Trinh Profile picture
Aug 21, 2019 14 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Good morning 🦚 - my finance world 🌎 (traders, investors, economists, & people that love Asian macro) just joined forces w/ the academic world @natixis , @NatixisResearch & @CarnegieEndow 🥰💪🏻

On the macro front, Indonesia 🇮🇩 CB decision & flash PMIs today. So excited 🤗🤓🥳 !
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow Australia prelim for services moved into contraction of 49.2 from 52.3 & composite goes below 50. For Japan, manu stayed negative at 49.5 w/ some stabilization while services picked up, likely a pre VAT tax hike boost. EU flashes are key for Asian exporters but exps are subdued😬
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow For those outside of finance, may seem strange that people are so obsessed w/ a central bank decision - in this case we have Indonesia today (consensus a hold; current rate 5.75%). While Indonesia capital market is shallow (by that we mean credit/gdp low ~30%), rates matter. Why?
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow #Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world & that population is only rising. But Indonesia is an archipelagos (thousands of island) & there's massive diversity. GDP/capital in Jakarta is ~4 times the national average. Urbanization rates will 📈so a lot of people 👇🏻
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow What do these people striving for a better life need? Well, infrastructure (roads, railways, subways, ports & airways b/c Indonesia has lots of islands). Jakarta is notoriously jammed packed & that reducesproductivity & will only get WORSE! So need to BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE 🤗
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow But how to build? Infrastructure is a great sector in that it has stable cash flow. But it also requires LONG-TERM INVESTMENT, usually only at the state level can you truly fund NATIONAL development. So there lies the rub.

To build, u need $, or to put another way, financers👈🏻
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow Can Indonesia fund its own infrastructure building? No. It has a fiscal deficit & the government says cap is 3% of GDP & the latest budget shows it chooses fiscal prudence. Ok, so how? Well, other actors like SOEs (doesn't show up on deficit but gov debt) &YOU (FOREIGN INVESTORS)
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow Look at the chart below & how u loop it back to central banks & interest rates & why spending your life staring at the price of $ & bond prices can be a noble profession😇. Indonesia's interest expense payment is LARGE as a share of total expenditure & roughly 2% of GDP. So what?
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow It means that in the afternoon, the central bank'll have to decide whether to LOWER THAT INTEREST EXPENSE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR NOT. Obviously this impacts everyone (private sector too). Key here is that the role of the central bank in easing the interest expense burden for gov🤗
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow The question for Indonesia is not whether but when the central bank'll have to step in to ✂️ rates. Fiscal space is very limited & with the amount of building they have to do, rate cuts needed. Why do they hesitate? Not about inflation but the Fed & worried about risk-aversion.
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow When someone asks you what u do for a living, instead of saying I'm in finance, why don't u say this for a change (said this yesterday at the FCC & journalists laughed, in a good way of course🤗): We finance EM Asia development. Roads, ports, etc w/ our investment in EM 😇😉👌🏻
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow Indonesia is mulling corporate income tax cut from 25% to 20%. Likely to reduce already very low tax revenue ratio (% of GDP). This begs the question, how is it going to FUND infra? Indonesia, like China & other EM, derives MOST tax rev from indirect taxation (VAT, import duties)
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow Taxes: DIRECT (corp income, which is a ratio of economic activity & tends to be considered PROGRESSIVE (pay as much as u earn & target higher income); & INDIRECT (VAT etc) & considered REGRESSIVE as poorer people have less disposable income. EM goes for INDIRECT-easier to enforce
@natixis @NatixisResearch @CarnegieEndow This is flagged in earlier Tweets of mine on the GLOBAL CONSEQUENCE OF US TAX REFORMS, which will PUSH DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON REST OF THE WORLD FISCAL, esp EM that wants to retain & attract investment. A paper by the IMF below 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Trinh

Trinh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Trinhnomics

Mar 31
Trump "Liberation Day" is coming & if it is anything to go by like other tariff days, it won't feel "liberating." Why? Because he is front-loading bad news.

It sounds crazy but I have given it some thoughts and here are what I think his short-term objectives. Image
First, we know he has 20% tariffs on China on top of others so we are now got a lot of friction to trade with China, which the Trump administration sees as its #1 security threat.

But isn't happy with this friction to trade and investment and keen to close loop holes. Remember that Biden also increased tons of investment and tariff curbs with China.

How to close it is the question? It requires others to do it. Who are the others? The easiest is Mexico and Canada as they have USMCA, which Trump agreed in 2020 (previously NAFTA).Image
There are clues to what Trump wants from Canada and Mexico in the latest 25% AUTO tariff.

Why? There are exemptions to USMCA for US content and also the implementation of tariff is contingent on them figuring out how this 25% tariff is going to work.

Meaning, USMCA essentially is still in force but only exemptions in USMCA.

But Trump isn't happy w/ current USMCA. Wants change.
Read 11 tweets
Mar 27
I have a thread that I was going to make about auto tariffs but instead, I decided to just read/listen. The Peterson Institute has a good paper on modeling 25% tariff on the EU I am listening to this one by Paul Krugman because, well, he's a free trader and a great trade economist. And most importantly, he's old enough to have some historical perspective. Interesting to listen to him (I am a student of Fukuyama as well) because I think what's interesting is that people of his generation couldn't imagine the world we are in today in the 1980s when they recommended the policies they did.

tradetalkspodcast.com/podcast/206-pa…
If you don't like listening, here's the transcript: tradetalkspodcast.com/wp-content/upl…
So basically, Paul Krugman is a big free trader that thinks there is no reason for industrial policy (IP). Why? He thinks that we are not good at picking champions so just let trade be free.

Anyway, upon reflecting on 2025 vs 1987 when he was peak free trading, he sees a few mistakes of his free trade/total globalization idea:

1) Did not see strategic argument to trade, as in, if u free trade everything away, like the US and many countries have, and produce nothing, and the country that is dominant decides to INVADE, well, that's a vulnerability. In the 1980s, he spent ZERO time thinking about risks of free trade and was a free trade maximalist. Now he thinks that was arrogant (I said this not him - he wouldn't say that about himself) to perceive ZERO RISK.
2) Negative externality of globalization and the need to harness political capture for good will. Basically IP is needed to push a world in a certain place, which means, well, free trade got downside.
3) Downside of globalization is that industries are concentrated so losses are felt acutely in areas that lose jobs.

But he goes on to say free trade is best and IP is not good. Anyway and then he goes on to talk about virtues of IP. Haha!
Read 7 tweets
Mar 20
Let's go to the last part of the Miran's paper, which is currencies (Chapter 4 & 5).

Remember that his articulation of all the ills of the US trade imbalance is about the USD as a reserve currency & also the security support the US has to do (two burdens) that has grown, dwarfing the US economy RELATIVE size.

So let's talk about it. But before we even talk about, we have to go through a bit of economics history, if that is okay with you. We'll keep it pretty brief.
Triffin was a famous guy. He famously testified before Congress in 1959 & predicted the collapse of the Bretton Wood system, which happened in 1971 when the US broke away from the gold-dollar link.

What did he say? Well, simply, that as a gold-dollar reserve currency, the US would have to expand its liabilities as fast as required for global trade. But since it's backed by gold, which grows SLOWER than global trade, then we got a problem as lower rates would cause a run on the gold stock or dollar liabilities > gold stock.

And if the US didn't accumulate fast liabilities, well, global liquidity would shrink as US rates would go to high and cause global deflation.

If you want to learn more about it, see the paper below. The author btw isn't a fan of Triffin so says he got a bunch of stuff wrong and whatever he got right, it was probably not by design but accident.

Either way, he predicted that & got very famous obvs. What else did he predict?

bis.org/publ/work684.p…Image
Btw, the key reason the BIS author said Triffin was wrong/flukey is that dude didn't account for Euro dollar or USD outside the US (note at the time it was mostly Europe that held that hence the name & also the EUR was not even conceived although Charles de Gaulle was already pissed off about the dollar privilege & coined "exorbitant privilege phrase) so his timing of the "crash" was off. Either way, he was right for something and maybe it would have been different but either way, 1971, Nixon called the dollar-gold thing off.

Anyway, Triffin and went on to modify things because now we are no longer a USD-gold FX but just well, USD fiat currency.

So he now has a current account version of Triffin (btw, there's also a fiscal Triffin too). Let's talk about his current account idea.

He basically says this, well, as reserve FX or KING DOLLAR, the USD liquidity or USD liabilities will need to grow at the rate of global growth, which would lead to persistent current account DEFICIT.

Well, voila, the US did run since 1980s current account deficits (see graph from Miran's note).

Why? Well, it strengthens the USD and makes imports cheaper than exports + other countries' mercantilitic policy that makes them devalue their FX relative to their trade position.

BIS provides a bunch of counter arguments of why Triffin was off so read that but I won't summarize because, well, the point is to read the Miran paper and not why Triffin might be right for the wrong reasons.

Btw, the whole Triffin thing is about eventually, that things would become unsustainable.

But of course, BIS paper disagrees and say, well, FX would readjust and rates would adjust.Image
Image
Read 15 tweets
Mar 19
Okay, let's talk about Trump end game. To do that, let's read Stephen Miran's "A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System" together.

Note that there's a disclaimer that this is not a policy advocacy but catalog of tools available for them to "reshape the global trading system."
hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/h…
Trump has been talking about global trade & how he thinks the US trade deficit is unfair since the 1980s (see his Oprah interviews) so this is beef he carries and he has the power to do it.

Trump 1.0 was a test case and Trump 2.0 is going to go full steroid on what he views as the current world order not working for the US. It may work for u, but not for him & his team is going to change it. Here's how Miran is laying it out.
First, the root of all US problems & its imbalances lies in the overvalued dollar. Yes, others lament its "exorbitant privilege" (a French FM said it) but here Trump team & also corroborated by many economists, including @michaelxpettis that while it is good for US FINANCIAL SECTORS, terrible for MAINSTREET. So basically Wall Street gains at the expense of the VACUUMING out of US industrial base.
Read 22 tweets
Mar 12
Emerging Asia Braces for Trade War Impact: Losers and Winners of Trumponomics

A thread. Let's go!

research.natixis.com/Site/en/public…
Let's start with the basics. What's on & what's promised/threatened. So far, on 12th March 2025, we have:
+25% on steel & aluminum on everyone (for steel, not new for everyone & just those that got exemptions. In Asia, that's AU, SK, and Japan. Canada & Mexico got exemptions and so did EU).
+20% on China, including Hong Kong.Image
Let's talk about the 20% on China. China is clearly targeted with 20% higher tariffs as well as its commercial ships, of which higher fees of docking in the US are being considered.

China will try to cope with higher tariffs as it did the past, which is offshoring productions to more neutral countries such as Mexico, Canada, Southeast Asia and sell more to the rest of the world as well as expanding relationships with the Global South (e.g. BRICS).

But with widening unilateral tariffs as well as others erecting barriers, this time around, beefing up domestic demand will be key.

Who loses in this tariff for Asia? China for US markets, but it will try to export elsewhere so there is a fear of a flood of Chinese goods coming.

Who gains? Well, it depends but those that can limit the flood of Chinese goods as well as export more to the US & attract investment. In other words, a lot of ifs but winners are possible.
Read 9 tweets
Mar 6
Hello, I want to point one thing out. Vietnam is not just a rerouting place for China. How do we know that? Because Vietnam's biggest exports are not even Chinese investment - it's South Korean, yes Samsung Electronics.

People don't just invest in Vietnam because China is targeted. The shift happened before Trump trade war. See Samsung Electronics.

They do it because Vietnam WANTS that investment. It wants manufacturing. It puts it as a priority above all else.

And because Vietnam's cheap. It got cheap labor. It got supportive policy, both hard and soft infra.
Example, Samsung Electronics started moving out of China into Vietnam way before Trump trade war of 2018.

Why did they move to Vietnam? Well, the Vietnamese wanted it & provided tons of incentives.

And why did the Koreans move there? China was GETTING EXPENSIVE. And the Chinese are starting to compete with them.

And then there's the geopolitical issue between China and South Korea.

So South Korea started to move to Vietnam and once that became a success, it INCREASED INVESTMENT and then other South Korean firms came.
As the Koreans came, other firms followed, not just to export but if you go to Vietnam today, there are a lot of Korean brands/companies to target Vietnam domestic demand.

Same with the Japanese. Similar story. And it's not just to EXPORT and tapping into Vietnamese cheapness (this is not just labor but also ELECTRICITY & other inputs), but also to tape into Vietnam domestic demand.

A lot of Japanese brands in Vietnam, from supermarkets to malls etc.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(