Senior Macro Strategist, TS Lombard

Martin Shenfield

Senior Macro Strategist

Research covering economic, politics & markets

TS Lombard

TS Lombard is the new research group formed through the merger of Lombard Street Research and Trusted Sources in August 2016. The merger has brought together two of the leading, and longest established, IRPs to create a unique offering combining best-in-breed macroeconomic forecasting and political and policy analysis. The group has a team of 25 analysts and strategists across offices in London, New York, Hong Kong, Beijing, Sao Paulo and New Delhi. 

LSR was founded in 1989 to produce UK economic forecasts. Services now include global macro analysis and forecasting,  in depth China coverage, proprietary indicators and models, asset allocation recommendations and tactical trading ideas. LSR ranked above BCA for the first time in the 2016 Extel survey of buy-side investors. 

Trusted Sources was founded in 2006 to provide political risk coverage of BRIC economies. Services now include country political risk coverage, in depth China policy coverage, MENA coverage, LatAm coverage, South East Asia coverage and asset allocation and tactical trading ideas. 

Core research capabilities: 
The framework combines macroeconomic forecasts with political and policy analysis to enable investors to make more fully informed allocations. TS Lombard encourages interaction with their team through on-site meetings and calls, conference calls, video presentations, lunches and conferences.  The group provides tailored services through client-specific combinations of research reports (daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly and quarterly as appropriate) including: 

China In Depth
LSR Daily Note
LSR View
Macro Picture
Asset Allocation
Macro Strategy
Country Policy/Political Notes
EM Strategy Monthly
EM Absolute Views

Geographic coverage and strategies:
Developed Markets (USA, Europe, UK, Japan), Emerging Markets (China, India, SE Asia, LatAm, MENA, Russia), Strategies (Asset Allocation (6 months), Tactical Trade ideas (6-12 weeks)). 


Macroeconomics

<div class="content-highlight"><p>As markets become increasingly roiled by trade war uncertainties &amp; in particular President Trump’s trademark unpredictable approach to negotiations, my colleagues Jon Harrison &amp; Larry Brainard set out below our latest prognosis. However the earlier consensus that after some megaphone threats of ‘tit for tat’ a pragmatic negotiated settlement is the most likely outcome, must now to some degree be questioned after the latest confused (contradictory?) messages from Trump, Mnuchin &amp; Kudlow at the end of last week. Beyond the descent into a more chaotic negotiating style, markets increasingly are stuck in a ‘Catch 22’ that if the Chinese are to be persuaded that the US is serious then the latter must indeed be seen to carry a big stick &amp; possibly be prepared to go to the brink of a trade war but certainly at least be prepared to take a short term hit to the economy.</p><p>The bigger risk is that if this was simply a justified &amp; necessary rebalancing of trade ‘reciprocity’ focused on creating a level playing field, notably to open up China’s domestic services marketplace (which itself would also be of huge benefit to the Chinese consumer), then some short term minor dislocation would be acceptable. And should China promise to ensure no further alleged theft of US technology, then this would give President Trump a presentational ‘win’ but would not impinge significantly on China’s high-tech industrial strategy.</p><p>However, if as appears more likely, the US is targeting China’s move up the value-added curve to high-tech manufacturing &amp; in particular the ‘Made in China 2025’ programme as part of a geopolitically driven containment strategy, then we are in for a much bumpier ride.</p><p>Firstly the US alone cannot win on this without the EU &amp; Japan being closely on-board in a repurposed WTO &amp; secondly ‘Made in China 2025’ is the totemic benchmark for President Xi’s future success &amp; he simply can’t compromise let alone yield to ‘outside pressures’ on this.</p></div>

As markets become increasingly roiled by trade war uncertainties &amp; in particular President Trump’s trademark unpredictable approach to negotiations, my colleagues Jon Harrison &amp; Larry Brainard set out below our latest prognosis. However the earlier consensus that after some megaphone threats of ‘tit for tat’ a pragmatic negotiated settlement is the most likely outcome, must now to some degree be questioned after the latest confused (contradictory?) messages from Trump, Mnuchin &amp; Kudlow at the end of last week. Beyond the descent into a more chaotic negotiating style, markets increasingly are stuck in a ‘Catch 22’ that if the Chinese are to be persuaded that the US is serious then the latter must indeed be seen to carry a big stick &amp; possibly be prepared to go to the brink of a trade war but certainly at least be prepared to take a short term hit to the economy.The bigger risk is that if this was simply a justified &amp; necessary rebalancing of trade ‘reciprocity’ focused on creating a level playing field, notably to open up China’s domestic services marketplace (which itself would also be of huge benefit to the Chinese consumer), then some short term minor dislocation would be acceptable. And should China promise to ensure no further alleged theft of US technology, then this would give President Trump a presentational ‘win’ but would not impinge significantly on China’s high-tech industrial strategy.However, if as appears more likely, the US is targeting China’s move up the value-added curve to high-tech manufacturing &amp; in particular the ‘Made in China 2025’ programme as part of a geopolitically driven containment strategy, then we are in for a much bumpier ride.Firstly the US alone cannot win on this without the EU &amp; Japan being closely on-board in a repurposed WTO &amp; secondly ‘Made in China 2025’ is the totemic benchmark for President Xi’s future success &amp; he simply can’t compromise let alone yield to ‘outside pressures’ on this.

Hazardous Trade War Tactics