哈哈，你还是不明白关税会造成什么。restia或者leong肯定明白这种政策会造成什么问题。你要知道的是，美国是这个世界唯一一个甲方，其他的都是乙方。trump没有错，你要access进去美国的巨大消费market，你就要pay for it。不过后果是disastrous的，这个我懒得解释，你要懂我说什么，tong已经很完美地解释了。我的想法是，什么反弹都好，都是为了未来可以trap你进去的手段。本地机构也因为华仔的关系，没办法所以一直推高给外资套现。不过外资还没跑，都去了大马的债卷市场，等时机对了，他们还是会回来的。

如果你说25％的汽车tariff没问题，那好吧，我坐等honda，toyota，stellantis，ford，gm这些车厂炒人！bmw跟ferrari已经起价，准备转移tariffs给美国消费者了，你说谁会获益？美国人的二手车至少直接起了3-5k，你认为会有人会考虑买新车了吗？现在的市场在赌什么你不知道吗，那是stagflation啊大哥。你看看美联储上一次的记者会说了什么，还有就是他们认为的growth跟inflation data都指向什么。。。

你以为的2/4只是一轮就结束了，接下来你以为他会收手？当他们什么都自己在美国里面做的时候，马来西亚算老几？我们还能继续靠贸易顺差来维持现在的经济吗？当然啦，2/4会反弹，也是有可能的，你的看法跟美国cnbc的那个tom lee一毛一样。我的看法是，长期非常不好，是非常非常超级不好。大马这里的出口公司除了压低margin，甚至会裁员，甚至更糟糕的是，老美公司直接带你去美国玩，让你absorb多出来的cost。到时候马来西亚剩下什么？我觉得可以把batu kawan的土地拿来种榴莲树或者palm oil树吧。或者全部拿来卖给别的国家，拿来建data center。manufacturing就算了吧。

如果你有听老特演说他每次就是针对的是台湾和中国高端制造，台湾是肯定跑不掉，马来西亚公司大部分是老牌科技老特预计不太可能会在这里下手。 万一老特要广大关税范围，相关公司会要求厂商大家一起分担，那样margin会下跌这要看公司对美国出口业务而定。 很多公司股价已经跌了50-70%这些因素已经计算在内。 如果万一老牌科技没有影响，订单就会像海啸一样涌入。 那个赢面大你自己要去算了。还有4天。

首先，我们要搞清楚一点。

股市，资金决定一切。
目前的马股，不是散户或外资可以决定涨跌，而是本地的国家队，保险金，基金等大机构决定的。

目前，外资和散户在去年的8月开始，陆续撤离了股市。
钱，开始进入债市和货币基金市场，拿固定利率的收入。
要离开大马的资金，通过兑换外币(如新元和美元)，汇出外国了。
马币的汇率从那时候开始贬值到一美元兑换4.45马币左右，就不再贬值了，这证明了资金还是留在大马，只不过是在债市，而不是股市。
印尼的股市崩了，汇率也崩了。
这就表示外资不留在当地，反而把钱汇出印尼，导致印尼盾大跌。

既然钱还在大马，就表示大马的股市，债市和汇率，在东南亚地区里是属于低波动的，值得他们在全球范围内外围因素不明朗的时期，把钱留在大马进行避险和保值。

既然大马股市还是外资的避风港(相对一些小的国家而言，不要跟新加坡比较)。
那么我们需要思考的问题是
1.哪些股票是他们进场时的选择呢？
2.什么时候才是真正的入场时机，而不是陷阱呢？
3.风险和回酬，比率和胜率如何拿捏?
4.股市要起涨，必须要有主题来带动，不然没人会心甘情愿丢钱进入股市。下一个主题是什么？

赌，是没有策略的，一厢情愿地把胜率交给命运。

投机，是有策略，衡量胜率和风险，自己掌控进场和出场的时机。

投资，是辨别趋势和风口，让资金和时间，带领我们起飞。

你，是赌/投机/投资?

这几个月外资基本上都退出大部分亚洲国家台湾，韩国和东南亚。 印尼比较严重是因为政治和经济不是那么乐观和最近又违约问题也被媒体说是肮脏15. 几个领域可以注意建筑业工程很多还是创新高，palm oil, 房地产和内销产品这些都不会被关税影响。 不过有很多因为市场情绪影响股价也一样跌。跌最多的肯定是科技股业绩好和比较强的一些已经反弹20%以上，差的也反弹10%了。这个领域关税影响如果较小那肯定反弹最高。 什么股严重被低估的大家自己看。

特朗普的高关税政策，造成了
1.打击了厂家在美国以外的生产地的扩张企业开销的意愿。
2.打击了美国消费者的消费意愿，造成需求下降。
除非美国个人所得税减税政策实施(特朗普的计划之一)
3.本地加工厂，被上游厂家压迫降低赚幅，共同承担关税的影响。

这些负面影响，会导致我国的出口型公司，面对很大的挑战。

leong直接说出问题所在。其实那天听到jerome powell说这个关税inflation是transitory的时候，我笑了，毕竟21-22年的时候，也是说那时候的通膨是transitory的。fdi看重的是中国+1，cost低，所以才会选择到这里扩展。如果来个25％，这个margin谁要抗下？中国的话是suppliers要给折扣，企业不会请很多人，政府也要负担一些（出口退税），你国家的货比也要跟着扁值，甚至运输这种苦活也要给折扣，然后再看美国的importer愿意吸收多少关税，所以18-19年2的贸易战对美国基本没造成什么影响。是的，东西会变贵，可是不是一下子，而是慢慢来，毕竟中国那边的商家会慢慢起价，美国本地的商家也想把自己的关税负担pass给consumers。最近有个搞笑的新闻，那就是donald trump在宣布了25％的汽车税后，喊话叫厂商不许加价格。哈哈，你猜他们会怎么做？所以你觉得失业率会高吗？你觉得consumer信心会低吗？你觉得recession的几率高吗？gdp会高吗？美股跌是因为情绪还是在price in未来的stagflation/recession？

为什么你会那么乐观，甚至不把关税看成是回事的？你是不是真的不清楚关税带来的问题，以及之前我们的出口股在跌什么？你是不是认为trump会开恩，不会对我们出手，毕竟我们都没钱，没有自家的企业。我以前也以为关税是威胁罢了，直到tmd听了bessent说的话，我就改观了。如今他说的做法是，加关税先，再看什么厂商出问题的话，就给他们exemption（trump coin捐2million就可以了）。

爱妃，是科技股。
它仰赖外国或本地的订单。
如果各大厂家关水喉，爱妃就会面对营业额和盈利下跌的困境。
如果一切照旧，特朗普不再翻来覆去地改变关税政策，那么爱妃就会回到起跌点。

Mg,我对科技股选择观望。

其实关税除了我以上所说的坏处，它最主要还是催毁了consumer以及做生意的人的信心，尤其是中小型公司（没pricing power）。你可以看到最近美国的survey数据都显示大家对未来的货物价格的inflation是越来越高，consumer的信心指数越来越低，credit card债务越来越高，房屋跟汽车的loan申请被拒绝率历史新高，金价格历史新高。。。这些数据你看到的时候都会吓一跳，不过也对。。。如果你没去找来看，你是不知道外面发生了什么事情。。。

当你认为aiya，关税罢了，4月2日后全球股市有确定性了，肯定爆涨。给你一个暗示，今年美国需要refinance 9 trillion的债务。当你的gdp低过你的debt的interest，恭喜你，你是一个ponzi国家了。你认为中国央行为什么没买美债了呢？尤其是10年的国债。大家都在买金的意义何在？为什么国债的利息必须要按下去，为什么美国的deficit to gdp ratio必须要按下去3％呢（如今是7％）。为什么政府削减开销，美国的gdp会跌呢？如果你还不明白我说什么，你可以问chatgpt。为什么这里的各位会那么看死接下来的股市，也为什么关税是肯定会实现的事，毕竟他们需要钱来还债，没办法了只好想办法增加国家收入跟减少政府的spending。好吧，我说完了，我们一起目睹接下来的熊市吧。

昨天美股死猫跳，应该是机构在第三季度最后一天，做window dressing。不止这样，你可以看得出资金从科技板块大量转移到defensive的sector，以及surprisingly的汽油板块。
今早美股三大指数futures继续崩，10年yield是否能继续压下去就看明天trump的铁拳了。我们来看4月2号后，有没有所谓的股市欢呼，还是热钱会继续跑去金，bitcoin，跟美债这边。今年会有多少rate cut没人知道，不过确定的是，企业不敢冒然扩展了，对aimflex的生意只有坏处，没有好处。。。

Bobo 我觉得你有点太悲观了 4月2号 reciprocal tariffs include all nation not specific country. 很多国家的股市已经price in le除了美国 毕竟reciprocal tariffs 对美国公司算是利好 而且关税的后果也不会那么快来 都还没实行 实行了也要等几个月 到一年 才会看得到是好还是坏 我也是和MS意见一样4月2号后股市会起 来个最后一波 以后的事以后才想beh 反正没人懂未来是怎样

全球最低关税是10%。 马来西亚是24%。亚洲新加坡和沙地最低10%， 菲利宾17%，接下来就是马来西亚24%排名是第3低了。关税人人都中有高有低。这时候就是要看谁的谁有优势，马来西亚排名第3低是很好事。 也是在东南亚第3。其他国中国34%，vietnam 46, taiwan 32, japan 24,korea 25, india 26,, indonesia 32, thailand 36, cambodia 49, EU 20, philiphine 17, singapore 10.

The recent U.S. tariffs have a greater impact on Europe and China compared to Malaysia for several key reasons:

1. China and Europe Have Larger Exposure to U.S. Markets
• China and the EU are major exporters of high-value industrial and technological goods to the U.S. Any tariffs imposed have a substantial financial impact due to the sheer volume of trade.
• The U.S. tariffs on Chinese products are aimed at reducing reliance on China for key industries like semiconductors, batteries, and green technology.

2. Malaysia’s Role as a Secondary Supplier
• Malaysia’s E&E industry plays a strategic role in global supply chains, particularly in semiconductor back-end processing and testing.
• Since many multinational companies have already diversified operations to Malaysia as part of the “China+1” strategy, Malaysia is less directly affected by tariffs than China.

3. Tariff Rates and Product Categories
• U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are typically broader and higher (often exceeding 25%) due to ongoing geopolitical tensions.
• The tariffs on EU exports focus on high-tech and green energy sectors (e.g., electric vehicles, machinery), which are major revenue sources for European companies.
• Malaysia’s tariffs, though significant, are targeted at specific goods rather than the entire industry.

4. Malaysia’s Trade Agreements and Diversification
• Malaysia is part of multiple trade agreements (e.g., RCEP, CPTPP), allowing it to mitigate U.S. tariffs by redirecting trade to other markets.
• European companies, on the other hand, rely more heavily on U.S. sales for premium products like automobiles and industrial machinery.

5. China’s Direct Competition with the U.S.
• Many of China’s industries, such as semiconductors and green energy, compete directly with U.S. firms, leading to aggressive tariff policies.
• Malaysia, in contrast, is viewed as a complementary partner in semiconductor supply chains rather than a direct competitor.

Conclusion

While Malaysia faces challenges due to U.S. tariffs, its impact is lower than in Europe or China because of its role as a diversified supplier in global supply chains, its trade agreements, and the more targeted nature of U.S. tariffs on its exports.

Semiconductors are not included in the recent U.S. tariffs for several key reasons:

1. Avoiding Disruption to the U.S. Tech Industry
• The U.S. relies heavily on Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, for semiconductor assembly, testing, and packaging.
• Imposing tariffs on Malaysian semiconductors would increase costs for U.S. companies like Intel, AMD, and Apple, which depend on Malaysian facilities.

2. Malaysia’s Role in the Global Supply Chain
• Malaysia is a major hub for the backend semiconductor process, such as assembly and testing, rather than front-end fabrication.
• The U.S. tariffs primarily target competitors like China in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, whereas Malaysia plays a supportive role in the supply chain.

3. Strategic Partnerships and U.S. Investment in Malaysia
• The U.S. is actively encouraging semiconductor investments in Malaysia, with companies like Intel and Texas Instruments expanding operations there.
• Tariffs could discourage these investments and push companies to seek alternatives outside of Malaysia.

4. The U.S. Focus on Restricting China, Not Allies
• U.S. semiconductor policies are aimed at limiting China’s access to advanced chips and manufacturing equipment, not restricting supply from friendly nations.
• Malaysia, as a trade partner, benefits from the “China+1” diversification strategy.

5. Maintaining Competitiveness Against China and Europe
• The U.S. wants to strengthen its semiconductor supply chain without increasing costs for American tech firms.
• Imposing tariffs on Malaysian semiconductors would harm U.S. firms more than it would hurt Malaysia.

Conclusion

Malaysia’s semiconductor industry is protected from tariffs because it plays a crucial role in the U.S. supply chain. Instead of imposing tariffs, the U.S. is focusing on restricting China’s semiconductor advancements while maintaining strong ties with Malaysia.

Trump’s stance on not taxing raw materials and parts that cannot be sourced from the U.S. is based on several key economic and strategic reasons:

1. Protecting U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness
• Many U.S. industries, such as automotive, aerospace, and electronics, rely on imported raw materials and components that are not produced domestically.
• Imposing tariffs on these essential inputs would increase production costs for American companies, making them less competitive globally.

2. Avoiding Inflation and Higher Consumer Prices
• If tariffs were applied to essential raw materials and components, U.S. manufacturers would pass the higher costs to consumers.
• This could lead to inflationary pressure, particularly in industries like technology, healthcare, and industrial manufacturing.

3. Strengthening the U.S. Supply Chain Without Disrupting It
• The goal of Trump’s tariffs is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and reduce reliance on China.
• However, taxing raw materials and specialized components that are not available domestically would disrupt production rather than encourage reshoring.

4. Encouraging “Friendshoring” Instead of Full Decoupling
• Rather than fully cutting off foreign suppliers, the U.S. wants to shift supply chains away from China to friendly countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Mexico.
• Exempting critical raw materials and parts from tariffs helps maintain these strategic partnerships.

5. Aligning with U.S. Industry Demands
• Many American industries have lobbied against tariffs on certain inputs, arguing that they would harm domestic manufacturing rather than protect it.
• For example, the semiconductor and automotive industries rely on imported raw materials like rare earth metals and specialty chemicals that the U.S. does not produce in sufficient quantities.

Conclusion

Trump’s tariff strategy is designed to hurt foreign competitors (especially China) while minimizing harm to U.S. industries. By exempting raw materials and parts that cannot be sourced domestically, he aims to avoid damaging American businesses and consumers while still promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chain diversification.

我给你条路看，bessent不止一次说过，treasury long term yield跟油价必须降下来。他们认为只要油价下来，通膨也会自然而然下来。这两句话，他从年头说到现在。为何不早早去部署呢？然后现在还要一直看短短的，而不看长期gdp会下滑，衰退可能即将到来的事实。手套可以买，不过我只会trade，不会hold，毕竟人家不是sleepy joe，人家天天都在改这个改那个。

美国对台湾进口产品征收32%关税，但半导体并不在其中，主要针对的是电动车、电池和其他工业产品。

1. 台湾半导体未受关税影响
• 美国针对台湾的32%关税主要是新能源汽车、太阳能设备和其他制造业产品，并不涉及半导体。
• 这是因为半导体是美国科技产业的核心供应链，如果加税，美国企业（如苹果、英伟达、AMD）成本会大幅上升，不符合美国利益。
• 目前，美国仍然依赖台积电（TSMC）生产高端芯片，尤其是3nm、5nm芯片，美国本土制造能力仍然不足。

2. 为什么美国对台湾某些产品加税？
• 美国希望减少对中国和亚洲的供应链依赖，尤其是在新能源汽车、电池、钢铁等产业。
• 美国政府鼓励这些产业回流本土，所以对外国产品（包括台湾、韩国、日本）加税，促进美国制造。
• 但半导体不同，美国还无法在短期内用本土生产完全替代台湾，所以没有将芯片纳入关税清单。

3. 未来美国会不会对台湾半导体加税？
• 短期内不太可能，因为美国仍然依赖台积电，并且希望台积电在美国建厂（如台积电亚利桑那工厂）。
• 长期来看，如果美国芯片制造能力提高（如英特尔、三星的美国工厂投入生产），美国可能会调整贸易政策，但目前仍然需要台湾供应链。

4. 其他国家的影响
• 马来西亚：目前仍然是美国半导体供应链的重要一环，封装测试业务不会受32%关税影响。
• 中国：受到的影响最大，美国已经限制先进芯片和半导体设备的出口，未来可能会有更多限制。
• 韩国、日本：部分产品也可能受影响，但半导体依然是合作重点。

结论

虽然美国对台湾某些产品征收32%关税，但半导体仍然被豁免，因为美国本土制造能力不足，仍然依赖台湾的台积电供应高端芯片。短期内，美国不会对半导体加税，以避免影响自身科技产业。

美国可能不会对半导体征收额外关税，除非出于特定的经济或国家安全考虑。以下是几个关键因素：

1. 保护美国科技产业
• 美国科技公司（如苹果、英伟达、AMD、英特尔）依赖海外供应链，尤其是马来西亚、台湾、韩国等国的半导体封测（assembly, testing, packaging）。
• 如果对进口半导体加税，美国企业的生产成本会大幅上升，最终导致电子产品价格上涨，影响市场竞争力。

2. 避免伤害美国芯片制造商
• 美国半导体公司虽然设计芯片，但大部分制造和封装仍然依赖亚洲国家。
• 例如，台积电（TSMC）和三星制造最先进的芯片，而马来西亚、越南负责封测，美国目前无法完全替代这些环节。
• 如果对进口半导体加税，反而会削弱美国芯片公司的全球竞争力。

3. 当前关税主要针对中国，而非盟友
• 美国目前的芯片政策主要限制中国获取先进芯片和制造设备，而不是对全球半导体供应链征税。
• 友好国家（如马来西亚、韩国、台湾、日本）仍然是美国供应链的重要伙伴，加税可能会影响这些盟友的合作意愿。

4. 美国推动本土半导体制造，但短期无法取代进口
• 美国推出CHIPS Act（芯片法案），希望加强本土芯片制造，但短期内仍无法满足需求。
• 目前台积电、三星、英特尔的美国工厂建设进度较慢，未来几年仍需依赖海外供应链。
• 在这种情况下，对进口半导体加税只会导致美国企业陷入供应短缺。

5. 例外情况：如果涉及国家安全，美国可能调整政策
• 如果美国认为某些进口半导体涉及国家安全风险，可能会通过关税或出口管制进行限制，比如：
• 限制特定类型的高端 AI 芯片（如 Nvidia A100、H100）。
• 针对中国、俄罗斯等特定国家的半导体企业。
• 加强对某些关键材料（如光刻机、EDA 软件、先进封装技术）的出口管制。

结论：短期内美国不会对半导体普遍加税
• 美国的政策目标是打压中国、强化自身科技竞争力，而不是破坏整个全球供应链。
• 只要马来西亚、台湾、韩国、日本等国的半导体产业仍被视为“友好”供应链，美国就不会轻易加税。
• 未来，美国可能会继续扩大对中国的芯片限制，但对东南亚和日韩供应链依然保持开放政策。

As of April 3, 2025, semiconductors are currently exempt from President Donald Trump’s newly announced 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the United States. However, the administration has indicated plans to impose a 25% tariff on semiconductor imports in the near future, with the possibility of increasing this rate substantially over time. The implementation timeline for these semiconductor-specific tariffs has not been clearly defined, but the administration aims to encourage companies to relocate their manufacturing operations to the United States by providing a window of opportunity before the tariffs take effect.

As markets plunged on Thursday following President Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariff announcement, two senior members of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell, introduced a bipartisan bill that would curtail the President’s authority to impose tariffs unilaterally.

The proposed legislation, named the "Trade Review Act of 2025," is designed to restore congressional oversight over new tariffs, requiring President Donald Trump to secure congressional approval for any new trade levies within 60 days of their announcement.

The bill mandates that the President notify Congress of any new tariffs within 48 hours of their imposition, along with a detailed explanation and an analysis of how they might affect U.S. businesses and consumers. If Congress does not pass a joint resolution of approval within the 60-day window, the new tariffs would automatically expire.

(April 4): New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal group, on Thursday filed what it said was the first lawsuit seeking to block Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, saying the US president overstepped his authority.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, alleges that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose the sweeping tariffs unveiled on Wednesday as well as duties authorised on February 1 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorise, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’ right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers," NCLA senior litigation counsel Andrew Morris said in a statement.


White House representatives did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

NCLA filed the lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based retailer of home management products.

Trump on Wednesday announced that China would be hit with a 34% tariff, on top of the 20% he imposed earlier this year, bringing the total new levies to 54%.

The lawsuit asks a judge to block implementation and enforcement of the tariffs and undo Trump's changes to the US tariff schedule.

The lawsuit says presidents can only impose tariffs with Congress' permission and under complex trade statutes spelling out how and when they can be authorised.

"Such statutes require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope," the lawsuit says.

The law Trump invoked has never been used to impose tariffs and only allows presidents to take actions that are necessary to address a specific emergency, the lawsuit said.

Trump has declared an emergency over China's alleged complicity in the US opioid epidemic, framing tariffs as a negotiating tool for ending the influx of the deadly drugs.

The lawsuit says that justification is a pretext for imposing tariffs aimed at reducing US trade deficits while raising tax revenue.

The case was assigned to US district judge Kent Wetherell, a Trump appointee who had halted a key part of former president Joe Biden's immigration policy in 2023.

It looks like there’s growing Republican dissent over Trump's latest tariff policies, especially with the introduction of the "Trade Review Act of 2025" by Senator Chuck Grassley. The bill aims to require congressional approval within 60 days for new tariffs, essentially limiting the president’s ability to impose sweeping trade barriers unilaterally.

Key takeaways from this development:

Dissent Within the GOP: Some Republicans, like Senators Jerry Moran and James Lankford, are questioning the broad and high tariffs, particularly on allies like Israel and Southeast Asia.

Impact on Markets: Wall Street saw its worst day since 2022, indicating concerns over recessionary risks tied to the tariffs.

Congressional Check on Tariffs: If Grassley's bill were to pass, it would restore congressional authority over trade policy, reversing the trend of executive control. However, with a Republican-controlled Congress supporting Trump, it’s unlikely to become law.

Bipartisan Pushback: Some Senate Republicans—like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell—already sided with Democrats in a resolution against Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Four Republican Senators — Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell — voted with Democrats on Wednesday to undo President Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian imports. Senators voted 51-48 just hours after Trump unveiled his 'Liberation Day' reciprocal tariffs, applying 10% baseline tariffs on all imports.