Goldman Sachs: Sådan ser vi på domstols afvisning af Trumps toldsatser

Uddrag fra Goldman / Dansk bearbejdning nedenfor

Markets are all aflutter after a panel of activist Biden-appointed judges and a fossilized Reagan-era Karen at the International Trade Court – which nobody had ever heard of before tonight – threw a wrench in the wheels of Trump’s trade policies, seemingly halting all of Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs. The kneejerk reaction – that this is the end of Trump’s reign of tariff terror – has promptly send the dollar sharply higher and spoos above 6,000 and just shy of a bull market.

There is just one problem: it’s all just one big nothingburger as Goldman explains in a note published by the bank’s chief political economist Alec Phillips late on Wednesday, “Court Blocks Majority of Tariff Hikes, But White House Could Reinstate Them Following Appeal or Through Other Tariff Authorities” (and available to professional subscribers) in which the bank explains that while the ruling is a “setback”, Trump can not only win on appeal, but has multiple options to sidestep the ruling while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule and even to proceed should SCOTUS for some reason side with the trade court decision, to wit:

Bottom Line: The Court of International Trade blocked the tariffs the Trump administration imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling blocks 6.7pp of tariff increase since the start of the year, including the tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, and the 10% baseline tariff, but does not affect sectoral tariffs. As the administration can impose an across-the-board tariff and country-specific tariffs under other legal authorities (e.g., Sec. 122 and Sec. 301) this ruling represents a setback for the administration’s tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners.

Some more excerpts from the report:

The ruling gives the administration 10 days to halt tariff collection, but makes no provision for refunds of tariffs already collected. The Trump administration has already filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could then be appealed again to the Supreme Court. However, decisions from these bodies look unlikely in the next 10 days.

The Trump administration has other authorities it can use to impose tariffs similar to those the court struck down:

• The administration could quickly replace the 10% across-the-board tariff with a similar tariff of up to 15% under Sec. 122. Those tariffs would last for only up to 150 days, after which the law requires Congressional action to extend (the law is not clear on whether the period could end after 150 days and then quickly restart again). Sec. 122 authorizes the President to address a balance of payments deficit or to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation in the dollar, but it does not require any formal investigation or process, so the administration could theoretically replace the current 10% tariff with a Sec. 122-based tariff within days if deemed necessary.
• The US Trade Representative could quickly launch Sec. 301 investigations on key trading partners, laying the procedural groundwork for tariffs after the investigation is complete. This would take longer, likely several weeks at a minimum and probably a few months to complete several investigations. There is no limit on the level or duration of tariffs under Sec. 301.
• Sec. 232 tariffs, which President Trump has already used for steel, aluminum, and autos, could be broadened to cover other sectors. We already expect additional sectoral tariffs (pharmaceuticals, semiconductors/electronics, etc) and uncertainty regarding the IEEPA-based tariffs could lead the White House to put more emphasis on sectoral tariffs, where there is much less legal uncertainty. President Trump has not emphasized sectoral tariffs as frequently lately as he did earlier this year, but if the White House finds it has less flexibility on country-focused tariffs, sectoral tariffs might receive more attention again.
• Sec. 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against the US. This authority, which has never been used, is similar to the authority under Sec. 301, except that it limits the amount of the tariffs but does not require a formal investigation.

And the punchline:

As it seems unlikely that the administration could win an appeal in the 10 days it has under the CIT order to remove the tariffs, we would expect the White House to announce a similar across-the-board tariff using Sec. 122. This would then provide the administration time to launch a series of Sec. 301 cases against larger trading partners, potentially opening the door to imposing tariffs higher than 10% in some cases. However, it seems unlikely that the administration could complete Sec. 301 investigations on every US trading partner within the next several months. If the court’s ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs remains in effect, this could mean that smaller trading partners and/or countries with smaller trade surpluses with the US might not face a baseline tariff when Sec. 122 tariffs roll off after 150 days (assuming the Trump administration cannot find a legal means to extend them).

In conclusion, the bulk of Trump’s tariffs – which clearly are now targeting just a handful of trading partners such as China, EU and Japan – can and most likely will stay, even if SCOTUS does not void the trade court ruling on appeal.

As for cross-asset implications, Goldman’s Bobby Lien writes that as the bank has long argued, universal tariffs meant that it was the USD that needs to adjust weaker. But if these tariffs are unable to go through “then we can see reversal of that motion in FX. Most ccys are down vs the USD as we’re seeing that reversal this morning, though AUDUSD is almost flat as E-minis is up 1.7% this morning (risk-on ccy to offset stronger USD). Reserve currencies such as CHF, JPY and EUR underperforming this morning, with USDJPY up 70bps to 145.80.”

Of course, if and when the trade court decision is reversed, all of the above action will as well. Until then, however, we are about to find out which shorts are the most levered…

bearbejdet til dansk:

Markederne i oprør efter dommerafgørelse – men det hele kan være en storm i et glas vand

Markederne er i oprør, efter at et panel af aktivistiske dommere udpeget af Biden og en forstokket Reagan-æra “Karen” i den Internationale Handelsdomstol – som ingen havde hørt om før i aften – satte en kæp i hjulet på Trumps handelspolitik og tilsyneladende standsede alle hans “Liberation Day”-toldsatser. Den spontane reaktion – at dette er enden på Trumps rædselsregime af told – har straks sendt dollaren kraftigt opad og aktieindekset (spoo’s) over 6.000, tæt på et bull-marked.

Men der er bare ét problem: Det hele er én stor omgang varm luft, som Goldman Sachs forklarer i en note fra bankens cheføkonom for politik, Alec Phillips, udgivet sent onsdag: “Domstol blokerer størstedelen af toldforhøjelserne, men Det Hvide Hus kan genindføre dem efter appel eller via andre toldmyndigheder” (tilgængelig for professionelle abonnenter). I noten forklares det, at selv om afgørelsen er et “tilbageslag”, kan Trump både vinde en appel og benytte sig af adskillige andre veje til at omgå afgørelsen – selv hvis Højesteret en dag skulle støtte handelsdomstolens afgørelse.

Bundlinjen

Den Internationale Handelsdomstol har blokeret de toldsatser, som Trump-administrationen indførte under loven International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Afgørelsen spærrer for 6,7 procentpoint af toldforhøjelserne siden årets begyndelse – herunder dem på Canada, Kina, Mexico samt den generelle 10 %-told – men den påvirker ikke sektorspecifikke toldsatser.

Eftersom administrationen stadig kan indføre generelle toldsatser og landspecifikke toldsatser via andre juridiske beføjelser (fx §122 og §301), udgør afgørelsen blot et bump på vejen, ikke nødvendigvis en ændring af den endelige udfald for de fleste større amerikanske handelspartnere.

Andre hovedpointer fra rapporten

• Afgørelsen giver administrationen 10 dage til at stoppe opkrævning af told, men nævner intet om tilbagebetaling af allerede opkrævet told.

• Trump-administrationen har allerede anket til den amerikanske appelret for forbundskredse, som senere kan ankes til Højesteret. Men det er usandsynligt, at disse domstole når at træffe en afgørelse inden for de 10 dage.

• Administrationen har andre værktøjer i værktøjskassen:

§122

• Tillader indførelse af op til 15 % generel told uden forudgående undersøgelse.

• Gyldig i op til 150 dage – en forlængelse kræver kongressens godkendelse.

• Kan bruges til at adressere betalingsbalanceunderskud eller forhindre hurtig dollar-depreciering.

§301

• Gør det muligt hurtigt at igangsætte undersøgelser mod nøglehandelspartnere med henblik på at indføre told.

• Tager typisk flere uger eller måneder.

• Der er ingen grænser for toldsatsernes størrelse eller varighed.

§232

• Allerede brugt til stål, aluminium og biler – kan udvides til andre sektorer som fx lægemidler og elektronik.

• Har lavere juridisk usikkerhed og kan få større fokus.

§338 (Handelsloven af 1930)

• Giver mulighed for op til 50 % told på import fra lande, der diskriminerer mod USA.

• Kræver ikke formel undersøgelse, men er aldrig blevet brugt.

Konklusion

Det er usandsynligt, at Trump vinder appellen inden for 10 dage, og derfor forventes administrationen at genindføre en lignende generel told via §122. Dette vil give tid til at igangsætte en bølge af §301-undersøgelser, som muligvis kan føre til toldsatser højere end 10 % over for visse lande. Hvis IEEPA-afgørelsen står ved magt, kan nogle mindre handelspartnere måske undslippe grundtolden, når §122-tolden udløber efter 150 dage – medmindre der findes en juridisk vej til forlængelse.

Alt i alt: størstedelen af Trumps toldsatser – som nu hovedsageligt retter sig mod Kina, EU og Japan – kan og vil sandsynligvis forblive, selv hvis Højesteret ikke omstøder handelsdomstolens afgørelse.

Implikationer for valutamarkedet

Goldmans Bobby Lien bemærker, at som banken længe har argumenteret, betyder universelle toldsatser en svagere dollar. Men hvis disse toldsatser ikke kan gennemføres, vil den bevægelse vende. De fleste valutaer falder i forhold til dollaren i dag – en reaktion på netop denne vending – selvom AUD/USD er næsten uændret, da E-mini futures er oppe med 1,7 % (risikovillig valuta balancerer en stærkere dollar). CHF, JPY og EUR klarer sig dårligst, og USD/JPY er steget 70 basispunkter til 145,80.

Selvfølgelig, hvis handelsdomstolens afgørelse bliver omstødt, vil alt ovenstående blive rullet tilbage. Indtil da finder vi ud af, hvilke short-positioner der er mest gearede…