Daunted by geopolitics, trade war, US companies in China report record-low new investment plans
The companies are also challenged by China's slowing economy, where weak domestic demand and overcapacity in local industries are eroding profitability for the Americans.
'Businesses in China are less profitable now than they were years ago, but risks, including reputational risk, regulatory risk, and political risk, are increasing,' said Sean Stein, the president of the US-China Business Council, a Washington-based group that represents American companies doing business in China, including major multinationals.
The survey, conducted between March and May and drawing from 130 member companies, was released Wednesday. It came as the two countries clash over tariffs and non-tariff measures, including export controls on critical products such as rare-earth magnets and advanced computer chips.
Following high-level talks in Geneva and London, US and Chinese officials agreed to pull back from sky-high tariffs and restrictions on exports, but uncertainty persists as the two sides are yet to hammer out a more permanent trade deal.
Kyle Sullivan, vice president of business advisory services at the USCBC, said more than half of the companies in the survey indicated they do not have new investment plans in China 'at all' this year.
"That's a record high,' Sullivan said, noting that it is 'a new development that we have not observed in previous surveys'.
Around 40% of companies reported negative effects from US export control measures, with many experiencing lost sales, severed customer relationships, and reputational damage from being unreliable suppliers, according to the survey.
Citing national security, the US government has banned exports to China of high-tech products, such as the most advanced chips, which could help boost China's military capabilities.
Stein argued that export controls must be very carefully targeted, because businesses from Europe or Japan, or local businesses in China would immediately fill the void left by American companies.
Silicon Valley chipmaker Nvidia won approval from the Trump administration to resume sales to China of its advanced H20 chips used to develop artificial intelligence, its CEO Jensen Huang announced on Monday, though the company's most powerful chips remain under US export control rules.
While 82% of US companies reported profits in 2024, fewer than half are optimistic about the future in China, reflecting concerns over tariffs, deflation, and policy uncertainty, according to the survey.
Also, a record high number of American businesses plan to relocate their business operations outside of China, Sullivan said, as 27% of the members indicated so, up from 19% the year before.
In a departure from past surveys, concerns over China's regulatory environment, including risks of intellectual property misuse and lack of market access, didn't make it to the top five concerns this year. That's likely a first, and not for a good reason, Stein said.
'It is not because things got dramatically better on the Chinese side, but the new challenges, often coming from the US, are now posing as much of a challenge,' Stein said.
Almost all the American companies said they cannot remain globally competitive without their Chinese operations.
A survey from the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in May found that European companies were cutting costs and scaling back investment plans in China as its economy slows and fierce competition drives down prices. SCY SCY
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
21 minutes ago
- Mint
Jane Street working on its defense against stock market manipulation allegations from Sebi, here's how
Jane Street Group LLC is expected to argue that its controversial Indian options trades were a response to outsized demand from retail investors, people familiar with the matter said. The trading giant has been working on its defense against market manipulation allegations from the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The regulator in early July alleged Jane Street had taken large positions that artificially influenced prices in the country's stock and futures markets, moving them in favor of its options bets on multiple days. Jane Street said on Monday it has sought an extension to respond to the interim order. Last week, SEBI lifted Jane Street's temporary trading ban after the firm deposited 48.4 billion rupees ($560 million) in alleged 'unlawful gains' into an escrow account. A 105-page order from SEBI detailing its preliminary findings devoted a long section to Jane Street's trading activity on Jan. 17, 2024, which was the firm's most profitable day over a roughly two-year period that the regulator scrutinized. The New York-based firm is expected to argue it was eager to facilitate options bets from the country's retail investors, knowing it would be largely unhedged, said the people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private information. The firm hedged less in India than in other markets and spread out its hedging activity over multiple hours on that day in January 2024 to reduce its market impact, the people said it is likely to explain. On that morning, the NSE Nifty Bank Index dropped 3.2% at the open and fell further during the day. SEBI alleged that Jane Street aggressively bought the index's constituent stocks in the cash and futures markets to manipulate the gauge's intraday levels, then reversed the trades in the afternoon to profit from a much larger bearish index options position. Jane Street is expected to say that high retail demand for options on that index was a key driver behind its trading in the morning, according to the people familiar with the matter. The firm will likely argue that individual traders bought about $4 billion worth of the gauge's stocks using options in the first half hour of trading, and that Jane Street — which was acting as a market maker — facilitated about $1 billion of that demand. Those numbers are based on net delta positions, which represent the value of cash equities the options positions are equivalent to when taking into account the derivatives' sensitivity to the underlying assets' price moves. SEBI's order said Jane Street's share purchases on that January 2024 morning represented between approximately 16% and 25% of the trading turnover for 10 of the 12 Nifty Bank Index stocks, making the firm by far the single largest net buyer. As Jane Street sold call options and bought puts, it amassed a bearish position that represented 7.3 times the size of its long cash and futures bets, according to the regulator. Jane Street is expected to argue that the high retail options demand created a gap between prices implied by the options and those reflected by the shares, and the firm sought to close it through a standard arbitrage trade, the people familiar said. The retail demand was so large that only 10% of it could have been hedged — partial hedging being a common practice among derivatives market makers internationally, the firm is expected to say. In the afternoon, Jane Street sold the stocks over more than three hours, spreading out its hedging to protect against settlement-price uncertainty as the options were about to expire, also a typical tactic globally, the people said it will argue. SEBI did not respond to a request for comment. Retail traders' enthusiasm for options has helped turn India into the world's biggest market for listed derivatives by contracts traded, with turnover of more than 300 times that of cash equities. Global trading firms have used their capital and technological edge to profit from that large imbalance, but local investors have cumulatively incurred billions of dollars in losses, leading the regulator to crack down on the trading frenzy. Critics of Jane Street say the sheer size of its positions built up over a short time would have given the firm market-moving power, even if the trades were within regulatory limits. Alexander Gerko, the billionaire founder of rival XTX Markets Ltd., has challenged Jane Street to show that its India trading strategy was 'legit' by proving it would work better after scaling it down by a factor of a 100. 'Any 'normal' strategy works worse as it scales up, due to market impact, unless your strategy IS market impact,' he wrote in a LinkedIn post earlier this month. The regulator's interim order presented serious allegations and a 'compelling narrative,' though it is not certain that Jane Street acted inappropriately based on the initial findings, said Abhiraj Arora, a Mumbai-based partner at law firm Saraf and Partners who once worked at SEBI's surveillance and investigations department. Arora, who isn't involved in the case, said too harsh a crackdown and excessive surveillance of market makers could lead to wider bid-ask spreads, poorer trade execution and increased price swings. The Jane Street case ultimately 'serves as a significant test for India's regulatory framework and its capacity to oversee increasingly complex global trading practices,' he said. Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
EU and US Rush to Nail Down Final Details and Lock In Trade Deal
The European Union dodged an imminent trade war with the US this week, but markets and a growing chorus of critics have dispelled early hopes that the deal will bring a sense of stability back to transatlantic relations. The euro dropped the most in over two months against the dollar Monday, plunging more than 1%. That's after the common currency had surged to a near three-year high last week on the prospect of an agreement with the US. The EU over the weekend agreed to accept a 15% tariff on most of its exports, while the bloc's average tariff rate on American goods should drop below 1% once the deal goes into effect. Brussels also said it would purchase $750 billion in American energy products and invest $600 billion more in the US. 'The free trade principles that have underpinned transatlantic prosperity since the end of World War II are being systematically dismantled,' Karin Karlsbro, a Swedish member of the European Parliament's trade committee, said in a statement. 'The risk of European economic and political marginalization grows with each concession made.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who initially cheered the deal as having 'succeeded' in avoiding a trade conflict and enabling the EU to safeguard its interests, seemed to sour on the accord. 'The German economy will suffer significant damage from these tariffs,' he told reporters Monday. 'I'm pretty sure this won't be limited to Germany and Europe. We'll also see the consequences of this trade policy in America.' French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou was also critical, saying on social media: 'It's a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, opts for submission.' The EU and US will seek to clinch a non-legally binding joint statement by Aug. 1 that will expand on some of the elements negotiated over the weekend, according to a senior EU official. Once the statement is finalized, the US will begin lowering its tariffs on specific sectors, in particular for cars and car parts, which currently face a 27.5% levy. The two sides will then start work on a legally binding text, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The content and legal form of this document aren't clear, but it would require the support of at least a qualified majority of EU countries and possibly the European Parliament. The EU official said that reaching a consensus on the legal text could take a long time; many trade accords require years of negotiations. The EU won't start implementing the terms it agreed to — such as lowering tariffs on US products — until after this legal text is approved, according to the official. 'The agreement removes some tail downside risks but is short on details, which will need to be thrashed out over the coming weeks, risking new volatility,' Oliver Rakau — chief Germany economist at Oxford Economics — said in a note. 'Uncertainty is likely to remain elevated.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the US agreed to bilaterally lower tariffs to zero on certain strategic products, including aircraft and component parts, certain generics, semiconductor equipment and certain agricultural products. One potential sticking point in negotiations will be EU metal exports, which currently have a 50% tariff rate. The EU is pushing for a quota on metals that would lower the levies on a certain volume of goods, while anything above that would pay the 50% rate, according to the EU official. 'Uncertainty remains regarding all the details concerning the European steel industry,' said Axel Eggert, director-general of the European Steel Association. Discussions are ongoing on whether some goods, such as wine and spirits, would be exempt from the 15% tariff rate, the EU official said. Another possible issue is the EU's promise to purchase $750 billion of American energy imports over three years, an integral part to securing the deal. Yet it's hard to see how the EU attains such ambitious flows over such a short time frame. Total energy imports from the US accounted for less than $80 billion last year, far short of the promise made by von der Leyen to Trump. Total US energy exports were just over $330 billion in 2024. The EU's pledge to invest an additional $600 billion in the US is just as problematic. The investment is just an aggregate of pledges by companies and not a binding target as the European Commission can't commit to such goal, said the EU official. The uncertainty from the trade war has weighed on EU economic forecasts, with the commission in May cutting its GDP growth expectations for the year to 1.1%. It projected a 1.5% rate in November. Despite the critics, the commission, which handles trade matters for the EU, insists this was the only course of action. 'This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,' Maros Sefcovic, the EU's trade chief, told reporters on Monday. With assistance from Michal Kubala, Arne Delfs and John Ainger. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
How Trump got the upper hand over the EU on tariffs
Soon after he sat down to negotiate Sunday with European officials on a potential tariff agreement at his Scotland golf club, President Trump said he wanted assurances that Europe would follow through on its pledges to increase investment in the U.S. Trump questioned how the U.S. could be sure European companies wouldn't shrug off their plans, which came with a 15% levy on EU imports into the U.S. rather than the 30% Trump had threatened, according to people familiar with the matter. After EU leaders assured him that the investment plans they were talking about were real, Trump responded: 'prove it," according to one of the people. EU officials rattled off the names of European companies they said were already prepared to invest. With a trade deal in place, planned investments of almost $200 billion would grow by even more, they told Trump. At the end of the talks, Trump said the EU would now be investing $600 billion in the U.S. as part of the deal, which also included a plan to buy $750 billion of American energy products from the U.S. over three years. European officials said the $600 billion figure is based on private companies' investment plans. The agreement, widely seen as a victory for Trump, marked the culmination of monthslong talks between America and its largest trading partner and offered the biggest signal yet that nations see America's tariff regime as more permanent than temporary. The pact followed a shift in thinking by the Europeans: EU officials in recent talks sought to contain the damage the duties will inflict on the bloc's companies and economy, rather than try to negotiate the tariffs away outright. Tariffs of 15% are 'certainly a challenge for some," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. 'But we should not forget it keeps [the EU's] access to the American market." Just before Trump and von der Leyen met Sunday to iron out the agreement, Trump aides called European officials to solidify that part of the talks would focus on the EU giving U.S. companies better access to the bloc's markets, according to a person familiar with the matter. The EU's decision to accept Trump's 15% level for tariffs marked a contrast to its initial, more adversarial approach. After Trump imposed in March 25% levies for steel and aluminum, the bloc started preparing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, including American products such as peanut butter and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Some of the products were chosen to try to maximize political pain for Trump, an EU official said when the bloc's list was announced that month. After the U.K. in May got a deal that pegged tariffs to 10%, Trump's global baseline for duties, some European officials were dismissive. 'If the U.K.-U.S. deal is what Europe gets, then the U.S. can expect countermeasures from our side," Benjamin Dousa, Sweden's minister for international development cooperation and foreign trade, said at the time. But European officials eventually came to view 10% as a minimum level. They noticed Trump administration officials talking about the revenue the tariffs were pulling in. 'It was more and more clear that President Trump is dead serious about significantly transforming the landscape of global trade," EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told The Wall Street Journal on Monday, adding, 'the status quo of going back to last year, or before April 2, simply is not possible." As the EU tried to adapt, it relied heavily on Šefčovič to lead political discussions with U.S. officials. Since February, he has traveled to Washington seven times to meet with U.S. trade officials and had more than 100 hours of contact with them over recent months, including frequent phone and video calls. On one occasion about a week before Trump and von der Leyen's meeting in Scotland, Šefčovič said he spent half of a roughly 700-mile road trip to his home country of Slovakia talking with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, with his two golden retrievers panting in the back seat. At one point, 'I said Howard, it's not me," Šefčovič said of the dogs' heavy breathing. When he needed to find documents to help with the discussion, Šefčovič looked for parking lots with a Wi-Fi signal, during what turned out to be a crucial late-stage discussion ahead of the leaders' sit-down in Scotland. A major inflection point in the talks came in May, when Trump threatened on social media to apply a 50% tariff on the bloc. 'Our discussions with them are going nowhere," Trump said at the time. After a phone call with von der Leyen two days later, he said he would hold off on that threat. The bloc shifted its approach. It presented U.S. trade officials with a proposal that included plans to increase purchases of American energy products and an offer to lower tariffs for certain U.S. imports, people familiar with the matter said. Greer said in early June that the EU had provided 'a credible starting point" for talks between the two economies. Then on July 12 Trump published a letter on social media saying he would put 30% tariffs on the bloc in early August. The development was unexpected for European officials who had hoped they were close to a deal. Days after the letter was posted, Šefčovič told Fox News, in comments that foreshadowed the eventual deal, that the EU was prepared to significantly increase purchases of U.S. energy products including oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear fuel, and to spend about $40 billion on artificial intelligence chips. He also said the EU was looking at about $500 billion in EU companies investments in the U.S. over a three-year period. Ahead of the Scotland meeting, Šefčovič sought advice from Japan's chief negotiator to get a better sense of what to expect, people familiar with the matter said. He learned that Japan's final-stage talks with Trump went beyond surface level discussions and delved into the details of the agreement. The Europeans hunkered down in a hotel in Glasgow on Sunday to discuss what kind of messaging would be most effective during the meeting with Trump, a person familiar with their preparations said. They showed up ready to talk specifics: including examples of companies' planned U.S. investments. Write to Kim Mackrael at and Brian Schwartz at
