Research Overview
The starting point for this report is a short video posted on the Douyin platform — on-the-ground footage captured on April 28, 2026 by a Chinese-American truck driver in the Port of Los Angeles area. The footage shows massive numbers of idle port chassis, gantry cranes sitting motionless, and deserted container yards. This micro-level physical evidence stands in stark contradiction to the macro-level statistical data published by China’s government: a reported 11.9% year-over-year export growth for Q1 2026.
Beginning with physical port evidence, this report constructs an unprecedented multi-dimensional cross-verification matrix through fifteen independent evidence chains. The V4 edition adds the ultimate dissection of Hong Kong trade data (trade value +30% vs. port throughput -5.7%, 59% of exports flowing to mainland China while exports to developed nations ≈ zero, re-export profit margin of only 0.33%), comprehensive verification of Hong Kong’s real economy (housing prices -30%, Grade A office vacancy rate 15%, consecutive fiscal deficits, $50 billion capital outflows), and cross-references with our institute’s April 26 report “Analysis of the Probability that President Trump Revokes Hong Kong’s Free Port Status,” forming a complete Hong Kong risk assessment system spanning political analysis and economic empirical evidence. No analysis report of comparable depth and breadth was found anywhere online.
Physical Evidence: U.S. Port Reality
On April 28, 2026, Douyin user @MuNanDing posted on-the-ground footage from inside the Port of Los Angeles area. The video shows: large numbers of HEDE SHIPPING containers sitting idle, empty chassis lined up in rows, and empty port roads with virtually no traffic. The video was tagged “#AmericanTruckDriver” with IP location showing Los Angeles, USA. The same user had also filmed BYD electric trucks inside the port area on February 11, indicating that the port’s deserted conditions had persisted for months without improvement.
Year-over-Year Decline
Year-over-Year Decline
Year-over-Year Decline
Year-over-Year Decline
The founder of a logistics tracking firm warned that daily freight volumes at the Port of Los Angeles had dropped to Thanksgiving and Christmas levels — the two slowest days of the entire year. Truck drivers were advised to avoid the LA port area or risk returning with empty loads.
U.S. Port Divergence: West Coast Declining, East Coast Stable, but Overall Volume Down
It should be noted that U.S. ports are not uniformly deserted. The Port of Savannah saw a 12.2% increase in January imports, Houston grew 4.4%, and New York/New Jersey port exports rose 13.9%. The NRF projects total major U.S. port imports to decline 2% year-over-year in H1 2026. The contraction is concentrated on the West Coast — precisely the traditional gateway most dependent on Chinese goods.
Key Comparison: China-Side Port Data
In stark contrast to U.S. ports, Chinese ports showed positive growth in Q1 2026: total container throughput at major national ports reached 89.64 million TEU, up 8% year-over-year. Shanghai port handled 14.11 million TEU, up 6.8%; Shenzhen port handled 9.09 million TEU, up 8.2%.
Goods are indeed leaving Chinese ports (+8%), but the U.S. West Coast is shrinking (-11% to -14%), and overall U.S. imports are down 2%. Export value grew 11.9% while physical throughput grew 8% — this 4-percentage-point gap is particularly anomalous against a backdrop of PPI deflation: factory gate prices are falling, yet export value growth exceeds physical volume growth. This means either RMB depreciation contributed a price effect, or trade values are being inflated. Meanwhile, China’s +8% physical port growth, against a reality where global consumption is growing only in the low single digits, raises the critical question: where are these goods ultimately going?
The video shows HEDE SHIPPING containers and empty chassis (filmed April 28). On February 11, the same user filmed BYD electric trucks and Performance Team (a Maersk subsidiary) signage at the same port area, confirming the filming location as the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex — the largest container port cluster in the United States. From February through late April, the deserted conditions at West Coast ports persisted without improvement.
China’s True Dependency on the U.S. Market
The key to understanding this contradiction lies in the fact that U.S. ports are not merely the endpoint for China’s direct exports to America — they are also the ultimate destination node for goods transshipped through third countries.
Changes in Direct Export Share
| Year | Direct U.S. Export Share | Estimated True Share (incl. Transshipment) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 19% | 23-25% | Pre-trade war peak |
| 2020 | 17.4% | ~22% | Pandemic year |
| 2025 | ~10% | 15-20% | Post-tariff surface decline |
A June 2025 Brookings Institution study revealed that the decline in China’s direct trade surplus with the U.S. was “completely offset” by rising surpluses with 14 other countries. China’s exports to Thailand and Vietnam surged anomalously in the run-up to tariff increases — domestic demand in those countries could not have suddenly spiked, providing strong indirect evidence that large-scale transshipment was occurring.
Long Beach Port’s China Dependency
Long Beach Port CEO Hacegaba stated: “Six years ago, all of our cargo — imports and exports combined — 70% was China-related. Now it’s down to 60%.” The shifted share went primarily to Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand — whose exports ultimately still flow largely to the United States as the final destination.
Over 40% of the Port of Los Angeles’s import-export business is directly linked to Chinese ports. Combined, the actual share of cargo related to the Chinese supply chain at both ports may be as high as 70-80%. When this cargo source dries up, the ports cannot possibly remain busy.
Global Final Goods Consumption Distribution
The ultimate destination of exports is consumption. Verifying the authenticity of export data requires returning to the demand side: who in the world is actually buying?
Household Final Consumption
Household Final Consumption
Household Consumption (incl. services)
Half of Global Consumption
U.S. household final consumption expenditure accounts for 34% of the global total (~$19 trillion), the EU for 17-18% (~$10 trillion), together exceeding 51%. Adding Japan (~5%), South Korea (1.5%), and Taiwan (0.8%), developed economies collectively account for approximately 59%. The remaining 41% is distributed across over 200 countries, with no single economy exceeding 5% of global consumption.
An AlixPartners survey of over 13,000 consumers across 9 countries found that in 2026, the share of global consumers planning to reduce spending exceeded those planning to increase spending by 18 percentage points — a gap that widened by over 60% year-over-year. Even in the most optimistic region, the Middle East, net positive spending intentions were only 5 percentage points. No country in the world has consumption growth approaching 10%.
Core Framework: For every $10 of physical goods consumed globally, approximately $6 is spent by consumers in the U.S. + EU + Japan/Korea/Taiwan. The purchasing intentions and actual import data for these consumers in 2026 (detailed in Section 06) all point toward contraction. China reports 11.9% export growth — where are the buyers?
Disruption of Transshipment Routes
Some argue that China’s export growth stems from transshipment trade through ASEAN. But this explanation path contains fatal logical contradictions —
→
→
→
If the transshipment route is “China → Vietnam → U.S.,” then the final destination is still American ports. Vietnamese customs mirror data provides critical verification: in Q1 2026, Vietnam’s imports grew 27% to $126.57 billion, with China remaining the largest import source ($19 billion in January alone); simultaneously, Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. remained #1. The transshipment chain has physical counterparts, but the total volume is insufficient to explain China’s 11.9% export growth.
In 2024, ASEAN countries increased country-of-origin verification investigations on Chinese-origin goods by 167% year-over-year, concentrated in solar panels, lithium batteries, and smart wearable devices.
Corroboration from Shipping Rate Data
The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) plummeted to 1,114 points in September 2025, the largest single-week drop in nearly a decade. It recovered to approximately 1,283 points in early 2026 (February) and rose to 1,875 points by late April. However, the rate recovery was primarily driven by the Strait of Hormuz conflict forcing longer routing, with trans-Pacific freight rates rising approximately 40%. Industry analysts explicitly noted that “underlying demand remains weak.” The rate increase reflects supply-side cost shocks, not demand-side pull.
All three pathways fail to fully explain the 11.9% growth rate. The gap between China’s +8% physical port growth and +11.9% export value growth, combined with the contradiction against weak global consumption, continues to point toward data inflation.
Global Exporter Comparison
If China’s 11.9% export growth is real, then under the same global demand conditions, other major exporting nations should show logically consistent performance. The data reveals a massive discrepancy.
| Country | Q1 Export Growth | Primary Driver | Explainability |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Korea | +29%~48% | Semiconductors/AI chips (+151%) | High — single category, traceable global AI investment |
| Japan | +4%~17% | Semiconductor equipment, autos (volatile) | Medium — down to U.S., up to Asia |
| Germany | +1.6% | No standout driver, U.S.-bound -7.5% | High — consistent with weak global demand |
| China | +11.9% | “Broad-based growth” | Low — no single traceable driver |
South Korea’s +48% looks astonishing, but upon examination the explanation is immediately clear — semiconductor exports alone grew 151%, driven by traceable real demand from global AI infrastructure investment. Germany, the world’s third-largest exporter, grew only +1.6%, honestly reflecting weak global demand. China accounts for 16% of global exports — 5x Korea’s volume and over 2x Germany’s — yet in the same global environment reports 11.9% broad-based growth, 7x Germany’s rate. A gap of this magnitude cannot be explained by “competitiveness differences.”
Global Import Demand Verification
The other side of exports is imports. If China’s exports are growing rapidly, there must be corresponding import growth globally to absorb these goods. The data shows the exact opposite.
World’s largest buyer contracting
World’s second-largest buyer contracting
But entirely intermediate goods/components
Semiconductors +39.8%, non-consumer goods
The two giants of global final consumption — the U.S. (34% of global household consumption) and the EU (17-18%) — together accounting for 51-52% of global household final consumption, are both declining simultaneously. U.S. imports -9.2%, EU external imports -6.6%. Adding Japan (~5%, flat), the top three consumer economies collectively account for approximately 57% of global consumption, all in contraction or stagnation.
The countries showing import growth are buying entirely intermediate goods: Vietnam’s imports consist of electronic components and machinery (for factory expansion), while China’s own imports are semiconductors (+39.8%) and data processing equipment (+68.7%). The U.S. and EU — accounting for over half of the global consumer market — are simultaneously buying less, and the growing imports are entirely in production chain intermediates. Real global import demand for final consumer goods is contracting across the board.
The U.S. and EU, accounting for 52% of global household final consumption, are simultaneously reducing imports (U.S. -9.2%, EU -6.6%). The production chain is expanding (Vietnam building factories, China stockpiling chips), while end demand is universally contracting. Who will ultimately buy these processed goods? There are only three answers: sell to U.S./EU consumers who are buying less (impossible), pile up in overseas warehouses waiting to be absorbed (inventory buildup), or there simply isn’t that much cargo (statistical inflation).
The Hong Kong State Paradox
Hong Kong is part of China — the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. But it inherited the British-era independent customs statistical system, and its trade data can be reverse-verified by dozens of independent customs systems worldwide. This makes Hong Kong the only node within China’s entire trade data system that can be independently validated by the international community.
Hong Kong Port: Seven Consecutive Years of Collapse
-5.7% YoY, 7th consecutive year of decline
Nearly halved over 17 years
1.19M TEU
Containers leaving empty
Hong Kong is separated from Shenzhen port by a single waterway, sharing the same Pearl River Delta manufacturing hinterland. Shenzhen port grew 8.2% in Q1 2026, while neighboring Hong Kong continued its precipitous decline. Empty container growth of 21.2% — containers leaving Hong Kong empty — is physical, irrefutable proof of insufficient export demand.
External Verification: Hong Kong’s trade data with every country in the world is internationally standardized and reverse-verifiable. U.S., Japanese, and EU customs can all independently confirm the authenticity of Hong Kong’s data.
Internal Contradiction: This same Hong Kong, in its trade data with another part of the same country (mainland China), shows long-term, systematic discrepancies.
Conclusion: Two customs systems within one country cannot reconcile their numbers — and one of them can be verified as accurate by the entire world. The only data window within the Chinese system that can be independently verified by the international community uses verifiable facts to negate the unverifiable portion of data within that same system.
The Ultimate Dissection of Hong Kong Trade Data
8.1 Value Surging vs. Physical Volume Shrinking
In January-February 2026, Hong Kong export value grew 29.6% and import value grew 34.1%. But port container throughput was -5.7%, laden outbound containers -3.6%, and empty containers +21.2%. Trade value up 30%, physical containers down 6%. The Hong Kong government acknowledged that growth was driven by “AI-related electronic products” — high-value chips are extremely small in volume but extremely high in value; a single container of chips can equal the value of 100 containers of consumer goods.
8.2 The Devastating Dissection of Export Destinations
59.1% of Hong Kong’s exports flow to mainland China. For other countries:
| Country | Imports from HK (Annual) | Exports to HK (Annual) | Nature |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Minimal (U.S. surplus vs HK: $21.9B) | Far exceeds imports | U.S. is seller, not buyer |
| Japan | $1.8B | $35.9B | Exports 20x imports |
| South Korea | ~$0.5B | $35.0B | Exports 70x imports |
| Taiwan | Minimal | 7.4% of HK trade | Supplier |
Developed economies accounting for 60% of global consumption import virtually nothing from Hong Kong. Instead, they are massively exporting chips to Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s +29.6% export growth flows almost 100% toward mainland China — precisely the direction that cannot be independently verified by third parties. The verifiable portion (to foreign countries) ≈ shrinking/negligible. The unverifiable portion (to mainland) ≈ surging.
8.3 The Re-Export Profit Lie
Hong Kong’s goods trade is chronically in deficit — HK$468 billion in 2023 (~$60 billion). On HK$5 trillion in re-export trade, the net income retained in Hong Kong is only approximately $2.2 billion. The math: $2.2B ÷ $664B (HK$5 trillion converted) = 0.33%.
Not 15-25% re-export margins — 0.33%. And that even includes financial and logistics service income. The re-exported goods themselves operate at a loss — import prices exceed export prices because mainland companies set up shell companies in Hong Kong to control both sides of trade, using transfer pricing to shift all profits back to the mainland. Shell companies pay no taxes, hire no employees, rent no offices. What Hong Kong gets: a company registration number and a trade statistic. For an economy with no manufacturing, a goods trade deficit means every dollar is pure bleeding. Approximately $60 billion per year (16% of GDP) permanently flows out.
Comprehensive Verification: Hong Kong’s Real Economy
If trade were truly growing 30%, the real economy would inevitably show traces. The data shows the exact opposite.
9.1 Housing Prices and Office Space
Cumulative decline from 2018 peak
Exceeded historic highs since 2022
Cumulative decline since mid-2019
57 months to absorb
9.2 Fiscal Collapse (1997 → 2026)
| Period | Fiscal Position | Reserves | Land Revenue Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997-2007 | Surplus 4-8% GDP | Continuously accumulated → HK$1T+ | 20-30% |
| 2008-2018 | Surplus but declining | Maintained at high levels | Fluctuating downward |
| 2019-2021 | Turned to deficit | Began drawdown | Sharp decline |
| 2022-2026 | Consecutive deficits, layoffs, salary freeze, bond issuance | HK$647.4B (halved from peak) | Only 5.2% |
The 2024/25 fiscal year deficit reached HK$87.2 billion (estimated to double). 10,000 civil servants cut, across-the-board salary freeze. Annual bond issuance of HK$150-195 billion, with 56% used to repay existing debt. Hong Kong’s share of China’s GDP fell from 18.4% in 1997 to 2.1% in 2021. The real wage index has barely changed in 30 years.
9.3 International Investment Banks’ True Assessment
March 2025 report: “These are not temporary fluctuations, but structural changes driven by geopolitics.” FDI continues steady decline. Net capital outflows of $50 billion in 2024 (13% of GDP). Professional talent migrating to Singapore and Dubai. Businesses placing stability above historical ties. Bank profit margins compressed, wealth management growth slowing. This is the most candid warning from any major investment bank — most banks won’t speak honestly due to their own operations in Hong Kong, but the data direction is consistent.
An economy with “30% trade growth” cannot simultaneously exhibit: housing prices down 30%, office vacancy at 15%, rents down 30%, port throughput halved, 57 months of unsold housing inventory, consecutive deficits with layoffs/salary freezes/bond issuance, and $50 billion in capital outflows. Trade value is inflating, but every capillary of the real economy is shrinking. This is not trade — it is the shadow of financial engineering.
The Arithmetic Impossibility of Global Share
This is a pure mathematical verification — no port videos needed, no PPI, no subjective judgment required. Just three public numbers.
(~$3.77 trillion in 2024)
Q1 2026
2026
÷ Total Global Trade Growth
China accounts for approximately 16% of global goods exports. If China’s exports grew 11.9%, China alone would contribute approximately 1.9 percentage points to global export growth. But the WTO forecasts only 0.5% growth in global merchandise trade volume for 2026.
China’s single-country export growth contribution (1.9 percentage points) is 3.6 times the total global trade growth (0.5%). Mathematically, this means: if China’s data is real, all other countries combined must have had their exports decline by approximately 1.4 percentage points to “make room.” But Germany is growing (+1.6%), South Korea is surging (+48%), Japan is also growing — there is zero evidence that the rest of the world is shrinking overall. Put these three numbers together, and they contradict each other.
The Fatal Contradiction: Price Indices
This is the logically purest and most unavoidable link in the entire chain of evidence.
Longest deflationary cycle on record
Far below 2% target
November 2025 YoY
Factory Gate Price, Full Year 2025
The basic economic causal chain: booming exports → factories overwhelmed with orders → competition for raw materials, workers, capacity → rising costs → PPI rises → worker income increases → consumption recovers → CPI rises. This is an iron chain of causality. In every economy experiencing genuine high export growth — China 2003-2007, Japan/Korea in the 1960s-70s, Vietnam in 2021 — both PPI and CPI were inflationary.
An economy with 40 consecutive months of negative PPI and CPI hovering near zero cannot possibly have double-digit export growth. If exports were truly growing at 11.9%, deflation would be physically impossible. The two are logically mutually exclusive.
Furthermore: if factory gate prices fell an average of 2-3% while export value grew 11.9%, then export physical volume would need to grow approximately 14-15%. A 14-15% increase in physical volume means more containers, more ships, more port throughput — but the ports are empty.
Government Debt & the LGFV Black Hole
An economy with 11.9% export growth should exhibit rising tax revenues, improving fiscal conditions, declining debt, and abundant foreign exchange. Reality is the exact opposite.
| Indicator | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total LGFV Debt | RMB 60-78 trillion | IMF estimates |
| True Government Debt Ratio | ~130% GDP | IMF (incl. hidden debt) |
| Official Debt Ratio | 69% GDP | China Ministry of Finance |
| Broad Fiscal Deficit | >14% GDP (2026 forecast) | IMF forecast |
| Government Arrears to Contractors & Civil Servants | RMB 10 trillion | Economist Li Daokui |
LGFV Creditors — The Savings of 1.4 Billion People
75% of total LGFV debt is held by banks. Banks and securities firms repackage LGFV debt into wealth management products and sell them to ordinary individual investors. LGFV debt accounts for approximately 40% of China’s corporate bond market.
→
→
→
The IMF has noted that if LGFV debt were to be written down, the losses would ultimately be borne by the household sector — particularly affluent households holding wealth management products. Household savings have effectively been locked into a debt black hole incapable of generating returns, systematically draining consumer purchasing power.
M2 Expansion & Monetary Futility
December 2025
Twice the U.S. M2
December 2025
Flat-lined for years
M2 is expanding at 8.5%, yet CPI is zero and PPI is negative. The central bank is pumping massive liquidity, but prices are falling. This cannot happen in normal economics — unless the new money is not entering the real economy but instead spinning idle within the financial system to keep it alive.
Household deposits increased by RMB 10.77 trillion in six months, while corporate deposits rose only RMB 1.77 trillion — savings far exceeding lending, with interbank rates falling to multi-year lows. Massive savings are trapped in the banking system, unable to be converted into investment or consumption. M2 expansion is not because the economy is growing, but because old debts need new money to survive — LGFVs borrowing new to repay old, banks rolling over and extending loans, wealth management products maintaining rolling redemptions. Every new yuan of M2 is not creating GDP but transfusing blood into a zombie system.
Wealth Concentration: Squeezed to the Limit
Japan’s “Lost Three Decades” was long-term stagnation after developing to its fullest potential and overshooting. China’s problem is not having developed to its limit — it is having been squeezed to its limit.
World’s 2nd most (268 new in 2025)
$4.2 trillion
Below RMB 1,000 (~$140, 2020 data)
Far exceeding international warning level
The 2025 Hurun China Rich List: the number of individuals with wealth exceeding RMB 5 billion grew 31%, with total wealth up 42%. The wealthiest 130,000 families held 58% of total high-net-worth household wealth, up from 56% the prior year, reflecting further concentration. Meanwhile, per capita disposable income was only RMB 41,314 (~$5,700).
Billionaires growing 42% + CPI at zero + 40 months of PPI deflation + 600 million people earning under RMB 1,000/month — these four numbers together are the precise definition of “squeezed to the limit.” Wealth has not been converted into broad middle-class consumer power; instead, it has been siphoned by an extreme minority. Money printed through M2, flowing through the chain of LGFV → banks → wealth management products → asset bubbles, ultimately becomes entries on the rich’s balance sheets rather than income for ordinary people.
The Absence of Structural Reform
In the 1990s under Zhu Rongji’s leadership, China completed genuine structural reforms: state-owned enterprise reform, tax-sharing system reform, bank bad-debt write-offs, housing marketization, and WTO accession preparation. It was a painful but effective adjustment period.
In the nearly 30 years since, there has been no structural reform of comparable magnitude. Every economic downturn has been met with the same prescription: monetary easing, infrastructure spending, real estate stimulus, and capacity expansion. The 2008 four-trillion-yuan stimulus, 2015 shantytown monetization, 2020 post-COVID stimulus — all adding leverage to the old model, never touching the fundamental structure.
| Economy | Crisis Type | Reform Approach | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Korea (1997) | Financial crisis | Chaebol breakup, bank transparency, FDI opening | High-tech innovation economy |
| Japan (1991) | Bubble burst | Low rates to keep alive, refused to clear | Lost Three Decades (but per capita GDP already at high levels) |
| China (1990s) | SOE crisis | SOE reform, tax-sharing, WTO preparation | 20 years of high-growth dividend |
| China (2008-now) | Multiple downturns | Monetary easing, infrastructure, real estate | Balance sheet recession + per capita GDP still at developing-country level |
China is following an intensified version of Japan’s zombification path — but more dangerous: when Japan went astray, its per capita GDP was already near U.S. levels with a comprehensive social safety net. China remains a developing country with per capita GDP around $10,000, a weak safety net, and 600 million people earning less than RMB 1,000 per month.
Fifteen Evidence Chains, One Conclusion
Core Conclusion
China’s official Q1 2026 export growth figure of 11.9% fundamentally contradicts the physical and economic reality presented by fifteen independent evidence chains. The U.S. and EU — together comprising 52% of global consumption — saw imports decline simultaneously (-9.2% and -6.6%); Germany, the world’s third-largest exporter, grew only 1.6%; China’s own PPI has been negative for 40 consecutive months; the gap between port physical growth of 8% and value growth of 11.9% is logically mutually exclusive under deflation; the WTO forecasts global trade growth at only 0.5%, yet China alone contributes 3.6x that amount.
Most devastating is Hong Kong. Trade value +30% but port throughput -5.7% and empty containers +21.2%; 59% of exports flowing to mainland while exports to U.S./Japan/Korea/Taiwan ≈ zero; chronic goods trade deficit with re-export profit of only 0.33%; shell company transfer pricing with no profit retained in Hong Kong; housing prices -30%, offices 15% vacant, consecutive fiscal deficits, $50 billion capital outflows. The only data window within the Chinese system that can be internationally verified uses verifiable facts to comprehensively negate the narrative of the unverifiable portion.
The true export growth rate is approximately 6-7%. Roughly 40-50% of the officially reported growth (5-6 percentage points) cannot be explained by normal economic logic.
All fifteen lines point in the same direction. This is not a methodological dispute — it is an arithmetic problem. Data can be embellished, but deserted docks, surging empty containers, and collapsing housing prices do not lie.
Cross-Reference: This report, together with the LEECHO Research Lab’s April 26, 2026 report “Analysis of the Probability that President Trump Revokes Hong Kong’s Free Port Status” (probability assessment: 55-65%), forms a complete political + economic assessment framework. That report analyzes “whether it will happen” from the perspectives of political motivation, behavioral patterns, and financial transmission; this report demonstrates “why it should happen” through trade data and real economy evidence.
Data Sources & References
[1] Port of Los Angeles / Port of Long Beach official monthly throughput statistics
[2] China General Administration of Customs Q1 2026 import/export data
[3] Brookings Institution, “China’s Transshipment of Goods to the U.S.”, June 2025
[4] IMF, China LGFV Debt Estimates, 2025
[5] AlixPartners Global Consumer Spending Survey, 2026
[6] Hurun Research Institute, “2025 Hurun Rich List”
[7] CEIC Data, China M2 Money Supply
[8] WTO Global Trade Forecast, 2026
[9] People’s Bank of China Monetary Statistics
[10] NRF (National Retail Federation) Import Forecast Report, February 2026
[11] Douyin user @MuNanDing, on-site port footage, April 28, 2026 (empty port) and February 11, 2026 (BYD electric trucks), IP location: Los Angeles, USA
[12] Port Circle / Sina Finance, “Q1 2026 Major National Port Throughput Data,” April 2026
[13] Shanghai Shipping Exchange, SCFI Index
[14] Lloyd’s List, “The rise and fall of container spot rates,” Sept 2025
[15] SeaVantage, “April 2026 Ocean Freight: Rates, Disruption & What’s Next”
[16] Vietnam General Department of Customs Q1 2026 import/export data (via RSA Tax / TradingEconomics)
[17] PMSA, “Container Statistics for January 2026” (Savannah, Houston, New York, etc.)
[18] SAFETY4SEA, “Global shipping rates fall to ten-year old lows,” Sept 2025
[19] TradingEconomics, Germany Exports data, 2026
[20] TradingEconomics, South Korea Exports YoY, 2026 (Semiconductors +151%, total exports +48.3%)
[21] TradingEconomics, Japan Exports YoY, 2026
[22] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Trade Feb 2026 (U.S. imports -9.2%)
[23] ING THINK, “China’s trade growth starts 2026 strong,” March 2026 (China import structure analysis)
[24] Hong Kong Maritime and Port Development Board, Container Throughput 2024-2025
[25] Seatrade Maritime, “Hong Kong port container volume hit a 28-year low in 2024”
[26] Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, Shipping Statistics Q1-Q2 2025 (empty containers +21.2%)
[27] USCC, “China’s Global Trade Balance Discrepancy: Hong Kong Entrepôt Effects”
[28] Andaman Partners, “Engine of Global Trade: China’s Exports” (China ~16% of global exports)
[29] OECD/CEIC, China Share in World Exports 2026 (~11.5% incl. services)
[30] Econofact, “China’s Export Dominance,” Jan 2026
[31] Harvard Business School Working Paper 24-072, “Exports in Disguise? Trade Rerouting,” 2025
[32] ScienceDirect, “Is China fudging its GDP figures? Evidence from trading partner data”
[33] CSIS Big Data China, “Measurement Muddle: China’s GDP Growth Data and Potential Proxies,” 2023
[34] Eurostat, Euro Indicators, “Euro area international trade in goods,” April 2026 (EU imports -6.6%)
[35] CEIC Data, European Union Total Imports Jan 2026 (-6.7% YoY)
[36] Eurostat, International trade in goods statistics (EU ~14% of global goods trade)
[37] World Bank, EU Household Final Consumption Expenditure 2023 ($9.59 trillion)
[38] Xinhua / HK Census & Statistics Dept., “Double-digit growth for HK imports, exports in February,” March 2026 (exports +29.6%, imports +34.1%)
[39] World’s Top Exports, “Hong Kong’s Top Exports 2024” (59.1% to mainland, 6.3% to U.S.)
[40] U.S. BEA, February 2026 Trade Report Exhibit 19 (U.S.-HK trade surplus $6.6B/month)
[41] TradingEconomics, Japan/Korea Imports from Hong Kong 2024 (Japan $1.8B, Korea ~$0.5B)
[42] Hong Kong C&SD, Shipping Statistics Q1-Q2 2025 (trade value +30% vs port -5.7% contradiction)
[43] WITS/World Bank, Hong Kong Trade Summary 2023 (trade surplus only 0.59% of GDP)
[44] Hong Kong RVD, Property Review 2025 (office negative absorption -124,000sqm, historic high vacancy)
[45] Morgan Stanley, “A Rebound for Hong Kong’s Property Market,” Jan 2026 (prices down 30% since 2018)
[46] KPMG, Hong Kong Budget Summary 2025-2026 (three consecutive years of deficit, reserves from HK$1T → HK$647.4B)
[47] Standard Chartered, Hong Kong Geopolitics Report, March 2025 (net capital outflows $50B, structural change)
[48] LEECHO Global AI Research Lab, “Analysis of the Probability that President Trump Revokes Hong Kong’s Free Port Status” V2, April 26, 2026
Disclaimer: This report is an independent empirical analysis and does not constitute investment advice. Data cited herein is sourced from publicly available channels, and analytical conclusions are based on logical reasoning. The authors assume no legal liability for the accuracy of the data. This document is an exploratory analytical work intended to stimulate independent thinking and discussion regarding the authenticity of China’s trade data.