Despite political concerns that are still supressing some areas of the global equity markets we continue to regain some of the ground that had been ceded in the fourth quarter of 2018. Our strategy of focusing on the most attractive companies in the most attractive sectors of the most attractive markets at any given time does help in this process but, given the inherently dynamic nature of stockmarkets, it is sometimes easier said than done. At the moment the most attractive of the world’s equity markets is the USA and it is unsurprising, therefore, that our current holdings are biased in that direction.

The US economy remains in rude health and its central bank (the Federal Reserve) is now more inclined to keep interest rates at their current level (albeit under a degree of political pressure). US inflation is stable and unemployment is now at a very low level indeed (virtually at a level that economists would describe as ‘full employment’).

Taking that as the macro-economic background, the micro-economic position adds support to the assertion that the USA economy is performing very well. The fourth-quarter reporting season in the USA is now done and dusted and, of our 22 company-specific holdings, all have now issued their results. As anticipated in last month’s report, all bar one of them have beaten expectations and posted positive surprises.

Trade tensions between the USA and China have weighed on market sentiment over the past year and President Trump had threatened to expand the range and increase the size of tariffs if a trade deal had not been finalised by 1st March. However, in mid-February he announced that the imposition of these tariffs had been postponed and this has been taken as an indication that the execution of a trade deal is imminent.

Our January report highlighted the extraordinary imbalance of trade between these two countries (significantly in China’s favour) and it would appear that China has now agreed to rebalance that discrepancy by committing to a programme of buying American goods and services to the value of $1.7 trillion over the next six years. That would represent a huge change in China’s historic economic model (which over the last 20+ years has been based on production and exporting) and whilst that, if it happens, would be great news for the USA it would cause less helpful knock-on economic effects around the world.

Quite simply, if China was to spend $1.7 trillion on US goods that would seriously reduce the value of goods it could buy from other countries. The opportunity cost to large areas of global industry could put considerable stresses on the economies of other manufacturing economies (the impact on German car manufacturers is but one example of the critical damage that could be caused). It is worth bearing in mind that:

Trump’s mantra from his first day in power has been ‘America first’ and, whatever one might think of him as a personality and whatever mud the media might like to throw at him, he has demonstrably fulfilled that pledge.

China’s political leaders have a long history of promising one thing and actually delivering something completely different. I recall some sage advice I was given 30 years ago:

You can always do a deal with China but you can rarely do a smart and profitable deal with China.

Before we get too carried away with the potential advantages to the US economy and the commensurate strains elsewhere, let’s wait to see what actually emerges from these ongoing negotiations.

We see no point in commenting further on Brexit, which remains as an albatross around the neck of the UK stock market. The complete lack of political leadership, intelligence and belief shown by Mrs May combined with her shameless mendacity has turned the entire process into a farce of Brian Rix proportions (but without the humour). A market analyst who clearly spent his earlier years following the exciting hobby of train-spotting has calculated that May, in her monotonous fashion, has announced 108 times that Britain would be leaving the EU on 29th March 2019. Last week she reneged on that. It is pointless trying to make any serious investment judgements in respect of the UK and the EU until this long and fruitless saga is over.