India shares edge lower as IT losses outweigh broader gains
The Nifty 50 fell 0.25% to 25,087.85 points, while the BSE Sensex lost 0.31% to 82,243.94, as of 9:47 a.m. IST.
The IT index slid more than 1% and was the biggest sectoral loser, extending its 4% fall last week, as uncertainty over U.S. tariffs continued to weigh on demand.
Sector leader Tata Consultancy Services posted weak results last week, which propelled investors to remain cautious ahead of the earnings from other companies in the sector, analysts said.
Wipro, HCL Technologies, Tech Mahindra and Infosys fell in the range of 1.1%-1.4%, and were among the top five Nifty 50 losers on the day.
While Infosys is scheduled to report its earnings next week, the other three will report their quarterly numbers this week.
"The (market) momentum is slackening as earnings visibility remains feeble, and factors supporting valuations are fading," said Dhananjay Sinha, CEO and co-head of institutional equities at Systematix Group.
Ten of the 13 major sectors advanced in early trade. The broader mid- and small-caps rose 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would impose a 30% tariff on most imports from the European Union and Mexico from August 1, even as they are locked in long negotiations.
Among individual stocks, exchange operator BSE and Jane Street's India trading partner Nuvama Wealth Management rose 2.5% and 1.7%, respectively, after a report that the U.S. trading firm has deposited $567 million in escrow accounts, allowing it to resume trading in India.
(Reporting by Vivek Kumar M; Editing by Janane Venkatraman and Rashmi Aich)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
Transformer by Mint: The man shaping India's AI dreams, and continuing chaos at Vodafone
I've known Abhishek Singh, a senior bureaucrat, for some time now. He's been in the Indian tech ecosystem for a while, leading multiple government-backed digitisation initiatives. Now, as chief of the billion-dollar India AI Mission, he faces one of his biggest challenges in a public-service career spanning three decades. The reasons for this are varied. For one, the fact that AI presents a huge opportunity to a long-serving government official shows just how far the technology has come, and how it now affects everyone. More importantly, though, India could potentially gain or lose a lot depending on what we do with AI. Let me take you back a few decades. If you've read the venerable Chip War by Chris Miller (whom I had the pleasure to meet this January), you know that during America's push for leadership in electronic machines at the start of the world's tryst with semiconductors, India missed the bus. This allowed Japan and Taiwan to become global technology leaders despite being societies steeped in tradition. Then came the mobile revolution, and apart from emerging as a big global market, India almost missed the bus there, too. But then the Digital India and Make in India initiatives emerged, digital skills took centre stage, and India is now at a point where tech manufacturing is at least on the ascendancy. To cut a long story short, after having missed out on tectonic global shifts, India a chance to show with AI that it is not just the world's tech back-office and can lead from the front, too. Singh has a plan for this: building a voice-based foundational model that, along with India's government-supported base of thousands of Nvidia GPUs, would become India's next big export to the world after UPI. Here's why he thinks this will work. Speaking of tech's back offices… Jas Bardia, our resident correspondent for India's nearly $300-billion IT services industry, reported last week that there's a war brewing at India's mid-sized tech services firms, which truly believe they can take on the behemoths and win. India's IT services industry had began booming in the early 1990s, turning Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro and the likes into the mammoths they are today. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, almost every household around where I grew up had at least one person working at these IT giants. The world, however, as changed considerably since then. Over the past two years companies such as Coforge and Persistent Services have emerged as serious competitors, pitching themselves as specialised firms with a deeper understanding of technology. Where does this leave TCS and its ilk? Will they lose out? Maybe not so soon, but market dynamics are undeniably changing. Also changing is the top job at Vodafone-Idea The beleaguered telecom operator began its India journey as Command Telecom, a telco operated under Kolkata's Usha Martin. In 2000, Hutchison Max acquired Command, leading to the creation of network provider Hutch in 2005. In 2007, Vodafone entered the market and created Vodafone Essar Limited, the entity's longest-standing identity so far. Despite its more than three decades of history, the Vodafone-Idea entity of today is in perilous financial health. Last week the telco appointed erstwhile chief operating officer Abhijit Kishore as CEO for three years as outgoing chief Akshay Moondra's term ended. Now, being a CEO is a dream for anyone in corporate India, but Vi faces a veritable nightmare. After all, it needs to catch up with Airtel and Jio on quality of service while paying off its eye-watering dues and needing $30 billion of capital immediately. Suddenly, Kishore's job doesn't seem like a dream. One thing's clear, though – whichever way this goes, Vodafone-Idea's story will make for a fascinating case study in India's telecom sector for years to come. Mint's telecom correspondent Jatin Grover brings you all the juicy details. Finally, satellites on the frontline Last week, Jatin and I wrote about India's potential revamp of sensitive defence networks in an exclusive report. The full story: over the past two years, the government has been exploring ways for modern satellite internet providers such as Elon Musk's Starlink and Bharti Airtel's OneWeb to offer their services to India's defence forces. The reason is clear: it's now imperative to have secure and blazing-fast internet connectivity even in remote bounary regions. India needs drones, consistent satellite feeds, and a host of other technologies to stay ahead of its enemies. Older satellite connections—which serve only as a backup—aren't up to the task. In other news: the battle for Chrome, and an iPhone 'Air' Last week, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas put in a bid for Google Chrome, saying his company was willing to spend $34.5 billion to buy the world's leading browser. However, he doesn't have that kind of money. You see, Perplexity is only worth about $18 billion. Chrome, on the other hand, is valued more than $50 billion. Then, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman added fuel to the fire, asking, 'Is Google really selling Chrome? If they are, we'd be interested. Why not?" Welcome to Silicon Valley's newest battleground, one that we'll be tracking. We've already reported about Google and OpenAI's silent fight, and how it forced Sergey Brin, a Valley legend, back to the engineering table. Finally, its that time of the year when we expect to see new Google Pixels and Apple iPhones. This year, rumours are that Apple will launch an 'iPhone Air' as part of its range this year. If you've followed Apple, you'd know the 'Air' branding refers to ultra-thin and light devices. The first MacBook Air, in fact, remains one of the most legendary consumer devices to date. Will the iPhone Air live up to this? Here's what we've gathered so far. Transformer by Mint is a weekly newsletter that brings India's most important and interesting technology updates under one umbrella. As the world transforms with every day of innovation, Transformer will keep a tab on the impact that technologies will make in each of our lives. Published every week, the newsletter brings some of India's tech landscape's most insightful coverages until date.
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
Kaushik Basu: India must not fall into Trump's tariff trap
Kaushik Basu The spot that India finds itself in is reminiscent of Chekov's short story 'The Ninny.' However, New Delhi shouldn't use counter tariffs to retaliate as the damage done will outweigh any near-term gains. India's policy of siding with Trump may have made India easier to take for granted Gift this article Economic relations between India and the US have been thrown into disarray after US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping 50% import tariff on nearly all Indian imports, with the exception of some electronic items and certain pharmaceutical products. The move places India among the five most heavily targeted countries under Trump's tariff regime, alongside Brazil (50%), Syria (41%), Laos (40%) and Myanmar (40%). Economic relations between India and the US have been thrown into disarray after US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping 50% import tariff on nearly all Indian imports, with the exception of some electronic items and certain pharmaceutical products. The move places India among the five most heavily targeted countries under Trump's tariff regime, alongside Brazil (50%), Syria (41%), Laos (40%) and Myanmar (40%). The announcement caught Indian policymakers off guard, particularly given Prime Minister Narendra Modi's apparent support for Trump's re-election campaign. The White House's harsh statement, framing the move as punishment for India's purchases of Russian oil, has only added to the confusion. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, this reasoning does not hold up, since China—the largest buyer of Russian oil—has not been penalized for its purchases. So, what explains Trump's decision? Paradoxically, India's policy of siding with Trump may have made India easier to take for granted, to the point that even a minor departure from Trump's preferences is treated as unacceptable. This dynamic is reminiscent of Anton Chekhov's short story, The Ninny, in which an employer withholds the equivalent of nearly a month's salary from his children's governess for arbitrary reasons. The governess accepts each cut without protest—a passivity that the employer chastises as spineless. Economist Ariel Rubinstein later drew on Chekhov's story to develop a model illustrating how submission can invite exploitation. India's apparent subservience to Trump had marked a departure from its longstanding role as a strong independent country. As a co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, it once championed strategic autonomy, balancing relations with multiple countries while avoiding subordination to any major power, be it the US or Soviet Union. It is time for India to draw on that legacy and cultivate economic and diplomatic ties with countries like Mexico, Canada and China. This also means strengthening trade and cooperation with other governments that are concerned about the impact of Trump's tariffs, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Also Read: Rajrishi Singhal: Look East to grasp why Trump is ghosting India It would be a mistake for New Delhi to retaliate by matching Trump's tariffs, as some prominent Indian commentators have urged. While retaliation would hurt the US, the damage to India would be far greater. The US is India's largest trading partner, whereas India is only the tenth-largest partner for the US—well behind Mexico, Canada, China and Germany. The US economy is also far larger and therefore better able to absorb major shocks. More importantly, courage does not necessarily mean responding in kind. By imposing heavy tariffs on its longtime trade partners, the US is making a grave error, isolating itself and inflicting enormous damage on its own economy. To be sure, tariffs can play an important role in economic policy. A well-known example is the infant-industry argument, which holds that when a promising sector is still in its early stages, temporary tariff protections can give businesses the confidence to invest, allowing the sector to grow, achieve economies of scale and become competitive. But once the industry matures, tariffs should be reduced, so that the discipline of open competition can help it perform even better. India is a case in point. In 1977, a political dispute led the government to expel IBM, compelling the country to develop its own mini- and micro-computers. Protected by trade barriers, India's domestic computer sector expanded quickly. But it was the economic reforms of 1991-93, which opened up India's markets to international competition, that enabled its infotech sector to flourish and Indian corporations like Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services to emerge as global leaders, helping drive a period of unprecedented economic growth. Interestingly, the infant-industry concept predates modern academic economics and can be traced back to Alexander Hamilton, America's first treasury secretary, who successfully advocated for US tariffs to protect and nurture its nascent industries. Although US trade policies shifted after 1860, relatively high tariffs remained in place until 1934, after which they fell sharply, fuelling a sustained economic boom. By contrast, Trump's decision to raise tariff rates to their highest levels in more than 90 years is less an infant-industry policy than a nonagenarian one, shielding an American manufacturing sector that long ago outgrew any need for protection. Moreover, competing with manufacturers in emerging economies like India, Vietnam and Indonesia would require driving down the wages of American workers—a strategy that is neither realistic nor desirable. The same applies to India: tariffs should not be used to settle political scores. In the long run, the collateral damage will far outweigh any short-term gains. As for Trump's tariff policy, we can only hope that he will recognize the mistake and reverse course before it causes any more damage to the US economy. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is a professor of economics at Cornell University and a former chief economic adviser to the Government of India. Topics You May Be Interested In
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Cryptocurrency: America rushes in where India, China fear to tread
Geopolitics has revived the 'crypto wars' of the 1990s, yet today the struggle is continental rather than computational. On one flank stand the United States and much of the West, treating digital tokens as just another volatile asset class to be tamed by markets and tolerated by regulators. On the other side stand China and India, unlikely fellows whose shared suspicion of borderless money has inspired a twin assault on private crypto-currencies. Whether laissez-faire zeal or dirigiste caution proves the surer guide will shape global finance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Beijing fired the latest salvo on May 31, when it imposed a blanket ban on mining, trading and even private ownership of coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The decree capped a decade-long squeeze that began with banking curbs in 2013, hardened into an ICO prohibition in 2017 and outlawed onshore transactions in 2021. Three concerns drove the final kill switch. First, capital flight: analysts reckon more than $50 billion seeped out of China via crypto in 2019-20. Second, financial stability: untamed price swings threaten household savings and could undermine the country's highly leveraged property developers and shadow banks. Third, political control: decentralised ledgers collide with the Communist Party's quest for digital sovereignty and jeopardise the e-CNY, a central-bank token Beijing insists must sit on the throne. New Delhi has not gone so far, yet it has tightened the fiscal tourniquet. Gains on any coin attract a punitive 30 per cent tax and a one-percent tax deducted at source on every trade. The Reserve Bank of India, which once likened Bitcoin to a Ponzi scheme, still campaigns for an outright ban, warning that borderless money could drain rupee sovereignty and turbocharge illicit flows. Across the Pacific the mood is giddier. Roughly one in six American adults already owns some crypto. Wall Street hawks spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds; North America now processes more on-chain value than any other region. Donald Trump, sensing populist resonance, is pouring accelerant on the bonfire. His media firm is floating 'America First' crypto ETFs, seeking a 2.5-billion-dollar Bitcoin treasury and trumpeting the Genius Act, a law that offers legitimacy to dollar-pegged stablecoins. Meanwhile, a meme coin dubbed 'Trump' has vaulted from obscurity to multibillion-dollar heft, with scant disclosure and most of the supply parked in entities the former president ultimately controls. Oversight, like taxes on Mar-a-Lago tips, looks optional. The divergence is rooted in history as much as ideology. The West has few capital controls and long experience of volatile assets; the Global South has spent decades fencing off foreign-exchange reserves. Washington views crypto much as it once viewed biotech or cannabis: speculative, risky, but ultimately containable. Beijing and New Delhi see an escape hatch through which wealth, tax and ultimately sovereignty might vanish. Studies of money laundering reinforce their fears. Forensic firms report that criminals cherish the 'virtually instant' cross-border hop of tokens, and European police agencies warn that professional crypto-launderers now pose a systemic threat. Officials fret that a mere string of private keys could spirit fortunes abroad faster than regulators can draft circulars. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet the prize is hardly stable. Bitcoin has crashed by more than 50 per cent five times: from 1,200 dollars to 200 in 2013, from 20,000 to 3,000 in 2018, and from 69,000 to 20,000 in 2022, before roaring past six figures in late 2024. Still, adoption creeps upward. Roughly 560 million people—almost seven per cent of humanity—now hold a sliver of crypto. Millennials dominate in America; in Vietnam and Nigeria grass-roots users are even younger. The genie is out, but it still rides a roller coaster. Proponents trumpet three virtues. Crypto, they say, slashes payment friction, crossing borders in minutes rather than banking days. It extends financial inclusion because a smartphone is cheaper than a branch network. And it offers censorship resistance, letting dissidents raise funds under repressive regimes. Each claim carries a sting. Congestion fees can rival bank wire costs, and proof-of-work remains an energy glutton. Volatile balances can evaporate faster than payday-loan interest, leaving the poorest with no recourse. The same cloak that shields activists also hides ransomware gangs and narco-cartels, frustrating police armed only with subpoenas. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, the stand-off sharpens. China's e-CNY pilots are courting Belt-and-Road creditors; India's digital-rupee sandbox is under way. The United States toys with a central-bank dollar yet seems happier letting private stablecoins bloom so long as they stay green-backed and vaguely regulated. The conflict is no longer merely regulatory; it is philosophical. Must money remain an instrument of the state, or can code and consensus dethrone the decree? Crypto's architecture answers yes; its history of scams answers not yet. The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Firstpost.
