Saturday, January 21, 2017

DEUTSCHE BANK: The risk of a full-blown trade war between the US and China is rising

DEUTSCHE BANK: The risk of a full-blown trade war between the US and China is rising

Follow Business Insider:
Container ship container boxesAP Photo/New Zealand Herald, Alan Gibson
LONDON – The risk of a serious trade war between the world's two largest economies has sharply increased, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank
And it may be down to a product known as distillers' dried grains, an ingredient in animal feed.
Last week China increased anti-dumping tariffs on US imports of the grains from 33.8% to as much as 53.7%.
The country also hiked anti-subsidy penalties from 10% to as much as 12%, according to a Reuters report.
A Chinese court said the domestic grain industry had "suffered substantial harm" due to subsidized imports from America.
While distillers' dried grains don't tend to grab headlines, it's bad news for US producers. In 2015 China imported $2 billion of the grains, which are a profitable by-product of the US corn-ethanol industry.
"Given China accounts for over 50% of US DDGs exports, the newly announced actions will likely be a hard hit on the corn-ethanol industry in the US," Deutsche Bank analysts Zwiwei Zhang and Li Zeng said in a note to clients.
And, with tensions rising between China and the US following remarks from the incoming Donald Trump administration on trade, Taiwan and the South China Sea, the spat could quickly escalate and hit other American exports.
"The other potential retaliation targets by China include: aircraft industry, seeds and fruits, pulp, wood products, leather products, and cotton," the analysts said.
"Is this step by China a prelude to a full-fledged US-China trade war? We still view large-scale US-China trade war as a risk scenario. Nonetheless, there are indications that the chance of such risk materializing is on the rise," said Deutsche Bank.
Here's the chart of how those other trade sectors stack up between the two countries:
trade1Deutsche Bank

The first direct freight train from China to the UK has arrived in London

The first direct freight train from China to the UK has arrived in London

Follow Business Insider:
freight train chinaThe first freight train service from China to the UK arrives at DB Cargo's rail freight terminal in Barking.Stefan Rousseau/PA Images
The first ever direct freight train from China to the UK has arrived to a fanfare in Barking, east London.
The train, carrying millions of pounds worth of socks, cloth, bags, and household goods, set off 18 days ago from the manufacturing city of Yiwu.
It has travelled more than 7,500 miles across seven countries and through the Channel Tunnel to reach London – where a crowd of politicians, journalists and excited residents greeted it.
There were also people dressed up as two colourful Chinese dragons entertaining the crowds before the train arrived just after 1pm.
Leader of Barking and Dagenham Council, Cllr Darren Rodwell said: “This is great news for the borough and London.
“It’s a sign of Barking and Dagenham being at the epicentre of the capital’s eastward shift. You could say it’s the rising east meets the far East.”
The new weekly service is thought to be quicker than a container ship and half the price of air freight. 
London is the 15th European city to be served by freight trains from China. 
The 34-carriage train reportedly contains £4 million of commodities coming directly from the factory floors of Yiwu, where over 60 per cent of the world’s Christmas goods are made or sold. 
The eastern city is the source of countless items in most British homes.
Differing rail gauges in different countries means no single train can travel the whole route and the containers have to be reloaded at various stages. 
The Chinese locomotive is named after a famous quote from the communist revolutionary leader Mao Zedong: “The east wind will prevail over the west wind.”
Read the original article on Evening Standard. Copyright 2017. Follow Evening Standard on Twitter.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Trump's Treasury pick just doubled down on a budget trick that would steal from an entire generation

Trump's Treasury pick just doubled down on a budget trick that would steal from an entire generation

RTSWAPCReuters/Joshua Roberts
On Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for Treasury secretary took the hot seat in Washington, and during his confirmation testimony, he endorsed a classic budget trick that could steal from an entire generation.
"We do believe in dynamic scoring and with the appropriate growth," said Steve Mnuchin, the nominee for Treasury secretary. "I think we want to make sure that tax reform doesn't increase the deficit."
Those two sentences actually contradict each other because "dynamic scoring" is just a fancy way of justifying massive increases in the national debt — increases that would result from Trump's plan to spend $500 billion on infrastructure development while carrying out dramatic tax cuts.
According to an analysis from the Tax Policy Center, that tax plan would exacerbate income inequality and deprive the government of much-needed cash for operations:
"His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts."
Naturally, this sounds awful. But considering Congress is about to be controlled by fiscally conservative Republicans, one would think Trump is about to face some opposition.
But he won't. And that's because there is a way to make Washington's budgets sound more sensible than they are. That's where dynamic scoring, beloved by deficit hawks like House Speaker Paul Ryan, comes in.
It basically allows the government to estimate the future benefit of tax cuts to the economy after making a load of assumptions — including about what a future government might do in response to falling tax revenue.
Those imagined benefits are added to future budget projections, and boom, you've got a healthy-looking balance sheet for America.
The Republican-controlled House adopted dynamic scoring last year, but it's still up for debate in the Senate, where opponents like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have said it politicizes the budgeting process.
That's in part because there's no exact way to dynamically score anything. There's no set process, and there are no set rules on the assumptions made. So when Republican lawmakers put pressure on the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic scoring, it was unclear to Tom Barthold, the economist who heads the group, exactly what that meant.
What we do know, though, is that both the Reagan and Bush administrations argued that tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, would pay for themselves. In both instances, this got us in trouble.
More from the Tax Policy Center (emphasis ours):
"If 'dynamic scoring' means that Congress can use any macroeconomic model it wants, then we are thrown back 100 or 150 years in terms of the rigor of our thinking. There are too many models with a very wide variety of assumptions and implications. It is not exactly true that you can find a model that will support any claims, but this is sometimes uncomfortably close to the truth."
So all Trump has to do is zoom in on the model that shows that cutting taxes for the rich while spending tons of money will be great for the economy, and this plan is a go.
How hard do you think it will be to find that in Washington?
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

'One of the most radical speeches ever given by a president': Jake Tapper reacts to Trump's inauguration speech

'One of the most radical speeches ever given by a president': Jake Tapper reacts to Trump's inauguration speech

CNN anchor Jake Tapper appeared taken aback by President Donald Trump's inauguration speech, citing that Trump's decision to decry the "Washington establishment" in front of the nation's top political leaders.
Noting that it was "very consistent with the Trump brand," Tapper dubbed the speech as "one of the most radical speeches ever given by a president."
"I think it's fair to say this is one of the most radical inaugural speeches we've ever heard. It was purely populist, it talked about the forgotten people, it attacked Washington while standing inside the center of Washington. He's surrounded by Washington insiders," Tapper said.
He continued: "There's nothing really particularly conservative about this Republican president's speech, it was pure populism. And in fact, it looked at the United States and the role of the United States in a way that departs greatly from what we've heard from his predecessors on the stage."

Watch the clip:




.@jaketapper: "I think it's fair to say, this is one of the most radical inaugural speeches we've ever heard"
At least one other fellow news anchor agreed with Tapper.

Jake Tapper said Donald Trump's speech was the most radical inaugural address he's ever heard. I agree. It was unlike any that preceded it.
Throughout his speech, Trump bashed previous politicians, saying that the "forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."
"For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have borne the costs," Trump said. "That all changes, starting right here and right now."

Tesla is taking a huge risk with the Model 3 — and it may not pay off

Tesla is taking a huge risk with the Model 3 — and it may not pay off

Follow Business Insider:
Elon MuskElon Musk hard at work.OnInnovation/Flickr
The biggest test that Tesla and CEO Elon Musk will face in 2017 is the successful launch of the Model 3 mass-market vehicle, expected to be had for around $30,000 once tax breaks and credits are applied.
The Model 3 will deliver more than 200 miles of range on a single charge and benefit, for a fee, from Tesla extensive Supercharger network, which will enable long-distance drives.
After selling $100,000 luxury sedans for several years and adding a luxury SUV in the Model X in 2015, the company is finally unleashing a Tesla for the rest of us.
Nearly 400,000 per-orders for the Model 3, at $1,000 apiece, certainly prove that the rest of us is a sizable group. That's an unprecedented level of advance demand for an automobile, of any sort.
But there's a major problem looming for the Model 3 and Tesla, one that hasn't yet been thoroughly discussed.
Will Tesla be able to afford to build this car?

A structural change in the market

We're in the early stages of what could be a major structural shift in the auto industry, away from passenger cars and into SUVs and pickup trucks. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne already says the change is underway. 
Other industry leaders aren't yet ready to give up on cars, but they're struggling to figure out what to do with small cars: vehicles that are priced in the same ballpark as the forthcoming Model 3. Admittedly, it's much harder to make a decent profit off a small car that sells for around $20,000, so Tesla has some cover by pricing the Model 3 about $10,000 higher. 
But it's still hard to bring in a substantial margin on a $35,000 car. The best profits are in the vehicles that Tesla is already selling: luxury four-doors and SUVs. In fact, Tesla can achieve an impressive gross margin on these vehicles already, between 20%-30%.
tesla model 3The Model 3.YouTube/Motor Trend
The assumption is that Tesla's margins will be consistent and that due to things like lower battery costs thanks to mass-production at the company's massive Nevada Gigafactory, the Model 3 will be a big moneymaker. 
However, Tesla is going in exactly the opposite direction as most other car companies when it comes to the Model 3. A compact SUV, sometimes called the Model Y, is planned, but the first Model 3's will be modest four-door. And essentially no automakers doing business in the US are trying to disrupt the low end of the market, as the Japanese and later the South Koreans did when they first arrived.

Benefit of the doubt

From Hyundai to General Motors, the game is to sell more high-margin luxury and near-luxury vehicles, as well as pickups and big SUVs. The smaller, cheaper vehicles serve other purposes: they get customers into the brand earlier, they act as a hedge against rising gas prices, and they provide compliance with more stringent government fuel-economy and emissions standards.
Until Donald Trump was elected President and started making it difficult for automakers to move their small-car production to less expensive labor markets outside the US, the emerging consensus in the auto industry was that it made sense to relocate that manufacturing to Mexico, in order to maintain even narrow profit margins.
Building compact mass-market cars in the US, when you could be assembling SUVs instead, didn't make sense.
Donald TrumpDonald Trump has taken shots at outsourcing of auto production.AP
Tesla is confident it can buck this trend, in some measure by rethinking how cars are manufactured. In response to a request for some additional insight into this challenge, Tesla pointed me to recent comments from CFO Jason Wheeler, made on Tesla's most recent earnings call.
"On a go-forward basis, the way we're thinking about margins is we certainly see opportunities for continued cost downs, both on the engineering front, also on the commercial front as well," he said. "We've got a supplier base that is very excited about the Model 3 and is giving us the ability to leverage that for cost downs. Also, we continue manufacturing efficiencies ... labor hours per car is trending quite positively right now and we're laser-focused on continued improvement in that key metric."
I'm inclined to cautiously give Tesla the benefit of the doubt here — its gross margins on the cars it already sells are actually quite impressive — but I also don't want to pretend that there's some miracle innovation that will allow Tesla to defy the economics of automaking.

Doubling down on an earlier mistake?

Tesla Model SWas the Model S the wrong car to launch?Spencer Platt/Getty Images
And it should be noted that Tesla is kind of making the same mistake with the Model 3 that it made with the Model S — bringing to market a car rather than an SUV. You could forgive Elon Musk and his team for not seeing the SUV revival coming back in the early 2010s, when the Model S arrived. But that's not the case with the Model 3. And because the Model 3 will be built on a flexible platform that could support everything from an SUV to a pickup truck to a sports car, the decision to launch with a sedan is questionable (even if almost 400,000 potential buyers don't think so).
Mixed in with my skepticism, of course, must be the awareness that Tesla is special. Expecting the company to be beholden to the same rules as everyone else is pointless, because Tesla has created an entirely new market that it has almost entirely to itself. Musk's team built over 80,ooo all-electric cars in 2016 and sold them all.  
But possessing what is a small monopoly on EVs can't really protect the company from having to construct hundreds of thousands of mass-market vehicles over the next few years, figuring out as it goes along how to keep up the profit margins. Tesla has crossed the Rubicon: those Model 3's have to get built
If the company makes a much smaller margin on them, or even loses money, it will be doing that at scale. 
Luckily, it will still have the Models S and X to fall back on, with their juicy profits. But it might not be enough. And Musk's vision isn't to be the preferred automaker of the Silicon Valley elite — it's to save the planet by displacing gas-burning cars from the road in major quantities and inspiring other automakers to do likewise.
Tesla can't afford to get this one wrong. And there's every chance it won't. But the risks are substantial.
UPDATE: Tesla pointed out to me that the Model 3 will be firmly priced at $35,000, for the base version of the car, and that whatever incentives of rebates the customer receives will be between him and the federal government or the state. I've adjusted the story to take into account.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

728 X 90

336 x 280

300 X 250

320 X 100

300 X600