Asian shares make modest gains as investors eye US-China talks
Asian shares were marginally higher on Tuesday as investors kept an eye on US-China trade talks that might help stave off a recession.
Tokyo's Nikkei 225 gained 0.9% to 38,445.68, while the Kospi in South Korea jumped 0.3% to 2,865.12.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng edged 0.3% higher, to 24,261.26 and the Shanghai Composite index was up 0.1% at 3,403.52. In Taiwan, the Taiex surged 2.1% to 22.253,46.
Australia's S&P/ASX 200 advanced just less than 0.9% to 8.588,10.
On Monday, the S&P 500 edged up just 0.1% and at 6,005.88 is within 2.3% of its record set in February. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped by 1 point, which is well below 0.1%, to 42,761.76.
The Nasdaq composite added 0.3% to 19,591.24.
A second day of talks between the US and China was planned after the two global powers met in London for negotiations.
The hope is that they can eventually reach a deal to reduce painfully high tariffs against each other. Most of the tariff hikes imposed since US President Donald Trump escalated his trade war have been paused to allow trade in everything from tiny tech gadgets to enormous machinery.
Hopes that President Donald Trump will lower his tariffs after reaching trade deals with countries around the world have helped the S&P 500 win back gains after it dropped roughly 20% from its record two months ago. The index is back above where it was when Trump shocked financial markets in April with his wide-ranging tariff announcement on so-called 'Liberation Day'.
Related
Chip designer Alphawave sees stock soar on Qualcomm takeover agreement
China accuses US of violating trade truce and vows firm retaliation
Some of the market's biggest moves came from the announcement of big buyout deals. Qualcomm rallied 4.1% after saying it agreed to buy Alphawave Semi in a deal valued at $2.4bn (€2.1bn). IonQ, meanwhile, rose 2.7% after the quantum computing and networking company said it agreed to purchase Oxford Ionics for nearly $1.08bn (€947.1mn).
On the losing side of Wall Street was Warner Bros. Discovery, which flipped from a big early gain to a loss of 3% after saying it would split into two companies. One will get Warner Bros. Television, HBO Max and other studio brands, while the other will hold onto CNN, TNT Sports and other entertainment, sports and news television brands around the world, along with some digital products.
Tesla recovered some of its sharp, recent drop. The electric vehicle company tumbled last week as Elon Musk's relationship with Trump broke apart, and it rose 4.6% on Monday after flipping between gains and losses earlier in the day.
The frayed relationship could end up damaging Musk's other companies that get contracts from the US government, such as SpaceX. Rocket Lab, a space company that could pick up business at SpaceX's expense, rose 2.5%.
In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury eased to 4.48% from 4.51% late Friday. It fell after a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that consumers' expectations for coming inflation eased slightly in May.
Economists expect a report due on Wednesday to show that inflation across the country accelerated last month to 2.5% from 2.3%.
The Federal Reserve has been keeping its main interest rate steady as it waits to assess the inflationary effects of Trump's tariffs. A persistent increase in inflation expectations among US households could drive behaviour that creates a vicious cycle that only worsens inflation.
In other dealings early on Tuesday, US benchmark crude oil picked up 31 cents to $65.45 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, also gained 31 cents, to $67.35.
The dollar rose to 144.93 Japanese yen from 144.61 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1399 from $1.1421.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Pentagon Is Reviewing Deal to Equip Australia With Nuclear Submarines
The Trump administration is reviewing whether a security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia meant to equip Australia with nuclear submarines is 'aligned with the president's America First agenda,' a U.S. defense official said on Wednesday. When the deal was reached under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s administration in 2021, it was billed as crucial for countering China's growing military influence in the Asia Pacific. Now, its review appears to reinforce President Trump's skeptical and transactional approach to longstanding alliances, including demands that allies spend more on their own defense. The Pentagon official said the review would ensure that the pact, known as Aukus, met 'common-sense, America First criteria,' including ensuring that U.S. forces are at 'the highest readiness,' that allies are doing their part, and that 'the defense industrial base is meeting our needs.' The review was first reported by The Financial Times. Australia's defense minister, Richard Marles, said both Australia and Britain had been notified about the review and that all three nations were still committed to the deal. 'We've been aware of this for some time. We welcome it,' Mr. Marles said in a radio interview with ABC Melbourne on Thursday, Australia time. 'It's something which is perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do.' Australia sees the Aukus agreement as central to its defense strategy in the coming decades in a region increasingly shaped by China's assertive military posturing. Nuclear submarines can travel much farther without detection than conventional ones can and would enable the Australian Navy to greatly extend its reach. Under the pact, Australia is scheduled to receive secondhand Virginia-class nuclear submarines from the United States in the 2030s while scaling up the capacity to build its own, using a British design. But there has been concern in both Washington and Canberra about whether the United States can build new submarines to replenish its fleet quickly enough for the older ones to be transferred to Australia. Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, said during his Senate confirmation hearing in March that he was skeptical about the pragmatic feasibility of the deal. The Financial Times reported that Mr. Colby was heading up the Pentagon review. 'So if we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great,' Mr. Colby said at the hearing. 'But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem.' Even before the review was announced, concern and anxiety had been building in Australia over whether it could continue to depend on its longstanding relationship with the United States, given the Trump administration's treatment of allies. Mr. Marles, the Australian defense minister, said in the radio interview that he was confident the Aukus deal would proceed because 'it's in the interests of the United States to continue to work with Australia.' Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Fashion's ‘Bridges' Overcome Its ‘Barriers'?
Even Queen Mary of Denmark had nothing to say at this year's Global Fashion Summit, perhaps the industry's most boldface of sustainability conclaves. The longtime patron of the Global Fashion Agenda typically delivers a brief speech to kick things off, usually along the lines of the need for collective action for transformation to occur. Or she might joke about her daughters stealing her shoes as a form of reuse. Somewhere between the opening smooth-jazz jam and a H&M Foundation-helmed panel on operationalizing circularity, however, the royal consort slipped away from her front seat at the Copenhagen Opera House, her exit barely announced by the fading click of her stilettos. More from Sourcing Journal Refiberd Wins Trailblazer 2025 With AI-Powered Textile Recycling Global Fashion Agenda's Innovation Incubator Returns, Opens Call for Solutions What Will a Second Trump Term Mean for Fashion's Sustainability Ambitions? It was a stealthy retreat that, inadvertently or not, reflected the muted mood of the two-day conference, which one attendee described as 'somber,' another as 'a bit flat' and a third as evocative of a 'palpable decline of interest.' Fewer high-level brands abounded, a consequence of throttled travel budgets, a fear of appearing overtly political—and potentially ticking off a certain White House inhabitant—and cannibalization by concurrent events such as SXSW's first London foray and, we were told, an especially buzzy textile recycling expo in Brussels where shoulders were slapped and hands shaken over business deals. For the thousand or so people who converged on Copenhagen, just a hair fewer than those who turned up for last year's 15th anniversary, there was very little to feel celebratory about. Geopolitical turmoil, tariff uncertainty and environmental deregulation hung heavily in the air. Even attempts to put a positive gloss on corporate efforts that were already lagging before the rightwing shift in both Europe and the United States, but could now be actively backsliding, felt more perfunctory than usual. The same week, a analysis of more than 40 apparel companies found that 40 percent increased their carbon footprint versus their baseline, outlapping those on a 1.5-degree Celsius trajectory by a nearly six-to-one margin. In the latest iteration of the International Trade Union Confederation's global rights index, data showed a 'sharp escalation' in violations of fundamental labor rights, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. 'Apparently more was happening in the roundtables,' one attendee said of the closed-to-press executive-level sessions, which had the likes of Kering diving into what a just transition means in the age of climate change, Target speaking about moving production closer to consumer markets and The Fashion Pact hosting a conversation about corporate financial engagement in decarbonization. The more accessible stages—the concert hall, 'action' and 'ignite'—stuck to broader, more anodyne issues such as fiber innovations, resale, regenerative materials and the gender pay gap. The biggest ripple in all that taut placidity was occasioned by Veja co-founder Sébastien Kopp, who described sustainability as a 'bag of vomit.' Kalpona Akter's heartfelt description of garment workers' struggles in Bangladesh produced little response and, by the time the 'celebration dinner' rolled around, no offers of help that might relieve her organization's loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID for short. Eileen Fisher's call for everyone to 'show up more and collaborate more' offered a burst of inspiration. Things flattened from there. 'Some feedback I heard is that some people feel the brands are too restrained and they prefer the speakers that are more candid and speak more openly,' an attendee said. But the event's dour note was hardly unexpected. There is simply no way to spin the current climate, whether political, environmental or otherwise, no matter how many times someone insists that there is no business on a dead planet. For brands grappling with the existential threat of tariffs, sustainability has dropped several rungs in priority. The Trump administration's crackdown on so-called 'woke' notions such as climate action or DEI in the United States isn't even the half of it. In Europe, the omnibus package, a series of amendments designed to simplify—and many say water down—the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive and other legislative instruments, threatens to unravel years of progress holding corporations liable for their environmental and social impacts. It's still unclear how other forthcoming regulations involving extended producer responsibility, greener design requirements and traceability compliance will play out. 'There's a general backlash on sustainability in Brussels,' Lara Wolters, the Dutch politician who was the European Parliament's lead negotiator on the CSDD, said at a pre-game policy masterclass at the Danish Architecture Center. 'None of this is for a good reason, but maybe to take a step back. What the Commission has done is roll out a deregulatory agenda under pressure from a lot of large lobby groups in some of the member states. The intention, I think, is to give a political signal that we, too, are going to do things differently. I would even call it a sort of 'Trump Lite.'' She said that the result of this reversal would be more paperwork and less impact, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. For the politicians who have been clamoring for fewer guardrails, however, the 'intention is to do things as fast as possible, never mind the consequences.' Across the Atlantic, the Trump administration has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (again), dismantled critical climate safeguards and obliterated other regulations governing clean water, toxic pollutants and wildlife. It has clawed back most forms of foreign assistance, including grants for programs that strengthened workers' rights and combated child and forced labor. 'I spent a good chunk of my flight over breaking through President Trump's proposed 2026 budget,' said Chelsea Murtha, senior director of sustainability at the American Apparel & Footwear Association. 'And, of course, USAID is completely eliminated, and a lot of the functions that it had are not even fully being transposed over to the State Department. The U.S., in particular, was a very large funder of the [International Labour Organization's] Better Work program, and all of that funding is gone now.' The outcome has been a 'sort of paralysis,' she said. Brands, squeezed by higher import costs, are hard-pressed to fill the breach. And while individual states could step up with rulemaking to counter the White House's actions, there's also only so much they can do. 'It's not like they can't step in and do things, but they're constricted in their authorities,' she said. 'They cannot negotiate trade deals, and they can't control imports. They can pass EPR programs, because EPR programs regulate products within their state, but what they can't do is institute something like an export ban.' On the first day of the Global Fashion Summit, themed 'Barriers and Bridges,' Federica Marchionni, CEO of Global Fashion Agenda, didn't mince words, either, calling this an 'extremely challenging time for sustainability' that is hampering fashion's ability to be a 'force for good.' At the same time, she said, the only certainty in an uncertain world is climate change. And a 'strong absence' of leadership requires 'collective courage' to build supply chain resilience. The few suppliers who spoke—their attendance likely, again, constrained by a lack of financial wherewithal—alluded to their struggles. 'The volumes are lower than they used to be a couple of years ago,' said Attila Kiss, CEO of Gruppo Florence, an integrated manufacturing hub in Italy. 'The brands are asking for lower prices because they have pressure on the margins. And from the other side, we have all the ethical issues, the social issues to manage.' In a panel that discussed Arvind Limited and Fashion for Good's plans for 'near-carbon-neutral' textile factory in India that would bring online tested and emergent solutions that could collective slash greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 93 percent, Abhishek Bansal, the former's head of sustainability, said that most of the industry's climate mitigation efforts either involve setting targets or pushing the supply chain to do so. 'Unfortunately, I have seen very little money going into helping build the hard assets that are going to actually reduce emissions,' he said. 'If you honestly ask how many industry stakeholders have set aside funds to build plants or invest in technologies to achieve those targets, I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand.' 'It's a big thing to say,' Bansal added quietly, 'but I don't think we are going to meet 2030 targets.' The dearth of representation—from suppliers, from economists, from investors—was noticeable, more than one attendee said. Speaking to an audience, Tara St. James, senior director of sustainability at the Canadian retailer Moose Knuckles, said that brands could take more responsibility for fostering inclusion by bringing their suppliers to conferences or having them speak on panels with them or in their stead. 'We talk about making changes in our supply chain, which is where most of the impact is, but then we don't invite suppliers into every conversation,' one attendee said. 'And when we do, it's usually farmers and manufacturers, which is great, but I want to hear from a mom-and-pop mill, a dye house. I want more doers on the panels. And that includes more brands.' Yayra Agbofah, founder and creative director of The Revival, an organization that tackles global textile waste in Ghana, including through the Global Change Award-winning Revival Circularity Hub, said there's a difference between being ready—say, for circularity—and showing readiness based on actions. Fulfilling the second part requires reexamining fashion's business model, which he described as a failure because it fails to recognize communities like Accra's secondhand Kantamanto Market as stakeholders. 'We are dealing with the waste we didn't create, and not having a decision on how to deal with this crisis is a big problem,' he said. 'We need to be part of the decision-making. We shouldn't be left out and be an afterthought.' It was during the Q&A portion of Agbofah's panel that Brooke Roberts-Islam, a sustainable fashion journalist and consultant, nearly leaped out of her chair. Just minutes before, Golnaz Armin, vice president of color and materials at Nike, was speaking about the footwear giant's efforts to 'imagine and create meaning' with post-consumer waste. She said that Nike's size was both its advantage and disadvantage. 'Kantamanto is the only example of a scaled circular economy,' Roberts-Islam said. 'It seems so strange to have this framing of 'Why can't we scale this up for Nike because we're such a large organization?' and, you know, a lot of Nike products end up in Accra. Kanatamanto has tens of thousands of businesses that do this. They know the answer, and Nike says you're trying to find the answer, so can you, Yayra, give Nike the answer?' One of the most incisive sentiments of the conference was uttered during the very first session, but it remains to be seen if it made an impression. 'Someone told me once that a wall lying down is actually a bridge,' said Christiane Dolva, head of innovation, research and demonstration at H&M Foundation. 'I think that some of the barriers that a lot of us feel that we're running into, which literally can be like running into the wall, can be part of the solution if we shift our perspective. We need to shift our perspective.'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP seeks to cut SALT cap, triggering fight with House
Senate Republicans indicated on Wednesday they are prepared to reduce the size of a key tax deduction in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that was backed by moderates in the House, setting up a battle within the GOP over the divisive issue. The fight had long been expected, with senators saying they thought the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap in the House-passed bill was too large and too expensive, but the hardening of the plan in the upper chamber threatens to delay progress on the bill and raises further questions about meeting the GOP's self-imposed July 4 deadline. 'There's a gap between where we are and where the House is. … [It's] likely going to be a lower number,' said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), a top adviser to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), adding that the Senate GOP has not yet zeroed in on what that number will be. Senate Republicans emerged from a conference meeting Wednesday where key committees laid out their portions of the bill and lawmakers discussed numerous changes on the table. Several contentious issues remained unresolved, with only two legislative weeks to go until the July 4 recess. But multiple senators told The Hill that the chamber appears ready to chop down the $40,000 SALT cap, which was painstakingly negotiated between Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House GOP moderates from New York, New Jersey and California who have warned not to touch it. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), one of the members who led the meeting, was insistent that the cap would fall below $40,000, one Senate Republican said. It's unclear exactly what number Republicans in the upper chamber are eyeing, but Bloomberg News reported it was $30,000. 'There was never a number specifically discussed other than the House's [$40,000] — and it's a lot,' Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters. 'No surprise that there's an interest in reducing it.' The current cap sits at $10,000, which was set in place in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Senate Republicans have been fine with an increase in the cap, but many believed the $40,000 total for individuals making $500,000 or less was overzealous. A number of Senate Republicans have balked at some of the cost-cutting proposals in the bill the House sent and are looking for other ways to save money. Not a single Senate Republican hails from a high-tax blue state that would benefit from a higher SALT deduction cap. But the $40,000 figure was painstakingly negotiated by Johnson and House moderates, several of whom threatened to tank the whole bill over it. And any Senate changes would been to be approved by the House. For weeks, Republicans in the SALT Caucus have warned that they will not accept a lower cap. 'The compromise has already been made in the House. $40,000 is the figure that unlocks the rest of the bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a SALT member, told The Hill. 'It's not a number to be bargained down from.' The Wednesday conference meeting, led by Crapo and Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.), also focused on other changes the Senate is looking to make to the House-passed legislation. Among those is a proposal to scale back provisions that would place more of the cost burden of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) onto states. A number of Republican senators were turned off by the House's language. GOP lawmakers are attempting to have all portions of text by the end of next week, which is truncated by the Juneteenth holiday. But several of the issues that GOP holdouts in the Senate have named as sticking points — including Medicaid and green energy tax credits — remain unresolved. Republicans admit there is still much work to do in that time. 'Imagine a jigsaw puzzle with 3,000 pieces — and no picture,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said after the meeting. 'That's what we're trying to put together.' Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a top ally of Thune, labeled that deadline for committees as an 'aspirational goal,' with the entire bill potentially hitting the floor by Monday, June 23 to kick off consideration. If that happens, a vote-a-rama could take place by that week's end. He admitted all those are lofty plans. 'We work really good on deadlines,' Mullin said. 'Without deadlines, we don't ever work.' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Wednesday morning that he does not believe July 4 is a realistic deadline for the bill to hit Trump's desk given that roughly one-third of the bill is set to be revised by the upper chamber. 'And so I think the Senate will vote it out right before the July 4 recess, and then, I think it is likely that we will spend the month of July in conference and trying to reconcile the two,' Cruz said at an event hosted by Punchbowl News. 'The Senate bill is going to be markedly different from the House,' he continued. 'My guess is the Senate bill will track the House bill, maybe 60 to 70 percent. There are a lot of good provisions. A lot of the broad outlines are going to be similar, but it's the Senate. So the Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do and that's a good process.' When asked if the deadline is realistic, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) was unsure. 'Maybe,' he said, noting that a number of members are awaiting scoring from the Congressional Budget Office. And a number of members still need to be won over. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key lawmaker who remains up for grabs, told reporters that she has questions about Medicaid changes and is still 'deliberating.' The possibility of work stretching close to the nation's birthday led Thune on Wednesday to warn that he is prepared to keep members in Washington until they complete work on the mammoth bill. Senators are slated to be back in their home states from June 28 through July 6 for the break, giving them just north of two weeks to get everything done. The afternoon meeting was not the only conference discussion about the sprawling bill for the Senate GOP. Border czar Tom Homan appeared hours earlier at a weekly luncheon hosted by the Senate Steering Committee, which is composed of the GOP's most conservative members. Homan pressed lawmakers to approve the tax package in order to unlock funding included for the border as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are running out of beds for detained migrants. According to Sen. John Hoevan (R-N.D.), Homan told members that ICE currently has 55,000 individuals detained, but only 41,000 beds. 'That's a problem,' Hoevan told reporters. 'The biggest pitch he had was: There are still about 600,000 people out there who are here illegally who have criminal records, so he needs this funding for the bed space.' More meetings are set for the coming days, including at the White House on Thursday when Thune and Crapo are expected to huddle with Trump. 'It's going to be an interesting week or two,' said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), one of the remaining holdouts. Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
