australiaen
US-China trade talks – a tweet too far?

US-China trade talks – a tweet too far?

07-05-2019 | Emerging markets alert
After weeks of positive noises coming from the US-China negotiations, with indications of an agreement by the end of this week, there was an abrupt shift in tone. Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday that he found the current pace of negotiations too slow, accusing China of reneging on assurances previously made, and promising to impose a new round of tariffs on USD 200 bln of Chinese imports to take effect on Friday morning. This blindsided investors who had been increasingly optimistic that a trade deal was near with markets falling sharply on Monday.
  • Jan de Bruijn
    Jan
    de Bruijn
    Client Portfolio Manager

It is highly likely that this is a negotiating tactic by the US to raise the stakes and will go down well with Donald Trump’s core base of supporters by showing how tough he is. With the US economy and equity markets doing relatively well he probably concluded that he had considerable leeway to step up the game of bluff with China.

However, it also raises the real possibility that the trade talks will end in failure with the Chinese concluding that they would lose too much face negotiating under duress. This would dramatically escalate the trade dispute leading to uncertainty in the global economy once again. There are hawks in the Chinese government that believe that China has given away too much already and will balk at any further concessions.

Stay informed on emerging markets with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on emerging markets with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

The Fundamental Equities view:

Our base case remains that the US and China would prefer to agree to a trade deal since both countries need a deal for different domestic reasons. There is also considerable pressure from US and Chinese business groups who need a trade policy to create certainty and stability. The existing tariffs have been disrupting supply chains and impacting competitiveness.

Note that the trade deal does not need to be perfect, and it most likely won’t be. It just has to be good enough to scrap the tariffs that were imposed over the course of 2018. Any deal is likely to leave a lot of unanswered questions in the short term, whether they relate to the actual execution, the future of technology transfers, or any follow-through on a US-Europe trade deal. That said, any deal is unlikely to be as bad for the global economy as the prospect of 25% tariffs on all goods traded between US and China.

However, it is unquestionably the case that tail risk has increased significantly as there is a real danger that Trump has underestimated the importance of ‘face’ for China and overplayed his hand. In this worst case scenario we would expect the markets to be rattled and negatively affected. As mentioned in the recent quarterly outlook by Fabiana Fedeli, for markets to continue to rally, a US-China trade deal is necessary.

We will be watching developments very closely in the following days, but for now we stick to our long term base case and will not be changing our current portfolio positioning, as portfolio action at this point would be speculative in nature. We find it positive that despite the criticism directed at China, the commerce ministry has stated that the vice-premier Liu He would still arrive in Washington on Thursday for an abbreviated round of talks.

Subjects related to this article are:

Disclaimer

BY CLICKING ON “I AGREE”, I DECLARE I AM A WHOLESALE CLIENT AS DEFINED IN THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001.

What is a Wholesale Client?
A person or entity is a “wholesale client” if they satisfy the requirements of section 761G of the Corporations Act.
This commonly includes a person or entity:

  • who holds an Australian Financial Services License
  • who has or controls at least $10 million (and may include funds held by an associate or under a trust that the person manages)
  • that is a body regulated by APRA other than a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund;
    (ii) an approved deposit fund;
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme.
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
  • that is a body registered under the Financial Corporations Act 1974.
  • that is a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund; or
    (ii) an approved deposit fund; or
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the fund, trust or scheme has net assets of at least $10 million.
  • that is a listed entity or a related body corporate of a listed entity
  • that is an exempt public authority
  • that is a body corporate, or an unincorporated body, that:
    (i) carries on a business of investment in financial products, interests in land or other investments; and
    (ii) for those purposes, invests funds received (directly or indirectly) following an offer or invitation to the public, within the meaning of section 82 of the Corporations Act 2001, the terms of which provided for the funds subscribed to be invested for those purposes.
  • that is a foreign entity which, if established or incorporated in Australia, would be covered by one of the preceding paragraphs.
I Disagree