Goldman Sachs Analysis: Good Grief, Trump Might Be Serious About China
This is funny in so many ways; especially for CTH readers who have a far better-than-ordinary understanding of the big picture Trump goals around China.
(1) CNBC tweeted this story last night (note the date/time). (2) It is written exclusively from the perspective of the Goldman Sachs analysts who represent the U.S. multinational position. (3) However, the article was actually written on May 12, 13, 2019.
What is funny about CNBC pushing this story, NOW, is how the claims within the CNBC story can be fact checked; and their predictions are, well, absurd (especially in hindsight). Keep in mind this was written in May, and tweeted last night for some reason:
(Via CNBC) “Goldman Sachs said the cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households, with a greater impact on consumer prices than previously expected.
The bank said in a note that consumer prices are higher partly because Chinese exporters have not lowered their prices to better compete in the US market.” (link)
This Goldman Sach’s claim –made in May– can now be reviewed for accuracy by actual results on import pricing assembled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in September:
As you can see, four months after the Goldman Sach’s claim, the results are entirely false. The price of imported goods has decreased; additionally, China has further devalued their currency since May, creating an even a larger price offset.
Further in the Goldman Sach’s claims:
“Goldman also said the risk of a final round of tariffs on the roughly $300 billion of remaining imports from China has now risen to 30%.”
In their May 2019 analysis, Goldman put the odds of President Trump following through on more tariffs at 30 percent. They really just don’t believe President Trump is committed to the China confrontation. From their analytical perspective, no U.S. President would ever go into a full economic confrontation with China. Remember, Goldman Sachs represents the majority opinion of the Wall Street ‘multinational’ community.
This analysis from Goldman Sachs underwrites the majority of their multinational investment planning and loans to multinational Wall Street corporations. Laughably, we know the end result is that Trump did execute more Chinese tariffs and the Goldman Sachs analysis was/is 100 percent wrong.
And here’s the kicker:
“Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and China will strike a deal later this year. We think this would come in the form of a gradual, staggered reduction in tariffs on a last-in, first-out schedule,” the bank said.“There is, however, a risk of further escalation,” Goldman said. (link)
Again for emphasis, Goldman Sachs controls the investment direction for tens-of-billions for U.S. multinational corporations. The quotes and opinions above represent their outlook, their actual belief, and what they were selling their clients in May 2019.
- They were wrong about price impacts.
- They were wrong about Trump following through on additional tariffs.
- And it’s almost certain they are wrong about a pending deal before the end of this year. (It’s now mid September).
What’s the takeaway? Well first, Goldman Sachs controls hundreds-of-billions. Goldman is the predominant voice that all of the other Wall Street multinationals’ look toward. Goldman is the incubator for almost all of the financial experts at the Fed. Goldman is also the baseline for all of the main Wall Street pundits….
Goldman is also 100% demonstrably wrong.
If you wonder why the Federal Reserve looks like they are running around with one foot nailed to the floorboard… well, look no further than Goldman Sach’s analysis.
Second, think about what will happen when these multinationals finally realize that President Trump is serious; and there will be no U.S-China trade deal that retains any semblance of the current trade relationship (if at all).
As soon as these Wall Street knuckleheads wake up to reality (likely dragging, kicking and screaming will be involved), they will have to shift their investment planning and strategic advice to those who want loans and investment. When that happens a much larger portion of the “multinational” money starts flowing back into the United States, and is no longer “multinational”.
It’s just too darn funny not to point out…..
Post a Comment