Trump doesn’t need a trade deal with China, and markets had better factor in greater risk aversion
- The US’ recent escalations towards China are inflammatory – which is no accident. This suggests Washington is in no hurry to resolve the dispute, despite the economic toll it’s taking
While acknowledging the heightened risks, US bank Goldman Sachs reiterated last week that its baseline case remains for a trade deal to be struck and “a staggered reduction of the tariffs in place now”.
Standard Chartered expects a trade deal in the third quarter, and “some progress by the end-June G20 in Osaka” with Dutch bank ING taking a similar stance, believing that “Trump will make compromises to get a deal done”.
In truth, it would seem logical, and perhaps Beijing felt so too, that Trump would feel a trade deal would boost his re-election chances in 2020.
Such a viewpoint, fairly reflective of broader market sentiment, has a distinct influence on investor behaviour. If the ultimate expectation is for a trade deal, which would be good for investor sentiment and risk appetite, then while the immediate signs of elevated tensions dent market confidence, this risk aversion has tended to be somewhat short-lived.
