今天在南华早报看到的一篇文章，各位大拿怎么想？

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

History has a tendency to repeat itself. This is what makes formulating successful investment strategies possible, at least most of the time.

But the expectation that historical patterns will re-emerge can be a trap for those not looking at the whole picture. A rising sense of déjà vu can lull people into a false sense of security, without recognising that this time may be different enough to yield an alternative outcome. Markets may be beginning to follow that pattern when it comes to US-China trade issues.

The prevailing sense of déjà vu arises from a familiar cycle of escalatory rhetoric
, followed by announced progress from negotiations, only to see rumoured deals fall apart and more trade restrictions enacted. Following a seemingly promising de-escalation of tensions in early July, I wrote
the following in the Post:

“Those who aren’t paying close attention may have seen the positive headlines and assumed they could shift their focus to other dynamics [like US Federal Reserve policy] when making investment decisions for the rest of the year, when that is unlikely to work in their favour.

“... We saw almost exactly the same rise in rhetoric, followed by a smiling handshake and the postponement of further restrictions, at the G20 on December 1, only for tensions to rise again when negotiations did not progress fast enough. This pattern could repeat itself.”

Déjà vu is a powerful force in capital markets. When investors feel they have seen this playbook before, they tend to act according to what would have delivered the best returns last time. That’s not necessarily a bad strategy, but it does raise the risk of ignoring new information.


This time around, there is not much new in trade. The US and China each struck a more conciliatory tone in public about their negotiations. The US even talked about “a deal
”. Yet, the phrase “we have reached a deal” was noticeably absent from all Chinese commentary on the talks.

As an outside observer, whether you thought any progress was made depended on which country’s ’ media you paid most attention to. If you read both Chinese and American coverage of the negotiations, you probably ended up with a lot of questions.

It appears China made a conditional promise to increase purchases of American agricultural purchases in exchange for a delay in tariff increases and that issues like industrial subsidies
and intellectual property
remain under discussion. None of this is substantively new information.

The fact the US side referred to this delay, in return for increased purchases and further talks, as a “deal”, instead of “progress”, as officials have in prior rounds, indicates an eagerness on the part of the US administration to begin pointing to concrete wins in its trade campaign.

Language can be its own kind of substance, so this tonal shift did give markets something to chew on. Even so, trade tensions are likely to remain high for the foreseeable future and further tariffs on the remainder of US imports from China, scheduled for December 15
, are still very much a possibility.

This episode highlights, once again, that negotiations are a two-party affair and that a deal requires agreement by all parties. It may be obvious, but it is worth re-emphasising, that the US-China trade issue is not truly resolved until a deal is signed, sealed and delivered.

Even through trade talks seem, by now, to follow a well-tread path of escalation and de-escalation, complacency in expecting the same sort of market reaction to each of these narrative cycles could be dangerous.

While each of the following conditions may produce a sense of déjà vu for investors – central banks aggressively easing policy; a synchronised slowdown in global growth and corporate earnings, and; elevated trade tensions – the combination of all three does not add up to a familiar playbook.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖