Why Gold Fields Ltd. (GFI) Went Down On Monday?
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Gold Fields Ltd. (NYSE:GFI) stands against other tech firms that dominate Monday's worst performers.
Wall Street's main indices kicked off the trading week in the green territory, albeit with minimal gains, as investors stayed on the sidelines while continuing to digest President Donald Trump's temporary tax reprieve on technology companies.
The S&P 500 recorded the highest gain, up 0.79 percent, while the Dow Jones came second at 0.78 percent. The tech-heavy Nasdaq was also up by 0.64 percent.
Meanwhile, 10 companies, predominantly in the technology sector, bucked a broader market optimism, booking modest declines during the session. In this article, let us explore Monday's 10 worst performers and the reasons behind their gains.
To come up with the list, we only considered the stocks with $2 billion market capitalization and $5 million trading volume.
Aerial view of a large gold mine in South Africa with many excavators and trucks working.
Gold Fields Ltd. snapped a three-day winning streak on Monday, dropping by 3.54 percent to end at $23.69 each as investors sold off positions following news that it would cease operations at its Damang mining site in Ghana after the government rejected its lease extension request.
While GFI already stopped mining in Damang since 2023, it continued to process stockpiles at the site. On Monday, it confirmed that it was instructed by authorities to vacate the lease area by April 18.
According to GFI, it was 'preparing to safely and responsibly cease operations and ensure the safety and security of our people and high-risk operations.'
Damang was GFI's smaller gold mining site after Tarkwa, its largest open-pit site.
Damang alone produced 135,000 ounces of gold last year, accounting for around 6 percent of the group's total 2.15 million ounces produced.
Overall, GFI ranks 5th on our list of tech firms that dominate Monday's worst performers. While we acknowledge the potential of GFI as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and doing so within a shorter time frame. There is an AI stock that went up since the beginning of 2025, while popular AI stocks lost around 25%. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than GFI but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about this cheapest AI stock.
READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires.
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval rating among millennials has surged, according to a new poll. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted May 22-27 among 1,560 adults, shows that Trump's job approval among 30- to 44-year-olds is at 41 percent, up from 33 percent in April. Disapproval is down to 51 percent from 59 percent in April. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Why It Matters Millennials, typically defined as born between 1981 and 1996, represent the largest bloc of the U.S. electorate. Trump reduced the Democrats' lead among voters aged 30 to 44 by 9 points between 2020 and 2024, from 12 points to 3. However, since the beginning of his second term, polls have shown signs of waning support for Trump among millennials. But the new poll shows his approval rating among this demographic may be creeping up again. For Trump, a rebound in support from voters age 29 to 44 could help stabilize his approval ratings at a time when he has faced discontent over issues such as immigration and the economy. While millennials have historically leaned Democratic, even a modest uptick in support during his second term could strengthen his political leverage and influence the landscape for the 2026 midterms and beyond. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The boost for Trump comes as more millennials now say the country is headed in the right direction. According to the poll, 32 percent are optimistic about the direction of the country, up from 26 percent. Trump's approval ratings have generally been ticking up in recent weeks after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery and a pause on the tariffs by the Trump administration. Since then, economic anxiety has died down. Consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98.0, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86.0 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year. At the same time, Trump's general approval ratings are on the rebound. Newsweek's tracker currently shows that 46 percent approve of Trump's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove. Earlier this month, his approval rating stood at 44 percent, while his disapproval rate was firmly in the 50s. Other polls have shown the same trend. The latest Insider Advantage poll, conducted May 17-19 among 1,000 likely voters, gave Trump a net approval rating of +11 points, with 55 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. That was up from a net approval rating of +2 points in early May, when 46 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Rasmussen May 29 52 47 YouGov/Economist May 23-26 44 52 Morning Consult May 23-25 48 50 YouGov/Yahoo May 22-27 41 54 Quantus May 18-20 48 48 Civiqs May 17-20 47 52 American Research Group May 17-20 41 55 Insider Advantage May 17-19 55 44 Reuters/Ipsos May 16-18 42 52 Navigator Research May 15-18 44 54 However, the overarching trend in the polls is one of stability, with some showing that his ratings have not substantially changed beyond a 1- or 2-point dip—within the margin of error—or have not changed at all. That includes the most recent Navigator Research poll, conducted May 15-18 among 1,376 registered voters which showed Trump's approval rating at 44 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. That is unchanged from April. Similarly, in Quantus' latest poll, conducted May 18-20, Trump's approval rating stood at 48 percent, while 48 percent disapproved. That is unchanged from a poll conducted earlier in May, and an April poll also showed his approval rating stood at 48 percent, while his disapproval rating at 50 percent. Marquette's most recent poll also showed his approval rating unchanged from March, while an American Research Group poll, conducted March 17-20 among 1,100 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down just 2 points from April. His disapproval grew from 53 percent to 55 percent. And the latest Civiqs poll, conducted May 17-20 among 1,018 registered voters, put Trump's approval up by 1 point, and his disapproval down by 1 point. The same trend occurred in the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted May 23-26 among 1,660 adults, which put his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at 52 percent. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll put Trump's approval down 1 point to 41 percent and his disapproval up 1 point to 54 percent. In Morning Consult's latest survey, conducted May 23-25 among 2,237 registered voters, Trump's approval rating was unchanged at 48 percent while his disapproval was up 1 point to 51 percent. What Happens Next Trump's approval rating among millennials could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events, including critical negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, the evolving tariff situation and concerns about a recession.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff Legal Battle Plays Out
Reverse, reverse: Yesterday, I reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade had issued a ruling that would put a pause on President Donald Trump's tariffs announced on "Liberation Day," as well as those levied on Canada, Mexico, and China the month prior. "The decision would have forced the Trump administration to unwind many of the president's steep tariffs over the next 10 days, but the government quickly petitioned a federal appeals court to intervene," reports The New York Times. The administration "asked a panel of judges to hold that order at bay while it weighed the administration's fuller arguments that its tariffs were lawful." This bid was successful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a pause yesterday, allowing the tariffs to remain in place. This essentially gives the courts more time to consider the legal issues at play and to determine what type of authority the administration has, in a case that will probably be ruled on by the Supreme Court. The case hinges on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that Trump has invoked, allows him to levy tariffs. The IEEPA gives the executive sweeping authority "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy" of the country. Trump has, of course, made bold "national security" arguments in an attempt to politically make the case for tariffs: First, the flow of fentanyl through our country's borders justified the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and—most especially—China. Then, national security arguments were used to justify further ratcheting-up of tariffs on China, with the administration arguing that the risk of relations with China souring at some point in the future means we must take steps to reshore critical industries right now. And, more broadly, the current trade deficit we run with many other countries has been portrayed as a threat to American competitiveness—whether true or false. This is the first time IEEPA has been used by a president to impose tariffs, though. In the past "presidents have imposed tariffs in response to national security threats using Section 232 of a 1962 trade law," reports The New York Times. "That legal provision differs from IEEPA in part because it requires an investigation and report that has to be issued within 270 days. The provision also focuses on certain imports that 'threaten to impair' U.S. national security." In other words, there are slightly more strings attached when done via that mechanism, and the tariffs are generally expected to be more targeted and narrow in scope. You might expect the administration to be in a sort of waiting posture, given that Trump's use of the IEEPA might at a future date be struck down by the Supreme Court. Instead, Trump has decided to attack the judges who initially ruled against his use of the act, asking "Where do these initial three Judges come from?…Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?'" Well, for Judge Timothy Reif—a Trump appointee—probably not. Trump, never one to take responsibility for his choices or appreciate the independence of the judiciary, appears to recognize his culpability in appointing Reif (who committed the heresy of ruling against him!) and has now taken to attacking the Federalist Society, which helped recommend conservative judges during his first term. More deportations in defiance of court orders: Earlier this month, a panel of federal judges with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals granted Salvadoran man Jordin Melgar-Salmeron permission to remain in the United States while his immigration case made its way through the court system. Twenty-eight minutes after that ruling was issued, Melgar-Salmeron was on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flight from Louisiana, where he was being detained, to El Salvador's Izalco prison. "ICE officials argue in court filings that a communication breakdown left them unaware of the court's order until after his flight had departed," reports Investigative Post. His lawyer "said he plans to seek criminal contempt of court charges against the Trump administration. Such a request is due in court June 2." I'm sorry, I love him: "After denouncing it as a propaganda tool for the left, Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei is relaunching a state-run TV channel for kids set to feature a cartoon teaching free market economics while stressing the evils of taxes and communism," reports Bloomberg. The channel is Paka Paka, which was originally created by former President Cristina Kirchner in 2010, and it will soon start showing Dragon Ball Z, Tuttle Twins, and Zamba, a cartoon about history. "Thrilled to announce that Tuttle Twins will be coming to millions of Argentine kids on Paka Paka!" write the show's creators on X. "They're replacing literal Marxist cartoons with hilarious education about freedom, economics and individual rights." "On the series, Ethan and Emily Tuttle travel through time and space with their libertarian grandma to learn about the glories of capitalism," adds Bloomberg. "In one episode, the siblings discover the evils of government overreach in a ravaged, garbage-strewn Cuba run by Fidel Castro. In another, they realize money loses its value when governments print too much." Here's a sampling: Obviously, the best possible approach would be no state-run TV at all. But Milei is probably correct that decades of Peronism have led to plenty of citizens having an insufficient appreciation for free markets. If these cartoons can help restore a little bit of balance, then that may be a good thing. My hopes that THC products will become legal here have been somewhat dashed, with Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick going on quite the tirade against them earlier this week. "Roughly a half-dozen GOP lawmakers from Pennsylvania and other states with U.S. Steel operations launched a series of meetings and group text chains shortly after Trump's November election victory, developing a plan to pitch his top economic officials on the merits of the [Nippon Steel] sale," reports Politico. "Eventually, and somewhat unexpectedly, they got an audience with the president himself. The message the group delivered: If the incoming president did not reverse his predecessor, Joe Biden's, decision to block Nippon Steel's purchase of the country's second-largest steel producer, it would lead to major manufacturing job losses in Pennsylvania and other states in the steel production supply chain." "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!," Trump wrote on Truth Social this morning, portending escalations in the trade war. It's not clear which violations Trump is referring to. Lol: Just wildly unhinged takes from someone who used to be employed by The New York Times and The Washington Post (and we wonder why trust in media is low!): The post Tariff Legal Battle Plays Out appeared first on
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Is 'Full of Lunatics' Says Economist
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A leading economist has said the White House is "full of lunatics" as debates over the legality of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff plans have resulted in a federal court showdown. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit paused a previous ruling from the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Manhattan, which argued that Trump had overstepped his executive authority in imposing the majority of his tariffs. Commenting on the muted market reaction to these two developments, Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, said investors had already reconciled themselves to the fact that the current administration is "out of control." Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside regular business hours. Why It Matters The legal dispute over Trump's tariffs playing out in federal courts could hold broad implications for the future of his trade agenda, which has already elicited criticism on constitutional grounds from Democrats and Republicans. Pending the result of its appeal, the administration has signaled its intention to take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. What To Know "It's still true that the White House is full of lunatics and that still weighs on people's minds," Wolfers said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On Wednesday, the CIT ruled that Trump's use of emergency powers—specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977—did not grant him "unbounded" authority to impose a global "baseline" tariff of 10 percent, the currently paused reciprocal tariffs, or the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico in response to the fentanyl epidemic. "Because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." President Donald Trump at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 28. President Donald Trump at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May Markets Reacted While the CIT's decision potentially voided the majority of Trump's trade measures, markets reacted modestly to the news. The S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq rose slightly the next morning, but these gains were tempered only hours into trading. The reaction to the appeals court pausing the decision was similarly underwhelming, with all three indexes finishing in the green on Thursday. Wolfers—who similarly characterized the president's invocation of the IEEPA as unconstitutional—told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that, given the significant reactions to previous tariff pauses or developments, markets would have presumably risen dramatically. "The other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, with so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains, that it signaled an administration that's out of control," Wolfers said, adding that investors had already learned in early April that "this is an economically unhelpful administration." Alex Edmans, a finance professor at London Business School, told Newsweek that markets had largely "priced in" the effects of the CIT's legal challenge, given that so many of Trump's tariffs have been paused or amended. "Markets are typically very sensitive to new information, but in this case, they have already adjusted to the idea that any new information is actually much less significant than it might appear at face value," he said. "The Liberation Day tariffs seemed shocking yet are being renegotiated, and other promises of extreme tariffs have been delayed or reversed." He added that the broader "volatility" in trade policy had "created a kind of 'noise' in the market, diminishing the potential for any one legal decision to trigger a large market move." What People Are Saying Economist Justin Wolfers told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "I'm an economist and what I can see is a consistent pattern of behavior, which is the president genuinely believes that tariffs are a good idea." "His lawyers will be telling him, as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority you're using will come under question, but if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways you can do it. My guess, based on recent history, is that he'll say, 'That's terrific, let's keep going.'" President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly." Alex Edmans, a finance professor at London Business School, told Newsweek: "The market was already pricing in the fact that the previously announced tariffs would be renegotiated anyway, so the 'good news' of the legal challenge was already priced in." "In this context, the court's ruling was just another point in a series of similar events, contributing to investor fatigue," he said, adding that the reaction to the outcome of the appeal would not be "as substantial as one might think." "If the appeal were to overturn the decision and reinstate the tariffs, the reaction might not be strongly negative because it may be that the tariffs are renegotiated anyway (Trump has shown that not even he is immune to market movements). If the decision is upheld, there might not be a significantly positive reaction since the original court ruling had little impact, and the market is pricing in renegotiation anyway." What Happens Next The tariffs related to the CIT's decision are set to remain in effect as the administration's appeal progresses. The appeals court has given the plaintiffs until June 5 to issue a response, and the government until June 9 to reply. "If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again," Wolfers said on Thursday. "Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court."
