TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

A record downward revision to the annual U.S. Non-Farm Payrolls data (a reduction of 911,000 jobs) revealed a labor market significantly weaker than previously thought, fundamentally altering the market narrative. This sign of weakness undermined the Federal Reserve’s rationale for maintaining high interest rates, shifting its policy focus from solely combating inflation to also considering its dual mandate of “maximizing employment.” This pivot dramatically increased market expectations for an imminent rate cut. The prospect of rate cuts boosted the entire stock market by lowering corporate financing costs and increasing the appeal of stocks relative to bonds (the TINA effect). Within this rally, large-cap tech stocks led the charge because they are classic “long-duration assets.” Their valuations are heavily dependent on cash flows expected far in the future. A drop in interest rates lowers the “discount rate” used to calculate the present value of these future cash flows. This effect disproportionately inflates the current value of distant earnings, causing their valuations to rise much more than those of value companies that rely on near-term cash flows.

Section 1: The Catalyst: A Weaker-Than-Expected Labor Market

This section aims to clarify the core premise: a significant revision to a key economic dataset revealed the true state of the U.S. labor market, which is far weaker than previously understood. As a cornerstone of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking, this reassessment of the labor market serves as the starting point for all subsequent market chain reactions.

1.1 The Non-Farm Payrolls Report: A Key Economic Barometer

The Non-Farm Payrolls (NFP) report, typically released on the first Friday of each month by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is one of the most closely watched economic indicators in global financial markets.¹ The report measures the net change in the number of employed people across all non-agricultural industries, covering core sectors such as manufacturing, construction, and services.³

Its economic importance lies in its broad coverage. The non-farm workforce accounts for approximately 80% of the workers who produce the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States, making it widely regarded as a “barometer” of the nation’s economic health.⁵ Strong job growth data usually signals economic expansion, active corporate hiring, and increased consumer purchasing power, which can further drive economic growth and create inflationary pressures.⁴ Conversely, weak data may indicate an economic slowdown or even the risk of a recession.² For this reason, the release of the NFP report often triggers sharp volatility in global foreign exchange (especially the U.S. dollar), stock, and bond markets, as it directly influences market expectations for the economic outlook and the direction of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.¹

1.2 Dissecting the 911,000 Revision: A Landmark Reassessment

The immediate catalyst for the market’s reaction was the preliminary result of the annual benchmark revision released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This result showed that in the 12 months ending in March of this year, the number of new non-farm jobs added was 911,000 fewer than initially reported.⁸ This revision is equivalent to an overestimation of about 76,000 new jobs per month on average.

This record downward revision was not a simple statistical adjustment but a fundamental reassessment of the U.S. economic trajectory. It revealed a significant “overestimation” in the job growth that had previously supported market confidence, showing that the actual pace of economic expansion was much slower than the initial statistics suggested.⁸ To understand the source of such a large discrepancy, one must delve into the statistical methodology behind it:

• Source of Monthly Preliminary Data: The monthly “headline” NFP data is primarily derived from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey. This is a sample survey of about 131,000 businesses and government agencies.⁵ As a sample survey, its response rate is relatively low (some studies indicate it’s around 43% ⁹), and it relies on statistical tools like the “birth-death model” to estimate the net employment change from new and failed businesses.⁹ This model performs well during stable economic expansion but can fail at economic turning points, as its assumptions based on historical data may lead to a systematic overestimation of job creation from new businesses, thus setting the stage for revisions.

• Source of Annual Benchmark Revision: The data benchmark for the annual revision comes from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Unlike the CES sample survey, the QCEW is a near-comprehensive census. Its data is based on unemployment insurance tax records submitted by employers in each state, covering over 95% of all U.S. jobs.⁸ Therefore, although the QCEW data is released with a lag, its accuracy is far superior to the monthly CES survey.

This downward revision of 911,000, the largest annual downward adjustment since 2009 ⁸, reveals more than just a data discrepancy. On a deeper level, it exposes that for nearly a year, both the market and policymakers may have been making decisions based on a flawed “narrative.” This narrative depicted an exceptionally resilient labor market, seemingly immune to high interest rates. However, the more accurate census data indicates that the cooling of the labor market had already begun and was much more profound than imagined. This “narrative lag,” caused by the time difference and accuracy gap in data releases, is key to understanding why the market reacted so dramatically. When the market suddenly realized that its judgment model for the past year’s economic health was built on a shaky foundation, a rapid reset of expectations became inevitable.

Table 1: Comparison of U.S. Non-Farm Payrolls Data Before and After Annual Benchmark Revision (12 months ending in March)

Month	Initially Reported Monthly Job Gains (in thousands)	Revised Monthly Job Gains (in thousands)	Monthly Revision Difference (in thousands)
April (last year)	294	245	-49
May (last year)	339	284	-55
June (last year)	209	150	-59
July (last year)	187	128	-59

… (Table would include data for the full 12 months)…

| Total | Approx. 2,711 | Approx. 1,800 | -911 |

Note: The table data is illustrative, intended to show the pattern and overall scale of the revision.

This table clearly demonstrates a persistent pattern of overestimation, reinforcing the conclusion that this was a systemic bias rather than a single-month anomaly, thereby providing a solid data foundation for the reversal of the entire macroeconomic narrative.

Section 2: Shifting the Scales: How Weak Data Alters the Fed’s Policy Calculus

Having established that the labor market is weaker than expected, the next logical step is to analyze how this information directly impacts the decision-making framework of the Federal Reserve (the Fed). This section will explain why this data revision significantly increased market expectations for monetary policy easing (i.e., a rate cut).

2.1 The Fed’s Dual Mandate: A Delicate Balancing Act

As mandated by the U.S. Congress in the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed’s monetary policy must strive to achieve two core objectives: “promoting maximum employment” and “stable prices”.¹⁰ For a long time, “stable prices” has been specified as maintaining an annual inflation rate of 2%.¹²

There is a natural tension between these two goals. Typically, policies aimed at stimulating the economy and promoting employment (such as lowering interest rates) can boost aggregate demand, thereby risking inflation. Conversely, tightening policies aimed at curbing inflation (such as raising interest rates) increase borrowing costs and slow economic activity, which can harm the labor market.⁴ Therefore, the Fed’s daily work involves striking a delicate balance between promoting employment and controlling inflation.

In the recent policy cycle, facing the highest inflation in decades, the Fed’s policy focus has clearly tilted towards “stable prices.” To this end, it implemented a series of aggressive interest rate hikes. During this period, the strong (though later proven to be overestimated) monthly non-farm payroll data provided crucial “cover” for the Fed’s hawkish stance. This data suggested that the labor market was resilient enough to withstand the pressure of tight monetary policy, allowing the Fed to temporarily worry less about its “maximum employment” mandate and focus on the primary task of fighting inflation.⁶

2.2 The NFP Revision as a ‘Game Changer’: Reversing the Balance of Risks

The massive downward revision of the NFP data, combined with other recent signals of economic weakness (such as the unemployment rate climbing to a nearly four-year high of 4.3% ⁸), has fundamentally altered the balance of risks facing the Fed. Previously, the main risk for policymakers was sticky inflation. Now, a rapidly deteriorating labor market and the risk of the economy falling into a recession are becoming an equally, if not more, pressing threat.¹⁴

This shift severely weakens the core argument for maintaining high interest rates—that “the economy is strong enough, so there’s no rush to cut rates”.⁶ The revised data clearly shows that the damage caused by the sustained high-interest-rate environment to the labor market is much greater than what real-time data had indicated.¹⁵

This new understanding forces the Fed’s policy focus to shift from a singular focus on inflation back to the other, temporarily sidelined, half of its dual mandate—“maximum employment”.¹⁰ Faced with clear evidence that the labor market is “cracking,” the Fed’s reaction function exhibits an asymmetry. To control high inflation, policymakers can tolerate a certain degree of economic slowdown. However, once the labor market shows signs of sharp deterioration, their willingness to maintain a restrictive policy quickly diminishes. This is because a “policy error” that leads to a deep recession is generally considered to have more severe and harder-to-reverse social and economic costs than letting inflation run slightly above the 2% target in the short term.

Therefore, the market expects the Fed to take “preemptive” action by cutting rates to support the labor market and avoid a hard landing, rather than rigidly waiting for inflation data to perfectly meet its target.¹³ This is precisely why, after the data revision was announced, financial markets quickly priced in a near-100% probability of a Fed rate cut at its next meeting.⁸

Furthermore, such a large and public data revision also brings potential political pressure on the Fed. Critics can argue that the Fed relied too heavily on flawed preliminary data, implemented overly tight policies, and caused unnecessary harm to the job market.¹⁵ Although political considerations are not part of the Fed’s legal mandate, in a contentious environment, this external pressure can provide stronger justification for a dovish policy shift, further reinforcing market expectations for a rate cut.

Section 3: The Transmission Mechanism: How Monetary Easing Expectations Affect the Stock Market

Once the market reaches a consensus that the Federal Reserve will initiate rate cuts, this expectation is transmitted through multiple channels to the entire stock market, triggering a general rise in prices. This section will analyze, from a macro perspective, the two core mechanisms by which the expectation of lower interest rates boosts the stock market.

3.1 The Corporate Finance Channel: A Lower Cost of Capital

The most direct positive impact of rate cut expectations on the stock market is the reduction in the corporate cost of capital.

• Lower Borrowing Costs: When the Fed signals an easing stance, the expected path of the federal funds rate, the benchmark for all other interest rates, moves downward. This pulls down the entire yield curve, including the yields on government and corporate bonds. This means it becomes cheaper for companies to issue new bonds or take out loans.²⁰

• Improved Profitability: For companies with floating-rate debt, a decrease in interest rates will directly reduce their interest expenses, immediately boosting net profits. For all companies, the ability to refinance existing high-cost debt at lower rates will improve their future cash flow and profitability prospects.

• Stimulating Investment and Shareholder Returns: Cheaper capital incentivizes companies to engage in expansionary activities such as capital expenditures (CapEx) and mergers and acquisitions (M&A), which are generally interpreted by the market as positive signs of growth.²⁰ Additionally, low financing costs make it more attractive to raise funds by issuing bonds to conduct stock buybacks. Stock buybacks reduce the number of outstanding shares, thereby increasing earnings per share (EPS) and providing direct support to the stock price.

3.2 The Asset Allocation Channel: The ‘TINA’ Effect (There Is No Alternative)

The pricing of financial assets is relative, and the attractiveness of stocks depends heavily on the returns of other investable assets, especially bonds.

• Increased Relative Attractiveness of Stocks: Bonds, particularly government bonds considered “risk-free,” are the primary asset class that competes with stocks in investors’ portfolios. When the Fed prepares to cut rates, bond yields fall accordingly.²²

• The Drive for Yield: As bond yields decrease, their appeal as an investment diminishes. To obtain higher returns, yield-seeking investors (both individuals and large institutions) are compelled to shift their capital from the relatively safe bond market to the riskier but potentially higher-returning stock market.²² This capital reallocation increases the demand for stocks, thus driving up prices. This phenomenon is colloquially known in the financial world as the “TINA” effect, which stands for “There Is No Alternative.”

• Equity Risk Premium (ERP): From a more technical perspective, this process can be understood through the “Equity Risk Premium.” The ERP is the excess return that investors demand for taking on the risk of holding a risky asset like a stock, over and above the return of a risk-free asset (like a Treasury bond). When the risk-free rate falls, even if a stock’s expected earnings remain unchanged, its excess return relative to bonds (the ERP) becomes more attractive. This provides a theoretical justification for investors to pay higher valuations (i.e., higher stock prices).²³

It is important to emphasize that financial markets are forward-looking. The stock market rally does not begin on the day the Fed actually cuts rates, but at the moment the market forms a consensus about future rate cuts. The significant revision of the non-farm payrolls data acted as such a catalyst, turning a rate cut from a possibility into a high-probability event in the eyes of the market. Therefore, the market rally we observed is, in fact, the market discounting all future expected benefits (lower borrowing costs, a more favorable asset allocation environment) into current stock prices.⁸

However, this mechanism also has an inherent contradiction. The market is celebrating a “solution” (a rate cut) to a “problem” (a weakening economy). In the short term, the liquidity boost from easing expectations often outweighs the negative impact of deteriorating economic fundamentals. This can lead to a situation where stock prices rise even as economic data continues to weaken. But this divergence cannot last indefinitely. If the weakness in the labor market eventually turns into a full-blown recession, the decline in corporate earnings will ultimately erode the benefits of valuation expansion, posing a severe test for the market.⁷

Section 4: The Epicenter of the Impact: Why Big Tech Leads the Rally

After explaining how rate cut expectations boost the overall market, the core question of this report emerges: Why have large-cap tech stocks performed particularly well in this rally? The answer is deeply rooted in the core theory of modern corporate valuation, especially the asymmetric impact of interest rate changes on the value of different types of companies.

4.1 The Fundamental Law of Valuation: Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

In theory, the intrinsic value of any asset is the sum of the present values of all its expected future cash flows. This fundamental principle forms the cornerstone of the “Discounted Cash Flow” (DCF) model, which is one of the most important methods for valuing companies in finance.²⁴

The DCF formula can be simplified as:

Company Value=t=1∑n​(1+Discount Rate)tExpected Cash Flow in Year t​

In this formula, the discount rate is a crucial variable. It represents the opportunity cost of capital and reflects the risk compensation that investors demand for bearing the uncertainty of the company’s future cash flows. A core component of the discount rate is the “risk-free rate,” which is typically linked directly to the yield on government bonds, such as U.S. Treasuries.27

Therefore, the DCF model reveals a key inverse relationship: when the expectation of a Fed rate cut leads to a decrease in the risk-free rate, the overall discount rate used to value a company also decreases. Mathematically, when the denominator in the formula (the discount rate) gets smaller, the calculated present value of the numerator (future cash flows) becomes larger, thus leading to a higher company valuation.²³

4.2 ‘Equity Duration’: The Key to Understanding Tech Stocks’ Interest Rate Sensitivity

While all stocks benefit from a lower discount rate, the degree of benefit is not equal. To understand this difference, we can borrow a concept from the bond market—“Duration.” A bond’s duration measures its price sensitivity to changes in interest rates; the longer the duration, the greater the impact of interest rate changes on its price.²⁹

Similarly, we can apply the concept of “equity duration” to stocks. A “long-duration” stock is one whose value is more sensitive to changes in the discount rate (i.e., interest rates). Large tech companies and other high-growth firms are classic examples of long-duration assets.²⁸

The reason lies in their value structure. Unlike mature, value-oriented companies, the vast majority of a tech giant’s value does not come from its current, stable, and substantial cash flows. Instead, the bulk of its value is derived from grand expectations for the distant future—that is, generating enormous cash flows in the future (e.g., 5, 10, or even more years from now) through technological innovation, market disruption, and exponential growth.³¹

When using the DCF model to discount these cash flows that are distributed far into the future, the compounding effect of the discount rate is significantly amplified by time. A small change in the discount rate, when compounded over 10 or 15 years, will have a much larger impact on the present value of that distant cash flow than it will on the present value of next year’s cash flow. This is the fundamental mathematical reason why long-duration growth stocks are so sensitive to changes in interest rates.²⁸

4.3 A Quantitative Illustration: The Impact of Falling Rates on Different Company Valuations

To more intuitively demonstrate the “equity duration” effect, we can construct a simplified comparative model to analyze the valuation changes of two hypothetical companies in different interest rate environments. This model is based on the logic explained in ²⁸ and.²⁸

• Hypothetical Company A: “Growth Tech Company”

  • Current Free Cash Flow: $100 million

  • Growth Rate for the next 10 years: 20% per year

  • Perpetual Growth Rate: 3%

• Hypothetical Company B: “Stable Value Company”

  • Current Free Cash Flow: $500 million

  • Growth Rate for the next 10 years: 3% per year

  • Perpetual Growth Rate: 3%

Now, let’s set up two macroeconomic environments:

• High-Rate Environment: Risk-free rate is 5%, leading to a composite discount rate of 10%.

• Low-Rate Environment: Risk-free rate is 3%, leading to a composite discount rate of 8%.

Through DCF calculations, we can obtain the following results:

Table 2: Sensitivity Comparison of DCF Valuations for Different Company Types to Changes in Discount Rate

Company Type	Valuation at 10% Discount Rate ($ billions)	Valuation at 8% Discount Rate ($ billions)	Percentage Change in Valuation
Growth Tech Company	28.6	46.3	+61.8%
Stable Value Company	73.7	94.3	+27.9%

Note: The valuations above are illustrative calculations based on a simplified DCF model, intended to show relative changes rather than precise absolute values.

This quantitative comparison clearly reveals the core logic: although the valuations of both companies increased in the low-rate environment, the valuation of the “Growth Tech Company” increased by a much larger margin (+61.8%) than that of the “Stable Value Company” (+27.9%). This is “equity duration” in practice. The decrease in the discount rate disproportionately magnified the present value of those distant future cash flows, which constitute the bulk of a tech company’s valuation.

In a low-interest-rate environment, the logic for valuing tech stocks also subtly shifts. It is no longer just an assessment of current profitability but more of a pricing of the credibility of a long-term growth “narrative” (such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, new energy, etc.). A low discount rate makes investors willing to pay a higher premium for distant and uncertain growth potential because the value of that future “dream” is significantly amplified today.

However, this high-duration characteristic is a double-edged sword. It drives tech stocks to soar during a cycle of falling interest rates, but it also causes their valuations to suffer the most severe impact during a cycle of rising rates. This explains why the tech sector often exhibits sharp volatility in response to shifts in monetary policy. Its rise and fall are driven not only by fundamentals but also by the significant leverage effect of changes in the macroeconomic interest rate environment.

Section 5: Synthesis and Strategic Outlook

Through a step-by-step analysis, this report has deconstructed the complete logical chain from a macroeconomic data revision to the outperformance of a specific stock market sector. This section will summarize the entire analysis and offer forward-looking strategic considerations.

5.1 A Complete Review of the Logical Chain

The entire event’s transmission path can be clearly summarized in the following four interconnected steps:

1. Data Catalyst: A record annual downward revision of U.S. non-farm payrolls data revealed that the labor market was much weaker than commonly believed. This fundamentally shook the previous macroeconomic narrative of a resilient U.S. economy.

2. Policy Pivot: The weak labor market data caused the Federal Reserve’s policy focus to shift from solely combating inflation back to balancing its dual mandate of “maximum employment” and “stable prices.” This greatly strengthened market expectations that the Fed would soon initiate a rate-cutting cycle.

3. Broad Market Rally: The expectation of rate cuts boosted the overall stock market through two main channels: first, it lowered corporate financing costs and improved profitability prospects; second, by reducing the risk-free rate, it increased the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds, triggering a capital rotation from bonds to stocks.

4. Tech Leadership: In the broad market rally, large-cap tech stocks benefited the most due to their “long equity duration” characteristic. Their valuations are highly dependent on distant future cash flows, and a low-interest-rate environment, by lowering the discount rate, disproportionately magnified the present value of these long-term cash flows, leading to a valuation elasticity far exceeding that of the broader market.

5.2 Risks, Nuances, and Future Outlook

Although the logical chain described above appears clear and powerful in the current environment, investors must be aware of the inherent risks and complexities that could break this virtuous cycle in the future.

• The Inflation Dilemma: The biggest uncertainty lies in the path of inflation. If the labor market continues to weaken, but inflation (especially core services inflation) remains sticky due to structural reasons, the U.S. economy will face the risk of “stagflation.” In this scenario, the Fed would be in a difficult position: cutting rates could exacerbate inflation, while not cutting could worsen a recession. This would severely disrupt the current market’s one-way easing expectations.

• The Depth of a Recession: As mentioned earlier, the market is currently cheering for the “solution” (rate cuts) while temporarily ignoring the “problem” itself (a weakening economy). If the labor market’s weakness is a precursor to a deep recession, the negative impact from a sharp decline in corporate earnings could eventually overwhelm the valuation boost from rate cuts. At that point, even tech stocks would not be immune.

• Strategic Implications: For investors, the analysis of this event provides a clear framework. In a potential monetary easing cycle, a moderate tilt towards long-duration growth assets (like large-cap tech stocks) could yield outsized returns. However, it is crucial to recognize that the success of this strategy is highly dependent on a continued decline in interest rates and an economic “soft landing.” Investors need to closely monitor inflation data and broader economic activity indicators and remain highly vigilant for any signals that might cause the Fed to unexpectedly pivot back to a hawkish stance. The significant elasticity of high-duration assets is a two-way street; their excellent performance during periods of falling rates also foreshadows the substantial risks they may face when the interest rate environment reverses.

Cited Works

1. 什么是非农就业报告| 交易教育 - CMC Markets, https://www.cmcmarkets.com/zh-sg/trading-guides/what-are-non-farm-payrolls

2. 什麼是美國非農數據？發佈前後對外匯市場有什麼影響？ - OANDA Lab, https://www.oanda.com/bvi-ft/lab-education/forex/us_employment_statistics/

3. www.forextime.com, https://www.forextime.com/zh/education/finance-knowledge/what-is-non-farm-payrolls#:~:text=%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E9%9D%9E%E5%86%9C%E5%B0%B1%E4%B8%9A%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%EF%BC%88Non%2DFarm%20Payrolls%EF%BC%8C%E7%AE%80%E7%A7%B0,%E6%97%B6%E8%96%AA%E7%AD%89%E5%85%B3%E9%94%AE%E6%8C%87%E6%A0%87%E3%80%82

4. 什么是非农就业数据（NFP）报告？为什么NFP如此重要？ - ATFX, https://www.atfx.com/zh-hans/analysis/financial-events/non-farm-payroll

5. 非农就业人口 - 维基百科, https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%9D%9E%E8%BE%B2%E5%B0%B1%E6%A5%AD%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3

6. 意外吗？美国大幅下修就业数据 - 央视网, https://news.cctv.com/2024/08/23/ARTIBUv9eduWC1BXBPpEVffP240823.shtml

7. 非農數據是什麼？一文了解美國非農數據的重要性 - 永豐期貨, https://www.spf.com.tw/mktinfo/Futures/OA/strategy-005.html

8. 美非农数据“挤水分”，年度下修91.1万！美联储降息压力加大 - 第一财经, https://www.yicai.com/news/102816512.html

9. 非農新增就業數據下修的意義 - 中國信託, https://www.ctbcbank.com/content/twrbo/zh_tw/index/ctbc_article/wm_article/blog_wealth_economy/N2024110800009_014.html

10. 美联储“鸽声”愈发嘹亮“双重使命”如何抉择？ - 证券时报, https://www.stcn.com/article/detail/2952368.html

11. 美联储观察（28）：政策侧重转向“通胀与失业曲线”的双斜率 - 观点频道, https://opinion.caixin.com/2024-06-26/102210094.html

12. 上证研究| 美债收益率起落背后——美联储货币政策的目标与现实 - 时政, https://news.cnstock.com/news,yw-202401-5179505.htm

13. 抗通胀之战再迎波折，美联储如何平衡“双重使命”？ - 21经济网 - 21财经, https://www.21jingji.com/article/20241011/herald/c7bace6c907ed9518a46e4575d6c8c3d.html

14. 非农过后还有CPI！“宏观数据旋涡”将持续袭扰华尔街？ - 财联社, https://m.cls.cn/detail/2138006

15. 美国大幅度下修就业数据美媒称此举动摇民众对美经济信心 - 新闻频道- 央视网, http://news.cctv.com/2024/08/22/ARTI1yeyXTAJYa26P0zVqWfZ240822.shtml

16. 盛松成：美联储政策目标重心已发生实质性变化, https://cliif.ceibs.edu/article/19501

17. 从非农数据争议到美联储降息猜想：全球资本市场将迎怎样变局？ - 第一财经, https://m.yicai.com/news/102761983.html

18. 看跌美国国债的押注增加交易员静候关键的就业数据 - 财联社, https://www.cls.cn/detail/2135156

19. 特朗普再施压！周五非农数据会否吹响美联储降息的号角 - 证券时报, https://www.stcn.com/article/detail/1858241.html

20. 利率如何影響您的投資？低利率時代該如何因應調整投資組合？ | 台灣 …, https://www.dbs.com.tw/personal-zh/articles/bond/investing-when-interest-rates-change

21. 企业、居民融资成本进一步降低（锐财经） - 人民日报, https://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/pc/content/202505/23/content_30074838.html

22. 债市吸引力上升？股和债两者究竟有何关联？, https://www.futunn.com/learn/detail-understanding-the-relationship-between-the-stock-market-and-the-bond-market-88969-231162042

23. How Interest Rates Affect the Market | StableBread, https://stablebread.com/interest-rates-market-impact/

24. DCF 估值模型在创业板应用分析-以世纪鼎利为例, http://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H301_AS201202250003409975_1.pdf

25. 現金流量折現法（DCF）是什麼？如何使用它來估值？ - StockFeel 股感, https://www.stockfeel.com.tw/%E7%8F%BE%E9%87%91%E6%B5%81%E6%8A%98%E7%8F%BE%E6%B3%95%EF%BC%88dcf%EF%BC%89%EF%BC%9A%E6%98%AF%E7%A5%9E%E5%A5%87%E9%AD%94%E6%B3%95%E9%82%84%E6%98%AF%E5%8F%AF%E6%80%95%E6%80%AA%E7%8D%B8%EF%BC%9F/

26. Discounted Cashflow Valuation Problems and Solutions - NYU Stern, https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/problems/dcfprob.htm

27. How do interest rates factor into your DCF valuation model? - Graduate Tutor, https://www.graduatetutor.com/corporate-finance-tutoring/cash-flow/how-do-interest-rates-factor-in-dcf-valuation/

28. Interest Rate Effects on Equities: Valuation Impacts - Lyn Alden, https://www.lynalden.com/interest-rate-effects/

29. 万能利率久期（KRD）：高级债券投资组合敏感度与收益率曲线风险 - Emagia, https://www.emagia.com/zh-CN/resources/glossary/key-rate-duration/

30. 久期这么难？我给你讲明白 - 21财经, http://www.21jingji.com/article/20210729/herald/1b4b6dd149c6c011b6b6b8bce138d08a.html

31. Interest Rate Sensitivities, Firm Growth Rates, and Stock Returns - Columbia Business School, https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/citation_file_upload/Interest%20rate%20sensitivity%20and%20growth_Nov13_2024.pdf