Top US fund managers stay upbeat on China stocks amid AI, biotech boom
Franklin Templeton, Janus Henderson Investors and Wellington Management – US fund managers with US$3.2 trillion of combined assets – are backing Chinese stocks to perform as the nation makes progress in biotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI), top executives said.
Advertisement
DeepSeek's AI breakthrough in January will help companies boost efficiency and power earnings growth in the coming years, they said in a panel discussion at the HSBC Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong on Thursday.
'Absolutely, China stocks are investible now, as in anything,' said Jenny Johnson, president and CEO of Templeton, the California-based firm with US$1.58 trillion of assets. China's success in breaking the limits in AI, robotics, electric vehicles, batteries and other technology has been 'unbelievable', she added.
The Hang Seng Index, Hong Kong's stock benchmark, has rallied by almost 20 per cent since January, after Hangzhou-based start-up DeepSeek launched two powerful and cost- effective large language models and caught many global investors by surprise.
At the same time US tech giants suffered a rout as investors looked for alternatives outside the US markets.
DeepSeek, an AI tool and a rival to ChatGPT, was the most downloaded free application in several countries during its launch in January. Photo: De
Boston-based Wellington Management, which had US$1.2 trillion in assets under management in 2024, believed the DeepSeek breakthrough would support many industries in China and encourage investors to invest in Chinese stocks, its CEO and managing partner Jean Hynes said at the summit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
5 hours ago
- RTHK
HK stocks join in markets' tumble on Israeli strikes
HK stocks join in markets' tumble on Israeli strikes The Hang Seng Index ended trading the day down 142 points, or 0.59 percent to close at 23,892. File photo: RTHK World stock markets tumbled on Friday and oil prices surged as Israel launched a military strike on Iran, sparking a rush into safe havens such as gold, dollar and Swiss franc. In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng Index ended the trading day down 142 points, or 0.59 percent to close at 23,892. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index edged down 0.85 percent to end at 8,655 while the Hang Seng Tech Index dropped 1.72 percent to close at 5,239. Over the border, the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index ended down 0.75 percent at 3,377 while the Shenzhen Component Index closed 1.1 percent lower at 10,122. The ChiNext Index, tracking China's Nasdaq-style board of growth enterprises, lost 1.13 percent to close at 2,043. However, the risk-off sentiment lifted gold and miners' shares, with key performers including Western Region Gold, Shandong Gold Mining and Zhongjin Gold Corp all closing more than two percent higher. In Tokyo, the benchmark Nikkei stock index, the 225-issue Nikkei Stock Average, closed at 37,834, down 338 points, or 0.89 percent. The index plunged by over 600 points at one stage after Israel announced a large-scale strike on Iranian nuclear-related and military facilities. As risk aversion intensified, the yen appreciated to the upper 142 yen range per US dollar, reinforcing selling pressure on stock index futures. The stronger yen, a typical safe-haven currency, contributed to declines across major Japanese equities. Crude oil jumped as much as 14 percent at one point to almost US$79 a barrel, before pulling back to around US$74 – still up more than five percent on the day and set for the biggest one-day jump since 2022. US oil futures rose over US$5 to US$73.14. Gold, a classic safe-haven at times of global uncertainty, rose to US$3,416 per ounce, bringing it close to the record high of US$3,500.05 from April. The rush to safety was matched by a dash out of risk assets. US stock futures fell over 1.5 percent and European shares dropped one percent at the open. (Reuters/Xinhua)
The Standard
8 hours ago
- The Standard
China delays approval of US$35 billion merger between Synopsys and Ansys, FT reports
The headquarters of Synopsys Inc., in Sunnyvale, California, U.S., October 23, 2024. REUTERS/Stephen Nellis/File Photo
Asia Times
8 hours ago
- Asia Times
The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs
Despite dire predictions that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, dominated by real and threatened manipulations of American tariffs and trade practices, US inflation rates and other measures of American economic vigor do not yet give cause for alarm. Indeed, at this writing US-China trade talks seem productive enough so that spokespersons for the European Union say they hope their trade talks take on a similar format. Trump's approach to tariffs has been anything but static—shifting abruptly like a spotlight sweeping across a stage. Yet beneath the political theater lies a calculated strategy with far-reaching implications. While critics assume tariffs invariably raise consumer prices, the reality is more nuanced. Trump's policies appear designed not just for economic leverage but as an extension of his foreign policy vision, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Whether this constitutes strategic brilliance or overreach is debatable, but the mechanics of tariffs—and who ultimately bears their cost—demand closer scrutiny. The impact of a tariff hinges on market dynamics, competition and geopolitical leverage. Consider a US$100 product imported from Country X. If the US imposes a $25 tariff, the seller faces a choice: absorb the cost by cutting their price to $75 (keeping the consumer's total at $100) or pass the expense to buyers and risk losing market share. In competitive markets—like coffee from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico—sellers often absorb tariffs to retain customers. But the calculus shifts when alternatives are scarce. A monopolist, such as OPEC in the oil markets, can dictate prices precisely because competitors lack the capacity to undercut them without facing ruin. This imbalance of power invites broader consequences: nations disadvantaged by such asymmetries may resort to political or even military retaliation, as nearly occurred during the 1970s oil crises. Tariffs also reshape local economies. A Mexican manufacturer facing US tariffs might offset losses by raising prices for domestic consumers or slashing wages. A Canadian auto supplier could lobby for government subsidies to preserve jobs while lowering export prices. Meanwhile, China's state-influenced exporters might reduce prices to maintain access to the elastic US market, repurposing tariff revenue for Chinese domestic projects. Trump's tariffs align with a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which asserts US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Recent maneuvers, such as discouraging Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, signal that the administration views tariffs as both economic tools and geopolitical signals. The message is clear: the US will enforce its sphere of influence, and trade policy is one lever to do so. It is possible to imagine Trump's 'super big picture' plan as a compressed version (spanning three years) of the 150-year evolution of the British Empire, beginning with Mercantilism and culminating in free trade. At first, Trump treats the rest of the world as composed of client states, whose economies are tied tightly together with the 'mother ship', the dependent states all at first directed by force majeure to contribute to the greatness of the Metropolitan Authority. Later on, when the dependencies have grown to maturity, a managed form of free trade emerges, and wealth becomes more widely shared. Ultimately, outcomes will be determined by raw power—economic, military and diplomatic. While Trump's aggressive posture may yield short-term gains, inconsistency risks undermining his objectives. China, the primary challenger to this strategy, may currently perceive his actions as domestically focused rather than existential. But if tariffs become an erratic flicker rather than a steady beam, the US could squander its leverage. In an era where trade is war by other means, Trump's tariffs are less about economics than they are about reasserting American primacy. The question isn't whether the world will adapt—it's who will blink first.
