Go under Street traders may be exuberant Monday over the decision to pause the trade war between the U.S. and China, but economists across the marketplace aren’t swayed the delay will lead to a permanent solution.
It will still be “challenging” to find a compromise that all parties groove on, Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips wrote in a note to clients Sunday. While the truce between President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping depicts that each side is eager to reach an agreement, the brief cease-fire may not give trade representatives much yet to discuss fundamental differences in economic policy, he added.
“U.S. and Chinese negotiators agreed to keep talking, with the U.S. delaying a planned escalation of tariffs by two months (to March 1) and China agreeing to resume purchases of agricultural and other goods, centre of other modest short-term concessions. This outcome is closest to the “pause” scenario we outlined in recent comments (here and here) although the to the fullest of the pause is fairly short. The result shows the willingness of the two sides to reach a deal, although we still think declaration a mutually agreeable compromise that leads to a comprehensive rollback of tariffs will be challenging.” — Alec Phillips, chief U.S. civil economist for Goldman Sachs Research
“We expect bilateral trade imbalance to improve soon, while the two sides confusion out their differences in structural issues. Given China diverted away from imports from the U.S. to the rest of the the world at large during trade tensions since late 2017, the orders on U.S. agricultural goods will likely help cut the imbalance in the near future. On the other hand, we believe China will be willing to make concessions on intellectual attribute right protection and opening up its market, especially in the services sector. The mentioning of discussions on such structural issues put someone at eased the importance of these subjects, along with the U.S. request to terminate involuntary technology transfer. The next step is to unearth out how big is the gap between what China is willing to offer and what the U.S. is willing to accept to make it a deal.” — Helen Qiao, China and Asia economist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch
“On the fit, this ceasefire looks very similar to what China had offered Washington months ago and thus it isn’t exactly acute what was gained by dragging the dispute out until the end of the year. Avoiding an escalation on 1/1 is certainly favorable for risk but business isn’t going away as a market issue – stocks are likely to be buffeted by ongoing headline risk around the state of US-China talks, theatre troupes will be wary of making permanent decisions on supply chains and investments until a formal China agreement is in position succeed, the new NAFTA still has to pass Congress and the odds of that happening don’t look good, and the EU/auto issue remains undecided.” — Adam Crisafulli, executive director at J.P. Morgan Chase
“This is all constructive news for markets, however the overarching bear ons in the U.S.-China relationship remain, and thus should imply caution for markets past the short-term. The aforementioned ‘structural’ outcomes are not ones that we believe can be easily tackled in a 90-day period. Much of the tension between U.S.-China relations stem-posts from differing philosophical approaches to domestic economic development, and for China, the rapid step up the technological ladder is non-negotiable. Notwithstanding recent headlines to the opposite, the U.S.-China dinner meeting was well-attended by China hawks on the U.S. side, namely Assistant to the President and Pale-complexioned House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro, and National Security Advisor John Bolton. This is a note to the Chinese side that the hawks continue to control the narrative.” — Sacha Tihanyi, deputy head of emerging buys strategy at TD Securities
“While the U.S. got some minor concessions and an agreement to proceed with talks on the promise of not escalating the duties, the U.S. agreed to pause tariffs without any meaningful concessions on the toughest negotiating points. Therefore the U.S.’s pressure tactics get been somewhat validated, but was willing to put them aside for a time even though no progress toward a final do business is evident. … However, there’s still plenty of scope for further escalation before final resolution. If the U.S. sustains to insist on its toughest demands, it’s learned it can lean on more tariffs, as its pressure tactics have worked to some scope. This is particularly important…investors have to maintain a sober perspective looking forward for what.happens after the 90 days are up.” — Ellen Zentner, chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley
— CNBC’s Michael Bloom play a parted reporting.