Trump trade war pushes firms to consider stockpiling; analysts call it ‘short-term opportunistic' move
PARIS, April 27 — Stockpiling is the reflex response by firms to the imposition of tariffs, but with the rapidly-changing position of the Trump administration, companies are finding that it isn't so straightforward this time around.
Whether it's the luxury, electronics or pharmaceutical sectors, US President Donald Trump's unpredictability complicates the calculations of firms.
Some companies didn't wait for Trump's April 2 announcement of massive 'reciprocal' trade tariffs: they had already begun shipping more of their goods to the United States.
In the end, Trump backed down quickly on the 'reciprocal' tariffs, pausing them for 90 days except for China.
That still left the global 10 per cent tariff in place, as well as the 25 per cent tariffs on European steel, aluminium and cars.
French cosmetics firm Clarins didn't hesitate and stepped up shipments to the United States at the beginning of the year.
'We've built up three months of stocks, which represents US$2 million (RM8.7 million) in goods,' said Lionel Uzan, the head of Clarins's US operations.
With all of its products made in France, Clarins had few other options to mitigate the tariffs.
Discreet stockpiling
Even if they don't all acknowledge it so openly, firms in many different sectors are stockpiling their products in the United States.
In March, exports of Swiss watches to the United States jumped nearly 14 per cent compared to the same month last year.
More striking is Ireland, which plays host to a number of international pharmaceutical firms.
Its exports to the United States jumped 210 per cent in February to nearly €13 billion (RM64.7 billion), with 90 per cent of those being pharmaceutical products and chemical ingredients.
Fermob, a French manufacturer of metal garden furniture that sells around 10 per cent of its products in the United States, said it began planning for US tariffs once the result of the presidential election became known in November.
It stepped up production in January and February.
'We've sent around 30 per cent of our extra stock to the United States,' said the company's chief executive, Baptiste Reybier.
That extra production has benefitted transportation firms.
Lufthansa Cargo said it has seen in recent weeks 'an increase in demand for shipments to the United States'.
The trade war 'has incited companies to accelerate certain stages in their supply chains', it told AFP.
'A similar trend was seen for the delivery of cars from the EU to the United States,' it said.
The phenomenon also concerns US-made goods.
The Japanese newspaper Nikkei reported recently that Chinese tech firms were snapping up billions of dollars of artificial intelligence chips made by US firm Nvidia in anticipation of Washington imposing export restrictions.
'Short-term approach'
Stockpiling is not a solution, however, said analysts.
Matt Jochim, a partner at consulting firm McKinsey who helps companies with supply chain issues, called stockpiling 'a very short-term opportunistic' move.
He said the practice has limits as tariffs are constantly changing and it isn't always practicable.
'In a lot of the electronics space, it's also hard to do, because the technology changes so quickly, you don't want to get stuck with inventory of chipsets or devices that are the prior version,' he said.
Fermob said it was taking a measured approach to stockpiling.
'Otherwise, you're replacing one risk with another,' the manufacturer's Reybier said.
'You have to finance stocks and there is also the risk of not having sent the right product.'
Having a local subsidiary with warehouses also helped, Reybier added.
'It's too early to say whether we should have sent more or not.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
21 minutes ago
- The Star
Asian stocks climb, FX steady as US-China trade talks set to continue
Stock markets in Asia climbed on Tuesday and regional currencies were little changed against a steady U.S. dollar, as investors monitored the second day of trade negotiations between the United States and China. Representatives from Beijing and Washington met in London on Monday, just days after U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping held their first post-inauguration call to address an escalating trade dispute. Trump said he had received "good reports" from officials engaged in the talks, which are expected to extend into Tuesday. "The response in markets today, though, looks mixed," Maybank analysts said in a research note, adding that they would continue to monitor the situation. MSCI's broadest index of Asia Pacific shares outside Japan rose as much as 0.7% to its highest level since January 21, 2022. DBS analysts said that the second day of trade talks might see the U.S. relaxing restrictions on tech exports in exchange for China resuming rare-earths mineral shipments. The tech-heavy Taiwanese index jumped 2.1% to a two-week high, with chip giant TSMC surging 4%. South Korean equities rose 0.3% and Indonesian shares gained 1.2%. Malaysian stocks added 0.1%. Analysts at United Overseas Bank noted that the country's foreign portfolio inflows in May hit their highest level since March 2016 as signs of tariff de-escalation improved risk appetite. Regional currencies were largely unchanged. The absence of concrete outcomes from Monday's discussions between the world's two largest economies kept currency markets subdued, with traders hesitant to take on big positions. The Malaysian ringgit, Singapore dollar each inched 0.1% lower, while the Taiwanese dollar and Thai baht edged 0.1% higher. The South Korean won fell 0.5%. The U.S. dollar index was up 0.2% as investors awaited U.S. inflation data which is due on Wednesday. The inflation report is among the final key data points ahead of the U.S. Federal Reserve's June 17-18 meeting, where it is widely expected to keep rates unchanged. HIGHLIGHTS: ** Taiwan May exports hit record on AI demand and ahead of U.S. tariffs ** Investors eye Latin America as they diversify away from Wall Street ** India May inflation likely cooled to 3% as food price pressure eases - Reuters
The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Repeated shocks risk global trade
DISCUSSION around the consequences of President Donald Trump's economic policies – most notably the increased tariffs on all countries, especially China – has centred on economic costs. These costs affect both businesses and consumers, manifesting as higher prices for traded goods, a shift in production to less efficient locations and reduced consumer choices when goods are no longer produced or traded. The focus on economic costs neglects a more impactful and troubling development: a shift in global trade governance and the exchange of goods under it. The US has gone from being the establisher and leader of international trade institutions to being the single greatest threat to their continuation. Multinational enterprises that have prospered under this system face unprecedented uncertainty and increasingly stark choices between upholding the system and being undercut by competitors forced to circumvent it. Businesses engaging in international trade and investment have long relied upon rules, principles and norms established under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1948 and deepened under the stewardship of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 1995. The international system under GATT and WTO supports trade through the elimination of trade barriers including tariffs, quotas and subsidies, by establishing principles of equal treatment and by providing mechanisms to manage disputes between nations and companies. Continuing business faith in multilateral trade rules and liberalisation is increasingly at odds with the positions of nation-states. The global financial crisis in 2007 to 2008, China's rapid rise to dominant global manufacturer since joining WTO in 2001 and legitimate concerns with the distribution of trade benefits within countries have contributed to popular backlash against freer trade. The rise of powerful global corporations that pursue profits rather than sovereign interests has also played on the fears of nation-states that, through liberalisation, have ceded much regulatory autonomy. Against this backdrop is a world besieged by increasingly frequent major shocks – of human and natural origin. Businesses and nation-states are navigating trade wars, disease outbreaks, military conflicts and intensifying weather events – individually and in tandem. Discourse typically bundles these shocks together to paint an overall picture of instability, lower confidence and temporary disruption to economic activity. But to appreciate the sustained consequences for trade, the stepwise influence of each major shock deserves further examination. The first Trump administration's trade war from 2018 provided the first substantial and symbolic shift from trade liberalisation to restriction. It delivered an initial blow to the 'made in China, sold in America' model, prompting conversations in global boardrooms around the need to reduce dependence on production in China. However, investors were largely unwilling to forgo China's cost competitiveness with the re-export of goods via third countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, being the dominant response. Trade continued within the bounds of international governance. The Covid-19 pandemic from early 2020 created more substantive fractures between businesses and governments on trade governance. International institutions proved incapable of mobilising an effective and coordinated health and economic response, with business disruption amplified under diverging sovereign measures. China's draconian response delivered a goal for its reputation as a reliable production location. While economists and businesses marvelled at the adaptability of global supply chains, governments saw vulnerabilities requiring intervention on national security grounds. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 poured salt into the open wound, sharply highlighting the divergence between corporate interests and those of nation-states. US-led sanctions on trade with Russia sought to divide markets along geopolitical lines with little regard for business impacts. The ability of businesses from Russia, China, India and elsewhere to circumvent inadequately enforced sanctions exposed the limits of international and national governance to uphold trade restrictions. Companies from America, Europe and elsewhere had to choose between supporting sanctions and sustaining profits, with many becoming circumventers. That markets did a better job of navigating sanctions and war than governments did of implementing sanctions reinforced the pandemic fracture between businesses and governments, significantly eroding trust in international trade governance. It is in this context that Trump 2.0 must be seen as an existential threat to prospects for restoring faith in the system. The US is now the primary source of economic policy uncertainty and lead antagonist undermining international institutions, imposing and threatening smaller countries with tariffs and hollowing out WTO. Businesses conditioned by pandemic-induced disruptions and ineffectual sanctions face another choice between wearing tariff costs and being undercut by less scrupulous competitors. Maintaining support for formal, rules-based and ethical international trade means contending with an increasingly formidable global network of informal actors and activities that outmatch the enforcement efforts of trade regulators. After all, border processes that have been streamlined and deregulated over decades to encourage seamless and trusted trade cannot be instantly and effectively converted to a punitive enforcement stance. And neither Trump nor the countries he threatens appear willing to plough resources into tighter trade regulation or have a vision for what enforcement looks like. Arresting the decline of trade institutions may seem insurmountable in the current geopolitical environment but the alternative is trending towards a future in which governments everywhere cede control of effective trade regulation. In such a world, the ability of international institutions and nation-states to uphold product standardisation and safety, supply chain resilience and ethical practices is compromised. Government capacity to raise revenue and manage the macroeconomy is further weakened by growing informality while businesses and consumers pay for the additional risk embodied in less-regulated trade. The world sans the US must act quickly to reinforce the international system, strengthening international institutions, including WTO. Space for greater leadership from large emerging economies must be created to forge a collective governance approach for countries across the development spectrum. Tackling systemic destruction is far greater and more economically consequential than addressing the immediate impact of Trump tariffs. A world in which trade operates outside of good governance frameworks would leave everyone poorer. Dr Stewart Nixon is the deputy director of research at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas). The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of Ideas Malaysia.
The Star
31 minutes ago
- The Star
Gold holds steady as markets eye US-China trade talks
Gold prices were steady on Tuesday as market participants awaited developments from the second day of U.S.-China trade talks in London, while a stronger dollar limited potential gains. Spot gold held its ground at $3,330.46 an ounce, as of 0648 GMT. U.S. gold futures were also flat at $3,350.30. The dollar index strengthened 0.2% against its rivals, making gold less affordable for other currency holders. The trade talks between the world's two largest economies encompass issues ranging from tariffs to restrictions on rare-earth metals. "With U.S.-China trade talks still in the works, gold is trading reservedly until we see any progress is made between the two global superpowers," said Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade. U.S. President Donald Trump said his administration was "doing well" in the negotiations. Last month, both sides agreed to a temporary pause in tariffs against each other, offering some relief to financial markets. Data from China showed export growth slowed to a three-month low in May as U.S. tariffs affected shipments, while factory-gate deflation worsened to its deepest level in two years. Meanwhile, U.S. inflation data, due on Wednesday, could give investors more guidance on the U.S. Federal Reserve's monetary policy path. "If CPI has ticked marginally higher, that would be an expected result, but if it jumps, then that could raise some alarm bells for investors, and any resulting flight to safety could help the gold price," Waterer said. Gold typically gains appeal during periods of geopolitical and economic uncertainty, and it tends to perform well in low-interest-rate environments. Elsewhere, spot silver was down 0.5% at $36.55 per ounce, platinum eased 0.4% to $1,211.90, while palladium slipped 0.8% to $1,066.28. - Reuters
