在高利率长期维持的背景下，投资者面临的机遇

这里是市场。

Is the markets.

我是克里斯·赫西。

I'm Chris Hussey.

今天是9月17日，星期四，我们在高盛交易大厅，邀请到了安舒尔·塞加尔，他是我们固定收益、外汇和大宗商品业务（FICC及股票业务）的全球联席主管。

And today is Thursday, September 17, and we're here in the Goldman Sachs Trading Floor with Anshul Sehgal, who is global co head of fixed income currencies and Commodities within our FICC and Equities business.

安舒尔，非常感谢你加入我们。

Anshul, thanks so much for joining us.

谢谢你邀请我，克里斯。

Thanks for having me, Chris.

好的。

Okay.

这是今年第三次在每次美联储会议后邀请你了。

This is the third time this year we've had you on after every Fed meeting.

一月份的时候也邀请过你。

Had you out in January.

四月份我们也请过你。

We had you in the April.

虽然不是每次美联储会议都请你来，但这次会议确实终于有了些动作。

It's not every Fed meeting, but this Fed meeting, we definitely got some action finally.

给我们讲讲吧。

Walk us through it.

你目前对市场反应怎么看？

What do you just make from the market reaction so far?

这次会议确实有实质内容。

It was a real meeting.

我们从主席沃尔特·埃斯普雷索那里了解到了一些关键信息。

We learned a few things, few key things from chairman, Walter Espresso.

第一，整个委员会一致同意今年加息两次。

Number one, the entirety of the committee coalesced around having two hikes this year.

其中一次是昨天加的，另一次可能在十月或十二月。

One of them we got yesterday and likely another one either in October or December.

起初，市场根据委员会成员之前的讲话，预期会出现更多的意见分歧。

Initially, the market had expected given what the committee members had said in their speeches that there would be more dispersion of opinion.

但事实并非如此。

That was not the case.

他们至少在今年的政策上达成了一致。

They all coalesced at least for this year.

我们了解到的第二点是，他们认为自己正在减少一些宽松政策。

The second thing we learned is that they believe they're removing a dose of accommodation.

并不是说他们正在转向紧缩政策。

It's not that they are moving to restrictive.

他们认为当前的联邦基金利率是宽松的，他们正在减少一些宽松政策。

They believe that the current Fed Fed funds rate is accommodative, and they are removing a dose of accommodation.

这一点他重复了三遍。

He said this three times.

这两点对市场来说都是新的信息。

Both of those were new pieces of information for the market.

从市场的角度来看，市场之所以对美联储的政策这么紧张，是因为市场认为美联储是根据上周的CPI数据，甚至最近几次的CPI数据来决定是否加息，而市场并不认为美联储应该这样制定政策。

In the market's telling, the reason the market's been so so so so frazzled about about Fed policy is it's because the market believes that the Fed was making a decision on whether to hike or not based on just the CPI print we got last week or even, say, the last couple of CPI prints, and that is not how the market basically expects the Fed to set policy.

而从美联储的角度来看，这是在追赶进度。

And the Fed's telling, it was catch up.

也就是说，他们已经有五年没有达到通胀目标了。

It was that they haven't missed their inflation target for five years.

就业方面的目标已经实现，所以他们需要赶紧行动。

The employment side of their target has been met, and therefore, they need to get a move on.

现在这两者之间的区别在于，在我看来，这次会议的变化与过去四年美联储的表态相比，过去四年一直在说，如果财政政策宽松，我们就需要收紧货币政策。

Now the the the the difference between these two is, like, you look at what changed this meeting in my mind compared to what we've heard from the Fed over the last four years is last four years has all been about if you're going to be running loose fiscal policy, we need to run tighter monetary policy.

但市场并不认为现在的情况是这样，因为尽管财政政策宽松，但财政支出并没有真正流向劳动力市场。

That is not what the market believes is happening right now because even though fiscal policy is loose, that fiscal expenditure is not really going to labor.

你看，基本赤字，也就是政府支出，跟2015年或2017年相比，基本持平，上下浮动大约0.5个百分点。

If you look at it, primary deficits, which is what the government spends, is tracking the same, give or take, half a percent rate that it was tracking in 2015 or 2017.

疫情之后真正变化的是美国政府的利息支出，也就是偿债成本。

What has changed on this side of the pandemic is interest expense or debt servicing costs for the US government.

但这并不会惠及劳动力。

But that does not accrue to labor.

这惠及的是资本。

That accrues to capital.

这惠及的是收入最高的那10%的人群。

That accrues to the top decile of wage earners.

而美联储在这种情况下加息，实际上意味着劳动支出会被削减。

And and for the Fed to hike into that essentially means that labor spending is getting curtailed.

所以这对美国经济的长期消费前景不利。

So that is not good for long term consumption prospects of The US economy.

因此，至少从市场的角度来看，关键在于，你或许能通过这一切更快地接近通胀目标，但那样也会抑制消费。

And therefore, what what what hangs in balance, at least in in in the market's telling, is you can you can you can get closer to your inflation target perhaps sooner by doing all of this, but that would also thwart consumption.

这就是美联储现在面临的难题吗？

Is that what the Fed is that what's in the crucible right now?

这就是当前争论的焦点吗？目前还不清楚正确的政策应该是什么。

Is that what the is in in that debate, it's it's unclear what the right policy will be.

通胀本身最多也就是个同步指标，很可能还是个滞后指标。

Inflation itself is at best a concurrent indicator, likely a backward looking indicator.

光凭那个数据就决定政策，再加上市场抛售，可能不太明智。

Deciding policy just based on that print again in the market selling might not might not be prudent.

所以这就是为什么市场昨天很紧张，股市下跌，今天又涨了，油价也在涨，市场要权衡的方面太多了。

So that that's the reason why markets were frazzled, equities were down yesterday, they're up today, there's oil prices going going up, like, of it is is just a lot it's many different dimensions that the market has to handicap.

好的。

Okay.

但如果我们相信美联储的表态，他们说要适应这种情况，那就意味着利率会在高位维持更久。

But if we take the Fed at face value and they're talking about being accommodated to accommodate it, that means rates are gonna be higher for longer.

接下来利率的路径会是什么？

What's the path from here for rates?

这个问题问得好。

That's a great question.

你知道，长期国债收益率已经在大约5%的水平交易了几个星期了。

So the long bond, as you know, has traded about 5% for a few weeks now.

这是长期债券二十多年来最高的收益率。

It's the highest yield the long bonds had in over two decades.

可以理解，宏观市场非常担心长期债券失控。

And and understandably, macro markets are quite worried about the long end being unhinged.

这不仅仅是美国的问题。

It's not just a US story.

这是全球性的问题。

It's a global story.

美国财政部正在通过回购来控制长期债券的收益率，诸如此类。

The US Treasury is doing buybacks to to rein in the yield of long bond, all of that.

这正是我们昨天从沃尔什主席那里了解到的。

That is what we again learned from chairman Walsh yesterday.

他对这个问题给出了明确的说明。

He gave clarity on this issue.

他认为自己不需要干预长期债券市场。

He does not believe that he has to police the long bond.

这应该由市场来决定。

It's for the market to do.

而且在我看来，美国财政部实施回购也有充分的理由。

There is also, in my view, a good reason for the US treasury to enact buybacks.

过去十年里，有几件事发生了变化。

A few things have changed over the last decade.

第一，人口结构。

Number one, demographics.

随着婴儿潮一代退休，他们对长期债券的需求不再像以前那么高，因为他们的养老金储蓄不再那么依赖这些。

As the boomers are retiring, the demand for the long bond's not as high from from their pension savings.

第二，现在有很多与人工智能相关的发行，而且都是长期限的。

Number two, you've got a lot of AI related issuance, which is all long dated.

这些因素加在一起，导致长期债券市场出现了拥挤效应。

And the combination of those things has led to a crowding effect in the long end.

那么，在所有这些其他情况都在发生的时候，美国财政部是否应该减少长期债券的发行呢？

So should the US Treasury reduce its long end issuance when all of this other stuff is going on?

这有一定道理。

It makes some sense to it.

但这样做是不是明确为了压制长端收益率呢？

Should it be done to expressly with the intent of reigning in the long long end?

倒也不完全是。

Not so much.

在行为金融学里，我们有个词叫“跟风效应”，就是说没人愿意错过赢的那一方，大家都想挤上那辆正在赢的马车。

In markets behavioral finance, we use the term bandwagon effects that nobody wants everyone wants to be on the bandwagon that's winning.

所以，如果大家都担心赤字或者长端失控，那市场参与者就不太愿意去持有长端债券了。

And therefore, if everyone is worried about deficits or or or the long end being unhinged, that sort of reduces the the willingness of market participants to basically warehouse the long end.

表面上，这主要是因为债务占GDP的比重飙升，大家真的很担心美国。

Ostensibly, this is all because of debt to GDP basically blowing out people are really worried about The U.

的

S.

长期债务可持续性。

Debt sustainability in the long run.

对我来说，那是个烟雾弹。

I I for me, that's a red herring.

现在是十月。

It's October.

新的财政年度开始了。

It's the new fiscal year.

每个财政年度开始的时候，我们都会听到美国要……

We hear this every the start of every fiscal year that that The U.

……

S.

……把债务占GDP的比例扩大6%到7%，这就是赤字支出的规模。

Is going to be expanding its debt to GDP ratio by six to 7%, which is the amount of deficit spending that goes on.

但过去四年并不是这样，因为实际情况是，美国在年初时计划增加6%到7%的支出。

But that's not what's transpired over the last four years because what happens is that The US at the beginning of the year, year mark six to 7% of additional spending.

到年底，如果GDP也增长6%，就像过去四年那样，名义GDP每年增长约6%。

By the end of the year, if GDP grows by 6% as well, which is what has happened, nominal GDP has grown by about 6% over the last four years.

债务占GDP的比例其实变化不大。

Debt to GDP doesn't move that much.

过去四年里，债务占GDP的比例每年只恶化了一个到一点五个百分点。

In each of the last four years, debt to GDP has worsened by one to one and a half percent instead.

所以我觉得从长远来看，可持续性问题其实没那么可信。

So I don't think the sustainability issue is really that credible in the long run.

短期内，真正推动这个说法的是可持续性这个话题。

In the near term, what's driving it, the rhetoric is is is sustainability.

它的实际影响就是跟风效应。

The effect the way it plays out is the bandwagon effect.

比如，二战后美国的债务占GDP比例超过200%。

Like, The US had over 200% debt to GDP after World War two.

接下来的二十年里，这个比例降到了60%，而且没有实行紧缩政策，主要是因为经济增长消化了债务。

In the ensuing twenty years, that came down to 60% debt to GDP with no austerity, largely because the economy grew its way out of it.

所以，什么是内生的，什么是外生的？GDP会不会只是内生效应呢？

So what's endogenous and what is exogenous is GDP could it could it be that GDP is just an endogenous effect?

比如，当美国政府财政扩张更多时，内生地，GDP会上升，因此债务与GDP之比更可持续。

Like, when The US Government fiscally expands more, endod endogenously GDP goes up, and therefore debt to GDP is more sustainable.

这是可能的。

It's possible.

我们必须对此持开放态度。

One has to be open to that.

这就是我们在疫情后的过去五年里所看到的。

That's what we've witnessed in the last five years on this side of the pandemic.

但这并不一定意味着未来也会如此。

That doesn't necessarily mean that's how it'll play out in the future.

美国一直有3%的基本赤字。

The US has run a 3% primary deficit.

我们是否应该那么担心利息支出占3%？

Should we be that worried about interest expense being 3%?

VOCA的利息支出要高得多。

VOCA had much higher interest expense.

好的。

Alright.

你是个身材不错的人，但你也了解每个市场，我很喜欢你对股票的看法。

So you're a fit guy, but you're also you know, every market there is, and I love your view on stocks.

我们来谈谈你对股票的看法吧。

Let's go to your view on stocks here.

这一切对股票、信贷等所有资产意味着什么？

What does all this mean for equities, credit, everything?

我觉得

Think

长期借贷成本得到控制，对股市整体来说是个利好。

long term borrowing costs being in check is a net positive for the equity complex here.

与一年前相比，现在的情况是股市的杠杆更高了。

What's changed from, say, a year ago to now is that the equity complex is more levered.

在我看来，过去几年经济的主要变化是，多余的利息支出流向了储蓄者。

Largely as I view it, the way the economy has gone on is that is that over the last few years, the excess interest expense went to the savers.

这些储蓄者随后把那些财富借给了超大规模云服务商、新型云服务商，或者你选定的任何行业，基本上就是向经济的那部分提供了信贷。

Those savers then lent that that wealth to whether it's a hyperscaler or a neo cloud or pick your pick your sector, essentially then extended credit to that part of the economy.

所以目前来看，整个国内股市的杠杆率更高了。

So as of now, the overall domestic equity market is more levered.

但话虽如此，也有可能出现一种通用技术，彻底改变我们做的一切，这让预测宏观市场如何运作变得更加困难。

But that said, there is also the potential for for for a general purpose technology that's going to revolutionize everything we do, which makes handicapping exactly how macro markets work that much more difficult.

现在的系统杠杆率更高了。

It's a more levered system today.

我们仍然非常看好股市，尤其是股市的某些部分。

We're still very positive on equity, certainly certain parts of the equity market.

我觉得长期计算在这里非常合理。

I think long compute just makes a lot of sense to me here.

但这是否意味着整个股市应该表现很好呢？

But does that mean that the broader equity complex should do very well?

这就不太清楚了，尤其是如果更紧缩的货币政策未来会导致消费减少的话。

It's less clear, especially if tighter monetary policy is going to lead to less consumption down the road.

好的，安舒尔。

Alright, Anshul.

我们来总结一下。

Let's put a bow on it.

交易是什么？

What's the trade?

对我来说，就是做多算力、做多新型云、做多数据中心。

To me, it's being long compute, being long neo clouds, being long data centers.

我们接到很多客户电话，他们基本上想买长期债券，收益率超过5%的无风险收益。

We get a lot of calls from clients who want to basically buy the long bond north of 5% risk free yield.

看起来挺有吸引力的。

It looks pretty attractive.

但对我来说，我看不到那里的不对称性。

To me, I'm not seeing the asymmetry there.

我个人认为，不对称的表达是做多算力。

Personally, I think the asymmetric expression is being long compute.

当然，这些都是杠杆更高的投资方式。

These are more levered expressions, of course.

但与此同时，我们认为它们可以成倍上涨，而如果你做多长期债券，尤其是没有加杠杆的话，即使你看对了，能赚到的也远没有那么多。

But at the same time, we think that they can go up multiplicatively, whereas if you're long long bond, especially if you're not doing it on leverage, the amount you can make on that, even if you're right, isn't nearly as much.

我们并不预期长期利率会降到3%。

We're not expecting long end rates to go down to 3%.

我们认为名义增长率应该会超过5%，而利率通常比这个水平低50到100个基点。

We think that that nominal growth should be north of 5%, and rates have generally hovered about 50 to a 100 points lower than that.

所以长期利率可能会降到4.25%左右，但我们不会预期从那里有更大的反弹。

So the long one can go to, like, four and a quarter percent, but we wouldn't expect more of a rally from there.

说得真好。

Such a good point.

好的。

Alright.

发生了这么多事。

So much taking place.

接下来几周，你最关注市场的哪些方面？

What are you watching most carefully for markets in the couple of weeks ahead?

我觉得要评估战争的影响，因为退一步看，我们从全球央行那里学到的是，尤其是在美联储，关税、燃料成本、能源成本上涨，即使不考虑战争，这些因素加在一起，他们也难以消化由此产生的通胀。

I think handicapping the war because if you if you take a step back, what we've learned from global central banks is that between, certainly, the Fed, between tariffs, fuel costs, energy costs going up even away from the war, the combination of those things, they're not able to underwrite the inflation that that that that comes out of it.

所以，评估中东冲突的结果是决定货币政策、股市和债市走向的头号因素。

So handicapping what comes out of the Middle Eastern conflict is the number one thing that'll dictate the course of monetary policy and and equity markets and fixed income markets.

安舒尔·塞加尔，每次你上节目，都带来满满的知识。

Anshul Sehgal, you're a torrent of knowledge every time we have you on.

谢谢你的邀请。

Thank you for having me.

非常感谢。

Thanks so much.

本周的《市场》节目就到这里。

That does it for this week's episode of The Markets.

我是克里斯·赫西。

I'm Chris Hussey.

感谢您的参与。

Thanks for joining us.

此处表达的观点和意见截至发布日期，如有变更，恕不另行通知，可能不一定反映高盛或其关联机构的机构观点。

The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication subject to change without notice and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates.

所提供材料仅供参考，不构成投资建议、高盛任何实体建议采取任何特定行动的推荐，也不构成购买或出售任何证券或金融产品的要约或招揽。

The material provided is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products.

本材料可能包含前瞻性陈述。

This material may contain forward looking statements.

过往表现并不预示未来结果。

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

高盛及其关联机构均不对本材料中陈述或信息的准确性或完整性作任何明示或暗示的陈述或保证，并且不对因依赖此类信息而造成的任何损失承担责任。

Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warrantees expressed or implied as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose.

所提及的第三方组织名称均为其各自公司的财产，此处仅用于信息和识别目的，不暗示这些公司与高盛之间存在任何所有权或许可关系。

Each name of a third party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs.

提供文字记录仅为方便起见，可能与原始视频或音频内容有所不同。

A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content.

高盛对转录中的任何错误概不负责。

Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript.

未经高盛明确书面同意，任何接收方不得复制、分发、出版或转载本材料的全部或部分内容，也不得向任何其他人披露。

This material should not be copied, distributed, published or reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs.

版权所有 2026，高盛。

Copyright 2026, Goldman Sachs.

保留所有权利。

All rights reserved.