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 IMF needs to take a serious look at its methodology for forecasting the current account balance in key countries -- the current approach is yielding somewhat absurd outcomes that forecast real problems (notably China's surplus) away
1/
The WEO forecast for China's 2025 surplus is 3.3% of GDP (the h1 surplus) so an upward adjustment from the absurd $370b surplus in the ESR. That surplus is forecast to fall to 2.8% of GDP in 26, and then down to 2% of GDP in 2020. No problem here worth global concern ...
2/
The basis for the forecast seems to be Chinese policies that now support domestic demand ..
"China and Germany have recently announced and expanded spending measures to boost domestic demand, which will lower net savings and reduce external surpluses"
3/
Building out capacity (including refining capacity) for rare earths/ other critical minerals should indeed by a real priority now, and the risk of weaponization of this this and other supply chains should have been taken more seriously in the past. But it won't be easy
Just as an example of how far the political debate has come -- Bob Lighthizer (no China dove) excluded rare earths and permanent magnets from the 301 tariffs back in 18 and 19 ...
3/
Pharmaceuticals from China too (why raise the price of meds ... )
For rare earths and magnets there was essentially no US supply, so the tariffs just raised costs (absent a plant o build out capacity over time)
4/
China -- per the excellent reporting on the WSJ/ @Lingling_Wei -- appears to be pursuing a strategy of applying maximum pressure in pursuit of maximum concessions ... full tariff rollback, rollback of export controls, relaxation of nat'l security review on Chinese investment
1/
China though may have miscalculated -- Trump's "Truth" suggested real frustration. Betting on an even bigger (and more publicly visible TACO) has its own risks
China really has put its full economic toolkit on the table -- using its control of grain and oil seed imports (COFCO) to zero out orders for beans (having a bit of a stockpile helps), and rolling out an extraordinary set of export controls ...
3/
There are rumors -- based on material reported in the Argentine press -- that suggest the US lifeline to Argentina will be funded using Special Drawing Right certificates, and that the BCRA will on lend some funds to the MoF to do bond buybacks ...
1/
The logic of using the SDRs (The Treasury technically borrows dollars from the Fed using SDR certificates as collateral) is simple: the ESF has $173b of SDRs, and only ~ $23b of dollars ...
2/
So if the US is thinking that the $20b may not be enough (and if it is financing bond buybacks as well as a peso defense it may not be enough ... ) using SDRs opens a path to an even bigger program
The real story isn't that Kenya is saving ~ 200m in debt service costs by restructuring into CNY --
It is that China has already gotten $1.5 b of the principal on the original railway loan back
1/
It is well known in sovereign debt circles (but not among the foreign policy world) that the amortization structures on Chinese policy bank loans are super steep, and that China has taken big $$$ off the table between 22 and 25 ...
2/
I am working on a piece on Ecuador that will show that IMF support (and a bond restructuring) effectively allowed Exim and CDB to dramatically reduce their exposure ...
3/
Argentina's governemtn has two pools of fx assets. The Treasury fx account -- which can be sold "inside" the band agreed with the IMF, and the BCRA's fx. The Treasury account is close to being empty
1/
The Treasury bought ~$2b in fx from the ag exporters when the ag export tax was dropped (irritating US farmers) ... but that pool of funds is about gone. The BCRA also has a bit of cash but that can only be sold at the edge of the band
2/
The BCRA's actual cash position is much lower than its reported fx reserves b/c $13b of the reported reserves is from the PBOC swap, & that cannot really be used (open question as to whether it should be counted toward gross reserves as it isn't really available to the GoA)
3/