萨默斯:特朗普怒喷鲍威尔只为甩锅,下一任美联储主席仍会选「主流派」

深潮Publicado a 2025-06-20Actualizado a 2025-06-20

美国前财长萨默斯指出,特朗普频繁抨击美联储主席鲍威尔拒绝降息,实则是为未来经济衰退预设「替罪羊」,试图将责任转嫁至美联储而非自身政策。

撰文:龙玥,华尔街见闻

当特朗普再次炮轰美联储主席鲍威尔没有降息时,美国前财长萨默斯却看穿了这场「政治表演」的意图——为潜在的经济衰退寻找替罪羊。

6 月 19 日,美国前财政部长 Lawrence Summers 在彭博新闻节目《华尔街一周》中表示,尽管特朗普持续抨击美联储主席鲍威尔今年未能降息,但他预计特朗普仍将任命一位「主流候选人」来接替鲍威尔。萨默斯认为,特朗普对美联储的批评更多是为了在经济可能出现衰退时转移责任,而非真正试图影响美联储政策。

降息呼声背后的政治算盘

对于特朗普反复要求美联储降息的做法,萨默斯给出了一个更加犀利的解读。

「他正在营造这样一种局面:如果我们遭遇衰退,他就能够将责任归咎于他的政府政策以外的其他因素,」萨默斯分析道。这种策略性的批评为特朗普在经济政策可能面临挑战时提供了政治掩护。

特朗普本周再次批评鲍威尔维持基准利率不变。华尔街见闻此前文章提及,特朗普再度喊话美联储,要求降息 2.5 个百分点。他频繁指出,「太晚先生」鲍威尔因不降息而令美国「损失数千亿美元」。

他甚至开玩笑说:「我可以任命自己担任美联储职务吗?我会比这些人做得好得多。」

「主流派」继任者:市场稳定考量胜过政治冲动

尽管特朗普口头上火力全开,但萨默斯对下一任美联储主席人选保持乐观。他认为,特朗普不会为了迎合政治基础而牺牲市场稳定。

萨默斯表示:「我会相当惊讶,如果他没有做出一个让两党公正观察者都认为合理的选择。」

萨默斯说道,「在这方面我比一些人更有信心。」他将这种信心归因于金融市场对相关消息的迅速反应。

鲍威尔的主席任期将于 2026 年 5 月到期。特朗普本月表示,美联储下任主席人选「很快就会公布」。此前,美国现任财长贝森特 (Scott Bessent) 曾在 4 月表示,面试鲍威尔继任者的时间表是「秋季某个时候」。贝森特本人以及前美联储理事凯文·沃什(Kevin Warsh)都被列为潜在候选人。

关税政策成供给冲击源头

萨默斯还特别关注了美联储周三公布的最新经济预测。他指出,尽管今年能源成本有所下降,人工智能的应用预示着生产率的提升,但新的美联储预测显示的是负面而非正面的供给冲击。

「美联储同时上调通胀和失业率预期的情况并不常见,」萨默斯指出,「所以你看到了供给冲击的到来。这是什么?是关税。我们正在给自己施加供给冲击,这导致了对更高通胀和更高失业率的预期——使美联储的工作变得更加困难。」

这一分析直指特朗普贸易政策的核心矛盾:一边通过关税推高通胀预期,一边又要求美联储降息刺激经济,实际上是在给美联储出难题。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbitHace 43 min(s)

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbitHace 43 min(s)

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbitHace 50 min(s)

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbitHace 50 min(s)

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight NewsHace 52 min(s)

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight NewsHace 52 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片