Never mind the tariffs, NZ must prepare for the Chinese consumer rebound
Then, as we look forward, China will play an increasing role in driving the technology in our lives: think electric vehicles.
Two leading international experts on China's economic outlook – Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Andrew Browne and ANZ China chief economist Raymond Yeung – attended Auckland's China Business Summit this month to unpick what's going on.
Their conclusions offered some real hope for New Zealand businesses in the years ahead.
First the bad news
There's no question Chinese consumer sentiment is low and there is slowing economic growth.
'The number one issue dragging the Chinese sentiment down is the property market,' says ANZ's Yeung.
'We definitely need to see a recovery of the property market in order to see a sustainable recovery in sentiment and consumer spending because of the wealth effect.'
The latest numbers show the property market is still dropping month on month, he says.
A report from Goldman Sachs last month estimated prices have fallen 20% over the past four years and could decline another 10% before bottoming out in 2027.
That matches ANZ's estimates.
'I believe it will be another 18 to 24 months of contraction of the property market,' Yeung says.
'That sounds bad. But that is a national strategy to turn the country from a property-led economy to a tech and renewable energy-led economy.
'There is a view from the top that China simply has to go through this transition,' he says.
It's one of the features of the Chinese system that its leadership can look through often painful periods of transition and focus on bigger, longer-term goals.
As Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand, Wang Xiaolong (also speaking at the summit) put it: 'No matter how turbulent the global landscape is, or will be, China remains unremittingly committed to development to deliver better lives for the Chinese people, in the historic process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
'There is a firm, unshakeable national consensus that has not changed and will not change.'
Trade war showdown
The ability to absorb more short-term economic pain is one of the big advantages China has in its current trade war showdown with the US, says Browne.
'I think it is important to know that Xi Jinping thinks he is winning! And he may not be wrong,' Browne says.
'Obviously, China has problems in its economy. We're in the third year of a real estate meltdown. Youth unemployment is high, it is crushing the dreams of an entire generation of college graduates and their families.
'Xi Jinping is enormously concerned about all of this but he is focused on a different prize,' Browne says.
That prize is technology. China is laser-focused on developing a high-tech manufacturing industry to enable China to escape the American choke hold, he says.
'[Xi] sees what he says are changes 'unseen in a century' ... meaning the rise of China and relative decline of the USA.
'This, from Xi's perspective, is China's moment to seize.'
When it comes to tariffs and the trade war, both Yeung and Browne see China having the upper hand.
Yeung believes it's likely the present US/China tariffs (currently sitting at 30%) will fade into insignificance in the coming years.
ANZ China chief economist Raymond Yeung.
'I expect this tariff will be gone very soon,' he says.
'There is too much stakeholder interest.'
Basically, the US needs China's rare earth metals, and China needs access to US semiconductor chip technology.
Vietnam is the most highly vulnerable to US tariffs, with 8.3% of its GDP exposed to the US, Yeung says.
'For China it is just 3%. They can give it up, just let it go.'
He notes that China is also currently suffering from deflation – something that helps mitigate any inflationary impact from tariffs.
Browne isn't so convinced Trump will back down further on tariffs.
However, he does believe the US got outplayed by China in the showdown earlier this year.
'Nobody knows how this is going to play out. We haven't seen this since the 1930s. So I still wouldn't rule out an inflationary surge.'
We can't even exclude the 'possibility that Trump isn't stark raving mad', he says.
We may see some positive outcomes emerge from the tariff policies.
'We've already seen a few. It has galvanised Germany, and it has galvanised Europe. It is possible Europe might get its act together and launch a unified capital market and start issuing bonds, and compete with the US and China.
'It's equally possible that the US could convince China to shift its economic model further to consumption.'
Or, it could all end up relatively benign for the US economy. Trump might continue to reduce tariffs, and a combination with 'cutting taxes, slimming the government and cutting red tape may usher in a golden era for the US ... we don't know.'
Another possible outcome is that the world economy 'bifurcates' around the US and China, and countries like New Zealand are caught in the middle, he warns.
But regardless of what happens next, Trump has made the fundamental cardinal mistake in his second term of underestimating China, Browne says.
'[Former US President Joe] Biden, whether you like him or not, had the measure of China, so when he wanted to put export controls on chip-making materials, his team worked very hard with governments in the Netherlands and Japan.
'At one point in the Biden administration, he decided to get rid of all of the cranes in all of the ports in the US because there were fears they'd be counting things like military equipment going in and out.
'Unfortunately for the US they don't make cranes anymore. The Japanese do so he put in place a technology transfer agreement with Japan. Biden understood the challenge.'
The US is the world's financial superpower but China is the world's manufacturing superpower, Browne says.
'It now has an industrial base that is equal to the US, plus Germany, plus Japan, plus South Korea, and then some.'
That gives China a critical advantage in all the technologies that are coming of age at the same time.
That came to the fore during the recent trade negotiations, where Browne says US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant also underestimated China.
'He said, 'When China exports five times as much to the US as we export to them, we have all the cards'.
'He said the Chinese were 'playing with a pair of twos ... It turned out that when he turned the cards over that China had a couple of aces.'
One of those aces was rare earths.
'China threatened to choke off the supply of rare earths to the US and in doing so would have closed down vast swathes of the manufacturing industry, the defence industry, the entire car industry.'
The US attempted to retaliate, denying China exports for jet engines and threatening to close down China's civilian airline project.
The tariff war morphed into a supply chain war that was far more serious, Browne says.
'It turns out the Chinese had played the US, and they completely caved.
'Trump brought the tariffs down from 145% to 30%. Still high but no longer prohibitive. That's where we are now. We have a truce.'
Browne says he doesn't see Trump completely abandoning tariffs.
'We were warned about recession and inflation and we haven't seen that yet,' he says.
'Tariffs are raking record amounts of revenue for the US Government. In Trump's mind, this is a substitute for taxation.'
It may be that the lack of negative consequences actually emboldens Trump.
'I would not count out that possibility, that he really does come through with the big tariffs he's promised on August 1.'
Tech wars
Technology is at the heart of US-China competition now, Browne says.
'A lot of people got the socialist market economy wrong,' he says.
'There was this idea that it would collapse under its own contradictions and an enormous amount of waste.
'And look, the waste in the Chinese system is spectacular but it is also spectacularly well co-ordinated.'
It's a whole-of-nation approach, he says.
'Private/public partnerships, centralised R&D, centralised marketing and bottomless supplies of capital and this incredible winnowing process through dog-eat-dog capitalism in the marketplace. What emerges are these apex predators.'
There's the rapid rise of car manufacturers like BYD and the big advances China is making in battery technology.
But even in the media space, in the most highly censored economy in the world, China produced TikTok, which now has greater insight into the minds of young Americans than Meta, he says.
'They have a system for producing world-beating companies in sector after sector.'
Tariffs are mostly a bad thing, Browne says.
If they are well-targeted, however, they can sometimes do some good by protecting the industries that a country seeks to develop.
'The Biden administration identified semiconductors, clean tech, batteries and so on,' he says.
'When I talked to investors and asked, 'what are you interested in?' number one was the US. They were attracted by all of the money going into these sectors.'
All of that is now being dismantled.
'The big beautiful tax bill doesn't just eliminate the subsidies and incentives in these areas, it actually penalises companies operating in these areas,' Browne says.
The US is essentially handing the entire landscape over to China, he says.
'If you want to do your green transition now, whether you're in Africa or Latin America, you want Chinese technologies. And the United States will never catch up.'
Can the US and China be friends?
Browne says he's very sceptical that there is such a thing as a US-China grand bargain.
'I think the relationship is defined by a core tension. At a high level, there is an almost complete absence of trust,' he says.
The idea China is a threat and must be treated as competition is one of the few areas of bipartisan political consensus in the US, he says.
'But these two economies are deeply enmeshed; they are joined at the hip. It creates all kinds of mind-bending paradoxes.
'The Chinese hypersonic Carrier Killer missile cannot find its target without high-end chips manufactured by TSMC in Taiwan, using US tech,' Browne says.
'By the same token, the American Patriot missile cannot defend against Chinese rockets without magnets that come from Chinese rare earth materials.'
This is a relationship that is best described as 'weaponised interdependency', he says.
Never mind the tariffs ...
Yeung and Browne agree on a lot. But Browne still sees China as an exporting nation – as evidenced by its US$114 billion ($188.3b) trade surplus with the world.
Yeung believes focusing on this can lead to a misunderstanding of what's really driving China's economic policy.
He sees China as an importing nation, based on the fact 88% of its total GDP is domestic now.
'It's domestic growth that will drive China's development,' he says.
Here in New Zealand we shouldn't pay too much attention to whether China hits 5.3% GDP or 5.1%, he says.
'If China is going to transition, it's not about how many percentage points of GDP, it is about the changes in lifestyle, the quality of life.'
In order for New Zealand to make the most of the Chinese market we need to speed up our ability to adapt, he says.
'You really need to think about the Chinese speed. Maybe we talk about annual planning but even within one year the Chinese business cycle changes a lot.'
New Zealand needs to be ready and to position itself for when Chinese consumer confidence eventually rebounds, he says.
'This tariff issue is not the core issue.
'I don't need to reiterate, this is a US$18 trillion economy. There is also US$36 trillion in household deposits sitting in bank accounts in China, ready to unlock and unleash.
'Once consumer sentiment comes back, that will be a massive wave of consumption power waiting for you guys to tap.
'Consumption is the future of China, supported by technological change. And China is going through this with or without the US.'
Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Heraldin 2003.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
KiwiSaver shakeup sees billions shifted from big banks to boutique operators
Photo: 123RF KiwiSaver members are quitting big bank providers and shifting their investments to independent and boutique operators. Data for the most recent financial year, compiled from documents filed on the Disclose register, shows that Milford Asset Management was the biggest winner, with almost $1.5 billion of net funds transferred in. In total, there is about $120b invested in KiwiSaver. Generate was second, Simplicity third and Kernel fourth. At the other end of the table, ANZ lost a net $728.7 million in transfers, ASB $476.6m and Westpac $353.2m. ANZ still has the largest market share, at 17.5 percent, followed by ASB with 14.7 percent. In 2015, ANZ had almost a quarter of the market, but since then it has suffered through a period of poor performance . In Morningstar's March survey, ANZ's conservative fund was bottom of the pack over 10 years, balanced was 15th out of 16, and its growth funds were 11th and 14th out of 14. ANZ said the market was "extremely competitive". "Across the industry, a total of 163,000 KiwiSaver members transferred providers in the year to March 2025, up 22 percent. "ANZ continues to focus on helping New Zealanders feel more confident and in control of their KiwiSaver investment. "That means supporting better conversations, especially through our banking channels. We're also proactively checking in and communicating with members, not just waiting for them to come to us. "We're continuing to invest in intuitive tools and digital experiences, such as our Fund Chooser Tool and government Contribution Tracker, to make managing KiwiSaver simpler for customers. "Additionally, we've refreshed our investment beliefs and continued to reduce fees across several of our funds, benefiting our members and reinforcing our commitment to delivering strong, long-term value." Greg Bunkall, data director at Morningstar, said Milford and Generate were the only providers with more than $1b in net inflows in the year. "Those two providers also feature heavily in the top of the league tables regularly. As a provider, you need to have strong brand awareness, marketing, and lead generation functions - but the performance would help. "If you talk to some of the KiwiSaver providers that do well and receive earned media, they will typically see larger than normal switches in days that follow - so that would at least anecdotally support at least some degree of performance chasing in the KiwiSaver cohort." KiwiWrap topped the table on a measure of the number of dollars in versus the number out, followed by Kernel. Kernel had the biggest percentage growth in funds under management. Milford head of KiwiSaver Murray Harris said its long-term returns were helping to draw customers in. Morningstar reports showed Milford among the top performers over three, five and 10-year periods. He said there tended to be more interest in provider switching in the middle of the year, when people were encouraged to check their funds and ensure they had contributed enough to get the full government contribution. "Members are quite focused on their KiwISaver and get a reminder to look at it. We often see a boost this time of year." He said KiwiSaver balances had become more significant for many members, and it made sense that they were looking at what options were available to them. People considering switching should compare long-term returns, he said, not just the most recent quarter or year. "We've seen some very specialist funds do very well, gold and crypto are doing well at the moment… don't just look at the short-term returns but the long-term. "How consistent are they at providing those market-leading returns throughout time? Five and ten years would be the minimum. These are very long-term investments, so the longer the track record you look at, the better." People were more likely to move when markets were performing well, he said. "We've had strong market returns almost every day since the wobble in April, that makes people more confident to transfer. When markets are not doing well, they tend not to transfer because they think they'll crystallise the loss with one provider." But as long as people were moving to a similar fund type, they would not be in a worse position for shifting providers. "You might do better if you recover the fall in value driven by the market sooner." Kernel founder Dean Anderson said people were becoming more engaged and realising that KiwiSaver wasn't just a bank product. "Now that education and awareness is growing, people realise there are better solutions out there." But compared to the number of people who switched for a better deal on their power or phone, he said, switching activity was still very low. "I think we should expect to see that increase. As balances get bigger, people think, 'Am I better off elsewhere? Are there better fees, better service, better values that align with mine?" The growth of smaller, newer providers showed people had confidence in the scheme, he said. "There's confidence that these players are good, stable, growing businesses. You don't have to be with the bank." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Despite Donald Trump's tariffs, we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine
So, in summary and even factoring in US state sales taxes, in totality, New Zealand is only marginally disadvantaged. Further mitigating factors both in favour of the American consumer and the New Zealand exporter is the ongoing strength of the US dollar and Donald Trump's recent big, beautiful tax bill, which will pass significant tax relief and buying power into the hands of millions of American consumers. Also front of mind should be that other countries and direct New Zealand competitors are facing similar, if not greater, tariff increases than New Zealand. Given we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine products, it's unlikely, after a period of adjustment, that price increases at the retail level will have any meaningful impact on American consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. Voting changes People are criticising the Government for closing voting enrolments two weeks before the election. If you don't want to vote, that is fine. However, if you do, but can't be bothered to put in a small amount of effort to enrol over two weeks before an election, the problem isn't the system, it's you. If you want to vote, make an effort. Mark Young, Ōrewa. Electoral requirements If it is a legal requirement to be enrolled on the electoral roll, as stated by the Government on national television Q&A programme yesterday, why are all those on a benefit or Superannuation or in public services jobs not being checked by either employers or Winz? Who is responsible for checking that all New Zealanders are enrolled and are therefore not in breach of the law? Or does this Government not care about the 'dropkicks' or those who have been removed from the Māori roll? What happens to those who turn 18 on or near polling day? If the enrolment time is shortened, how will NZ Post guarantee that all New Zealanders are enrolled in time, and also the many thousands of Kiwi who have moved to Australia this past year who are still New Zealand citizens? Where is the democratic right for all New Zealanders? It behoves every Kiwi eligible to vote and all parliamentary parties to check the electoral roll in 2026 to make a concerted effort to gather those who are in breach of the law. Marie Kaire, Whangārei. Credit card fees So, the Government is banning credit card fees, whoop de do. Not all retailers charged extra anyway and the ones that did will recover them in some other covert way instead. A waste of Government time and energy all round. A.J. Petersen, Kawerau. Lions v Australia In a dead rubber, Australia won one test against the British and Irish Lions which, in spite of rugby's prevailing conflicting laws, held a passing interest. The game again was an eight-man-a-side wrestling contest with hardly any flowing seven-man backline plays. The tries scored were due only to individual opportunism, rather than teamwork. Once again, rugby was ... the loser. Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay. Jami-Lee Ross' political return Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross has said he is aiming for a political comeback, and will run for a seat on the Howick local board in the Flat Bush subdivision. No doubt he has weighed up the pros and cons of this move, but given the way the final chapters of his previous time in politics played out in the media, I'd suggest it would probably be best to give it a miss. He would open himself up for scrutiny, old controversies will be brought up, and his new venture, running an escort agency, will no doubt be 'grist for the mill' for his opponents. The message in Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler says it best: 'You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run...' Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
