Regarding the Non-Farm Payrolls, here’s a forward-looking analysis: This NFP report cannot be simply interpreted as “strong employment means the economy is fine.” More accurately, this was a report characterized by structural strength but weak liquidity. May’s U.S. non-farm payrolls exceeded expectations, but when broken down by sector, the underlying issues are clear: job growth was concentrated in leisure and hospitality, education and healthcare, and government sectors—with leisure and hospitality leading the way, adding approximately 70,000 jobs in a single month, of which restaurants and bars accounted for 48,000. This reflects seasonal and structural support driven by peak travel season, service consumption, and pre-World Cup activity. Meanwhile, industries tied to finance, information technology, and tech remain weak. Small business hiring plans have declined, and tech layoffs continue to rise. In other words, the U.S. labor market is not broadly robust—it is instead: 1) Supported by services, healthcare, and government hiring; 2) Cooling in tech, finance, and white-collar roles; 3) Facing reluctance from small businesses to expand hiring; 4) Experiencing accelerated AI-driven substitution of certain white-collar and technical positions. Thus, the true signal from this NFP is not “employment is strong,” but rather: aggregate numbers remain resilient, but the structure is beginning to deteriorate. This explains why ordinary people feel the job market is worsening—even as NFP data beats expectations. The NFP measures net job creation across the entire economy; as long as enough workers are absorbed by restaurants, hotels, healthcare, and government roles, they can offset job losses in tech and finance. Looking at additional data, the broader logic aligns with my earlier point about liquidity constraints. The market is concerned about liquidity (and rightly so): strong employment → the Fed finds it harder to cut rates, even raising the probability of a rate hike this year → higher interest rates → tighter liquidity → pressure on overvalued assets. If employment were to collapse outright, the Fed would have clear justification to pivot toward easing, and markets would price in a “recession-driven rate cut.” But the current situation is most awkward: aggregate employment remains solid, inflation risks persist, oil prices remain volatile, and AI capital expenditures are still at elevated valuations. As a result, markets fear the Fed has no reason to intervene—and may even re-adopt a hawkish stance. That said, I do not believe the AI narrative is over. Real demand still exists in AI capex, computing power, networking, storage, electricity, and data centers. The underlying industrial trend has not been reversed by a single NFP report. Assets characterized by high valuations, distant profitability, continuous funding needs, and pure storytelling will face heightened volatility. Meanwhile, companies genuinely facing industrial bottlenecks, with visible orders and tangible earnings potential, are more likely to emerge stronger after the correction. On China-U.S. Relations: Over the past year, the correlation between U.S. and Chinese equity markets—particularly AI-related assets—has strengthened. If the U.S. market shifts from an “AI growth trade” to a “high-rate pressure trade,” China’s markets will struggle to remain fully insulated. In particular, A-share and Hong Kong-listed stocks tied to AI computing power, CPOs, storage, power equipment, robotics, and semiconductors will face short-term spillover effects. But it’s important to distinguish between: 1) Short-term risk sentiment shocks; 2) Medium-term industrial trends and order execution; 3) Long-term supply-demand bottlenecks and profit realization. Therefore, the path forward is not blind bearishness—but rather reducing reliance on pure sentiment-driven valuation expansion and focusing instead on sectors verifiable by earnings reports and order pipelines. The core takeaway from this NFP is not “employment is strong,” but: U.S. aggregate employment retains resilience, yet structural divergence is now evident. Services, healthcare, and government are propping up employment; tech, finance, small businesses, and white-collar roles are under pressure. The market decline is not due to a sudden deterioration in fundamentals—but because the stronger-than-expected NFP crushed expectations for monetary easing, reigniting concerns about liquidity risk. The current macro environment is thus: 1) Employment is not weak enough to force Fed intervention; 2) Inflation and oil price risks remain; 3) AI valuations are no longer cheap; Liquidity has once again become the primary constraint on risk assets. The probability of an immediate June rate hike is low—but the Fed will likely remain more cautious and hawkish. For markets, the most painful scenario isn’t an imminent rate hike—it’s “no expectation of rate cuts and no liquidity backstop.” In one sentence: This NFP reduced the probability of a recession-driven rate cut trade—but increased the probability of a liquidity-tightening trade. The AI narrative may not be over—but volatility will intensify significantly going forward.