Clarity on tariffs can’t come quickly sufficient | USAEMALL.com

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Good morning. Yesterday, Bank of America’s much followed Global Fund Manager Survey showed its biggest-ever drop in allocations to US stocks as well as a big jump in cash allocations. As the survey’s lead author Michael Harnett notes, this is bullish, if other investor sentiment indicators — a heavy shift to Treasuries, say — follow suit. The market correction won’t stop until the last of the optimists is chased out.

On the economic data front, both new housing starts and industrial production came in above expectations for February. More bullishness? Nope: Wall Street economists dismissed both reports as a last hurrah before tariff and labour market uncertainty squashes next month’s numbers. The stock market agreed with this dour assessment and Big Tech, in particular, had another ugly day. Email us: robert.armstrong@ft.com and aiden.reiter@ft.com. 

The market can’t wait for April 2

The US market decline that began a month ago is the product, mainly, of worries about the Trump administration’s economic policies. That much is universally agreed. There is less agreement about how much of the problem is the prospect of policies that will diminish corporate earnings, and how much is the total lack of clarity about what, exactly, the policies will be.

Several times in the past few days, Wall Street people have told me their clients were hoping that the fog might clear on April 2, the day the administration has picked to announce both reciprocal tariffs on countries and sector tariffs on strategic industries. 

Will we get policy clarity in two weeks’ time? Or will the mess only get messier? In the short term, there is no more important determinant of the market outlook. 

Thierry Wizman of Macquarie articulated investors’ hopes in a note yesterday (my italics): 

With the new US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer taking office [Monday], there is renewed hope that there will be more regularisation and rationalisation of the US administration’s import tariff policies and programme, as well as an impetus for more negotiation with trade partners. We believe that ‘peak chaos’ with regard to tariff policy is behind us . . . 

The new USTR was reported to be likely to create a formula for a single rate for each country, based on that country’s average tariff level, as well as other measures the Trump team considers discriminatory . . . those tariff rates would not be static, and could be adjusted based on whether a country has been co-operative in reducing its tariff rates. We think that this signals a new flexibility

I spoke to Wizman yesterday and it is important to note that he thinks significant ambiguities may remain after April 2. But he does believe that a more regular, predictable, conventional policy process may take hold soon. His reason is that the administration, whatever it may be saying, knows that the policy chaos is doing real damage. And he is encouraged by hints in recent news stories that a new approach is taking shape. 

On Monday, Bloomberg wrote of Greer:

President Donald Trump’s top trade negotiator is attempting to inject order into sweeping new tariffs expected next month . . . Through the past two months of tariff chaos . . . Greer has largely been out of the picture . . . Under Greer, USTR has reinstated parts of a traditional policy process that were missing from prior tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, China and metals by asking for public comment on the reciprocal duties. That gives the trade office a formal way to receive feedback from businesses and other stakeholders.

Most importantly, the article noted that officials like Scott Bessent and Kevin Hassett “have expressed an urgency to move on to tax cuts and regulation rollbacks that investors crave”. This all sounds quite promising for fans of order, predictability and profit. 

And, yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was inching towards a plan (the concept of a plan?) for reciprocal tariffs. A three-tier approach, designed to avoid the picky business of country-by-country, product-by-product rule writing, was considered and discarded, in favour of an “individualised approach” with “more flexibility.” How to convert tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, industrial subsidies and currency controls into a single tariff rate for each US trading partner is under discussion now. Meanwhile, additional 25 per cent tariffs on cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals are planned.  

Yesterday morning, Treasury secretary Bessent appeared on television with clear intent to reassure. He confirmed that each country would face an individual tariff rate, and emphasised US willingness to negotiate: if partner countries removed trade frictions, tariffs would come down. For strategic industries, the tariffs would remain. He also noted that there were 15 countries with whom the US ran big deficits that were the focus of the administration’s attention (“the dirty 15”).

The administration is trying to transmit clarity, directly and indirectly. But there is no concealing the remaining ambiguities. 

Bessent did not provide much clarity on which industries, besides steel and aluminium, the administration considered strategic. Whether or not the list includes pharmaceuticals, for example, will make a big difference to markets; it has been widely assumed that drugs will be carved out, as they often have in the past. And when pressed on whether tariffs would be “stacked” — if reciprocal tariffs would come on top of strategic ones — he equivocated, and said the trade representative and commerce departments were in charge. 

Which leads to the two overarching questions. First, can this administration fall into line behind a single plan, as orchestrated by Greer or someone else? And how will other countries respond — what will the mix of negotiation and retaliation be? These responses will play out over time, but investors need a road map from the US side at the outset. 

Unhedged makes no predictions for April 2 — we’re no good at politics — other than to say that it will be a very important day indeed. If you have insights, by all means, send them along. 

One good read

More on aid.

FT Unhedged podcast

Can’t get enough of Unhedged? Listen to our new podcast, for a 15-minute dive into the latest markets news and financial headlines, twice a week. Catch up on past editions of the newsletter here.