By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

I cannot remember the first time that we discussed the transition from “Made in China” to “Made by China.” I do know that back in April 2023 we Locked in Some Themes, one of which was the Made by China theme. We also framed the discussion around the dollar, the yuan, and “reserve currency” status using the “Dark Web” as a useful way to think about it. Some reports age better than others, and that report seems to have aged particularly well.

“Made by China” has been a theme that we have been using more and more. We are also starting to see it referenced more frequently. Not usually in those exact words (which we are trying to coin for ourselves) but the concept is the same – stiffer competition from Chinese goods makers.

While in Chicago this week, we were able to discuss this in more detail on the Schwab Network in a segment they titled “Potential China Strategic Shifts.” It also came up in a Yahoo Finance interview that focused more on my bearish outlook for U.S. equities, but it did get incorporated. It may also have come up during a discussion with Rick Santelli at CNBC on Friday afternoon, but there isn’t a link available, and the interview and prep was such a blur that I cannot remember what was said on versus off-air. Well, I know a few things that were definitely not said on air, but that’s another story! In any case, I should have brought more than one tie to Chicago.

General (ret.) Spider Marks, who spent much of his career in Asia as a senior intelligence officer, often discusses how China does things “in plain sight.” They tell us what they are going to do, and then they do it, and somehow we often seem surprised. I won’t harp on this theme, but it will permeate the report.

I’m seeing references to China’s “Minsky Moment” on social media. The concept that China is somehow going to lay down and die, give up decades of growth, and succumb to an aging population and a falling real estate market seems almost ludicrous. Yet, that view seems to be far closer to the consensus than Made by China, despite lots of evidence that communist leaders rarely go down without leaving it all on the field.

To ensure that I wasn’t completely off base, I spent a couple of minutes searching for China 2025. All sorts of references to Made in China 2025 popped up. Article after article, all done back in 2015! General (ret.) Walsh and I discussed this Thursday in preparation for today’s report. General Walsh played a key role in the national defense policies elevating China to a “Strategic Competitor.” He was also instrumental in our 2019 report – A D.I.M.E Framework for China, Trade & Strategic Competition.

The main gist of our conversation was that China never stopped with the China 2025 initiative. They just publicized it less because it was attracting “the wrong sort of attention” in D.C. (at least from the perspective of China). They backed off discussing it because it made people concerned that China was going to change their relationship with us to a more competitive one on the goods side of things. That concern may have led to policies to thwart their efforts, so they backed off (at least publicly). Maybe this section should have been titled “out of sight, out of mind?”

Back in 2015, China told us what they wanted to look like by 2025. Yet, here we are, in 2024 with lots of evidence pointing in the direction that they are continuing down that path with at least a modicum of success. I would argue more than a modicum, but let’s not go overboard, at least not yet.

Another topic that comes up at Academy as we discuss geopolitical threats and the military is the risk that generals are “fighting the last war.” While I have no military experience, I know regulators are often viewed as fighting the last crisis, and I’d have to agree that there seems to be some truth to that assessment.

We’ve often discussed that many of the views expressed by politicians seem to be based on China circa 2005, i.e., cheap manufacturing with limited IP. The reality is that just isn’t at all correct. Chinese manufacturing has grown increasingly sophisticated (as the U.S. and Europe largely ceded manufacturing to China). For some reason solar panels jump to the top of my list here, but the point is that China has developed very good (and not just cheap) manufacturing capabilities.

On the IP side, maybe it was like a seesaw (or a teeter totter) with an adult on one side and a toddler on the other (i.e. very unbalanced). But as the adult has aged and the toddler has grown up, it is much more balanced. There are some areas where China has developed much of its own IP. Think back to the China 2025 initiative and their focus on machine learning, cryptography, etc. Again – marching in plain sight.

So, I am worried that we shape policy based on an outdated view of China’s capabilities.

Which brings me to TikTok. We did include it in We Didn’t Start the Fire and it has come up periodically as an issue due to all the information that is being collected.

In theory, I should be paying more attention to the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. But I struggle to get too excited about it. First, talk about “shutting the gate after the horse has left the barn!” Yes, I’m full of colloquialisms and folksy sayings today.

TikTok in some ways seems all pervasive! It seems to be everywhere. I believe that even while D.C. has some restrictions already for certain government employees regarding their ability to have TikTok on their devices, many politicians are turning to TikTok as a part of their campaign efforts. Color me “cynical,” but I’m not optimistic that much will be done or accomplished in this day and age and who knows how much damage has already been done. Maybe not quite fighting the last war (as this war is still raging), but we certainly got off to a late start.

Please keep in the back of your mind the concepts that:

We tried to detail our thoughts in the piece titled Chess, Checkers, or Go – What is China’s Next Move? The simple version of this report is:

China has an economic problem, but there is one path that might work and it is a path that they have told us they intend to pursue (and have been pursuing).

Let’s just pause for a moment. Re-read the last sentence/rant. Maybe it sounds too simple? Maybe we don’t think of it that way, but that might be the biggest mistake that we are making.

I hear a lot of talk about “black swan” events or “grey swan” risks. Both in our geopolitical and macro conversations. I’m increasingly concerned that we are so busy looking for swans of different colors, we are ignoring the hammer hitting us in the head over and over! Is our thought process to think, “Yeah, that hammering kind of hurts, but I should ignore it and look for where the ‘real’ problems lurk?”

If you noticed, earlier in the piece I said that “increased” domestic consumption isn’t likely to work!

So, like any practical businessperson, if you cannot increase the size of the pie, your best bet is to increase your share of the pie. When corporate strategists sit down at the table trying to figure out how to grow market share, they can only wish they had some of the tools that China has available.

China can make it so that foreign brands are less competitive domestically. I think there is clear evidence that is happening.

By suppressing demand for “foreign” brands to benefit Chinese brands, they can improve the “domestic” economy even if the “pie” is stagnant (or shrinking) by taking greater market share.

Let’s not forget that at the moment, certainly for the chip industry, the U.S. is doing a lot to enhance the ability to develop foundries domestically and manufacture more/higher quality chips. All countries can do things to help their domestic brands, especially domestically, but I just suspect that China will be more aggressive about it.

I’m also worried that as we restrict things for China, it will just make them better at it. I think that we’ve asked before how China is making so many phones with 7 nanometer chips, when there have been restrictions in place on chips thinner than 10 nanometers. Underestimating China can be a real risk.

Yes, some of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group members discuss the risk of “making your enemies 10 feet tall” and overestimating their capabilities, which can also lead to flawed policy. In hindsight, any assessment of Russia’s military was far too generous, which affected our behavior before and in the immediate aftermath of the invasion (the first offers were to evacuate Zelensky as Kiev was theoretically going to be overrun in a matter of days).

China has flaws and may not be able to execute on their strategies, but I suspect that we are stuck underestimating their capabilities rather than overestimating them. I must admit that I’m curious to check out what a BYD EV is like in person – at the very least to better understand the “competition”.

The domestic advantages seem easy enough to implement. In some industries this has been going on for years, but I would expect more rather than less of it.

The trickier issue will be how to grow foreign consumption of your brands. As with any strategy session, you look to your strengths and try to use those to leverage your position. Again, just like with their domestic efforts, the government has options not available to corporate strategists.

Selling brands to different countries will be more difficult than increasing their domestic market share. But, as the CEO of Mercedes reminded viewers on Bloomberg TV a few months ago, at one time, Mercedes too was a “domestic” brand.

The development of brands, first domestically and then in foreign markets, is a standard practice – why wouldn’t it be for China?

There are a few things that seem obvious and may already be playing out on a limited scale. Some might be further down the road if I’m correct, but that just means there is time to develop effective strategies to combat the risk.

I can think of no greater or more obvious risk to our economy and stock market valuations than the rise of Chinese brands globally. Not tomorrow’s risk or even next year’s risk, but it is the sort of risk where in 5 years, we will look back and wonder how we got it so wrong – especially since it has been in plain sight!

The good news is that there is time to plan, prepare, and win.

We can get back to living in markets that rise and fall 1% in a day (sometimes more), but I really wanted to make sure this message on “Made by China” is heard loud and clear as I think it is vital to understand and prepare for.

And yes, currently I’m long FXI (I think that Chinese stocks are un-investible, but are tradeable) and short QQQ (lots of things pointing me to the risk/reward being skewed to more downside risk than upside risk in the near-term). For the “normal” macro stuff see:

Good luck today, tomorrow, and beyond. I’m actually optimistic on the “beyond” front, but I’d be more comfortable if I felt more people, at all levels, were taking the Made by China theory more seriously.