预测者、经济学家和分析师在这一点上达成了广泛共识：欧洲经济的增长速度低于美国或亚洲，未来几年这一差距不太可能缩小，反而可能扩大。这也可能对一些欧洲货币联盟成员的债务可持续性产生负面影响，特别是那些已经处于不良状态的国家，如法国。然而，投资者对财务管理松散的国家政府债券与一流证券之间所要求的信用利差仍然较低。这如何解释呢？
finews 寻找答案，并在 Nicola Mai 身上找到了答案。Mai 自 2012 年以来一直在伦敦的固定收益专家 Pimco（德国安联集团的一部分）担任经济学家和信用分析师，目前负责欧洲的主权信用研究。他负责制定该地区的关键宏观观点，并识别和分析投资趋势。Mai 的职业生涯始于近 25 年前，作为英国政府的一名经济学家，参与了由英国财政部主办的项目。在加入 PIMCO 之前，他在摩根大通担任了七年的高级欧元区经济学家。他还被认为是 2010 年至 2012 年震撼欧元区的主权债务危机的专家。与 Mai 的采访在 Pimco 的苏黎世办公室进行。
<hr/>
Mai 先生，在 15 年前的危机中，信用利差被视为严重受损的货币联盟的温度计。今天，再次出现关于一些成员国国债和债务可持续性的激烈辩论，但这次市场保持相对平静，尽管经济相对疲弱。发生了什么变化？
从宏观经济角度来看，欧洲确实面临长期的重大挑战。增长潜力将进一步下降。原因包括不利的人口结构、高能源价格以及创新技术的滞后。在贸易关系紧张和日益分化的情况下，强大的出口导向也成为了一个绊脚石，尤其是面临来自中国的竞争。然而，从短期来看，情况则更加乐观：德国的财政刺激正在推动经济，而欧洲中央银行（ECB）通过降息创造了有利的环境。然而，对于政府债券市场而言，另一个发展更为重要。
哪个发展？
自危机以来，在欧元区的协调性和制度框架方面取得的诸多进展：每当需要稳定时，政治家们都会采取行动。我们可能还没有完全的财政联盟，但通过下一代欧盟、疫情后恢复基金和共同债券，整合已经取得了进展。对财政协调与合作的信心增强。此外，欧洲央行已经制定了一系列债券购买计划的工具包，使其能够在必要时充当国家的最后贷款人。所有这些都使得今天的欧元区更加稳定，这反映在更紧的利差和更少的波动性上。
 «市场对财政协调与合作的信心增强。这反映在更紧的利差和更少的波动性上。」
那么法国也不需要担心吗？
事情并不那么简单。法国的赤字相对于其国内生产总值（GDP）较高，债务水平也很高。税负已经相当沉重，几乎没有迹象表明政治家们能够成功整顿公共财政。因此，我们对法国政府债券的配置持低于市场的态度。
为什么不简单依赖欧洲央行通过其购买计划在紧急情况下稳定市场呢？
如果出现明显的压力迹象，欧洲央行最终会介入。但这个看跌期权目前处于深度虚值状态，这意味着在介入之前，系统中需要出现显著更多的压力。目前没有迹象表明会出现如此严重的加剧。欧洲央行也不会过早介入，因为它不想覆盖市场力量。如果市场压力增加，这可能会对政治家产生约束效应，类似于我们在美国所看到的。美国政府也不想失去对国债市场的控制。因此，它会小心翼翼，以免严重损害联邦储备的独立性。
 «在法国的情况下，看跌期权目前处于深度虚值状态，这意味着在欧洲央行介入之前，系统中需要出现显著更多的压力。」
赤字和债务占 GDP 的比例是 1992 年在达成货币联盟时设定的马斯特里赫特标准的关键指标，后来也用于稳定公约。当时，它们被设定为 3% 和 60%。这些数值在评估债务可持续性时仍然相关吗？
在疫情冲击后，大多数国家的债务都超过了 60%。即使是德国也将通过其支出计划超过这一数字，这没问题，因为他们之前投资不足。关键是债务可以稳定，即使超过 60%。债务可持续性的关键参数是名义利率与名义 GDP 增长的比率、通货膨胀和国家预算的初级余额，即不包括利息支出。
直到最近，经济学家们不断找到新的理由，认为只能估计的实际均衡利率 r* 应该结构性地低于过去。难道目前长期政府债券的相对高收益率并不表明他们错了吗？
这是一个我们正在密切分析的关键变量。它确实可能略有上升。在经济中，r* 平衡储蓄和投资。我们目前正经历由人工智能、国防、基础设施以及对韧性和本土化的渴望驱动的投资热潮。然而，人口统计数据显示，r* 不太可能回到金融危机前的较高水平。在美国，r* 目前可能在 1% 左右。然而，如果新技术确实能显著提升生产力，这也可能推动均衡利率上升。
<blockquote>
«由于利差较窄，企业债券整体上并不是特别有吸引力。」
</blockquote>
让我们继续讨论投资实践。欧洲政府债券最大的竞争对手是什么？
我们会考虑整个市场，尽管当然必须考虑货币风险。由于其高潜在利率下调，英国政府债券具有吸引力，美国国债也是如此。考虑到欧洲央行已接近或即将结束降息周期，以及预计债券供应将增加，德国政府债券在边际上吸引力较低。日本的情况很有趣，利率上升，但我们在等待进一步的发展，因为未来财政政策的指导方针仍不完全明确。由于利差较窄，企业债券整体上并不是特别有吸引力。然而，在某些细分市场，如抵押贷款债券和其他担保债券中，仍然存在机会。另一方面，股票的估值较高，因此价格昂贵，因此我们持谨慎态度。
当然，企业债券与政府债券之间的利差在历史标准下是较窄的。但这难道不是因为许多公司的信用评级改善，而许多国家的信用评级恶化吗？
我并不觉得这个论点令人信服。政府债券和企业债券之间的差异在于利差。企业的资产负债表今天可能确实比以前好。但如果一个政府陷入债务危机，那么该国所有公司都可能面临重大问题。在信用分析中，政府与银行之间不仅存在联系，政府与企业之间也存在联系。我并不是说企业债券没有机会。但市场本身并不是特别有吸引力。
<blockquote>
«在信用质量方面，政府与企业之间也存在联系。」
</blockquote>
您提到的日益增加的财政一体化，更多的共同债券，对投资者意味着什么？这是否意味着缺乏已久的安全欧洲投资的开始？我们应该如何评估欧盟相关机构（如欧洲稳定机制（ESM））发行的其他债券？
不，我们还没有达到可以谈论新的欧洲安全资产的地步。但我们正在朝这个方向前进，包括安全武装计划。欧盟债券市场变得更加流动。然而，这并不意味着彻底的信用分析变得多余。
为什么不呢？
首先，发行债券的各种机构具有自身的结构特征，需要加以考虑。其次，欧洲委员会发行的债券和在欧盟预算中承担的支付义务也必须得到充分考虑。欧盟的债务在上升，这本身导致收益率上升。然而，这一效应目前正被改善的可交易性部分抵消：信用溢价在上升，而流动性溢价在下降。共同债券也减轻了主权国家的预算压力，这就是为什么像法国这样的国家对此如此热衷。最终，欧盟的信用质量仍然取决于其成员国的信用状况。

华安法国CAC40ETF

SEGA

SDEU

欧洲斯托克 50 指数 ETF - SPDR

Pimco 信用分析师 Nicola Mai 讨论了欧洲的经济挑战，强调增长落后于美国和亚洲，这可能会恶化法国等国的债务可持续性。尽管如此，自金融危机以来，欧元区的凝聚力有所改善，导致政府债券的信用利差收窄。Mai 指出，虽然欧洲央行拥有稳定市场的工具，但它更倾向于不提前干预，让市场力量引导政治家的财政纪律。他对法国政府债券表示谨慎，原因是高额的赤字和债务水平

There is broad consensus among forecasters, economists, and analysts on this point: Europe's economy is growing more slowly than that of the US or Asia, and the gap is unlikely to narrow in the coming years, but rather widen. This could also have a negative impact on the debt sustainability of some members of the European Monetary Union, particularly those such as France that are already in poor shape. However, the credit spreads that investors demand for government bonds from countries with lax financial management compared to first-class securities remain low. How can this be explained?
<div class="lb-trans">预测者、经济学家和分析师在这一点上达成了广泛共识：欧洲经济的增长速度低于美国或亚洲，未来几年这一差距不太可能缩小，反而可能扩大。这也可能对一些欧洲货币联盟成员的债务可持续性产生负面影响，特别是那些已经处于不良状态的国家，如法国。然而，投资者对财务管理松散的国家政府债券与一流证券之间所要求的信用利差仍然较低。这如何解释呢？
</div>finews looked for answers and found them in Nicola Mai. Mai has been an economist and credit analyst at fixed income specialist Pimco (part of the German Allianz Group) in London since 2012 and now heads Sovereign Credit Research for Europe. He is responsible for formulating key macro views for the region and for identifying and analyzing investment trends. Mai began his career almost 25 years ago as an economist in the UK government, in a program run by the UK Treasury. Prior to joining PIMCO, he was senior euro area economist at J.P. Morgan for seven years. He is also considered an expert on the sovereign debt crisis that shook the eurozone from 2010 to 2012. The interview with Mai took place at Pimco's Zurich office.
<div class="lb-trans">finews 寻找答案，并在 Nicola Mai 身上找到了答案。Mai 自 2012 年以来一直在伦敦的固定收益专家 Pimco（德国安联集团的一部分）担任经济学家和信用分析师，目前负责欧洲的主权信用研究。他负责制定该地区的关键宏观观点，并识别和分析投资趋势。Mai 的职业生涯始于近 25 年前，作为英国政府的一名经济学家，参与了由英国财政部主办的项目。在加入 PIMCO 之前，他在摩根大通担任了七年的高级欧元区经济学家。他还被认为是 2010 年至 2012 年震撼欧元区的主权债务危机的专家。与 Mai 的采访在 Pimco 的苏黎世办公室进行。
</div><hr/>
<div class="lb-trans"><hr/>
</div>Mr Mai, during the crisis 15 years ago, credit spreads were seen as the thermometer for the severely battered monetary union. Today, there is once again heated debate about the national debt and debt sustainability of some members, but this time the markets remain fairly calm, even though the economy is comparatively weak. What has changed?
<div class="lb-trans">Mai 先生，在 15 年前的危机中，信用利差被视为严重受损的货币联盟的温度计。今天，再次出现关于一些成员国国债和债务可持续性的激烈辩论，但这次市场保持相对平静，尽管经济相对疲弱。发生了什么变化？
</div>In macroeconomic terms, Europe does indeed face major challenges in the long term. Growth potential will decline further. Reasons for this include unfavorable demographics, high energy prices, and the lag in innovative technologies. Strong export orientation is also proving to be a stumbling block at a time of tense trade relations and growing segmentation, compounded by competition from China. In the short term, however, the picture is brighter: Germany's fiscal stimulus is boosting the economy, and the European Central Bank (ECB) has created a favorable environment with its interest rate cuts. For the government bond markets, however, another development is more important.
<div class="lb-trans">从宏观经济角度来看，欧洲确实面临长期的重大挑战。增长潜力将进一步下降。原因包括不利的人口结构、高能源价格以及创新技术的滞后。在贸易关系紧张和日益分化的情况下，强大的出口导向也成为了一个绊脚石，尤其是面临来自中国的竞争。然而，从短期来看，情况则更加乐观：德国的财政刺激正在推动经济，而欧洲中央银行（ECB）通过降息创造了有利的环境。然而，对于政府债券市场而言，另一个发展更为重要。
</div>Which one?
<div class="lb-trans">哪个发展？
</div>The many advances made since the crisis in terms of coherence and the institutional framework of the eurozone: whenever stabilisation required it, politicians took action. We may not yet have full fiscal union, but integration has progressed with Next Generation EU, the post-pandemic recovery fund, and joint bonds. Confidence in fiscal coordination and cooperation has grown. In addition, the ECB has developed a toolkit of various bond-buying programmes, enabling it to act as a lender of last resort for countries if necessary. All of this has contributed to the eurozone being more stable today, which is reflected in tighter spreads and less volatility.
<div class="lb-trans">自危机以来，在欧元区的协调性和制度框架方面取得的诸多进展：每当需要稳定时，政治家们都会采取行动。我们可能还没有完全的财政联盟，但通过下一代欧盟、疫情后恢复基金和共同债券，整合已经取得了进展。对财政协调与合作的信心增强。此外，欧洲央行已经制定了一系列债券购买计划的工具包，使其能够在必要时充当国家的最后贷款人。所有这些都使得今天的欧元区更加稳定，这反映在更紧的利差和更少的波动性上。
</div><blockquote>
«Market confidence in fiscal coordination and cooperation has grown. This is reflected in tighter spreads and less volatility.»
</blockquote>
<div class="lb-trans"> «市场对财政协调与合作的信心增强。这反映在更紧的利差和更少的波动性上。」
</div>So there is no need to worry about France either?
<div class="lb-trans">那么法国也不需要担心吗？
</div>It's not that simple. France has a high deficit relative to its gross domestic product (GDP) and also high levels of debt. The tax burden is already quite heavy, and there are few signs that politicians will succeed in consolidating public finances. We are therefore underweight in French government bonds.
<div class="lb-trans">事情并不那么简单。法国的赤字相对于其国内生产总值（GDP）较高，债务水平也很高。税负已经相当沉重，几乎没有迹象表明政治家们能够成功整顿公共财政。因此，我们对法国政府债券的配置持低于市场的态度。
</div>Why don't you simply rely on the ECB stepping in with its purchase programmes to stabilise the market in an emergency?
<div class="lb-trans">为什么不简单依赖欧洲央行通过其购买计划在紧急情况下稳定市场呢？
</div>If there are clear signs of stress, the ECB will ultimately intervene. But this put option is currently well out of the money, meaning that there would need to be significantly more stress in the system before it would intervene. There are currently no signs of such a serious intensification. The ECB will also not intervene early because it does not want to override market forces. If market pressure increases, this is likely to have a disciplining effect on politicians, similar to what we are seeing in the US. The US government does not want to lose control of the Treasury market either. It will therefore be careful not to seriously damage the independence of the Federal Reserve.
<div class="lb-trans">如果出现明显的压力迹象，欧洲央行最终会介入。但这个看跌期权目前处于深度虚值状态，这意味着在介入之前，系统中需要出现显著更多的压力。目前没有迹象表明会出现如此严重的加剧。欧洲央行也不会过早介入，因为它不想覆盖市场力量。如果市场压力增加，这可能会对政治家产生约束效应，类似于我们在美国所看到的。美国政府也不想失去对国债市场的控制。因此，它会小心翼翼，以免严重损害联邦储备的独立性。
</div><blockquote>
«In the case of France the put option is currently well out of the money, meaning that there would need to be significantly more stress in the system before the ECB would intervene.»
</blockquote>
<div class="lb-trans"> «在法国的情况下，看跌期权目前处于深度虚值状态，这意味着在欧洲央行介入之前，系统中需要出现显著更多的压力。」
</div>Deficit and debt as a proportion of GDP are key indicators for the Maastricht criteria, which were established in 1992 when monetary union was agreed, and later for the Stability Pact. At that time, they were set at 3 per cent and 60 per cent. Are these values still relevant for assessing debt sustainability?
<div class="lb-trans">赤字和债务占 GDP 的比例是 1992 年在达成货币联盟时设定的马斯特里赫特标准的关键指标，后来也用于稳定公约。当时，它们被设定为 3% 和 60%。这些数值在评估债务可持续性时仍然相关吗？
</div>After the shock of the pandemic, debt in most countries is above 60 per cent. Even Germany will exceed this figure with its spending programmes, which is fine because they were underinvesting. The key thing is that debt can be stabilised, even if above 60 per cent. Important parameters for debt sustainability are the ratio of nominal interest rates to nominal GDP growth, inflation and the primary balance of the national budget, i.e. excluding interest expenditure.
<div class="lb-trans">在疫情冲击后，大多数国家的债务都超过了 60%。即使是德国也将通过其支出计划超过这一数字，这没问题，因为他们之前投资不足。关键是债务可以稳定，即使超过 60%。债务可持续性的关键参数是名义利率与名义 GDP 增长的比率、通货膨胀和国家预算的初级余额，即不包括利息支出。
</div>Until recently, economists kept finding new reasons why the real equilibrium interest rate r*, which can only be estimated, should be structurally lower than in the past. Don't the currently relatively high yields on long-term government bonds show that they were wrong?
<div class="lb-trans">直到最近，经济学家们不断找到新的理由，认为只能估计的实际均衡利率 r* 应该结构性地低于过去。难道目前长期政府债券的相对高收益率并不表明他们错了吗？
</div>This is a critical variable that we are analysing closely. It may indeed have increased slightly. In an economy, r* balances savings and investment. We are currently experiencing an investment boom, driven by AI, defence, infrastructure and the desire for resilience and onshoring. However, demographics suggest that r* is unlikely to return to the higher level seen before the financial crisis. In the US, r* is currently likely to be around 1 per cent. However, if new technologies do indeed lead to a noticeable boost in productivity, this could also push up the equilibrium interest rate.
<div class="lb-trans">这是一个我们正在密切分析的关键变量。它确实可能略有上升。在经济中，r* 平衡储蓄和投资。我们目前正经历由人工智能、国防、基础设施以及对韧性和本土化的渴望驱动的投资热潮。然而，人口统计数据显示，r* 不太可能回到金融危机前的较高水平。在美国，r* 目前可能在 1% 左右。然而，如果新技术确实能显著提升生产力，这也可能推动均衡利率上升。
</div><blockquote>
«Corporate bonds are not particularly attractive overall due to the narrow spreads.»
</blockquote>
<div class="lb-trans"><blockquote>
«由于利差较窄，企业债券整体上并不是特别有吸引力。」
</blockquote>
</div>Let's move on to investment practice. What are the biggest competitors for European government bonds?
<div class="lb-trans">让我们继续讨论投资实践。欧洲政府债券最大的竞争对手是什么？
</div>We look at the entire universe, although currency risk must of course be taken into account. British government bonds are attractive because of their high potential for interest rate cuts, as are US Treasuries. German government bonds are less attractive at the margin given that the ECB is at, or near, the end of its cutting cycle, and due to the expected increase in bond supply. Japan is an interesting case with rising interest rates, but we are waiting to see what happens because the guidelines for future fiscal policy are still not fully clear. Corporate bonds are not particularly attractive overall due to the narrow spreads. However, there are opportunities in certain segments such as mortgage bonds and other secured bonds. Equities, on the other hand, are highly valued and therefore expensive, so we are cautious.
<div class="lb-trans">我们会考虑整个市场，尽管当然必须考虑货币风险。由于其高潜在利率下调，英国政府债券具有吸引力，美国国债也是如此。考虑到欧洲央行已接近或即将结束降息周期，以及预计债券供应将增加，德国政府债券在边际上吸引力较低。日本的情况很有趣，利率上升，但我们在等待进一步的发展，因为未来财政政策的指导方针仍不完全明确。由于利差较窄，企业债券整体上并不是特别有吸引力。然而，在某些细分市场，如抵押贷款债券和其他担保债券中，仍然存在机会。另一方面，股票的估值较高，因此价格昂贵，因此我们持谨慎态度。
</div>Sure, the spreads between corporate bonds and government bonds are narrow by historical standards. But could that not be due to the fact that the credit ratings of many companies have improved while those of many countries have deteriorated?
<div class="lb-trans">当然，企业债券与政府债券之间的利差在历史标准下是较窄的。但这难道不是因为许多公司的信用评级改善，而许多国家的信用评级恶化吗？
</div>I don't really find this argument convincing. The difference between government and corporate bonds is the spread. It may well be that corporate balance sheets are fundamentally better today than they used to be. But if a government gets into a debt crisis, then all companies in that country are likely to have a big problem. In credit analysis, there is not only a link between the government and banks, but also between the government and companies. I'm not saying that there are no opportunities in corporate bonds. But the market as such is not very attractive.
<div class="lb-trans">我并不觉得这个论点令人信服。政府债券和企业债券之间的差异在于利差。企业的资产负债表今天可能确实比以前好。但如果一个政府陷入债务危机，那么该国所有公司都可能面临重大问题。在信用分析中，政府与银行之间不仅存在联系，政府与企业之间也存在联系。我并不是说企业债券没有机会。但市场本身并不是特别有吸引力。
</div><blockquote>
«In credit quality there is a link between the government and companies, too.»
</blockquote>
<div class="lb-trans"><blockquote>
«在信用质量方面，政府与企业之间也存在联系。」
</blockquote>
</div>What does the increasing fiscal integration you mentioned, with more joint bonds, mean for investors? Is this the start of the secure European investment that has been lacking until now? And how should we assess the other bonds that have been issued for some time by EU-related institutions such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)?
<div class="lb-trans">您提到的日益增加的财政一体化，更多的共同债券，对投资者意味着什么？这是否意味着缺乏已久的安全欧洲投资的开始？我们应该如何评估欧盟相关机构（如欧洲稳定机制（ESM））发行的其他债券？
</div>No, we are not yet at the point where we can talk about a new European safe asset. But we are on the way there, including with the Safe armament programme. The market for EU bonds has become much more liquid. However, this does not make a thorough credit analysis superfluous.
<div class="lb-trans">不，我们还没有达到可以谈论新的欧洲安全资产的地步。但我们正在朝这个方向前进，包括安全武装计划。欧盟债券市场变得更加流动。然而，这并不意味着彻底的信用分析变得多余。
</div>Why not?
<div class="lb-trans">为什么不呢？
</div>Firstly, the various institutions that issue bonds have their own structural characteristics that need to be taken into account. And secondly, the bonds issued by the European Commission and the payment obligations entered into in the EU budget must also be taken into account sufficiently. The EU's debt is rising, which in itself leads to higher yields. However, this effect is currently being partially offset by improved tradability: the credit premium is rising, while the liquidity premium is falling. The joint bonds also take some pressure off the sovereigns' budgets, which is why countries such as France are so enthusiastic about them. Ultimately, however, the EU's credit quality continues to depend on the creditworthiness of its members.
<div class="lb-trans">首先，发行债券的各种机构具有自身的结构特征，需要加以考虑。其次，欧洲委员会发行的债券和在欧盟预算中承担的支付义务也必须得到充分考虑。欧盟的债务在上升，这本身导致收益率上升。然而，这一效应目前正被改善的可交易性部分抵消：信用溢价在上升，而流动性溢价在下降。共同债券也减轻了主权国家的预算压力，这就是为什么像法国这样的国家对此如此热衷。最终，欧盟的信用质量仍然取决于其成员国的信用状况。
</div>

Nicola Mai: «我们正在迈向一个新的欧洲安全资产»