For warrant holders, they can control a large number of assets with less funds, and the rest can be invested at least at a risk-free interest rate. Therefore, the price of warrants is positively related to interest rates. For the holders of put warrants, they can only sell shares and obtain funds after executing the warrants. High interest rate means higher opportunity cost. Therefore, the price of put warrants moves in the opposite direction to the risk-free interest rate.

We can't just look at this problem at one point in time. The above is a period. Especially the "expected" growth rate of stock price. To be sure, this expectation is directly related to the trend of warrants.

With the increase of interest rate and time cost, the future cash flow of warrants is relatively reduced. The stock price will fall, which is an equilibrium problem, that is, with the decline of P/E ratio, the equilibrium will be achieved at a new lower market interest rate (in fact, the market interest rate is still higher than the bank interest rate, and high risks correspond to high returns).

Think of it this way. When will the bank interest rate be raised? It's probably time for inflation. I think it must be clear that, unlike what it seems, during the period of inflation, the income from investing in securities is much more cost-effective than savings. Why do investors give up the fixed interest rate that has been raised and choose securities that are at risk of falling (or have fallen, when it is better, this is the balanced rebound mentioned above)? This is because although the company's costs have increased, its increased product prices have actually increased the company's profits, which is greater than the real interest rate in inflation (earnings per share have increased faster). It will inevitably raise people's expectations for future stock price increases. Of course, this can only explain the problem qualitatively. Qualitative research needs some mathematical means.