美联储「白话时代」将终结?鲍威尔周三最后一次登台

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-27Last updated on 2026-04-27

原文来源:金十数据

鲍威尔在当地时间周三(北京时间周四凌晨)将可能举行他作为美联储主席的最后一次正式新闻发布会——这或许将为他作为美联储最高官员定期与记者进行问答环节的时期画上句号。

投资者和经济观察人士都密切关注此类新闻发布会。支持美联储主席定期出现在媒体面前的人士认为,这使央行能够围绕其利率决策塑造叙事,并有助于市场消化美联储的政策。但一些批评人士,包括特朗普提名的美联储主席接替人选凯文·沃什(Kevin Warsh),认为美联储官员沟通过度。

沃什很可能在美联储 6 月中旬的下一次政策会议之前获得确认,他曾暗示自己可能会完全停止举行定期新闻发布会。

MacroPolicy Perspectives 总裁、美联储前高级官员朱莉娅·科罗纳多(Julia Coronado)表示,这正是鲍威尔周三最后一次站在讲台前「如此具有重大意义」的原因。

她补充道:「我预计鲍威尔会直接或间接地为透明度、为面向公众和记者并进行自我解释的价值进行辩护。」

延续十多年的定期新闻发布会

美联储官员每六周(即每年八次)召开会议以制定利率政策。前美联储主席本·伯南克(Ben Bernanke)于 2011 年首次开始在部分会议后举行新闻发布会,当时每年举行四次。

伯南克当时表示:「过去,央行运作的神秘感就在于不让任何人知道你在做什么。」

鲍威尔在 2019 年——上任不到一年时,开始在每次会议后举行新闻发布会。在宣布这一举措时,鲍威尔表示,他希望「用通俗易懂的语言总结经济状况」,因为货币政策影响着每一个人。他表示:

「我们认为,如果我们尽可能清楚地说明我们可能采取的行动及其原因,整体结果可能会更好。为此,我们试图传达我们对经济将如何演变以及我们的政策立场可能如何变化的预期。」

随着时间的推移,鲍威尔在回答记者提问时变得更加谨慎。

纽约梅隆投资公司首席经济学家文森特·莱因哈特(Vincent Reinhardt)在一封电子邮件中表示:

「即兴回答获得的关注度超出了他的预期或期望。随着时间的推移,他更加紧扣自己的报告材料。棱角被磨平了,减少了冲突点,同时也减少了信息含量。」

到 2024 年,哈佛大学经济学教授格雷格·曼昆(Greg Mankiw)表示,鲍威尔在讲台上的谨慎态度使得新闻发布会成了浪费时间。

曼昆在其博客上发文称:「当美联储主席回答记者提问时,他似乎在用尽可能多的词语传达尽可能少的信息。」他还补充道:「从美联储的角度来看,理想的新闻发布会应该没有新闻,主要是重复和陈词滥调。」

「召开新闻发布会,总得有一些重要消息要发布」

在上周向参议院银行委员会作证时,沃什暗示他可能会采纳曼昆的建议。

当来自亚利桑那州的民主党参议员鲁本·加列戈(Ruben Gallego)问及他是否会坚持举行八次新闻发布会时,沃什表示:

「当你召开新闻发布会时,总得有一些重要消息要发布。」

美联储在 1994 年初大幅加息令市场震惊并导致加利福尼亚州奥兰治县于当年年底破产后,开始走向透明度。那是当时美国历史上规模最大的市政破产案。

科罗纳多指出:「这种波动对经济毫无价值。」美联储认为「清楚地说明你在做什么以及为什么这么做」是更好的选择。

一些专家认为,尽管沃什批评问答环节,但他可能很难抗拒塑造公众对其领导下美联储认知的机会。德意志银行首席美国经济学家马特·卢泽蒂(Matt Luzzetti)表示,他怀疑沃什不会结束每次会议都举行新闻发布会的安排。

卢泽蒂在给客户的一份报告中表示:

「新闻发布会为他提供了一个强大且频繁的平台,使他能够在每次政策决定后立即将个人印记烙印在美联储的信息上,并塑造叙事。放弃这个舞台将是一个错失的机会。」

在本周的会议上,美联储几乎肯定不会对利率做出任何调整。随着与伊朗的战争持续,经济前景仍然非常不确定,而随着通胀目前飙升,今年晚些时候预期的降息似乎更加遥远了。

记者们很可能会追问鲍威尔,在他 5 月 15 日的主席任期结束后,他是否会继续留在美联储理事会。

美国检察官珍妮·皮罗(Jeanine Pirro)上周五宣布,她将结束对鲍威尔的刑事调查。Capital Alpha 公司董事总经理伊恩·卡茨(Ian Katz)表示,目前尚不清楚这一声明是否会影响鲍威尔留任美联储理事的决定。

鲍威尔可以继续担任理事,直至其任期于 2028 年 1 月结束。

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit7m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit7m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit24m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit24m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片