In the latest instalment of our editorial series, Link, Aviva Investors experts discuss the prospects for financial markets and the world economy in the face of escalating hostilities between the US and China.

US-China relations have been fraught since 2017

US-China relations have been fraught since 2017, when the incoming Trump administration started placing tariffs on Chinese imports, ostensibly in retaliation for a bilateral trade imbalance and alleged theft of American technology.

After months of negotiations, a phase-one trade deal was finally agreed in December 2019. China agreed to address some of Trump’s concerns, pledging to buy more US goods and to protect the intellectual property of American businesses operating within its borders.1

But the US-China relationship has deteriorated further since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. The crisis has precipitated a war of words: Trump has blamed Beijing for the spread of what he calls “the China virus”; China has responded by suggesting COVID-19 originated as an American plot.2

Meanwhile, the US has expressed support for protestors in Hong Kong and threatened to revoke the territory’s autonomous status in response to Beijing’s new security law. Trump has also imposed stricter controls on exports to China’s national tech champion, Huawei.3

With anti-China sentiment on the rise across the US, the situation could worsen before it improves

With a presidential election on the horizon, and anti-China sentiment on the rise across the US,4 the situation could worsen before it improves. So what are the implications of the US-China spat for the global economy and markets? The AIQ editorial team brought together Harriet Ballard (HB), senior multi-asset strategist, and Alistair Way (AW), head of emerging market equities, to discuss the key risks.

AIQ: Are we seeing a fundamental change in the US-China relationship, or is this just a case of heated rhetoric?

HB: If you look at the US-China dispute before the coronavirus, compared with now, the biggest difference is that you can’t call it a trade war anymore. It is much broader than that.

There are various areas of tension. Trump has fallen in the polls; the economy has been hit; and being tough on China is a vote winner in the US. That’s a large part of why this has come to the foreground. Trump is trying to blame China for the virus and wants to have an international investigation into it – that is very contentious.

Then you have China’s relationship with Taiwan. The US supports the Taiwanese government and that is causing tensions. The Hong Kong situation is another axis. There is bipartisan support in Congress for the protestors. Republicans and Democrats are also united in condemnation of China’s violations of human rights, including the mistreatment of the Muslim communities within its borders.

The response to coronavirus has been marked by mistrust and blame

AW: It feels to me like the relationship between the US and China has fundamentally changed. There is far more to it than Trump himself. When the coronavirus hit, you would have hoped the two countries could have done a much better job of working together given this is a global economic and healthcare crisis. But from the start, it has been marked by mistrust and blame.

The channels of diplomacy between the two countries are worse than they have ever been, which makes things harder. If you have experts on the ground who are aligned with each other it creates a natural buffer, even if the leaders are at odds. But that doesn’t seem to be the case now.

There is a particular risk that kneejerk decisions will be made in an election year. There’s bipartisan political approval for getting tough on China and the majority of US voters are anti-China, according to recent opinion polls. It does feel like we are moving into a trickier situation.

AIQ: Could these tensions threaten the phase-one trade deal agreed in January?

HB: Our base case is that the phase-one deal remains in place, but the risk that it collapses has definitely increased because China is not on track to meet the obligations stipulated in that deal, such as buying more agricultural produce from the US.5 The US is showing no leniency, despite the coronavirus crisis. There is a semi-annual review of the phase-one deal in August. If China continues to undershoot its targets, the agreement could come under scrutiny.

AIQ: What are the key investment risks?

AW: There are a lot of moving parts. From a bottom-up equity investment perspective, we’re focusing on the implications of new US restrictions on exports to Huawei;6 threatened controls on US institutions investing directly into Chinese equities;7 and the increased auditing demands on US-listed Chinese companies such as, Alibaba and Baidu.8 The markets have had a chance to discount these hazards, but if things get worse, with a fracturing of the trade deal and tariff escalation across sectors, there is still a lot of downside risk, especially in the equity market.

It’s impossible for the Trump administration to be too “anti-China” without damaging his own country’s interests

An escalation in the trade war is not our base case, because that would inflict further pain on US companies and consumers; a key trade-off that even Trump would have to recognise in an election year. It’s simply impossible for the Trump administration to be too “anti-China” without damaging his own country’s interests, so there is a measure of economic protection against anything too bad happening this year. But there’s still a lot to be concerned about.

Take the Chinese response to the Huawei situation, which is quite different from 2018. There has been less economic retaliation – although some further restrictions on companies such as Apple have been mooted.9 The response has been more about sabre-rattling regarding Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is not just a repeat of 2018: there is a whole different set of variables and a much broader global response to what China is doing, rather than a simple economic war in which investors try to work out the winners and losers.

AIQ: Is there a risk the confrontation might escalate on the economic front? Could the US cancel the $1.1 trillion in debt it owes China, for instance? Could China simply dump its holdings of Treasury bonds?

HB: It is highly unlikely either side would go down this route, even though Trump has occasionally threatened to default on the debt. Cancelling China’s holdings of Treasuries would be a colossal economic shock that would have a huge impact on the US Treasury market and global financial system. That would be hugely counterproductive.

AIQ: Are other countries also changing their stance towards China?

HB: In the last phase of the trade war, other developed markets tried to separate themselves from US-China tensions, condemning counterproductive tariff measures. More recently, however, especially when it comes to the situation in Hong Kong, you are seeing a much bigger international response and support for the tough US stance.

In late May, the US, UK, Canada and Australia issued a joint statement condemning the decision to impose a new national security law, as it was in direct conflict with the UN-registered Sino-British declaration that handed the territory back to China. That kind of joined-up international response was something we didn’t see as part of the previous trade war rhetoric. It could potentially embolden Trump.

AIQ: How could the outcome of the US election change the picture?

HB: If Biden wins, the Democrats would likely go further down the path of multilateral action, seeking international support in the interests of collective leverage. In the long run, that could be economically far more meaningful for China than the bipartisan tariffs that have been imposed so far.

AIQ: How about smaller emerging economies – will they be forced to take sides?

AW: Most countries will be keen not to take sides, given the downside of a bad relationship is always going to outweigh the benefits of stronger allegiances. A country like Taiwan is being forced into a difficult position given the way its companies are integrated into both Chinese and US technology supply chains. Taiwanese chipmaker and Huawei supplier TSMC recently announced a huge investment in the US, perhaps as a way of avoiding sanctions.10

The benefits of being compliant with the US and alienating China are not clear to me

In the shorter term, it is probably easier to go along with the US rhetoric given the unpredictable nature of Trump. But over the longer term, countries and companies need to set that against the huge economic importance of China. Does it make long-term sense to pick sides with the US? For the bulk of the world, the benefits of being compliant with the US and alienating China are not clear to me.

Take Huawei. It has been reported UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now rethinking the use of Huawei in the country’s 5G telecommunications infrastructure, despite the fact the UK has long been aware of potential security risks and had already decided to go ahead with Huawei in the face of US criticism.11 Huawei has far better – and far cheaper – equipment than Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung. It would be difficult to cut China out without significant supply chain and pricing pain.

AIQ: How could the situation in Hong Kong play out? Could foreign investors’ access to mainland markets come under threat if the territory’s autonomous status is revoked?

HB: The US said it no longer sees Hong Kong as an autonomous territory. However, the policy consequences of that declaration are very much in the hands of the president. The historical benefits of being an autonomous territory are not automatically removed. Targeted sanctions against people and entities are the most likely outcome, particularly against companies involved in law enforcement and surveillance within Hong Kong.

If the US completely removed the treaty and provisions Hong Kong gets as an autonomous region, it would be subject to the same tariff rules as China. From an economic point of view, the impact of that is not hugely significant, as there is not much manufacturing in Hong Kong itself. Such a move would be a political signal to China rather than an economic hit to Hong Kong. Trump’s statement is unlikely to bring about any substantive change in the territory’s position as an export hub or, in the near term, a financial access point to mainland markets. That said, over a longer horizon, China’s increased influence in Hong Kong may weaken its attractiveness as a business centre.

AW: Hong Kong has such a special place in terms of access to China. There are a lot of US businesses based in Hong Kong and it would be quite hard to change the status without significantly harming them.

Hong Kong may benefit economically over the longer term from the tensions between the US and China

In fact, the territory may benefit economically over the longer term from the tensions between the US and China if mainland companies are forced to delist from US exchanges and move their primary listing to Hong Kong. A forced delisting of a large swathe of the Chinese equity market away from Nasdaq to Hong Kong would be massively beneficial for trading volumes on the Hong Kong Exchange. It would shift the centre of gravity of emerging market investing much more locally. But given the precarious nature of Hong Kong in the current environment, the picture could quickly change.

AIQ: How can investors ensure their portfolios stay resilient in this uncertain environment?

AW: We are focusing on how to protect clients’ assets given the changing news flow and the focus on technology supply chains. It is a difficult environment, and investors will seek exposure to companies that would be expected to perform well in an environment of deteriorating trade relationships.

Investors also need to monitor the Huawei situation. The targeted sanctions against the company are probably not bad enough to be negative for global markets in aggregate, particularly given Huawei is not a listed company, and the impact is insignificant compared with the wider demand destruction caused by the pandemic. But this feels like the latest development in a constant ratcheting-up of tensions. I am not sure the risks on how this plays out are currently priced into markets.


Want more content like this?

Sign up to receive our AIQ thought leadership content.

Please enable javascript in your browser in order to see this content.

I acknowledge that I qualify as a professional client or institutional/qualified investor. By submitting these details, I confirm that I would like to receive thought leadership email updates from Aviva Investors, in addition to any other email subscription I may have with Aviva Investors. You can unsubscribe or tailor your email preferences at any time.

For more information, please visit our privacy notice.

Related views

Important information


Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. Some data shown are hypothetical or projected and may not come to pass as stated due to changes in market conditions and are not guarantees of future outcomes. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

The information contained herein is for general guidance only. It is the responsibility of any person or persons in possession of this information to inform themselves of, and to observe, all applicable laws and regulations of any relevant jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation to any person in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorised or to any person to whom it would be unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.

In Europe, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK, this document is by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805. Registered Office: 80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4AE. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178. In Switzerland, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Schweiz GmbH.

In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 138 Market Street, #05-01 CapitaGreen, Singapore 048946.

In Australia, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd (AIPPL) for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that AIPPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIPPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIPPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business address: Level 27, 101 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.

The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this material refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom.

Aviva Investors Canada, Inc. (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is based within the North American region of the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. AIC is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission as a commodity trading manager, exempt market dealer, portfolio manager and investment fund manager. AIC is also registered as an exempt market dealer and portfolio manager in each province of Canada and may also be registered as an investment fund manager in certain other applicable provinces.

Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to: Compliance Department, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250, Chicago, IL 60606.