Latest news with #StrategyRisks
South China Morning Post
4 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
China's rare earth dominance to continue as US investment lags: analysts
China is expected to maintain a strategic edge over the United States in the rare earth industry, thanks to Beijing's long-term investments in advanced mining and processing technologies. In contrast, the US is paying the price for decades of underinvestment, obsolete policies and the absence of a coherent strategy, according to a report by the New York-based think tank Strategy Risks. The warning came as Beijing increasingly leverages its dominance in the global rare earth supply chain – particularly during recent trade negotiations with the Trump administration. The critical minerals became a powerful bargaining chip for China to push back against Washington's tech restrictions, culminating in a deal in London last month that laid the groundwork for both sides to ease curbs. Despite growing US efforts to close the gap, analysts at Strategy Risks said the country was still not doing enough to reduce its reliance on Chinese rare earth exports in the near and medium term. 'Although the US is addressing its vulnerabilities in this sector through initiatives intended to strengthen production and materials processing, America remains dependent on imported minerals from China, due to a comparative lack of raw mineral deposits and government investments,' they wrote in the report on Monday.
Nikkei Asia
23-06-2025
- Automotive
- Nikkei Asia
General Motors rated most at risk from China exposure, report says
General Motors ranked high largely due to exposure to China's political system, by having many joint ventures with Chinese state-owned companies. © Reuters PAK YIU NEW YORK -- General Motors appears to be the American company with the highest degree of exposure to China, according to consulting firm Strategy Risks, amid increasingly fraught relations as China and the U.S. spar over trade. The American automaker ranked first among 250 U.S. publicly traded companies, with a score of 69.8 out of 100 in the latest index published Monday by the New York-based firm, which helps businesses mitigate their risk to China.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Faceoff in Manhattan: Should US ‘decouple' supply chains from China?
NEW YORK – Combatants at the Council on Foreign Relations, in the midst of economic upheaval in the trade and supply chain relationship between China and the United States, took on one of the most basic questions facing supply chains today: Should the U.S. simply call it quits where China is concerned? The four-person debate Monday evening at the New York headquarters of the elite organization reviewed the prospect of that potentially stark change just hours after another huge decline in equities, spurred primarily by a trade war with China as the main adversary, had put more pressure on many dollar-based assets. FreightWaves was invited to the closed-door event. Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and founder of Strategy Risks, a firm that advises companies on China-related risks, kicked off the debate with a hypothetical: If there were a third world war, 'how many people think that the United States and China are going to fight on the same side?' No hands went up. 'For that reason, decoupling is a necessity,' Fish said. On the other side, Benn Steil, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, described decoupling as a 'manmade disaster of epic proportions.' Decoupling would be like the negative consequences of Brexit 'on steroids.' Whereas Fish spoke of a conflict that might not occur or, if it did, could be years in the future, Steil was eyeing a shorter time frame. Steil referred to the 'decoupling program on which we are now entering over the coming months and beyond.' Supply chains under pressure will mean that 'prices in the United States and interest rates are going to be materially higher than they should be, and investment and employment are going to be lower.' Longer term, he said, 'decoupling is going to undermine the special status of the U.S. dollar internationally, a status that President Trump has pledged to defend.' Replacing Chinese finished goods with U.S. finished goods is not the only issue, Steil said. Much of the import lineup the U.S. brings in from China is made up of intermediate goods that are 'absolutely vital to U.S. competitiveness internationally, and therefore also vital to maintaining the primacy and readiness of the U.S.' As is the case when academics and think tank analysts speak and debate, opinions were strong. Derek Scissors, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was the partner with Fish on the side favoring decoupling. His opening argument was simple: The U.S. was a lot better off before its level of economic engagement began growing when China entered the World Trade Organization in 1999. Comparing two countries he identified as C and D, Scissors ticked off a range of statistical comparisons that showed country C as having slower GDP growth, higher income inequality, a smaller percentage of the population in the work force and a reduced level of creativity as measured by the granting of patents. Country C, Scissors said, was the U.S. today. Country D was the U.S. in the late '90s before China's WTO entry. 'I would argue that as a society, we were better off 25 years ago, and if we can't go back in time 25 years, we can at least try to identify what caused the weaknesses in our economy, which have had profound social and political weaknesses,' Scissors said. 'One of those major causes is tying ourselves too closely to China.' Before undertaking those growing ties, Scissors said, 'we had more manufacturing employment, we had less wealth inequality and we were not spending ourselves into oblivion. That was a better America.' Steil's partner in arguing against decoupling was Susan Shirk, a research professor at the University of California San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy and director emeritus of its 21st Century China Center. Shirk's relationship with China goes back to 1971, when she was part of a highly publicized – and then rare – visit by a group of college students to China soon after the country slowly began to open its doors to the rest of the world. Shirk said China has been 'overreaching and has become more of an economic and security threat.' But decoupling would be a 'losing strategy' for the U.S., she said, in part because China is far more prepared than the U.S. for such an action. Chinese leader Xi Jinping 'has been fireproofing the Chinese economy ever since he came into power in order to reduce its vulnerability to what he believes is a long-term effort by the U.S. to contain China's economic development.' The end result is that China has diversified its exports away from the U.S. and to other areas of the world, Shirk said. Scissors pushed back several times on any suggestion that he and Fish were backing Trump administration policies. He said currently imposed 145% tariffs on China 'don't do squat because we have not provided resources to Customs and Border Patrol. There is no decoupling going on on the ground that will last more than a few months.' Steil and Scissors were the most pointed in their statements to each other. Steil, with obvious sarcasm, said decoupling could occur if 'you do something really simple, like impose 145% tariffs.' But the U.S. can 'de-risk' itself, Steil said, by 'identifying specific sectors and specific products where you put up specific import barriers or export barriers.' He cited as examples various steps taken by the Biden administration on export controls of AI and chip-related technology. On that issue, the gap between the two sides did not appear all that wide. Scissors tried to note that his concern was over certain products: 'I don't really care about toys, and I don't care about textiles,' he said. The list of areas Scissors said he is concerned with are those with strategic value. He cited rare earth metals and semiconductors. 'Now we have an emphasis on shipbuilding for military reasons,' Scissors added. Replacing supplies of those products during a decoupling will be hard, he said: 'Some of them will take three years. Some of them will take 10. So I'm not looking for a full decoupling.' Fish noted that in any sort of trade standoff, the U.S. and China don't come to the table with identical situations. One big difference: How long could each country hold out? 'Xi Jinping has shown a great willingness to inflict a lot more pain on his citizens than American leaders have,' Fish said. 'In the reality that we live in today, with the U.S. and China, Beijing is far more willing to exert those costs on some people than the United States.' More articles by John Kingston A market on the precipice: 5 takeaways from the April State of Freight Another federal circuit weighs broker liability, boosting odds of Supreme Court review Freight fraud everywhere, but Truckstop CEO asks: Is anybody going to jail? The post Faceoff in Manhattan: Should US 'decouple' supply chains from China? appeared first on FreightWaves. Sign in to access your portfolio
Al Jazeera
19-04-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Infowars: Chinese AI memes and US media barbs
A trade war that pits the world's two largest economies against each other is now under way. Alongside the tariff battle is a heated battle of narratives and messages between the two countries. Contributors: Andy Mok – Senior Research Fellow, Center for China and Globalisation Jude Russo – Managing Editor, The American Conservative Isaac Stone Fish – CEO, Strategy Risks Yun Sun – Director of China Program, Stimson Center On April 15, the civil war in Sudan hit the two-year mark. The Sudanese media landscape has been devastated. According to Reporters Without Borders, since the war began, nearly 450 journalists have fled the country. Meenakshi Ravi has more. Donald Trump's public musings about how Canada should become the United States' 51st state, has Canadians rallying around their flag. The Listening Post's Ryan Kohls discusses the Trump effect and the unprecedented impact it is having on Canadian nationalism and politics. Featuring: Rachel Gilmore – Host, Bubble Pop Jonathan Kay – Editor, Quillette David Moscrop – Author and Journalist
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US-China trade war is 'just a taste of what's to come,' expert says
The US and China have increasingly been raising their tariffs. The US has slapped a 145% tariff on goods from China, while China has put a 125% tariff on goods from the US. Strategy Risks Founder and CEO Isaac Stone Fish expects tensions to calm in the near term but thinks that the relationship will "devolve" in the coming months and years. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. China announced Friday that it will raise tariffs on US goods from 84% to 125%. It's the latest salvo in an escalating trade war between the world's two largest economies that has rattled markets and raised fears of a global slowdown. Joining us now, Isaac Stonefish, strategy risks founder and CEO. Um, Isaac, uh, it's been a little while since we've talked, certainly since this back and forth really heated up here, and as someone who is a a close student of this relationship between the US and China, is it impossible to predict what happens next? What are what are some of your best guesses as to how things develop from here? With the caveat that these have to be guesses, I do think the recent, we are basically at the bottom where I think things are going to go in the near term. I do think the relation is going to devolve in months, years. I think this is just a taste of what's to come, but I do feel like with this roller coaster, we're going to go down perhaps a little bit more, and then relations will improve. China will come to the negotiating table, the two sides will potentially strike some sort of deal, and then six months, a year, two years later, things will be far, far worse. Isaac, I wonder, what do you think the risks are that Beijing starts to really go after American companies, Isaac, that do a lot of business in China? What what could that look like? So, for folks who are in the trenches there, they know that Beijing has been making it a very inhospitable place to do business for years, if not longer. And I do think you're right, I do think things could get quite worse. I think what they could see are tax irregularities, permitting problems, harassment, arrest, torture of workers. And I do want to point out, for American companies, their Chinese staff are far more vulnerable. And so, when Beijing targets individuals working at American companies in China, usually it's the Chinese employees who bear the brunt of it. And Isaac, so you're an American CEO, you're hearing this right now, you're listening to this. What do you do, Isaac? So, what you do is threefold. You better price your China risk, which means looking at all of your partnerships with Chinese entities, your supply chain, your joint ventures. You make sure that you're taking care of your staff and you put safety first, and you do not put your Chinese staff in a line of fire, and you come up with a plan for what happens if the US and China stop just fighting a trade war and have an actual war. What do you do in that case to make sure that you are protected, and that your business can go on not as usual because things would be radically different, but that you have a plan in place.
