Asia could outstrip Europe as key beneficiary of U.S. capital flight: Raychaudhuri
As global investors consider reducing their exposure to U.S. financial assets, the key question is where money flowing out of the U.S. will go. While Europe may be the obvious destination, relative value metrics may favour emerging Asia.
Even though U.S. equities have recovered from the steep losses suffered in the week following U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement of his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, the same cannot be said of the U.S. bond market. Since hitting a recent low on April 4, the 10-year Treasury yield has spiked by around 50 basis points, with bond investors demanding more compensation for the risk of holding longer-dated U.S. debt. Worryingly, the benchmark Treasury yield has surged higher than nominal U.S. GDP growth – a key risk measure.
Additionally, the usual positive correlation between Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar has broken off, as rising yields are no longer attracting money to the 'safest' asset in the world. Broad-based depreciation of the greenback suggests that – despite the equity rebound – many U.S. assets are being sold and the funds are flowing into markets whose currencies are appreciating.
EUROPEAN ALTERNATIVE
The euro's almost 10% rise against the dollar this year suggests that a significant portion of the capital flowing out of the U.S. is going to Europe, likely driven both by concerns about U.S. policy as well as expectations of higher regional growth.
Further monetary easing by the European Central Bank should promote economic activity, as should the expected surge in fiscal spending following Germany's recent constitutional reform, which approved partial removal of the 'debt brake' for infrastructure and defence spending.
The fiscal splurge is already offering a boost to European equities – the surprise winner thus far in 2025 – especially defence, industrial and technology stocks.
DEBT WOES
But there are reasons to question the new 'European exceptionalism' narrative.
One likely cause of investors' growing apprehension with U.S. assets is the Trump administration's apparent inability to narrow the country's gaping fiscal deficit or reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio, which has risen to more than 120%.
But elevated debt metrics are also an issue across the pond, as they are found in Italy (135% of GDP), France (113%) and the UK (96%). Importantly, both Italy and France have seen their 10-year bond yields rise above their nominal GDP growth rates.
While the latter metric is also true of Germany, the country's debt load is modest at only 62% of GDP, so the statistic mostly reflects a stagnating economy that's about to get a spending boost.
Fiscal expansion in Europe will likely continue to benefit the region's equities, but whether it is good news for fixed income investment there is still an open question.
ASIAN OPTION
Meanwhile, in emerging Asia – another potential destination for U.S. capital outflows – the debt picture is better and the growth outlook is stronger.
Government debt in many Asian countries is low, ranging from 37% of GDP in Indonesia to around 85% in China and India.
Benchmark bond yields across the region have been declining since October 2023, speaking to fixed income investors' limited concerns about Asian countries' fiscal situations. In fact, yields in China, Thailand and Korea are all below those in the U.S., though those in Indonesia and India remain higher.
Modest debt burdens mean there is also plenty of room for more fiscal stimulus in many countries, which could improve consumption, while the benign inflation environment should enable central banks in the region to continue cutting rates to stimulate growth.
Emerging Asia also offers far more high-growth, technology companies than Europe. The release of the affordable Chinese artificial intelligence model, DeepSeek, Beijing's focus on semiconductors and advanced manufacturing and the country's electric vehicle dominance could all attract tech-focused investors looking for an alternative to the U.S..
RELATIVE VALUE
Even though European equities have outperformed their U.S. counterparts significantly in 2025, the twelve-month forward price-to-earnings multiple of the major European index, the STOXX50, is considerably lower than that of the S&P 500, at 15.4x and 21.0x, respectively, as of May 23. But the major emerging Asia equity index, the MSCI Asia ex Japan, is even cheaper at 13.4x.
Moreover, earnings growth forecasts are higher in Asia than in either the U.S. or Europe through 2026.
Finally, reallocation of assets from the U.S. could potentially have a bigger positive impact on Asia than on Europe because of their relative sizes. Let's say 5% of the U.S. free floating market cap of around $58 trillion, or roughly $3 trillion, moves out. That would represent 36% of Asia's market cap, but only 22% of Europe's.
NO SLAM DUNK
Caution remains warranted, though. Asian nations' ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. will likely still encounter numerous twists and turns, and increasing protectionism could hinder the region's more export-oriented economies. Moreover, Chinese economic growth remains tepid despite the monetary and fiscal stimulus delivered over the past eight months.
Finally, the capital flowing into emerging Asia is a double-edged sword because of the impact on Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. If Asian currencies strengthen much more, the region's export engine could stutter.
Investors, thus, have to keep a close eye on macroeconomics, geopolitics and policy statements, not just valuation metrics.
But given emerging Asia's benign debt environment and positive growth outlook, both the region's equity and fixed income markets have the potential to benefit from the death of American exceptionalism.
(The views expressed here are those of Manishi Raychaudhuri, the founder and CEO of Emmer Capital Partners Ltd and the former Head of Asia-Pacific Equity Research at BNP Paribas Securities).
(Writing by Manishi Raychaudhuri; Editing by Anna Szymanski.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
36 minutes ago
- Zawya
India services sector growth hits 10-month high as demand surges, PMI shows
BENGALURU: India's services sector enjoyed its strongest growth in ten months in June, fuelled by robust demand and cooling price pressures, a survey showed on Thursday. The HSBC final India Services Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI), compiled by S&P Global, climbed to 60.4 in June from 58.8 in May, but was a touch lower than a preliminary estimate of 60.7. The PMI threshold of 50.0 separates growth in activity from contraction. The new business sub-index - a key gauge of demand - rose sharply as companies benefited from sustained strength in the domestic market. This came alongside robust growth in export orders even as the pace slowed slightly from May. Overseas demand was underpinned by improvement from the Asian, Middle Eastern and U.S. markets, according to panelists. The strong demand supported continued job creation although employment growth eased from the record-high touched in May. On the pricing front, input cost inflation across the sector cooled to a ten-month low in June with companies primarily citing higher staff wages as the main source of increased expenses. Service providers maintained enough pricing power to pass some of the cost burden to clients. Output price inflation eased from May and was in line with the historical average. However, the business outlook for the coming year weakened to its lowest level in more than two years. The HSBC India Composite PMI, which combines services and manufacturing activity, rose to 61.0 in June from 59.3, marking the fastest expansion in 14 months. The manufacturing PMI data released this week showed factory activity growth accelerated in June, complementing the robust services performance.
Zawya
36 minutes ago
- Zawya
Gold and its miners may enjoy a 'critical mineral' upgrade: Russell
(The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) LAUNCESTON, Australia - Is gold the next metal to be added to the list of "critical minerals"? Gold is not a vital component of advanced manufacturing like other critical minerals such as rare earths, lithium and copper. But the precious metal appears to be undergoing a subtle shift in how it is viewed by governments and investors. Since countries moved away from the gold standard by the early 1970s, gold has largely been viewed as a relatively niche part of investment portfolios and government reserves. Gold was something that was added to portfolios as an inflation hedge or during times of heightened geopolitical tensions. In some ways, the role of gold in both central bank and investment portfolios was overtaken by bonds, with U.S. Treasuries becoming the most important of these assets. But the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency is leading to a global reassessment of the relative safety of U.S. assets, the independence of the Federal Reserve and the likely worsening of the U.S. fiscal position. Add in Trump's attacks on the rule of law in the United States and the likely hit to both the U.S. and global economies from his trade policies, and the stage is set for a reevaluation of the role of gold. The precious metal has gained 32.3% from a low of $2,536.71 an ounce hit on November 14 in the days after Trump's victory over his Democratic Party rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris. It reached a record high of $3,500.05 an ounce on April 22, and has since retreated slightly to close at $3,357.08 on Wednesday. While gold's day-to-day moves are still largely driven by the news cycle, the overall backdrop looks supportive. The World Gold Council released a report last month in which it surveyed 73 central banks, and 95% of them expected the official sector to increase holdings in the coming 12 months. "This is a record high since it was first tracked in the 2019 survey and represents a 17% increase from the 2024 findings," the council said. Central banks are also moving to repatriate more of their holdings back to their home countries and away from the United States, a further sign that there is a loss of confidence in U.S. assets and the policies of the Trump administration. Gold is also well-placed as one of the few viable alternatives if more governments, fund managers and private investors outside the United States form the view that the era of U.S. exceptionalism is over and that U.S. Treasuries are now a riskier asset as the country's fiscal position deteriorates. MINING COMPANIES Another factor that is showing the positive story for gold is the performance of gold mining equities. Major gold producers have seen their share prices rise at a far faster pace than the actual metal. There are several reasons why this could be the case, including the expectation that shareholders will receive higher dividend payouts in the future and that companies are being rewarded for showing capital discipline in prior years. But it also may be that investors are starting to re-rate gold mining companies in the expectation that gold becomes a more vital and larger part of portfolios, both public and private. For example, shares in Newmont, the world's largest listed gold miner, have risen 63% from their most recent low on December 30 to close at $60.06 on Wednesday. Canada's Barrick Mining has seen its shares gain 40.6% in U.S. dollar terms from its recent low on December 19 to the close on Wednesday. Anglogold Ashanti shares in New York have surged 108% from the low on December 30 to the close of $46.66 on Wednesday, while Gold Fields has seen a gain of 88% in U.S. dollar terms from its November 14 low to the close on Wednesday. If gold does become a more central part of investment strategies, the listed miners are likely to become more attractive, given the difficulty of finding and developing new projects and the long time between exploration and production. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. (Editing by Jamie Freed)
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Why are bond vigilantes holding back their fire?: Panizza and Gulati
(The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, professors at the Geneva Institute and the University of Virginia.) A core tenet of sovereign debt investment is that strong institutions keep down a country's borrowing costs and vice versa. So then why has the bond market's response to U.S. President Donald Trump's institutional norm-busting been so tame? Sovereign borrowers are hard to sue and harder still to enforce claims against. And because they are sovereign, they can do things that private companies can't, like pass laws and inflate their currencies. Investors, and particularly foreign investors, therefore, should naturally be wary of lending to sovereigns. And yet, in many cases, they do. For example, roughly a third of U.S. Treasuries were held in foreign hands as of March. Why take the risk? The answer given by academic theory is that investors typically lend to sovereign borrowers when the country has institutions in place to protect against the threat of expropriation. Conversely, if a country's institutions are weak, or weakening, creditors will significantly increase the sovereign's borrowing costs to compensate for the rising risk. The classic academic article on this topic was written by Douglas North and Barry Weingast in 1989. It considered the issue by examining constitutional arrangements in 17th century England. The country was able to borrow significantly more, they argued, after putting in place effective institutions intended to assure investors that parliament could, and would, check the monarch's temptation to expropriate. And that, in turn, helped England become a global superpower, North and Weingast said. A large literature has subsequently been built on this paper. Scholars have hypothesized - and shown - that having institutions that can constrain an overreaching sovereign, such as a strong and independent judiciary, central bank and press, do indeed help keep down borrowing costs. That is why the countries that carry the biggest risk premia in debt markets, such as Belarus, Lebanon, and Sudan, are far from models of institutional stability. TRUMP PREMIUM? So what about the United States? Since January, Donald Trump's administration has challenged many domestic institutional norms long considered key constraining mechanisms on the executive. This has included confrontations with judges, legislators, the central bank, bureaucrats, academics, protesters, law firms and even provisions of the U.S. Constitution itself. And then there are the numerous international agreements the administration has backed out of or undermined, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization. Moreover, the announcement of broad-based 'reciprocal tariffs' challenges the foundation of the modern trade system as regulated by the World Trade Organization. Put all of the foregoing together, and we would have expected to see a significant move upward in U.S. Treasury yields. But that hasn't happened. There have certainly been some signs of discontent among bond investors, including after Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement and following his musings that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's termination 'cannot come fast enough.' In both cases, the bond market moves were notable but not earth-shattering. They did appear to have the desired effect, as the administration responded by either softening its language or postponing controversial policies, and these pivots led to market recoveries. But given the stakes, jumps of less than 75 basis points in the 10-year Treasury yield seem rather contained. It's also true that the term premium on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note – a measure of compensation investors demand for holding longer-dated U.S. government debt – hit a 10-year high in May, though that's far from elevated by historical standards. BOND VIGILANTES? Why are the infamous bond vigilantes holding back? There are several possible explanations. First, the theory about the link between institutional strength and borrowing costs could be wrong. Things like the rule of law and central bank independence are nice to have, but, ultimately, bondholders care about one thing: getting paid. And the risk of a U.S. default remains low. While investors have been getting antsy about the potential for Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill to add around $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the dollar remains the world's reserve currency, so the U.S. has more room for fiscal profligacy than most. Indeed, U.S. Treasuries' long-held role as the global risk-free asset may be why yield spikes have been contained. The $28 trillion U.S. Treasury market remains a key pillar of the global financial architecture, and there is no ready substitute with the same size, liquidity and depth. So it's understandable why investors are loath to flee. No one wants to pull the alarm if there is a significant risk that doing so will cause a part of the building to fall on one's head. But 'too big to fail' is a short-run story. If the current global risk-free asset isn't living up to its name, substitutes will emerge. In fact, there is already talk of increased debt issuance in Europe offering investors a risk-free alternative. Moreover, today's bond market indifference may encourage the Trump administration to continue pursuing policies that challenge U.S. institutions and, in turn, undermine long-run growth and weaken the global rules-based economic system it once led. And if that occurs, North and Weingast's theory could yet play out, and the cost of U.S. borrowing could rise meaningfully. As economist Rudiger Dornbush famously said, 'In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and they happen faster than you think they could.' (The views expressed here are those of Ugo Panizza and Mitu Gulati, professors at the Geneva Institute (International Economics) and the University of Virginia (Law). These are their views and not those of their institutions). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. (Writing by Ugo Panizza and Mitu Gulati; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Christian Schmollinger)
