Blog

TEST 20260122 Mamie

test

表格測試

為什麼 CPI 對經濟很重要？用途與影響 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%，那便當可能漲到 利率決策 考量指數變化 考量通膨目標 升息 若核心 CPI 持續上升，央行可能提高利率以應對通膨壓力 若核心 CPI 超過目標，央行可能會升息以抑制通膨 降息 若核心 CPI 增長緩慢或下降，央行可能降息以刺激經濟增長 若核心 CPI 低於目標，央行可能降息以刺激經濟增長 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%。 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%，那便當可能漲到 84 元，我們的購買力也因此下降了。 追蹤更多總經指標追蹤更多總經指標 追蹤更多總經指標 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%，那便當可能漲到 84 元，我們的購買力也因此下降了。 追蹤更多總經指標追蹤更多總經指標 追蹤更多總經指標 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%，那便當可能漲到 84 元，我們的購買力也因此下降了。 Read More at Datatrack 消費者物價指數（CPI）反映物價變化，最直接影響每個人的「購買力」，當 CPI 上升時，代表物價上漲，相同的金額能買到的東西變少，假設去年一個便當 80 元，今年的 CPI 增加 5%，那便當可能漲到

美國應屆畢業生與所有大學生失業率差距達1990年代新高

紐約聯邦儲備銀行在近期公布的數據顯示，9月份應屆畢業大學生的失業率與擁有大學學位的失業率的差距擴大至2.8%，而這個數字是自1990年代以來的歷史高點（撇除疫情期間），同時也暗示著這些應屆畢業生正持續面臨著求職的寒冬。 (應屆畢業生和所有大學畢業生的失業率差距來到自1990年以來新高。 來源: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, TrendForce)   自今年年中以來，市場開始意識到美國的就業市場可能準備從放緩轉向惡化。其中，最引人注目的就是失業率在6月時攀升至近3年高點，並且已快觸發預示著經濟衰退的「薩姆法則」。 (可以用於預測經濟衰退的薩姆法則已快被觸發。 來源: Fred, TrendForce)   此外，自2022年中以來，職位的空缺率不斷下滑，使「貝弗里奇曲線」的斜率逐漸轉向平坦，也讓市場擔憂未來是否開始要出現空缺率下降減慢，但失業率卻不斷飆升的現象。 (貝弗里奇曲線已快要走向平坦階段。 Source: BLS, TrendForce)   而這次應屆畢業生難以找到工作的現象可能主要還是反映出企業對於初階人才的需求已大量減少。在疫情結束的初期，由於市場需求的快速釋放，使當時的企業需要透過大量的徵才以應對激增的需求。但隨著聯準會在近幾年透過大量的升息來抑止通膨，企業開始面臨收入成長放緩以及支出增加的困境，迫使大量的企業透過裁員的方式來縮減當時過度朝聘的人員。 根據BLS公布的數據來看，儘管近幾年的裁員人數尚未回到疫情前的水準，但裁員風險的增加已經削弱了在職員工的安全感，進一步降低他們透過自主離職尋找更好工作的意願。而這也導致企業工作職位的流動性下降，使應屆畢業生更難找到理想或合適的工作。 Read more at Datatrack 而聯準會也是有意識到事態的嚴重性，因此在今年7月底的會議中，聯準會就已明確的表示就業市場已經放緩，並且在9月的會議正式宣布降息50個基點以支稱就業市場。 時隔數月，失業率已從7月的4.3%高峰逐步下滑至4.1%，非農就業人數也維持在溫和成長的水位。此外，初領失業救濟金人數的上升趨勢也已中斷，種種跡象都讓市場對勞動市場惡化的擔憂不斷減少。 整體而言，我們認為這個現象更像是一個美國勞動市場趨於平衡的證據。然而，單靠這個數據可能沒有辦法判斷美國未來的就業市場能否為持平衡或出現惡化，未來仍須緊密觀察如初領人數、非農就業人數、裁員人數（率）等指標來判斷就業市場的狀況。

How Economic Changes Shape Wealth Distribution?

Since the dawn of human civilization, wealth inequality has been a central issue within societal structures. Despite technological advancements and sustained economic growth driving global prosperity, wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a few, creating a vast disparity compared to the resources held by the majority. Underlying this phenomenon, changes in the economic environment play a critical role. Factors such as asset price fluctuations, inflation, and central bank monetary policies significantly influence the distribution of wealth across households. To provide deeper insights into how macroeconomic factors impact wealth distribution, we examine findings from the European Central Bank’s "Distributional Wealth Accounts for euro area households" report, which highlights the critical role of economic conditions in shaping wealth inequality. Wealth Distribution and Composition in the Euro Area The report reveals stark disparities in wealth distribution across the euro area. According to the data, the wealthiest 10% of households own 56% of the region’s net wealth, while households with wealth below the median hold only 5% of the total. (Source: ECB) A closer examination of net wealth composition shows that as wealth increases, the share of deposits and real estate decreases. Instead, the wealthiest households derive a significant portion of their net wealth from business assets (non-financial business assets and unlisted equity) and financial assets (such as stocks, mutual funds, or insurance products). This composition suggests that wealthier households are generally better positioned to take on greater financial risks compared to less affluent households. (Source: ECB) The Role of Asset Price Fluctuations Differences in asset composition mean that price fluctuations significantly influence wealth distribution. The report indicates that households below the median are more sensitive to changes in housing prices. For these households, wealth is predominantly tied to real estate, which is highly sensitive to interest rate movements. Therefore, shifts in the market or changes in monetary policy—whether tightening or easing—directly affect their net wealth. For example, when housing prices increase by 10%, the net wealth of households below the median can rise by over 10%, while the wealthiest 10% see an increase of only around 5%, as real estate constitutes a smaller share of their overall wealth. (Source: ECB) In contrast, stock price fluctuations disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households. With a larger portion of their wealth held in financial assets, these households are better positioned to capitalize on stock market gains. Data shows that a 10% increase in stock prices leads to a 1.5% to 2% increase in the net wealth of the wealthiest households, while households below the median see almost no benefit. (Source: ECB) Inflation and Monetary Policy’s Indirect Effects on Wealth Distribution Beyond asset prices, inflation and monetary policy indirectly influence wealth distribution. During the pandemic in 2021, all household groups experienced a decline in net wealth, though the decline was smallest for households below the median. This period of rising inflation reduced the real value of liabilities for households below the median, with the reduction in liabilities outpacing the decline in real asset values. As a result, these households saw a net increase in wealth. However, as central banks raised policy rates to curb inflation, the subsequent decline in stock and real estate valuations reduced net wealth across all groups. The impact was more pronounced for lower-income households due to declining real estate prices, while the wealthiest households were more affected by falling financial asset values. (Source: ECB) In summary, wealth inequality primarily stems from differences in the composition of assets and liabilities across households. Net wealth fluctuations are often driven by changes in asset prices, particularly benefiting households with more financial assets. Inflation and monetary policy, rather than directly altering wealth distribution, primarily act as intermediaries by influencing asset price movements. Reference Introducing the Distributional Wealth Accounts for euro area households

Key Focus This Week: U.S. CPI & China GDP

Last week, U.S. stock sectors experienced fluctuations, but the strong performance of large-cap technology stocks propelled the S&P 500 Index to a new record high, closing at 6,090.27 points. In the bond market, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield continued its weakening trend, retreating further to around 4.15%, while the U.S. Dollar Index fluctuated and ultimately settled near 106.   Key Economic Data Review for Last Week U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI: The U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI for November was 48.4 (previous: 46.5). This increase was primarily driven by improvements in new orders (50.8, previous: 47.1), production (46.8, previous: 46.2), and inventories (48.1, previous: 42.6), reflecting a partial recovery in demand following the conclusion of the presidential election. However, the customer inventories index edged up slightly to 48.1 (previous: 46.8), indicating that end-user demand remains subdued. Read more at Datatrack     U.S. ISM Services PMI: The U.S. ISM Services PMI fell to 52.1 in November (previous: 56.0), marking its lowest level in three months. The decline was mainly attributable to drops in the business activity index (53.7, previous: 57.2) and the new orders index (53.7, previous: 57.4), influenced by uncertainty surrounding future tariff policies and cabinet changes under former President Trump. Additionally, the employment index also declined to 51.3 (previous: 53.0), aligning with signs of a slowing labor market. Read more at Datatrack     U.S. November Employment Situation: November's employment data presented mixed results. Nonfarm payrolls, based on the establishment survey, rebounded to 227,000 (previous: 12,000), driven by notable job gains in education and healthcare (79,000) and government employment (33,000). Leisure and hospitality (53,000) and manufacturing (22,000) also recovered significantly after disruptions from hurricanes and strikes. However, the unemployment rate, based on the household survey, edged up to 4.2% (previous: 4.1%), while the labor force participation rate fell to 62.6% (previous: 62.7%), reflecting an increase in the unemployed population. Although JOLTs data suggests the labor market remains in a state of low hiring and low layoffs, vulnerabilities are becoming increasingly apparent, warranting close monitoring. Read more at Datatrack     Key Economic Data for This Week Australia Interest Rate Decision (12/10): Despite a significant decline in inflation and slowing economic growth, Australia's labor market remains robust, and inflation has not yet returned to the Reserve Bank of Australia's target range of 2-3%. Consequently, markets expect the RBA to maintain interest rates unchanged, citing potential upside inflation risks, with the first rate cut anticipated in Q1-Q2 of 2025. Read more at Datatrack U.S. CPI (12/11): The U.S. CPI for October rose due to low base effects in Q4 and seasonal demand from holiday shopping. Markets expect this trend to continue in November. According to data from the Cleveland Federal Reserve, November CPI is projected at 2.70% (previous: 2.58%), while core CPI is forecast to remain at 3.30% (previous: 3.30%). Read more at Datatrack Eurozone Interest Rate Decision (12/12): Given the Eurozone's persistently weak economic performance, with both manufacturing and services sectors in contraction, markets expect the European Central Bank to implement another 25-basis-point rate cut at this meeting and potentially lower rates by a total of 100 basis points in 2025. Read more at Datatrack