State-owned media suggests that a 90-day window may not suffice for meaningful outcomes, arguing the need for extended cooperation beyond this period. The media expresses hope that recent talks’ outcomes will encourage the US to continue meeting China halfway.

A 90-day period is expected to be subjective rather than a strict deadline, allowing for extensions if negotiations progress. Any extension would depend on the US’s patience, particularly if President Trump does not lose patience with China.

Beijing’s Negotiation Approach

Analysts indicate that Beijing may not hurry to detail how it will fulfill its commitments. There may be limited clarity on non-tariff barriers as both sides remain engaged in discussions.

Even the emergence of purchase agreements or similar outcomes may not signify substantial progress. There are concerns about repeating the unfulfillments of the previous Phase One trade deal.

The article is assessing the real prospects of progress in discussions between the United States and China, with an emphasis on the trade relationship more than anything else. At the core is the notion that a stated 90-day period for talks is not so much a cut-off as it is a flexible checkpoint, which opens room for delay if discussions appear to be going somewhere. That’s a nod toward realism rather than optimism—most probably because there’s an understanding that these kinds of negotiations do not stick to round numbers or tidy calendars.

State-linked commentators suggest that more time is needed to get useful results, with expectations dialed down accordingly. What is implicit here is a wider recognition that the key outcomes won’t necessarily come in the form of grand agreements or immediate action. The emphasis seems to be placed more on gestures and intent, which makes reading timelines tricky.

Implications For Market Behavior

It’s noted that there hasn’t yet been clarity about how policy promises would become operational, particularly on the subject of non-tariff barriers. These can often cause more difficulty than tariffs themselves because they include regulations, standards and informal policies that are harder to measure or address in simple trade terms. The suggestion is that both sides remain guarded, unwilling to show their full positions too early. That means participants in related markets should expect a fair amount of ambiguity in the near term.

Of particular importance here is the mention of previous unkept promises, especially those linked to the earlier Phase One deal. The concern is that early signs of agreement—reduced tariffs or bulk commodity orders—could be read too eagerly as signals of resolution. These kinds of cues have led markets astray before, so it’s reasonable to expect a more tempered reading of headlines this time.

For ourselves, what becomes more relevant is not the confirmation of agreements, but what’s left unsaid. Delays in giving specifics, particularly around non-tariff policies or enforcement mechanisms, can lead to uneven movements in pricing models and shifts in implied volatility. We should therefore review short-dated implied vol in key currency pairs and commodities with a closer eye, particularly in instruments relying on sentiment versus substance. When rhetoric drives positioning more than actual flows, there’s an increase in fragility for structured products and calendar spreads.

That said, we shouldn’t over-position based on the assumption of continued goodwill. The message is fairly clear: a pause or slowdown in new negotiations could happen abruptly, especially if political pressure builds elsewhere. In scenarios like this, short gamma positioning might be more dangerous than it appears. Reviewing correlated exposures—particularly those that share sentiment dependence—could help reduce unwanted surprises tied to sudden narrative shifts.

It’s also worth noting the absence of new compliance or verification protocols being agreed upon. Without those, any forward-looking agreement is still essentially verbal. That’s a kind of uncertainty that doesn’t show up in macro indicators right away, but matters greatly when pricing quarterly volatility or structuring iron condors or risk reversals. We often find that the quieter periods, when concrete news is lacking but posture is softening, offer the best setups for skew rebalancing.

Looking at the statement again, one insight stands out: there remains a deep hesitation to commit to an enforceable timeline. That hesitation, if prolonged, could delay any expected improvement in bilateral purchase flows or changes to licensing rules. This affects not just trade volumes, but operational confidence for cross-listed firms, too. Anyone positioned through ADRs or sector ETFs linked to manufacturing or base materials might want to reassess their timing models through the lens of regulatory slippage.

As we monitor public commentary, we should remember that extended dialogue without substance tends to cool implied rates more than it affects underlying exposure. This can make longer-term spreads flatter, even while short-term IV remains constrained. In our opinion, that’s a condition worth preparing for now, if not actively positioning around already. Fast shifts in tone can be disruptive, but slow progress wrapped in hopeful language requires just as much discipline.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.