China Market Update: Bond Markets Start Intimidating Investors

CLN
Asian equities were risk-off due to President Trump's budget, which, according to the WSJ, is expected to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion over the next decade.
The US 30 Treasury bond yield has risen from a September 2024 low of 3.92% to 5.14% this morning, while the Japanese Treasury bond yield has risen from 2% to 2.97% over the same period. James Carville's reincarnation quote as the bond market comes to mind: 'You can intimidate everybody.' Based on my recent travels to Europe and Asia, one shouldn't expect much sympathy or appetite for US investments from foreign investors following the recent trade 'negotiations'. Maybe the increased volatility could lead to a desire to resolve trade issues.
It was very quiet except for the US-driven macro narrative, after a poor US trading day yesterday, which weighed on US-listed China stocks, as risk off is risk off. Hong Kong had a poor session as growth stocks favored by investors took the brunt of market action. XPeng +5.8% after strong results and guidance yesterday though CATL -2.25% despite the Hong Kong listing being fast-tracked for MSCI inclusion. Xiaomi was off -2.3% despite founder Jun Lei's comments on the coming July launch of their SUV model YU7 in addition to announcing their use of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 chips. Li Auto -2.77% lowered its 2025 production target to 640,000 from 700,000. Hong Kong banks were a safe haven though it was simply an off day despite Mainland investors buying $495 million worth of Hong Kong-listed stocks via Southbound Stock Connect.
Mainland China was also weak though indices were not off as much as Hong Kong. Mainland banks also held up though the National Team's favorite ETFs had a light volumes. The Shanghai government announced expansion of its subsidy programs as the top down directive to expand from auto/EV/hybrid and home appliances to electronics gets implemented locally. The State Council hosted several agencies in a press conference on financial policies to support the science and technology sectors following yesterday's release. Again quiet so we'll keep things concise!
New Content
Read our latest article:
New Drivers For China Healthcare: AI Med-Tech Innovation, Cancer Treatment, & Favorable Balance of Trade
Please click here to read
Chart1
Chart2
Chart3
Chart4
Chart5
Chart6

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

26 minutes ago

• Forbes

What A 250 Million-Acre Public Land Sale Could Mean For The Off-Road Industry

Ford Performance at the 2025 King of the Hammers in Southern California's Johnson Valley. Since President Trump took office in January, the threats to anything considered public—from a large slice of our nation's workforce to the media—have been unrelenting. Earlier this month, these threats took on a new form: potentially robbing the American people of millions of acres of public land. Unveiled on June 11th and revised on the 14th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill outlines over 250 million acres, to be slightly more exact, that could be offered up for sale to private business. As reported on by Jonathon Klein of Ride Apart, this could have a tremendous negative impact on not just our natural resources, but every corner of the outdoor industry as well. For those amongst us who enjoy off-road driving (or hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, cycling, climbing, etc.), the possibility of being cut-off from lands where we savor such activity is very real. Klein points out one particular swath of land in Southern California, Johnson Valley—home to one of the world's top off-road racing events, King of the Hammers—is on the chopping block, which would not only be detrimental to this event, but every single industry that's involved in it. Automakers, the aftermarket performance and racing industries, tourism, general outdoor equipment industries; the list goes on. Take that same scenario and multiply it by every other parcel of land that any other outdoor enthusiast could lose access to, and the damage would be extensive. For a good overall picture of what's on the chopping block, The Wilderness Society has created a handy map. Competitors at the 2020 King of the Hammers in Johnson Valley, California. But why is all of this land potentially for sale? As stated in the bill itself, as much as $15 billion in revenue could come from expanded oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leasing. Other aims include increased housing production, domestic energy security and timber production, as well as, in the bill's summarized words, 'ensuring states and counties benefit from energy projects on federal lands.' The Wilderness Society has also outlined a handful of counter arguments. In its words, 'research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (US Forest Service) is actually suitable for housing.' It also explains that the federal government can revoke national monument status and that certain changes would negatively impact sovereign Tribal Nations. We can't forget the fact that increased energy production carries its own environmental hazards, too. It's all bad and very unnecessary. One thing that truly makes America great is its beautiful natural land that's here for all of us to savor, and this bill could cut off a very significant portion of it. And again, there's the immense adverse effect on every single outdoor industry, especially off-road driving and racing, and the massive amount of American companies that feed it. Contact your US senator and let them know how you feel. Especially if you live in Utah, which is Senator Mike Lee's turf. He's Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the creator of this bill—ironically, as many as 18 million acres of his state's land could potentially be up for sale. That's a lot of territory for off-road driving, hunting, shooting, fishing, climbing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, and so on.

Miami Herald

35 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Will skipping ‘Made in China' beat tariff price hikes?

For most shoppers, "Made in China" has been a way of life for consumers. The mark is on seemingly everything. That has consumers concerned about how tariffs and trade battles between the United States and China might hit home, literally. If tariffs ultimately act as a tax on consumers – most economists say they do – how can Americans avoid paying higher prices? Stop buying things that were made in China. That's easier said than Trump recently took to Truth Social to say that the United States and China have a deal that's done, pending final approval of leaders from both countries. He said that U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% on Chinese goods, while China's tariffs remain at 10%. Officially, tariff plans with China and other countries are on hold until July 9, but U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said several times that the 55% tariff "definitely" will not change. Related: Major housing expert predicts huge change to mortgage rates in 2026 While many of the harshest tariff hikes face legal challenges, current U.S. tariff rates are at their highest levels in nearly a century; estimates from the Yale Budget Lab say that's costing the average U.S. consumer an extra $2,500 a year. A recent study by covering consumer sentiment about tariffs shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe tariffs will have a negative impact on their personal finances. Just over 40% of respondents said tariffs would "greatly worsen" their personal finances. But even if consumers decide to tackle the China tariff problem by eliminating spending on goods from the country, it doesn't mean they will save money. They also will find the task daunting, if not impossible. That's according to journalist Sara Bongiorni, who tried to live without goods from China for a year back in the early 2000s; the trials and tribulations of her effort became the basis for her book, "A Year Without Made in China." Bongiorni, now an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University, woke up on Christmas morning in 2005 to a house full of stuff, and as she rummaged through it, she realized almost everything was made in China. "I said to my husband, 'Do you think it would be possible to live for a while without things made in China? You want to try that?' He was not very enthusiastic about that idea, but we gave it a whirl." Related: Forget tariffs, Fed interest rate cuts may hinge on another problem Bongiorni didn't set out to make a political statement or to write a book. She was simply hoping "to understand at a personal level, as best we could, how much we relied on things from China in our everyday, ordinary consumer life." In a recent interview on "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe," Bongiorni recounted how her rule was to avoid the words "Made in China," which are only seen on the end consumer product sold to shoppers. That's a low bar, given that countless products are assembled in the United States or in other countries using parts from China. Those goods-like the ones with the Made in China label-will incur increased costs due to tariffs. Bongiorni noted that in certain product categories – notably toys, household gadgets, many types of electronics, coffeemakers, sneakers and footwear, and children's clothing – it was nearly impossible to find items that weren't made in China. Even when she did find rare exceptions, Bongiorni noted that the options often pushed her to higher-end goods, which meant paying more for the purchase, in some cases, more than she would expect to pay now on goods from China with tariffs attached. "I think there were so many things we didn't buy that year because you couldn't find a viable option that wasn't made in China," Bongiorni said. She also noted that, ironically, it's nearly impossible to celebrate a wholly American holiday like July 4th without goods from China, as the small flags, fireworks, parade toys, festive paper goods, and more were made there. Truly trying to avoid all goods from China – including component parts – would be nearly impossible, Bongiorni said, noting that consumers would find themselves with no easy alternatives. "The share of things, ordinary consumer items from China, account for at least 65% of things you find in a typical household," Bongiorni said. "If you push up [prices with tariffs up to 55%], that is a huge impact, especially when we've got inflation and other things going on in the economy. It's a huge thing for most families to have to shoulder that burden." More Tariffs: Aldi plans huge price cut despite tariffs driving costs higherCar buyers should shop these brands for the best tariff dealGeneral Motors makes $4 billion tariff move Bongiorni does think the United States can bring some manufacturing back onshore, but that will have a limited impact because of the breadth and volume of goods coming from China, and the convenience of having those items and getting them cheaply. "I have a hard time thinking that we can lure ourselves off of our connection to China as consumers as a long-term affair," she said, "but also I can see a huge public outcry because this is going to affect people's bottom line every month." While Bongiorni recalls her efforts fondly nearly two decades later, she says she would not want to permanently do without Made in China, even if tariffs raise costs. Avoiding goods from China and finding alternatives was "incredibly time-consuming." And when there were no viable product options, she was willing to go without certain items for a year, but would not want to sacrifice them for a lifetime. "I do think it's interesting to have an awareness of where things come from, and to get a sense to the extent you can to which you are connected to the international economy on that consumer level," said Bongiorni. "I found that enjoyable and interesting, but the idea of weaning ourselves from Chinese goods, after doing this, just seems very unrealistic.…I can't imagine living like that long-term." Related: Fed official sends shocking message on interest rate cuts The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Bloomberg

an hour ago

• Bloomberg

Commercial Real Estate Distress Is Spreading: Credit Weekly

The pain in US commercial real estate credit continues to bubble to the surface after a surge in borrowing costs and the rise of work from home left lenders vulnerable to losses. Delinquencies continue to increase, though the rate has moderated, researcher Green Street said this past week. Distress is also climbing, rising 23% to more than $116 billion at the end of March from a year earlier, data compiled by MSCI Real Capital Analytics show. That's the highest in more than a decade.