Selasa, 06 Agustus 2019

US stocks plunge most this year as trade tension escalates - BNNBloomberg.ca

Financial markets buckled after China escalated the trade war with the U.S., sending American stocks to the biggest drop this year and sparking a rally in global bonds. Gold surged with the yen.

More than US$700 billion were wiped from the value of U.S. equities on Monday, with the S&P 500 Index plunging three per cent and all but 11 companies in the gauge trading lower. Losses in the Dow Jones Industrial Average surpassed 700 points as Apple and IBM slid at least four per cent. The Cboe Volatility Index surged about 40 per cent. The 10-year Treasury yield dropped to the lowest since before President Donald Trump’s election. China’s yuan sank beyond 7 per dollar, a move that suggests the level is no longer a line in the sand for policy makers in Beijing.

Investors are starting to grasp the potential for a protracted conflict between the world’s two largest economies, with a Treasury-market recession indicator hitting the highest alert since 2007. As demand for haven assets spiked, gold made a run toward US$1,500 an ounce and the Japanese yen extended its rally. Major cryptocurrencies, increasingly seen as a refuge during distressed times, climbed as Bitcoin approached US$12,000. Fear gauges for the corporate bond market rose the most since March as traders rushed to hedge their positions.

“The trade war is now intensifying and it’s possible that a currency war will start as well,” said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer for Independent Advisor Alliance. “Neither is good for the global economy and both will hurt equity markets.”

People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang said the nation won’t use exchange rates as a tool in the escalating trade dispute. Yet for President Trump, the latest decline in the yuan is “called ‘currency manipulation”’. The American leader also indicated he’d like the Federal Reserve to act to counter the Chinese action. Swaps show bets the central bank will ease by 100 basis points by December 2020, a quarter point more than what was priced in after last week’s cut.

The trade war has been a consistent catalyst for market volatility and hopes of a resolution are now being sent even further out in the horizon, according to Mike Loewengart, vice president of investment strategy at E*Trade Financial Corp. While that could continue to challenge portfolios, investors should not make the mistake of trying to time the markets amid the sell-off, he said.

“This too shall eventually pass, and bouts of volatility in recent months have shown this can happen quickly,” said Loewengart.

These are some key events to watch out for this week:

  • Earnings from financial giants include: UniCredit, AIG, ABN Amro Bank, Standard Bank, Japan Post Bank.
  • Five Asian central banks have rate decisions including India, Australia and New Zealand.
  • A string of Fed policy makers speak this week, including St. Louis chief James Bullard on Tuesday and Chicago’s Charles Evans a day later. All are Federal Open Market Committee voters.

Here are the main moves in markets (all sizes and scopes are on a closing basis):

Stocks

  • The S&P 500 declined three per cent to 2,844.74.
  • The Stoxx Europe 600 Index decreased 2.3 per cent.
  • The MSCI Asia Pacific Index dipped 2.3 per cent
  • The MSCI Emerging Market Index slid 3.1 per cent

Currencies

  • The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index decreased 0.1 per cent. 
  • The euro advanced 0.8 per cent to US$1.1196.
  • The Japanese yen increased 0.5 per cent to 106.05 per dollar.

Bonds

  • The yield on 10-year Treasuries sank 13 basis points to 1.7142 per cent.
  • Germany’s 10-year yield decreased two basis points to -0.52 per cent.
  • Britain’s 10-year yield dipped four basis points to 0.512 per cent.

Commodities

  • The Bloomberg Commodity Index decreased 0.6 per cent.
  • West Texas Intermediate crude slid to US$54.69 a barrel.
  • Gold increased to US$1,476.50 an ounce.

--With assistance from Tracy Alloway, Andreea Papuc, Samuel Potter, Laura Curtis, Todd White, Olivia Rinaldi, Nancy Moran, Lu Wang and Sophie Caronello.



from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/2Tjdc4x
via IFTTT
August 06, 2019 at 05:04AM

Google employee claims he was put on leave for speaking out against tech giant's politics - Toronto Sun

Lab-grown ice cream presents a labelling challenge for Canadian dairy - National Post

I scream, you scream, we all scream for … whey protein?

Yes, when we line up for a scoop or a cone on a hot summer weekend, what we’re really craving is the taste and texture of whey, a protein that is only found in milk. Combine it with sugar, fat and flavourings and, on a chemical level, you have ice cream — even if a cow was never involved. And it will taste way (whey?) better than the soy, oat or coconut-based ice cream substitutes of yore.

At least, that’s what the California-based start-up Perfect Day is betting. Last month, the company sold out of its first run of what it calls “animal-free ice cream.” The dessert, which comes in chocolate, vanilla-blackberry-toffee and vanilla-salted-fudge flavours, contains sugar, coconut oil, and whey protein produced using genetically modified yeast.

It’s a similar to concept to lab-grown meat, but does not require any starter cells from actual milk. Taste-testers say it’s much like the real thing — because as far as our tastebuds know, it is. Unlike regular ice cream, though, it did not require any living, breathing, land-using, greenhouse-gas-releasing cows to make.

Whether such a product would ever become available in Canada, and how it would be labelled and marketed, is a “highly politically charged” question, given the regulatory environment and supply management in the dairy industry, said Sylvain Charlebois, director of the agri-food analytics lab at Dalhousie University.

Desserts made by Perfect Day, or any other lab-grown dairy company, would likely look much different if they ever came to Canada. The company uses the term “non-animal whey protein” in its ingredient list. According to Canadian food regulations, whey is a milk product, and milk is the “normal lacteal secretion, free from colostrum, obtained from the mammary gland of an animal.” In Canada, you can’t milk yeast — not yet, anyway.

If they call it something other than milk or dairy or ice cream how will they communicate what it is? Good luck with that

The Perfect Day slogan, given pride of place on its packaging, is “Dairy Made Perfect,” another no-no. Our labelling regulations say “Dairy products are foods produced from the milk of mammals.”

The Dairy Farmers of Canada did not respond to request for comment. Perfect Day also did not respond to emails, and so was not able to provide a statement about any potential plans to expand to Canada or internationally.

However, recent history shows that dairy marketing boards will kick up a legal fuss against “anybody who uses the word dairy or milk, if milk or dairy products are not used. Dairy farmers will think it is misleading consumers, and the law will give them a case,” Charlebois said. For example, this year, following up on a growing number of complaints, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered producers of vegan cheese alternatives to stop using the word cheese or even “cheeze.”

Non-dairy ice cream made with genetically engineered milk proteins presents a unique labelling challenge. “If they call it something other than milk or dairy or ice cream how will they communicate what it is? Good luck with that,” Charlebois said.

Will the meaning “dairy” just have to change with the technological times, given a possible product that is chemically identical, and tastes just the same, as traditional ice cream?

“No chance. No way,” Charlebois said. Because of tariffs and import quotas, relatively few imported ice creams or other dairy products are sold in Canada. In practice, he said, if it’s not from a Canadian dairy farm, it’s not going to be labelled as dairy, milk or ice cream, “Regardless of where the proteins are coming from.”

Even if lab-grown ice cream comes to Canada, it’s a mystery at the moment how consumers will react, Charlebois said. On one hand, there’s growing demand for familiar protein foods that don’t involve animals. Just look at the gangbusters growth and impressive initial public offering of Beyond Meat, whose pea-based meat substitute is now served at Tim Hortons and A&W, and the success of its competitor, the Impossible Burger, a soy-coconut-potato concoction found at Burger King.

On the other hand, a 2018 survey showed lab-grown meat is still surrounded by a yuck factor for Canadian consumers — only 14 per cent were willing to consider it as a meat alternative. It’s not clear if lab-grown milk proteins would be seen similarly.

On top of that, Charlebois concluded, is the complication of a regulatory system set up to “defend the natural wholesome, traditional milk extracted from Canadian cows” — not yeast.



from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/33fHE3O
via IFTTT
August 06, 2019 at 06:49AM

Let Them Eat Credit - Jacobin magazine

The Federal Reserve is cutting the federal funds rate for the first time since the 2008–9 financial crisis. On Wednesday, Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell announced that the United States’s central bank will trim the rate by a quarter of a percentage point, bringing the benchmark rate to a target range of 2 to 2.25 percent.

Powell’s decision to reduce the federal funds rate marks a U-turn from last year, when the Fed was eager to pursue tightening. But these days trouble is on the horizon. Trump’s trade wars — the breakdown of talks with China, the steep tariffs imposed on Mexico — are fueling concerns of the spillover effect of “global factors” on markets.

The move toward easing puts the United States back in line with its global allies. The Bank of Japan just voted to keep its interest rate at -0.1 percent and will continue to buy more than $700 billion a year in bonds. Mario Draghi, president of the European Central bank, recently announced that the ECB will cut rates again this year, dipping further into negative territory, while the Bank of London says it will bring down its rates before December.

Low interest rates have become the new normal of global capitalism — necessary to, as Morgan Stanley chief economist Ellen Zentner recently observed, “sustain the expansion.”

Characterizing the last decade as an “expansion” is a peculiar sort of euphemism. What, precisely, is being sustained through central bank–engineered, low interest rates?

Observers point to the fact that the official unemployment rate hasn’t been this low since the 1960s, that equity markets are soaring, that the United States is enjoying its longest-running growth streak since before the Civil War.

But these achievements have an air of unreality about them. Perhaps in no small part because during the last decade of so-called expansion, wages have barely budged, despite low official unemployment.

Indeed, a lack of wage growth is one of the justifications Powell gave for the “mid-cycle adjustment,” telling Congress last month that wages are “not responding” to the expansion. Fed officials had hoped to see a gradual easing of slack in the labor market, which would in theory push up inflation (to more than 2 percent) and increase wages — which, taken together, would justify putting the federal funds rate on a path toward a more “normal” 4 to 5 percent.

But it hasn’t happened. Official unemployment is expected to drop to 3.5 percent by the end of 2019, yet wages for factory workers and non-manager service workers (82 percent of the workforce) have been stagnant for three decades. In ten years of expansion, only the top decile has seen substantially improved wages.

Recently, some economists have asserted that wage stagnation is a myth. Pointing to Americans’ bigger homes, increased number of dishwashers, better cars, and smartphones, they argue that working people are doing just fine. They blame the appearance of stagnation on one of economists’ favored metrics, the consumer price index (CPI), which they claim understates how much workers are being compensated and overstates actual price inflation.

But no amount of data torture can hide the peculiar features of the supposed recovery. Nearly 40 percent of Americans would be unable to cover an unexpected $400 expense. One in four children relies on food stamps to meet their dietary needs. More than half of US households don’t have enough in savings to cover more than one month of expenses, and according to the New York Fed, household debt reached a new high in the fourth quarter of 2018. Americans may have more color televisions than they did in the past, but the United States remains the most unequal wealthy country in the world.

The lack of wage growth is not the only noteworthy feature of capitalism’s new normal. A decade of easy credit (on top of a multi-trillion-dollar quantitative easing program), combined with a corporate sector emboldened by a generation of business-friendly reforms, has exacerbated a number of trends that exemplify the worst tendencies of capitalism.

A shining example is share buybacks. Buybacks — when companies repurchase their own stocks to take them out of the market, thus increasing their value — are a key feature of neoliberal capitalism. Both shareholders and corporate executives (who are often partially compensated in shares) love them.

In the past ten years, buybacks have become even more popular. Shareholders received a record-breaking $1.25 trillion in share buybacks and dividends in 2018, bringing the post-crisis decade total to nearly $8 trillion in handouts to shareholders and corporate executives.

Today more than 90 percent of corporate profits go to share buybacks and dividends. More and more companies are using cash to buy shares rather than invest in jobs or research and development. Alphabet, for example, just announced its first-ever share buyback program; the tech giant will purchase $25 billion of its own shares.

In our financialized economy, where so much wealth rides on fluctuations in the stock market, companies are pressured by institutional investors (including pension funds) to pursue stock repurchases. But most Americans aren’t benefiting — 85 percent of all stocks are in the hands of the top 10 percent.

Lowering the federal funds rate won’t push companies to invest in workers or brick and mortar expansions. Or, at least, in a decade of low interest rates we’ve seen little evidence that it will.

What’s more likely is that it will encourage more share buybacks, fortifying the trend of creating wealth through manipulating stock prices. In 2017, a third of share buybacks were purchased with debt.

A lower benchmark rate also invigorates the vultures. Private equity firms thrive in a low interest rate environment like the one we have now, and it seems, will have for a long time to come. PE firms like KKR and Blackstone operate using a leveraged buyout model, forcing the companies they take over to borrow a boatload of cash to pay for their own acquisition.

If the PE firms’ “divi recaps” or asset fire sales drive the companies they take over into bankruptcy, no problem. America’s two-century-old limited liability model ensures that PE firms are never on the hook for more than their equity contribution. Whether the company survives or dies, PE executives get paid.

Easy credit means PE firms can pile up debt on companies with abandon — the average PE-owned company today has debt levels that are eleven to twelve times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization. And because interest rates are so low, PE investments become an extremely attractive destination for other investors seeking higher returns, perpetuating the leveraged-buyout model.

The unabashed greed displayed by corporate America is not just a result of easy money. It’s also nurtured by a broader ideological climate that privileges the prerogatives of business — that sees the private sector as a site of efficient, rational investment, of innovation and progress. In this climate, cheap credit is pegged as a tool to broaden and deepen the maneuverability, impact, and scope of private corporations.

This is the story we’ve been told for a decade anyway. The reality is far different. In addition to the colossal waste of share buybacks and the wanton destructiveness of PE firms, the last ten years of expansion have seen the privileging of firms that fail even on capitalism’s own terms.

Consider the ride-sharing sector. Uber lost $3 billion last year. Lyft lost a billion. Yet these companies, along with dozens of other loss-making “unicorns,” are Wall Street darlings. Their sky-high valuations rest on the promise they hold, the stories they tell about a future where AI, platforms, and self-driving cars solve everything.

In a low interest rate environment, it doesn’t matter if these companies make a profit. They can simply borrow money to bolster their cash flow, dumping billions into ventures of dubious value.

Instead of investing in modern, sustainable public transportation — something both rural and urban areas desperately need — capital is allocated to retrograde projects that increase fossil-fuel use and foster consumption behaviors antithetical to the needs of society. We don’t need self-driving cars — we need green subways, buses, and trains.

Some policymakers are challenging the new normal.

Elizabeth Warren recently introduced draft legislation called the “Stop Wall Street Looting Act” — a radical proposal that would effectively destroy the leveraged buyback model. Warren calls for an end to the limited liability rights of private equity firms. Her bill’s provisions would make PE firms responsible for the debt they pile onto their portfolio companies. If they drive a company into bankruptcy, the PE firm would be responsible for the acquired company’s debt, and by extension, for paying its creditors — including workers and retirees — what they’re owed.

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, is tackling the issue of share buybacks. Along with Chuck Schumer, he recently proposed legislation to prohibit companies from repurchasing their own shares until they’ve demonstrated that they are looking out for other stakeholders first. Corporations who want to buy back shares would have to demonstrate that they pay a living wage to all their employees (including paid sick leave) and that they provide health and pension benefits.

The likelihood of these bills passing is nil given the makeup of Congress. Nonetheless, they signal a shifting common sense. They are fueled by a growing realization that the expansion that the Fed is so desperate to sustain is really just a decade of expanded gains for corporations and elites.

The new normal of low interest rates is designed to sooth the palpitations of capitalists, not to improve the lives of working people. Not only do firms funnel cheap credit into speculation rather than new jobs and investment, but also, a lower federal funds rate doesn’t mean cheap credit for everyone. Students can’t borrow loans for school at the federal funds rate. A low benchmark rate doesn’t help the people who are desperate enough to take out payday loans, or the families who rely on credit cards to buy groceries and gas.

The contradictions of a financialized capitalism are mounting, yet most elites and policymakers remain fixated on the balm of monetary policy. It’s time to try something else. If the post-crisis decade has demonstrated anything, it’s that monetary policy won’t bend corporate prerogatives to the needs of working people.



from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/2ZuNDzu
via IFTTT
August 04, 2019 at 08:49PM

Goldman Sachs no longer expects US-China trade deal before 2020 election - CNBC

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to journalists while departing the White House August 01, 2019 in Washington, DC. Trump is traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, for a campaign rally.

Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Goldman Sachs no longer believes the world's two largest economies will be able to resolve their long-running trade dispute before the U.S. presidential election next year.

It comes shortly after the U.S. officially designated China as a "currency manipulator, " amid rapidly intensifying tensions between the two economic giants.

On Monday, the U.S. Treasury accused Beijing of deliberately influencing the exchange rate between the yuan and the U.S. dollar to gain an "unfair competitive advantage in international trade."

The announcement followed a sharp drop in the yuan against the dollar, with the Chinese currency breaching the 7-per-dollar level for the first time since 2008.

Late last week, China promised to fight back after President Donald Trump vowed to impose 10% tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs, led by Chief Economist Jan Hatzius, said in a research note published late Monday that they had anticipated this move.

"News since President Trump's tariff announcement last Thursday indicates that U.S. and Chinese policymakers are taking a harder line, and we no longer expect a trade deal before the 2020 election."

'A trade deal now looks far off'

In targeting the roughly $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that had not already been targeted by American levies, the U.S. president overruled the adamant objections of nearly his entire trade team, according to a report published by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The U.S. is set to impose the charges against Beijing from September 1.

"While we had previously assumed that President Trump would see making a deal as more advantageous to his 2020 re-election prospects, we are now less confident that this is his view," analysts at Goldman Sachs said.

The investment bank added China's decision to suspend purchases of U.S. agricultural goods and its decision to allow the yuan to breach the psychologically-important level of 7-per-dollar "added up to a swift and meaningful response" to Trump's latest tariff threat.

Citing reports that Chinese policymakers are increasingly inclined not to make major concessions and instead are prepared to wait until after the 2020 U.S. presidential election to resolve the dispute if necessary, Goldman said "a trade deal now looks far off."

Since the trade war started last year, Washington has imposed 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of U.S. imports from China. Beijing retaliated by slapping elevated levies on billions of dollars of American products that it buys.

In recent months, however, tensions between the two countries have extended beyond trade and into areas such as technology and security. In particular, the U.S. placed Huawei on a blacklist which made it more difficult for the Chinese tech giant to do business with American companies.

— CNBC's Yen Nee Lee contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/trade-war-goldman-sachs-does-not-expect-us-china-deal-before-2020-election.html

2019-08-06 08:45:22Z
CAIiEGAZ33WuYSbevhlT2unsXO4qGQgEKhAIACoHCAow2Nb3CjDivdcCMIrzngY

Goldman Sachs no longer expects US-China trade deal before 2020 election - CNBC

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to journalists while departing the White House August 01, 2019 in Washington, DC. Trump is traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, for a campaign rally.

Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Goldman Sachs no longer believes the world's two largest economies will be able to resolve their long-running trade dispute before the U.S. presidential election next year.

It comes shortly after the U.S. officially designated China as a "currency manipulator, " amid rapidly intensifying tensions between the two economic giants.

On Monday, the U.S. Treasury accused Beijing of deliberately influencing the exchange rate between the yuan and the U.S. dollar to gain an "unfair competitive advantage in international trade."

The announcement followed a sharp drop in the yuan against the dollar, with the Chinese currency breaching the 7-per-dollar level for the first time since 2008.

Late last week, China promised to fight back after President Donald Trump vowed to impose 10% tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs, led by Chief Economist Jan Hatzius, said in a research note published late Monday that they had anticipated this move.

"News since President Trump's tariff announcement last Thursday indicates that U.S. and Chinese policymakers are taking a harder line, and we no longer expect a trade deal before the 2020 election."

'A trade deal now looks far off'

In targeting the roughly $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that had not already been targeted by American levies, the U.S. president overruled the adamant objections of nearly his entire trade team, according to a report published by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The U.S. is set to impose the charges against Beijing from September 1.

"While we had previously assumed that President Trump would see making a deal as more advantageous to his 2020 re-election prospects, we are now less confident that this is his view," analysts at Goldman Sachs said.

The investment bank added China's decision to suspend purchases of U.S. agricultural goods and its decision to allow the yuan to breach the psychologically-important level of 7-per-dollar "added up to a swift and meaningful response" to Trump's latest tariff threat.

Citing reports that Chinese policymakers are increasingly inclined not to make major concessions and instead are prepared to wait until after the 2020 U.S. presidential election to resolve the dispute if necessary, Goldman said "a trade deal now looks far off."

Since the trade war started last year, Washington has imposed 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of U.S. imports from China. Beijing retaliated by slapping elevated levies on billions of dollars of American products that it buys.

In recent months, however, tensions between the two countries have extended beyond trade and into areas such as technology and security. In particular, the U.S. placed Huawei on a blacklist which made it more difficult for the Chinese tech giant to do business with American companies.

— CNBC's Yen Nee Lee contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/trade-war-goldman-sachs-does-not-expect-us-china-deal-before-2020-election.html

2019-08-06 08:39:18Z
CAIiEGAZ33WuYSbevhlT2unsXO4qGQgEKhAIACoHCAow2Nb3CjDivdcCMIrzngY

The US and China are dragging currencies into their escalating fight. Here's what you need to know - CNBC

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping during the G-20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

For the first time in 25 years, the U.S. Treasury Department on Monday named China a currency manipulator — a move that looks set to worsen a trade war that has already dragged on the global economy.

That action from President Donald Trump's administration came after China allowed its currency, the yuan, to weaken to more than 7 per U.S. dollar — a level many analysts and investors considered important. Trump, for his part, called the slide in the Chinese yuan "a major violation."

Some analysts said Beijing's move to weaken the yuan was clearly made in retaliation to Trump's latest tariff threat. The president announced last week that Washington will slap 10% tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods starting Sept. 1. If that goes ahead, the U.S. will have imposed elevated tariffs on all goods it buys from China.

The U.S. and China — the world's top two economies — have over the past year been locked in a trade war that has spilled into areas such as technology and now currency. Trump's tariff threat last week came just after both sides resumed negotiations for a deal, which some experts said have become increasingly difficult to conclude.

Beijing, for its part, looks like it has "given up on the trade negotiation," David Cui, head of China equity strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told CNBC's "Street Signs" on Tuesday.

He explained that Beijing letting the Chinese yuan slide past 7 is "a big event" which adds to signs of "a protracted conflict" between the two countries.

On Monday, the Chinese central bank officially denied that it's decision to allow the yuan to weaken is meant as a response to American tariffs.

The number 7

China has maintained a tighter grip on the yuan compared to the way other major economies manage their currencies.

In recent years, Chinese authorities have loosened some controls on the currency, although the central bank — the People's Bank of China — only allows the yuan to move 2% in either direction of a "midpoint" that it decides daily. The PBOC is also known for its willingness to intervene in the foreign exchange market to buy or sell yuan to keep it within a desired range.

The Chinese authorities have not let the currency weaken past the 7 yuan-per-dollar threshold since the global financial crisis. In fact, they have in previous years — such as in 2016 — burned a substantial portion of their foreign reserves to defend the currency from breaching that mark.

It's for that reason that currency experts have long viewed that mark as a psychological important level. Breaching 7 yuan per dollar is a crucial development partly because investors don't know how much more weakness the PBOC is willing to tolerate, so they could sell their investments in China to curb losses — and thereby trigger significant capital outflows from the country.

One day after the Chinese yuan went past that important mark, the PBOC on Tuesday set a midpoint that would allow the currency to weaken to 7.1 against the U.S. dollar.

'Currency manipulator'

The U.S. has for years accused Beijing of artificially keeping the yuan weak in order to make Chinese exports cheaper. The administration of President Bill Clinton named China a "currency manipulator" in 1994.

But China has avoided that label ever since, although it had consistently featured in the "watch list" of the U.S. Treasury's semi-annual review of currency practices by America's trading partners. The watch list features countries that have been deemed to warrant close monitoring because they may be manipulating their respective currencies.

In the latest American review in May, China met only one of the three currency manipulation criteria under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015: Its "extremely large, persistent, and growing" bilateral goods trade surplus with the U.S.

But the U.S. on Monday slapped the label on China under an older law — the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. That offers "greater subjectivity" in naming a country a currency manipulator, said Khoon Goh, head of Asia research at Australian bank ANZ.

Under the 1988 act, the U.S. will have to negotiate with China or take its case to the International Monetary Fund. Potential penalties by the U.S. include:

  • Banning the Overseas Private Investment Corporation — an American government agency that invests in developing countries — from financing China.
  • Excluding China from U.S. government procurement contracts.

China is not a major recipient of government contracts or OPIC financing, so the currency manipulator label is mostly symbolic without "major consequences on its own," Goldman Sachs analysts said in a Tuesday report.

Trade war escalation

Still, the move by the U.S. Treasury marked further escalation in tensions between Washington and Beijing, according to analysts from Citi Research.

The analysts wrote in a Tuesday note they expect the U.S. to raise the tariff rate on the just-announced $300 billion tranche from 10% to 25% "as soon as next month." That's on top of the 25% tariffs already on $250 billion of U.S. imports from China — to which Beijing had retaliated with elevated levies on billions of American products that it buys.

China imports a smaller amount of goods from the U.S. compared to what it exports, so the Asian country has limited products on which it can slap additional tariffs. Some experts have suggested that China could dump its massive holdings of U.S. Treasurys, but such a move could harm Beijing too.

"The upshot is that China has few good options with which to directly hit back at the US. As such, policymakers are likely to focus on broader measures to offset the drag from tariffs," Julian Evans-Pritchard, senior China economist at consultancy Capital Economics, wrote in a Monday note.

Allowing the yuan to depreciate is one such measure. A weaker yuan makes Chinese goods relatively cheaper to buyers outside the country, so that could offset the additional levies that American importers must pay as a result of Trump's tariffs. Such a move also makes the U.S. dollar stronger in relative terms — which the American president has said he dislikes.

—Reuters contributed to this report.

Correction: The story has been updated to reflect the correct time frame since the U.S. named China a currency manipulator. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/us-china-trade-war-currency-manipulator-tag-after-yuan-passes-7-level.html

2019-08-06 07:42:31Z
52780345840537