve）就失去了为“拯救就业”而降息的理由；而在通胀预期依旧高于4%的背景下，市场不得不重新定价美联储的加息可能。前端利率的迅速上行直接对纳斯达克100指数（NASDAQ 100）等高估值风险资产造成了沉重打击。
Original English Source
The other m momentum crack came with the labor data. So for context, we had our first labor data earlier in the week, the jolts data. Jolts shows the amount of job openings in the US and we showed a huge surge in job openings in the US. So that suggests that the labor market is improving because demand for labor is increasing as there's more job postings. Now the real big job Oh, we also had ADP data that suggested the job the jobs situation is improving. But of course, the gold standard is the non-farmms payrolls print. And on Friday, it was a blowout print full stop. We created almost 200,000 jobs. So that was much higher uh than the market had anticipated. And if you zoom out and you look at the trend, you can see that it looks like the moving average of jobs created is really turning a corner. Whereas the US last year, it seems like we're not creating jobs. It seems like we're losing jobs. Right now, it seems like the moving average is solidly ticking upwards. And so it does seem like more jobs are being created. And not just jobs in say um you know, healthcare, but it seems like we have jobs in uh local government and and stuff like that. So it it seems like the job market is improving. Uh when you look at other details in the jobs report, you can see that um you know we had revisions from last month revised higher. So that's good. An interesting thing is that the unemployment rate remains at 4.3%. So at the end of the day um it's kind of a puzzle because everyone was talking about the unemployment rate staying at 4.3% when we were losing jobs. The theory at the time was that the break even job rate is very low. But now that we have a jump in jobs created, it's still 4.3%. So that's kind of a mystery. One possibility is that it's just, you know, lagging. And so as the US economy continues to create more jobs, maybe the unemployment rate will go lower. However, though, wages still wage growth really hasn't changed as well. So uh that that does not that argues for a labor market that's not quite improving, right? So if you have an improving labor market, you would expect the unemployment rate to go lower and as labor becomes scarce, you'd expect wages to go up as well. We're not seeing that now. So it's still very much a wait and see event, but at the moment it does seem like the US labor market uh is stabilizing and improving. Now that really had a big reaction in the rates market. you immediately have uh basically the entire rates complex shift up particularly in the front end as the market began to price in Fed hikes. So if you think the labor market is okay that means the Fed doesn't have to cut uh to save the labor market. There's nothing to save. And yet if you look at inflation know it looks like we're going to head to inflation that's going to be above 4% in the coming months depending on what happens with the rate of fam moves. So obviously the Fed has an inflation problem. labor market is okay. So the Fed will probably have to hike. So the market fully prices in one hike this year and you know a good chance of another hike next year as well. So with the market pricing that in of course the entire curve had to shift upwards and if you have the curve shifting upwards that's another knock on risk assets right so risk assets equities don't like higher interest rates would prefer interest rates to stay low. So that both that hiccup from Korea, both the strong labor print and the fragile positioning of the market uh seems to have set off a big deleveraging event. So spot gamma has a really good chart about this showing you how basically the day before everyone was super long calls and on Friday they basically had to puke that out. So this was most the the decline in markets was most obvious in the NASDAQ which was of course the most stretched markets. You can see very discrete decline in the NASDAQ 100.流动性供需反转：企业增发与高估值对冲
在消化了短期数据冲击后，我们需要警惕一个更深层的中期结构性利空——流动性供给的被动膨胀。尽管从移动平均线等指标来看，整体上涨趋势依然完好，但股票供给的大幅增加正在抽离市场资金。首先，SpaceX正在为其员工开放约750亿美元的股票抛售窗口；其次，谷歌（Google）和Meta（Facebook）等科技巨头近期开始在市场上通过ATM增发（At-the-Market Offering: 公司按市场价格直接向二级市场抛售新股的融资方式）筹集资金。在估值狂热期，公司管理层通过增发股票来套现并获取AI投资资金是极其理性的操作（正如GameStop此前的自救操作）。与此同时，科技巨头因将大量资金投入AI基础设施，抵消员工期权稀释的股票回购规模正在不可逆地减少。这种不断增加的股权供给（Equity Supply）将在未来几个月像慢动作一样持续压制资产价格的上涨空间。
Original English Source
Now that being said, if you look at just basic momentum analysis, basic moving averages and things like that, you can see the market continues to be very much in an upwards trend. So it's really hard to look at this and interpret anything bearish. it seems like we're just kind of having a correction as as we should since we've gone straight up. So, um whereas I believe that we are in a bubble and that we will eventually have a bare market that grinds lower slowly and that many people will lose a lot of money. Uh I actually my expectation is that next week all the um dip buyers will come in, the V sellers will come in and and I think we'd probably go back up. Now one caveat to that is that um it may not fully be delivered. So one thing that I noticed that after market closed so we is that we had another wave of selling the futures. That's classic sign of margin call. So there were a lot of people who were totally caught off guard and who had to be liquidated. So 5% decline in the NASDAQ futures is significant and it's very highly unlikely that if you are a you know livered momo chaser that you would have survived that. Now there's a concern and I share this is that this happened when Korea and other Asian markets were closed. So when those markets reopen on Monday morning, so Sunday evening US time, uh they may have some liquidations to do as well. If you are an investor over there with levered positions in the US, you would have woken up and you would have gotten margin called, you would have gotten liquidated and you may have to sell some stocks that you hold uh in your own market to kind of cover that. So you could have maybe another 5 to 10% down day in the Cosby and that could potentially kick off more delivering in the US indexes. So it's possible that the delivering cycle is is not over. But again, zooming out, it it's it seems like um the trend is still solidly upwards. Now the damage we saw in the equity market did reverberate in many other markets as well. We saw huge declines in gold and silver and also Bitcoin as well. So what people think of as the, you know, hard money or whatnot trades, those really got wrecked bigly. And gold in particular lost the 200 day moving average which is what a moving average that it's kept for for a long time and that many people perceive to be kind of an important trigger as to whether or not we are still in an upwards trend. So once you lose that you trigger a lot of more selling because people who are trend followers they see that and they have to adjust now. So it's a it's a violent move that probably is uh not over yet. So yeah, I think this is a pretty exciting day but not at all unexpected. Now one of the things that I thought was interesting is that just as we know that we have a big increase in equity supply coming forward with the SpaceX IPO that's now priced I believe it's like 1.7 trillion market cap again that's not all coming online at one time. They're only selling 75 billion but it that is 75 billion of supply. Uh what will happen is that over the coming months people who are employees of SpaceX who already have SpaceX stock uh they will there they will be able to sell the stock there's a period where they are not able to sell it but after you IPO uh there's the period there's an unlock period in the coming months where they are able to sell it and I think that's going to depend on their contract and stuff like that. uh but they're they're going to be able to monetize SpaceX stock that they've had for for many years. And so that's where you can have gradual selling. Now on top of that, we also had last week Google filing suddenly out of the blue that they were going to raise capital in the markets by selling equity. Some of it went to Berkshire Hathaway through a private placement and they got a discount on that. Maybe if you buy I think 10 billion maybe you get a bulk discount. uh but uh half of that is going to be through an at the market offering. So starting I think next month they'll be selling stock outright. So you have this basic mechanism where your stock is expensive or you think it's expensive. And so the balancing mechanism is that you'll sell more right? If you are an investor, maybe you try to short sell. But if you are the company itself, well, you just sell swap to, you know, willing investors at market prices and they give you cash and you give them stock and you get to go and build more AI stuff. Now, there was a podcast with Golden CEO David Solomon on OddLots last week suggesting that he thinks that other companies will also do that. And on Friday, we also had news that Facebook is also going to be maybe having an equity offering. So a natural counterbalance to very hot elevated frothy markets is the companies coming and selling stock. We saw this in GameStop as well when you know a bunch of DGENs were driving games stock to the moon. GameStop began to sell stock and raise cash. Very smart move by their CEO CFO and it looks like that's happening as well. So you have this equity supply that that's going to weigh on markets in the coming months, right? It's not going to happen immediately. It's going to be something gradually. Also note that um normally if you're a big tech company, you give shares to your employees as part of the compensation. Now that should be diluting your shares, but what also happens is that you have buybacks to offset that dilution. So as companies spend more money on AI, they're not really doing as many buybacks as they used to. And so that dilutive effect is going to be stronger. So again, you have more equity supply going forward in the coming months and that's going to continue to weigh on markets in the let's say in the coming months uh not immediately. So something to keep in mind. All right. So um exciting day on Friday. think Monday will probably be exciting, but uh again the buy the dip, the risk mentality, the V sellers, these guys, they're they're powerful. And of course, we're heading into June OPEX and and usually as we head into this window, um you have some degree of V compression as well.Project 2025与美联储政策重构
除了二级市场的资金面博弈，更长远的宏观悬念来自政治对货币政策的渗透。近期有报道指出，作为下届政府的关键过渡人物，美联储前官员Kevin正在组建自己的班底，并将**《Project 2025》**中美联储章节的作者招致麾下。这份报告展现了极强的“削权”和“回归传统”倾向。它不仅探讨了回归金本位或自由银行制度等激进理念，更具破坏力的是它主张废除美联储当前的双重使命（Dual Mandate: 同时维持价格稳定与充分就业），全面回归单一的“抗通胀”目标。目前拥有双重使命的美联储几乎握有一张空白支票：既可以借通胀之名加息，也可以拿就业做借口降息，甚至通过发明自然失业率等“魔法指标”来为宽松政策辩护。如果被剥夺就业使命，美联储的操作空间将被大幅压缩，货币政策将更趋于鹰派——按照4%的通胀率计算，单一目标制下的政策利率只会比现在更高。
Original English Source
All right, so the second thing that we have to talk about is project 2025. When I talk about project 2025, you know, that was kind of the game plan for the Trump election campaign for Trump version two. And at the time he was like, I have no idea what this project 2025 is. I don't know. But as it turns out, we've seen that over the past year, a lot of the authors of the project 25 2025 um I guess think piece actually were hired into pretty senior administration jobs. And it looks like one more author is being hired this time into the Fed. You have Nick at the Wall Street Journal with a scoop that Kevin is staffing up and he's hiring advisers. and one of them is uh Paul who wrote the project 2025 chapter of the Federal Reserve. So that's I think that's helpful in giving us an idea as to his vision of what the Fed will be. So the chapter isn't very long. It was very concise and I would split it into uh two portions. One portion is that stuff that's more philosophical, more about stuff that Congress would need to do. So it's more about how his approach to what the Fed is and should be and not actually actionable and stuff and the other part is stuff that the Fed actually can do itself and that is more actionable and more directly related to what could impact markets. So, broadly speaking, just looking at his philosophy is that he thinks the Fed is not good and he thinks it's not good and he would like the Fed to be smaller and a smaller Fed he feels like would be better and that kind of goes to more of his philosophy and more of his role of what the Fed would be in um in the economy. So some some of his suggestions that could only be implemented by Congress. Uh some of them are kind of silly as like go back to a commodity standard like the gold standard that guys that's never going to happen. I go back to free banking where banks issue their their own their own money but they they create money now but kind of like JP Morgan issuing JP Morgan deposits so they can kind of compete with other banks uh so that um this market mechanism will make sure that private banks um are more are better managed that's not going to happen either and more of a interesting and something that I think has a little bit more political support and that is the removal of the dual mandate to just the single inflation mandate. So once upon a time the Fed was basically just a lender of last resort in the 1970s as we had significant macroeconomic instability, high inflation, high unemployment and also at that time we also went off the gold standard. The Fed was given more of a macroeconomic mandate, full employment, price stability and moderate long-term interest rates. So he doesn't like all that stuff. he would like the Fed to just have one mandate and maybe have Congress work on the other stuff, right? Like uh employment and things like that. And this is something that I think makes total sense. So when you have the Fed with two mandates, you're basically giving the Fed a blank check because you can basically do anything if you have two mandates. You can always hike interest rates and point to inflation, whether real or projected or imagined. And you can always cut interest rates pointing at unemployment being too high and just coming up with some, you know, hocus pocus measure of what you think the uh natural rate of unemployment is. So you give a lot of discretion to a central bank when you have two mandates. And at the end of the day, it the Fed really can't really accomplish any of its mandates anyway, right? Inflation, unemployment, these are very complicated macroeconomic problems that depend on things like trade policy, like demographics, tax policy, fiscal spending, and all that. So honestly, the Fed is is even on the price stability sense, it's it's never going to be able to accomplish it itself because interest rates are only one factor among many that determine economic activity. So this is something that I think from my understanding on Congress, there's also some support with just having the Fed become a single mandate central bank and that would make their role more tailored, less power, and maybe they might be able to be more focused on inflation. inflation would be lower, right? If we had a single mandate central bank, I think in we would probably have higher rates right now since inflation is um you know 4%. But that's a question for Congress and it's not really about uh what Kevin or his staff can do.美联储内部博弈与可执行政策工具
在脱离国会立法的范畴下，新团队还提出了四项美联储委员会无需立法即可强制推行的政策建议，这些措施将深刻改变金融系统的流动性结构：第一，持续推动更深度的资产负债表收缩；第二，构建仅包含美国国债的资产负债表，逐步剥离抵押贷款支持证券（MBS），以防美联储继续在房地产市场制造流动性泡沫；第三，收紧贴现窗口（Discount Window）的使用门槛，拒绝对行为不端的银行提供隐性补贴；第四，这也是最具颠覆性的一项——呼吁结束对超额准备金支付利息（IOER: Interest on Excess Reserves）。由于量化宽松的遗留问题，美联储目前每年向拥有三万亿美元准备金的银行系统支付上千亿美元的无风险利息。一旦取消IOER或实行分层零利率体系，将剥夺银行业巨大的无风险套利利润，并彻底改变现有的隔夜利率走廊控制机制。这些激进的改革如果借助日益强烈的政治洗牌在美联储内部落地，将重塑整个金融圈的定价锚点。
Original English Source
But what Kevin and his staff can do though are four other recommendations that were in this chapter. So the first I'll just list them and we'll talk about them. First of course is smaller balance sheet which we all know is kind of uh Kevin's thing. The second is have a treasury only balance sheet which actually I think is a consensus position on the FOMC. So this will happen. Um third is um having a Fed that so less giving so having discount window policy that's more strict. So basically they don't want to be seen as kind of subsidizing the bad behavior of banks. They want activity access to the discount window to be a lot more limited. And lastly and this is more interesting is that they want the end of interest on excess reserves. So no IR for the banking system. So these are things that are actually fully within the power of the Fed board and don't need any agreement with Congress. So these are things that they could accomplish if they have um I guess if they have enough political support. And we know that uh the president is still trying to take control of the Fed board. There's ongoing lawsuits against Lisa Cook. An interesting development last week is that director PY of FHFA, the person who somehow obtained the mortgage documents of Lisa Cook and created this whole lawsuit, he's uh promoted to director of national intelligence where I imagine he will have access to a lot more documents. So, I guess they're going to be looking at their third grade report cards and all that for everyone on the Fed to make sure that nothing nothing ever ever sketchy has ever happened. though I'm guessing that we're going to see more efforts to control the Fed from um director py in any case um starting with having a smaller balance sheet that's something that the Fed can do but I at the moment I don't believe they have enough support to do it I think uh forever for example uh Waller is is not supportive of this we have Governor Bowman seems like she's okay with it but at the moment it's not something that they they have enough support to do and even if they did um I think even Kmart from Secretary Basson suggests that this is something that they'll do slowly so it's not something that's going to happen immediately. Having a treasury only balance sheet though is something that they can do pretty steadily. Now their rationale for this is that having the Fed active in the mortgage markets distorts the markets and also contributed this huge huge surge in home prices in 2021 which is totally true. So they don't want the Fed to be in there blowing bubbles in the housing market. And I think that's consensus position. The question on the Fed right now is how to get to a Treasury only portfolio. Are you going to sell mortgages or are you just going to have your reinvestment policy gradually reinvest maturing mortgages into treasuries? That's going to be a 30-year process. So that's something that they'll continue to debate in the coming meetings. Um having a more strict lender of last resort function. So less access to discount window. That's kind of stupid because honestly in the modern banking system basically no one uses a discount window anyway. I think that was pretty frequent u or at least much more active in the early days of the Fed but it's basically a non-issue today. So I don't even understand why we talk about it. Um the last issue the end of IR that's very interesting. Now I so some people look at this as just basically a huge giveaway to banks right if you have three trillion in reserves and you have IR and I'll say say at 4% you're giving like over hundred billion dollars to banks just in interest income every year right that's basically free money to the banking sector it's a subsidy and it was intended to be a subsidy after the great financial crisis banks were very weak under capitalized in poor condition so the Fed you know wanted to support them a little bit and also as the Fed has a large balance sheet part of their rate control mechanism is to give uh is through IR. Now if you wanted to end IR today it is totally doable. You'd have to change how you implement a monetary policy. Maybe you could have a tiering mechanism like what they do in other or other jurisdictions. Maybe you pay zero interest on the bulk of reserves but pay a little bit of interest on some reserves and that could maintain your ability to control overnight interest rates. So that is definitely something that the Fed can do. Um I don't think so this couldn't come in tandem with a smaller Fed balance sheet. It doesn't have to. Uh with a clever design, they could definitely achieve this. I don't actually think there's going to be much um push back from other people on the on the board of governors to this idea. I'm just not sure if they have people that honestly have the capability of implementing it. But but this is probably among everything else one of the more immediate potential deliverables that they could do. Uh let's see if he actually talks about it in his coming meeting. Remember the first uh meeting where Kevin will chair is coming in a couple weeks. Uh there is some suggestion that Kevin might want to change the communication structure of the Fed such that maybe we won't have a DOP plot anymore or maybe have fewer Fed conferences. So we'll find out more in a couple weeks. All right, so that's all I prepared for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. Talk to you guys next week.📌 文中提及的人物和组织
公司/组织: Federal Reserve, Samsung, SpaceX, Google, Meta
媒体/书籍: Project 2025