Hello everyone, welcome to “News Perspective,” I’m Li Xin.
Today’s focus: Real estate market continues to decline, CCP intervenes massively in the market, local governments reluctant to get involved! Trump vs. Harris showdown, what do Wall Street big shots say? How does the market react? U.S. media: Harris won but no guarantee of winning the election.
On the evening of the 10th, at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, the U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, Harris, and the Republican presidential candidate, Trump, held their first televised debate. The 78-year-old Trump and the 59-year-old Harris clashed fiercely on issues such as the economy, abortion rights, illegal immigration, and conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. After the 90-minute debate, both Trump and Harris’ camps claimed that their candidate won the debate. Trump himself immediately took to Truth Social after the event, stating that his debate performance was excellent: “This is the best debate in history! And it was three against one this time!” Trump’s reference to “three against one” indicated that he believed his opponents in the debate included Harris and the two ABC moderators, responding to fact-checking against him during the debate.
Former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy described the debate as a “three against one competition” against Trump, while Congressman Michael Waltz questioned the fairness of ABC News’ fact-checking.
Harris’ camp similarly self-evaluated the performance as excellent, claiming that Trump was “incoherent and full of lies” out of anger. Harris’ team also stated, “We are ready for the second debate with Trump.”
An instant poll commissioned by CNN from the independent polling firm SSRS showed that among registered voters who watched the debate, 63% believed Harris outperformed Trump, while only 37% thought Trump did better. However, a significant 82% of registered voters stated that the debate would not change their choice of presidential candidate, with 14% reconsidering and only 4% claiming a change in perspective. CNN emphasized that the aforementioned poll only reflected the views of viewers who watched the debate and could not represent the opinions of all registered voters.
Fox News also believed that Harris had the upper hand, but underscored the moderators’ direct correction of false statements made by Trump during the debate, seemingly “aiding” Harris.
In the U.S. on Tuesday night, betting odds favored Harris after the debate. PredictIt’s 2024 presidential election market showed a rise in Harris’ chances from 52% before the debate to 56%, while Trump’s chances fell from 51% to 48%.
According to Betfair data, after the debate, the likelihood of Harris winning rose to 52%, while Trump’s chances fell from 52% to 48%.
It is worth noting that winning a debate does not guarantee victory in the election. In both 2004 and 2016, Bush and Trump respectively were seen to have underperformed in debates but ultimately won the presidency.
Despite the optimistic atmosphere, Harris remains cautious, telling supporters after the debate, “We are still at a disadvantage in this competition, the situation is tense.”
On Wednesday, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald LP, a prominent financial services company in the United States, and a billionaire who served as joint chairman of Trump’s transition team, Howard Lutnick, gave an interview in New York to Fox and Bloomberg. He said that Harris’ performance exceeded expectations and that she did well. However, he pointed out that Harris had not participated in more media activities to articulate her views and policies, and during the debate, she did not address the issue of inflation.
He added that in the debate, “every point made by Trump was spot on,” and if the moderators did not interject and only made comments “against Trump,” it would have been even better.
Lutnick, who lost his brother in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, expressed the need to “eliminate terrorism,” citing Trump’s strong stance on Islamic extremism as the reason he supports Trump. He hoped that Harris would align with Trump on this matter.
Lutnick said, “We all have our viewpoints, but clearly, I like Donald Trump’s debate.” “Trump is a fearless leader,” he believed Trump would ultimately win the 2024 U.S. election.
A post-debate YouGov poll found that 43% of respondents believed Harris won the debate, while 28% believed Trump was the victor. Approximately 30% said they were unsure.
However, some right-wing media polls indicated Trump’s victory. On September 11, CNN pointed out that even if Trump lost the debate, he has consistently held an advantage over the two major issues in elections—economy and immigration. Many voters are still anticipating an economic rebound post-pandemic, so the debate result may not be the deciding factor for them in choosing a candidate.
The article mentioned that while Trump may have exaggerated on immigration and crime issues, these shocking events have indeed occurred. If significant events take place domestically or internationally in the next two months, the balance of power between the two camps may change.
Pop music sensation Taylor Swift expressed support for Harris on Instagram just minutes after the debate ended. She has 280 million followers on Instagram.
Furthermore, on Wednesday, the stock prices of Trump’s media and technology conglomerate dropped, while a single statement from him caused solar stocks to surge.
In the pre-market trading on Nasdaq, the stock price of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. plummeted by 17%, with a 10.47% decline at the close of that day.
However, long-struggling U.S. solar stocks rebounded on Wednesday, with residential solar provider SunRun Inc. jumping 11.45%, becoming one of the leading Nasdaq gainers.
In the debate, Trump mentioned his affinity for solar energy but dislike for the amount of land solar projects utilize. Several solar companies saw a rise in stock prices on Wednesday, including First Solar Inc. with a 15.19% increase, SolarEdge Technologies Inc. by 8.46%, and Canadian Solar Inc. rising by 11.8%.
After the debate, Bitcoin prices tumbled, reflecting early trader sentiments towards the debate. Throughout the campaign, Trump has consistently supported cryptocurrencies. He courted the digital asset industry for donations and votes, even pledging to make the U.S. the “cryptocurrency capital of the world.” Cryptocurrency has become known as part of the “Trump trade.” Harris has yet to detail her stance on cryptocurrencies. Last month, Harris’ campaign advisor stated that Harris would support measures to help the industry flourish.
Before the debate, the U.S. political polling website RealClearPolitics published comprehensive polling on September 10, showing Harris leading Trump by a slight 1.1 percentage point nationwide. The gap between the two is within the margin of error, with Harris’ lead susceptible to being equalized or overturned by Trump at any moment. In the crucial battleground states that determine the election result, a tight race is unfolding. As of September 10, Harris has a slight lead in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada, while Trump slightly leads in North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. Polling gaps in all swing states fall within a 2% margin of error, particularly in Pennsylvania, which holds 19 Electoral College votes, currently locked in a “stalemate” between the two parties.
Post-debate, pro-Democrat The New York Times and the Financial Times of the UK both believe that while Harris has the advantage after the debate, both sides focused on solidifying their base without presenting policies that could persuade swing voters. Therefore, most media outlets do not see the debate as a turning point in the 2024 U.S. election race. Both Trump and Harris are unlikely to easily widen their lead over the opponent.
In addition, China’s real estate market has long been in a slump, with the CCP issuing consecutive market-saving measures, but with minimal effect.
In May of this year, after the People’s Bank of China announced a 300 billion yuan housing market refinancing plan, over 200 cities were urged to implement the plan. In June, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development expanded the plan to county levels, encouraging 387 lower-level counties to join. This plan was considered a heavyweight market-saving initiative.
However, over three months later, only 29 cities responded. Bloomberg reported that the slow implementation of the market-saving plan was largely due to its lack of economic attractiveness to local governments. Public data showed that by the end of June, only 4% of the 300 billion yuan refinancing plan from the People’s Bank of China had been used, and only 8% of the 580 billion yuan in refinancing funds had been deployed.
China currently has 382 million square meters of unsold property inventory, equivalent to the size of Detroit in the United States. By July, the nationwide purchase rate for unsold apartments was only 1.9%.
Beijing has difficulty selling its housing aid plan to local governments because the “meager rental income is hardly worth the risk.”
Externally, it is widely believed that government purchases of housing inventory are a crucial step in alleviating housing oversupply, but the lack of lending support from the People’s Bank of China is hindering progress.
Why are local governments reluctant to act? The main reason is that local governments predict the real estate market has not yet hit bottom, and acquiring property now is not profitable, lacking the drive to move forward. If seen as a political task that must be carried out, local governments may consider negotiating with developers, but the direct result of negotiating lower prices could further depress local property prices.
According to a report from the Fosun Group Limited, apartment prices in major cities are expected to drop by at least 30% before stabilizing, making property purchases economically unviable for local CCP officials.
For local officials, transforming inventory into affordable housing is a loss-making deal as the estimated returns will be below financing costs. According to Macquarie Group, the average rental yield in first-tier Chinese cities in 2023 was only 1.4%, while the central bank’s financing rate was 1.75%.
Facing pressure from Beijing, local governments have started cautiously controlling costs. Some cities have proposed developers sell houses to the government at half-price.
Local governments have long been under financial strain, with budget expenditures shrinking in the first seven months of this year. Among 31 provinces and municipalities, only Shanghai achieved a surplus in the first half of the year.
Local governments are already financially strained, with banks and state-owned enterprises needing to assume lending and investment risks, making the CCP’s plan to convert inventory into affordable housing difficult to implement locally.
Feel free to subscribe to our YouTube channel:
https://bit.ly/3IxaN09