来源·：机构调研记

　　花旗-我们对本周末美中贸易谈判的预期-贸易协议的博弈分析

　　核心要点：

　　1．贸易协议的博弈分析：从博弈论看，当前达成全面协议（消除美国贸易逆差、取消除10%双边关税外所有关税）并非最优。部分协议（如降关税至65%）中国或受益，但美国会拒绝。美国同意协议需至少获当前受益的1690亿美元（通过更多关税或贸易），若部分协议中中国出口降幅＜40%、美国出口降幅＜20%，70%关税的部分协议对双方更优。

　　2．关税决策与美国目标：特朗普政府关税数字非随意设定，65%关税提议有计算依据。此前认为协议不可行是假设双方贸易降30%，现调整为中国出口降幅是美国两倍，并考虑双方豁免（如中国1000亿美元消费品出口仅征20%关税，美国400亿美元出口免税）。

　　美国在关税水平与贸易量间权衡，特朗普欲征足够关税免低收入人群联邦所得税（免75%需2360亿，免50%需512亿，可通过60%关税实现），但按消除逆差思路，这些目标难实现。60%关税下美对中仍有578亿美元逆差（含关税），但优于当前2900亿美元。

　　3．谈判前景与市场影响：贸易影响不明，双方等待更清晰数据，短期内难达成协议。双方对周末协议期望低，7⽉31⽇90天期限前难解决，市场或回4⽉9日水平施压领导人。若当前145%关税下贸易降80%，双方转65%关税体制最优，但除非贸易战影响显现或中国出口降80%，否则难进展，预计中国出口数月内显影响。研究缺陷是假设美中出口损失相同（实际中国降幅是美国两倍，后续需调整数据）

　　沃顿模型预测，145%关税下2025年中国出口降61.1%，此时中国支付关税等于对美出口价值，此为消逆差最优关税水平，降65%美仍有651亿美元逆差，美中均适应当前体制，无理由改变。尽管近期有动向，美中贸易协议仍遥不可及。

　　双方认为能低成本赢贸易战，市场将提醒xx代价（特朗普曾因市场成本让步）。7⽉8⽇90天宽限期临近，市场更紧张，仍处CGTSPOLL信号显示市场走低的窗口期（6⽉6日结束，除非新信号），因对贸易协议不切实际的期望，市场回升，波动和偏度下降，是调整对冲策略以在夏季重新测试和突破低点的机会。

　　完整翻译：

　　CitiPoint Asia： What We Expect From The US-China TradeNegotiations This Weekend花旗亚洲：我们对本周末美中贸易谈判的预期

　　MACRO： WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE US-CHINA TRADE NEGOTIATIONS THIS

　　WEEKEND

　　宏观：我们对本周末美中贸易谈判的预期

　　Ahead of this weekend’s trade negotiations in Geneva we update our work from 24 April when we addressed the question of whether an interm deal between China and the USA， one which could see a lowering of tariffs， was possible． Since our earlier piece， we have continued to refine our methodology and have been making more progress on understanding this problem． We have learnt from the UK trade deal， for example， that even a “trade deal” involves the payment of a 10% tariff and more exports for the US with limited imports． We look at whether it is optimal for both sides tocut tariffs and what that optimal level could be．

　　在本周末日内瓦贸易谈判前夕，我们更新了4⽉24日的研究内容，当时我们探讨了中美之间达成一项可能降低关税的临时协议是否可行。自我们之前的文章发表以来，我们不断完善研究方法，在理解这个问题上取得了更多进展。例如，从英美贸易协定中我们了解到，即使是一项“贸易协定”  也涉及10%  的关税支付，且美国出口增加，进口有限。我们研究了双方削减关税是否是最优选择，以及最优的关税水平可能是多少。

　　From our Game Theory perspective， we assume that in the current environment US exports to China fall 30% while Chinese exports to the US fall 60%． This costs China $42bn while the US gains $169bn． In the event of a trade deal， we assume that US exports to China falls 10% and Chinese exports to the US fall 20%． For the trade deal to be done， we still expect the US to demand that the trade deficit will be eliminated - currently the US has， including tariffs， got 54.1% of the bilateral trade． The US is also collecting $249.2bn in tariffs， money that the Government is going to be reluctant to give up． In the event of a further breakdown we expect US exports to China to fall 40% and Chinese exports to the USA to fall by 80%． We also assume all carveouts are eliminated in a further breakdown of relations and full tariffs are again applied to all exports．

　　从博弈论的角度来看，我们假设在当前环境下，美国对中国的出口下降30%，而中国对美国的出口下降60%。这使中国损失420亿美元，而美国获利1690亿美元。如果达成贸易协议，我们假设美国对中国的出口下降10%，中国对美国的出口下降20%。为达成贸易协议，我们预计美国仍会要求消除贸易逆差——  目前包括关税在内，美国在双边贸易中占比54．1%。美国还征收了2492亿美元的关税，政府不太愿意放弃这笔收入。如果谈判进一步破裂，我们预计美国对中国的出口将下降40%，中国对美国的出口将下降80%。我们还假设，在关系进一步破裂的情况下，所有豁免将被取消，所有出口将再次被征收全额关税。

　　In this scenario it is not optimal to reach a trade deal which would involve the removal of all tariffs except 10% bilateral tariffs and which would involve the elimination of the US trade deficit

　　在这种情况下，达成一项取消除10%  双边关税以外的所有关税并消除美国贸易逆差的贸易协议并非最优选择。

　　But what about if we examine the scenario where instead of a full deal， a partial deal， is achieved  which would involve a reduction of tariffs to 65%， as has been proposed． Is this optimal？ China would benefit from a partial deal even if it meant that their exports fell by 40% and US exports fell 20%． However the US would reject this partial deal and so under these parameters a partial deal would be rejected

　　但如果我们考虑这样一种情况，即不是达成全面协议，而是如提议的那样达成一项将关税降⾄65%  的部分协议，情况会怎样呢？这是最优选择吗？即使这意味着中国出口下降40%，美国出口下降20%，中国仍能从部分协议中受益。然而，美国会拒绝这项部分协议，因此在这些条件下，部分协议将被否决。

　　WhatwouldgettheUStoagreetoatradedeal？TheUSmustgetatleastthe$169bnthatitis benefiting from currently either frommore tariffs or more trade - there is a trade off．

　　怎样才能让美国同意一项贸易协议呢？美国必须至少获得目前从更多关税或更多贸易中获得的1690亿美元收益——  这需要权衡取舍。

　　We find that this may be possible if on a partial deal Chinese exports fall less than 40% and US exports fall less than 20%． Then a partial deal on a 70% tariff is preferable than the current state form both sides and a deal could be done． Are these falls in demand realistic？

　　我们发现，如果在部分协议下，中国出口降幅小于40%，美国出口降幅小于20%，这或许是可行的。那么，对于双方而言，70%  关税的部分协议比现状更可取，协议也有可能达成。这些需求降幅现实吗？

　　WeestimateChineseexports willfall 25% witha tariff of 70% and USexports willfall by12.5%． With those parameters a partial deal is preferable to the current state even at a tariffof60%． Iftrade fallsby more than that then a partial trade deal isnotpossible．

　　我们预计，在70%  的关税下，中国出口将下降25%，美国出口将下降12.5%。在这些条件下，即使关税为60%，部分协议也比现状更可取。如果贸易降幅超过这个幅度，部分贸易协议就无法达成。

　　Againitseemsthat，ratherthanjustpullingoutrandomfigures，theTrumpadministrationhas reached its conclusions after careful calculations． The 65%tariffproposal is not an accident．

　　似乎特朗普政府并非随意给出数据，而是经过仔细计算后得出结论。65%  的关税提议并非偶然。

　　So why did we conclude on 24Apr that a trade deal was not possible？ On that occasion we assumed  a 30% drop in bilateral trade on both sides． With those numbers the pain was not significant enough． We now assume that the percentage decline in Chinese exports is twice that ofthe US． We also take  intoaccountthecarve-outsthatbothsideshavegrantedwhichmeanthat$100bnofChinese  exportsofconsumergoodsareonlytariffedat20% and$40bnofUSexportsaretariff-free．The  parametersof thegamehavechangedsince24 Apreventhoughitappearsthattherulesremain  similar．

　　那么，为什么我们在4⽉24日得出贸易协议无法达成的结论呢？当时我们假设双方双边贸易都下降30%。按那些数据，影响还不够大。我们现在假设中国出口降幅是美国的两倍。我们还考虑了双方给予的豁免情况，即1000亿美元的中国消费品出口仅征收20%  的关税，400亿美元的美国出口免税。自4⽉24日以来，博弈的参数已经发生了变化，尽管规则看似相似。

　　For the US there is a trade - off between level of tariff collected and amount of trade to be done and hence a minimization of the economic impact． President Trump will want to collect enough tariffs to eliminate federal income taxes for the bottom 75% of the population which would cost $236bn． To eliminate federal income taxes for the bottom 50% of taxpayers would cost just $51.2bn which can be paid with 60% tariffs．

　　对美国来说，在征收的关税水平和贸易量之间存在权衡，目的是将经济影响降至最低。特朗普总统希望征收足够的关税，以便为75%  的低收入人群免除联邦所得税，这将花费2360亿美元。为50%  的低收入纳税人免除联邦所得税只需花费512亿美元，这可以通过60% 的关税来实现。

　　These objectives do not appear to be achievable in line with the idea of eliminating the trade deficit.That still requires， with our estimates of the tariff impact on exports， tariffs of 120%． With a 60% tariff the US will still be running a trade deficit of $57.8bn with China， inclusive of tariffs． Not quite zero but much better than the $290bn trade deficit that the US is currently running．

　　这些目标似乎无法按照消除贸易逆差的思路实现。根据我们对关税对出口影响的估计，要实现这一点仍需120%  的关税。征收60%  的关税时，美国对中国仍会有578 亿美元的贸易逆差（含关税）。虽非零逆差，但比美国目前2900亿美元的贸易逆差要好得多。

　　While it is unclear exactly what the trade impact is， both sides are likely to wait until it becomes a lot clearer how much trade actually falls and who will lose more - this key figure is hard to ascertain at the moment and that probably precludes a trade deal． For now both sides will play a dance to assess what the other side is thinking．

　　由于目前尚不清楚贸易的确切影响，双方可能会等待，直到贸易实际降幅以及谁的损失更大变得更加明朗——  目前这一关键数据难以确定，这很可能阻碍贸易协议的达成。目前双方会相互试探，以揣测对方的想法。

　　With President Trump on a visit to the Middle East and the top authority in Russia， it seems that neither leadership are holding out much hope for an agreement this weekend． The best we can hope for is that there are talks to hold more talks - it is unlikely that any resolution will be found before the end of the 90 - day period on 31 July and as markets start to realize that they head back to the levels they were at on 9 Apr to put pressure on the leaderships not to increase tariffs or escalate the trade war

　　特朗普总统出访中东和俄罗斯高层，似乎双方领导人都对本周末达成协议不抱太大希望。我们所能期望的最好结果是开启更多谈判的对话——在7 ⽉31⽇90天期限结束前不太可能找到解决方案，随着市场逐渐意识到这一点，其将回到4⽉9日的水平，以此向领导人施压，避免提高关税或使贸易战升级。

　　MACRO： IS A REDUCTION IN BILATERAL US - CHINA TARIFFS TO 65% POSSIBLE？

　　宏观：美中双边关税降至65%  是否可行？

　　MarketsralliedearlierthisweekwhenPresidentTrumpsuggestedthathewasopentocuttingthe tariffon Chinese exports． The Wall Street Journal suggested that the tariffcouldbe cut to 65%．

　　本周早些时候，特朗普总统表示愿意削减对中国出口商品的关税，市场随即上扬。《华尔街日报》称关税可能降至65%。

　　Using the Game Theory approach that we have presented over the past few days we can see whether it is optimal to cut tariffs to 65% and how the game looks． This framework is useful in nassessing whether any of the different outcomes mooted make any sense．

　　运用我们过去几天提出的博弈论方法，我们可以分析将关税降至65%  是否为最优选择，以及这种情况下的博弈态势。这一框架有助于评估各种提议的不同结果是否合理。

　　Witha65% tariff on bothsidesand bilateral tradefalling30% inthecurrentregime，itisstillnotoptimal for China or the USA to reach a deal． Moving to a position with 65% tariffs would be sub - optimalfor bothsides．The US would give up$293bn in returnof $108bn whileChina wouldgive upalossof$7bnforalossof$65bn．

　　在当前体制下，若双方都征收65%  的关税且双边贸易下降30%，对中国和美国来说，达成协议仍非最优选择。进入65%  关税的局面，对双方而言都并非最佳。美国将放弃2930亿美元以换取1080亿美元，而中国将从损失70亿美元变为损失650亿美元。

　　However these numbersand the optimaloutcomeschangedramatically basedon theexpectedfall in bilateral trade．So long as bilateral trade has not reached a floor it remains optimalfor bothsidesto not reach a deal， even this intermediate 65%tariffdeal．

　　然而，这些数字和最优结果会随着双边贸易预期降幅的变化而大幅变动。只要双边贸易尚未触底，对双方来说，不达成协议（即使是65%  关税的中间协议）仍是最优选择。

　　What we find is that ifbilateral trade falls by 80% in the current145% tariffregime then it becomesoptimal for both sides to do a deal and move to a 65%tariffregime．

　　我们发现，在当前145%  的关税体制下，如果双边贸易下降80%，那么对双方来说，达成协议并转向65%  的关税体制将是最优选择。

　　Both sides will either need to see bilateral trade falling that amount or see the potential risk of trade falling by that amount to come to the negotiating table． When this occurs there are a number of consequences：

　　双方要么看到双边贸易下降上述幅度，要么意识到贸易有下降该幅度的潜在风险，才会坐到谈判桌前。一旦出现这种情况，会产生一系列结果：

　　Firstlyitbecomesoptimalforbothsidestomovefromthe  145%tariff regimeto  a65%tariff regime．

　　首先，对双方来说，从145%  的关税体制转向65%  的关税体制将是最优选择。

　　Secondly even though appear to be two Nash equilibria （Deal， Deal） and （No Deal， No Deal） the （Deal， Deal） equilibria is dominant both individually and collectively （37 > 13 and -169 > -309 while -132 > -296）．

　　其次，尽管似乎存在两个纳什均衡（达成协议，达成协议）和（未达成协议，未达成协议），但（达成协议，达成协议）均衡在个体和总体层面都占优（37>13，-169> -309，-132> -296  ）。

　　Moving to the 65% tariff regime it then becomes optimal to reach a full deal which would involve the rebalance of the trade deficit．

　　转向65%  的关税体制后，达成一项涉及贸易逆差再平衡的全面协议将是最优选择。

　　This appears to be a balloon that the US administration is floating but until the impact of the trade war on exports becomes apparent or Chinese exports actually fall by 80%， it is unlikely that any progress will be made． We expect Chinese exports to start showing the impact of the trade war within a few months．

　　这似乎是美国政府放出的试探气球，但在贸易战对出口的影响显现出来，或者中国出口实际下降80%  之前，不太可能取得任何进展。我们预计，中国出口将在几个月内开始显现贸易战的影响。

　　One of the flaws in this work is that it assumes that both US and Chinese exports suffers the same loss - this is almost certainly not the case． The initial numbers show that Chinese exports are falling by twice the percentage amount that US numbers are． We need to adjust the numbers to take this into account in future pieces

　　这项研究的一个缺陷是，它假设美中出口遭受的损失相同——  几乎可以肯定并非如此。初步数据显示，中国出口下降幅度是美国的两倍。在后续研究中，我们需要调整数据以考虑这一点。

　　We continue to find that the Trump tariff numbers are not accidents but there appears to be some intuitive methodology in reaching them． We use a model from Wharton University which projects the impact on Chinese exports of US tariffs and the revenue it will raise

　　我们不断发现，特朗普的关税数据并非随意设定，确定这些数据似乎有一定的内在逻辑方法。我们采用了沃顿商学院的一个模型，该模型预测美国关税对中国出口的影响及其带来的收入。

　　The Wharton model projects a 61.1% drop in Chinese exports in 2025 when tariffs of 145% are applied． At 145% tariffs we find that the tariffs that China will be paying are equivalent to the value of its exports to the USA．

　　沃顿模型预测，若征收145%  的关税，2025 年中国出口将下降61．1%。在145%  的关税水平下，我们发现中国支付的关税金额相当于其对美出口的价值。

　　After exchanging the bilateral tariffs we find that this is the optimal tariff level at which the trade deficit is effectively eliminated． Reducing the tariffs to 65% would leave the USA with a trade deficit of $65.1bn and would not allow the USA to achieve its objective of eliminating the trade deficit． Again we find that the USA is quite comfortable with the current regime， as is China， so despite the damage to bilateral exports there does not seem to be any rationale for changing it．

　　在互换双边关税后，我们发现这是能有效消除贸易逆差的最优关税水平。将关税降至65%会使美国仍有651亿美元的贸易逆差，无法实现消除贸易逆差的目标。我们再次发现，美国和中国都对当前体制相当适应，所以尽管双边出口受到损害，但似乎没有理由改变它。

　　Despite the recent moves in the past few days， a trade dealoranytradedeal，especially withChinais quite a long way away．

　　尽管过去几天有一些动向，但达成贸易协议，或者说任何贸易协议，尤其是与中国的贸易协议，仍遥遥无期。

　　Within our Catastrophe Framework both sides have seen an increase in the threat faced from the other prompting both sides to move to the “Attack” plane．

　　在我们的突变理论框架内，双方都察觉到来自对方的威胁增加，这促使双方都采取“攻击”策略。

　　Both sides think that they can win the war at relatively low cost to themselves． It will be up to markets to remind the leaders of the cost of the trade war． When this happens then the leaders will move to a more neutral stance and back down． It is interesting to view President Trump’s actions on

　　the initial setting of tariffs from 2 Apr to 11 Apr within this context as well as the market responsesn to his attacks on Fed Chair Powell． In both cases President Trump backed down when faced with a significant market cost

　　双方都认为自己能以相对较低的成本赢得这场贸易战。只有市场才能让领导人认识到贸易战的代价。当这种情况发生时，领导人会采取更中立的立场并做出让步。从这个角度来看，特朗普总统在4⽉2⽇⾄11日最初设定关税时的行动，以及市场对他抨击美联储主席鲍威尔的反应，都很有意思。在这两种情况下，特朗普总统在面临巨大的市场成本时都做出了让步。

　　We expect markets to get more nervous as we approach the end of the 90 - day grace period on 8 July， just three days before the expiry of the NKY July options and two days before the expiry of the Kospi July options． We are still within the 40 - day window when the CGTSPOLL signal  indicates the market lower - this window will end on 6 June unless a fresh signal is triggered

　　随着7⽉8⽇90 天宽限期临近结束，我们预计市场会更加紧张，这一天距离日经指数7⽉期权到期仅3 天，距离韩国综合股价指数7月期权到期仅2 天。目前我们仍处于CGTSPOLL信号显示市场走低的40 天窗口期内，除非触发新信号，否则该窗口期将于6⽉6日结束。

　　The rally back up to “fair value” in our fiscal deficit framework on misguided hopes of a traden  deal and the fall in volatility and skew is an opportunity to reset hedges looking for a re - test and break of the lows over the summer．

　　因对贸易协议抱有不切实际的期望，在我们的财政赤字框架内，市场回升至“公允价值”，波动性和偏度下降，这是一个重新调整对冲策略的机会，以便在夏季重新测试并突破低点。

海量资讯、精准解读，尽在新浪财经APP

责任编辑：王珂