skip to global search (press enter).

skip to funds type (press enter).

skip to footer (press enter).

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our site. Cookies are files stored in your browser and are used by most websites to help personalise your web experience. By continuing to use our website without changing the settings, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Find out more here.

Trump’s trade policy: the EMFX impact

In our view, an escalatory trade war could prove beneficial for South American exposures, while Mexico and South East Asia look more vulnerable.

The Trump administration is giving its protectionist, ‘America First’ instincts freer rein. Import tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium were announced on 8 March, following narrower sanctions on solar panels and washing machine parts in January, and the clock is ticking on possible measures under Section 301 of the Trade Expansion Act to counter China’s abuse of intellectual property. America’s trade partners are seeking exemptions and preparing retaliatory measures.

It would be rash to claim perfect foresight into how these trade tensions will play out. Since the US, to the chagrin of nationalists, runs deficits in goods trade with most partners, it can ‘win’ by restricting access to its domestic markets. But even here trade partners can respond smartly by targeting politically sensitive sectors, as the EU might do by restricting access to its market for iconic US brands and agricultural products from Trump-supporting states. The US also typically runs a surplus in services with most partners, and is a net exporter of capital, providing additional scope for retaliation through, for example, restrictions on market access for US financial and professional services companies, or push-back for US foreign direct investment.

The immediate flow consequences of tit-for-tat protectionism can therefore cancel out. We suspect the secondary consequences of concerns over the US policy mix are probably negative for the US dollar. Certainly if an emerging market government introduced protective tariffs that pushed up prices for domestic consumers and undermined competitiveness in dependent industries, we would be inclined to sell its currency. And the US dollar has indeed typically weakened during previous serious trade disputes. In our portfolios, however, rather than positioning outright short the dollar, we prefer to try to identify the contributors and detractors within emerging markets from any escalation of international trade tensions.

Our view is that global trade flows will not be significantly affected overall, and certainly not enough to materially slow global growth, which is an important support for emerging market assets. The US economy is relatively closed, with imports of goods and services accounting for only 11.4% of GDP in 2017, and so trade restrictions on small subsets of those imports are unlikely for us to move the dial in terms of headline growth even in the US itself, let alone in the global economy more broadly. Certain categories of goods are more likely than others to be subject to protective measures, however, and so we aim to identify those countries whose exports, or whose place in global supply chains, put them at risk.

Manufacturing will be the target sector for protection. Figure 1 shows the rough breakdown of US merchandise goods imports, according to UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Machinery and transport equipment accounts for around 40% of all US imports. As well as being the largest category, this is also the category where imports compete most directly with the output of US workers, and therefore is a tempting choice for protectionists looking to shore up political support in the challenged manufacturing heartland of America.


Figure 1: US imports by broad category

Figure 1: US imports by broad category

Source: UNCTAD, 2016


Producers of machinery and electrical equipment therefore seem to be most at risk of seeing their US market access restricted. To gauge where the main vulnerabilities lie, we used statistics on trade flows from the UNCTAD as a standardised data set. We can see from Figure 2 that for a number of countries, such exports account for more than 30% of their total exports to the US. It is striking that those countries are mostly in South East Asia, and unsurprisingly include Mexico, which specialises as a manufacturing hub for the US market in the same global supply chains, validated by geographical proximity and the advantages of the North American Free Trade Area.


Figure 2: Country exports of machinery to the US, as a share of their total exports to the US

Figure 2: Country exports of machinery to the US, as a share of their total exports to the US

Source: UNCTAD, 2016


Commodity exporters should be less exposed. Producers of goods that are not available in the US will be relatively protected from the impact of any trade war. Commodities in particular either have open access, because they are needed as inputs to US manufacturing processes, or already face restrictions because they compete with US producers. Those countries whose exports are dominated by commodities (and therefore have a low share of machinery and similar manufactured goods), are on the right hand side of Figure 2. They are concentrated in South America, but also include South Africa, India and Russia.

As we watch for the measures and counter-measures that could add up to an escalatory trade war, we therefore plan to be mindful of the beneficiaries and those that could be hard hit. There are lots of other drivers of currency moves, including carry, positioning and idiosyncratic trade and investment flows. When looking through the prism of disruption to trade flows to and from the US, however, we expect to prefer exposure to South America and other countries with similar profiles, while steering clear of Mexico and South East Asia.


Download

Download article: Trump’s trade policy: the EMFX impact

Market Insight

Graham Stock

By
Graham Stock
EM Senior Sovereign Strategist
Published 27 March 2018
Download article here.
5 minute read
 

Related articles
 
Trump deals the ace of trades

Trump deals the ace of trades

The departure of free-trade champion Gary Cohn leaves the trade protectionist wing of the White House firmly in power, with uncertain market consequences.

By Mark Dowding, published 9 March 2018 (5 minute read)

The M&A tide: Watch this space

The M&A tide: Watch this space

The rising trend in debt-funded M&A is a classic indicator of cycle maturity and a potential catalyst for rising defaults and higher volatility.

By Justin Jewell, published 26 February 2018 (5 minute read)

Supersized value pocket

Supersized value pocket

China’s onshore bond market is the third largest in the world, behind only the US and Japan. Having been tantalisingly difficult for international buyers to trade historically, new access routes create a supersized value opportunity.

By Brent David, published 14 February 2018 (5 minute read)

 

 

This document is issued in the United Kingdom (UK) by BlueBay Asset Management LLP (BlueBay), which is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and is a member of the National Futures Association (NFA). Past performance is not indicative of future results. All data has been sourced by BlueBay. To the best of BlueBay’s knowledge and belief this document is true and accurate at the date hereof. BlueBay makes no express or implied warranties or representations with respect to the information contained in this document and hereby expressly disclaim all warranties of accuracy, completeness or fitness for a particular purpose. This document is intended for “professional clients” and “eligible counterparties” (as defined by the FCA) only and should not be relied upon by any other category of customer. Except where agreed explicitly in writing, BlueBay does not provide investment or other advice and nothing in this document constitutes any advice, nor should be interpreted as such. No BlueBay Fund will be offered, except pursuant and subject to the offering memorandum and subscription materials (the "Offering Materials"). If there is an inconsistency between this document and the Offering Materials for the BlueBay Fund, the provisions in the Offering Materials shall prevail. You should read the Offering Materials carefully before investing in any BlueBay fund. This document does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase any security or investment product in any jurisdiction and is for information purposes only. No part of this document may be reproduced in any manner without the prior written permission of BlueBay Asset Management LLP. Copyright 2018 © BlueBay, the investment manager, advisor and global distributor of the BlueBay Funds, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada and the BlueBay Funds may be considered to be related and/or connected issuers to Royal Bank of Canada and its other affiliates. ® Registered trademark of Royal Bank of Canada. RBC Global Asset Management is a trademark of Royal Bank of Canada. BlueBay Asset Management LLP, registered office 77 Grosvenor Street, London W1K 3JR, partnership registered in England and Wales number OC370085.

Published March 2018