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 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
The blog is detailed and technical -- and thus probably best read by those with a real interest in central bank balance sheets, the balance of payments and how to assess backdoor foreign currency intervention
2/
Drawing on historical data, I propose that the gap between fx settlement and the foreign assets on the PBOC's balance sheet (fx reserves + other f. assets) is a good indicator of hidden intervention --
Obviously overshadowed by the news about a Fed nomination, but the Treasury released its delated October 2025 FX report today and it is worth reading -- not the least b/c of a clear warning to SAFE.
1/
This seems clear
"An economy that fails to publish intervention data or whose data are incomplete will not be given any benefit of the doubt in Treasury’s assessment of intervention practices."
This report only covers the period between July 24 and June 25, so it misses the bulk of the 2025 surge in fx settlement (December = $100b plus). But this chart suggests the use of more sophisticated analytical techniques than those used in past reports --
A bit of background. Taiwan's lifers hold $700 billion in foreign currency assets abroad (more counting their holdings of local ETFs that invest heavily in foreign bonds) v ~ $200 billion in domestic fx policies -- so fx gap (pre hedging) of $500 billion
2/
Taiwan's regulator (perhaps the most complicit regulator on earth) not allows the lifers NOT to mark their fx holdings to the fx market -- so the lifers are incentivized not to hedge (and they are rapidly reducing their hedge ratio)
Japan is an interesting case in a lot of ways. It has a ton of domestic debt (and significant domestic financial assets) which generates heated concerns about its solvency/ ability to manage higher rates. But it is also a massive global creditor --
1/
Japan's net holdings of bonds (net of foreign holdings of JGBs) is close to 50% of its GDP (a creditor position as big v GDP as the US net det position). That includes $1 trillion in bonds held in Japan's $1.175 trillion in reserves, + over $2 trillion in other holdings
2/
That translates into big holdings of US debt -- the MoF's Treasuries all show up in the US TIC data, but the corporate bonds held by the lifers, postbank and the GPIF are only partially captured in the US data b/c of third party management/ the use of EU custodians
14m cars would be roughly 1/4th of the global market for cars outside China (the Chinese market is ~ 25m cars) ... no way that doesn't have a disruptive impact.
China would go from 6 to 14m cars in a two year period if 2025 isn't an outlier ...
2/
Not clear that German/ European politics can caught up to the scale of China's export tsunami. And some European firms think they can profit from China's subsidies and strong local supply chain by producing in China for the European market