• Trade related headlines have been overwhelming over the past few months. It is important for investors to separate tariffs that have been enacted from tariffs that are still under discussion.
• The magnitude of tariffs imposed so far by the U.S. and its trading partners is quite small, but their relevance would increase if the situation continued to escalate.
• Making direct and indirect links to an impact on U.S. and global economic growth and inflation is difficult. However, given the increased importance of trade for the global economy, an escalation of trade tensions is a source of downside risk to growth and a source of volatility for capital markets.
• As a result, investors should remain balanced in their asset allocation, and avoid overreaching for yield or return at the current juncture.
The topic of trade has become a fixture of the news cycle, leaving investors wondering where things stand with respect to tariffs and their potential impact on the economy. Free trade matters for growth in both the short and in the long term, as actions that restrict trade could put sand in the wheels of the global expansion by disrupting production, increasing costs for businesses and/or prices for consumers, limiting the positive transmission mechanism between economies, and, ultimately, decreasing productivity. However, the scope of trade restrictions matters too-to start the conversation, it is important to separate the enacted tariffs from those still under discussion.
A little bit of signal and a lot of noise
So far, tariffs have been imposed on imports of lumber, washing machines, solar cells & modules, and steel & aluminum (with exemptions for certain countries) (Table 1). Together, these account for USD 54 billion of U.S. imports, which is equivalent to 2% of all U.S. imports or 0.3% of U.S. GDP (Exhibit 1). In response to these actions, our trading partners have implemented tariffs on USD 22 billion of U.S. exports, or 1% of all U.S. exports. Seeing the implementation of tariffs is without question a bit unsettling, but the numbers are still quite small and should not yet materially alter the trajectory of U.S. growth and inflation.
TABLE 1: WHAT WE KNOW
What we do not yet know, however, is how much further this situation will escalate. Additional tariffs have been discussed (Table 2), but are still yet to be implemented, especially when it comes to imports from China. On July 6th, 25% tariffs are expected to be implemented on USD 32 billion of Chinese imports, with a remaining USD 14 billion still under review. 10% tariffs on an additional USD 200 billion have been proposed, but no clear timeline is available, and there is even less clarity around the additional USD 200 billion which could come after that (which would bring the total to USD 450 billion). In addition, the Department of Commerce is conducting an investigation into whether imports of autos and auto parts threaten national security and should be subject to tariffs. This is all occurring against a backdrop where the future of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) remains uncertain, as discussions with Canada and Mexico are still ongoing.
TABLE 2: WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
A worst case scenario would entail tariffs on imports of USD 450 billion from China and USD 275 billion of autos and auto parts taking effect. Under this scenario, we could see 27% of U.S. imports subject to new tariffs, which is equivalent to 4% of U.S. GDP (Exhibit 1). Determining the direct impact on inflation and growth is a bit tricky, as it involves many assumptions about the extent to which higher prices are passed on to the consumer and how that would affect spending decisions. Trickier still is factoring in potential indirect effects from a decline in confidence and supply chain disruptions.
Potential impacts and lessons from the past
From where we sit, further escalation of the current trade situation is fraught with downside risks. Tariffs deemphasize specialization, restrict global trade, and harm economic progress. In other words, tariffs create losers on all sides. While we are not yet in a trade war, and our base case remains that one will be avoided, the balance of risks has shifted and forced us to entertain what a worst-case scenario might look like.
The growth impact would be more severe for China than the U.S, as the USD 450 billion of Chinese imports which could potentially be taxed account for 3.2% of China’s GDP. On the other hand, the U.S. exported approximately USD 130 billion of goods to China last year, which is about 1% of U.S. GDP. So from a pure growth standpoint, tariffs stand to hurt China more than they would hurt the U.S. That said, there are ways other than tariffs (such as restricting U.S. business operations in China) that the Chinese could strike back.
Importantly, however, China is not the only player in this game, and retaliation in aggregate could potentially offset recent fiscal stimulus, impact business and consumer sentiment, and prove more harmful to economic growth than expected. Furthermore, U.S. inflation could accelerate if the cost of the tariffs is passed entirely to the consumer, which has implications for the trajectory of interest rates and Federal Reserve policy.
Many ask if the past can provide any insight into the current situation; the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930’s seem to be the best point of comparison. Although economists continue to debate whether Smoot-Hawley exacerbated the Great Depression, what is clear is that the application of these tariffs at a trying time for the global economy sparked international outrage and retaliation, and undoubtedly weakened the global economic system.
With trade now accounting for a far larger share of both the U.S. and global economy than it did in the 1930s (Exhibit 2), further escalation could prove to be quite harmful to a global economy that is finally seeing the lingering effects of the financial crisis wear off. While we are not yet at a point where direct comparisons to Smoot-Hawley can be drawn (Exhibit 3), engaging in a full-on trade war could lead the global economy on a fairly unpleasant journey over the coming years. On the other hand, there is a way these tensions can be resolved amicably. When the U.S. imposed tariffs on steel in the early 2000s, politically-targeted tariffs from the EU in response prompted the U.S. to remove those tariffs years earlier than planned. Ultimately, investors need to realize that tariffs will not solve our trade imbalance; the trade deficit equals the private sector deficit plus the government budget deficit, and with the budget deficit set to expand in the coming years, there is clearly more to this situation than meets the eye.
While trade tensions remain as a downside risk to growth and source of volatility for capital markets, we find it too early to change our constructive view of the U.S. and global economy. Tariffs enacted so far have been limited in scope, and as a result, global earnings growth should remain solid, providing support for risk assets to continue moving higher. That said, trade related headlines are unlikely to subside, meaning that this ascent will be bumpy; as a result, investors should remain balanced in their asset allocation, and avoid overreaching for yield or return at the current juncture.
Published by J.P.Morgan Asset Management
Authors: David M. Lebovitz, Global Market Strategist. Gabriela Santos, Global Market Strategist. Hannah Anderson, Global Market Strategist
The Market Insights program provides comprehensive data and commentary on global markets without reference to products. Designed as a tool to help clients understand the markets and support investment decision-making, the program explores the implications of current economic data and changing market conditions.
For the purposes of MiFID II, the JPM Market Insights and Portfolio Insights programmes are marketing communications and are not in scope for any MiFID II / MiFIR requirements specifically related to investment research. Furthermore, the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Market Insights and Portfolio Insights programmes, as non-independent research, have not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research, nor are they subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.
This document is a general communication being provided for informational purposes only. It is educational in nature and not designed to be taken as advice or a recommendation for any specific investment product, strategy, plan feature or other purpose in any jurisdiction, nor is it a commitment from J.P. Morgan Asset Management or any of its subsidiaries to participate in any of the transactions mentioned herein. Any examples used are generic, hypothetical and for illustration purposes only. This material does not contain sufficient information to support an investment decision and it should not be relied upon by you in evaluating the merits of investing in any securities or products. In addition, users should make an independent assessment of the legal, regulatory, tax, credit, and accounting implications and determine, together with their own professional advisers, if any investment mentioned herein is believed to be suitable to their personal goals. Investors should ensure that they obtain all available relevant information before making any investment. Any forecasts, figures, opinions or investment techniques and strategies set out are for information purposes only, based on certain assumptions and current market conditions and are subject to change without prior notice. All information presented herein is considered to be accurate at the time of production, but no warranty of accuracy is given and no liability in respect of any error or omission is accepted. It should be noted that investment involves risks, the value of investments and the income from them may fluctuate in accordance with market conditions and taxation agreements and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Both past performance and yields are not a reliable indicator of current and future results.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management is the brand for the asset management business of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates worldwide. This communication is issued by the following entities: in the United Kingdom by JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Limited, which is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority; in other European jurisdictions by JPMorgan Asset Management (Europe) S.à r.l.; in Hong Kong by JF Asset Management Limited, or JPMorgan Funds (Asia) Limited, or JPMorgan Asset Management Real Assets (Asia) Limited; in Singapore by JPMorgan Asset Management (Singapore) Limited (Co. Reg. No. 197601586K), or JPMorgan Asset Management Real Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Co. Reg. No. 201120355E); in Taiwan by JPMorgan Asset Management (Taiwan) Limited; in Japan by JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Limited which is a member of the Investment Trusts Association, Japan, the Japan Investment Advisers Association, Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association and the Japan Securities Dealers Association and is regulated by the Financial Services Agency (registration number “Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Firm) No. 330”); in Korea by JPMorgan Asset Management (Korea) Company Limited; in Australia to wholesale clients only as defined in section 761A and 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by JPMorgan Asset Management (Australia) Limited (ABN 55143832080) (AFSL 376919); in Brazil by Banco J.P. Morgan S.A.; in Canada for institutional clients’ use only by JPMorgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc., and in the United States by JPMorgan Distribution Services Inc. and J.P. Morgan Institutional Investments, Inc., both members of FINRA/SIPC.; and J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.
In APAC, distribution is for Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore. For all other countries in APAC, to intended recipients only.
Copyright 2018 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved.MI-MB_Tradetensions0903c02a82259d80