首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 商潮 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

贝森特的日元干预释放出危险信号

贝森特介入日元市场的举动,完全符合“大玩家”的特征。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

2026年7月30日,美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特在华盛顿白宫北草坪接受电视采访后离场。图片来源:Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

近日,美国财政部长贝森特与日本财务省联手干预外汇市场,试图推动日元升值至他口中“更合理”的水平。贝森特断定,市场目前并未正确反映日元的价值。显然,在他眼中,众多用真金白银在市场里下注的交易员全都判断失误,只有他自己才真正懂行。贝森特此前在接受福克斯商业频道(Fox Business)采访时声称,日元“被严重低估”,并称货币的“过度波动”并不健康。这番言论顿时引发舆论哗然。

毫无疑问,贝森特介入日元市场的举动,完全符合“大玩家”的特征。正如我们此前在《财富》杂志发表的文章中所解释的那样,大玩家之所以被称为“大”,是因为他们的言行能够影响市场走势。他们对盈亏并不敏感,行动也极具随意性,不受任何简单、明确的规则约束,全凭个人判断行事,而这些判断又会随着情绪起伏而摇摆不定。所以市场应当绷紧神经。别再盲从市场自发形成的汇率水平了。无论具体目标是多少,贝森特都会出手强行把日元拉到他认为合适的水平。

贝森特与日本财务省联手干预后,日元应声走强,但这轮涨势最终是否只是“死猫反弹”,仍有待观察。日元为何会走强?首先,市场确实出现了直接干预,即相关机构直接买入日元。其次,也是更重要的一点,美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特和日本财务大臣片山皋月通过公开表态向市场施压。两人都明确表示,希望日元走强,并准备通过干预措施提振疲软的日元。大玩家的表态本身就足以撬动市场。这种人为干预不仅会制造波动,更让整个市场无所适从。

事实证明,贝森特正在重拾一套早已信誉扫地的旧操作思路。1887年,伊万·维什涅格拉茨基接替尼古拉·邦格,出任沙俄财政大臣。邦格是一位坚持原则的非干预主义者,绝非“大玩家”。而维什涅格拉茨基则是“大玩家”的典型代表。他热衷于操纵卢布兑金本位德国马克的汇率。据报道,有一次,当他自认成功击败了柏林的投机者时,甚至得意地搓起了双手。参照下面这张图表便能看清,这位“大玩家”的干预最终酿成何种结局。

维什涅格拉茨基的干预行为加剧了市场波动。而他的继任者谢尔盖·维特则形成了鲜明对照。维特摒弃随意的自由裁量式干预,于1897年正式推动卢布锚定金本位制。对维特而言,基于规则的金本位制,象征着俄罗斯帝国在国际资本主义秩序中的地位以及与其他国家平等竞争的资格。随后市场趋于平静并非偶然。针对多项央行干预的研究表明,捍卫货币升值与强行拉高汇率的效果大不相同,而基于规则的体系恰好能彻底规避这种不对称风险。规则带来约束,而“大玩家”全凭即兴发挥。

这正是“大玩家”经济理论所预测的结果。与贝森特的说法相反,“大玩家”介入外汇市场,只会放大波动,而非平抑波动。

如今,贝森特既然已成为外汇市场上的“大玩家”,他势必会催生出一个全新的“财政部观察”行业。交易员们会时刻紧盯贝森特的一言一行,逐字逐句地揣摩他的每一句随口点评,乃至每条未经证实的传闻。

届时,真正左右市场的将不再是“经济基本面”,而是这位“大玩家”的一举一动、对这些举动的猜测,以及对这些猜测的二次猜测。所有这些盲目猜测都将引发羊群效应和噪声交易,市场参与者就像追逐自己尾巴的狗一样疯狂打转,徒劳地试图预判“大玩家”下次无法预料的情绪变化。与此同时,经济基本面将逐渐变得无关紧要。欢迎来到“大玩家时代”。(财富中文网)

本文作者史蒂夫·汉克是《财富》杂志高级特约专栏作家、约翰斯·霍普金斯大学(Johns Hopkins University)应用经济学教授。他近期与马特·塞克尔克合著新书《让货币发挥作用:如何重写金融体系规则》(Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of Our Financial System)。

罗杰·科普尔是锡拉丘兹大学(Syracuse University)惠特曼管理学院(Whitman School of Management)金融学教授,著有《大玩家与预期经济理论》(Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations)。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

近日,美国财政部长贝森特与日本财务省联手干预外汇市场,试图推动日元升值至他口中“更合理”的水平。贝森特断定,市场目前并未正确反映日元的价值。显然,在他眼中,众多用真金白银在市场里下注的交易员全都判断失误,只有他自己才真正懂行。贝森特此前在接受福克斯商业频道(Fox Business)采访时声称,日元“被严重低估”,并称货币的“过度波动”并不健康。这番言论顿时引发舆论哗然。

毫无疑问,贝森特介入日元市场的举动,完全符合“大玩家”的特征。正如我们此前在《财富》杂志发表的文章中所解释的那样,大玩家之所以被称为“大”,是因为他们的言行能够影响市场走势。他们对盈亏并不敏感,行动也极具随意性,不受任何简单、明确的规则约束,全凭个人判断行事,而这些判断又会随着情绪起伏而摇摆不定。所以市场应当绷紧神经。别再盲从市场自发形成的汇率水平了。无论具体目标是多少,贝森特都会出手强行把日元拉到他认为合适的水平。

贝森特与日本财务省联手干预后,日元应声走强,但这轮涨势最终是否只是“死猫反弹”,仍有待观察。日元为何会走强?首先,市场确实出现了直接干预,即相关机构直接买入日元。其次,也是更重要的一点,美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特和日本财务大臣片山皋月通过公开表态向市场施压。两人都明确表示,希望日元走强,并准备通过干预措施提振疲软的日元。大玩家的表态本身就足以撬动市场。这种人为干预不仅会制造波动,更让整个市场无所适从。

事实证明,贝森特正在重拾一套早已信誉扫地的旧操作思路。1887年,伊万·维什涅格拉茨基接替尼古拉·邦格,出任沙俄财政大臣。邦格是一位坚持原则的非干预主义者,绝非“大玩家”。而维什涅格拉茨基则是“大玩家”的典型代表。他热衷于操纵卢布兑金本位德国马克的汇率。据报道,有一次,当他自认成功击败了柏林的投机者时,甚至得意地搓起了双手。参照下面这张图表便能看清,这位“大玩家”的干预最终酿成何种结局。

维什涅格拉茨基的干预行为加剧了市场波动。而他的继任者谢尔盖·维特则形成了鲜明对照。维特摒弃随意的自由裁量式干预,于1897年正式推动卢布锚定金本位制。对维特而言,基于规则的金本位制,象征着俄罗斯帝国在国际资本主义秩序中的地位以及与其他国家平等竞争的资格。随后市场趋于平静并非偶然。针对多项央行干预的研究表明,捍卫货币升值与强行拉高汇率的效果大不相同,而基于规则的体系恰好能彻底规避这种不对称风险。规则带来约束,而“大玩家”全凭即兴发挥。

这正是“大玩家”经济理论所预测的结果。与贝森特的说法相反,“大玩家”介入外汇市场,只会放大波动,而非平抑波动。

如今,贝森特既然已成为外汇市场上的“大玩家”,他势必会催生出一个全新的“财政部观察”行业。交易员们会时刻紧盯贝森特的一言一行,逐字逐句地揣摩他的每一句随口点评,乃至每条未经证实的传闻。

届时,真正左右市场的将不再是“经济基本面”,而是这位“大玩家”的一举一动、对这些举动的猜测,以及对这些猜测的二次猜测。所有这些盲目猜测都将引发羊群效应和噪声交易,市场参与者就像追逐自己尾巴的狗一样疯狂打转,徒劳地试图预判“大玩家”下次无法预料的情绪变化。与此同时,经济基本面将逐渐变得无关紧要。欢迎来到“大玩家时代”。(财富中文网)

本文作者史蒂夫·汉克是《财富》杂志高级特约专栏作家、约翰斯·霍普金斯大学(Johns Hopkins University)应用经济学教授。他近期与马特·塞克尔克合著新书《让货币发挥作用:如何重写金融体系规则》(Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of Our Financial System)。

罗杰·科普尔是锡拉丘兹大学(Syracuse University)惠特曼管理学院(Whitman School of Management)金融学教授,著有《大玩家与预期经济理论》(Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations)。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Last week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent joined with Japan’s Ministry of Finance to intervene in currency markets in an effort to boost the yen to levels that Bessent proclaimed would be more appropriate. Bessent decided that markets are not valuing the yen correctly. Apparently, a host of traders with skin in the game have it all wrong; Bessent knows better. Bessent started tongues wagging by saying in a Fox Business interview that the yen was “very undervalued” and “excess volatility” isn’t healthy.

There is no question that Bessent’s activity in the yen market qualifies as that of a Big Player. Recall our earlier piece in Fortune, in which we laid out the characteristics of a Big Player. Big Players are big because their words and deeds move markets. They are insensitive to profit and loss. They are also discretionary because they are not bound by any simple, understandable rules. They act on judgments that oscillate with their mood swings. So, fasten your seat belts. Forget the exchange rates thrown up by the markets. Bessent will act to move the yen to levels he deems appropriate, whatever they might happen to be.

Following the intervention of Bessent and Japan’s Ministry of Finance, the yen strengthened in what may or may not turn out to be a dead cat bounce. Just why did the yen strengthen? First, there was the actual intervention, which consisted of direct purchases of the yen. Second, and more importantly, there was jawboning from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama. Both made it clear that they wanted a stronger yen and that they were going to intervene to give the dying yen a little life. Big Players’ say-so moves markets. This sort of manipulation produces volatility and perplexes markets.

As it turns out, Bessent is following an old and discredited playbook. In 1887, Ivan Vyshnegradsky replaced Nicolai Bunge as czarist Imperial Russia’s finance minister. Bunge was a principled non-interventionist. He was not a Big Player. Vyshnegradsky, however, was the very archetype of a Big Player. He eagerly manipulated the ruble’s exchange rate against the gold-based German mark. He was even reported to have rubbed his hands in glee once when he thought he had gotten the better of Berlin speculators. Just take a look at the accompanying figure. It shows what Big Player Vyshnegradsky’s interventions accomplished.

Vyshnegradsky’s interventions increased volatility. Vyshnegradsky’s successor, Sergei Witte, offers the counterpoint. Rather than freelancing with discretionary interventions, Witte committed the ruble to the gold standard in 1897. For Witte, the rule-based gold standard was a symbol of Imperial Russia’s standing and equality with others in the international capitalist order. The calm that followed was no accident: research on central bank interventions shows they work far better when defending a currency’s rise than when trying to force it down, exactly the kind of asymmetry a rules-based system sidesteps entirely. Rules constrain; Big Players improvise. This is just what the economic theory of Big Players predicts. Contrary to Bessent’s assertions, Big Player interventions in currency markets create more volatility, not less.

This is just what the economic theory of Big Players predicts. Contrary to Bessent’s assertions, Big Player interventions in currency markets create more volatility, not less.

Now that he’s become a Big Player in currency markets, Bessent will launch a whole new industry of Treasury watching. Traders will hang on every word slipping from Bessent’s lips, every passing remark and every whispered rumor.

What counts the most will no longer be “underlying fundamentals.” What counts the most will be the moves of the Big Player, guesses about those moves, and guesses about those guesses. All that guessing will create herding and noise trading as the crowd chases the crowd like a dog chases its tail, in a futile attempt to get ahead of the next unpredictable change in what humors the Big Player. Economic fundamentals, in the meantime, will fade into irrelevancy. Welcome to the age of Big Players.

Steve Hanke is a Senior Contributing Columnist at Fortune, a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book, co-authored with Matt Sekerke, is Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of Our Financial System.

Roger Koppl is a Professor of Finance at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management and author of Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开