Just a reminder as we head toward tomorrow's advance trade data (for September) and the more detailed release next week:
US exports to China of goods covered by the deal normally pick up in the last third of the year.
That is as predictable as the timing of the harvest ...
1/x
Everything has kind of been mucked up for the last two years, though, as China (famously) didn't buy any beans in 2018 (showing the power of the state importing companies).
This year though should be ... more or less normal
2/x
As Chad Bown's detailed numbers* show, ag exports (the sept data for China now comes out early) will be back in line with their 2017 levels (helped by pork) -- but no where close to the big gains promised
*I am shocked @ChadBown included lobsters. Shocked
3/x
But with manufacturing weak*, total U.S. exports are still unlikely to reach 2017 levels, let alone far exceed them.
* There is no advance data for aircraft, and I think the "deal" cheated a bit by allowing orders to count toward the total.
For fun, I plotted covered exports (so no aircraft) to China as a share of US GDP over the last 10ys. To me the big story is still how undynamic they have been both before and after the "deal"
(they were about 0.4% of US GDP back in 17 ...)
5/x
To paraphrase a bit, China's rapid growth shows up everywhere except in its import data
(especially of manufactures)
6/x
The most dynamic large manufacturing export to China is semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and that one is complicated, as, well China's imports here are a function of an industrial policy designed to reduce China's imports of chips*
7/x
*/ there may be a pull forward effect from the threat of export controls as well
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Trump administration is sure to use other authorities (122 maybe, 232, 301) to raise tariffs now that the court has struck down the IEEPA tariffs.
But striking down IEEPA still matters, particularly for China/other countries that aren't heavily hit by existing 232s
1/
Consider the structure of Korea's trade with the US v that of China. Korea export a ton of autos, which are still subject to the 232 auto tariff. Its steel is still subject to the 232 tariff there. & its chip exports could potentially be targeted by the semiconductor 232. 2/
Korea thus doesn't get a huge benefit from striking down the "reciprocal"/ IEEPA tariffs. Europe and Japan (autos, pharma, specialty steel) are in somewhat similar positions -- tho of course they are thrilled to see the broad tariff rolled back. 3/
The latest IMF analysis of China (The staff report/ Article IV) highlights that China's export driven growth has come at the expense of its trading partners.
That is welcome, and very necessary message
1/many
James Mayger and Jorgelina Do Rosario of Bloomberg reminded me that the 2024 staff report didn't mention external imbalances at all -- so there has been an important evolution in the IMF's thinking in the last couple of years
The IMF's fiscal policy advice has also shifted. back in the summer of 2024, the Fund was pushing for the rapid initiation of a big fiscal consolidation. Not anymore
Goldman got a bit of attention by forecasting that China's 2026 current account surplus will top 4% of GDP.
I need a better publicist! The GS forecast is still too low
1/
Goldman's forecast -- which is almost certainly better than the IMF's forthcoming forecast -- isn't that bold. The customs surplus net of tourism (travel) is already 5% of GDP, and that should be a reasonable estimate of the surplus of a country with a positive NIIP!
2/
In fact, China now has a position net international investment position of close to $4 trillion, and a pretty balanced FDI position (so no more compositional effects) which should translate into an income surplus of say $100b!
My periodic reminder that the US TIC data doesn't measure China's holdings of US Treasuries. It only measures China's holdings of Treasuries in US custodians. The real question is how many Treasuries Chinese entities hold in non US custodians
The total offshore assets of SAFE, the CIC, the SCBs (over $1.5 trillion now) and the policy banks likely approaches $7 trillion. SAFE's securities holdings top $3 trillion & other investors hold ~ $700b in foreign securities ...
I personally don't think it is plausible that all these entities combined hold only ~ $700b of LT Treasuries. They likely have some in offshore custodians. And the anks clearly help fund the purchases of US bonds by hedge funds and other global investors --
Bloomberg reports that China's regulators have warned China's state banks about the risk of holding too many Treasuries --
The Chinese regulators must know something that the Treasury doesn't, as the Treasury data doesn't suggest that China has been buying any Treasuries
1/
The official US data on foreign holdings doesn't show any basis for Chinese concern -- China's Treasuries in US custodianship (in theory state accounts as well as state bank accounts) are heading down not up
2/
That is of course inconsistent with the warning that the regulators provided to the state banks! They seem to be warning about nothing ...
The Treasury has indicated that it will look at the activities of China's state banks in its next assessment of China's currency policies--
It is hard to see how this doesn't become a bit of an issue ... unless of course summitry gets in the way of analysis 1/
It is quite clear that state bank purchases (and in 23/ early 24 sales) of fx have replaced PBOC purchases and sales and the core technique China uses to manage the band around the daily fx -- i.e. settlement looks like an intervention variable
2/
My latest blog looks both at how fx settlement (a measure that includes the state banks) has displaced the PBOC's own reported reserves as the best metric for Chinese intervention & lat some of SAFE's balance sheet mysteries