1月11日，《人民日報》頭版重要位置刊發了署名為“鐘才平”的評論文章《以惠民生為牽引，打開發展新空間》。這是“鐘才平”連續五天發佈署名文章。前四日文章分別為：《統籌促消費和擴投資，建設強大國內市場》、《發揮政策整合效應，提升宏觀經濟治理效能》、《向新向優發展，中國經濟向好》、《因地制宜做好經濟工作》。以下為原文：人民日報鐘才平：以惠民生為牽引，打開發展新空間黨的二十屆四中全會《建議》提出，注重在發展中保障和改善民生，在滿足民生需求中拓展發展空間。中央經濟工作會議提出，堅持民生為大，努力為人民群眾多辦實事。我們要始終堅持以人民為中心的發展思想，堅持擴大內需這個戰略基點，堅持惠民生和促消費、投資於物和投資於人緊密結合，以新需求引領新供給，以新供給創造新需求，促進消費和投資、供給和需求良性互動，打開經濟發展的新空間。惠民生是促發展的重要動力。形成強大國內市場是建構新發展格局的重要支撐，也是大國經濟優勢所在。保障和改善民生，是有效擴大內需、形成強大國內市場的重要前提和基礎。隨著經濟社會發展，人民群眾的民生需求是漸次升級的。從衣食住行到教育、醫療、休閒、健身、養老等各方面需求，從商品需求到服務需求，從物質需求到精神需求，民生需求帶動消費、牽引供給，是經濟發展的重要動力和源泉之一。當前，以惠民生促發展，有不少文章可做。滿足人民群眾對提升住房品質和居住環境的需求，房地產高品質發展仍有較大空間。目前中國城鎮住房總量已經不小，但還有相當部分城鎮居民的住房需求沒有得到很好滿足，發展仍有可觀前景。從剛性需求看，2024年中國常住人口城鎮化率為67%，而戶籍人口城鎮化率不足50%，兩者相差近18個百分點，隨著以人為本的新型城鎮化持續推進，新落戶農民工、新畢業大學生等“新市民”剛性住房需求將持續釋放。從改善性需求看，由於既有住房中有不少房齡老化，加上區位分佈、持有結構不均衡，相當部分城鎮居民住房滿意度還不夠高，存在“以舊換新”“以小換大”的改善性需求。據統計，中國2000年以前建成的城鎮住宅佔存量住宅30%以上，一些城市還有較大面積的城中村，改善性需求潛力還很大。從城市全域來看，許多城市社區居住人口過於密集，停車、購物、綠地、休閒健身等功能不齊備、不充分，城市更新大有可為。滿足需求、拓展空間，要以建構房地產發展新模式為牽引，以高品質開展城市更新為重要抓手，大力推進城市危舊房和城中村改造，加大保障性住房建設籌集力度，有序增加空間更大、品質更高、配套更好的“好房子”供應，更好滿足人民群眾對改善居住條件的新期待，讓房地產行業高品質發展的路子越走越寬。滿足人民群眾對服務消費的新需求，打造“有溫度”的新供給空間廣闊。當前中國居民的消費傾向和消費方式正在發生重要變化，在衣食住行等基本需求得到滿足之後，文娛體驗、健康美容等情感消費和服務型消費成為消費新趨勢。場景式、互動式等參與感強、舒適度高的消費方式更受青睞，以體驗為導向的文旅經濟、研學經濟、夜間經濟成為消費新熱點。2013年到2024年，中國居民年人均服務性消費支出從0.5萬元提升到1.3萬元，佔比從39.7%提升到46.1%。滿足需求、拓展空間，要以新需求引領新供給，要以創意賦能提升產品和服務“設計含量”，滿足消費者多元化需求。比如，江西省景德鎮市推出反映春節年俗場景的“春碗”，將瓷碗的單一餐飲功能拓展到觀賞、收藏、贈禮等功能；國鐵集團將“退役”的綠皮列車改造為“銀髮旅遊列車”，將列車的單一交通功能拓展為旅遊、住宿、社交等多樣化功能。要以科技賦能提升產品和服務“技術含量”，滿足消費者品質化需求。比如，福建省莆田市扶持製鞋企業運用3D建模與虛擬現實技術，實現消費者個性化定製鞋款；湖南省瀏陽市引入無人機、全息投影、人工智慧生成影像等技術，打造創意煙火秀。要以IP賦能提升產品和服務“品牌含量”，滿足消費者情感共鳴和認同需求。比如，河北省叫響“這麼近，那麼美，周末到河北”，近年來旅遊人數和收入直線增加。雲南省倡導“有一種叫雲南的生活”，旅居雲南成為時尚熱點。這些“有溫度”的新供給受到了消費者青睞，未來發展前景看好。以惠民生促發展，要著力暢通“就業—收入—消費—投資”的良性循環。惠民生首先要穩就業，要強化就業優先政策導向，深入實施穩崗擴容提質行動，開展職業技能提升培訓，加強人力資源開發利用，加大對重點就業群體的政策幫扶和精準服務，努力促進高品質充分就業。惠民生要著力增收入，要進一步完善勞動者工資決定、合理增長、支付保障機制，多管道增加城鄉居民財產性收入，努力增加轉移性收入，規範收入分配秩序和財富積累機制，支援勤勞創新合法致富，鼓勵先富帶後富促共富。要在供需良性互動中更好實現惠民生、促發展，要清理消費領域不合理限制措施，切實抓好職工帶薪錯峰休假落實，釋放文旅、賽事、餐飲、康養等服務消費潛力；適應消費需求新變化，開發新產品、新服務、新場景。通過各方面共同努力，促進形成需求牽引供給、供給創造需求的更高水平動態平衡，形成更多由內需主導、消費拉動、內生增長的經濟發展模式，實現國民經濟良性循環。人民日報鐘才平：統籌促消費和擴投資，建設強大國內市場強大國內市場是中國式現代化的戰略依託。中央經濟工作會議提出，堅持內需主導，建設強大國內市場。下一步，要統籌促消費和擴投資，堅持消費和投資兩手發力、互動協同，合力提升國內市場的成長性和穩定性，加快形成更多由內需主導、消費拉動、內生增長的經濟發展模式。統籌消費和投資，是建設強大國內市場的必然要求。提振消費和擴大投資既是完整內需體系的組成部分，也是共生互促的有機整體。投資和消費並非此消彼長、相互替代的關係，而是相互促進的良性循環。從經濟運行邏輯看，消費是最終需求，投資是當期的需求和未來的供給。滿足居民消費需求，必須依靠有效投資提供高品質產品和服務供給；投資也可以帶動就業和工資增長，進而提高居民消費能力和意願。從中國發展實踐看，在工業化城鎮化快速推進階段，產業發展和基礎設施投資需求旺盛，投資對經濟增長髮揮了重要作用。隨著經濟持續發展和居民收入逐步提高，中國形成了全球最具發展潛力和成長性的消費市場，消費正在成為中國經濟保持長期健康發展的主導力量。從未來展望看，面對外部環境不確定性，要使中國經濟增長保持在合理區間，必須更好處理投資和消費的關係，建設強大國內市場，才能牢牢把握發展主動權，增強應對風險挑戰的底氣。統籌消費和投資，要以新需求引領新供給，推動消費投資聯動升級。順應居民消費向服務化、品質化升級趨勢，更多投資於人，更加貼近民生需求，提高醫療等民生類投資比重，加大文旅消費、情緒消費、綠色消費等服務領域投資力度，促進消費業態融合創新。適應人口結構變化，加大養老托育等相關基礎設施投資，提供更多適老適幼產品服務，更好滿足“一老一小”等群體需要。把握城鎮化發展階段變化，推動未落戶常住人口享受城鎮基本公共服務，高品質開展城市更新，建立可持續投融資模式，更好滿足群眾剛性和改善性住房需求。強化入境消費快速增長態勢，打造“購在中國”品牌，補齊入境消費軟硬體短板，最佳化完善重點景點、商圈、交通場站等場所的外語標識等。統籌消費和投資，要以新供給創造新需求，推動投資為消費提供新產品新場景新空間。要以投資引領消費產品創新。新一輪科技革命和產業變革加速突破，供給創新將不斷催生出新需求。近年來，產業加快向智能化升級，人工智慧在手機、家居、汽車等領域深度賦能，帶動智能新產品成為消費新增長點。要促進“人工智慧+消費”，支援智能穿戴、機器人等新技術新產品開發應用，開闢高成長性消費新賽道。要以投資開拓消費新場景。加大在消費新業態新模式新場景方面的投資，推動商品消費擴容升級，強化商業街區、商業網點等領域設施改造，打造一批帶動面廣、顯示度高的消費新場景，加快形成更加便捷、舒適、開放的消費環境。要為消費潛力釋放創造有利條件。清理不合理限制措施，釋放文旅、賽事、餐飲、康養等服務消費潛力。支援有條件地區推廣中小學春秋假，加大職工帶薪錯峰休假落實力度，為居民創造更多休閒時間。統籌消費和投資，要強化政策支援和改革加力，協同推進消費和投資擴量提質。要強化惠民生的政策導向，制定實施城鄉居民增收計畫，完善最低工資標準調整機制，持續提升居民消費能力和預期，同時深入實施提振消費專項行動。要強化政策協同發力，用好中央預算內投資、超長期特別國債、地方政府專項債券等資金，最佳化“兩新”政策實施，加大直達消費者的普惠政策力度，最佳化實施“兩重”項目。要加快審批監管制度改革，建立健全適應消費新業態新模式新場景的管理辦法，最佳化完善投資管理制度，特別是要清理不合理的服務業經營主體准入限制，完善民營企業參與國家重大項目建設長效機制，持續激發民間投資活力。要上下協同形成政策合力，引導各地區各部門樹立正確政績觀，規範地方政府經濟促進行為。不斷完善分地區服務零售額統計，加快消費稅徵收環節後移並穩步下劃地方改革步伐。人民日報鐘才平：發揮政策整合效應，提升宏觀經濟治理效能宏觀政策是中國經濟保持平穩運行、邁向高品質發展的重要保障。2025年中國首次實施更加積極的財政政策，時隔14年再次實施適度寬鬆的貨幣政策，為推動經濟持續回升向好發揮了重要作用。根據中央經濟工作會議部署，2026年宏觀政策取向上要堅持穩中求進、提質增效，繼續實施更加積極有為的宏觀政策，發揮存量政策和增量政策整合效應，加大逆周期和跨周期調節力度，切實提升宏觀經濟治理效能。更加積極的財政政策要精準增效。更大力度支援“兩重”項目，加力擴圍實施“兩新”政策，大幅增加基礎研究投入，充實穩就業政策工具……2025年，財政政策提高赤字率、安排更大規模政府債券，增加對地方轉移支付，推動地方落實隱性債務置換政策，為穩增長、調結構、防風險提供了有力支撐。2026年，要保持必要的財政赤字、債務總規模和支出總量，既著眼當前，用好用足財政政策空間，也為應對未來風險留有餘地，確保財政可持續。必須看到，近年來，外部衝擊加大、內部困難增多等因素交織，對一些地方財政收支造成很大影響，可用財力下降疊加剛性支出持續增長。要重視解決地方財政困難，建立健全增收節支機制，增強地方自主財力，兜牢基層“三保”底線。公帑不可靡費。現在財政支出規模很大，從2025年年初預算看，全國一般公共預算支出達到29.7兆元，中央對地方轉移支付10.3兆元，但各方面需求也很大，財政資金很緊張、很寶貴。要加強財政科學管理，提高資金使用效益。最佳化財政支出結構，強化國家重大戰略財力保障，推動更多資金資源投資於人，更加注重惠民生、促消費、增後勁。統籌用好政府債券等資金，主動靠前發力，合理加快資金下達撥付，推動盡快形成實際支出和實物工作量。同時，嚴肅財經紀律，堅持黨政機關過緊日子，精打細算，切實把財政資金用在刀刃上。適度寬鬆的貨幣政策要靈活有效。2025年，貨幣政策適時降准降息，在數量、價格、結構等方面多次出台針對性強、支援力度較大的舉措，為推動經濟回升向好提供了適宜的貨幣金融環境。中央經濟工作會議強調，把促進經濟穩定增長、物價合理回升作為貨幣政策的重要考量。這是新提法。2026年，貨幣政策要加強前瞻性、科學性調節，保持流動性充裕，促進社會綜合融資成本低位運行，與其他政策舉措形成合力，努力推動實現經濟增長、物價回升等目標。近年來，針對經濟運行中存在的一些結構性矛盾，按照聚焦重點、合理適度、有進有退的原則，中國適時出台了多項結構性貨幣政策工具，如科技創新和技術改造再貸款、服務消費與養老再貸款等，有力支援了經濟社會發展的重點領域和薄弱環節。當前，中國貨幣政策工具箱比較豐富，既包括降准降息等傳統的總量工具，也包括其他流動性投放工具和結構性貨幣政策工具。要靈活搭配、高效運用多種貨幣政策工具，統籌短期與長期、支援實體經濟與保持金融體系自身健康性的關係，保持社會融資條件相對寬鬆，加強對實體經濟的金融支援。宏觀政策貴在精準有效。要著力暢通貨幣政策傳導機制，做優增量、盤活存量，統籌做好金融“五篇大文章”，加力支援擴大內需、科技創新、中小微企業等重點領域，提升金融服務實體經濟的質效。同時，面對日益複雜嚴峻的外部形勢，要繼續平衡好內外部關係，堅持市場在匯率形成中的決定性作用，強化預期引導，保持人民幣匯率在合理均衡水平上的基本穩定。增強宏觀政策取向一致性和有效性，打好宏觀調控“組合拳”。當前，中國經濟運行面臨的環境日趨複雜，經濟工作中兩難甚至多難問題越來越多，對政策的需求也越來越多。政策越多，越怕相互打架。在過往的經濟工作實踐中，也產生過政策取向不一致導致的“合成謬誤”等問題，不僅使政策效果相互抵消，也影響市場預期。隨著宏觀經濟治理的工具箱越來越充實，加強政策統籌協調、增強取向一致性，防範和解決“合成謬誤”或“分解謬誤”的要求更加凸顯。增強宏觀政策取向一致性和有效性，就要強化系統觀念，將經濟政策和非經濟政策、存量政策和增量政策納入宏觀政策取向一致性評估，加強財政政策與金融政策協同、改革舉措與宏觀政策協同，確保各類政策措施同向發力、形成合力。2024年9月26日中央政治局會議召開以來，黨中央先後部署一系列政策措施，目前還在繼續發揮作用，2026年還將根據形勢變化出台實施增量政策。要協同發揮存量政策和增量政策的整合效應，推動經濟穩中向好。市場經濟很大程度上也是預期經濟，要健全預期管理機制，增強敘事能力，做好經濟宣傳和輿論引導，及時回應市場關切，有效提振社會信心。人民日報鐘才平文章：向新向優發展，中國經濟向好中國經濟，從來都是在風雨洗禮中成長，在歷經考驗中壯大。2025年，在以習近平同志為核心的黨中央堅強領導下，我們始終以高品質發展的確定性應對國際環境的不確定性，堅定不移辦好自己的事，以苦練內功來應對外部挑戰，推動中國經濟實現質的有效提升和量的合理增長。面對風高浪急的國際環境，我們沉著應對，頂壓前行。去年初以來，美國政府先後以所謂“芬太尼問題”“對等關稅”為由，對我輪番升級多輪關稅打壓，加征的關稅稅率一度達到145%。我們在黨中央的統一部署下，堅持“兩手抓”。一方面，針鋒相對地予以還擊。針對美國霸凌行徑，打出5輪關稅和非關稅反制的“組合拳”，迫使美國主動提出與我談判。雙方經過多輪會談，特別是兩國元首釜山會晤後，中美關稅戰、貿易戰按下“暫停鍵”，中美經貿關係出現了階段性緩和。另一方面，積極推動外貿“突圍”。通過實施出口多元化戰略，2025年前11個月，對東盟、歐盟出口分別增長14.6%和8.9%，對共建“一帶一路”國家出口增長11.3%。儘管對美貨物貿易出口同比下降18.3%，但以美元計價的全部出口仍增長5.4%，有效抵禦了關稅戰、貿易戰的衝擊。實踐充分證明，中國經濟底盤堅實、韌性強勁，完全能夠經受住風高浪急甚至驚濤駭浪的重大考驗。面對艱巨繁重的國內改革發展穩定任務，我們實施更加積極有為的宏觀政策，著力穩就業、穩企業、穩市場、穩預期，推動經濟向新向優發展。經濟運行穩中有進。2025年全年經濟增長預計在5%左右，繼續位居世界主要經濟體前列，經濟總量將達到140兆元，順利完成全年經濟社會發展主要目標任務。產業結構不斷最佳化。2025年前11個月，規模以上裝備製造業和高技術製造業增加值分別增長9.3%和9.2%，快於規上工業增加值3.3和3.2個百分點。裝備製造業增加值和高技術製造業增加值佔規上工業的比重分別達到36.4%、16.7%，比2020年提高2.7和1.6個百分點。產業結構向新向優持續攀升，助力我們在全球產業鏈重構中佔得先機。創新成果大量湧出。美國越是遏制打壓，越是激發我們的自主創新能力。“卡脖子”清單越來越短，自主可控清單越來越長。2025年前11個月，中國高技術產品出口表現亮眼。其中，積體電路出口1.29兆元，增長25.6%。中國人工智慧、生物醫藥、機器人等研發應用走在全球前列，成為繼“新三樣”後湧現出的新亮點。《黑神話：悟空》遊戲、拉布布玩偶等中國產品在國際上掀起一波又一波“中國熱”。改革開放邁出新步伐。出台實施民營經濟促進法，進一步縮減市場准入負面清單，綜合整治“內卷式”競爭，建設全國統一大市場，全面深化改革向縱深推進。擴大來華單方面免簽政策適用國家範圍，海南自由貿易港全島封關運作，自主開放、單邊開放有序推進，高水平對外開放穩步擴大。美國《外交家》雜誌不久前發文稱，中國電動汽車產業的崛起之路就是開放戰勝保護主義的生動案例。生態環境質量明顯改善。“用能”更加清潔，建成全球最大的可再生能源體系，每用3度電中就有1度是綠電。“治污”成效顯著，2025年前11個月京津冀空氣中PM2.5濃度降至31微克/立方米，比10年前下降54%。“擴綠”領先世界，中國貢獻了全球1/4的新增綠化面積。中國生態環境建設成就得到國內外高度認同。民生保障更加有力。脫貧攻堅成果持續鞏固拓展，贏得世界普遍讚譽。社會保障支出佔GDP比重已由2012年的4%翻倍至現在的約8%，與中高收入國家水平大體相當，且保持持續較快增長。人均預期壽命達到79歲，與美國相當。2024年中國每10萬人命案發生數0.44起，破案率為99.94%，“平安中國”成為亮麗的國家名片。中國已建成世界規模最大的教育、醫療和社會保障體系，基本公共服務水平不斷提升，全體人民共同富裕穩步推進。從2025年四季度經濟運行情況看，價格、效益、預期等諸多指標明顯改善，積極因素還在積累增多，中國經濟向新向優發展的良好勢頭仍將持續。2025年11月，居民消費價格指數漲幅連續3個月回升，工業生產者出廠價格自8月份之後降幅總體縮小；前11個月，規模以上工業企業利潤同比增長0.1%，累計增速連續4個月保持增長；作為先行指數的製造業採購經理指數，12月份為50.1%，比11月上升0.9個百分點，時隔8個月再度升至擴張區間，非製造業商務活動指數時隔1個月也回升至擴張區間。“千磨萬擊還堅勁，任爾東西南北風。”中國經濟之所以能夠頂壓前行、向新向好，根本在於習近平總書記領航掌舵和黨中央集中統一領導，這是我們戰勝一切艱難險阻的最大信心和最大底氣。只要全國人民緊密團結在以習近平同志為核心的黨中央周圍，中國經濟這艘巨輪就一定能夠乘風破浪、行穩致遠。人民日報鐘才平文章：因地制宜做好經濟工作習近平總書記在中央經濟工作會議上強調：“因地制宜，本質是實事求是。”因地制宜，是正確政績觀，是科學方法論，是各地各部門結合實際貫徹落實中央經濟工作會議精神的關鍵之舉和重要遵循。因地制宜是習近平總書記反覆強調的工作方法。早在地方工作時，習近平同志就堅持因地制宜開展工作。在河北工作期間，根據正定縣區位特點提出了“半城郊型”經濟發展的新路子。在福建，提出發展林下經濟、耕海牧漁，唸好“山海經”，把豐富的山海資源轉化為發展優勢。在浙江，針對全省農村地區發展不平衡，親自謀劃、親自部署、親自推動“千萬工程”，讓萬千鄉村找到了各美其美、美美與共的最優解。在上海，明確提出以“四個放在”思考和謀劃上海未來發展。黨的十八大以來，習近平總書記把因地制宜的要求貫穿治國理政的多個方面。總書記強調，“扶貧要實事求是，因地制宜”；鄉村振興要“科學把握鄉村的差異性，因村制宜，精準施策，打造各具特色的現代版‘富春山居圖’”；生態治理要“宜林則林、宜草則草、宜沙則沙、宜荒則荒”；區域協調發展要“宜水則水、宜山則山，宜糧則糧、宜農則農，宜工則工、宜商則商”。近兩年在發展新質生產力上，總書記更是反覆強調要因地制宜。因地制宜在當前具有更加突出的現實意義。這是“十五五”開局起步的必然要求。“十五五”時期中國發展環境面臨深刻複雜變化，許多矛盾問題的破解沒有先例可循。越是過去沒有幹過，越不能簡單照搬照抄，必須因地制宜、立足實際確定發展思路、破解發展難題。“十五五”開局之年，不少地區和部門在編制五年規劃、謀劃推進一批重大項目，都需要從各地實際出發，一把鑰匙開一把鎖，不能刻舟求劍、拿一個模子去套。這是踐行正確政績觀的必然要求。今年一些地方陸續開始換屆，樹立和踐行正確的政績觀非常重要。要推動幹部堅持因地制宜，力戒在政績上搞急功近利、弄虛作假、盲目蠻幹那一套，防止“新官上任三把火”，杜絕新官不理舊帳和“形象工程”“政績工程”。這是新時代推進高品質發展的必然要求。中國幅員遼闊，地區之間、城鄉之間的發展不平衡問題依然突出，推進高品質發展沒有“一招鮮”，否則，就會出現“千城一面”、盲目內卷。“一花獨放不是春，百花齊放春滿園”，要把握矛盾普遍性和特殊性的統一，用因地制宜的辦法激發各地的發展活力，為基本實現社會主義現代化取得決定性進展注入更加持久的內生動力。因地制宜抓好黨中央重大決策部署的貫徹落實，首先要吃透中央精神。因地制宜是黨中央集中統一領導下的各司其職、各負其責、各展其長。要完整、精準、全面貫徹落實黨中央決策部署，防止在落實中選擇性執行、打折扣、搞變通，搞本位主義、各行其是。要胸懷全域，牢固樹立全國一盤棋思想，在大局中找準定位，努力做到既為一域爭光、更為全域添彩。要按規律辦事。要堅持市場化、法治化原則，“有為不亂為”“補位不越位”，最佳化營商環境，增強地方經濟發展內生動力。要立足自身發展階段，盡力而為、量力而行，不能急於求成、大干快上，也不能“穿新鞋走老路”，跟不上發展要求。要善於發揮比較優勢。各地區各領域各有特點，要立足主體功能定位，加強調查研究，精準把握資源稟賦、區位優勢、歷史文化、產業基礎，揚長避短，探索差異化特色化發展路徑。要堅持有所為、有所不為，不能盲目跟風、片面求“新”追“高”，一哄而上，又一哄而散，造成“爛攤子”。要把為民造福作為出發點和落腳點。堅持以人民為中心的發展思想，深入瞭解當地群眾的所思所想所盼，追求實實在在、沒有水分的增長，實現高品質、有效益、可持續的發展。要明確實的目標，推進實的舉措，務求實的成效。能否做到因地制宜，考核指揮棒很重要。要健全激勵約束機制，完善差異化考核評價體系，注重考核的精準性、實效性、協同性，防止濫用考核、變相考核、機械考核。堅持考人考事相結合，讓想幹事、會幹事的幹部能幹事、幹成事。 (財聯社)

信任金融機構的文化差異Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年11月1日摘要多數台灣民眾傾向信任大型銀行，因為文化規範和嚴格的監管，培養了對老牌金融機構的信心。相較之下，多數美國人對各大銀行抱持懷疑態度，尤其在2008年後，利益衝突和不當銷售有毒抵押貸款證券的事件，暴露了銀行激勵機制與客戶利益的不一致。此反彈促使多數美國人轉向獨立、具備信託責任、以費用為基礎的註冊投資顧問(RIA)，這類顧問強調透明度和客戶利益一致。台灣的銀行主導了基金分銷和零售投資管理。儘管金管會有嚴格的規定和必要的揭露要求，但過去的案例顯示利益衝突仍可能發生。對台灣散戶投資者的啟示是「信任，但要驗證」：確認您顧問的信託責任和薪酬結構、避免過於複雜的產品、尋求第二意見，並積極參與財務決策。台灣第二大城——高雄市的天際線。此城市近期啟動了一個財富管理示範區，旨在吸引國際金融機構進駐超過700人已在我們的LINE上追蹤。加入我們，即可獲得我們的趨勢指標矩陣™ 市場監察員！當我與台灣一般投資者交談時，我注意到一個顯著的差異，那就是他們對金融機構的信任程度。在台灣，大型銀行和知名金融品牌享有很高的聲譽和公眾信心。許多台灣投資者本能地相信大型銀行能安全地管理他們的資金並提供建議，這與美國形成鮮明對比。在2008年金融危機後，美國民眾對大型銀行的信任度急劇下降，至今仍相對較低。舉例來說，世界經濟論壇在2015年的一項調查中，美國公民對其銀行體系的信心僅排名第49位（英國則為第89位）——這反映了美國人在2008年後如何對銀行失去信任[1]。事實上，到2008年底，只有約20%的美國人對美國銀行抱有高度信心[2]，這與過去幾十年相比是急劇的下降。公眾對銀行信任度隨時間的變化（美國 vs. 台灣）資料來源：Gallup, Business Insider從文化上講，美國人通常為「小人物」喝采，並對大型機構抱持懷疑，特別是當他們懷疑這些機構可能將利潤置於民眾之上時。相較之下，在台灣，社會規範傾向於尊重權威和老牌機構。集體主義和較高的權力距離等文化因素，可能會促使人們對知名銀行產生更大的信任。關於東亞金融行為的研究發現，「信任」是消費者的一個關鍵因素，並受到集體主義文化的顯著影響[3]。一項針對台灣和南韓銀行保險業務銷售的研究表明，消費者從其銀行購買金融產品的意願，受到感知價值、形象、滿意度和信任的驅動——且值得注意的是，高度集體主義的文化背景增強了這些銀行關係中的信任和滿意度[3][4]。簡言之，台灣投資者往往對大型金融品牌抱持「姑且相信」的態度，假設它們會正當行事。台灣穩定的銀行業環境強化了這種對老牌銀行的信心；本地銀行受到嚴格監管，且普遍未經歷過西方那種規模的倒閉事件。因此，許多台灣人將大銀行視為安全、信譽卓越且標準高的機構，值得他們的信賴。然而，文化上的信任可能是一把雙面刃。盲目地聽從大型機構，可能會使投資者較不傾向於質疑建議或注意到利益衝突。在美國，慘痛的經驗教會了投資者要更加謹慎。美國人清楚地記得，華爾街的巨頭們並非總是能對得起人們賦予他們的信任——這個教訓值得台灣投資者客觀地審視。2008年危機：利益衝突侵蝕了美國的信任2008年的次貸危機是一個分水嶺，粉碎了美國大眾對大型銀行的信任。主要的銀行和投資機構被發現從事損害其客戶利益的自我交易和利益衝突行為。一個明顯的例子是，一些銀行明知抵押貸款支持證券及相關產品品質低劣，卻仍將其產品化並出售給投資者——包括它們自己的財富管理客戶。在美國司法部的和解協議中，高盛(Goldman Sachs)承認在2000年代中期出售的證券存在誤導性，背後包含了有毒抵押貸款[5]。聯邦調查人員指出，銀行業在銷售這些產品時普遍存在「欺詐行為」[6]。本質上，幾家大型銀行正在承銷高風險的抵押貸款債券，同時又將其作為安全的投資品，向信任它們的客戶推銷。當這些證券價值崩潰時，不僅造成了巨大的損失，也摧毀了公眾對銀行諮詢服務誠信的信心。正如一份報告總結的那樣，美國的銀行揮霍了信任，它們向客戶保證有瑕疵的抵押貸款債券是穩健的——而與此同時，銀行卻從銷售中獲利[5][6]。次貸危機的慘敗使美國人敏銳地意識到，大型銀行的利益可能與個人投資者的利益產生衝突。美國投資者逐漸意識到，大銀行或券商的「理財顧問」，不過是穿著體面西裝的銷售代表——通常靠佣金來推銷銀行的產品或達成業績目標。這種利益衝突在許多傳統的財富管理模式中是固有的。正如世界經濟論壇指出的，「銷售金融產品的佣金激勵制度，會產生不利於投資者的利益衝突。」[7] 受僱於銀行的顧問可能會傾向於推薦能最大化其費用或其雇主利潤的產品，而非真正適合客戶的選擇。一種常見的做法是「雙重收費」(double-dipping)，即公司的內部顧問銷售公司自家的基金或結構型產品；不出所料，這種設置構成了「固有的利益衝突」，因為如果銀行能引導客戶購買其自家的高利潤產品，它就能賺取更多利潤[8]。在2008年之前的幾年裡，此類衝突猖獗——而許多美國客戶為此付出了代價。RIA成長 vs. 銀行體系券商市佔率 (2008–2025)資料來源：Advisor Perspectives這些揭露所引發的反彈，深刻地改變了美國的財富管理格局。投資者開始尋求與華爾街大型企業無關的獨立顧問和替代方案。一個很好的例子是獨立的註冊投資顧問(RIA)和只收費(fee-only)的理財規劃師的崛起。與銀行的傳統經紀人不同，美國的RIA以信託人(fiduciaries)的身份運作，在法律上有義務將客戶的利益置於首位。這種模式通常向客戶收取固定或基於資產的費用，而非佣金，對那些被大銀行具衝突性的建議所傷害的美國人很有吸引力。事實上，RIA通路已見到爆炸性的增長。到2023年，獨立RIA管理的資產已翻倍至近20兆美元，成為美國財富管理中增長最快的部分[9]。投資者正優先考慮「費用透明度和信託責任建議」，並獎勵那些與其利益一致的顧問[10]。簡言之，美國對「大公司」的信任在2008年受到重創，許多投資者的反應是給予新進者和獨立顧問一個贏得他們信任的機會。「信任，但要驗證」的健康懷疑精神，現已深植於許多美國人選擇理財顧問的方式中。美國理財顧問模式比較資料來源：SEC台灣對大型銀行的信任 – 標準高，但須提防利益衝突在台灣，環境則大不相同。本地銀行在2008年並未引發本土的金融危機，且它們普遍保持著穩健的紀錄。台灣的監管機構對銀行實施嚴格的監督，整體金融體系也保持穩定和韌性[11][12]。這種強力的監督，無疑有助於民眾與主要銀行打交道時的安心感。台灣的財富管理市場主要由大型銀行主導——這是信任的一個明顯指標。在台灣，超過80%的共同基金投資是透過銀行的分銷通路銷售的，遠遠超過任何獨立的理財顧問或券商[13]。對許多台灣投資者而言，他們尋求投資產品或建議的第一站（且往往是唯一一站）就是他們的銀行。依賴銀行的客戶關係經理或理財顧問，來指導從保險到共同基金等一切事務是很常見的。人們的假設是，一家大型、知名的銀行會提供穩健的建議，並保障個人的利益。台灣2008年後金管會監管查核清單資料來源：金管會法規這種信任關係，加上嚴格的監管，至今為止防止了像華爾街崩盤那樣規模的重大醜聞。台灣的金融監督管理委員會（金管會）在許多方面對銀行實施了「更高的標準」。值得注意的是，在2008年後，金管會為財富管理引入了新的消費者保護規則。例如，頒布了《境外結構型商品管理規則》，以遏制複雜產品的不當銷售。現在，台灣的銀行必須以中文提供完整的風險揭露，明確告知投資者產品是否保本，甚至必須在錄音的情況下，向客戶大聲朗讀風險揭露文件[14]。這些措施突顯了監管機構理解濫用的可能性，並已採取行動，透過增加透明度和問責制來鞏固信任。本質上，銀行受到良好監督：銀行的任何私人財富顧問或信託經理，都被期望遵循嚴格的規程，這有助於維持公眾的信念，即「這家大銀行正為我做正確的事。」然而，高標準並不意味著零利益衝突。即使在台灣較為保守的銀行文化中，根本的激勵問題仍可能潛伏在表面之下。在2008年後的改革之前，台灣的銀行曾透過信託帳戶，在沒有太多監督的情況下，自由地向零售客戶銷售各式各樣的境外結構型票據和衍生性金融商品[15]。許多一般投資者從其銀行的財富管理部門購買了複雜的產品（如信用連結票據或結構型票據），卻未完全理解其風險。當全球危機來襲時，這些產品的價值暴跌，導致了重大的損失和爭議。事實上，在2000年至2013年間，台灣投資者就結構型票據的疑似不當銷售，提起了超過300件訴訟[16]。這波法律行動顯示，即使在台灣，一些銀行顧問也曾推銷客戶不理解或真正不需要的產品。此事件的後續影響促使監管機構收緊規則，如上所述，但它是一個警世故事：利益衝突確實存在——只是在壓力揭示它們之前，它們較不為人所見。此外，台灣主要銀行的私人銀行理專，通常仍是領取薪資並有銷售目標的員工，他們經常因分銷銀行核准的金融產品而獲得獎金或佣金。存在著一種推銷產品和達成銷售目標的內在壓力，這可能會使您收到的建議產生偏見。顧問或許並非公然欺詐，但他們可能會利用銀行享有盛譽的品牌來贏得您的信任——然後巧妙地引導您購買銀行想要銷售的投資產品，而偏離了您的最佳利益。當一位顧問將自己定位為由知名機構支持的專家時，心理上的影響力可能很強。簡言之，台灣的銀行享有良好的信譽與信任，且通常依法運作。然而，投資者應記住，銀行也是企業。一家大銀行的優先考量是其股東利益和實現獲利，這有時可能與客戶的最佳利益相衝突。具衝突性的建議——例如在一個更便宜的指數基金就能滿足需求的情況下，被推銷一個高費用的基金，或者被慫恿頻繁交易——如果投資者從不質疑其銀行的建議，就可能發生。從美國以及一些本地的經驗中學到的教訓是，健康的懷疑和盡職調查是必要的，即使是與一家信譽良好的銀行打交道時也一樣。信任，但要驗證。給台灣投資者的建議保持一種正式、分析性的態度，意味著在信任與謹慎之間取得平衡。以下是一些值得考慮的建議：驗證資格與信託責任： 確保您的理財顧問具備良好資格（尋找證照或執照），並詢問他們是否對您負有信託責任。在美國，RIA依法必須將客戶利益置於首位；在台灣，詢問顧問是獨立的，還是與銷售業績掛鉤。與真正合格的專業人士合作，意味著與一位將您的目標置於推銷產品之上的人合作。了解您的顧問如何獲得報酬： 務必釐清其激勵結構。如果您與銀行的財富管理部門打交道，他們是否因銷售某些基金或保險而賺取佣金或獎金？佣金制度本身就會造成利益衝突——正如一份全球分析所言，這種「激勵分銷商銷售對其自身有利的產品」而不是對投資者有利的產品[17]。盡可能考慮採用只收費模式的顧問（只需支付透明的費用）。此類顧問費用只由您支付報酬，而非由產品提供者支付，這促使他們以您的最佳利益為出發點行事[18]。警惕「好到不真實」的產品： 如果一位銀行顧問推薦一個承諾高報酬的複雜產品（例如結構型票據、奇異的衍生性金融商品，或任何您難以理解的投資），請暫停並仔細審視。低風險高報酬的產品並不存在；總有蹊蹺。要求以書面形式提供所有費用和風險。請記住，在2008年之前，許多投資者（包括在台灣）被推銷了表面上「安全」的高收益產品，而這些產品後來都崩盤了。不要猶豫提出尖銳的問題——如果解釋充滿專業術語，或者顧問對風險輕描淡寫，那就是一個警訊。分散您的建議來源： 正如您分散投資一樣，考慮分散您獲取建議的來源。您不必放棄您的銀行——但尋求獨立理財規劃師的第二意見，或自己做研究是明智之舉。外部顧問可能會提供不同的觀點，相互比較可以揭示您銀行的建議是否真的具有競爭力。在美國，獨立顧問之所以增長，是因為他們通常提供更客製化、以客戶為中心的建議[10][9]。在台灣，獨立顧問服務仍在興起，但您仍然可以諮詢那些不與銷售單一銀行產品掛鉤的持牌理財顧問。即使只是閱讀中立的研究報告（來自信譽良好的財經出版物或投資者教育材料），也能幫助您做出更明智的決定，而非僅僅依賴銀行的說詞。保持資訊靈通並積極參與： 說到底，這是您的錢。培養對您投資計畫和投資組合的基本理解。不要將所有思考都外包給顧問。監控您的帳戶和績效，如果發現任何不對勁之處（例如頻繁交易，或您不記得同意過的產品），應立即提出。一位值得信賴的顧問會歡迎您的參與和提問。俗話說，「信任是每天贏得的。」讓您的顧問透過透明和迅速的回應來贏得那份信任。如果您覺得他們在迴避問題或將銀行的利益置於您的利益之上，請準備好離開或將疑慮上報。透過遵循這些步驟，台灣投資者可以兼得兩全——利用主要銀行的強大金融基礎設施和專業知識，同時也保護自己免受潛在的利益衝突。對機構的健康信任是寶貴的，但它絕不應是盲目的。美國的經驗顯示了盲目信任的代價有多高，而一種平衡的方法——信任並驗證——則能帶來更好的結果。總而言之，在管理您的財富時，請保持正式和分析的態度：尊重專業人士的建議，但務必確保該建議真正與您自己的目標一致。憑藉審慎的懷疑和知識，您可以繼續從台灣信譽良好的銀行中受益，而不會成為其他市場中因銷售技巧勝過託管責任而出現的陷阱的受害者。務必確保您合作的對象是一位將您置於首位的合格專業人士，如此您才能在長期的財務道路上取得成功。資料來源：世界經濟論壇與Baker Tilly關於對銀行信任度的調查數據[1]; 蓋洛普關於美國對銀行信心的民意調查[2]。關於集體主義與東亞金融行為中信任度的研究[3][4]。美國司法部關於銀行對抵押貸款證券不實陳述的調查結果（高盛和解案）[5][6]。世界經濟論壇關於財富管理中利益衝突以及只收費顧問模式益處的報告[7][8][18][9]。高盛資產管理關於美國獨立RIA顧問崛起的洞察[10]。台灣金融產業報告：銀行在基金分銷中的主導地位[13]，金管會2008年後對結構型產品的監管措施[14]，以及台灣不當銷售案例的分析[15][16]。📲加入我們的專屬頻道，即可獲取我們的跨資產趨勢指標矩陣，以及專家嚴選的投資內容。💬透過LINE與我們聯繫，即可加入社群。如果您覺得這份研究有價值：👍為這篇文章按讚。📰追蹤此部落格，獲取最新的市場動態。➡️分享給其他關注美股和台股市場的投資者。本電子報僅供參考，不構成任何證券或資產類別的投資建議或買賣推薦。文中所表達的觀點為作者截至發布日期的觀點，如有變動，恕不另行通知。所呈現的資訊乃基於從相信可靠的來源所獲取的數據，但其準確性、完整性和及時性不作保證。過往表現並非未來結果的指標。投資涉及風險，包括可能損失本金。讀者在做出任何投資決策前，應諮詢其財務顧問。作者及相關實體可能持有本文所討論的資產或資產類別的部位。Trust in Big Banks: Taiwan’s Confidence vs. U.S. SkepticismCultural Differences in Trusting Financial InstitutionsBy Joe 盧, CFA | 2025-11-01Executive SummaryMost Taiwanese tend to trust big banks because cultural norms and strong regulation foster confidence in established institutions.In contrast, most Americans are skeptical of large banks, particularly after 2008, when conflicts of interest and the mis-selling of toxic mortgage securities laid bare incentive misalignment.The backlash drove most Americans toward independent, fiduciary, fee-based RIAs that emphasize transparency and client alignment.Taiwan’s banks dominate fund distribution and retail investment management. The FSC has strict rules and required disclosures, but past cases show that conflicts can still arise.The takeaway for retail investors in Taiwan is “trust but verify”: confirm the fiduciary duty and compensation of your advisor, avoid overly complicated products, seek second opinions, and stay actively involved in financial decisions.The skyline of Kaohsiung, Taiwan’s second-largest city. The city is home to a newly launched wealth management zone aimed at attracting international financial institutionsOne of the striking differences I notice when I talk to the average Taiwanese investor is the amount of trust they have in their financial institutions. In Taiwan, major banks and big-name financial brands enjoy a strong reputation and public confidence. Many Taiwanese investors instinctively trust big banks as safe stewards of their money and advice. This contrasts starkly with the U.S., where public trust in big banks plummeted after the 2008 financial crisis and remains relatively low. For example, a World Economic Forum survey in 2015 ranked the United States just 49th (and the UK 89th) in citizens’ confidence in their banking system – a reflection of how Americans lost trust in banks after 2008[1]. In fact, by late 2008 only about 20% of Americans had high confidence in U.S. banks[2], a drastic drop from prior decades.% of Public That Trust Banks Over Time (U.S. vs. Taiwan)Source: Gallup, Business InsiderCulturally, Americans often cheer the “little guy” and harbor skepticism toward large institutions, especially if they suspect those institutions might put profits over people. In Taiwan, by contrast, societal norms tend to respect authority and established institutions. Cultural factors like collectivism and higher power distance may encourage greater trust in well-known banks. Research on East Asian financial behavior finds that “trust” is a key factor for consumers and is significantly influenced by collectivist culture[3]. In a study of banks selling insurance in Taiwan and South Korea, consumers’ willingness to buy financial products from their bank was driven by perceived value, image, satisfaction and trust – and notably, the high collectivist cultural context boosted trust and satisfaction in those banking relationships[3][4].In short, Taiwanese investors often give the benefit of the doubt to big financial brands, assuming they will act properly. This faith in established banks is reinforced by Taiwan’s stable banking environment; local banks are closely regulated and generally did not experience failures on the scale seen in the West. Many Taiwanese therefore see big banks as safe, reputable and held to high standards, deserving of their confidence.However, cultural trust can be a double-edged sword. Blindly deferring to large institutions may leave investors less inclined to question advice or notice conflicts of interest. In the U.S., painful experiences have taught investors to be more wary. Americans vividly remember that Wall Street giants did not always justify the trust placed in them – a lesson that Taiwanese investors would do well to examine objectively.The 2008 Crisis: Conflicts of Interest Erode U.S. TrustThe 2008 subprime mortgage crisis was a watershed moment that shattered public trust in big banks in America. Major banks and investment houses were found to have engaged in self-dealing and conflicts of interest that harmed their clients. A glaring example was how some banks packaged and sold mortgage-backed securities and related products to investors – including their own wealth management clients – despite knowing those loans were of poor quality. In a U.S. Justice Department settlement, Goldman Sachs admitted to misleading investors about the toxic mortgages backing securities it sold in the mid-2000s[5]. Federal investigators noted the “pervasiveness of the banking industry’s fraudulent practices in selling” these products[6]. In essence, several big banks were underwriting risky mortgage bonds and simultaneously marketing them as safe investments to trusting customers. When those securities collapsed in value, it not only inflicted huge losses but also destroyed public confidence in the integrity of banks’ advice. As one report summarized, banks in the U.S. squandered trust by assuring clients that flawed mortgage bonds were sound – all while the banks profited from the sales[5][6].The subprime fiasco made Americans acutely aware of how the interests of large banks can diverge from the interests of individual investors. U.S. investors learned that a “financial advisor” at a big bank or brokerage was little more than a sales representative in a nice suit – often paid on commission to push the bank’s own products or meet quotas. This conflict of interest is inherent in many traditional wealth management models. As the World Economic Forum notes, “Commission-based incentives for selling financial products create conflicts of interest that work against investors.”[7] Advisors employed by banks may be tempted to recommend products that maximize their fees or their employer’s profits, rather than truly suitable choices for the client. One common practice is “double-dipping,” where a firm’s in-house advisers sell the firm’s proprietary funds or structured products; unsurprisingly, this setup poses an “inherent conflict of interest,” since the bank earns more if it can steer clients into its own high-margin products[8]. In the years leading up to 2008, such conflicts were rampant – and many U.S. clients paid the price.RIA Growth vs. Bank Wirehouse Share (2008–2025)Source: Advisor PerspectivesThe backlash from these revelations has profoundly altered the U.S. wealth management landscape. Investors began seeking out independent advisers and alternative approaches not tied to the big Wall Street firms. A great example is the rise of independent Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) and fee-only financial planners. Unlike traditional brokers at banks, RIAs in the U.S. operate as fiduciaries, legally obliged to put clients’ interests first. This model, often charging clients flat or asset-based fees instead of commissions, appealed to Americans burnt by conflicted advice from large U.S. banks. In fact, the RIA channel has seen explosive growth. By 2023, independent RIAs had doubled their assets under management to nearly $20 trillion, becoming the fastest-growing segment of U.S. wealth management[9]. Investors are prioritizing “fee transparency and fiduciary advice” and rewarding advisors who align with their interests[10]. In short, America’s trust in “the big guys” was badly damaged in 2008, and many investors responded by giving newcomers and independent advisors a chance to earn their trust instead. The cultural ethos of healthy skepticism—“trust, but verify”—is now ingrained in how many Americans choose financial advisers.U.S. Financial Advisor Model ComparisonSource: SECTaiwan’s Trust in Big Banks – High Standards, but Beware ConflictsIn Taiwan, the environment is quite different. Local banks did not produce a home-grown financial crisis in 2008, and they generally maintain a solid track record. Taiwan’s regulatory authorities enforce rigorous oversight on banks, and the overall financial system has remained stable and resilient[11][12]. This strong oversight no doubt contributes to the public’s comfort in dealing with major banks. Wealth management in Taiwan is largely dominated by big banks – a telling indicator of trust. Over 80% of mutual fund investments in Taiwan are sold through banks’ distribution channels, far outpacing any independent financial advisors or brokers[13]. For many Taiwanese investors, their first (and often only) stop for investment products or advice is their bank. It’s common to rely on a bank’s relationship manager or financial consultant for guidance on everything from insurance to mutual funds. The assumption is that a large, well-known bank will offer sound advice and safeguard one’s interests.Taiwan Post-2008 FSC Regulation ChecklistSource: FSC RegulationsThis trusting relationship, combined with strict regulation, has so far prevented major scandals on the scale of Wall Street’s meltdown. Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) holds banks to a “higher standard” in many respects. Notably, after 2008 the FSC introduced new consumer protection rules for wealth management. For instance, the Regulations Governing Offshore Structured Products were enacted to curb mis-selling of complex products. Banks in Taiwan must now provide full risk disclosure in Mandarin Chinese, explicitly inform investors whether a product is principal-guaranteed, and even read the risk disclosure documents out loud to the client while recording the conversation[14]. These measures underscore that regulators understand the potential for abuse and have moved to fortify trust by increasing transparency and accountability. In essence, the banks are well-policed: any private wealth advisor or trust manager in a bank is expected to follow stringent protocols, which helps maintain the public’s faith that “this large bank is doing right by me.”However, high standards don’t mean zero conflicts of interest. Even in Taiwan’s more conservative banking culture, the fundamental incentive problems can still lurk beneath the surface. Before the post-2008 reforms, Taiwanese banks freely sold a wide array of offshore structured notes and derivatives to retail clients without much oversight, often via trust accounts[15]. Many regular investors bought complex products (such as credit-linked notes or structured notes) from their banks’ wealth managers, not fully understanding the risks. When the global crisis hit, those products tanked in value, leading to significant losses and disputes. In fact, over 300 lawsuits were filed by Taiwanese investors between 2000 and 2013 over alleged mis-selling of structured notes[16]. This wave of legal action suggests that even in Taiwan, some bank advisors had been salespeople pushing products that customers didn’t understand or truly need. The fallout prompted regulators to tighten rules, as noted above, but it serves as a cautionary tale: the conflicts of interest did exist – they were just less visible until stress revealed them. Additionally, a private banking officer in a major Taiwanese bank is still typically a salaried employee with sales targets, often receiving bonuses or commissions for distributing the bank’s approved financial products. There is an inherent pressure to move product and meet sales goals, which can bias the advice you receive. The advisor may not be outright fraudulent, but they may leverage the bank’s prestigious brand to earn your trust – and then subtly steer you toward investments the bank wants to sell, and away from your best interests. Psychological influence can be strong when an advisor positions themselves as the expert backed by a big-name institution.In short, Taiwanese banks enjoy a reservoir of goodwill and trust, and generally they operate ethically within the law. Yet investors should remember that banks are also businesses. A large bank’s priority is to its shareholders and its bottom line, which can at times conflict with a client’s best interest. Conflicted advice – such as being sold a high-fee fund when a cheaper index fund would do, or being urged to trade frequently – can happen if an investor never questions their bank’s recommendations. The lesson from both American and some local experiences is that healthy skepticism and due diligence are necessary, even when dealing with a reputable bank. Trust, but verify.Recommendations for Taiwanese InvestorsMaintaining a formal, analytical approach to your finances means balancing trust with caution. Here are some recommendations to consider:Verify Qualifications and Fiduciary Duty: Ensure your financial advisor is well qualified (look for certifications or licenses) and ask whether they have a fiduciary responsibility to you. In the U.S., RIAs must by law put client interests first; in Taiwan, ask if the advisor is independent or tied to sales quotas. Working with a truly qualified professional means someone who prioritizes your goals over pushing products.Understand How Your Advisor Gets Paid: Always clarify the incentive structure. If you deal with a bank wealth manager, are they earning commissions or bonuses for selling certain funds or insurance? Commission-based models inherently create conflicts – as one global analysis put it, they “incentivize distributors to sell products that benefit them financially” rather than the investor[17]. Whenever possible, consider advisers who use a fee-only model (you pay a transparent fee for advice). Such fee-based advisors are only paid by you, not by product providers, which encourages them to truly act in your best interest[18].Be Wary of “Too Good to Be True” Products: If a bank advisor recommends a complex product (e.g. a structured note, exotic derivative, or any investment you struggle to understand) promising high returns, pause and scrutinize it. High returns with low risk do not exist; there’s always a catch. Ask for all fees and risks in writing. Remember that before 2008, many investors (including in Taiwan) were sold ostensibly “safe” high-yield products that later collapsed. Don’t hesitate to ask tough questions – if the explanation is full of jargon or the advisor brushes off risks, that’s a red flag.Diversify Your Advice: Just as you diversify investments, consider diversifying where you get advice. You need not abandon your bank – but it can be wise to seek a second opinion from an independent financial planner or do your own research. An external advisor might offer a different perspective, and a bit of comparison can reveal if your bank’s recommendations are truly competitive. In the U.S., independent advisors have grown because they often provide more customized, client-centric advice[10][9]. In Taiwan, independent advisory services are still emerging, but you can still consult licensed financial consultants who aren’t tied to selling one bank’s products. Even reading up on neutral research (from reputable financial publications or investor education materials) can empower you to make more informed decisions rather than relying solely on a bank’s word.Stay Informed and Involved: Ultimately, it’s your money. Cultivate a basic understanding of your investment plan and portfolio. Don’t outsource all thinking to the adviser. Monitor your accounts and performance, and if something seems off (e.g. frequent trading, or products you don’t recall agreeing to), speak up immediately. A trustworthy advisor will welcome your involvement and questions. As the saying goes, “trust is earned daily.” Make your advisor earn that trust by being transparent and responsive. If you ever feel they are evading questions or prioritizing the bank’s interest over yours, be ready to walk away or escalate the concern.By following these steps, Taiwanese investors can enjoy the best of both worlds – leveraging the strong financial infrastructure and expertise of major banks, while also protecting themselves from potential conflicts of interest. Healthy trust in institutions is valuable, but it should never be blind. The U.S. experience shows how costly blind trust can be, whereas a balanced approach – trusting and verifying – leads to better outcomes.In summary, remain formal and analytical in managing your wealth: respect the advice of professionals, but always make sure that advice truly aligns with your own goals. With prudent skepticism and knowledge, you can continue to benefit from Taiwan’s reputable banks without falling victim to the pitfalls that come when salesmanship trumped stewardship in other markets. Always make sure you’re working with a qualified professional who puts you first, and you will be well-positioned to succeed financially in the long run.Sources:World Economic Forum & Baker Tilly survey data on trust in banks[1]; Gallup polling on U.S. confidence in banks[2].Research on collectivism and trust in East Asian financial behavior[3][4].U.S. Department of Justice findings on bank misrepresentation of mortgage securities (Goldman Sachs settlement)[5][6].World Economic Forum report on conflicts of interest in wealth management and the benefits of fee-only advisory models[7][8][18][9].Goldman Sachs Asset Management insights on the rise of independent RIA advisers in the U.S.[10].Taiwan financial industry reports: dominance of banks in fund distribution[13], FSC regulatory measures on structured products after 2008[14], and analysis of mis-selling cases in Taiwan[15][16].📲Join our private channels to gain access to our cross-asset Trend Conviction Matrix and expert-curated investment content.💬Connect with us on LINE to join the group.if you found this research valuable:👍'Like' this post.📰Follow this blog for new market updates.➡️Share it with others who track U.S. and Taiwan markets.This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. The views expressed are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Information presented is based on data obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and timeliness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should consult with their own financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author and associated entities may hold positions in the assets or asset classes discussed herein.立即加入《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》LINE@官方帳號，獲得最新專欄資訊（點此加入）關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。Joe 為台裔美國人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。

處於AI熱潮核心的各大企業，已相互投資了數十億美元。這引發了部分人士質疑AI的循環融資模式是否具有永續性。Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年10月26日 美東時間摘要美國巨頭企業之間的循環融資正驅動AI產業的擴張，導致成長指標膨脹，但終端用戶需求卻沒有相應成長。台灣的半導體與資料中心供應鏈雖從此資本中受益，但若美國AI投資放緩，將面臨重大風險。龐大的AI基礎設施支出與日益增長的電力需求，對美國和台灣的能源系統都構成壓力，壓縮了製造商的利潤。台灣對少數幾家美國巨頭企業的出口依賴，造成了高度的集中度風險，即使是強健的企業資產負債表也無法完全緩解。對投資者而言，監控AI資本支出動能、台灣出口訂單及能源成本，是區分投機性過剩與可持續結構性增長的關鍵。在「循環融資」結構的推動下，AI正驅動著現代史上最大規模的資本週期之一；在此結構中，輝達(Nvidia)、OpenAI、甲骨文(Oracle)、亞馬遜(Amazon)和Google等公司，同時扮演著投資者、供應商和客戶的多重角色。此一動態強化了企業估值，並創造了一個直接衝擊全球晶片製造中心——台灣的資本循環，這為台灣帶來了創紀錄的出口，但也累積了日益增加的風險曝險。本分析將探討當前AI熱潮與網路泡沫之間的相似與相異之處，評估這些資本流動最終將演變為可持續的增長，或是在自身的槓桿下崩潰，並重點關注其對台灣半導體產業的意涵。自我融通的人工智慧機器三家公司定義了當前的循環：輝達(Nvidia)、OpenAI和甲骨文(Oracle)。輝達(Nvidia)對OpenAI投資高達1,000億美元；OpenAI用這筆錢購買輝達的晶片；而為OpenAI提供3,000億美元雲端服務的甲骨文(Oracle)，則購買數百億美元的輝達GPU以履行該合約。每家公司都報告了更高的營收和上漲的股價，但相同的資本卻在一個封閉的系統內循環。彭博社(Bloomberg)將輝達(Nvidia)形容為「AI 的央行」，透過擴展流動性來維持此波熱潮。此結構與1990年代電信熱潮時的「供應商融資」(vendor financing)如出一轍，儘管AI的支出主要由內部現金流而非債務所資助。然而，這些關係使得營收看起來比實際更為強勁，因為資本是在一個封閉的網絡內循環，而非源自終端用戶，從而虛增了整個AI供應鏈的感知需求。此模式類似於戰後日本的「經連會」(keiretsu)或韓國的「財閥」(chaebol)，其交叉持股雖確保了供應穩定，卻也掩蓋了財務風險。台灣正處於此資本循環的正下方。台積電(TSMC)製造輝達的GPU，日月光(ASE)進行封裝，而緯創(Wistron)、廣達(Quanta)和英業達(Inventec)則組裝甲骨文(Oracle)和亞馬遜(Amazon)所部署的AI伺服器。美國巨頭企業之間的每一份新合約，都為台灣的工廠帶來一波訂單，但同時也將其營收與相同的融資週期綑綁在一起。此循環解釋了為何在AI商業化變現遲滯的情況下，台灣的半導體月出口額仍能達到歷史新高。這也解釋了其脆弱性：如果全球融資緊縮，同一個循環可能會反向解開，在美國股市反映經濟放緩之前，就已拖累台灣的出貨量。AI週期的脆弱基礎AI熱潮建立在一個脆弱的基礎上，投資者必須監控其三大核心脆弱性：資本密集度與商業化變現之間的差距、能源的物理性限制，以及供應鏈內部的高度風險集中。首要的脆弱性是支出與收入之間的不平衡。麥肯錫(McKinsey)預計到2030年，AI基礎設施的投資將達5.2兆美元，但貝恩(Bain)估計，該產業需要2兆美元的年營收才能支撐此等級的投資。OpenAI約130億美元的預估銷售額，突顯了此一鴻溝。將真正的終端用戶變現仍難以實現，只有5%的ChatGPT用戶付費訂閱服務。更關鍵的是，只有不到15%的企業AI試點計畫能轉入全面生產，因為大多數公司尚未實現顯著、可衡量的生產力提升。幾年前預測的、由AI驅動的大規模裁員尚未實現，進一步表明該技術的經濟效益尚未被大規模地實現。對台灣而言，此一差距將直接轉化為訂單的波動性。晶圓製造和組裝依賴於長達數季的能見度，如果美國客戶為了使資本支出與實際營收保持一致而暫停投資，台灣的出貨量將在美國股市反映經濟放緩之前就已下滑。資料來源：Bain, McKinsey其次，此資本與營收的不平衡延伸至實體基礎設施，特別是能源。光是OpenAI的「星際之門」(Stargate)專案就需要23千兆瓦(GW)的電力——約等於23座核反應爐的發電量。在台灣，經濟部能源署預計到2030年，工業用電需求將持續增長，主要由晶圓廠和資料中心所驅動。此一壓力勢必導致電價調整，即使全球AI需求依然強勁，上升的電力成本將壓縮製造利潤，並對ESG的目標構成挑戰。資料來源: The Guardian, Data Center Dynamics, ess.re最後，儘管AI龍頭企業現金充裕，但其財務實力卻有著系統性風險。與由債務驅動的網路泡沫不同，微軟(Microsoft)、亞馬遜(Amazon)、Google和輝達(Nvidia)等公司，每年超過2,000億美元的自由現金流，它們自我融通AI擴張的能力延長了此一週期，但也使台灣的供應鏈高度依賴少數關鍵參與者的支出決策。台積電(TSMC)的前五大美國客戶已佔其營收的60%以上。即使其中僅有一家放緩，也可能降低多個製程節點的晶圓廠產能利用率。資料來源：TSMC歷史表明，此類的過度建設往往為未來的生產力播下種子。1990年代的光纖網路和2010年代的太陽能產能都遵循了相同的模式：初期的泡沫留下了有用的基礎設施。台灣的角色與此類似。在今日的熱情下建立的硬體基礎，將成為AI主流階段的基石。投資的要點並非預測崩盤的時機，而是去預判此一轉變——從投機性的資本支出，轉向商業化變現的部署，其標誌正是生產力的普遍提升，從而證明大規模投資的合理性。與網路泡沫的差異然而，一些關鍵的差異將此AI週期與網路泡沫區分開來。2000年的泡沫建立在債務和疲弱的資產負債表之上。今日的AI巨頭——微軟(Microsoft)、Google、亞馬遜(Amazon)和輝達(Nvidia)——現金充裕，合計每年產生2,000億美元的自由現金流，並能從內部為擴張提供資金。回到2000年，像世界通訊(WorldCom)和環球電訊(Global Crossing)等公司大量借貸來建設它們無法填滿的網絡。當信貸市場緊縮時，違約在整個行業中引發了連鎖反應。而當今的企業即使明天削減支出，仍能保持獲利。另一個區別是資產的有形性。光纖泡沫留下了未被充分利用的電纜；AI熱潮則正在建設充滿可重複使用晶片和電力基礎設施的、全球分佈的資料中心。其利用率很高：資料中心的空置率低於5%，而運算需求仍然供不應求。此一建設雖具侵略性，卻是為了應對可見的使用量——而非純粹的投機。AI基礎設施正以接近滿載的狀態運行，與2000年代初閒置的光纖網路不同。資料來源：JPMorgan至關重要的是，商業化變現已在進行中。雲端巨頭從AI雲端工作負載、廣告優化和生產力工具中賺取實際收入。輝達(Nvidia)的晶片銷售代表著有形的需求，而不僅僅是炒作。瓶頸不在於採用率，而在於電力供應——這與2000年代初空蕩蕩的伺服器機櫃是完全不同的問題。另一個關鍵的區別在於估值。儘管偏高，但今日的估值錨定在一個2000年時普遍缺乏的、真實盈餘與現金流的基礎上。在1990年代末，像思科(Cisco)和甲骨文(Oracle)等領先的網路股，其預估本益比(forward P/E)超過60倍，許多未獲利的公司則以「眼球數」或「點擊率」等投機性指標進行估值。今日，AI龍頭股的預估本益比約在35倍左右。更重要的是，今日本益比中的「E」(盈餘)，代表著符合一般公認會計原則(GAAP)的龐大利潤。市場並非為從零開始的無限增長定價，而是在一個既有龐大且獲利的基礎上，實現強勁增長而定價。資料來源：Forbes, Yahoo Finance對台灣而言，此一區別至關重要。在2000年，網路泡沫幾乎未觸及台灣的出口產業。而今日台灣則處於AI價值鏈的核心，台積電(TSMC)、日月光(ASE)、緯創(Wistron)和廣達(Quanta)都扮演著關鍵角色。同樣的的循環，在虛增美國估值的同時，也直接驅動了台灣的出口盈餘。即使泡沫修正，實體的基礎設施——晶圓廠、工具和人才——依然存在。簡言之，AI可能正處於泡沫之中，但它並非建立在虛無飄渺之上。危險不在於資不抵債，而在於估值過高。當預期重新設定時，即使基礎技術持續進步，股價也可能急遽下跌。網路泡沫以崩盤告終，但它也為我們奠定了數位經濟的基礎。AI很可能正遵循同樣的劇本——只是這一次，台灣的半導體產業是主角之一。為台灣投資者剖析的觀點台灣處於投機性金融與實體生產的交匯點。作為AI硬體骨幹的角色，確保了其近期的盈餘動能，卻也放大了週期性風險。近期的好處是實質可見的：更高的工廠利用率和創紀錄的出貨量。中期的風險也同樣清晰：能源壓力、產能過剩，以及對少數全球客戶的依賴。對成熟的投資者而言，關鍵在於為週期性轉變進行佈局，而非僅僅著眼於長期趨勢。此一框架包含：因此，對投資者而言，目標是追求清晰度，而非預測。需要監控的關鍵問題是，資本流動何時能變得自我維持，而非自我參照。那個轉折點，即AI需求反映的是真正的生產力提升，而非循環的資金時，將標誌著台灣科技經濟下一個結構性的躍進。📲加入我們的專屬頻道，即可獲取我們的跨資產趨勢信念矩陣，以及專家嚴選的投資內容。💬透過LINE與我們聯繫，即可加入社群。👥在Facebook上私訊我們，即可加入社群。如果您覺得這份研究有價值：👍為這篇文章按讚。📰追蹤此部落格，獲取最新的市場動態。➡️分享給其他關注美股和台股市場的投資者。本電子報僅供參考，不構成任何證券或資產類別的投資建議或買賣推薦。文中所表達的觀點為作者截至發布日期的觀點，如有變動，恕不另行通知。所呈現的資訊乃基於從相信可靠的來源所獲取的數據，但其準確性、完整性和及時性不作保證。過往表現並非未來結果的指標。投資涉及風險，包括可能損失本金。讀者在做出任何投資決策前，應諮詢其財務顧問。作者及相關實體可能持有本文所討論的資產或資產類別的部位。Is AI’s Circular Financing Inflating a Bubble?Companies at the center of the AI boom have been investing billions of dollars in each other. This has led some to question whether AI's circular financing is sustainable.Joe 盧, CFA | 2025-10-26Executive SummaryCircular financing among U.S. hyperscalers drives the AI expansion, inflating growth metrics without corresponding end-user demand.Taiwan's semiconductor and data-center supply chains benefit from this capital but are exposed to significant risk if U.S. AI investments slow.Massive AI infrastructure spending and rising power demand strain both U.S. and Taiwan energy systems, compressing manufacturer margins.Taiwan’s export dependence on a few U.S. hyperscalers creates high concentration risk that strong corporate balance sheets cannot fully mitigate.Monitoring AI capex momentum, Taiwan export orders, and energy costs is essential for investors to distinguish speculative excess from sustainable structural growth.AI is driving one of the largest capital cycles in modern history, fueled by a circular financing structure where firms like Nvidia, OpenAI, Oracle, Amazon, and Google act simultaneously as investor, supplier, and customer. This dynamic reinforces valuations and creates a capital loop that directly impacts Taiwan, the epicenter of global chip manufacturing, translating into record exports but also mounting exposure. This analysis explores the parallels and differences between the current AI boom and the dot-com bubble, assessing whether these capital flows will evolve into sustainable growth or collapse under their own leverage, with a focus on the implications for Taiwan's semiconductor industry.The Self-Funding Artificial Intelligence MachineThree firms define the current loop: Nvidia, OpenAI, and Oracle. Nvidia invests up to US$100 billion in OpenAI. OpenAI spends that money to buy Nvidia chips. Oracle, which provides OpenAI with US$300 billion in cloud services, buys tens of billions of dollars of Nvidia GPUs to fulfill that contract.Each company reports higher revenue and rising stock prices, but the same capital circulates within a closed system. Bloomberg describes Nvidia as “the central bank of AI,” extending liquidity to keep the boom going.This structure mirrors the vendor financing of the 1990s telecom boom, though AI spending is largely funded by internal cash flow rather than debt. Still, these relationships make revenue appear stronger than it is, as capital circulates within a closed network instead of originating from end users, inflating perceived demand across the AI supply chain. This pattern resembles post-war Japan’s keiretsu or Korea’s chaebol, where cross-ownership ensured supply stability but also obscured financial risk.Taiwan sits directly under this capital loop. TSMC fabricates Nvidia’s GPUs, ASE packages them, and Wistron, Quanta, and Inventec assemble the AI servers that Oracle and Amazon deploy. Each new contract between U.S. hyperscalers sends a wave of orders through Taiwan’s factories, but also ties their revenue to the same set of financing cycles. This loop explains why Taiwan’s monthly semiconductor exports reached record highs even as AI monetization lagged. It also explains the vulnerability: if global financing tightens, the same loop can unwind, pulling Taiwan’s shipments down before U.S. equities reflect the slowdown.The AI Cycle's Fragile FoundationThe AI boom is built on a fragile foundation, with three core vulnerabilities that investors must monitor: the gap between capital intensity and monetization, the physical constraint of energy, and the high concentration of risk within the supply chain.The primary vulnerability is the imbalance between spending and income. McKinsey projects a $5.2 trillion in AI infrastructure investment by 2030, yet Bain estimates the sector needs $2 trillion in annual revenue to justify that level. OpenAI’s estimated US$13 billion in sales highlights this chasm. Real end-user monetization remains elusive. Only five percent of ChatGPT users pay for subscriptions. More critically, fewer than 15% of corporate AI pilots transition to full production because most companies have yet to realize significant, measurable productivity gains. The widespread, AI-driven layoffs predicted just a few years ago have not materialized, further indicating that the technology’s economic benefits are not yet being captured at scale. For Taiwan, this gap translates directly into order volatility. Fabrication and assembly rely on multi-quarter visibility, and if U.S. customers pause to align capex with real revenue, Taiwan’s shipments will decline before the U.S. stock market prices in the slowdown.Source: Bain, McKinseySecond, this capital-revenue imbalance extends to physical infrastructure, particularly energy. OpenAI’s “Stargate” project alone targets 23 gigawatts of power capacity—roughly the output of 23 nuclear reactors. In Taiwan, the Bureau of Energy projects a 70% growth in industrial electricity demand by 2030, largely driven by fabs and data centers. This strain necessitates tariff adjustments, and rising power costs will compress fabrication margins and challenge ESG mandates, even if global AI demand remains strong.Source: The Guardian, Data Center Dynamics, ree.esFinally, while today’s AI leaders are cash-rich, their financial strength concentrates systemic risk. Unlike the debt-fueled dot-com boom, firms like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Nvidia generate more than US$200 billion in annual free cash flow. Their capacity to self-fund the AI expansion extends the cycle but also makes Taiwan’s supply chain highly dependent on the spending decisions of a few key players. TSMC’s top five U.S. customers already represent over 60% of its revenue. A slowdown from even one of them could reduce fab utilization across multiple process nodes.Source: TSMCHistory shows that such overbuilding often seeds future productivity. The fiber-optic networks of the 1990’s and the solar capacity of the 2010’s followed the same pattern: initial bubbles that left behind useful infrastructure. Taiwan’s role is similar. The hardware base built under today’s exuberance will become the foundation for AI’s mainstream phase. The investment takeaway is not to time a collapse but to anticipate the transition—from speculative capex to monetized deployment, marked by the widespread evidence of productivity gains that justify the massive investment.Differences From the Dot-Com BubbleHowever, critical differences distinguish this AI cycle from the dot-com bubble. The 2000 bubble was built on debt and weak balance sheets. Today’s AI giants—Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Nvidia—are flush with cash, generating a combined US$200 billion in annual free cash flow, and can fund expansion internally. Back in 2000, companies like WorldCom and Global Crossing borrowed heavily to build networks they couldn’t fill. When credit markets tightened, defaults cascaded across the industry. Today’s players could cut spending tomorrow and remain profitable.Another distinction is the tangibility of assets. The fiber-optic bubble left behind underused cables; the AI boom is building globally distributed data centers filled with reusable chips and power infrastructure. Utilization is high: data-center vacancy rates are below 5%, and compute demand still exceeds supply. The buildout, while aggressive, is responding to visible usage—not pure speculation.AI infrastructure is running near full capacity, unlike the idle fiber-optic networks of the early 2000sSource: JPMorganCrucially, monetization is already underway. Hyperscalers earn real income from AI cloud workloads, advertising optimization, and productivity tools. Nvidia’s chip sales represent tangible demand, not just hype. The bottleneck is not adoption but power supply—an entirely different problem from the empty server racks of the early 2000s.A key distinction also lies in valuation metrics. While elevated, today’s valuations are anchored to a foundation of real earnings and cash flow that was largely absent in 2000. In the late 1990s, leading internet stocks like Cisco and Oracle traded at forward P/E ratios exceeding 60x, with many unprofitable firms valued on speculative metrics like "eyeballs" or "clicks." Today, the AI leaders trade closer to 35x forward earnings. More importantly, the "E" in today's P/E represents substantial, GAAP-compliant profits. The market is not pricing in infinite growth from zero; it is pricing in strong growth from an already massive and profitable base.Sources: Forbes, Yahoo FinanceFor Taiwan, this distinction matters. In 2000, the internet bubble barely touched the island’s export sector. Today, Taiwan sits at the core of the AI value chain, with TSMC, ASE, Wistron, and Quanta all playing critical roles. The same feedback loop that inflates U.S. valuations directly drives Taiwan’s export earnings. Even if the bubble corrects, the physical infrastructure—fabs, tools, and talent—remains.In short, AI may be in a bubble, but it is not built on vapor. The danger is not insolvency—it is overvaluation. When expectations reset, stock prices could fall sharply even as the underlying technology keeps advancing. The internet bubble ended in a crash, but it also gave us the foundation for the digital economy. AI is likely following the same script—only this time, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is one of the main characters.The Investor Lens for TaiwanTaiwan sits at the intersection of speculative finance and real production. The island’s role as the hardware backbone of AI ensures near-term earnings momentum but magnifies cyclical risk. The near-term benefit is tangible: higher factory utilization and record shipments. The medium-term risk is also clear: energy strain, overcapacity, and dependency on a few global customers.For sophisticated investors, the key is to position for cyclical shifts rather than just the secular trend. A framework for this includes:The AI cycle’s circular financing has lifted Taiwan’s exports and valuations but also tied them tightly to the spending behavior of a few U.S. giants. As these financing loops inevitably tighten, Taiwan will feel the turn first—through export orders, power demand, and valuation shifts.The objective for investors, therefore, is clarity, not prediction. The key question to monitor is when capital flows become self-sustaining rather than self-referential. That turning point, where AI demand reflects genuine productivity gains instead of recycled funding, will mark the next structural advance for Taiwan’s technology economy.📲Join our private channels to gain access to our cross-asset Trend Conviction Matrix and expert-curated investment content.💬Connect with us on LINE to join the group.👥Message us on Facebook to join the group.if you found this research valuable:👍'Like' this post.📰Follow this blog for new market updates.➡️Share it with others who track U.S. and Taiwan markets.This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. The views expressed are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Information presented is based on data obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and timeliness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should consult with their own financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author and associated entities may hold positions in the assets or asset classes discussed herein.立即加入《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》LINE@官方帳號，獲得最新專欄資訊（點此加入）關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。Joe 為台裔美國人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。

The rich world faces a painful bout of inflationGovernments are living far beyond their means. Sadly, inflation is the most likely escape富裕國家正面臨一輪痛苦的通膨各國政府的支出遠超其財力。遺憾的是，通膨很可能成為其擺脫困境的手段。插圖：《經濟學人》/裡卡多·雷伊/蓋蒂圖片社在富裕國家，無論你看向何處，政府財政都處於崩潰邊緣。法國的債務不斷攀升，其總理更換速度比凡爾賽宮更換假髮還要快；10月14日，新任總理塞巴斯蒂安·勒科爾尼提議推遲提高退休年齡——原本這一舉措是為了讓預算恢復正常。在日本，儘管國家負債纍纍，但兩位首相候選人都希望增加支出。英國在福利改革基本被擱置後，面臨著大幅增稅以填補預算缺口的局面，即便去年該國已實施過一次所謂“一勞永逸”的增稅。而最關鍵的是，美國6%的GDP赤字已難以為繼，唐納德·川普總統卻還在考慮通過進一步減稅來擴大這一赤字。各國政府這種“入不敷出”的狀態還能持續多久？富裕國家的公共債務已達到GDP的110%；在2019冠狀病毒病疫情之前，只有拿破崙戰爭後才出現過如此高的債務水平。當時，英國通過近一個世紀的緊縮預算才償還了債權人的債務。然而，正如我們的特別報導所指出的，如今的政客們連實現預算平衡都步履維艱。他們無法迴避不斷攀升的利息支出和日益增加的國防開支；人口老齡化也帶來了不可抗拒的選舉壓力，迫使政府增加相關投入。增稅同樣困難重重。在歐洲，政府收入已處於較高水平；而在美國，增稅等同於選舉失利的“門票”。在普選時代，七國集團（G7）經濟體中，只有加拿大在20世紀90年代技術官僚時代鼎盛時期，通過緊縮政策實現了債務的大幅下降。如今，別指望有任何國家能複製這一做法。你或許會希望，在人工智慧（AI）推動下的生產率增長，能讓政府不必再面臨艱難的預算抉擇。但這不過是一廂情願。各國之所以能通過經濟增長擺脫債務，通常是因為勞動力人口增加，或是國家規模較小、正處於追趕其他經濟體的階段。而像人工智慧這樣的突破性技術則不同。養老金和醫療支出往往會隨著收入增長而增加：在大型福利國家，這些支出會隨著生產率的提高而激增。標準經濟模型顯示，利率也會隨之上升。如果人工智慧對經濟增長產生神奇效果，如今在資料中心和晶片上的巨額支出還會進一步增加。這將推高利率，使得原有債務的償還成本更高，進而抵消經濟增長提速帶來的財政紅利。因此，各國政府越來越有可能像二戰後的幾十年那樣，借助通膨和金融抑制來降低高債務的實際價值。央行已具備實施這一策略的機制，它們在債券市場中佔據重要地位。如今，川普以及英國的奈傑爾·法拉奇等民粹主義者已開始攻擊本國央行，並提出可能削弱抗通膨能力的提案。物價上漲並不受歡迎——問問倒霉的喬·拜登就知道了——但它的發生無需政治支援。無論是20世紀70年代還是2022年，都沒有人投票支援通膨。當政府無法採取有效行動、推行不可持續的經濟政策時，通膨浪潮就會不期而至。等到市場意識到問題時，一切都已太晚。正因如此，我們更有理由提前思考，並反思通膨對經濟和社會的危害。它會造成不公平的財富再分配：從債權人轉移到債務人；從持有現金和債券的人轉移到擁有房產等實物資產的人；從簽訂固定現金合同、領取固定現金工資的人轉移到那些足以預見物價上漲並採取應對措施的精明者手中。正如約翰·梅納德·凱恩斯所言，它會導致“財富的任意重組”。而這種情況可能恰好發生在社會正艱難應對其他財富轉移之際——這些轉移的受損方同樣會認為其不公平：在勞動力市場，人工智慧接手了常規的辦公室工作；在遺產繼承方面，嬰兒潮一代將巨額房產財富留給了那些足夠幸運、擁有“正確父母”的人。這種多方面的財富動盪可能會摧毀作為民主社會黏合劑的中產階級，並打亂社會契約。20世紀的阿根廷深受通膨困擾，從世界上最富裕的新興國家之一淪為一個深陷危機循環的中等收入經濟體。在布宜諾斯艾利斯，激烈的競爭不在於誰能創新或誰生產率最高，而在於誰能掌控國家、利用國家權力幫助自己規避通膨的“掠奪性影響”。對於那些領導人在追求財富再分配時否認或迴避預算約束的國家來說，這就是它們的未來。十年前，本刊曾敦促巴西、印度等新興市場吸取阿根廷的教訓。如今，我們的警告對象變成了世界上最富裕的經濟體。但這種下行螺旋並非不可避免。20世紀70年代的持續物價上漲，最終促使羅納德·里根和瑪格麗特·撒切爾當選領導人——他們認為穩健的貨幣政策是國家與公民之間契約的核心。他們確立了一套正統理念：若要兌現公共債務，這些債務就必須合理且可持續。聯準會發起了一場抗通膨戰爭，為整整一代人確立了獨立央行的可信度。這種技術官僚模式隨後得到推廣。20世紀90年代以來，大多數新興市場的通膨率大幅下降，這堪稱奇蹟。即便如今處境艱難的哈維爾·米萊，也仍有可能讓阿根廷實現繁榮。十字路口富裕國家將選擇那條道路——是走向毀滅，還是秉持審慎？在許多國家，當預算危機來襲時，民粹主義者可能正執掌政權。或許他們會因混亂局面受到指責，從而為恢復穩健預算創造可能。無論在那個國家，儲蓄者和債券持有者聯盟都會反對通膨。他們的聲音能否被聽到，很可能取決於債券市場與政客之間的一系列交鋒——其中一些交鋒可能會變得十分激烈。如果世界能在債務降低後意識到過度借貸的危險，某種形式的復甦就有可能實現。反之，世界上最重要的那些經濟體將陷入混亂。 (邸報)

儘管處於強勁上升趨勢，信貸與外匯市場不同的訊號，為股市及黃金帶來警訊。Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年10月9日 美東時間摘要美國科技股上漲與信貸市場落後的背離，為高度相關的台股加權指數(TAIEX)帶來警訊。黃金的上升趨勢面臨美元潛在反轉的風險；基於兩者的負相關性，美元走強將構成逆風。美國政府潛在的關門風險，加上歐洲和拉丁美洲的地緣政治緊張局勢，為市場帶來顯著的短期波動風險。全球央行政策持續支撐風險性資產和黃金的長期上升趨勢，目前數據並未指向趨勢將發生重大反轉。主要意涵是，在現有上升趨勢中波動性將加劇，而非市場將出現重大反轉。美股持續創下新高，但信貸市場並未以同等力道確認此一強勢。我們的企業獲利指標，同時考量了股市和信貸市場的活動，其走勢並未跟上股市強勁的上升軌跡。此一分歧顯示，少數大型科技股的漲幅不成比例地推動了主要指數，可能掩蓋了更廣泛的市場疲態。對台灣投資者而言，台股加權指數(TAIEX)與那斯達克(Nasdaq)的高度相關性，使得此一分歧對科技及半導體類股的曝險尤其重要。截至2025年10月9日，美國指數及美國宏觀經濟指標之趨勢信念矩陣指標報告黃金是另一項價格高漲的資產，同樣面臨潛在逆風，因為美元在今年稍早的強勁下跌後，已顯現反轉跡象。黃金與美元之間典型的負相關性意味著，美元走強可能會抑制黃金的漲勢。資料來源：Stockcharts.com截至2025年10月9日，貨幣與大宗商品之趨勢信念矩陣指標報告與此同時，地緣政治的不確定性也在增加。儘管歷史經驗顯示美國政府關門最終都能解決且影響不大，但一次長期的關門可能會帶來顯著的短期波動，並擾亂市場信心。結合歐洲和拉丁美洲日益升級的地緣政治緊張局勢，這些因素為市場波動加劇創造了條件。儘管存在這些短期風險，投資者必須認識到，許多政府和央行仍為股市和黃金市場提供了持續的支撐背景。貨幣政策仍然是關鍵影響因素，任何持續寬鬆的訊號都有助於支撐資產價格。因此，股市和黃金的廣泛上升趨勢發生實質性、長期的反轉，並非最可能的情境。飆升的股市與其他資產類別之間的顯著分歧，加上美元潛在的反轉以及緊張的地緣政治環境，顯示當前的市場趨勢正面臨關鍵考驗。技術面過度延伸的狀況和偏高的美股估值，放大了此一警示訊號，儘管有央行政策的支持，投資者仍應採取審慎的態度。📲加入我們的專屬頻道，即可獲取我們的跨資產趨勢信念矩陣，以及專家嚴選的投資內容。💬透過LINE與我們聯繫，即可加入社群。👥在Facebook上私訊我們，即可加入社群。如果您覺得這份研究有價值：👍為這篇文章按讚。📰追蹤此部落格，獲取最新的市場動態。➡️分享給其他關注美股和台股市場的投資者。Trend Divergences Signals Potential VolatilityDiffering signals in credit and FX markets signal caution for stocks and gold, despite strong uptrend.Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年10月09日 美東時間Executive SummaryA divergence between rallying U.S. tech stocks and lagging credit markets signals caution for the highly correlated TAIEX.Gold's uptrend is at risk from a potential U.S. dollar reversal, which would act as a headwind due to their inverse correlation.The potential for a U.S. government shutdown with European and Latin America geopolitical tensions introduces a risk of significant short-term market volatility.Long-term uptrends in risk assets and gold remain supported by global central bank policies, with current data not pointing to a major trend reversal.The primary implication is a period of increased volatility within existing uptrends, not a major market reversal.U.S. equities continue making new highs, but credit markets aren't confirming this strength with equal conviction. Our corporate earnings economic indicator, which takes into account both equity and credit market activity, hasn't matched the strong upward trajectory in equities. This bifurcation suggests a few mega-cap stocks are driving disproportionate gains in the headline indices, potentially masking broader market weakness. For Taiwan investors, the TAIEX's high correlation with the Nasdaq makes this divergence particularly relevant for technology and semiconductor sector exposure.Trend Conviction Matrix Indicator Report for U.S. Indices and U.S. Economic Indicators as of: 2025/10/09Gold, another high-flying asset, also faces potential headwinds as the U.S. dollar shows signs of reversing after its strong downtrend earlier this year. The typical inverse correlation between gold and the dollar suggests a strengthening dollar could put a brake on gold's rally.Source: Stockcharts.comTrend Conviction Matrix Indicator Report for Currencies and Commodities as of: 2025/10/09This all comes at a time of increasing geopolitical uncertainty as well. While history has shown that U.S. government shutdowns ultimately are resolved and are benign, a protracted one could introduce significant short-term volatility and disrupt confidence in the market. Combined with escalating geopolitical tensions in Europe and Latin America, these factors create conditions for increased market volatility.Despite these near-term risks, it's important to recognize the continued supportive backdrop from many governments and central banks for both equity and gold markets. Monetary policy remains a key influence, and any signals of continued accommodation could help to underpin asset prices. Therefore, a material, long-term reversal in the broader uptrends for equities and gold is not the most likely scenario.A notable divergence between surging equities and other asset classes, coupled with a potential U.S. dollar reversal and a charged geopolitical environment, indicates a crucial test for current market trends. This cautionary signal is amplified by technically overextended conditions and high U.S. equity valuations, warranting a prudent approach despite supportive central bank policy.📲Join our private channels to gain access to our cross-asset Trend Conviction Matrix and expert-curated investment content. 💬Connect with us on LINE to join the group.👥Message us on Facebook to join the group.if you found this research valuable:👍'Like' this post. 📰Follow this blog for new market updates.➡️Share it with others who track U.S. and Taiwan markets.This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. The views expressed are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Information presented is based on data obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and timeliness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should consult with their own financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author and associated entities may hold positions in the assets or asset classes discussed herein.立即加入《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》LINE@官方帳號，獲得最新專欄資訊（點此加入）關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。Joe 為台裔美國人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。

從東歐到中東，衝突升級與外交轉向為全球市場帶來動盪格局Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年10月01日 美東時間摘要俄羅斯在北約東翼邊界的軍事行動升級，此舉促使波蘭發出「擊落」警告並進行重大防禦部署。在重大的外交進展中，許多歐洲國家已正式承認巴勒斯坦國。此一歷史性舉動孤立了以色列與美國。以色列面臨日益增加的外交挑戰。中國採取了強烈的親巴勒斯坦立場，並因以色列官員與台灣的接觸而對其發出直接警告。美國重新對委內瑞拉實施石油制裁。此舉是在總統馬杜羅採取反民主行動之後，並強化了委內瑞拉與美國敵對陣營的結盟。這些各自獨立的危機，共同創造了一個高度動盪的全球環境。區域衝突日益受到強權競爭的影響，這增加了誤判的可能性。對投資者的投資組合而言，地緣政治事件現已成為主要的風險來源。自2008年以來，各國政府與央行的干預，持續透過前所未有的財政與貨幣支持，來設法管理經濟與市場風險。此一政策方針使得市場對地緣政治衝擊更加敏感，而地緣政治衝擊正是當前市場波動的主要來源。隨著全球股市再度觸及估值過高的區域，投資者應密切關注世界各地的這些局勢。歐洲東部戰線，情勢一觸即發東歐的緊張局勢已加劇。俄羅斯正在加強其對北約的恫嚇行動。此侵略行為伴隨著一連串的直接挑釁。近幾週，俄羅斯無人機侵犯了波蘭與羅馬尼亞的領空，俄羅斯戰鬥機亦曾進入愛沙尼亞領空。這些入侵行動是一種旨在測試北約反應時間與政治決心的策略。對此，北約的回應一直很堅定。波蘭宣布將擊落任何未經許可進入其領土的俄羅斯飛機。美國前總統川普亦支持此政策，敦促聯盟採取更具侵略性的威懾姿態。北約已擴大其在東翼的空中警務與防禦部署。包括法國、德國、丹麥和英國在內的主要成員國，已向該地區額外部署戰鬥機。此行動從波羅的海到黑海，建立了一道堅實的防空屏障。局勢依然充滿危險，任何誤判都可能導致核武大國之間的直接軍事對抗。第四條款與第五條款北約成員國正利用第四條款的協商機制，來應對低於直接攻擊門檻的威脅。此機制是該聯盟管理政治危機與防止事態升級的主要工具。理解其運作方式，對於評估更大範圍戰爭的風險至關重要。第四條款是北約的協商條款。它允許任何成員國在感到其領土完整、政治獨立或安全受到威脅時，召集北大西洋理事會會議。這是一個用於對話而非軍事行動的工具。在俄羅斯2022年入侵烏克蘭後，波蘭、立陶宛、拉脫維亞和愛沙尼亞立即援引了第四條款。土耳其也曾為應對敘利亞內戰而多次援引。這為投資者帶來一個問題：如果更多國家同時援引第四條款，市場將如何反應？第五條款是該聯盟的基石：集體防禦條款。它規定，對一個成員國的武裝攻擊，將被視為對全體成員的攻擊。此條款強制所有成員國協助受攻擊的一方。在北約歷史上，第五條款僅被援引過一次，即2001年9月11日恐怖攻擊後由美國援引。俄羅斯的混合戰術，其目的似乎是在測試第四條款的極限，同時避免觸發第五條款的軍事反應。歐洲在巴勒斯坦問題上政策大轉向在一項具里程碑意義的協同決策中，英國、加拿大、澳洲及許多歐盟成員國已正式承認一個獨立的巴勒斯坦國。此舉代表了許多西方國家傳統政策的巨大轉變。此前，這些國家認為，建國是以色列與巴勒斯坦談判達成和平協議後的結果。此一承認是國際社會對加薩戰爭及以色列在約旦河西岸擴張屯墾區的挫敗感日益增長的直接後果。該決定實際上孤立了以色列政府及其主要盟友美國。美國官員表示，巴勒斯坦建國應透過直接談判實現，而非單方面承認。以色列總理納坦雅胡則拒絕了這些國家的聲明。來自歐洲國家的外交壓力，標誌著該地區的重大發展，並使以色列在外交上比以往更加四面楚歌。中以關係緊繃以色列面臨的外交壓力不僅限於西方。總理納坦雅胡指控中國主導一場針對以色列的社交媒體運動，這指向了兩國之間更深層且迅速惡化的關係。多年來，中國與以色列維持著務實的夥伴關係，聚焦於科技與貿易。然而，加薩戰爭使他們的政治分歧浮上檯面。中國利用這場衝突，將自己定位為「全球南方」與巴勒斯坦事業的擁護者。它在聯合國一再呼籲立即停火，並批評美國對以色列的支持。此摩擦已超越了言詞交鋒。在以色列國會議員Boaz Toporovsky率領一個議會代表團訪問台灣後，中國駐以色列大使館最近對他發出了直接威脅。一份使館聲明警告說，他將會「摔得粉身碎骨」。這種針對民選官員的侵略性語言，標誌著雙邊關係的新低點。對北京視為叛亂省份的台灣進行訪問，觸動了中國最敏感的政治紅線。日益加劇的敵意是多面向的。它源於巴勒斯坦問題，也源於以色列在攸關中國核心利益的議題上與西方強權的結盟。平靜的經濟合作已讓位給公開的外交敵對。美國與委內瑞拉另一場長期的衝突正在美洲地區重新浮現。美國與委內瑞拉之間的緊張關係再次爆發。拜登政府去年因總統馬杜羅未能確保自由公平的選舉，而對卡拉卡斯重新實施石油制裁。現在，川普更積極地向委內瑞拉派遣戰艦與部隊，指控馬杜羅政權與墨西哥販毒集團協同販毒。此一重新施加的經濟壓力，標誌著美國重返更具對抗性的政策。這場對峙不僅是一場區域爭端，也成為強權競爭的另一個競技場。馬杜羅政府已與美國的對手國家，包括俄羅斯、中國和伊朗，培養了牢固的關係。這些國家為其提供經濟、軍事和外交支持。重新實施的制裁，進一步將委內瑞拉推向這個反美集團的懷抱。投資組合在高風險世界中的應對之道此一不斷升級的地緣政治不穩定性，為投資者的投資組合帶來了新的挑戰。全球股市已達到高估值水平，使其容易受到地緣政治衝擊的修正影響。衝突擴大的前景，引入了當前股價尚未完全反映的風險程度。投資者應自問，自己的投資組合該如何準備，以應對動搖市場信心的特定地緣政治事件。投資者情緒正轉向黃金和貴金屬作為避險資產。此趨勢突顯了尋求資本保值的投資者內心的深層焦慮。能源市場也正在為更高的風險溢價定價。中東地區供應中斷的可能性增加，而對委內瑞拉的制裁則收緊了全球供應。更廣泛的衝突將威脅關鍵航運路線，進而助燃全球通膨。監控這些快速變化的趨勢，對於管理波動至關重要。我們專有的趨勢分析工具，旨在協助您追蹤市場方向並識別動能的轉變。使用這些工具能提供分析優勢，以協助您減輕投資組合的風險。歡迎加入我們的LINE群組，以獲取我們對美國和台灣主要股票與ETF的分析工具。👍若您覺得這份研究有價值，請對本文按讚。📲加入並追蹤鉅亨號，與我們互動，即可獲取更多趨勢指標和市場資訊。📰追蹤此部落格。💬LINE好友。➡️將此分析分享給您的親朋好友，一同獲取最新投資觀點。本電子報僅供參考，不構成任何證券或資產類別的投資建議或買賣推薦。文中所表達的觀點為作者截至發布日期的觀點，如有變動，恕不另行通知。所呈現的資訊乃基於從相信可靠的來源所獲取的數據，但其準確性、完整性和及時性不作保證。過往表現並非未來結果的指標。投資涉及風險，包括可能損失本金。讀者在做出任何投資決策前，應諮詢其財務顧問。作者及相關實體可能持有本文所討論的資產或資產類別的部位。Geopolitical Risks UpdateEscalating Conflicts and Diplomatic Shifts from Eastern Europe to the Middle East Create Conditions for Volatility in Global Markets.By Joe 盧, CFA | September 29, 2025Executive SummaryRussia’s military actions on NATO’s eastern border escalate. These actions prompt a significant defensive buildup and a "shoot-down" warning from Poland.In a major diplomatic development, man European nations have officially recognized a Palestinian state. This historic move isolates Israel and the U.S.Israel faces increasing diplomatic challenges. China has adopted a strong pro-Palestinian stance and issued direct warnings to Israeli officials over their engagement with Taiwan.The United States reimposed oil sanctions on Venezuela. The move follows President Maduro's anti-democratic actions and strengthens Venezuela's alignment with U.S. adversaries.These separate crises create a highly volatile global environment. Regional conflicts are increasingly influenced by great-power competition, which increases the potential for miscalculation.Geopolitical events now represent a primary source of risk for your portfolio. Since 2008, governments and central bank intervention has consistently sought to manage economic and market risks through unprecedented fiscal and monetary support. This policy approach makes markets more sensitive to geopolitical shocks, which are the primary source of market volatility currently. As stock markets around the world reach overvalued territory again, investors should be monitoring these situations around the world carefully.Europe's Eastern Front on a Knife's EdgeTensions in Eastern Europe have intensified. Russia is increasing its campaign of intimidation against NATO. This aggression accompanies a pattern of direct provocations. In recent weeks, Russian drones violated the airspace of Poland and Romania. Russian fighter jets also entered Estonian airspace.These incursions are a strategy to test NATO's response times and political resolve. The response has been firm. Poland announced it will shoot down any Russian aircraft that enters its territory without permission. Former U.S. President Donald Trump supported this policy, urging the alliance to adopt a more aggressive deterrent posture. NATO has expanded its air policing and defensive posture on its eastern flank. Key members, including France, Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, deployed additional fighter jets to the region. This action creates a robust air defense shield from the Baltics to the Black Sea. The situation remains fraught with peril. A miscalculation could lead to a direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed powers.Article 4 and Article 5NATO members are using Article 4 consultations to respond to threats below the threshold of direct attack. This mechanism is the alliance's primary tool for managing political crises and preventing escalation. Understanding how it functions is critical for assessing the risk of a wider war.Article 4 is NATO’s consultation clause. It allows any member nation to convene a meeting of the North Atlantic Council when it feels its territorial integrity, political independence, or security is threatened. It is a tool for dialogue, not military action. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia invoked Article 4 immediately following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Turkey has also invoked it multiple times in response to the Syrian civil war. This raises a question for you: how would markets react if more nations invoke Article 4 simultaneously?Article 5 is the cornerstone of the alliance: the collective defense clause. It states that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all. This provision compels all member states to assist the attacked party. Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO's history, by the United States after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.Russia's hybrid tactics appear designed to test the limits of Article 4 without triggering the military response of Article 5.Europe Pivots on PalestineIn a landmark, coordinated decision, the U.K., Canada, Australia, and many European Union members have officially recognized an independent Palestinian state. This move represents a monumental departure from the traditional policy of many Western nations. Previously, these nations held that statehood was an outcome of a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.The recognition is a direct consequence of growing international frustration over the war in Gaza and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The decision effectively isolates the Israeli government and its primary ally, the United States. U.S. officials stated that a Palestinian state should be realized through direct negotiations, not unilateral recognition. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the announcements. This diplomatic pressure from European nations marks a significant development in the region, and leaves Israel more diplomatically embattled than before.Sino-Israeli Relations Under StrainThe diplomatic pressure on Israel is not limited to the West. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s accusation of a Chinese-led social media campaign points to a deeper and rapidly deteriorating relationship with Beijing. For years, China and Israel maintained a pragmatic partnership focused on technology and trade. The war in Gaza has brought their political differences to the forefront. China has used the conflict to position itself as a champion of the Global South and the Palestinian cause. It repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire at the United Nations and criticized U.S. support of Israel.This friction has moved beyond rhetoric. The Chinese Embassy in Israel recently issued a direct threat to Boaz Toporovsky, a member of the Knesset, after he led a parliamentary delegation to Taiwan. An embassy statement warned that he would "fall and be shattered to pieces." This aggressive language targeting a democratically elected official signifies a new low in bilateral relations. The visit to Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province, touched upon China's most sensitive political red line. The growing animosity is multifaceted. It stems from the Palestinian issue and from Israel's alignment with Western powers on issues vital to China's core interests. Quiet economic cooperation has given way to open diplomatic hostility.The U.S. and VenezuelaAnother long-standing conflict is re-emerging in the Americas. Tensions have once again flared between the United States and Venezuela. The Biden administration, last year, reimposed oil sanctions on Caracas over the failure of President Nicolás Maduro's government to ensure free and fair elections. Now, Trump has actively sent warships and troops to Venezuela, accusing the Maduro regime of trafficking drugs in coordination with Mexican cartels.This renewed economic pressure signals a return to a more confrontational U.S. policy. The standoff is a regional dispute and serves as another arena for great-power competition. Maduro’s government has cultivated strong ties with U.S. rivals, including Russia, China, and Iran. These countries provide economic, military, and diplomatic support. The reimposition of sanctions pushes Venezuela further into the embrace of this anti-U.S. bloc.Your Portfolio in a High-Risk WorldThis escalating geopolitical instability creates new challenges for your portfolio. Global equity markets have reached high valuation levels, making them susceptible to a correction from geopolitical shocks. The prospect of widening conflicts introduces a level of risk current stock prices do not fully reflect. You should ask how your portfolio is prepared to handle a specific geopolitical event that shakes market confidence.Investor sentiment is shifting toward gold and precious metals as safe haven assets. This trend underscores a deep anxiety among investors seeking to preserve capital. Energy markets are also pricing in higher risk premiums. The potential for disruptions in the Middle East grows, and sanctions on Venezuela tighten global supply. A wider conflict threatens key shipping lanes, which would fuel global inflation.Monitoring these fast-moving trends is crucial for managing volatility. Our proprietary trend analysis tools are designed to help you track market direction and identify shifts in momentum. Using these tools provides an analytical edge to help you mitigate risk in your portfolio. Join our LINE group to access these tools on the largest U.S. and Taiwan stocks and ETFs.👍'Like' this article if you found this research valuable.📲 Join our private channels to get more trend indicators and market information delivered directly to you. Choose your preferred channel to stay informed.📰Follow this blog.💬Connect with us on LINE.➡️Share this analysis to someone in your network who appreciates a data-driven perspective.This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. The views expressed are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Information presented is based on data obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and timeliness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should consult with their own financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author and associated entities may hold positions in the assets or asset classes discussed herein.立即加入《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》LINE@官方帳號，獲得最新專欄資訊（點此加入）關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。Joe 為台裔美國人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。