美国新关税框架对亚太地区私人资本的影响（英）2026

Implications of the New USTariff Framework for APACPrivate Capital Institutional Research Group Ansel TanDirector, APAC Private Capitalansel.tan@pitchbook.com Melanie TngResearch Analyst,APAC Private Capitalmelanie.tng@pitchbook.com A look at what the US policy reset means for APACprivate markets pbinstitutionalresearch@pitchbook.com PitchBook is a Morningstar company providing the most comprehensive, mostaccurate, and hard-to-find data for professionals doing business in the private markets. Published on February 24, 2026 Contents Introduction1What has happened since the 2025“Liberation Day” tariffs?2What is different now?3Implications for APAC PE4Implications for APAC VC5Conclusion6 Introduction The US Supreme Court’s ruling that the Trump administration exceeded its authorityin imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),followed by the Trump administration’s rapid implementation of a new 10% globaltariff regime under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—later increased to 15%—hasreintroduced policy uncertainty into global markets. While the new tariffs can remainin place for up to 150 days without US congressional approval, their temporary legalbasis creates a defined window of instability and the possibility of another abruptpolicy shift later this year. For APAC private capital markets, the implications are less about headline tarifflevels and more about underwriting confidence. One year after the initial “LiberationDay” measures, deal activity across the region did not collapse, and capital hadalready begun rotating toward domestically driven growth and services-orientedsectors. However, the renewed volatility arrives at a fragile moment for private equityand venture capital, where exit pathways remain narrow and liquidity pressurespersist. The next phase of tariff policy will therefore matter not only for trade flowsbut for deployment pacing, valuation discipline, and cross-border transactionactivity across APAC. What has happened since the 2025 “LiberationDay” tariffs? One year after the Trump administration’s initial wave of broad tariffs, APAC privatemarkets have had time to absorb the shock. While fears of a sharp capital pullbackwere widespread at the time, the actual adjustment has been more measured. Deployment proved more resilient than feared Despite concerns that last year’s tariff escalation would materially derail capitalformation across Asia-Pacific, PE activity in the region held up better than expected.While dealmaking remained below peak-cycle highs, there was no sharp tariff-inducedcollapse in deployment. Instead, investors became more selective. Capital rotatedtoward business models with greater insulation from cross-border trade exposure.For instance, domestic demand-driven markets such as India attracted sustainedinvestor interest, supported by consumption growth, infrastructure development, andpolicy support for local manufacturing. Likewise, services-heavy sectors, includinghealthcare services, business services, and technology-enabled platforms, provedmore resilient than asset-heavy exporters. AI and software investments in developedAsia (notably, Japan, South Korea, and parts of Greater China) continued to attractcapital, reflecting global thematic demand rather than trade sensitivity. By contrast, manufacturing-heavy export plays cooled, especially those tied directlyto US-bound supply chains. However, the slowdown was uneven rather than systemic.Select advanced manufacturing and automation plays continued to attract fundingwhere strategic positioning or technological differentiation offset tariff concerns. VC remained weaker than PE overall, but again, there was no abrupt tariff-driven break.The VC slowdown largely reflected broader global liquidity constraints and muted IPOconditions rather than trade policy alone. Exit fragility persisted If deployment proved resilient, exits remained structurally fragile. APAC IPO marketscontinued to operate at subdued levels, with listings concentrated in domesticexchanges in addition to some limited large-scale cross-border issuance. Strategicbuyers remained cautious, particularly where portfolio companies had materialexposure to US demand or globally integrated supply chains. Importantly, this exit slowdown predates last year’s tariffs. Higher global interestrates, valuation resets, and a thin buyer universe had already constrained monetizationpathways. Tariffs did not create the liquidity bottleneck, but they compounded it byadding another layer of timing uncertainty. Capital reallocation was incremental Early expectations of a dramatic reshuffling of capital across Asia did not fullymaterialize. Instead, reallocation was gradual, with India standing to gain, supportedby a large domestic market with growing manufacturing ambitions and relativelydiversified trade exposure. Southeast Asia did not experience a wholesale pullback,despite concerns about its role in export-oriented