The U.S. and IMF Disagree About China. That’s a Problem.

Eighty years ago world leaders meeting in Bretton Woods, N.H., created the International Monetary Fund to prevent the sorts of economic imbalances that had brought on the Great Depression.

Today, imbalances once again threaten global harmony. China’s massive trade surplus is fuelling a backlash. The U.S. attributes those surpluses to China holding down consumption while subsidising manufacturing and exports, inflicting collateral damage on its trading partners. And it would like the IMF to say so.

The IMF, though, has steered a more neutral path. It has prodded Beijing to change its economic model while playing down any harm from that model for the world.

Decades ago, U.S. leaders thought bringing China into the postwar economic institutions such as the IMF and World Trade Organization would make Beijing more market-oriented and the world more stable. They now think the opposite. China has doubled down on an authoritarian, state-driven economic model that many in the West see as incompatible with their own.

The IMF, the world’s most influential international economic institution, may find itself torn between irreconcilable visions of the global economy, especially if former President Donald Trump is re-elected next month.

Trump has prioritised reducing the trade deficit, especially with China, through tariffs, an approach the IMF has criticised. Many of his advisers are deeply suspicious of both Beijing and international institutions. Project 2025, an agenda for a second Trump term that includes many Trump advisers as authors, has suggested the U.S. should leave the IMF, though there is no sign Trump agrees.

The U.S. has been upset about the growth in China’s trade surplus since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, wiping out U.S. factory jobs in what became known as the China shock .

China’s surpluses have since shrunk as a share of its gross domestic product. But because China’s economy is now so large, that surplus has grown as share of world GDP, to 0.7%. Other countries are alarmed at a growing flood of cheap manufacturing imports, dubbed “China Shock 2.0 .”

Jake Sullivan , President Biden’s national security adviser, said at the Brookings Institution Wednesday that China “is producing far more than domestic demand, dumping excess onto global markets at artificially low prices, driving manufacturers around the world out of business, and creating a chokehold on supply chains.”

Treasury Undersecretary Jay Shambaugh told me at a panel organised by the Atlantic Council two weeks ago that China is “already 30% of global manufacturing. You can’t grow at a massive rate when you start from 30% of the world without displacing not just us, but lots of countries.”

Pointing out such tensions is part of the IMF’s job, Shambaugh said at the event. While the IMF has said China’s industrial policies may be hurting its trading partners, “I would like to see them pay more attention…to the aggregate external imbalance.”

The IMF’s architects believed a breakdown in economic cooperation contributed to the Depression. Countries such as the U.S. that ran large trade surpluses felt no pressure to help those with deficits, like Britain. Depressed countries sought to limit imports and boost exports by devaluing their currencies or imposing tariffs, in effect seeking to export their unemployment.

To end such “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies, British economist John Maynard Keynes proposed that trade be conducted through a global bank and currency that would prevent big deficits and surpluses. Instead, at Bretton Woods, delegates agreed to peg their currencies to the dollar with the IMF overseeing periodic revaluations.

By the 1970s, inflation and growing trade deficits caused fixed exchange rates to collapse. Cross-border capital flows soared, enabling poor countries to borrow from western banks and investors. When they defaulted, the IMF had a new mission: helping them restructure their debts, usually on the condition of strict budget austerity. IMF, a popular joke ran, stood for “It’s Mostly Fiscal.”

Even today, while the IMF does still monitor trade deficits and surpluses, it rarely attributes those to cross-border influences, focusing instead on fiscal and other domestic factors.

In a blog post last month, IMF staff investigated the U.S. deficit and Chinese surplus and found little connection.

The U.S. deficit reflected strong government and household spending, while China’s surplus resulted from slumping property markets and domestic confidence. They “are mostly homegrown,” they wrote. In an implicit rebuke to the U.S., they wrote, “Worries that China’s external surpluses result from industrial policies reflect an incomplete view.”

This benign view of Chinese surpluses has drawn criticism. Brad Setser , a former U.S. Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the IMF has relied on data that understates the surplus.

Setser also raps the IMF’s advice to Beijing to let interest rates and the exchange rate fall while tightening fiscal policy—that is, raising taxes or cutting spending. That, he said, will weaken imports, boost exports and thus widen the trade surplus.

“Their analysis is all about how bad the fiscal situation is, with no real analysis of the balance of payments position,” Setser said.

Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas , the IMF’s chief economist, disagreed. He noted the IMF has consistently urged China to boost household consumption such as by strengthening the social safety net and shifting more of the tax burden from the high-consuming poor to the high-saving rich. He also noted that the IMF has argued for fiscal stimulus now and consolidation later.

Does the IMF’s opinion make a difference? Most countries—the big ones especially—will never need to borrow from the IMF and can thus ignore its advice. The IMF has long urged the U.S. to rein in its budget deficit, noting this contributes to its trade deficit, and the U.S. has just as long ignored it.

And yet when the IMF speaks, it does so with an authority and credibility that no private analyst or individual country commands.

China’s approach to boosting exports is “killing jobs elsewhere, and that’s something the IMF should call out,” said Martin Mühleisen , a former senior IMF official now at The Atlantic Council. “China doesn’t want bad publicity from the IMF, in part because the criticism would resonate in many countries.”

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.