<p>作者：Naeem Aslam</p>
<p>如果像黃金和白銀這樣的 “安全” 投資在一天之內崩潰，投資者需要重新考慮他們的投資組合對沖策略。</p>
<p>這是一個買入機會嗎？這是錯誤的問題。</p>
<p>對於許多投資者視為保護的資產來説，週五黃金和白銀的快速崩潰令人不安。</p>
<p>立即的本能是問出了什麼問題——但這忽略了要點。這次拋售的真正教訓不是關於方向或估值，而是關於流動性——以及當過多資本試圖同時退出同一 “安全” 交易時會發生什麼。</p>
<p>這一波動幅度超出了許多人的想象。黃金（GC00）和白銀（SI00）的急劇回調抹去了估計 7.4 萬億美元的市場總值，基於地面供應和現貨價格。</p>
<p>黃金從 5598 美元的峯值下跌 9%，白銀從 121 美元的峯值下跌 27%——顯然是在宣佈凱文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）作為特朗普總統選擇的美聯儲主席後——顯示這不僅僅是情緒的變化。這是全球流動性的突然收縮——直接影響到被廣泛視為實物價值儲存的資產。</p>
<p>這不是一次基本面的衝擊。通脹數據並沒有突然改變。政策預期也沒有在一夜之間逆轉。失敗的是對被廣泛視為防禦性資產的假設，即在壓力下它們會保持流動性。</p>
<p>閲讀：凱文·沃什並不是投資者認為的那樣——你如何從他們的錯誤中獲利。</p>
<p>當安全資產變成擁擠的出口時</p>
<p>黃金和白銀作為對沖工具被大量持有。這種持有創造了一種安全的錯覺——並不是因為價格不能下跌，而是因為投資者假設流動性總是可用的。</p>
<p>當波動性激增時，這種假設崩潰了。流動性首先在持倉最擁擠的地方枯竭。拋售加速並不是因為信念崩潰，而是因為風險限制、保證金要求和波動控制迫使投資者減少敞口。</p>
<p>這種動態解釋了為什麼這次拋售感覺更像是機械而非情緒化。它也解釋了為什麼白銀的跌幅遠遠超過黃金。</p>
<p>白銀並沒有失敗——它放大了壓力。</p>
<p>白銀處於對沖、投機和槓桿的交匯點。它的市場更為稀薄，持倉更為激進，波動性結構性更高。當流動性收緊時，白銀不僅僅是跟隨黃金——它放大了這一波動。</p>
<p>黃金揭示了持倉壓力。白銀揭示了流動性壓力。</p>
<p>這種區別對試圖理解剛剛發生了什麼以及尚未解決的事情的投資者來説很重要。</p>
<p>閲讀：特朗普提名凱文·沃什擔任美聯儲主席的蜜月期？短暫的——然後推向了緊要關頭。</p>
<p>為什麼實物購買並不能抵消拋售</p>
<p>關於買家湧入實物市場的報道，包括在迪拜等地，是真實的——而且它們很重要。它們表明，當波動性迫使價格下跌時，價格敏感的需求會迅速出現。</p>
<p>但實物購買回答的是與金融拋售不同的問題。實物需求可以隨着時間的推移穩定價格；流動性壓力決定了短期內的路徑。</p>
<p>這就是許多投資者出錯的地方。看到實物積累並得出拋售 “結束” 的結論混淆了兩種截然不同的力量。實物買家對價格水平做出反應。金融市場則對波動性、槓桿和風險約束做出反應。這兩者並不在同一個時間框架內運作。</p>
<p>投資者在劇烈拋售後犯的錯誤</p>
<p>問題不是買什麼，而是你是什麼樣的買家？</p>
<p>在這樣的波動之後，討論很快轉向下跌是否代表買入機會。這是錯誤的起點。</p>
<p>更有用的問題不是買什麼，而是你是什麼樣的買家？</p>
<p>價格敏感的買家——通常是長期或實物持有者——可以以價值和積累的方式思考。流動性敏感的持有者——那些通過期貨、期權或高度交易的工具暴露的投資者——則受波動性和風險控制的支配，而不是信念。</p>
<p>將兩者混淆是投資者最終在不穩定中買入而非機會的原因。</p>
<p>真正的教訓：多樣化你的對沖方式，而不僅僅是你用什麼對沖。</p>
<p>在壓力市場中，流動性——而非邏輯——決定價格。</p>
<p>這一事件的更深層次啓示令人不安但必要。許多投資組合按資產類別進行多樣化，但並未按流動性行為進行多樣化。當壓力到來時，所謂不同的對沖可能會同時將投資者引導到同一出口。</p>
<p>這就是數萬億美元如何從旨在保護資本的資產中消失的原因。</p>
<p>這並不否定黃金或白銀作為長期對沖工具的有效性。它確實挑戰了安全僅僅是擁有正確資產的假設。在壓力市場中，流動性——而非邏輯——決定價格。</p>
<p>接下來要關注什麼</p>
<p>“全清” 信號不是價格是否反彈，而是波動性是否壓縮。在此之前，流動性仍然脆弱。實物需求可能會減緩下跌，但無法阻止因強制重新定位而導致的劇烈波動。</p>
<p>貴金屬的拋售並不是對其角色的拒絕。這是一次壓力測試——它揭示了即使是安全資產在每個人同時依賴時也會變得不穩定。</p>
<p>Naeem Aslam 是倫敦 Zaye Capital Markets 的首席投資官。</p>
<p>更多：白銀遭遇 46 年來最大跌幅，“每個人都在急於逃離”。</p>
<p>另請閲讀：特朗普提名凱文·沃什擔任美聯儲主席並不足以安撫動盪的市場。</p>
<p>——Naeem Aslam</p>
<p>本文由 MarketWatch 創作，MarketWatch 由道瓊斯公司運營。MarketWatch 與道瓊斯新聞社和《華爾街日報》獨立出版。</p>
<p>（完）道瓊斯新聞社</p>
<p>02-01-26 1605ET</p>

<p>黃金和白銀的市場價值損失約為 7.4 萬億美元，突顯了被視為安全投資的風險。這一拋售是由於全球流動性突然收縮所驅動，而非市場條件的基本變化。投資者被敦促重新考慮他們的對沖策略，關注流動性行為，而不僅僅是資產類別的多樣化。在市場波動期間，價格敏感型買家和流動性敏感型買家之間的區別對於理解市場動態至關重要。目前市場信號顯示謹慎，因為儘管潛在的實物需求可能會隨着時間的推移穩定價格，但流動性仍然脆弱</p>

<p>By Naeem Aslam</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Naeem Aslam</p>
</div><p>If 'safe' investments like gold and silver can crash in a single day, investors need to reconsider their portfolio hedges</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果像黃金和白銀這樣的 “安全” 投資在一天之內崩潰，投資者需要重新考慮他們的投資組合對沖策略。</p>
</div><p>Is this a buying opportunity? That is the wrong question.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這是一個買入機會嗎？這是錯誤的問題。</p>
</div><p>For assets that many investors treat as protection, the speed and scale of the wipeout in gold and silver on Friday was unnerving.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>對於許多投資者視為保護的資產來説，週五黃金和白銀的快速崩潰令人不安。</p>
</div><p>The immediate instinct is to ask what went wrong - but that misses the point. The real lesson from this selloff is not about direction or valuation. It is about liquidity - and what happens when too much capital tries to exit the same &#34;safe&#34; trades at once.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>立即的本能是問出了什麼問題——但這忽略了要點。這次拋售的真正教訓不是關於方向或估值，而是關於流動性——以及當過多資本試圖同時退出同一 “安全” 交易時會發生什麼。</p>
</div><p>The scale of the move is larger than many realize. The sharp pullback across gold (GC00) and silver (SI00) erased an estimated $7.4 trillion in combined market value, based on above-ground supply and prevailing spot prices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這一波動幅度超出了許多人的想象。黃金（GC00）和白銀（SI00）的急劇回調抹去了估計 7.4 萬億美元的市場總值，基於地面供應和現貨價格。</p>
</div><p>Gold's 9% drop from its peak of $5,598 and silver's 27% fall from its peak of $121 - ostensibly after the announcement of Kevin Warsh, a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve, as President Donald Trump's choice to lead the U.S. central bank - show that this was not a shift in sentiment alone. It was a sudden contraction in global liquidity - one that spilled directly into assets widely regarded as physical stores of value.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>黃金從 5598 美元的峯值下跌 9%，白銀從 121 美元的峯值下跌 27%——顯然是在宣佈凱文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）作為特朗普總統選擇的美聯儲主席後——顯示這不僅僅是情緒的變化。這是全球流動性的突然收縮——直接影響到被廣泛視為實物價值儲存的資產。</p>
</div><p>This was not a fundamental shock. Inflation data did not suddenly change. Policy expectations did not reverse overnight. What failed was the assumption that assets widely viewed as defensive would remain liquid under stress.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這不是一次基本面的衝擊。通脹數據並沒有突然改變。政策預期也沒有在一夜之間逆轉。失敗的是對被廣泛視為防禦性資產的假設，即在壓力下它們會保持流動性。</p>
</div><p>Read: Kevin Warsh isn't who investors think he is - how you can profit from their mistake</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>閲讀：凱文·沃什並不是投資者認為的那樣——你如何從他們的錯誤中獲利。</p>
</div><p>When safe assets become crowded exits</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>當安全資產變成擁擠的出口時</p>
</div><p>Gold and silver had become heavily owned as hedges. That ownership created an illusion of safety - not because prices could not fall, but because investors assumed liquidity would always be available.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>黃金和白銀作為對沖工具被大量持有。這種持有創造了一種安全的錯覺——並不是因為價格不能下跌，而是因為投資者假設流動性總是可用的。</p>
</div><p>When volatility surged, that assumption broke down. Liquidity dried up first where positioning was most crowded. Selling accelerated not because conviction collapsed, but because risk limits, margin requirements and volatility controls forced exposure to be reduced.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>當波動性激增時，這種假設崩潰了。流動性首先在持倉最擁擠的地方枯竭。拋售加速並不是因為信念崩潰，而是因為風險限制、保證金要求和波動控制迫使投資者減少敞口。</p>
</div><p>This dynamic explains why the selloff felt mechanical rather than emotional. It also explains why silver fell so much harder than gold.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這種動態解釋了為什麼這次拋售感覺更像是機械而非情緒化。它也解釋了為什麼白銀的跌幅遠遠超過黃金。</p>
</div><p>Silver didn't fail - it amplified the stress</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>白銀並沒有失敗——它放大了壓力。</p>
</div><p>Silver sits at the intersection of hedging, speculation and leverage. Its market is thinner, its positioning more aggressive and its volatility structurally higher. When liquidity tightens, silver does not simply follow gold - it magnifies the move.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>白銀處於對沖、投機和槓桿的交匯點。它的市場更為稀薄，持倉更為激進，波動性結構性更高。當流動性收緊時，白銀不僅僅是跟隨黃金——它放大了這一波動。</p>
</div><p>Gold revealed positioning stress. Silver revealed liquidity stress.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>黃金揭示了持倉壓力。白銀揭示了流動性壓力。</p>
</div><p>That distinction matters for investors trying to understand what just happened - and what has not yet resolved.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這種區別對試圖理解剛剛發生了什麼以及尚未解決的事情的投資者來説很重要。</p>
</div><p>Read: A Fed honeymoon for Trump pick Kevin Warsh? Briefly - then push comes to shove.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>閲讀：特朗普提名凱文·沃什擔任美聯儲主席的蜜月期？短暫的——然後推向了緊要關頭。</p>
</div><p>Why physical buying doesn't negate the selloff</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>為什麼實物購買並不能抵消拋售</p>
</div><p>Reports of buyers rushing into physical markets, including in places such as Dubai, are real - and they are important. They show that price-sensitive demand emerges quickly when volatility forces prices lower.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>關於買家湧入實物市場的報道，包括在迪拜等地，是真實的——而且它們很重要。它們表明，當波動性迫使價格下跌時，價格敏感的需求會迅速出現。</p>
</div><p>But physical buying answers a different question than financial selling. Physical demand can stabilize price over time; liquidity stress determines the path in the short term.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但實物購買回答的是與金融拋售不同的問題。實物需求可以隨着時間的推移穩定價格；流動性壓力決定了短期內的路徑。</p>
</div><p>This is where many investors go wrong. Seeing physical accumulation and concluding the selloff is &#34;over&#34; confuses two very different forces. Physical buyers react to levels. Financial markets react to volatility, leverage and risk constraints. The two do not operate on the same clock.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這就是許多投資者出錯的地方。看到實物積累並得出拋售 “結束” 的結論混淆了兩種截然不同的力量。實物買家對價格水平做出反應。金融市場則對波動性、槓桿和風險約束做出反應。這兩者並不在同一個時間框架內運作。</p>
</div><p>The mistake investors make after violent selloffs</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者在劇烈拋售後犯的錯誤</p>
</div><p>The question is not what to buy, but what kind of buyer are you?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>問題不是買什麼，而是你是什麼樣的買家？</p>
</div><p>After moves like this, the conversation quickly turns to whether the decline represents a buying opportunity. That is the wrong starting point.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在這樣的波動之後，討論很快轉向下跌是否代表買入機會。這是錯誤的起點。</p>
</div><p>The more useful question is not what to buy, but what kind of buyer are you?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>更有用的問題不是買什麼，而是你是什麼樣的買家？</p>
</div><p>Price-sensitive buyers - typically long-term or physical holders - can afford to think in terms of value and accumulation. Liquidity-sensitive holders - those exposed through futures, options or highly traded vehicles - are governed by volatility and risk controls, not conviction.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>價格敏感的買家——通常是長期或實物持有者——可以以價值和積累的方式思考。流動性敏感的持有者——那些通過期貨、期權或高度交易的工具暴露的投資者——則受波動性和風險控制的支配，而不是信念。</p>
</div><p>Confusing one for the other is how investors end up buying into instability rather than opportunity.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>將兩者混淆是投資者最終在不穩定中買入而非機會的原因。</p>
</div><p>The real lesson: Diversify how you hedge, not just what you hedge with</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>真正的教訓：多樣化你的對沖方式，而不僅僅是你用什麼對沖。</p>
</div><p>In stressed markets, liquidity - not logic - sets the price.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在壓力市場中，流動性——而非邏輯——決定價格。</p>
</div><p>The deeper takeaway from this episode is uncomfortable but necessary. Many portfolios are diversified by asset class, but not by liquidity behavior. When stress arrives, supposedly different hedges can funnel investors into the same exits at the same time.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這一事件的更深層次啓示令人不安但必要。許多投資組合按資產類別進行多樣化，但並未按流動性行為進行多樣化。當壓力到來時，所謂不同的對沖可能會同時將投資者引導到同一出口。</p>
</div><p>That is how trillions of dollars can disappear from assets designed to protect capital.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這就是數萬億美元如何從旨在保護資本的資產中消失的原因。</p>
</div><p>This does not invalidate gold or silver as long-term hedges. It does challenge the assumption that safety is simply about owning the right assets. In stressed markets, liquidity - not logic - sets the price.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這並不否定黃金或白銀作為長期對沖工具的有效性。它確實挑戰了安全僅僅是擁有正確資產的假設。在壓力市場中，流動性——而非邏輯——決定價格。</p>
</div><p>What to watch from here</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>接下來要關注什麼</p>
</div><p>The &#34;all-clear&#34; signal is not whether prices bounce, but whether volatility compresses. Until it does, liquidity remains fragile. Physical demand may slow declines, but it cannot prevent sharp moves driven by forced repositioning.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“全清” 信號不是價格是否反彈，而是波動性是否壓縮。在此之前，流動性仍然脆弱。實物需求可能會減緩下跌，但無法阻止因強制重新定位而導致的劇烈波動。</p>
</div><p>The selloff in precious metals was not a rejection of their role. It was a stress test - and it revealed that even safe assets can become unstable when everyone relies on them at once.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>貴金屬的拋售並不是對其角色的拒絕。這是一次壓力測試——它揭示了即使是安全資產在每個人同時依賴時也會變得不穩定。</p>
</div><p>Naeem Aslam is chief investment officer at Zaye Capital Markets in London.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Naeem Aslam 是倫敦 Zaye Capital Markets 的首席投資官。</p>
</div><p>More: Silver suffers biggest drop in 46 years, with 'every man and his dog rushing for the exit'</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>更多：白銀遭遇 46 年來最大跌幅，“每個人都在急於逃離”。</p>
</div><p>Also read: Trump picking Kevin Warsh as Fed chair wasn't enough to soothe shaky markets</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>另請閲讀：特朗普提名凱文·沃什擔任美聯儲主席並不足以安撫動盪的市場。</p>
</div><p>-Naeem Aslam</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>——Naeem Aslam</p>
</div><p>This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones &amp; Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>本文由 MarketWatch 創作，MarketWatch 由道瓊斯公司運營。MarketWatch 與道瓊斯新聞社和《華爾街日報》獨立出版。</p>
</div><p>(END) Dow Jones Newswires</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>（完）道瓊斯新聞社</p>
</div><p>02-01-26 1605ET</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>02-01-26 1605ET</p>
</div>

Gold and silver's $7 trillion wipeout delivers a painful lesson about risk

Dow Jones

SPDR金-R

Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF

黃金信託 ETF - GraniteShares

Sprott Silver Mnrs & Physical Silver ETF

SPDR金

Gold.com

價值黃金

黃金信託 VanEck Merk - Merk

2 倍做多白銀 ETF - ProShares

黃金ETF工銀

國泰黃金ETF

SPDR金-U

黃金 MiniShares 信託 - SPDR

SPDR 金 ETF

全球黃金礦業股 MSCI ETF - iShares

實物白銀股票 ETF - ETFS

富國上海金ETF

華夏黃金ETF

博時黃金ETF

Sprott PHYs Silver

山東黃金

黃金 ETF - iShares

華安黃金易(ETF)

紫金礦業

貴金屬股 ETF -ETFS

白銀礦業股 ETF - GlobalX

2 倍做多黃金 ETF - ProShares

黃金股ETF

環球銀礦 MSCI ETF - iShares

金礦股 ETF - VanEck Vectors

黃金和貴金屬礦商 ETF - U.S. Global

前海開源黃金ETF

阿尼科伊格爾礦業

金礦小盤股 ETF - VanEck Vectors

中金黃金

華夏中證滬深港黃金產業股票ETF

恆生黃金ETF

黃金勘探商 ETF - GlobalX

Kinross Gold

白銀信託 ETF - iShares

實物黃金股 ETF - ETFS

紐蒙特礦業

黃金和白銀的 7 萬億美元損失給我們上了一堂關於風險的痛苦課