● Tesla-Spacex Shock, Lockup Bombshell, 311 Holders On Edge
SpaceX Cut in Half? Can Tesla Shareholders Still Benefit? Tuesday Earnings, Thursday Lockup, and the Tesla $311 Holder’s Playbook
This issue cannot be reduced to a simple “bearish or bullish for Tesla” narrative.
The situation combines Tesla’s 1.2 million-unit preliminary NHTSA probe, U.S. labor data and rate-cut expectations, geopolitical risk, and SpaceX-related earnings, lockup, and possible merger implications.
A key point often missed is that a decline in SpaceX’s valuation could, under certain merger structures, be favorable for Tesla shareholders.
However, this only matters if an actual merger is under discussion, and the underlying facts still require confirmation.
1. This Week’s Market Drivers: Softer Labor, Sticky Inflation
The first major focus this week is U.S. labor data.
On Monday, manufacturing PMI is due; on Wednesday, ADP private payrolls; and on Friday, nonfarm payrolls.
The expected nonfarm payroll gain is around 88,000, which is relatively weak by historical standards.
Slowing employment typically increases expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts.
The challenge is inflation.
If the ISM manufacturing prices index remains near the 70 level, the market faces a mixed environment: weaker labor conditions, but persistent inflation pressure.
In that case, the Fed would find it difficult to ease quickly, while growth-stock valuations would also face limits.
- Slower employment: May be interpreted as a sign of economic deceleration.
- Persistent price pressure: Could restrain rate-cut expectations.
- Growth stocks: Tesla, AI-related names, and overseas equity sentiment may all be affected.
Geopolitical risk involving the U.S. and Iran could also affect oil prices and inflation.
Even if OPEC+ maintains production increases, Middle East tensions could keep energy markets volatile.
Overall, this week’s macro setup is best described as one in which rate-cut expectations remain alive, but inflation and oil prices may continue to constrain sentiment.
2. Tesla’s 1.2 Million-Unit Preliminary Probe: Regulation Matters More Than the Headline Number
The first direct Tesla issue is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s preliminary investigation.
The probe covers roughly 1.2 million Model 3 vehicles from 2018 to 2020 and Model Y vehicles from 2021 to 2023.
Reported cases total 156.
The component under scrutiny is a front-wheel hub lateral link, which could affect steering if it detaches during driving.
Some complainants said the part detached without warning, while others reported abnormal noises before failure.
As of the original source, no accident, injury, or death directly linked to the issue had been identified.
3. 1.2 Million Vehicles, but Only a 0.013% Reported Rate
The first step is to distinguish the absolute scale from the incidence rate.
1.2 million vehicles is a large headline figure.
However, 156 reports divided by 1.2 million vehicles equals roughly 0.013%.
On that basis alone, the issue cannot yet be classified as a broad structural defect.
That said, the fact that the NHTSA has opened a preliminary investigation is important.
It signals heightened regulatory sensitivity toward Tesla’s hardware issues in the U.S.
- Investigation stage: This is still a preliminary probe, not a confirmed recall.
- Core component: A front suspension and steering-related part.
- Investment view: Regulatory risk premium matters more than short-term price action.
- Tesla relevance: Model 3 and Model Y are core volume products, making the market more sensitive.
4. Compared With Past Cases, This Probe Is Much Larger in Scope
Tesla has faced suspension-related issues before.
In 2021, roughly 2,800 Model 3 vehicles were recalled due to an assembly error.
In 2023, 422 Model 3 vehicles were recalled over a similar detachment issue.
Combined, those cases totaled about 3,222 vehicles.
The current 1.2 million-unit probe is far larger than those prior recall figures.
However, a large investigation does not automatically lead to a recall.
The NHTSA has indicated that this probe does not appear to be directly related to those earlier assembly defects.
There was also a prior investigation into suspension defects affecting about 115,000 Model S and Model X vehicles from 2015 to 2017.
That probe lasted for years but was reportedly closed in 2024 without a recall.
The current case may also end as a preliminary investigation, but that remains uncertain.
5. SpaceX Issue: A Necessary Fact-Check
This point is critical.
The original source refers to SpaceX’s first post-listing earnings release, lockup expiration, stock collapse, and analyst target prices.
However, SpaceX is not publicly listed in the conventional sense based on publicly verifiable information.
Accordingly, any references to an IPO price, first-day trading price, lockup expiration, or analyst targets must be verified against actual filings, exchange data, SEC documents, or company IR materials.
If the reference is actually to a SpaceX-related listed entity, secondary private-market trading, or another ticker, the investment implication changes materially.
This is the key point often missed in other coverage.
The issue is not whether “SpaceX was cut in half,” but where that price was formed.
Whether it is a public-market price, private secondary price, internal valuation, or derivative reference makes a major difference.
6. SpaceX Numbers in the Original Source: Drawdown, Earnings, and Lockup Pressure
Based on the original text, SpaceX is described as having fallen from a June 16 peak of $225.64 to $108.37.
That implies a decline of about 51%.
The IPO price is stated as $135, with an opening price of $150 on the first trading day and a closing price of $160.95.
On that basis, IPO investors would be down about 20%, while investors who bought at the peak would be in a roughly half-loss position.
The original source also says the first earnings release is scheduled for after the close on August 4, and that two days later on Thursday, 20% of the lockup, or about 901.5 million shares, could be released.
The text also describes that amount as more than $100 billion at current prices.
At that scale, the event could affect not only selling pressure but also overall liquidity and sentiment.
- Peak-to-trough decline: Approximately 51%.
- IPO investor loss: About 20% based on the original figures.
- Lockup release size: About 901.5 million shares, described as more than $100 billion.
- Options volatility: Post-earnings swings of up to 15% are referenced.
7. Three Key Items to Watch in SpaceX Earnings: Starlink, AI Contracts, Cash Flow
According to the original source, Wall Street expects quarterly revenue of about $6.9 billion for SpaceX.
That would be a significant increase from $4.69 billion in the first quarter.
EPS is described as improving to -$1.27.
The most important business segment is Starlink.
The original text says Starlink generated $11.4 billion in revenue last year, with an operating margin of 63%.
If accurate, that would mean Starlink is a clear cash-generating business even if the broader company remains loss-making.
Accordingly, the market is likely to focus more on Starlink subscriber growth and profitability than on the launch business.
- Starlink subscribers: Growth from the first-quarter level of 1.3 million is the key metric.
- AI infrastructure contracts: The extent to which deals with Anthropic, Google, and others convert into revenue will matter.
- Cash flow: In a capital-intensive business, free cash flow timing may matter more than revenue growth alone.
- Guidance: The company’s outlook for revenue and costs will shape valuation.
8. Why a Lower SpaceX Valuation Could Be Favorable for Tesla Shareholders
This is the core investment equation.
If Tesla and SpaceX were ever to discuss a merger or share exchange, a lower SpaceX valuation could be favorable for Tesla shareholders.
The reason is straightforward.
If SpaceX were to acquire Tesla or issue new shares as merger consideration, a lower SpaceX share price would require more shares to be issued to match Tesla’s value.
Those additional shares would then be allocated to Tesla shareholders.
As a result, Tesla shareholders could receive a larger ownership stake in the combined company.
What if SpaceX’s valuation were too high?
Then fewer shares would need to be issued to match Tesla’s value.
In that case, Tesla shareholders’ post-merger ownership stake could be smaller.
- Higher SpaceX valuation: Tesla shareholders may receive a smaller ownership stake.
- Lower SpaceX valuation: Tesla shareholders may receive a larger ownership stake.
- Condition: The effect is relevant only if a real merger or share exchange is being discussed.
- Caution: A larger stake does not necessarily imply a better outcome if combined-company risk rises.
9. A Merger Would Not Automatically Be Positive: Key Risks for Tesla Shareholders
From a Tesla shareholder perspective, the possibility of a SpaceX merger is interesting, but not automatically positive.
Tesla’s growth narrative is built on EVs, autonomy, FSD, Optimus, and energy storage.
SpaceX has a strong cash-generating business in Starlink, but also a capital-intensive space development model.
According to the original source, SpaceX spent $21 billion on capital expenditures last year and also raised $25 billion in debt.
That structure would give the combined company more growth potential, but also more debt and cash flow pressure.
One Morgan Stanley view cited in the original text places free cash flow breakeven as late as 2035.
If that view is correct, investors may face a long period of losses and elevated capital spending.
On the other hand, optimists argue that Starlink and AI infrastructure contracts could scale faster than expected.
10. What a Tesla $311 Holder Should Watch Now
For investors whose average Tesla cost basis is around $311, the focus should be divided into four items rather than reacting to a single headline.
- First, NHTSA investigation risk.
Whether the preliminary probe turns into a recall or ends without action. - Second, Tesla’s core margins.
If vehicle price cuts continue, operating margin matters more than revenue growth. - Third, autonomy and robotaxi timing.
Tesla’s valuation premium ultimately depends on FSD and autonomy commercialization. - Fourth, the SpaceX merger possibility.
Investors should distinguish between real discussion and market rumor.
For $311 holders, the more important question is not whether the stock reclaims $311, but what valuation Tesla can justify.
If Tesla is valued only as an automaker, multiples could compress.
If it is valued as an AI platform, autonomy network, and robotics company, the valuation framework changes materially.
11. The Most Important Points Often Understated Elsewhere
First, the key issue in Tesla’s probe is regulatory cost, not just the number of reports.
The 156 cases may appear limited, but the fact that Model 3 and Model Y are central volume products is what matters.
If regulators become more sensitive to Tesla hardware, recall costs, service costs, and brand trust could all be affected.
Second, a weaker SpaceX valuation could be favorable for Tesla shareholders in a merger scenario.
But that only matters if a merger is actually being considered.
At the rumor stage, it is only a sentiment driver.
Third, Starlink and SpaceX should be evaluated separately.
Starlink may be a high-margin business, but SpaceX as a whole still requires heavy capital expenditure.
Investors should not confuse “Starlink makes money” with “SpaceX as a whole is cash-flow positive.”
Fourth, Elon Musk’s personal wealth changes can affect governance risk.
Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, and X remain strongly tied to Musk’s leadership.
Accordingly, valuation moves in one company can influence decision-making and sentiment in others.
Fifth, the real event this week is not just the earnings release, but the questions raised during it.
The tone and content of analyst questions on merger possibilities, cash flow, Starlink growth, and AI contracts will matter.
Musk’s responses could move Tesla and related growth-stock sentiment simultaneously.
12. Event Calendar for Investors
- Monday: U.S. manufacturing PMI for signs of economic slowdown
- Wednesday: ADP private payrolls for labor-market trend confirmation
- Friday: Nonfarm payrolls for rate-cut expectation repricing
- Around Tuesday: SpaceX earnings event in the original source
- Around Thursday: Lockup release volume and potential selling pressure in the original source
- Ongoing: NHTSA probe developments and any move toward a recall
13. Final View: Should Tesla Shareholders Be Optimistic or Cautious?
In short, Tesla shareholders may have reasons to be optimistic, but this remains a period for careful verification.
A lower SpaceX valuation could be favorable for Tesla shareholders in terms of merger exchange ratios.
However, investors must also weigh SpaceX’s cash flow burden, lockup-driven selling pressure, heavy capex, and governance risk.
For Tesla itself, the NHTSA preliminary investigation may weigh on the stock in the near term, but it is not yet a confirmed recall.
The broader question is not simply buy or sell, but whether Tesla can be re-rated as an AI, robotics, and autonomy platform rather than only an automaker.
For overseas investors, this week is not only about Tesla’s share price. U.S. rate-cut expectations, inflation pressure, labor data, and geopolitical risk also need to be monitored.
Growth stocks remain highly sensitive to rates and liquidity.
< Summary >
Tesla is facing a preliminary NHTSA probe involving about 1.2 million Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The reported rate is about 0.013%, which is low, but the core product exposure makes the issue relevant.
Claims in the original text regarding SpaceX listing, earnings, and lockup events require independent verification against public filings.
If a Tesla-SpaceX merger were ever discussed, a lower SpaceX valuation could be favorable for Tesla shareholders in exchange-ratio terms.
However, SpaceX’s capital spending, cash flow profile, lockup selling pressure, and governance risk must also be considered.
For Tesla holders with a $311 cost basis, the key variables remain autonomy, FSD, robotaxi progress, Optimus, and margin recovery.
[Related Articles…]
*Source: [ 오늘의 테슬라 뉴스 ]
– 스페이스X 반토막인데 테슬라 주주는 웃는다? 화요일 실적·목요일 락업 전 꼭 봐야 할 셈법, $311 주주는?
● FX-Driven Turmoil
The Real Drivers of the Korean Won–Dollar Exchange Rate: Foreign Selling, Market Supply-Demand Dynamics, and Corporate Dollar-Holding Strategies Outweighed Rate Differentials
The key point in this exchange-rate episode is that “a Korea-U.S. policy rate gap weakened the won” is not a sufficient explanation.
This report examines why the won-dollar exchange rate rose sharply despite strong exports and a large trade surplus, why it advanced through June and then declined from July, and how government intervention affected market behavior.
A critical point often missed in media coverage is that the scale of foreign equity selling exceeded the dollar supply generated by export revenues.
In addition, corporate preferences to retain dollar holdings rather than convert them immediately, large-scale foreign exchange inflows linked to major semiconductor firms, and phased inflows from WGBI index inclusion all contributed to a market that functioned less like a rate-driven environment and more like a foreign-exchange supply-demand contest.
1. The exchange-rate trend should be viewed in two phases
The recent won-dollar movement can be divided into a rising phase through June and a declining phase from July onward.
Through June, the exchange rate rose almost one-directionally.
From July, stronger government response and changes in market supply-demand conditions led to a relatively rapid decline.
Accordingly, the recent move should not be reduced to a simple “U.S. rates are higher” or “Korea is easing too much” explanation.
2. The main reason for the June rally: foreign capital outflow exceeded export-driven dollar supply
In the past, Korea’s current account surplus often supported a stronger won and a lower exchange rate.
Exporters supplied dollars generated abroad into the domestic foreign-exchange market, increasing dollar supply and easing pressure on the won-dollar rate.
However, the market structure has changed.
Capital flows now matter more than trade or current-account balances.
As shown in the referenced flow, the semiconductor export upturn significantly improved Korea’s trade surplus.
The trade surplus was described as averaging roughly $310 million per day last year, then expanding materially through April, May, and June, reaching around $1.72 billion per day in June.
Dollar inflows from exports were indeed strong.
However, foreign investors were selling Korean equities at an even larger scale.
Between May 7 and June 5, foreign equity sales were described as averaging about $2.2 billion per day.
Even if exporters supply dollars, the exchange rate can still rise when foreign investors sell more Korean stocks and convert the proceeds into dollars on a larger scale.
This was the core driver of the exchange-rate rise.
3. Why the exchange rate rose despite strong exports
The main question for many investors is straightforward.
Korea has strong semiconductor exports, a trade surplus, and a generally acceptable current account balance. Why did the won weaken?
The answer is simple.
The pace of dollar outflows exceeded the pace of dollar inflows.
Export-generated dollar supply is a stabilizing factor.
But when foreign equity selling, overseas investment, corporate dollar retention, and global risk aversion are stronger, exports alone cannot offset the pressure.
That is why recent foreign-exchange analysis must include foreign equity trading, bond flows, corporate conversion behavior, and overseas investment volumes, not just trade data.
4. The policy rate gap is not the full explanation
The Korea-U.S. policy rate differential does affect the won-dollar exchange rate.
When U.S. rates are higher than Korea’s, dollar assets become more attractive, creating theoretical pressure on the won.
However, the critical point is that the rate differential does not fully explain the exchange rate.
Over the past 10 years, the correlation between the Korea-U.S. policy rate gap and the won-dollar rate has not always moved in the same direction.
There were also extended periods when the two moved in opposite directions.
The period in which the two tracked most closely was around the second half of 2022.
At that time, the Federal Reserve raised rates by 75 bps repeatedly, creating strong global dollar strength, and the rate gap and exchange rate moved more closely together.
Outside that period, the exchange rate was often difficult to explain using the policy rate gap alone.
In fact, even when the policy rate differential between Korea and the U.S. stayed near about 1.25 percentage points for more than a year, the won-dollar exchange rate continued to rise.
If the rate gap is unchanged while the exchange rate rises, the rate gap cannot be the sole explanation.
5. Rate hikes support currency stability, but they are not a complete solution
Policy rate increases can help stabilize the exchange rate to some extent.
Higher rates can slow liquidity growth and modestly improve the relative attractiveness of won assets.
However, rate hikes are not a universal solution.
If foreign investors sell Korean equities on a large scale, if companies retain dollars rather than converting them, or if global dollar demand rises, rate hikes alone will not stabilize the currency.
Ultimately, the exchange rate reflects policy rates, the dollar index, trade balance, capital flows, foreign investor sentiment, and government policy at the same time.
6. M2 growth also mattered, but it was not the sole driver
Some argue that Korea’s money supply growth weakened the won and pushed up the exchange rate.
This explanation has partial merit.
There were periods when Korea’s M2 growth rate exceeded that of the U.S., which can weigh on currency value.
Greater liquidity can also flow into overseas investment or increase dollar demand.
However, the point emphasized in the source material is that the M2 growth trend and the won-dollar exchange rate did not move in a strict one-to-one pattern.
In some recent periods, M2 growth slowed while the exchange rate accelerated further.
Accordingly, money supply growth should be viewed as one contributing factor, not the sole cause.
7. The “anomalous” pattern: a weaker dollar index alongside a stronger won-dollar rate
A notable feature of the recent move was the divergence between the dollar index and the won-dollar exchange rate.
Normally, a stronger dollar index coincides with a higher won-dollar exchange rate, while a weaker dollar index supports a stronger won and lower exchange rate.
However, from mid-2025 into 2026, the won-dollar exchange rate rose even as the dollar index softened.
This suggests that the primary pressure came from won-specific weakness rather than broad dollar strength.
Domestic liquidity conditions, foreign capital outflows, delayed corporate conversion, and market expectations for the won all likely contributed.
8. Corporate reluctance to convert dollars immediately was an important factor
Exporters normally supply dollars to the market by converting foreign receipts into won.
But if the exchange rate is expected to keep rising, firms have less incentive to sell dollars immediately.
If $1 can be sold for KRW 1,350 today but possibly KRW 1,400 later, delaying conversion becomes economically rational.
From a company perspective, this is a reasonable strategy.
From a market perspective, however, it can reinforce upward pressure on the exchange rate.
Expectations of further depreciation can cause firms to delay dollar sales, reducing supply and pushing the rate higher.
That said, not all large exporters withheld dollar sales.
Some major firms were already supplying dollars to the market, and some cooperated with government requests.
Still, the delayed conversion by certain large players clearly affected the market.
9. Why the exchange rate declined from July: government action and major-player cooperation
As the June rally intensified, the government appears to have concluded that a stronger response was necessary.
From July, the authorities signaled a firmer commitment to exchange-rate stability, and various response tools were reportedly used.
These may have included verbal intervention, possible direct intervention, and coordination with major exporters and key market participants.
In foreign-exchange markets, government communication is not merely rhetorical.
When the market concludes that authorities are uncomfortable with a certain exchange-rate level, dollar-buying sentiment weakens and exporters may become more willing to sell dollars.
In the July decline phase, cooperation from major market participants appears to have played a meaningful role.
In other words, the government did not simply suppress the exchange rate; it influenced behavior across the market.
10. Large semiconductor-related inflows supported the decline
Another important factor behind the July decline was the foreign currency inflow associated with a major memory semiconductor company.
The source material noted that a major memory semiconductor company raised roughly $26.5 billion through a Nasdaq ADR listing.
If that capital enters Korea and is converted aggressively, it generates strong dollar supply in the market.
The key issue is not only the amount, but how quickly and how concentrically the funds are converted.
The same $10 billion can have limited impact if converted gradually over a year.
But if it is converted over days or weeks, it can materially move the exchange rate lower.
This likely had a significant effect on the July decline in the won-dollar rate.
11. WGBI inflows may have a smaller short-term impact despite their large size
Korea’s inclusion in the WGBI global government bond index also supports currency stability through foreign bond inflows.
The source material suggested that approximately $60 billion could flow in over eight months from April through November.
On paper, this exceeds the $26.5 billion ADR-related inflow.
However, WGBI-related flows are spread over time.
When inflows are distributed over eight months, the daily market impact may be limited.
By contrast, ADR-related flows can be smaller in total but much more influential when converted in a short time window.
This is a crucial foreign-exchange market point.
Exchange rates react not only to total size, but also to speed and timing.
12. The key factor often missed in other coverage: concentration matters more than headline size
The most important but often overlooked issue in this exchange-rate episode is the concentration of capital flows.
Even if export dollars are large, the exchange rate can rise when foreign equity selling is more concentrated.
Even if WGBI-related inflows are large, the market impact may be limited if they are spread over eight months.
Conversely, when a large corporate foreign-currency inflow is converted over a short period, the exchange rate can fall quickly.
Many reports focus on gross amounts entering or leaving the market.
In practice, foreign exchange is often more sensitive to how much moves on a given day.
Understanding this distinction makes the recent won-dollar move clearer.
13. Five key variables in this exchange-rate episode
-
First, foreign equity selling.
Large-scale foreign sales of Korean equities and conversion into dollars strengthen pressure on the won.
-
Second, the trade surplus and exporter dollar supply.
Strong semiconductor exports support the won, but the effect weakens if companies delay conversion.
-
Third, the Korea-U.S. policy rate gap.
The rate differential matters, but it is not a stand-alone explanation.
-
Fourth, money supply and liquidity.
M2 growth can affect currency value, but it does not move in perfect one-to-one correlation with the exchange rate.
-
Fifth, government policy and market sentiment.
Clear government commitment to exchange-rate stability can alter the behavior of firms and investors.
14. Why the AI semiconductor cycle also matters for the exchange rate
This exchange-rate episode is not only about foreign exchange; it is also linked to the AI semiconductor cycle.
Rising memory chip prices and expanding AI server investment are positive for Korean exports.
When semiconductor companies post stronger export earnings, dollar inflows increase and support the won.
At the same time, if those companies are investing in the U.S. value chain, expanding overseas facilities, or raising global capital, they may have less incentive to convert dollars immediately in the domestic market.
In other words, the AI boom is positive for Korea’s trade balance, but its effect on the exchange rate depends on when the dollars are actually supplied to the domestic market.
Looking ahead, investors should also monitor semiconductor companies’ overseas investment plans, foreign-currency holding strategies, and funding structures, not only export growth.
15. What to watch in future exchange-rate outlooks
Future won-dollar analysis should not focus only on the timing of U.S. rate cuts.
First, investors should track whether foreign investors continue selling Korean equities or return to net buying.
Second, they should monitor how aggressively exporters convert retained dollar holdings into won.
Third, government willingness to maintain exchange-rate stability remains important.
Fourth, the pace and scale of WGBI inflows should be assessed.
Fifth, whether the dollar index and the won return to a more normal correlation should be watched.
Sixth, the extent to which AI semiconductor export strength translates into actual dollar supply should be evaluated.
In short, exchange-rate forecasting is less about “whether rates fall” and more about who is buying and selling dollars, when, and how much.
16. What investors should take away
Exchange-rate volatility affects overseas equity investors, domestic equity investors, exporters, and importers.
A high won-dollar rate can generate translation gains for overseas investors, but it raises the entry cost for new dollar purchases.
Domestic equities become more sensitive to foreign capital flows, and persistent currency weakness can lift import costs and inflation pressure.
Conversely, a sharp decline in the exchange rate can reduce won-based export earnings.
Accordingly, investors should not view the exchange rate simply as “higher is bad and lower is good.”
The exchange rate is a composite indicator of Korea’s economic strength, foreign capital flows, global liquidity, and the semiconductor cycle.
17. The most important conclusion
The real driver of the recent sharp exchange-rate swing was not the policy rate gap alone, but foreign capital outflows, exporter behavior, and supply-demand shifts in the foreign-exchange market.
The exchange rate may look like a single number, but it reflects policy rates, trade balances, foreign investment, money supply, semiconductor exports, and government policy.
For that reason, the first question in exchange-rate analysis should not be the size of the rate gap, but rather who is actually buying and selling dollars in the market.
< Summary >
The won-dollar exchange rate surged through June and then turned lower from July.
The main reason for the June increase was that foreign equity sales outweighed export-generated dollar inflows despite strong exports.
The Korea-U.S. policy rate gap affects the exchange rate, but it is not the sole driver.
M2 growth also contributed, but it did not move in perfect lockstep with the exchange rate.
Corporate delay in dollar conversion added to upward pressure, while July stabilization reflected government response and cooperation from major market participants.
Large, concentrated inflows such as semiconductor ADR-related capital can have a stronger short-term exchange-rate effect than more dispersed flows such as WGBI inflows.
Future exchange-rate analysis should consider foreign capital flows, corporate conversion behavior, government policy, AI semiconductor exports, and the dollar index together.
[Related Articles…]
-
Won-Dollar Exchange Rate Outlook and Key Foreign-Exchange Market Drivers
-
AI Semiconductor Cycle and Implications for Korea’s Economic Outlook
*Source: [ 경제 읽어주는 남자(김광석TV) ]
– 환율 왜 이렇게 흔들릴까? 진짜 원인은 ‘금리’가 아니었습니다 | 경읽남과 토론합시다 | 백석현 연구위원 [1편]
