中美关税缓和下的资产配置再平衡：短期乐观与长期风险的平衡之道

Written by Seb

2025.05.13

　　内容摘要：

　　本文探讨了中美关税缓和的背景、市场反应及其长期影响，并提出了相应的资产配置建议。

　　1、中美关税缓和的背景

　　经济压力：中美双方在贸易战中面临经济压力，美国经济增长疲弱，中国出口下降，双方认识到全面脱钩的成本高昂。

　　地缘政治动态：印度与巴基斯坦的冲突中，中国提供的武器系统帮助巴基斯坦取得优势，增强了北京在谈判中的筹码。

　　特朗普的政策调整：特朗普重返白宫后，倾向于通过经济激励避免军事对抗，推动了中美关税缓和。

　　2、市场反应与短期机遇

　　市场亢奋：关税停战引发全球市场情绪高涨，股市上涨，避险资产调整，人民币显著反弹。

　　短期战术机会：高净值投资者可利用市场情绪反转，适度超配中美股市，关注科技、消费、出口企业等板块，同时适度配置日本股市和债券市场。

　　3、长期转折与全球资本再平衡

　　结构性竞争：中美之间的根本性战略竞争未解决，关税缓和只是暂时性措施，未来可能再度紧张。

　　去美元化趋势：中国及其他国家加速推进金融系统去美元化，全球资本流动发生变化，非美元资产(如黄金、人民币)受到青睐。

　　供应链与资本配置：关税缓和可能缓解“脱钩”趋势，跨国企业更有信心在中国维持生产与投资，但若缓和失败，可能加速供应链本地化。

　　4、投资组合建议

　　投资者应认识到中美关系的长期竞争性，同时抓住短期市场机会，配置多元化的投资组合，包括中美股市、日本股市及非美元资产。

　　贸易战降温：关税回调与地缘政治暗流

　　2025年5月12日，中美两国在持续多年的贸易战中实现了一次出人意料的重大突破，双方同意在首阶段90天内大幅削减数千亿美元商品的关税。在日内瓦一轮马拉松式谈判后发布的联合声明中，双方一致同意各自将惩罚性关税削减115个百分点——美国对中国商品的关税由原先高达145%降至30%，中国对美进口商品的关税则从125%降至10%。值得注意的是，与芬太尼问题相关的特朗普“特别关税”仍保留20%的附加税，但其余绝大部分特朗普时期的关税已被实质性暂停。同时，北京方面也宣布取消此前在4月2日出台的反制措施，包括对稀土矿物及高端磁性材料的出口限制。该项“关税休战”预计于5月14日生效，是自贸易战爆发以来最具实质性的降温信号，其幅度与速度之大令许多观察人士颇感意外。

　　这一局势突然缓和的背后，是双方在经济压力下所做出的现实选择。美国官员承认，此轮互征关税已经演变成双方都无意为继的“变相禁运”。数据显示，美国经济出现疲态——2025年一季度GDP出现自2022年以来的首次负增长，主要源于企业为避开加税而提前大量囤货。在中国方面，4月对美出口骤降，制造业活动创下16个月来最大跌幅，令北京方面加速寻求增长稳固之道。两国所遭遇的结构性难题，再次印证了经济学界早已达成的共识：中美经济高度互嵌，全面脱钩所带来的成本极其高昂。正如美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特所言，“没有任何一方真正希望脱钩”，而极端高企的关税更像是一场双输式的封锁。此次联合声明展现出新的务实取向，明确强调“建立可持续、长期且互利的经贸关系”的重要性。从博弈论的角度来看，历经多轮报复升级之后，双方终于选择了更具回报的合作性策略，以摆脱此前负和博弈的僵局。

　　除了经济考量外，近期的地缘政治动态也为此次关税缓和铺设了背景。5月初，印度与巴基斯坦之间爆发了一场短暂但激烈的边境冲突——这两个国家分别在地缘上与美国和中国保持紧密联系。在这场交火中，巴方展现出出乎意料的强势表现，而背后的关键支撑正是中国所提供的先进武器系统。这一局势震动了西方战略界：巴军使用中国制造的歼-10C战斗机与PL-15远程导弹，在短短数日内击落印方“阵风”战机，迅速取得制空权。一份美国分析甚至称此次冲突为“巴基斯坦的彻底胜利”，并指出印度在空中遭遇挫败的核心原因正是中国的导弹与无人机系统。更令人深思的是，巴方此次所使用的尚非中国最先进的技术装备——北京保留了最新一代的技术用于自身军备——但即便如此，战果已足够说明问题。这一军事上的“代理胜利”，再次印证了那句经典战略箴言：“以实力求和平”。这场在南亚的实战表现无疑增强了北京在谈判桌上的筹码，也或多或少促使华盛顿重新评估战略态度——毕竟，当对手展现出足以震慑的硬实力时，寻求和解反而成为更理性的选择。

　　与此同时，随着特朗普于2025年重返白宫，华盛顿方面的政策基调也随之出现了明显调整。早在2019年，特朗普就曾公开表示反对卷入长期海外冲突，宣称“伟大的国家不应陷于无尽的战争”。秉持这一理念，他亲自出面斡旋了5月10日印巴冲突的停火协议。事实上，特朗普在新德里与伊斯兰堡官方尚未公开前便率先宣布了停火消息，巴基斯坦总理亦随后对他在结束敌对行动中所发挥的“关键作用”表示感谢。更值得玩味的是，特朗普随即承诺将“大幅提升”与印巴两国的贸易往来，视其为和平红利。这一事件再度凸显了特朗普典型的“交易型”领导风格——倾向于通过经济激励来避免军事对抗。

　　将同样的逻辑应用于中美关系，特朗普显然看到了一个从贸易战边缘后撤的机会，特别是在“滞涨”和全球局势动荡双重危机逼近的背景下。高关税本身正在推升美国通胀、压迫消费者，而南亚两核国家之间的地面战争则进一步威胁到全球市场稳定。在此背景下，特朗普以谈判取代关税威胁，不仅能在国内缓解经济压力，在国际上降低战争风险，还可进一步强化其“更倾向于做生意而非打仗”的现实主义形象。

　　市场亢奋与短期机遇

　　面对此次关税停战，全球市场以情绪高涨的方式作出回应。此前，投资者普遍担忧中美贸易战将引发长期滞涨，毕竟该冲突已冻结近6,000亿美元的双边贸易，严重扰乱全球供应链。而这次意料之外的缓和立刻引发了“风险偏好”情绪的全面回归。5月12日，华尔街全面上扬——标普500指数收于3月初以来的最高点，科技股为主的纳斯达克更是触及2月以来新高。在亚洲时段的期货交易中，道琼斯期货上涨逾2%，纳斯达克期货飙升超过3.5%。亚洲股市同样强势：香港恒生指数当日上涨约3%，日本日经指数则在多重利好因素推动下维持在几十年来的高位。即便是此前承压的中国大陆市场，也因出口预期改善与政策刺激预期升温而重现乐观氛围。

　　相比之下，避险资产则出现调整。由于全球投资者从避险资产转向风险资产并加码美元计价股票，美元兑主要货币小幅走强;黄金价格则大幅下跌——这正是恐慌退却、信心恢复时的典型市场反应。值得关注的是，人民币也出现显著反弹：离岸人民币汇率升破7.2，为六个月来首次，表明市场对中美关系缓和的期待强烈。即使美元走强，人民币仍能升值，这一现象本身就凸显了投资者对中国资产情绪的显著改善。北京方面对这一市场反馈表示欢迎，认为这是全球投资者对中美关系趋稳所释放的积极信号。

　　对高净值投资者而言，这一情绪的急剧反转意味着明确的短期战术机会。市场对本次关税调整的强烈正面反应，本身就是潜在多头动能尚存的信号。毕竟，在疲弱甚至偏空的市场环境下，即使利好消息也未必能刺激股价。而这次不但上涨，而且涨势迅猛——说明市场中“仍有多头愿意下注”。当前价格走势暗示：若贸易局势持续向好，股市或仍有上涨空间。部分分析人士甚至将此次停战视为“最优场景”，预期未来几个月在谈判推进下，关税有望进一步下调。

　　在接下来的3至6个月，投资者可顺势调整组合，抓住这一轮积极情绪带来的收益机会。建议在中美两地股市中做出适度超配，以充分参与贸易局势改善所带来的上行潜力。在美股方面，科技和消费板块此前受关税压制最深，现阶段即便只是成本暂时下降，也足以改善盈利前景;而中国的出口企业、制造商及零售商若订单回暖，盈利预期同样有望修复。两国股指整体有望在信心恢复中震荡走高。

　　此外，日本股市也值得作为战术性资产纳入配置视野。日本市场近年表现亮眼，受益于企业改革、日元疲软等多重利好，加之区域政治相对稳定，具备“亚洲避风港”特质。仅2023年，外资就净流入日本股市约6.3万亿日元(约合430亿美元)，创历史新高。若中美关系进一步缓和，将进一步巩固其在亚太资产配置中的地位。目前日经225指数已创34年新高，若全球资金继续转向日本这一相对稳定的市场，该指数仍有上涨空间。

　　当然，对于这类短期市场亢奋，也应保持理性与纪律。切忌盲目追高，应将战术性加仓集中于基本面扎实的标的。例如，适度增配中国A股或港股时，应优先考虑具备稳健资产负债表、抗波动能力强的优质公司。同样，在美股市场中应偏好大型跨国公司和科技巨头，它们将直接受益于成本降低或市场准入改善。与此同时，可适度向工业、半导体及全球消费板块进行轻微倾斜——这与“中短期或有一波小牛市”的观点相契合。

　　即使是一向波澜不惊的债券市场，也可在当前背景下寻得短线机会：若经济预期改善，企业债的信用利差可能收窄，因此此时持有部分投资级企业债券不仅能赚取票息，还可能获取一定价格升值空间。

　　长期转折：持续对抗、博弈逻辑与全球资本再平衡

　　尽管此次关税回调标志着一种可喜的缓和，但并未根除中美之间根本性的战略竞争。贸易战之所以爆发，源于结构性分歧——包括中国的国家主导型产业政策与知识产权实践，以及美国力图维持其科技与军事优势的战略目标——这些核心问题并未获得实质解决。事实上，此次协议本质上仍属临时性质：华盛顿与北京只是按下了90天的“暂停键”，以便继续谈判，根本性分歧仍然存在。因此，投资者绝不可陷入麻痹或盲目乐观之中——中美竞争具有结构性、长期性，极可能延续数十年。

　　在美国，两党目前已就对华强硬态度形成广泛共识。华盛顿政界普遍认为，北京在贸易上“缺乏公平性”，而其日益坚定的对外姿态也对美国构成潜在威胁。事实上，无论是拜登还是继任的哈里斯政府，在对华政策上都延续了特朗普的强硬路线，包括关税、半导体出口限制等广泛措施。这种罕见的跨党派共识意味着，即便总统更替，美国对中国崛起的遏制政策仍将持续。未来的潜在引爆点——无论是高端科技、台湾议题，还是南海军事化——都可能随时使目前的气氛再度恶化。从博弈论角度来看，目前的“你来我往”合作可能只是暂时的停火协议，“未来的阴影”依旧存在：一旦任一方察觉战略优势，其背叛合作的动机会随之上升，脆弱的均衡或再度陷入对抗循环。

　　从北京的角度看，此次停战虽暂时缓解了压力，但战略疑虑仍难彻底消除。长期以来，中国领导层始终将美国的贸易与制裁工具视为遏制中国发展的手段。而近期美国对经济工具的“武器化”——包括关税、出口管制乃至金融制裁——更让中国对美元资产的安全性产生深刻怀疑。特朗普执政时期关税瞬间飙升至145%的案例就是一个警示：美国可以出于政治考量，随时限制市场准入。

　　因此，中国以及越来越多其他国家正加快推进金融系统去美元化，降低对美国的依赖。这一趋势已反映在全球资本流动之中：包括亚洲在内的多个国家央行近年大幅增持黄金并降低美元资产配置。自2022年以来，各国央行每年购买黄金超过1,000吨，几乎是过去十年平均水平的两倍，目的正是为了对冲美国政策风险与美元波动。特朗普重返白宫后，这一趋势更加明显。有分析指出：当前全球央行对美国经济与外交政策的信任减弱，“减少购买美债、加速去美元化”的动机增强。换句话说，全球资本正在悄然重组：在中美博弈不断升级的背景下，越来越多国家开始寻求非美元储值资产(如黄金、欧元、人民币资产)以保障安全。

　　中国及香港的高净值人士应当意识到这一宏观结构性的变化。尽管美国资产仍具重要地位，但它已不再像过去那样，是安全性与回报的默认首选。近年来，美国在处理其盟友关系和金融主导地位时表现出一定的不确定性——从不可预测的贸易措施，到接近技术性债务违约的国会僵局事件——都在一定程度上削弱了国际社会的信任。尽管美债与美元仍然是主导性的避险资产，但其主导优势正在被逐渐侵蚀。例如，美国美元在全球央行外汇储备中的占比正逐步下降，而2022至2023年，全球央行黄金购买量创下历史新高。即便是亚洲的亲美盟国，也在悄然推进多元化：有报道称，沙特与阿联酋等美国传统盟友正在逐步采用人民币结算原油交易;东南亚国家则探索本币结算机制，以减少对美元的依赖。虽然日本与韩国仍与美国保持紧密联系，但它们也开始重新评估供应链配置及外汇储备结构，以应对不断上升的地缘政治风险。

　　正如《南华早报》所指出，美国频繁使用关税作为经济武器，反而使人民币计价资产对部分投资者更具吸引力。货币市场已有所反应：近期人民币走强的背后，部分原因正是全球投资者寻求中国债券和股票的低估值机会，押注中国将加速实现自我依赖，而美国资产则因其潜在政治风险溢价而变得相对不那么“安全”。

　　另一层面的长期影响，是此次关税停战对全球供应链与资本配置所释放的信号。

　　若此次关税和解能够延续并最终转化为一项更具长期性的经贸协议，将有望缓解甚至逆转近年来持续升温的“脱钩论”叙事。跨国企业将更有信心维持在中国的生产与投资，而无需承担高昂的转移成本。这也可能稳定中资的跨境流动，减少此前在紧张局势高点所出现的资金外流。

　　但反之，若本轮停战在90天后失败，关税回调被取消，则只会进一步推动企业加快本地化与供应链“去中国化”，全球经济也将更加趋于阵营化。当前阶段，双方均已明确表示“不希望脱钩”。中美亦建立了由中国副总理何立峰与美国财政部长贝森特主导的高层经济对话机制——这被视为双方理性控制竞争、避免失控的重要积极信号。未来的局势或将进入类似1970年代“冷和平”(Cold Peace)时期的模式：竞争仍在，但配套机制可缓冲激烈对抗，并为阶段性协议提供可能。

　　从经济理论角度出发，可以借助博弈论中的“合作均衡”与国际贸易理论的“福利最大化”来理解当前局势。

　　贸易战中的纳什均衡(双方均征收高额关税)是对两国而言明显的次优解，典型地符合“囚徒困境”逻辑：单边征税在短期可能有利，但双边征税则对整体利益构成破坏。而2025年5月12日的协议，代表了一种朝“帕累托改进”迈进的尝试(双方同步减税，共同获益)。但要维持合作，还需要不断的信任构建、承诺兑现与监督机制，或许通过阶段性减税与透明化承诺框架逐步推进。

　　冷战时期的历史经验也表明，虽然制度性的互信与相互依赖(如军控协议、贸易协定)有助于缓和长期竞争，但这类信任本身却也极其脆弱。因此，未来市场将呈现“周期性波动”：中美妥协时可能迎来市场上涨，冲突加剧时则伴随剧烈回调——如科技制裁、台海局势或区域军事紧张等突发事件，仍是随时可能扰动市场的风险因子。

　　总结而言，当前大趋势显示，中美关系正从过去的“完全对抗期”，逐步转向一种“竞争中接触”的新阶段。

　　全球资本也在同步适应这一多极化现实：美国虽仍具经济主导地位，但必须与其他力量共享空间。日本、欧洲、新兴亚洲等地正在重新获得资金青睐;而黄金、人民币等非美元资产也日渐成为对冲风险的新工具。

　　未来数年，市场情绪很可能呈现“两极结构”——短期因贸易关系缓和而保持谨慎乐观，中长期则仍受制于复杂的地缘博弈与结构性不确定性。对于高净值投资者而言，认识并内化这些动态，是未来制定资产配置策略的基础。下一部分将在此基础上，提出一套平衡资本保值与机会把握的中风险投资组合建议。　　

         Trade War Thaws: Tariff Rollback and Geopolitical Undercurrents

　　On May 12, 2025, the United States and China delivered an unexpected breakthrough in their protracted trade war by mutually rolling back hundreds of billions in tariffs for an initial 90-day period. In a joint statement after marathon talks in Geneva, both sides agreed to slash the punitive tariff rates by 115 percentage points each, bringing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods down from an eye-watering 145% to 30%, and Chinese tariffs on U.S. imports from 125% to just 10%. Notably, President Trump’s special 20% levies on China (tied to the fentanyl dispute) remain in place, but the vast bulk of Trump-era tariffs were effectively suspended. In addition, Beijing agreed to lift its recent export countermeasures – including removing restrictions on rare earth minerals and high-tech magnets that it had imposed on April 2 in retaliation. This mutual tariff truce, slated to take effect by May 14, represents the most significant de-escalation of the trade war since it began, and it caught many observers off guard in its scope and swiftness.

　　Why the sudden thaw? Both parties were feeling economic pain and saw diminishing returns from further escalation. U.S. officials acknowledged that the tariff crossfire had essentially become an “embargo” that neither side truly wanted. The U.S. economy showed signs of strain – quarterly GDP turned negative for the first time since 2022 as importers rushed to stockpile goods ahead of tariff hikes. In China, exports to the U.S. plunged in April and factory activity contracted at the fastest pace in 16 months, pressuring Beijing to stabilize growth. These interlinked troubles reinforced a reality long understood by economists: the two economies are deeply intertwined, making a complete decoupling prohibitively costly. As U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted, “neither side wants to be decoupled,” and the sky-high tariffs were akin to a lose-lose blockade. The joint statement reflected a new pragmatism, affirming “the importance of a sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship”. In game-theory terms, after years of tit-for-tat escalation, both powers finally pivoted to a cooperative strategy, seeking a better payoff than the previous negative-sum stalemate.

　　Beyond economics, recent geopolitical developments set the stage for this tariff truce. In early May, a brief but intense conflict erupted between India and Pakistan – two nations aligned with Washington and Beijing respectively. Pakistan’s unexpectedly strong performance in the skirmish, aided by advanced Chinese weaponry, sent ripples through strategic circles. Western observers were astonished to see Pakistani forces (using Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets and PL-15 missiles) shoot down India’s vaunted Rafale jets, achieving air superiority in days. One U.S. analysis went so far as to call it an “unambiguous victory for Pakistan,” attributing India’s aerial rout to China’s missiles and drones. Notably, Pakistan wasn’t even fielding China’s latest, top-spec technology – Beijing reserves its most cutting-edge hardware for its own use – yet the results were decisive. This demonstration of Chinese military prowess reinforced the old maxim: peace through strength. Beijing’s proxy win in South Asia likely strengthened its hand, subtly encouraging Washington to dial down tensions; when one’s adversary proves capable in conflict, a conciliatory approach can appear wiser.

　　Meanwhile in Washington, President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 brought a recalibration in tone. Trump has long voiced aversion to prolonged foreign entanglements, declaring in 2019 that “Great nations do not fight endless wars”. True to that sentiment, he personally intervened to help broker the India–Pakistan ceasefire on May 10. In fact, the ceasefire was announced by Trump even before New Delhi and Islamabad went public, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister thanked him for playing a “pivotal” role in ending the hostilities. Tellingly, Trump then vowed to “enhance trade substantially” with both India and Pakistan as a peace dividend. This episode highlighted Trump’s dealmaker instinct to use economic incentives to avoid military conflict. Applying the same logic to U.S.–China relations, Trump saw an opportunity to pull back from the brink on the trade front, especially as the dual crises of stagflation and global instability loomed. Indeed, high tariffs were feeding U.S. inflation and hurting consumers, at a time when a land war in South Asia (between two nuclear states) threatened to upend markets further. By swapping tariff threats for talks, Trump could claim a win – diffusing economic pain at home, easing a potential war abroad, and reinforcing his image as a pragmatist who prefers “business deals” to shooting wars.

　　In short, the tariff rollback was motivated by both economic necessity and strategic calculus. Each side recognized that continued trade war was a negative-sum game given their deep interdependence, a realization grounded in international trade theory (where punitive tariffs distort comparative advantages and shrink the pie for everyone). Game-theoretically, the negotiating dynamics resembled a classic prisoner’s dilemma that both finally chose to escape via cooperation. And geopolitically, China’s muscle-flexing and Trump’s aversion to new wars created a conducive environment for détente. The resulting compromise – though officially a 90-day trial – signals a potential inflection point in the U.S.–China relationship: a shift from unbridled confrontation toward cautious engagement.

　　Market Euphoria and Short-Term Opportunities

　　Global markets responded with euphoric relief to the tariff truce. Investors had been bracing for protracted stagflation, given that the trade war had frozen nearly $600 billion in two-way commerce and disrupted supply chains worldwide. The surprise de-escalation ignited a risk-on rally. On May 12, Wall Street surged – the S&P 500 jumped to its highest closing level since early March, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq reached highs not seen since February. In futures trading during Asian hours, Dow futures spiked over 2%, and Nasdaq futures leapt more than 3.5%. Asian equity markets also roared ahead: Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index closed up about 3% that day, and Japan’s Nikkei index (already buoyant from other factors) hovered near multi-decade highs. Even mainland Chinese stocks saw a jolt of optimism, anticipating better export prospects and possibly domestic stimulus to follow.

　　Safe-haven assets, by contrast, pulled back. The U.S. dollar strengthened modestly against major currencies (a sign of global investors rotating into risk assets and USD-denominated stocks), while gold prices fell sharply – a typical reaction when fear recedes and confidence returns. Notably, China’s currency, the renminbi, saw a boost: the offshore yuan jumped to a six-month high (appreciating through the 7.2 per dollar level for the first time since the previous November) on hopes of a trade-war thaw. The fact that the yuan strengthened despite the dollar’s rise underscores how significantly sentiment toward Chinese assets improved with this news. In Beijing, officials welcomed the market’s reaction as validation – it suggested the global investing community still craves a stable U.S.–China relationship and will reward steps toward reconciliation.

　　For high-net-worth investors, this abrupt shift in sentiment presents some short-term tactical opportunities. The strong market rally in response to the tariff deal is itself an indicator of latent bullish appetite. After all, in a fragile or bearish environment, even good news often fails to lift stocks for long. In this case, markets not only rose but did so emphatically – a sign that “there are still bulls willing to bet up the market,” as one might say. The price action implies that equities have further room to run if trade tensions continue to ease. Indeed, some analysts see this truce as a “best case scenario” that could snowball into a broader deal; they expect additional tariff reductions “to move down markedly over the coming months” as talks progress.

　　In the short term (next 3–6 months), investors can position to ride this wave of positivity. A moderate overweight to equities – on both the U.S. and Chinese side – could be prudent to capture upside from improving trade optics. In the U.S., sectors like technology and consumer goods, which were squeezed by tariffs, stand to benefit from even a temporary cost relief. Chinese exporters, manufacturers, and retailers likewise may see a bounce in earnings outlook if export orders recover. Broader indices in both countries could grind higher on rekindled economic confidence. Additionally, Japanese equities present an attractive tactical play. Japan’s market has been rallying strongly on its own merits (corporate reforms, a weak yen, etc.), and it often responds well to regional stability. With fresh capital flowing into Japan – foreign investors poured a record ¥6.3 trillion (≈$43 billion) into Japanese stocks in 2023– any reduction in U.S.–China uncertainty further bolsters Japan’s appeal as a safe haven within Asia. The Nikkei 225 index recently hit a 34-year high, and it could extend gains as global funds rotate into Japan’s relatively stable, geopolitically insulated equities.

　　Of course, short-term exuberance should be approached with discipline. One should avoid chasing highly speculative spikes and instead use tactical allocations in fundamentally solid assets. For example, selectively increasing exposure to Chinese A-shares or Hong Kong stocks could make sense, but focus on companies with strong balance sheets that can weather any renewed volatility if the truce falters. Similarly, in U.S. markets, lean towards quality – large-cap multinationals and tech firms that will directly benefit from lower input costs or improved access to Chinese markets. A mild pro-cyclical tilt – adding to industrials, semiconductors, or consumer discretionary stocks globally – is reasonable given the improved outlook. These moves align with the idea that we may see a “small bull” run in both markets in the near term, as the user’s opinion points out. Even bond markets, typically boring, offer a short-term play: credit spreads on corporate bonds could tighten on improved economic sentiment, so holding some investment-grade corporate debt now might capture modest price gains in addition to yield.

　　In summary, the tariff truce has injected a burst of optimism into markets. HNW investors should capitalize tactically by leaning into risk assets while the window of positive momentum is open. A short-term rally, however, is only one part of the story – it’s equally important to plan for what lies beyond the initial euphoria. That means looking ahead to the medium and long term, where structural geopolitical rivalry and economic realignments will continue to shape the investment landscape. Long-Term Shifts: Persistent Rivalry, Game Theory and Global Capital Realignment

　　While the tariff rollback marks a welcome détente, it does not erase the fundamental strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China. The core issues that led to the trade war – from China’s state-led industrial policies and IP practices, to U.S. efforts to maintain technological and military primacy – remain unresolved. In fact, the deal is explicitly temporary. Washington and Beijing essentially hit the “pause” button for 90 days to negotiate further, but underlying schisms persist. Investors must therefore avoid complacency: the U.S.–China competition is structural and likely multi-decade.

　　Both American political parties now largely agree on taking a tough line against China. There is a “broad bipartisan consensus” in Washington that Beijing has “not played fair” on trade and that its assertive behavior poses a threat. Indeed, President Biden (and now Harris, in this scenario) continued many of Trump’s hardline China policies, from tariffs to sweeping export controls on semiconductors. This rare unity across the aisle means that even as personalities change, U.S. policy will likely maintain pressure on China’s rise. Future flashpoints – be it over advanced technology, Taiwan, or militarization in the South China Sea – could quickly sour the atmosphere again. In game-theoretic terms, the current cooperation may be a tentative Tit-for-Tat ceasefire, but the “shadow of the future” looms large: each side has incentive to defect if it perceives strategic advantage, meaning the equilibrium could slip back to confrontation.

　　From Beijing’s perspective, there is relief but also lingering distrust. Chinese leaders have long viewed America’s trade measures and sanctions as an attempt at containment. The recent U.S. “weaponization” of economic tools – whether tariffs, export bans, or financial sanctions – has cast doubt on the safety of U.S. assets in Chinese eyes. The fact that tariffs could leap to 145% overnight (as they did under Trump’s formulas) was a stark reminder that the U.S. can upend market access on political whims. Consequently, China and many other countries have accelerated efforts to diversify away from over-reliance on the U.S. financial system. This is evident in global capital flows: central banks around the world, including those in Asia, have been aggressively buying gold and reducing dollar asset exposure. Central banks have purchased over 1,000 metric tons of gold annually since 2022 – more than double the average from the prior decade – in large part to hedge against U.S. policy risks and dollar volatility. This trend has only intensified with Trump’s return. According to a recent analysis, uncertainty about U.S. economic and foreign policy is giving central banks “less incentive to add Treasuries… and more incentive to actually de-dollarise” their reserves. In other words, global capital is gingerly realigning, seeking safety in non-U.S. stores of value (gold, euros, yuan assets, etc.) in case the U.S.–China rivalry worsens.

　　High-net-worth individuals in China and Hong Kong should recognize this macro shift. U.S. assets, while still important, may no longer be the automatic choice for safety and returns that they once were. America’s handling of its alliances and financial might – from unpredictable trade actions to episodes like the near-default during debt ceiling standoffs – has slightly eroded some international trust. Traditional U.S. safe havens (Treasury bonds, the dollar) remain dominant, but the margin of dominance is narrowing. For example, the U.S. dollar’s share of global central bank reserves has been slowly declining, and 2022–2023 saw record official gold purchases. Even U.S.-allied nations in Asia are quietly diversifying: there are reports of countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE (U.S. partners) doing more oil trades in yuan, and Southeast Asian economies exploring local currency settlements to reduce dollar dependence. While Japan and South Korea remain closely tied to the U.S., even they are evaluating supply chain shifts and reserve compositions in light of geopolitical risks. The South China Morning Post succinctly noted that Washington’s use of tariffs as a weapon has made yuan-denominated assets relatively more attractive to some investors. We can already see that in currency markets – the renminbi’s recent strength is partly due to global buyers seeking Chinese bonds and stocks at cheap valuations, anticipating that China will emerge more self-reliant and that U.S. assets carry a new kind of political risk premium.

　　Another long-term implication of the tariff truce is what it signals about global supply chains and capital allocation. If the truce holds and leads to a more lasting economic deal, it might arrest (or at least slow) the “decoupling” narrative that has dominated in recent years. Multinational companies could feel more secure maintaining production and investment in China, rather than undertaking costly relocations. This could stabilize capital flows in and out of China – for instance, stemming the capital flight that had occurred when tensions were at their peak. On the other hand, if the truce fails after 90 days and tariffs snap back, it will only reinforce the drive to localize supply chains and balkanize the global economy into blocs. At this juncture, however, both sides have openly stated they don’t want decoupling. The establishment of a new high-level economic dialogue (led by Vice Premier He Lifeng and U.S. Treasury’s Bessent) is a positive sign that cooler heads will try to manage competition responsibly. This could usher in a period somewhat akin to the “Cold Peace” of the 1970s détente: rivalry continues, but with guardrails and periodic deals to avoid ruinous outcomes.

　　From an economic theory perspective, one can view the current situation through the lens of game theory’s cooperative equilibria and international trade theory’s welfare outcomes. The Nash equilibrium of a tariff war (both sides high tariffs) was clearly suboptimal for both nations – a classic prisoner’s dilemma where each imposing tariffs was individually rational initially, but collectively destructive. The May 12 accord suggests a move toward a Pareto improvement (both reducing tariffs increases joint welfare). However, sustaining cooperation will require repeated assurances and verification (monitoring of trade promises, perhaps a phased approach to removing tariffs for good). Historical precedent from the Cold War shows that confidence-building measures and interdependence (like arms control treaties or trade agreements) can stabilize a rivalry, but also that trust can be brittle. Investors should thus expect episodic volatility: periods of calm and market rallies when U.S.–China find compromise, punctuated by periods of tension (perhaps over technology sanctions or geopolitical events) that could spook markets.

　　In summary, the big-picture shift is that U.S.–China relations appear to be transitioning from an outright adversarial phase to a competitive-but-engaged phase. Global capital is already positioning for a more multipolar reality – one where the U.S., while still preeminent, has to share economic leadership and where alternative investment destinations (like Japan, Europe, or emerging Asia) and non-dollar assets (like gold or RMB) gain favor as hedges. Market sentiment, accordingly, is likely to be two-tiered in the coming years: cautiously optimistic in the short term due to this trade thaw, but cognizant of longer-term geopolitical risks. High-net-worth investors would do well to internalize these dynamics when structuring their portfolios. The next section translates these insights into concrete portfolio strategy recommendations, balancing the need for capital preservation with opportunistic growth, all within a moderate risk framework.

　　特别声明：以上内容仅代表作者个人观点，不构成任何操作建议，请勿将本报告视为唯一参考依据。

　　作者信息

　　SEBASTIAN LOKE

　　绿专资本集团高级副总裁

　　毕业于香港大学工商管理专业，十余年海外从业经验，曾任职汇丰银行与瑞士信贷。参与完成过多宗过亿美元全权委托项目，主导多家企业上市及资本运作项目。

　　在瑞士信贷工作期间，为超过200位企业用户提供投融资策略方案，常年与多家国际金融机构保持良好且深度的合作关系，如J.P.Morgan等。