Imposing tariffs is not an uncommon practice, and it doesn’t
always carry a negative effect. When
they are applied strategically to economic sectors that may be vulnerable or unable
to compete head-to-head in regional markets given certain conditions, they can
prove beneficial. For instance, China is the largest producer of steel and the
industry is heavily subsidized by their government. As a result, Chinese steel
tends to be rather cheap. Mexico, too, produces steel, but does so at a much lower
output. Mexican manufacturers – in the automotive, aerospace, etc. industries -
are heavy consumers of steel parts and products, so the Mexican government imposes
tariffs on imported Chinese steel in order to equate its costs with those of
Mexican-produced steel. This is intended to protect Mexico’s steel producers
and enable them to compete fairly. In theory, Chinese and Mexican steel can now
be compared and consumed based on quality or other specs besides just cost. In
this scenario, a tariff makes sense.
But imposing "blanket" tariffs without a commercial rationale behind it is a terrible idea. If you don’t
believe that, you should look at what happened to the Dow Jones last week when
the now-infamous 5% tariff was announced (not imposed). Blanket,
unstructured, and non-purposeful tariffs often drive speculation into panic - justified
panic.
We see this everyday. Part of our work is to help North
American businesses improve their supply chains, which in many instances
entails supporting transitions within their manufacturing process from China to
Mexico (https://www.sourceoneinc.com/consulting-tools/sourcing-and-procurement-services/low-cost-country-and-nearshoring/),
a trend that started many years ago, way before the current administration
imposed tariffs on China and, you guessed it, cost was a major driver for
businesses considering the switch. They looked at Mexico for two major reasons.
The first was proximity which created logistical advantages, and the other was
the cost benefit associated with lower labor rates and a North American Free Trade
Agreement that provided for a tariff-free transit of goods.
Consider this situation: in less than 36 months, massive
tariffs on Chinese goods were imposed which increased costs to American
business and forced them to look elsewhere, namely Mexico and Eastern Europe. Suffice
it to say our practice was booming. Next,
NAFTA was dissolved and replaced with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement which
amongst other provisions (and the fact that “Free” is no longer part of the
name) ensures that labor conditions are fairly balanced across all three
countries – a stipulation that will likely increase labor costs in Mexico. Then, a new blanket tariff is announced
on Mexican goods, meaning companies importing products from Mexico will need to
absorb the increased costs. So, those US businesses that were driven out of
China and into Mexico are now forced to pay more and faced with two options.
They can contend with either eroding margins or increasing prices. At worst, eroding
margins means companies are less profitable and more prone to financial
distress. At best, they’ll be less likely to hire new talent; while increasing
prices may mean reduced revenues due to a diluted consumer base.
Shifting manufacturing to the United States may not be a viable
option for many either. Even if a manufacturing sector is mature enough to effectively
absorb production, costs would likely be even higher than in Mexico. After all,
US labor rates are as much as eight times higher than in Mexico, and remember
those tariffs on Chinese parts increasing costs already? So that means someone will pay.
Many pundits say it’s
the consumer, but it’s really everyone! US Businesses will pay more as they
absorb higher costs and lower profits, consumers will pay more as prices go up,
the US economy will slow down as consumer trust is diminished, Mexico will pay
as local manufacturers will decrease their exporting activity, and the chain
goes on and on. I’m not saying all these things will happen concurrently, but
perfect storms do occur and as permutations and combinations of these factors
pile up, everyone will feel a direct or indirect impact, whether we like it or
not. This is how you fuel speculation. When the question, “How hard will this
impact me?” meets the statement, “I’m not sure what to do now,” anxiety is
born. Wall Street doesn’t like when
companies are anxious and, needless to say, neither should you. Ultimately, a
market that feels insecure WILL underperform, so simply announcing that a
tariff is coming will have a tangible, wide-reaching effect, let along actually
imposing it. Remember, perception is reality.
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours