eco TV Week

The psychology of protectionism

7/20/2018

Corporate America is increasingly confronted with the consequences of tariff increases and is concerned that more is to come. This is a reminder that protectionism influences the economy not only directly via prices or changes in supply and demand but also indirectly because of increased uncertainty.

William DE VIJLDER

TRANSCRIPT // The psychology of protectionism : July 2018

In the Federal Reserve’s recently published Beige Book, manufacturing companies across the United States have expressed concern about rising tariffs. Prices have increased in many regions, and supply chain disruptions have been reported, largely due to the new trade policy.

Protectionist measures are beginning to have a real impact on both prices and activity, but the threat of further retaliatory measures is also having a psychological effect by increasing uncertainty. The longer the period of uncertainty lasts, the greater the consequences for activity.

This is especially true for decisions that imply long-term commitments that are quasi-irreversible. As a result, corporate investment is much more sensitive to protectionist uncertainty than household consumption.

As a factor of influence, uncertainty is completely different from other transmission channels: even assuming that trading partners manage to reach an agreement after virtually unending negotiations, the damage may already have been done through a drop-off in investment.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, indicated in a speech recently that the psychological impact – via the erosion of confidence – and the deterioration in financial conditions could be just as big as the direct impact of tariff measures.

The power struggles, tit-for-tat retaliatory threats, and deal-making process of trade wars have a high psychological content through the confusion and turmoil they create for spectators, foremost of which are companies, but also for the negotiators themselves.

A recent article in the New York Times drew attention to the role of loss aversion. This concept of behavioural economics was developed by Richard Thaler, winner of the Noble Prize of Economics, among others. International trade specialists have applied this concept to their field by claiming that politicians would be more sensitive to the complaints of businesses hurt by international competition than from those praising its benefits

Yet, as the New York Times points out, this logic reverses itself when a lot of companies begin to feel the pain of protectionist threats. The Beige Book seems to confirm this trend, and the US media is reporting lots of stories along these lines.

Optimists will see this as providing a ray of hope, that with the approach of mid-term elections on 6 November, President Trump could be pressured to seek compromise with his trading partners.

The alternative is an extended period of uncertainty that will increasingly carry over to economic surveys and the financial markets, and the equity market in particular.

 

To go further on this subject

Read The New York Times article: Two Words That Could Shape the Politics of the Trade War: Loss Aversion

View more videos Eco TV Week

On the Same Theme

United States: Reallocation of cash induced by money market fund reforms 1/16/2019
In 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted reforms to limit the scope of US constant net asset value money market funds. Money market funds that until then were invested in private debt (prime funds) had to abandon this model while funds that were invested in public debt (government funds) retained the ability to provide a guarantee to investors that they would recover all of their original investment*. Starting in October 2015, the reforms have led to a massive reallocation of cash from prime funds to government funds. Foreign banks, traditional borrowers of prime funds, were deprived access to US dollars while the US Treasury and federal agencies attracted fund inflows. Part of these fund inflows has been lent to US banks. Overall, over the past three years, liquidity allotted directly or indirectly by money market funds to US banks increased by USD 155 bn, while funds allotted to foreign banks fell by USD 115 bn. *See Choulet C., US money market funds and US dollar funding, BNP Paribas, EcoFlash, 16 July 2018
The Powell put 1/11/2019
Fed chairman Powell has recently emphasized that the FOMC will be patient given the muted inflation reading and that it is ready to shift the policy stance swiftly if required. He also considers that financial markets are pricing in downside risks well ahead of the data. This means that they are too pessimistic on growth. Professional forecasters' estimates of the probability of entering into recession in the coming quarters do not display the typical pre-recession dynamics either.
Monitoring US recession risk 1/8/2019
Market behaviour and comments from company executives point towards increasing concern about the risks of a recession in the US. Based on the historical experience, the pace of monthly job creations is a key indicator to assess this risk.
The big growth scare 1/4/2019
The big correction of US equity markets since the end of September reflects increased investor concern about the growth outlook. The data for the 4th quarter nevertheless point towards ongoing sustained growth. Data released since the start of the year provide conflicting signals with a big decline in the ISM manufacturing index and a strong increase in non-farm payrolls. Uncertainty about US-Chinese trade remains a key factor weighing on business sentiment.
Data surprises send mixed signals 1/4/2019
The vast majority of the indicators remain above their long term average, with inflation and the core personal consumption expenditures deflator being notorious exceptions. Compared to consensus expectations the picture is mixed.
Will central bank reserves soon become insufficient? 12/21/2018
Over the past four years, the US Federal Reserve has reduced the surplus central bank reserves that it had built up under its quantitative easing programme. Over the same period, the Basel 3 banking regulations have, however, significantly increased banks’ demand for central bank liquidity. Before Basel 3, all reserves in excess of “required reserves”, in the monetary policy sense of the term, were, justifiably, treated as excess reserves. Since the new liquidity rules have come into force, only those reserves in excess of the regulatory constraint may be so treated. Although US banks have so far limited the initial effects of the reduction in reserves on their liquidity ratios, notably at the cost of increased dependence on the Federal Home Loan Banks, it would appear that the first signs of tension in liquidity are beginning to show.
United States: the increased role of Federal Home Loan Banks 12/21/2018
In the US, the preservation of liquidity ratios has hidden the greater use by banks of financing from Federal Home Loan Banks, which themselves are highly exposed to the risk of maturity transformation.
Heading towards slower growth in 2019 12/11/2018
US growth should slow in 2019 on the back of the waning impact of the fiscal boost, slower global growth, the strengthening of the dollar this year, the rise in interest rates. Slower but still above potential growth means that monetary policy will be prudent: we expect two hikes in the first half of the year, followed by a pause so as to gauge how the economy reacts to past tightening. This would lead to a monetary desynchronization because in the meantime eurozone inflation should have picked-up sufficiently so as to allow the ECB to hike its deposit rate in the second half of 2019. This desynchronization should cause the euro to strengthen versus the dollar. The key uncertainty to this outlook concerns the trade disputes between the US and Europe and in particular the US and China. Prolonged uncertainty on this matter would act as a headwind to growth.
Strong growth to slow down 11/30/2018
Most indicators remain above their long term average and several, of which the all-important non-farm payrolls, have surprised to the upside. Ongoing strong growth is reflected in the Atlanta Fed nowcast for the current quarter (an annualised 2.6% versus the previous quarter).
Federal Home Loan Banks help shore up bank liquidity ratios 11/7/2018
Since October 2017, the US Federal Reserve has gradually reduced the size of its balance sheet by limiting the amount of securities replaced at maturity. This automatically unwinds the banks’ reserves with the Fed. To preserve their short-term liquidity coverage ratio (LCR)1, some banks have increased their government bond holdings or reduced the use of unsecured wholesale funding. Recently, others have stepped up borrowing in the fed funds market (where institutions with Fed accounts trade their deposits and central bank reserves). This is largely due to the public guarantees on the Federal Home Loan Banks2 and their major lending capacity in this market. Considered as official sector deposits, fed funds borrowed from FHLB are relatively low cost (presumably high probability of being rolled over, and theoretically low cash outflows) and enable banks to rebuild their stock of liquid assets. 1 Banks are required to hold a sufficient amount of high-quality liquid assets, such as central bank reserves, to cover the net cash outflows triggered by a serious 30-day liquidity crisis. 2 A regional network of 11 home loan banks that provide financial support to the housing market via advances to member financial institutions.

ABOUT US Three teams of economists (OECD countries research, emerging economies and country risk, banking economics) make up BNP Paribas Economic Research Department.
This website presents their analyses.
The website contains 1998 articles and 549 videos