Seeking emerging currency bargains, investors take fresh look at Asia
Currencies like South Korea's won, the Indonesian rupiah, and the Indian rupee rank among the most undervalued in emerging markets relative to their historic average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Beyond attractive valuations, fresh economic stimulus in China and signs of progress in U.S.-Asia trade negotiations are adding to the region's allure.
The potential for Asian currencies to strengthen was on full display earlier this month, when a sharp surge in the Taiwanese dollar spread across the region. That helped the cohort catch up with their developed- and emerging-market peers, which had been outperforming following the dollar's decline after U.S. President Donald Trump's early-April tariff announcement.
"On a fundamental basis, it's been cheap for a long time,' said Claudia Calich, head of EM debt at M&G Investment Management, adding that investors including herself had been underinvested in Asia thanks to higher carry opportunities in Latin America. "It's finally started correcting a little, but even then it's still relatively cheap.'
Korea's won, which plummeted last month in response to Trump's barrage of "reciprocal' tariffs, is a prime candidate for further gains, according to Goldman Sachs Group and Barclays.
Goldman strategists — who looked at the extent of undervaluation, possible conversion of dollar assets, and the role of the yuan — for their picks, also expect Malaysia's ringgit and the South African rand to appreciate. Barclays analysts see significant scope for gains in the Singapore and Taiwanese dollars too.
Sentiment toward Asia's depressed currencies has already improved, as concerns about Trump's policies tarnish the appeal of the dollar and trade-deal hopes improve appetite toward EM assets.
A Bloomberg index of Asian currencies has gained around 3% since its low in April. Global funds have been snapping up local currency bonds in Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea this month, data shows. Selling pressure on the greenback has been so strong that Hong Kong's monetary authority was forced to intervene to maintain its peg.
While many market watchers expect a degree of appreciation in Asian currencies, whether the gains will last beyond catch-up moves remains to be seen.
The relative stability of the yuan as a managed currency can be a double-edged sword in that it can reduce volatile swings across Asia but also cap rapid gains. Beijing has signaled that it's not ready to let the yuan strengthen dramatically against the U.S. currency.
The dollar regained some ground last week as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaled the central bank was not in a hurry to adjust interest rates. That's led to many Asian currencies paring some of their earlier gains.
"I don't think we're necessarily in the global growth environment now where Asian currencies are going to meaningfully outperform,' said Grant Webster, co-head of EM sovereign debt and currencies at Ninety One in London.
Still, the dominance of the dollar has been so ingrained in investors' mindset that a dent in that perception has been enough to create wild swings. Investors have no option but to prepare for future episodes like the Taiwanese dollar's epic surge.
When scouting for potential winners, "the focus is on the ones that haven't' gained much yet, said Dominic Schnider, head of global FX and commodities at the chief investment office of UBS Group's wealth management unit. In emerging Asia, "some of these currencies just from a valuation angle do look cheap.'
Stacked bundles of South Korean 50,000 won banknotes ahead of lunar new year holidays at the Bank of Korea headquarters in Seoul on Jan. 14 |
Bloomberg
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 days ago
- The Diplomat
Can India Survive the Trade War?
Trump's tariff onslaught has forced India into a precarious position, and New Delhi is employing three strategies in tandem to get out of it. New Delhi has been blindsided by U.S. President Donald Trump's recent tariff temper tantrums. While Indian policymakers anticipated some trade tensions with the United States during Trump's second term, they hoped that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's strong rapport with Trump, along with the geostrategic importance of the India-U.S. partnership, would spare them from the worst of Washington's protectionist impulses. Indeed, until recently, India-U.S. trade ties seemed to be heading in a positive direction. Trump and Modi agreed to increase bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 during their meeting in February. Earlier this summer, India and the United States seemed on the verge of clinching a trade deal. In a dizzying reversal, on August 7, India found itself with a 25 percent tariff on most products it sells to the U.S., its largest export market. This tariff rate is set to increase by an additional 25 percent on August 27, a punishment for India's purchases of Russian oil and gas. India also faces the looming threats of indirect tariffs, including steep tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors and a 10 percent tariff on goods from countries that are members of the 'anti-American' BRICS organization. Trump's tariff onslaught has forced India into a precarious position, and New Delhi is employing three strategies in tandem to get out of it. First, New Delhi is confronted with the daunting task of securing a deal with Washington, without violating any key redlines that would jeopardize Modi's domestic support. India is also attempting to delicately manage its geoeconomic relationship with China, cooling tensions with Beijing without ignoring preexisting military and economic security concerns. While hedging between the two great powers, India is also seeking to advance its geopolitical ambitions of assuming great power status by diversifying its economy to alternative partners. Managing Trump's Tariff Pressures Faced with a barrage of tariff threats, New Delhi has sought to strike a deal with Washington without compromising its key interests. India has refused to rush into an unfavorable agreement, unlike other major U.S. trading partners. While having drawn a clear redline at exposing its agriculture and dairy sectors to competition from U.S. exports, in the hopes of securing a deal, India has offered a range of limited and strategic concessions, including reducing tariffs on 55 percent of U.S. exports and increasing purchases of American defense and energy products. Thus far, India has refrained from retaliating, aiming to avoid escalation that would jeopardize the prospect of a deal that might ease existing retaliatory tariffs and the impending 25 percent secondary tariff related to India's purchases of Russian oil. Indian officials are reportedly exploring what concessions can be offered at negotiations with the U.S. later this month, including tariff reductions on a limited range of agricultural products, namely cheese and almonds, that would have minimal impacts on domestic producers. While some Indian oil refiners have decreased their purchases of Russian oil, New Delhi has remained adamant that it will continue imports of Russian oil that are legally permissible under the G-7 price cap. As a clear signal of resolve and as part of a broader effort to hedge against the U.S., India has simultaneously moved to bolster its historically strong economic and defense ties with Russia. New Delhi's firm stance reflects domestic political pressures. Modi has touted India as an emerging great power destined to play a key role in the future geopolitical and economic order and he cannot afford to be seen as appeasing Trump's whims. Concessions to the United States that undermine the standing of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with Indian farmers, especially tenuous since the farmer protests that swept the country a few years ago, would be political suicide. Other factors also reduce India's incentive to rush into a deal: the legality of Trump's tariffs is being openly challenged, and India has no guarantee that Trump would not backtrack on any deal that is reached between them. This approach is, however, not without risks. Trump has seemingly run out of patience and has already imposed tariffs on India for its refusal to make a deal once. While negotiations have stalled, Southeast Asian economies, including Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines have all secured lower tariff rates that make them more competitive in the U.S. market than India. India's exports to the U.S. accounted for 2 percent of its GDP last year. Goldman Sachs has suggested that the 25 percent tariff would cut India's economic growth by 0.3 percentage points, with this doubling if the additional secondary tariff goes into effect. Prolonged trade tensions also risk exacerbating the already notable deterioration in India-U.S. relations, fueled not only by economic disputes but also by Trump's budding friendship with Pakistan's military chief and talks of the U.S. purchasing Pakistani oil. Continued strains on India-U.S. relations are certainly in neither New Delhi nor Washington's geostrategic interests, particularly if they remain committed to countering China's political and economic influence. These tensions could potentially jeopardize this year's Quad leaders summit in India, and even the broader future of the Quad partnership. While Modi needs to signal resolve for his domestic political audience, his advisers should also find ways to keep the doors open to negotiations and consider concessions they could feasibly make when U.S. trade negotiators visit India later this month. Can India Count on China? Increased trade with China could help stabilize India's economy amid tariff threats from Washington, especially if it can increase its raw materials exports to China. India has deep-seated security concerns over its border dispute with China. The border dispute extends back as far as the 1960s and has flared up multiple times, particularly in 2020 when clashes in the Galwan Valley resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. The two Asian giants have also competed to position themselves as leaders of the Global South for decades. However, New Delhi is tentatively seeking to thaw ties with Beijing, hoping to avoid having tensions with both great powers at once. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh's visit to Shanghai in June marked the first visit by a senior Indian government official to China since 2020. Modi is also expected to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit at the end of August, marking his first visit to China since 2018. Beijing has also shown willingness to improve bilateral relations, having eased export controls on urea, of which India is the world's largest importer. However, New Delhi's deep-rooted concerns about the challenges Beijing poses to India's economic and national security mean that cooperation will remain limited. Last year, India ran a massive $99.21 billion trade deficit with China, which includes imports in a variety of sectors that are critical to the Indian economy, such as electronics, textiles, and manufacturing. Too much economic cooperation with China could very well result in the Indian market being flooded with Chinese imports. Additionally, China may not seek to cooperate with India given its ambitions to play a greater role in manufacturing and supply chains, in which China currently dominates. Whether China will play ball with India depends on decisions made in Beijing, which are highly strategic and often only made in their own best interest. While working to foster better ties with China, India must carefully consider the broader geopolitical implications of its actions. On one hand, thawing relations with China while keeping its head above water with the U.S. will position India well in the event of a China-U.S. grand bargain. On the other hand, making concessions to China while Beijing maintains an aggressive stance toward their disputed borders would make Modi look weak and invite opposition criticism. India's Diversification Efforts Given the risks associated with further economic integration with the United States and China, might India be able to forge meaningful trade ties with alternative partners? New Delhi embarked on a flurry of trade negotiations between 2021 and 2022 as part of a broader effort to reduce India's economic exposure to China; this campaign lost momentum between 2023 and 2024 as concerns over protecting key domestic industries and contentious issues like rules of origin and data regulation stalled negotiations with several partners. However, the onslaught of U.S. tariffs has re-energized India's interest in diversifying its trade relationships to reduce its vulnerability to economic coercion from both Washington and Beijing. New Delhi has recently finalized a free trade agreement with the U.K. and has accelerated or revived trade negotiations with the EU, New Zealand, Peru, and Oman, while working to deepen existing agreements with Chile and Australia. India has also sought to strengthen ties with other members of the BRICS bloc, agreeing to boost bilateral trade with Brazil and resuming talks with South Africa. However, considering that about 18 percent of India's exports go to the U.S. and about 15 percent of India's imports come from China, such efforts may not significantly reduce dependence on the two great powers. New Delhi has a prime opportunity to capitalize on a moment when many countries are seeking alternatives to both the U.S. and China to attract greater foreign investment and strengthen trade ties with countries that occupy strategic positions in critical supply chains. This, in turn, would bolster India's role in global manufacturing and advance India's economic influence and geopolitical ambitions. The opportunity for India is particularly evident in sectors like pharmaceuticals – where it has long been seen as an alternative manufacturing hub to China – and semiconductors, where the government has launched ambitious domestic initiatives and forged partnerships with South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan to fuel its ambitions to rise as a semiconductor manufacturing power. India's efforts to diversify are not without potential pitfalls. Trade liberalization has proven to be slow and politically contentious within India, and attracting sustained foreign investment will require structural reforms that the government may be unwilling or unable to implement. Major substantive disagreements between India and key partners persist and will remain challenging to resolve. India's ambitions to bolster its role in global manufacturing and trade also face several challenges. Indian exports face stiff competition from China and emerging Southeast Asian economies, which are also diversifying away from the U.S. market. India will struggle to match China's manufacturing scale, and Indian exports may struggle to compete in developed markets – such as the EU and Canada – that already have FTAs with India's Southeast Asian competitors. Trump's recent warnings to Apple CEO Tim Cook against expanding manufacturing operations in India also suggest that he will not respond favorably to any efforts by. U.S. firms to shift manufacturing to India. Conclusion New Delhi's efforts to strategically hedge and diversify are a significant geopolitical and economic gamble. India has little choice but to try to soothe simmering trade tensions with the U.S. without abandoning its redlines, while carefully managing the implications of increased cooperation with China, and expanding its network of trade ties beyond the two great powers. Imminent pressure from Washington and Beijing could render this gamble a failure for New Delhi, resulting in long-term economic turmoil and political grievances that could end Modi's career. However, if successfully implemented, India could find itself in a geopolitical sweet spot, capitalizing on many countries' desires to reduce their exposure to U.S. and Chinese trade policies to garner greater economic and geopolitical clout. India's long history of strategic autonomy may mean that it will find it easier than many others to adapt in an international system that is rapidly dissolving into chaotic transactionalism. Still, it faces many stumbling blocks, including the uncertainty of U.S. economic statecraft, in its efforts to claim great power status in a fracturing world.
NHK
2 days ago
- NHK
India PM Modi expresses defiance against US tariff policy
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to protect his country's farmers in the face of high tariffs announced by the administration of US President Donald Trump. Modi made the pledge in a speech delivered at an Independence Day ceremony in the capital, New Delhi, on Friday. The US announced an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian exports, citing the country's purchase of crude oil and other products from Russia. Modi said that farmers and fishermen are top priorities of his government. In an apparent show of defiance against the tariffs, he said he will stand tall like a wall against any policies that threaten their interests. Modi also touched on the brief military conflict that erupted between India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir in May. He said the Indian army attacked hundreds of kilometers into enemy territory and turned terrorist bases into rubble. He warned Pakistan that if any unforeseen incidents occur in the future, India will decide what kind of punishments to impose.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments — in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" — have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming — without evidence — that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump "certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official said. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. "Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. "If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for an investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot-com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.
