In the words of Bjork’ 90s indie hit “Oh So Quiet” –It's, oh, so quiet Shhhh, Shhhh, It's, oh, so still Shhhh, Shhhh, You're all alone Shhh, Shhh And so peaceful until…Until… that is the question, and considering it is ‘peaceful’, it's probably best to review the minutes from the Fed as it is signalling that the quiet time is not far from ending soon.FOMC: The Pressure BuildsThe May 6th to 7th Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) minutes reaffirmed the Fed’s cautious stance, with Chair Powell keeping to the “wait and see” script. But under the surface, the outlook has become more complicated as event risk is getting louder.Clearly, Trump’s Tariffs have created new complications for the Fed’s dual mandate.As the minutes note:“With uncertainty higher due to ‘larger and broader’ than expected tariffs, the Committee may ultimately face a more difficult trade-off between its price stability and full employment mandates.”And this was well before the Trade Court’s decision that the Liberation Day tariffs are illegal under the Economic Emergency Act of 1977, and then it was subsequently overturned 24 hours later by the appeals court.The Fed has flagged increased downside risk to real activity and now sees the probability of recession as nearly equal to its baseline forecast. At the same time, inflation risks for 2025 have been revised upward, though longer-term projections remain skewed to the upside, particularly as inflation expectations creep higher.Seen in these quotes from the minutes:“The staff continued to view the risks around the inflation forecast as skewed to the upside, with recent increases in some measures of inflation expectations raising the possibility that inflation would prove to be more persistent than the baseline projection assumed.”“Many participants reported that firms planned to partially or fully pass on tariff-related cost increases.”To paraphrase Milton Friedman, “Tariffs are not a tax on the sovereign, they are a tax on the consumer.” And this is what is being missed by government officials and the President himself.A counterargument to higher cost is that Fed officials suggested there is a chance of weakening demand, lower immigration driven housing inflation, and competitive pricing tactics. Which would feed back into the risk of recession as mentioned above, and signal that the US is entering a new stagflation era.Seen here:“Several argued that there might be less inflationary pressure for reasons such as reductions of tariff increases from ongoing trade negotiations, less tolerance for price increases by households, a weakening of the economy, reduced housing inflation pressures from lower immigration, or a desire by some firms to increase market share rather than raise prices.”On employment, the labour market remains tight but is potentially vulnerable to hiring pauses as policy and trade risks weigh.“The labour market was seen as ‘broadly in balance’ and the unemployment rate as ‘low.’”“Participants were concerned that tariff uncertainty could lead to a pause in hiring and the labour market to soften in the coming months.”Financial market signals were mixed. Several participants noted an unusual pattern: long-term Treasury yields rose even as the dollar weakened and equities sold off, raising concerns about shifting correlations and safe-haven perceptions.“Some participants commented on a change from the typical pattern... with longer-term Treasury yields rising and the dollar depreciating despite the decline in the prices of equities and other risky assets... [noting] that a durable shift... could have long-lasting implications for the economy.”Monetary framework discussions continue as well. The Fed appears to be reconsidering its post-COVID commitment to flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT). The minutes state:“Participants indicated that they thought it would be appropriate to reconsider the average inflation-targeting language in the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy.”An interesting development is putting more rigidity into the mandate currently, suggesting the Fed is looking to ‘safeguard’ policy changes from external political forces.Where does this leave the US and the Fed in the short term? Don’t expect any near-term policy change, but the longer the Fed delays, the steeper the eventual rate cuts may need to be as the risks of a tariff-induced recession lead to the monetary brake being released.The consensus is that by January 2026, a possible 125 basis point will come out of the Federal funds rate, some even are forecasting 175 due to the need to stimulate the economy rather than restrict it. The consensus figure would see the Federal Funds rate landing on the terminal rate of 3.00% to 3.25%, the unknown is when, the size and velocity of reaching this point will be.It is oh so quiet, but it won’t be for long if the Fed is anything to go by.
It's oh so quiet, but for how long?

Related Articles

Asia starts the week with a fresh geopolitical shock that is already being framed in oil terms, not just security terms. The first-order move may be a repricing of risk premia and volatility across energy and macro, while markets wait to see whether this becomes a durable physical disruption or a fast-fading headline premium.
At a glance
- What happened: US officials said the US carried out “Operation Absolute Resolve”, including strikes around Caracas, and that Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were taken into US custody and flown to the United States (subject to ongoing verification against the cited reporting).
- What markets may focus on now: Headline-driven risk premia and volatility, especially in products and heavy-crude-sensitive spreads, rather than a clean “missing barrels” shock.
- What is not happening yet: Early pricing has so far looked more like a headline risk premium than a confirmed physical supply shock, though this can change quickly, with analysts pointing to ample global supply as a possible cap on sustained upside.
- Next 24 to 72 hours: Market participants are likely to focus on the shape of the oil “quarantine”, the UN track, and whether this stays “one and done” or becomes open-ended.
- Australia and Asia hook: AUD as a risk barometer, Asia refinery margins in diesel and heavy, and shipping and insurance where the price can show up in friction before it shows up in benchmarks.
What happened, facts fast
Before anyone had time to workshop the talking points, there were strikes, there was a raid, and there was a custody transfer. US officials say the operation culminated in Maduro and his wife being flown to the United States, where court proceedings are expected.
Then came the line that turned a foreign policy story into a markets story. President Trump publicly suggested the US would “run” Venezuela for now, explicitly tying the mission to oil.
Almost immediately after that came a message-discipline correction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would not govern Venezuela day to day, but would press for changes through an oil “quarantine” or blockade.
That tension, between maximalist presidential rhetoric and a more bureaucratically describable “quarantine”, is where the uncertainty lives. Uncertainty is what gets priced first.

Why this is price relevant now
What’s new versus known for positioning
What’s new, and price relevant, is that the scale and outcome are not incremental. A major military operation, a claimed removal of Venezuela’s leadership from the country, and a US-led custody transfer are not the sort of things markets can safely treat as noise.
Second, the oil framing is explicit. Even if you assume the language gets sanded down later, the stated lever is petroleum. Flows, enforcement, and pressure via exports.
Third, the embargo is not just a talking point anymore. Reporting says PDVSA has begun asking some joint ventures to cut output because exports have been halted and storage is tightening, with heavy-crude and diluent constraints featuring prominently.
What’s still unknown, and where volatility comes from
Key unknowns include how strict enforcement is on water, what exemptions look like in practice, how stable the on-the-ground situation is, and which countries recognise what comes next. Those are not philosophical questions. Those are the inputs for whether this is a temporary risk premium or a durable regime shift.
Political and legal reaction, why this drives tail risk
The fastest way to understand the tail here is to watch who calls this illegal, and who calls it effective, then ask what those camps can actually do.
Internationally, reaction has been fast, with emphasis on international law and the UN Charter from key partners, and UN processes in view. In the US, lawmakers and commentators have begun debating the legal basis, including questions of authority and war powers. That matters for markets because it helps define whether this is a finite operation with an aftershock, or the opening chapter of a rolling policy regime that keeps generating headlines.
Market mechanism, the core “so what”
Here’s the key thing about oil shocks. Sometimes the headline is the shock. Sometimes the plumbing is the shock.

Volumes and cushion
Venezuela is not the world’s swing producer. Its production is meaningful at the margin, but not enough by itself to imply “the world runs out of oil tomorrow”. The risk is not just volume. It is duration, disruption, and friction.
The market’s mental brake is spare capacity and the broader supply backdrop. Reporting over the weekend pointed to ample global supply as a likely cap on sustained gains, even as prices respond to risk.
Quality and transmission
Venezuela’s barrels are disproportionately extra heavy, and extra heavy crude is not just “oil”. It is oil that often needs diluent or condensate to move and process. That is exactly the kind of constraint that shows up as grade-specific tightness and product effects.
Reporting has highlighted diluent constraints and storage pressure as exports stall. Translation: even if Brent stays relatively civil, watch cracks, diesel and distillates, and any signals that “heavy substitution” is getting expensive.

Products transmission, volatility first, pump later
If crude is the headline, products are the receipt, because products tell you what refiners can actually do with the crude they can actually get. The short-run pattern is usually: futures reprice risk fast, implied volatility pops; physical flows adapt more slowly; retail follows with a lag, and often with less drama than the first weekend of commentary promised.
For Australia and Asia desks, the bigger point is transmission. Energy moves can influence inflation expectations, which can feed into rates pricing and the dollar, and in turn affect Asia FX and broader risk, though the links are not mechanical and can vary by regime.
Some market participants also monitor refined-product benchmarks, including gasoline contracts such as reformulated gasoline blendstock, as part of that chain rather than as a stand-alone signal.
Historical context, the two patterns that matter
Two patterns matter more than any single episode.
Pattern A: scare premium. Big headline, limited lasting outage. A spike, then a fade as the market decides the plumbing still works.
Pattern B: structural. Real barrels are lost or restrictions lock in; the forward curve reprices; the premium migrates from front-month drama to whole-curve reality.

One commonly observed pattern is that when it is only premium, volatility tends to spike more than price. When it is structural, levels and time spreads move more durably.
The three possible market reactions
Contained, rhetorical: quarantine exists but porous; diplomacy churns; no second-wave actions. Premium bleeds out; volatility mean-reverts.
Embargo tightens, exports curtailed, quality shock: enforcement hardens; PDVSA cuts deepen; diluent constraints bite. Heavies bid; cracks and distillates react; freight and insurance add friction.
Escalation, prolonged control risk: “not governing” language loses credibility; repeated operations; allies fracture further. Longer-duration premium; broader risk-off impulse across FX and rates.
Australia and Asia angle
For Sydney, Singapore, and Hong Kong screens, this is less about Venezuelan retail politics and more about how a Western Hemisphere intervention bleeds into Asia pricing.
AUD is the quick and dirty risk proxy. Asia refiners care about the kind of oil and the friction cost. Heavy crude plus diluent dependency makes substitution non-trivial. If enforcement looks aggressive, the “price” can show up in freight, insurance, and spreads before it shows up in headline Brent.
Catalyst calendar, key developments markets may monitor
- US policy detail: quarantine rules, enforcement posture, exemptions.
- UN and allies: statements that signal whether this becomes a long legitimacy fight.
- PDVSA operations: storage, shut-ins, diluent availability, floating storage signals.
- OPEC+ signalling: whether the group stays committed to stability if spreads blow out.

The United States entered a government shutdown on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to agree on full-year appropriations or a short-term funding bill. Although shutdowns have occurred before, the timing, speed, scale, and motives behind this one make it unique. This is the first shutdown since the last Trump term in 2018–19, which lasted 35 days, the longest in history.For traders, understanding both the mechanics and the ripple effects is essential to anticipating how markets may respond, particularly if the shutdown draws out to multiple weeks as currently anticipated.
What Is a Government Shutdown?
A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriation bills or a temporary extension to fund government operations for the new fiscal year beginning October 1.Without the legal authority to spend, federal agencies must suspend “non-essential” operations, while “essential” services such as national security, air traffic control, and public safety continue, often with employees working unpaid until funding is restored.Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, federal employees are guaranteed back pay to cover lost wages once the shutdown ends, although there has been some narrative from the current administration that some may not be returning to work at all.
Why Did the Government Shutdown Happen?
The 2025 impasse stems from partisan disputes over spending levels, health-insurance subsidies, and proposed rescissions of foreign aid and other programs. The reported result is that around 900,000 federal workers are furloughed, and another 700,000 are currently working without pay.Unlike many past standoffs, there was no stopgap agreement to keep the government open while negotiations continued, making this shutdown more disruptive and unusually early.
Why an Early Shutdown?
Historically, most shutdowns don’t occur immediately on October 1. Lawmakers typically kick the can down the road with a “Continuing Resolution (CR)”. This is a stopgap measure that can extend existing funding for weeks or months to allow time for an agreement later in the quarter.The speed of the breakdown in 2025, with no CR in place, is unusual compared to past shutdowns. It suggests it was not simply budgetary drift, but a potentially deliberate refusal to extend funding.
Alternative Theories Behind the Early Shutdown
While the main narrative coming from the U.S. administrators points to budget deadlock, several other theories are being discussed across the media:
- Executive Leverage – The White House may be using the shutdown as a tool to increase bargaining power and force structural policy changes. Health care is central to the debate, funding for which was impacted significantly by the “one big, beautiful bill” recently passed through Congress.
- Hardline Congressional Factions – Small but influential groups within Congress, particularly on the right, may be driving the shutdown to demand deeper cuts.
- Political Messaging – The blame game is rife, despite the reality that Republican control of the presidency, House, and Senate, as well as both sides, is indulging in the usual political barbs aimed at the other side. As for the voter impact, Recent polls show that voters are placing more blame on Republicans than Democrats at this point, though significant numbers of Americans suggest both parties are responsible
- Debt Ceiling Positioning – Creating a fiscal crisis early could shape the terms of future negotiations on borrowing limits.
- Electoral Calculus – With midterms ahead, both sides may be positioning to frame the narrative for voters.
- Systemic Dysfunction – A structural view is that shutdowns have become a recurring feature of hyper-partisan U.S. politics, rather than exceptions.
Short-Term Impact of Government Shutdown
AreaImpactFederal workforceHundreds of thousands have been furloughed with reduced services across various agencies.Travel & aviationFAA expects to furlough 11,000 staff. Inspections and certifications may stall. Safety concerns may become more acute if prolonged shutdown.Economic outputThe White House estimates a $15 billion GDP loss per week of shutdown (source: internal document obtained by “Politico”.Consumer spendingFederal workers and contractors face delayed income, pressuring local economies. Economic data releaseKey data releases may be delayed, impacting the decision process at the Fed meeting later this month.Credit outlookScope Ratings and others warn that the shutdown is “negative for credit” and could weigh on U.S. borrowing costs.Projects & researchInfrastructure, grants, and scientific initiatives are delayed or paused.
Medium- to Long-Term Impact of Government Shutdown
1. Market Sentiment
Shutdowns show some degree of U.S. political dysfunction. They can weigh on confidence and subsequently equity market and risk asset sentiment. To date, markets are shrugging off a prolonged impact, but a continued shutdown into later next week could start to impact.Equity markets have remained strong, and there has been no evidence of the frequent seasonal pullback we often see around this time of year.Markets have proved resilient to date, but one wonders whether this could be a catalyst for some significant selling to come.
2. Borrowing Costs
Ratings downgrades could lift Treasury yields and increase debt-servicing costs. The Federal Reserve is already balancing sticky inflation and potential downward pressure on growth. This could make rate decisions more difficult.
3. The Impact on the USD
Rises in treasury yields would generally support the USD. However, rising concerns about fiscal stability created by a prolonged shutdown may put further downward pressure on the USD. Consequently, it is likely to result in buying into gold as a safe haven. With gold already testing record highs repeatedly over the last weeks, this could support further moves to the upside.
4. Credibility Erosion
Repeated shutdowns weaken the U.S.’s reputation as the world’s most reliable borrower. With some evidence that tariffs are already impacting trade and investment into the US, a prolonged shutdown could exacerbate this further.
What Traders Should Watch
For those who trade financial markets, shutdowns matter more for what they could signal both in the short and medium term. Here are some of the key asset classes to watch:
- Equities: Likely to see volatility as political risk rises, and the potential for “money off the table” after significant gains year-to-date for equities.
- U.S. Dollar: With the US dollar already relatively weak, further vulnerability if a shutdown feeds global doubts about U.S. fiscal stability.
- Gold and other commodities: May continue to gain as hedges against political and credit risk. Oil is already threatening support levels; any prolonged shutdown may add to the bearish narrative, along with other economic slowdown concerns
- Outside the US: With the US such a big player in global GDP, we may see revisions in forward-looking estimates, slingshot impacts on other global markets and even supply chain disruptions with impact on customs services (potentially inflationary).
Final Word
The 2025 shutdown is unusual because of its scale and because it started on Day 1 of the fiscal year, without even a temporary extension. That speed points to a deeper strategic and political contribution beyond the usual budget wrangling that we see periodically.For traders, the lesson is clear: shutdowns are not just what happens in Washington, but may impact confidence, borrowing costs, and market sentiment across a range of asset classes. In today’s world, where political credibility is a form of capital, shutdowns have the potential to erode the very foundation of the U.S.’s role in global finance and trade relationships.

The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. However, despite an initial 4 per cent surge on the open, oil has settled where it has been since the conflict began in early June — around US$72 to US$75 a barrel.Trump claims the attacks from the US on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend are a very short, very tactical, one-off. This is something his base can get behind — some really big conservative players do not want a long-contracted war that sucks the US into external disputes.Whether this will be the case or not is up for debate, but there is a precedent from Trump's first presidency that we can look to. Iran had attacked several American bases in 2019, as well as attacking Saudi Arabia's most important oil refinery with Iranian drones. There wasn't a huge amount of damage; it was more a symbolic movement and display of capabilities by Iran.Initially, Trump didn't react — it took pressure from Gulf allies like the UAE and Israel for him to respond, which saw him order the assassination of the head of the Iranian Defence Force, Qasem Soleimani. This led to an Iranian response of ‘lots of noise’ and ‘cage rattling’, but minimal real action events, just a few drone attacks. Trump is betting on the same reaction now.If Iran follows the same patterns from the previous engagement, the geopolitical side of this is already at its peak.As of now, Iran is not going after or destroying major Gulf energy capabilities. Nor have there been any disruptions to the shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, apart from a posturing vote to block the Strait, Iran has not made any indication that it is going to disrupt oil in any way that would lead to price surges.Additionally, despite the U.S. military equipment buildup in the region being its highest since the Iraq war, critical Iranian energy infrastructure is running largely unscathed.This all suggests that the geopolitics and the physical and futures oil markets remain disconnected. Oil will spike on news rumours, but the actual impacts in the physical realm to this point remain low. Of course, this could change in future. But, for now, the risk of seeing oil move to US$100 a barrel is still a minority case rather than the majority.
Recent Articles
.jpg)
今年初澳元作为商品货币受大宗商品价格上涨和通胀持续反弹造成了澳元大幅持续反弹。 通过昨日澳洲联储在货币政策新闻发布会的信息会对澳元的走势会造成什么影响?
1. 通胀判断:通胀明显回潮,风险在“根深蒂固”
澳洲联储认为,尽管通胀已较2022 年高点明显回落,但2025 年下半年通胀再度走强、动能过于强劲,仍将长期高于2–3% 目标区间中值,因此必须防止通胀失控并固化。
2. 加息立场:这不是一次性动作,但会保持谨慎
澳洲联储此次一致通过加息25bp 至 3.85%,明确释放“加息未必止步于此”的信号,但同时强调将保持高度谨慎,不预设利率路径、不提供前瞻指引,且未考虑50bp 的激进加息。
3. 经济背景:需求强、供给受限,是通胀再起的根源
澳洲联储指出,私人需求增长显著超预期,而产能受限与生产力疲软等结构性问题叠加政府支出强劲,导致在经济整体表现尚可的情况下,供给难以匹配需求并持续推高通胀压力。
4. 劳动力与金融条件:仍偏紧,政策可能还不够“紧”
澳洲联储认为,在劳动力市场依然紧俏、工资和信贷增长走强的背景下,当前金融状况可能仍偏宽松,现金利率水平亦低于部分中性利率估计。
5. 澳元角色:欢迎升值,视为政策传导工具
行长布洛克表示,澳元升值不仅是政策传导机制的一部分,还可在边际上收紧金融条件、降低进口通胀,助力联储控制通胀。
6. 前景与市场含义:年内再加息概率显著上升
官方预测显示,假设利率按当前路径发展,年中将接近3.9%,年底可能升至4.10%–4.20%。
7. 结论:
澳洲联储因通胀回升、私人需求强劲及产能受限而鹰派加息25bp至3.85%,暗示年内可能继续加息,澳元短线走强,市场对加息周期预期明显升温。

For over 110 years, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has operated at a deliberate distance from the White House and Congress.
It is the only federal agency that doesn’t report to any single branch of government in the way most agencies do, and can implement policy without waiting for political approval.
These policies include interest rate decisions, adjusting the money supply, emergency lending to banks, capital reserve requirements for banks, and determining which financial institutions require heightened oversight.
The Fed can act independently on all these critical economic decisions and more.
But why does the US government enable this? And why is it that nearly every major economy has adopted a similar model for their central bank?
The foundation of Fed independence: the panic of 1907
The Fed was established in 1913 following the Panic of 1907, a major financial crisis. It saw major banks collapse, the stock market drop nearly 50%, and credit markets freeze across the country.
At the time, the US had no central authority to inject liquidity into the banking system during emergencies or to prevent cascading bank failures from toppling the entire economy.
J.P. Morgan personally orchestrated a bailout using his own fortune, highlighting just how fragile the US financial system had become.
The debate that followed revealed that while the US clearly needed a central bank, politicians were objectively seen as poorly positioned to run it.
Previous attempts at central banking had failed partly due to political interference. Presidents and Congress had used monetary policy to serve short-term political goals rather than long-term economic stability.
So it was decided that a stand-alone body responsible for making all major economic decisions would be created. Essentially, the Fed was created because politicians, who face elections and public pressure, couldn’t be relied upon to make unpopular decisions when needed for the long-term economy.

How does Fed independence work?
Although the Fed is designed to be an autonomous body, separate from political influence, it still has accountability to the US government (and thereby US voters).
The President is responsible for appointing the Fed Chair and the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Each Governor serves a 14-year term, and the Chair serves a four-year term. The Governors' terms are staggered to prevent any single administration from being able to change the entire board overnight.
Beyond this “main” board, there are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks that operate across the country. Their presidents are appointed by private-sector boards and approved by the Fed's seven Governors. Five of these presidents vote on interest rates at any given time, alongside the seven Governors.
This creates a decentralised structure where no single person or political party can dictate monetary policy. Changing the Fed's direction requires consensus across multiple appointees from different administrations.
The case for Fed independence: Nixon, Burns, and the inflation hangover
The strongest argument for keeping the Fed independent comes from Nixon’s time as president in the 1970s.
Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Burns complied, and Nixon won in a landslide. Over the next decade, unemployment and inflation both rose simultaneously (commonly referred to now as “stagflation”).
By the late 1970s, inflation exceeded 13 per cent, Nixon was out of office, and it was time to appoint a new Fed chair.
That new Fed chair was Paul Volcker. And despite public and political pressure to bring down interest rates and reduce unemployment, he pushed the rate up to more than 19 per cent to try to break inflation.
The decision triggered a brutal recession, with unemployment hitting nearly 11 per cent.
But by the mid-1980s, inflation had dropped back into the low single digits.

Volcker stood firm where non-independent politicians would have backflipped in the face of plummeting poll numbers.
The “Volcker era” is now taught as a masterclass in why central banks need independence. The painful medicine worked because the Fed could withstand political backlash that would have broken a less autonomous institution.
Are other central banks independent?
Nearly every major developed economy has an independent central bank. The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Reserve Bank of Australia all operate with similar autonomy from their governments as the Fed.
However, there are examples of developed nations that have moved away from independent central banks.
In Turkey, the president forced its central bank to maintain low rates even as inflation soared past 85 per cent. The decision served short-term political goals while devastating the purchasing power of everyday people.
Argentina's recurring economic crises have been exacerbated by monetary policy subordinated to political needs. Venezuela's hyperinflation accelerated after the government asserted greater control over its central bank.
The pattern tends to show that the more control the government has over monetary policy, the more the economy leans toward instability and higher inflation.
Independent central banks may not be perfect, but they have historically outperformed the alternative.

Why do markets care about Fed independence?
Markets generally prefer predictability, and independent central banks make more predictable decisions.
Fed officials often outline how they plan to adjust policy and what their preferred data points are.
Currently, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs reports, and quarterly GDP releases form expectations about the future path of interest rates.
This transparency and predictability help businesses map out investments, banks to set lending rates, and everyday people to plan major financial decisions.
When political influence infiltrates these decisions, it introduces uncertainty. Instead of following predictable patterns based on publicly released data, interest rates can shift based on electoral considerations or political preference, which makes long-term planning more difficult.
The markets react to this uncertainty through stock price volatility, potential bond yield rises, and fluctuating currency values.
The enduring logic
The independence of the Federal Reserve is about recognising that stable money and sustainable growth require institutions capable of making unpopular decisions when economic fundamentals demand them.
Elections will always create pressure for easier monetary conditions. Inflation will always tempt policymakers to delay painful adjustments. And the political calendar will never align perfectly with economic cycles.
Fed independence exists to navigate these eternal tensions, not perfectly, but better than political control has managed throughout history.
That's why this principle, forged in financial panics and refined through successive crises, remains central to how modern economies function. And it's why debates about central bank independence, whenever they arise, touch something fundamental about how democracies can maintain long-term prosperity.
.jpg)
在 TradingView 的 Pine Script 语言中,内置变量和内置函数是构建指标和策略的基础。Pine Script® 内置了数百个变量和函数,它们为脚本提供行情数据、交易环境信息以及大量现成的计算能力,使开发者无需从零编写复杂逻辑,就能快速实现技术分析和策略回测。
可以说,对内置功能理解得越深入,Pine Script 的使用效率和上限就越高。
一、内置变量的作用与分类
内置变量(Built-in Variables)主要用于提供当前图表环境中的各种信息,例如价格、成交量、时间、品种属性以及策略状态等。它们会随着每根 K 线自动更新,是 Pine Script 运行时最核心的数据来源。
1. 价格与成交量相关变量
最常用的一类是价格和成交量变量,包括:
- open、high、low、close
- hl2((high + low) / 2)
- hlc3((high + low + close) / 3)
- ohlc4((open + high + low + close) / 4)
- volume
这些变量代表当前 K 线的数据,几乎所有技术指标都是基于它们计算而来。
2. 品种信息(syminfo 命名空间)
syminfo 命名空间用于获取当前交易品种的属性信息,例如:
- syminfo.ticker、syminfo.tickerid
- syminfo.currency、syminfo.basecurrency
- syminfo.mintick、syminfo.pointvalue
- syminfo.session、syminfo.timezone
- syminfo.type
这些变量在多品种策略、合约计算或跨市场分析中非常重要。
3. 周期信息(timeframe 命名空间)
timeframe 命名空间用于判断当前图表的时间周期,例如:
- timeframe.isseconds
- timeframe.isminutes
- timeframe.isintraday
- timeframe.isdaily
- timeframe.isweekly
- timeframe.ismonthly
- timeframe.multiplier
- timeframe.period
通过这些变量,脚本可以根据不同周期动态调整逻辑。
4. K 线状态(barstate 命名空间)
barstate 命名空间用于判断当前 K 线的状态,包括:
- barstate.isfirst
- barstate.islast
- barstate.isconfirmed
- barstate.isrealtime
- barstate.isnew
它们常用于避免重绘、控制信号触发时机,尤其在实盘策略中非常关键。
5. 策略状态(strategy 命名空间)
在策略脚本中,strategy 命名空间提供了账户和交易状态信息,例如:
- strategy.equity
- strategy.initial_capital
- strategy.position_size
- strategy.position_avg_price
- strategy.wintrades
- strategy.losstrades
这些变量用于分析策略表现和控制风控逻辑。
二、内置函数的概念与结构
内置函数(Built-in Functions)同样定义在 Pine Script v6 参考手册中。每个函数都拥有明确的函数签名(signature),用于说明:
- 接受哪些参数
- 每个参数的类型
- 是否为必需参数
- 返回值的数量和类型
一个函数可以返回一个或多个结果,其返回值的类型通常以 series、float、int 等形式标注。
三、常见内置函数分类
1. 数学函数(math 命名空间)
用于基础数学运算,例如:
- math.abs()
- math.log()
- math.max()
- math.random()
- math.round_to_mintick()
2. 技术指标函数(ta 命名空间)
这是最常用的一类函数,例如:
- ta.sma()(简单移动平均)
- ta.ema()(指数移动平均)
- ta.rsi()(相对强弱指标)
- ta.macd()(MACD)
- ta.supertrend()
此外,ta 命名空间还包含大量辅助函数,如:
- ta.crossover()
- ta.crossunder()
- ta.highest()
- ta.barssince()
3. 数据请求函数(request 命名空间)
用于请求其他品种或其他周期的数据,例如:
- request.security()
- request.financial()
- request.earnings()
- request.dividends()
这是实现多周期、多品种分析的核心工具。
4. 输入、字符串与颜色函数
- input()、input.int()、input.color() 用于定义用户可修改参数
- str.format()、str.tostring() 用于字符串处理
- color.rgb()、color.new() 用于颜色控制
四、以 ta.vwma() 为例理解函数用法
ta.vwma() 用于计算成交量加权移动平均线,其中:
- source 是数据源(如 close)
- length 是计算周期
- 返回值类型为 series float
示例:
myVwma = ta.vwma(close, 20)
如果该语句位于全局作用域中,Pine Script 会在图表的每一根 K 线上执行该计算。
五、有返回值与“副作用”函数
并非所有函数都以返回值为目的。一些函数主要通过副作用发挥作用,例如:
- indicator()、strategy():定义脚本类型
- plot()、plotshape()、bgcolor():绘图和着色
- strategy.entry()、strategy.exit():下单操作
- alert()、alertcondition():生成提醒
还有一些函数虽然返回值,但通常不需要使用其返回结果,如 plot()、label.new() 等。
六、结语
Pine Script 的强大之处,正是在于其完善而系统的内置变量与函数体系。熟练查阅并使用 Pine Script v6 参考手册,理解命名空间、函数签名和类型系统,是从“能写脚本”进阶到“写好脚本”的关键一步。
无论是指标开发还是策略回测,内置功能都是 Pine Script 编程的核心武器。

