China stocks close at highest level since 2021 on upbeat trade data
The Shanghai Composite index climbed 0.2 per cent to 3,639.67, the highest such close since December 2021. The blue-chip CSI300 index was little changed.
China's exports beat forecasts in July with outbound shipments up 7.2 per cent year on year, customs data showed, as manufacturers made the most of a tariff truce with the US.
Markets largely looked past US President Donald Trump's comments on Wednesday that he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the additional 25 per cent duty imposed on imports of Indian goods over its Russian oil purchases, depending on what happens.
Investors remain focused on an Aug 12 deadline to see if Beijing and Washington will reach a durable tariff agreement.
'The upward trend is still intact,' analysts at Pacific Securities said in a note, adding markets remain optimistic about US-China trade talks while technical indicators continue to show bullish momentum.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Leading onshore gains on Thursday, the rare earth sector rallied 3.2 per cent to near a three-year high. The energy sector added 0.8 per cent and banking index gained 0.4 per cent.
The semiconductor sector gave up initial gains to close largely flat after Trump said the US could levy a 100 per cent tariff on some chip imports.
In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng Index reversed earlier losses with a 0.7 per cent gain, and the tech index added 0.3 per cent.
Local developers jumped 2.5 per cent as New World Development surged as much as 20 per cent on a report of talks that could potentially take it private. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
26 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Could Silicon Valley's Indian CEOs get the Intel treatment?
The Indian diaspora in the US should not look at Intel Corp CEO Tan Lip-Bu's attempts to win over US President Donald Trump with satisfaction or superiority as they might be next, says the writer. According to US President Donald Trump, the rise of Intel CEO Tan Lip-Bu is 'an amazing story'. That is as much payoff as Mr Tan can expect from his emergency meeting with Mr Trump, who last week had demanded he 'resign, immediately' because he was 'highly conflicted'. We do not know if Intel will be able to convince the administration to view its CEO with less disfavour. Some in Washington are concerned about the Malaysian-born Tan's long history supporting and investing in the Chinese tech sector. And questions about how Intel intends to live up to government controls on the export of high-end technology under his leadership are, given this history, not unreasonable.
Business Times
26 minutes ago
- Business Times
Trump's data war risks creating false calm
POLITICAL pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. US President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) boss for what he described as 'rigged' jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he did not agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Trump is hardly the first person to criticise BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it is still not a good look. What is more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the US employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 3 pm Thrive Money, career and life hacks to help young adults stay ahead of the curve. Sign Up Sign Up Trump this week appointed Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni – a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wish list of policies for a second Trump term – to run the BLS. Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the US economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came Tuesday's (Aug 12) attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated that US consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs, but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Trump complaining about a forecast he does not like, but it is still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. Fantasy calm? There is an obvious concern that – intentionally or not – these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter in the long term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley, study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53 per cent of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23 per cent of the time. But economists' forecasts still play a role, accurate or not. So any type of bias, even unintentional, could have a significant impact on market thinking. Of course, if there was a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what is really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. And yet the cost of doing that on a frequent basis would be prohibitive for smaller players, meaning that big information gaps could open up, making markets less efficient overall. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation read-outs. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says. REUTERS
Business Times
26 minutes ago
- Business Times
RBA says decline in competition costs Australians A$3,000 per person
[SYDNEY] A decline in business competition in Australia from the mid-2000s to the Covid-19 pandemic has hurt productivity and household incomes, according to new analysis by the Australia central bank. If competition had not dropped, productivity and therefore output would have been 1 to 3 per cent higher due to resources being better allocated across firms in the economy, Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) Jonathan Hambur and Owen Freestone said in a research paper released on Thursday (Aug 14). This equates, at the upper end, to around A$3,000 (S$2,511) per person, they said. The duo said there's 'substantial evidence' that competition slid over the 'decade or so' leading up to the pandemic. Markets became more concentrated, with dominant firms securing a larger share of sales, becoming more entrenched and harder to displace, while markups — the ratio of price to marginal cost — also rose. 'One way in which weaker competition may have led to lower productivity is by causing a misallocation of resources across firms,' they said. The RBA this week blamed weak productivity for sluggishness in the economy, assessing potential growth at around 2 per cent, down from 3 per cent two decades ago. Australia's centre-left government will convene a three-day roundtable in Canberra next week to generate ideas to boost economic efficiency. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'The past decline in competition has significantly dragged on aggregate productivity over the period,' Hambur and Freestone said. They added that according to the model they used, this shouldn't weigh on future productivity gains. 'However, if competition continues to weaken, or if weaker competition was to weigh on a firm's impetus to improve (which is not captured in the model), there still could be ongoing effects,' they said. The RBA, in its quarterly update of forecasts released on Tuesday, downgraded its productivity growth assumption to 0.7 per cent from 1 per cent. governor Michele Bullock addressed the change in a news conference that day. 'One of the reasons we've come to this position is that our forecasts were such that we were hitting our employment and our inflation forecasts, but we were overestimating our GDP and our consumption forecasts,' she said. 'So there was a tension.' BLOOMBERG
