Invesco Canada blog

Insights, commentary and investing expertise

Kristina Hooper | January 21, 2020

The U.S.-China trade deal presents a paradox for markets

Last week, the U.S. and China signed their Phase 1 trade agreement. This trade deal is a paradox – in my view, it is both inconsequential and yet extremely important.
It is inconsequential for two reasons: Tariffs will remain in place on a large amount of goods traded between the U.S. and China, and the deal doesn’t tackle many of the most important trade issues between the two countries. However, it is extremely important because of what it symbolizes: This trade deal suggests that friction between the two countries has peaked and is moving lower. The psychological effect is very significant, as it means that economic policy uncertainty has fallen. And, when companies believe economic policy is more certain, they typically spend more, especially on capex.


Some flies in the ointment
Now, there is a small chance this deal may not hold. I don’t believe China will be able to purchase U.S. goods at the level it has committed to, based on its history of purchases as well as the deeper trading relationships it has formed with countries such as Brazil. And I believe that’s why the U.S. has not rolled back many tariffs. In fact, it has been reported that the U.S. will not roll back any more tariffs until after the U.S. presidential election, and that a roll back would be contingent on China adhering to its commitments in the Phase 1 agreement. However, I think the Phase 1 deal will hold, regardless of whether all commitments are honored as it’s in the best interest of both parties.
I should also underscore that I do not expect a Phase 2 trade deal between the U.S. and China to be signed this year. A Phase 1 deal was relatively easy to achieve because it tackled a lot of the low-hanging fruit – easier issues such as trade imbalances. Now that all the easy issues have been resolved, we have to expect that Phase 2 will be far more difficult to achieve.
Perhaps most sobering was a recent post in Taoran Notes (a blog affiliated with China’s official Economic Daily newspaper, which can reflect official government views). It cautioned that “We must bear in mind that the trade war is not over yet – the U.S. hasn’t revoked its tariffs on China and China is still implementing its retaliatory measures. There are still many uncertainties down the road.”1 And so I believe that continued talks around Phase 2 are all we can hope for, and we are likely to see such talks – but it is highly unlikely that we get a deal. However, I think that the conversation will be enough to satisfy stocks.


Could a U.S.-EU trade war be on the horizon?
There remains one key risk that I have worried about for a while: Now that the U.S. has signed the trade deal with China, will it now turn its attention to the EU and escalate a trade war there? The tension between the two has been clearly building: Last week, the EU’s chief trade negotiator visited Washington, DC, in an attempt to avert U.S. trade aggression toward the EU. And talks will continue on the sidelines of Davos this week. However, I believe there is a good chance of an escalation in trade tensions – this could be politically popular in an election year for the U.S., and I believe a trade war with the EU would be less damaging to the U.S. economy than a trade war with China. However, it could be psychologically damaging to companies, raising economic policy uncertainty and tamping down capex spending. So we will want to follow the situation closely.
And so economic policy uncertainty has, for now, declined. I expect we will see capex spending increase. We are anecdotally hearing that Chinese household sentiment has turned much more positive in particular, which should be good for the Chinese economy and Chinese stocks. Chinese stocks could also continue to benefit from the end of balance sheet normalization, which occurred last September and is beginning to inject some liquidity into markets.




More from Kristina Hooper

How much pessimism is too much?
October 25, 2021

Understanding inflation expectations and why they matter
October 18, 2021

How much will supply chain issues weigh on earnings season?
October 12, 2021

After an awful month for stocks, what’s in store for October?
October 4, 2021

What’s next in the evolving Evergrande situation?
September 28, 2021

What to watch this week: The U.S. Federal Reserve FOMC and Evergrande
September 20, 2021

Markets look for a foothold to climb the ‘wall of worry’
September 13, 2021

Destined for a downturn? I say the economy can weather this storm.
September 7, 2021

Powell reassures markets that the U.S. Federal Reserve won’t rush rate hikes
August 30, 2021

As COVID cases rise, will U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Powell address tapering?
August 23, 2021

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s foreshadowing may help avoid another ‘taper tantrum’
August 16, 2021

What the U.S. Federal Reserve’s rate hike comments may mean for the economic recovery and investors
August 9, 2021

A closer look at the Chinese tech sell-off
August 3, 2021

Now’s the time to prepare for the next market sell-off
July 26, 2021

The U.S. economic re-opening drives inflationary pressures while COVID-19 weighs on markets
July 19, 2021

What’s driving low U.S. Treasury yields?
July 12, 2021

Markets watch closely as variants reshape COVID landscape
July 6, 2021

Mid-Year Outlook: Anticipating economic acceleration and temporary inflation
June 29, 2021

Markets balk as the U.S. Federal Reserve signals a faster rate hike timeline
June 21, 2021

Why did investors shrug off the latest U.S. inflation figures?
June 14, 2021

Subscribe to the blog

Do you want to subscribe in French?

Subscribe to receive e-mails from Invesco Canada Ltd. about this blog. To unsubscribe, please e-mail or contact us.

1 Source: South China Morning Post, Jan. 13, 2020

Important Information

Blog header image: d3sign/ Getty

Capital spending (or capital expenditures, or capex) is the use of company funds to acquire or upgrade physical assets such as property, industrial buildings or equipment.

The opinions referenced above are those of Kristina Hooper as of Jan. 21, 2020. These comments should not be construed as recommendations, but as an illustration of broader themes. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions; there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.