Breaking News
0

The Downside Of Balancing U.S.-China Trade

By Michael AshtonMarket OverviewJan 20, 2019 12:28AM ET
www.investing.com/analysis/the-downside-of-balancing-uschina-trade-200377346
The Downside Of Balancing U.S.-China Trade
By Michael Ashton   |  Jan 20, 2019 12:28AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 

The rumor on Friday was that China is going to resolve the trade standoff by agreeing to balance its trade with the U.S. by buying a trillion dollars of goods and services over the next four years. The Administration, so the rumor goes, is holding out for two years since that will look better for the election. They should agree to four, because otherwise they’re going to have to explain why it’s not working.

I ascribe approximately a 10% chance that the trade balance with China will be at zero in four years. (I’m adjusting for overconfidence bias, since I think the real probability is approximately zero.) But if it does happen, it is very bad for our financial markets. Here’s why.

If China buys an extra trillion dollars’ worth of U.S. product, where do they get the dollars to do so? There are only a few options:

  1. They can sell us a lot more stuff, for which they take in dollars. But that doesn’t solve the trade deficit.
  2. They can buy dollars from other dollar-holders who want yuan, weakening the yuan and strengthening the dollar, making U.S. product less competitive and Chinese product more competitive globally. This means our trade deficit with China would be replaced by trade deficits with other countries, again not really solving the problem.
  3. They can use the dollars that they are otherwise using to buy financial securities denominated in dollars, such as our stocks and bonds.

The reality is that it is really hard to make a trade deficit go away. Blame the accountants, but this equation must balance:

Budget deficit = trade deficit + domestic savings

If the budget deficit is very large, which it is, then it must be financed either by running a trade deficit – buying more goods and services from other countries than they buy from us, stuffing them with dollars that they have no choice but to recycle into financial assets – or by increased domestic savings.

So, let’s play this out and think about where the $500bln per year (the U.S. trade deficit, roughly, with the rest of the world) is going to come from. With the Democrats in charge of Congress and an Administration that is liberal on spending matters, it seems to me unlikely that we will see an abrupt move into budget balance, especially with global growth slowing. The other option is to induce more domestic savings, which reduces domestic consumption (and incidentally, that’s a counterbalance to the stimulative growth effect of an improving trade balance). But the Fed is no longer helping us out by “saving” huge amounts – in fact, they are dis-saving. Inducing higher domestic savings would require higher market interest rates.

The mechanism is pretty clear, right? China currently holds roughly $1.1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities (see chart, source U.S. Treasury via Bloomberg).

US Treasury Holders, Foreign Holders Monthly 2001-2018
US Treasury Holders, Foreign Holders Monthly 2001-2018

China also holds, collectively, lots of other things: common equities, corporate bonds, private equity, U.S. real estate, commodities, cash balances. Somewhere in there, they’ll need to divest about a trillion dollars’ worth to get a trillion dollars to buy U.S. product with.

The effect of such a trade-balancing deal would obviously be salutatory for U.S. corporate earnings, which is why the stock market is so ebullient. But it would be bad for U.S. interest rates, and bad for earnings multiples. One of the reasons that financial assets are so expensive is that we are force-feeding dollars to non-U.S. entities. To the extent that we take away that financial inflow by balancing trade and budget deficits, we lower earnings multiples and raise interest rates. This also has the effect of inducing further domestic savings. Is this good or bad? In the long run, I feel reasonably confident that having lower multiples and more-balanced budget and trade arrangements is better, since it lowers a source of economic leverage that also (by the way) tends to increase the frequency and severity of financial crack-ups. But in the short run…meaning over the next few years, if China is really going to work hard to balance the trade deficit with the U.S.…it means rough sledding.

As I said, I give this next-to-no chance of China actually balancing its trade deficit with us. But it’s important to realize that steps in that direction have offsetting effects that are not all good.

The Downside Of Balancing U.S.-China Trade
 

Related Articles

The Downside Of Balancing U.S.-China Trade

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind: 

  • Enrich the conversation
  • Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
  • Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically.
  •  Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and links within a comment will be removed
  • Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user.
  • Don’t Monopolize the Conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also believe strongly in giving everyone a chance to air their thoughts. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments
mike gutrugianios
mike gutrugianios Jan 27, 2019 9:39PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Quote: [The rumor on Friday was that China is going to resolve the trade standoff by agreeing to balance its trade with the U.S.] Sounds to me like a political statement and for us traders is like Soros said "Buy the rumor and sell the news"
Reply
0 0
Mia Bower
Mia Bower Jan 26, 2019 9:17PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
China is holding more than 3 trillions in reserves.
Reply
0 0
mister James
mister James Jan 26, 2019 7:45PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
the only real solution is to increase tariffs again and again until the US begins making more of our own products in the USA. Painful for awhile and extremely painful for China. Some may be produced in places like Mexico or other low cost producers if we can't make them all here but then you get a big trade imbalance with those new low cost producers.
Reply
0 0
demis ili
demis ili Jan 20, 2019 5:31PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
very good analysis! sounds like “be careful what you wish for”.....
Reply
0 0
chavvi crude
chavvi crude Jan 20, 2019 5:53AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
useful information. thanks
Reply
0 2
Milan Nait DJOUDI
donaldotrumpet Jan 20, 2019 3:37AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
thank you
Reply
0 0
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email