logo
Asian shares decline after mixed Wall Street finish and tensions simmer in the Middle East

Asian shares decline after mixed Wall Street finish and tensions simmer in the Middle East

TOKYO (AP) — Asian shares retreated Thursday as worries persisted about conflict in the Middle East.
Ratcheting up tensions, President Donald Trump warned of the possibility of getting directly involved in the conflict with Israel, while Iran's supreme leader rejected U.S. calls for surrender.
Oil prices and U.S. futures declined.
In Asian trading, Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 shed 0.7% to 38,619.17. Shares in Japan's Nippon Steel Corp. rose 0.8% after it announced that its acquisition of U.S. Steel, which met U.S. government opposition for more than a year, was finally completed.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped 2% to 23,231.48 on heavy selling of tech-related shares, while the Shanghai Composite lost 0.9% to 3,359.78.
Australia's S&P/ASX 200 was little changed at 8,528.30 and in South Korea, the Kospi lost 0.4% to 2,960.81.
U.S. financial markets will be closed Thursday for the Juneteenth holiday.
On Wednesday, U.S. stocks drifted to a mixed finish after the Federal Reserve indicated it may cut interest rates twice this year, though it's far from certain about that.
The S&P 500 finished nearly unchanged at 5,980.87. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped 0.1% to 42,171.66, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.1% to 19,546.27.
Treasury yields also wavered but ultimately held relatively steady after the Fed released projections showing the median official expects to cut the federal funds rate twice by the end of 2025. That's the same number they were projecting three months ago, and it helped calm worries a bit that inflation caused by T rump's higher tariffs could tie the Fed's hands.
Cuts in rates would make mortgages, credit-card payments and other loans cheaper for U.S. households and businesses, which in turn could strengthen the overall economy. But they could likewise fan inflation higher.
So far, inflation has remained relatively tame, and it's near the Fed's target of 2%. But economists have been warning it may take months to feel the effects of tariffs. And inflation has been feeling upward pressure recently from a spurt in oil prices because of Israel's fighting with Iran.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell stressed on Wednesday that all the uncertainty surrounding tariffs means the median forecast for two cuts to interest rates this year could end up being far from reality. 'Right now it's just a forecast in a very foggy time,' he said
Fed officials are waiting to see how big Trump's tariffs will ultimately be, what they will affect and whether they will drive a one-time increase to inflation or something more dangerous. There is also still deep uncertainty about how much tariffs will grind down on the economy's growth.
'Because the economy is still solid, we can take the time to actually see what's going to happen,' Powell said.
'We'll make smarter and better decisions if we just wait a couple months or however long it takes to get a sense of really what is going to be the passthrough of inflation and what are going to be the effects on spending and hiring and all those things.'
A report released Wednesday said fewer workers applied for unemployment benefits last week, possibly indicating fewer layoffs. But another said homebuilders broke ground on fewer homes last month than economists expected. That suggests higher mortgage rates may be casting a chill on the industry.
In other dealings early Thursday, benchmark U.S. crude declined 10 cents to $73.40. Brent crude, the international standard, fell 24 cents to $76.46 a barrel.
Oil prices have been yo-yoing as fears rise and ebb that the conflict between Israel and Iran could disrupt the global flow of crude. Iran is a major producer of oil and also sits on the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's crude passes.
In currency trading, the U.S. dollar fell to 145.05 Japanese yen from 145.13 yen. The euro cost $1.1468, down from $1.1484.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Three European Rate Cuts Seek to Contain US Tariff Upheaval
Three European Rate Cuts Seek to Contain US Tariff Upheaval

Bloomberg

time42 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Three European Rate Cuts Seek to Contain US Tariff Upheaval

Three interest-rate cuts in just over 24 hours by central banks in Europe highlighted a shift as monetary officials seek to manage the fallout from Donald Trump's unpredictable trade policies. Central bankers in Switzerland and Sweden had suggested as recently as March that they were most likely done loosening, but the Swiss National Bank instead trimmed borrowing costs by 25 basis points on Thursday, following a similar move by Sweden's Riksbank a day earlier.

Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise
Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise

Both the House and Senate versions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include provisions to preempt ... More state regulation of AI. As President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans seek to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's (TCJA) personal income tax rate cuts as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), how to deal with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap remains a key point of contention. The House-approved version of OBBBA raises the TCJA's $10,000 per household SALT cap to $40,000 but the Senate proposal keeps it at $10,000. The SALT cap isn't the only part of OBBBA that has divided some Republicans. Opponents of the TCJA's SALT cap often accuse it of targeting blue states, which tend to have relatively higher tax burdens and are where most SALT beneficiaries live. The same criticism, however, cannot be leveled at the OBBBA provision prohibiting states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI), a proposal that has been the subject of some GOP criticism. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, voted for OBBBA but has since derided the moratorium on state regulation of AI included in the bill. 'This needs to be stripped out in the Senate,' Greene wrote about OBBBA's AI preemption provision in a June 6 post on X. 'When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.' 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' Greene added. 'Not the other way around.' Neil Chilson, former chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, responded to the sentiment expressed by Greene in a June 10 X post: 'A lot of 'conservatives' seem desperate to have California (a state that is having some difficulties governing itself right now) regulate how the US does AI,' Chilson wrote, adding that 'China thanks you.' The sort of progressive state regulation of AI development that Greene is vowing to defend is now on display in Albany, where the New York Assembly and Senate recently passed the RAISE Act, legislation that would impose new regulations on companies, both large and small, that deal with AI. That legislation is now on Governor Kathy Hochul's (D) desk awaiting her consideration. 'The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors,' noted a letter that NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses, sent to Governor Hochul on June 17. That letter, which urged Hochul to veto the RAISE Act, added that the bill 'would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression.' Bipartisan opposition to the AI preemption provision in OBBBA is not surprising. Though capping the SALT deduction disproportionately affects blue state taxpayers, OBBBA's federal preemption of state AI regulation would have implications for red and blue states alike. That's because governors and lawmakers in red states have proved just as inclined as their blue state counterparts to propose state-level regulation of AI. Take Texas, commonly viewed as one of the reddest and most conservatively governed states in the nation, and for good reason. Texas, where Republicans control every statewide office and both chambers of the legislature, is one of only eight states that does not impose an income tax. It's a right-to-work state where leading politicians tout freedom, liberty, and limited government. It's also a state where Republican lawmakers have been seeking to regulate AI. In late 2024, Texas Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R) introduced the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), legislation to establish a state-level regulatory regime affecting companies operating in the AI space. Following its introduction, TRAIGA was quickly met with opposition from free market organizations. 'Though well-intentioned, this draft bill imposes restrictive regulations and burdensome compliance costs that risk stifling Texas's thriving artificial intelligence (AI) sector,' a coalition of conservative organizations wrote in a joint letter to Texas legislators. 'Texas has a unique opportunity to be a leader in AI innovation, but TRAIGA's approach threatens to undermine that potential. It would also be detrimental as a policy framework for other states or the federal government.' In response to pushback, Representative Capriglione scaled back TRAIGA, reworked it, and refiled it as House Bill 149. HB 149, which ultimately passed both chambers, is more narrow in scope than the original version of TRAIGA, with HB 149 focusing on government utilization and development of AI. 'Under the bill, government agencies will be required to disclose to consumers when they are interacting with an AI system,' noted a Transparency Coalition blog post on HB 149. 'Systems will be prohibited from 'dark pattern' interaction, or any 'user interface designed or manipulated with the effect of substantially subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice.'' 'TRAIGA also bans the government from using AI to create 'social scores' for users, and from using biometric data without consent,' the Transparency Coalition added. 'Government agencies also are prohibited from discriminating against users based on their political viewpoints, as well as from blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, or otherwise limiting users.' Aside from Texas, legislation seeking to regulate AI has been introduced in most state capitals, in both blue and red states. It's not only free market voices and tech industry leaders who are expressing concerns about the adverse effects that would stem from a 50-state patchwork of overlapping and conflicting AI regulations. 'I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing, a patchwork quilt of regulations, Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most, what that means in terms of AI development here,' Governor Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) said last month. Shortly after Colorado lawmakers enacted their AI bill in 2024, Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo.) urged congress to enact federal legislation preempting state regulation of AI. 'There are better ways for states to address AI concerns than a heavy-handed, top-down, paperwork-intensive regulatory approach,' Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) wrote in the veto statement explaining his decision to reject an AI regulation bill passed by the Democrat-led Virginia Legislature. 'The role of government in safeguarding AI practices should be one that enables and empowers innovators to create and grow, not one that stifles progress and places onerous burdens on our Commonwealth's many business owners.' Proponents of federal preemption of state AI regulation, which includes many conservatives who advocate for pushing most policy decisions down to the states, believe that a patchwork of 50 separate state regulatory regimes for AI would put the U.S. at a disadvantage when it comes to development of AI. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, says there is a precedent for a federal moratorium on state AI regulations. That precedent is the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which was passed by a GOP-run congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 'That federal pause on state taxes for internet access helped fuel the digital revolution,' writes Ginn. 'AI deserves the same breathing room. If the moratorium or something like it doesn't happen, America risks ceding the future to countries like China, where communist governing directs resources rather than profits.' Those remarks from Ginn, who served in the first Trump administration, sound a similar note to those recently delivered by a member of the second Trump administration. In an address to the AWS Public Sector Summit, David Sacks — the venture capitalist, technologist, and first ever White House AI czar — described the state-level efforts to regulate AI as 'fear-mongering', adding that a 50-state patchwork of varying and conflicting AI regulatory regimes across the U.S. could 'end up killing these things in the cradle.' 'If we had taken this approach towards the internet, if we had basically had a fear-based approach towards regulation and passed hundreds or thousands of regulations, I don't think the U.S. would become the dominant country in the internet,' Sacks added, calling the internet 'one of the crown jewels of the American economy.' There is bipartisan agreement about the need for federal preemption of state AI regulations and there is also bipartisan opposition to such a federal moratorium. The matter will be decided, however, by Republicans on Capitol Hill. 'Republicans have a pretty straightforward choice on AI,' writes Zach Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, noting that the choices are 'follow Trump's lead and use their Congressional majority to set a light touch approach, or miss the moment and let California regulate it into oblivion.'

U.S. Steel Delists as Nippon Steel Completes $14.9 Billion Takeover
U.S. Steel Delists as Nippon Steel Completes $14.9 Billion Takeover

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

U.S. Steel Delists as Nippon Steel Completes $14.9 Billion Takeover

United States Steel (X, Financials) ceased trading on the New York Stock Exchange at 8:30 a.m. ET Wednesday after Japan's Nippon Steel completed its takeover, the NYSE said. The delisting will be finalized June 30. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 8 Warning Sign with X. President Donald Trump had publicly insisted the transaction would result in a partnership preserving American ownership, but filings confirmed U.S. Steel now operates as a Nippon Steel North America subsidiary. Former President Joe Biden blocked the deal in January on national security grounds; Trump later ordered a fresh review and ultimately cleared the merger under conditions. Under the national security agreement, the U.S. government holds a golden share that allows veto authority over headquarters relocations, plant closures, and certain foreign transactions. Nippon Steel also agreed to keep U.S. Steel's headquarters in Pittsburgh, maintain a U.S.-majority board, and invest $11 billion by 2028including $1 billion in a new greenfield project post-2028. Nippon Steel CEO Eiji Hashimoto said the golden share will not impede management decisions, and emphasized the investment will modernize U.S. Steel's aging facilities. The acquisition positions Nippon Steel to boost annual U.S. crude steel output toward its 100 million-ton goal, leveraging strong domestic infrastructure demand without tariff barriers. U.S. Steel will continue to operate under its historic name, with a U.S. citizen majority on its board and American leadership at the CEO level, as stipulated by the takeover agreement. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store