The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge (Stephen Hawking)

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so (Mark Twain)

Invest with smart knowledge and objective odds

THE DAILY EDGE: 22 MARCH 2019: Recession Watch

RECESSION WATCH
Services Data Point to Sharper Slowdown Fourth-quarter GDP growth likely to be marked down after services survey underwhelms

Revenues across the U.S. service sector rose a seasonally adjusted 1.2% in the fourth quarter from the third, the Census Bureau said Thursday. That marked the weakest pace of growth in five quarters. (…)

As the government catches up on incomplete economic data because of the shutdown, the fourth quarter GDP looks weaker, dragging Q1’19 lower along the way. The latest data tend to confirm the abrupt decline in Business Sales at the end of 2018 as I showed in Monday’s DANGER ZONE post:

image_thumb[25]

Importantly,  revisions in services data are significant, confirming Markit’s findings in its March 12 U.S. Business Outlook that I quoted in Monday’s post:

Interestingly, and worryingly, Markit found that much of the increased pessimism is at service providers where “the net balance of service sector firms expecting a rise in business activity has dipped from +40% last October to +29% in February.” (…)

All in all, the net balance of companies predicting greater profitability (+26%) is the weakest for two years, with “reduced confidence around future profits largely emanating from weaker sentiment at service sector firms.”

FYI, the Service sector accounts for 77% of the U.S. economy, 86% of total employment and 80% of new jobs created in the past year.

BTW, a reader asked me for a chart of business sales ex-energy. I finally found one, courtesy of Ed Yardeni, which shows that there is currently no big differences in trends unlike in 2015:

image
FLASH PMIs
U.S. business sees soft end to first quarter amid factory slowdown

At 54.3 in March, down from 55.5 in February, the seasonally adjusted IHS Markit Flash U.S. Composite PMI Output Index pointed to the weakest upturn in private sector business activity since September 2018. Softer business activity growth reflected more subdued demand conditions in March, with new work rising at the weakest pace since April 2017. A number of firms cited cautious spending patterns among clients and less upbeat business sentiment.

image

Private sector companies responded to slower new business growth by reining in staff hiring during March. Latest data pointed to the weakest increase in payroll numbers since June 2017.

Input price inflation moderated to a two-year low during the latest survey period. Softer cost pressures led to the least marked rise in prices charged by private sector firms since October 2017.

Meanwhile, survey respondents indicated another dip in optimism regarding the year ahead business outlook. March data signalled that the degree of positive sentiment was the weakest since June 2016.

The seasonally adjusted IHS Markit Flash U.S. Services PMI™ Business Activity Index posted 54.8 in March, down from February’s seven-month high of 56.0. Nonetheless, the latest reading was still well above the neutral 50.0 value and signalled a solid overall upturn in business activity across the service economy.

Mirroring the trend for business activity, March data indicated a softer rise in new work received by service providers. The latest survey also pointed to the smallest increase in employment numbers since May 2017.

On a more positive note, input cost inflation was only modest in March, with the latest survey pointing to the slowest rise in operating expenses for exactly two years.

The seasonally adjusted IHS Markit Flash U.S. Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index™ (PMI™) registered 52.5, down from 53.0 in February and the lowest reading since June 2017. Softer rises in output, new orders and employment all weighed on the headline PMI in March. The latest expansion of production volumes was only modest and the least marked since June 2016.

A number of manufacturers commented on a cyclical slowdown in client demand. Reflecting this, new orders increased at the weakest rate for just under two years in March.
Growth of input buying was the slowest since May 2017, with survey respondents citing the need to adjust purchasing volumes to softer demand conditions. This helped alleviate pressure on supply chains, with lead-times from vendors lengthening to the least marked degree for almost one-and-a-half years.

Input price inflation continued to moderate in March, with the latest rise in average cost burdens the slowest since August 2017. Moreover, factory gate prices increased at a relatively subdued pace that was the weakest recorded for over one year.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit:

(…) The PMI survey data nevertheless remain encouragingly resilient, indicative of the economy growing at an annualised rate in excess of 2% in the first quarter, suggesting some potential upside to many current growth forecasts. A gap has opened up between the manufacturing and service sectors, however, with goods-producers and exporters struggling amid a deteriorating external environment and concerns regarding the impact of trade wars. The survey is consistent with the official measure of manufacturing production falling at an increased rate in March and hence acting as a drag on the economy in the first quarter.

At the moment, the service sector appears to be holding up relatively well. But the worry is that manufacturing woes are spreading to service providers, via reduced demand for services such as transport and storage as well as deteriorating business optimism about the outlook – which fell to the lowest for nearly three years in March – and a cooling of the labour market. The survey showed hiring across both manufacturing and services hit the weakest for just under two years in March. (…)

Source: @MikaelSarwe

Flash eurozone PMI falls in March as manufacturing downturn deepens

The eurozone economy lost momentum again in March, expanding only modestly as manufacturers reported their steepest downturn for six years. The service sector showed greater resilience but remained in its worst growth spell since late-2016. Stagnant order books and gloomier future expectations meanwhile led to reduced hiring.

The IHS Markit Eurozone Composite PMI® fell from 51.9 in February to 51.3 in March, according to the preliminary ‘flash’ estimate. The March reading was the third-lowest since November 2014, running only marginally above the recent lows seen in December and January.

image

New order growth stagnated for a second successive month following a slight decline in January, with backlogs of work dropping for the third time in four months. The reduction in backlogs was the largest since November 2014 and was indicative of excess capacity developing in the economy. Employment growth consequently slowed, down to the joint-weakest since September 2016, as increasing numbers of companies reviewed their payroll requirements in the light of reduced workloads.

Key to the deterioration in business growth was a further marked decline in export orders (which include intra-euro area trade). New exports of goods and services fell for a sixth straight month, deteriorating at the steepest rate since comparable data for total exports were first available in September 2014.

The worsening trend was primarily a reflection of an acceleration in the rate of decline in manufacturing. The headline manufacturing PMI fell to its lowest since April 2013 as downturns in factory output and new orders gained momentum. While the drop in factory output was the steepest for just under six years, the deterioration in new orders was more marked and the sharpest since December 2012. The latter was fueled by the largest fall in new export orders since August 2012.

Factory output has now fallen for two successive months and new orders for six straight months. With new orders contracting at a steeper rate than output, backlogs of work fell to the greatest extent since December 2012. Factory employment more or less stagnated as a result, showing the weakest rise for over four years, and input buying fell to a degree not witnessed for six years.

Service sector growth remained more resilient, dipping only marginally on February and running above the lows seen at the turn of the year. However, the rate of expansion remained well below that seen this time last year and subdued compared to the average recorded during 2018.

Although inflows of new business ticked higher in the service sector, exports fell to the greatest extent seen since data were first available in late-2014. Backlogs of work meanwhile fell for the second time in three months, contributing to an easing in service sector jobs growth to the second-lowest for just over two years.

Looking ahead, companies’ expectations of output in the coming year slipped lower, running above the lows seen at the turn of the year but remaining among the weakest recorded since late-2014. Manufacturing optimism remained especially low, easing to the gloomiest since December 2012. Reduced optimism principally reflected the expected impact of lowered forecasts for economic growth, with widespread concerns specifically focusing on heightened political uncertainty, trade wars and Brexit. The auto sector also remained a key area of expected weakness.

Mixed signals were seen in relation to prices. Having slipped to the lowest for one-and-a-half years in February, average selling price inflation picked up slightly in March, though input cost inflation eased for a fifth successive month. Input prices rose at the slowest rate since October 2016, with an especially marked rate of cooling seen in the goods-producing sector as supplier pricing power waned. However, service sector costs also rose at a reduced rate.

In Germany, business activity grew at its slowest rate since June 2013 with new orders declining for a third successive month. Although service sector growth remained robust, manufacturing output fell at the sharpest rate since August 2012. Factory orders deteriorated to the greatest extent since the height of the global financial crisis in April 2009. Hiring in Germany meanwhile slipped to a 34-month low as backlogs of work fell for a fifth successive month and business optimism about the year ahead waned.

In France, business activity fell for the third time in four months. While February saw a rebound from yellow vest protest disruptions, March saw activity deteriorate again as new order inflows contracted for a fourth straight month. Employment growth slowed to near-stagnation, its lowest since December 2016.

Elsewhere, the rate of output growth accelerated to its highest since last September as service sector growth hit an eight-month high. Manufacturing output stagnated, however, failing to grow for the first time since June 2013 in response to a third successive monthly drop in goods producers’ new orders.

The survey indicates that GDP likely rose by a modest 0.2% in the opening quarter, with a decline in manufacturing output in the region of 0.5% being offset by an expansion of service sector output of approximately 0.3%.

A rebound in February from one-off factors such as the yellow vest protests in France appears to have already lost momentum. Most worrying is the plight of the manufacturing sector, which is now in its deepest downturn since 2013 as trade flows contracted at the sharpest rate since the debt crisis ridden days of 2012. The service sector is showing more resilience, notably in Germany, but remains in one of its worst growth patches since 2016.

Forward-looking indicators such as business optimism and backlogs of work suggest that growth could be even weaker in the second quarter. Worryingly, with order book backlogs shrinking at the steepest rate since late-2014, more and more companies are pulling back on hiring, and likely reviewing their investment spending.

Any such further loss of growth momentum in the second quarter compared to the 0.2% GDP rise signalled for the first three months of the year would raise doubts on the economy’s ability to grow by more than 1% in 2019.

image
Japan manufacturing output falls at fastest pace in almost three years amid sluggish demand
  • Flash Japan Manufacturing PMI® signals further downturn, with figure unchanged at 48.9
  • Further production cutbacks amid weaker new order inflows
  • Business confidence remains below long-run average

Further struggles for Japanese manufacturers were apparent at the end of Q1, with latest flash PMI data showing a sustained downturn. Slack demand from domestic and international markets prompted the sharpest cutback in output volumes for almost three years. With input purchasing falling, firms appear to be anticipating further troubles in the short-term. Indeed, concern of weaker growth in China and prolonged global trade frictions kept business confidence well below its historical average in March.

image
The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased Economy to Continue Expanding in Near-Term

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® for the U.S. increased 0.2 percent in February to 111.5 (2016 = 100), following no change in January, and a 0.1 percent decline in December. The US LEI increased in February for the first time in five months,” said Ataman Ozyildirim, Director of Economic Research at The Conference Board. February’s improvement was driven by accommodative financial conditions and a rebound in stock prices, which more than offset weaknesses in the labor market components. Despite the latest results, the US LEI’s growth rate has slowed over the past six months, suggesting that while the economy will continue to expand in the near-term, its pace of growth could decelerate by year end.

There is a growing problem with this good leading indicator: it has been flat for 6 months following 6 months of sustained gains.

Conference Board's LEI

The 12-month growth looks impressive and well anchored…

…but the 6-month trend is slowing fast…

Smoothed LEI

…and will drop even faster if no quick upturn materializes. Note also that February’s uptick is mainly due to financial data as opposed to ‘’real world” trends.

Canadian Growth: Headed for the Big Sleep or Just Dozing?

Canada, like much of the global economy, is showing sales weakness across sectors with its most topical three-month and six-month sales growth rates by sector showing declines. Manufacturing shipments, retail sales – both overall and excluding autos – as well as wholesale sales, all are falling on balance over three months and six months and the pace of the drop is intensifying.

However, January brings some respite to these trends. Manufacturing shipments rose by 1% in January and wholesale sales rose by 0.6%. The jury is still out on retail sales that have not yet been reported.

Year-over-year trends are modest. Canadian inflation metrics generally are up by about 1.5% over 12 months. So the manufacturing gain of 4.4% leaves some real growth on the table while retailing and wholesaling seem to offer only very thin margins for real growth.

Year-on-year sector growth rates generally peaked in mid-2017 and since have been eroding. However, all three sectors show a modest bump up in the most recent 12-month growth rates compared to their penultimate ones.

large image

A snapshot of other Canadian sectors shows that there still is some resiliency. Employment gains are still solid and have even picked up some speed recently. Mining and oil output, important Canadian sectors are on an upswing. And the unemployment rate remains at a low level. But housing starts have been weak; they are declining at a horrifically fast pace over three months. Manufacturing output barely ekes out a gain over 12 months and is now on an accelerating path of contraction. Exports are also showing an accelerating contraction with severe weakness logged over the last three months. Imports, a series that is more connected with domestic demand than with international events, show more resiliency than exports. Still, imports fall at a 2.6% annual rate over six months and rise at just a 0.5% pace over three months. Year-over-year imports are rising in step with inflation.

Canada’s situation is more or less similar with that of the other G7 countries. It does not have an inflation problem. And it is having a hard time keeping growth in gear and yet economic performance has been good even if not strong. The unemployment rate is low. The problem is the turn of events in the current situation. Currently, there are mixed signals and mixed results by sector, but there is a liberal dose of weakness thrown in. Concerns about global trade overhang Canada as they do every other trading nation. The Baltic dry goods index has been showing weakness in global shipping volumes for a number of months now. Canada trades intensely with the U.S. where growth signals also have been dodgy and where the Fed has halted a program of rate hikes and just wiped the potential for rate hikes in 2019 off the slate. The U.S. yield curve is flatting voraciously again. That is never a signal that is friendly to U.S. growth. And it is ominous for Canada as well since the U.S. economy is an important trade partner and because U.S. growth has a lot to say about which way commodity prices turn and they also are important to Canada’s economy.

US agriculture secretary warns on China’s trade tactics Sonny Perdue says Beijing’s ‘attitudes’ are hardening in talks to resolve spat
China’s Debt Problem

This is excerpted from Matthews Asia’s Andy Rothman latest note:

China’s debt problem is serious, but the risk of a hard landing or banking crisis is, in my view, low. The reason is that the potential bad debts are corporate, not household, debts and were made at the direction of the state—by state-controlled banks to state-owned enterprises. This provides the state with the ability to manage the timing and pace of recognition of nonperforming loans. It is also important to note that the majority of potential bad debts are held by state-owned firms, while the leverage of the privately owned companies that employ the majority of the workforce and account for the majority of economic growth isn’t high. Additional positive factors are that China’s banking system is very liquid, and that the process of dealing with bad debts has begun. (…)

China’s overall debt-to-GDP ratio rose rapidly after the GFC and is very high, but in context appears less frightening: it is lower than the debt-to-GDP ratio of five of the G-7 advanced economies.

Understanding the composition of China’s debt is important to evaluating the seriousness of the problem. A key factor is that the Chinese household debt-to-GDP ratio is relatively low, about 50%, compared to 77% in the U.S., 86% in the U.K. and 58% in the eurozone as of June 2018.

Moreover, the largest share of Chinese household debt is home mortgages, and these are far safer than the mortgages that created significant problems in the past decade for households in the U.S. and U.K. For example, about 90% of new homes in China are bought by owner-occupiers (not speculators) who are required to pay a minimum of 20% cash to receive a mortgage, and most put down 30% cash or more—far above the U.S. median cash down payment of 2% of the purchase price in 2006.

The products that broke Lehman Brothers—and caused havoc throughout the U.S. financial system—do not exist in China. There are no subprime mortgages and very few mortgage-backed securities. There is no secondary securitization so no collateralized debt or loan obligations (CDOs and CLOs). Most mortgages are held to maturity by the issuing bank, raising the incentive for careful due diligence on borrowers. (…)

It is also worth noting that in addition to a relatively low household debt-to-GDP ratio of 50%, Chinese families have a very high savings rate, with household bank deposits equal to about 80% of GDP. In the U.S., the household debt-to-GDP ratio is 77%, while household (and nonprofit organization) savings deposits are equal to 47% of GDP. (…)

China’s real problem is corporate debt. The ratio of nonfinancial corporate debt-to-GDP jumped to 116% from 93% in the three years after the stimulus began, and then continued to increase. Now at about 153%, China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the highest in the world. Dealing with this will be a serious challenge.

But it is important to understand that about two-thirds of corporate debt is owed by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to state-controlled banks. (…)

It is also significant that this debt burden is concentrated among a relatively small number of state-owned firms, making the cleanup a bit easier. (…)

Privately owned small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the engine of China’s economic growth, accounting for more than 85% of employment and almost all new job creation, as well as most investment. These firms account for a minority of the corporate debt burden and, for several years, their debt levels were declining.

The liabilities-to-assets ratio for privately owned industrial firms fell every year from 2006 (59%) through 2016 (51%). But this ratio rose to 53% in 2017 and then to 56% in 2018, resulting in a rise of the overall industrial corporate debt/assets ratio. (…)


The most important difference between China’s debt problem and past debt problems in Western countries is that in China, there is little private-sector participation in debt creation.

As noted earlier, the origin of China’s debt problem came in response to the GFC, when the state directed state-controlled banks to lend money to state-owned enterprises, to carry out the public infrastructure stimulus program. There are no privately owned banks involved, so there is no mark-to-market pressure. As a result, and in contrast to the recent experience in the West, the Chinese government has the luxury of being able to control the timing of when bad loans are recognized and dealt with.

And there has been some progress in dealing with bad loans. Over the past 18 months, there has been a material acceleration in the formation of nonperforming loans (NPLs) at China’s banks, as well as a comparable acceleration in write-offs of bad loans.

It is also worth noting that China has one of the world’s highest savings rates. This probably influenced the rapid growth in bank lending, and it also means that the banking system is unlikely to experience a liquidity squeeze.


China’s foreign debt exposure is low, about 14% of GDP in 2017. This is a sharp contrast to Thailand’s 62% ratio in 1996, ahead of the Asian Financial Crisis. By funding its infrastructure buildout domestically, rather than through foreign lenders, China has avoided one of the key problems that contributed to past emerging market debt crises. (…)

Cleaning up China’s debt problem will be expensive, but this process is likely to result in gradually slower economic growth rates, greater volatility, and a higher fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio, not the dramatic hard landing or banking crisis scenarios that make for a sexier media story.

THE DAILY EDGE: 21 MARCH 2019

U.S. Jobless Claims Fall More Than Expected to Four-Week Low

Jobless claims fell to 221,000 in the week ended March 16, beating economist forecasts for 225,000, Labor Department figures showed Thursday. The four-week average, a less-volatile measure, ticked up to 225,000 and has steadily increased since October. (…)

Keeping track of David Rosenberg’s concerns about “forward-looking initial claims”. Back into the 2018 channel after the shutdown:

image

Fed Signals Rates Will Stay Steady Amid Growth Fears The central bank held its benchmark interest rate steady, and a majority of officials signaled they might not raise the rate this year.

The Fed left its policy rate unchanged in a range between 2.25% and 2.5%. Chairman Jerome Powell suggested the central bank was likely to leave it there for many months.

“It may be some time before the outlook for jobs and inflation calls clearly for a change in [interest rate] policy,” Mr. Powell said at a news conference after the central bank’s two-day meeting. (…)

The Fed also announced that in May it would slow the pace at which it is shrinking its $4 trillion asset portfolio and end the runoff of its Treasury holdings at the end of September, exactly two years after it began the process. (…)

Mr. Powell cited mild inflation pressures, a sharp pullback in financial risk-taking and clear threats to U.S. growth in explaining the Fed’s new wait-and-see stance after its meeting in late January.

Projections released Wednesday underscored the turnabout. They showed 11 of the 17 Fed officials who play a role in interest-rate policy didn’t think the bank would need to raise rates at all this year, up from two in December. The remaining six officials projected between one and two increases would be needed in 2019. (…)

Other changes to the forecast show officials no longer believe they will need to raise rates to slow economic growth to a level that will prevent overheating. They revised lower their projection for gross domestic product growth and revised higher their projection for the unemployment rate at year’s end. (…)

(…) by any historical benchmark, this “normal” stance of monetary policy is extremely stimulative. The federal-funds rate, at between 2.25% and 2.5%, is just 0.25% when adjusted for long-term expected inflation. By comparison, the real rate was 2.75% at the end of the Fed’s last tightening cycle in 2006, and 4% at the end of the prior cycle in 2000.

And the Fed will still hold more than $3.5 trillion in bonds in September, equal to 17% of gross domestic product, compared with 6% in 2006. (…)

Should the economy stumble again, the Fed won’t have much ammunition with which to respond. It can, at most, cut interest rates a bit more than 2 percentage points, less than half what’s required in most recessions. It could restart bond buying, but that would expand the balance sheet past levels reached in the depths of the last downturn. (…)

Add to the Fed’s weak arsenal the fact that the U.S. government has also tied its hands with excessive spending and indebtedness during the expansion. President Trump never entertained the idea of building a fiscal safety wall for the economy. I also doubt he pays any attention to the clearly cautious slant the Fed has taken. In just a few months, the FOMC assessment of risk has pivoted to an economy that could be too strong to an economy that could be too weak. Just about every phrase in the FOMC statement is downbeat.

Should economic momentum remain weak during Q2, the Fed will need to consider its low ammo level and consider acting earlier. Central bankers across the world must be very worried given the debt levels in the two growth engines of the world, the USA and China. Debt levels are too big for the world economy to fail.

The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon By Martin Feldstein

The most dangerous domestic problem facing America’s federal government is the rapid growth of its budget deficit and national debt.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will be $900 billion, more than 4% of gross domestic product. It will surpass $1 trillion in 2022. The federal debt is now 78% of GDP. By 2028, it is projected to be nearly 100% of GDP and still rising. All this will have very serious economic consequences, and the CBO understates the problem. It has to base its projections on current law—in this case, the levels of spending and the future tax rules and rates that appear in law today.

Those levels don’t match realistic predictions. Current law projects that defense spending will decline as a share of GDP, from a very low 3.1% now to about 2.5% over the next 10 years. None of the military and civilian defense experts with whom I’ve spoken believe that will happen, given America’s global responsibilities and the need to modernize U.S. military equipment. It is likelier that defense spending will stay around 3% of GDP or even increase in the coming decade. And if the outlook for defense spending is increased, the Democratic House majority will insist that the nondefense discretionary spending should rise to match its trajectory. (…)

At the same time, the tax increases in current law that the CBO assumes will occur during the next decade as some of the recent cuts are phased out probably won’t happen. Congress will face strong political pressure to avoid a functional tax increase.

(…)  When America’s creditors at home and abroad realize this, they will push up the interest rate the U.S. government pays on its debt. (…) A 1% increase in the interest rate the government pays on its debt would boost the annual deficit by more than 1%. The higher long-run debt-to-GDP ratio would crowd out business investment and substantially reduce the economy’s growth rate. That in turn would mean lower real incomes and less tax revenue, leading to—you guessed it—an even higher debt-to-GDP ratio. (…)

Thus the only option is to throw the brakes on entitlements. In particular, the government needs to hold back the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Federal spending on the two major health programs is projected to rise from its current 5.5% of GDP to more than 7.2% by 2029. And it will only keep increasing after that.

The simplest approach is to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security, as Congress did in 1983. Bipartisan legislation then voted to postpone “full” benefits from age 65 to 67, allowing earlier benefits at an actuarially reduced level. Because Congress slowly phased the change in over several decades, it avoided any significant political opposition. In the intervening 35 years, the average life expectancy of Americans in their late 60s has risen about three years. It would be appropriate to increase the age of eligibility for full benefits from 67 to 70 and index it to life expectancy. Exceptions could be made for retirees with low lifetime incomes.

Lawmakers don’t like to cut spending, but they have to do something. Otherwise the exploding national debt will be an increasing burden on our children, economic growth and our future standard of living.

Can we realistically expect this administration and this Congress to do anything about that?

Jumbo Mortgages Are Slowing Down High-end home buyers are turning cautious, a blow to banks that refocused their mortgage businesses around wealthy borrowers in the years after the financial crisis
Trump Signals U.S. to Keep Tariffs on China After Deal The president said that his administration was discussing leaving tariffs in place on Chinese goods for a “substantial period of time.”

(…) “We have to make sure that if we do the deal with China that China lives by the deal,“ Mr. Trump told reporters as he left Washington for Ohio. Administration officials have talked of removing tariffs in stages, as Beijing shows that it has carried out parts of a deal—and reimposing them if China later backtracks. (…)

Beijing has plenty of ammunition it can use to get the U.S. to roll back tariffs more quickly. It has retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. goods, about 90% of U.S. exports to China, and could refuse to lift those levies until the U.S. does the same. Chinese tariffs have especially hurt rural farmland areas that are a core part of Mr. Trump’s constituency. (…)

As part of any enforcement plan, the U.S. is also asking China for another important concession—that it agree not to retaliate against U.S. tariffs reimposed for at least some violations of a trade pact. (…)

Despite all the unresolved issues, Mr. Trump said the talks were “coming along nicely.”

How do you say “I think not” in Mandarin?

U.S. whiskey exports dry up as tariffs bite

Canada, China, Mexico and the European Union slapped import duties ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent on U.S whiskey and bourbon last year, resulting in a 11 percent drop in U.S. whiskey exports in the second half, according to a report from the Distilled Spirits Council. (…)

“The damage to American whiskey exports is now accelerating, and this is collateral damage from ongoing global trade disputes,” Distilled Spirits Council Chief Executive Officer Chris Swonger said.

Trump administration withholds report justifying ‘shock’ auto tariffs

A confidential government report has provided President Donald Trump with a legal rationale to impose heavy new tariffs on foreign cars as soon as this spring, a prospect fiercely opposed by White House officials and congressional Republicans alarmed by its enormous economic and political stakes.

The Commerce Department submitted the report to the White House in mid-February, triggering a 90-day period for Trump to decide whether to impose tariffs, which could reach as high as 25 percent, on imported autos. It concluded that Trump could justify the tariffs on national security grounds and offered a range of options in response — putting the decision in the president’s hands, four people familiar with its conclusions told POLITICO. (…)

But Trump’s senior economic advisers are almost universally opposed to slapping new tariffs on auto imports, warning of dire economic and political consequences. They argue that the tariffs would infuriate close U.S. allies from Asia to Western Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said last month that the idea German cars threaten the U.S. would be “a shock.” The move could also undermine efforts to persuade Congress to approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. (…)