UBS Wealth downgrades U.S. stocks as others on the Street raise their forecasts
UBS Wealth on Tuesday moved to the sidelines on U.S. stocks, casting doubt on the recent rally even as others on Wall Street have grown more bullish. Mark Haefele, the firm's investment chief, downgraded U.S. equities to neutral from attractive, noting he's not bearish or telling clients to sell but rather "taking advantage" of the runup in stocks over the past month after investors had grown too pessimistic in early April after the U.S. announced its new tariff policy. Haefele's latest skepticism reverses an upgrade to U.S. stocks that he made on April 10, the day after President Trump placed a 90-day pause on many tariffs he had imposed the week before. The S & P 500 has climbed about 11% since the UBS upgrade, making the risk-reward more balanced, Haefele said. The buyside chief investment officer also tied his call to Monday's major leg up in stock prices following the announcement that China and the U.S. slashed reciprocal tariffs for three months. That helped ease short-term fears that Trump's plan for steep tariffs was spurring a trade war between the world;s two largest economies. "While the 90-day cooling-off period has provided a reprieve, uncertainty is still high, and investors will soon begin to focus on whether this temporary fix can evolve into a lasting agreement," Haefele wrote to clients. "The constructive tone from both sides suggests a willingness to negotiate further, but challenges in forging a durable deal could lead to bouts of volatility." Haefele recommended that clients keep a strategic allocation to U.S. stocks, expecting equities will rise over the next 12 months. The UBS shift on U.S. stocks puts it at odds with others on the Street who have recently become more upbeat. David Kostin, chief U.S. equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, raised his 2025 target for the S & P 500 back to 6,100 from 5,900 on Tuesday, citing lower tariff rates, an improved outlook for economic growth and reduced odds of a recession. Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, also lifted his S & P 500 target back up to 6,500 from 6,000, pointing to a shifting view around the impact of Trump's tariff policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia using peace talks to stall US sanctions, Zelensky says
Russia is attempting to delay peace negotiations to avoid tougher U.S. sanctions, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with German tabloid Bild on June 12. His comments come as Russia continues to reject a full ceasefire despite having initiated two rounds of peace talks in Istanbul — first on May 16 and on June 2. Both rounds resulted in agreements on prisoner exchanges, but failed to deliver progress toward ending hostilities. During the negotiations, Moscow ramped up ground offensives and launched massive attacks on Ukrainian cities. "It's important for them to show (U.S. President Donald) Trump that there is a diplomatic bridge between Ukraine and Russia," Zelensky told Bild. "So that sanctions aren't imposed against Russia" while talks are ongoing, Zelensky said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy is to maintain the illusion of dialogue and then argue: "We're talking to each other! If sanctions are imposed, there will be no more talks." Zelensky warned that Moscow's goal is not peace but buying time. "Putin feels that his economy is now suffering," he said. "But he wants to gain even more time until the strong sanctions are introduced, because he can still hold out for some time." Trump has previously warned he would impose new sanctions on Moscow, but has yet to take the step. On June 5, Trump said he was withholding the move in hopes of a potential peace deal but warned he could act if Russia continues to stall. "When I see the moment where it's not going to stop... we'll be very tough," Trump told reporters. Critics, as well as Zelensky, argue that the slow implementation of sanctions gave Russia time to adapt its economy and defense sector. "The main mistake of the sanctions was that they were introduced too slowly," Zelensky said. Trump has repeatedly said he is monitoring the situation and hinted sanctions could come soon if progress is not made. Meanwhile, a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate that would impose harsh tariffs on countries buying Russian oil remains on hold as lawmakers await Trump's signal. Read also: 'Deadline is in my brain' — Trump dismisses timeline to impose Russian sanctions We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The White House Wants the Megabill by July 4. For Real.
House and Senate Republicans spent Thursday at each other's throats over President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The sparring between the two chambers reached a point where members were openly scoffing at the GOP's self-imposed July 4 deadline for passing the bill. Down Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, the White House isn't sweating. In fact, Trump's aides are downright bullish about getting the megabill wrapped up in a bow for a presidential signature by Independence Day. 'We are targeting the week of July 4 for final passage,' said one of two Trump administration officials I spoke to Wednesday and granted anonymity to candidly describe the private talks. Let's be clear: The timeline is extraordinarily fast. Not only does Senate Majority Leader John Thune have to find a way to bridge competing demands inside his conference and weather a grueling amendment 'vote-a-rama,' but he also has to work with Speaker Mike Johnson, who is already groaning at every change being entertained for the bill that barely passed his chamber last month. Traditionally, getting the two chambers aligned on a single piece of complicated legislation means weeks of 'conferencing' — that's what happened in 2017, the last time Republicans pursued a party-line tax bill. This time, the legislation is even more complicated and the margins even thinner. But White House officials are adamant that GOP leaders skip that step. Nor do they want the House making more changes after the Senate, requiring another 'pingpong' back across the Rotunda. They expect the Senate to clear a bill that the House can simply plop on the floor, pass and send to Trump's desk. 'There's not going to be a pingpong or a conference,' the official told me yesterday. Can they really do that in just three weeks? Some Republicans are skeptical, to say the least. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said 'a lot of us would be surprised' if the July 4 deadline holds at the POLITICO Energy Summit Tuesday. And during a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said that while the Senate might be able to finish on time, it could take another month to negotiate with the House. 'The Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do,' he said. OK, senator: Go tell that to Donald Trump. Some of the president's allies on the Hill are already dreaming up a snazzy Rose Garden celebration to ring in both Independence Day and the enactment of the 'big, beautiful bill.' (At least that's what one well-placed GOP congressional aide predicted to me this week.) The recent history of the megabill is fueling the administration's confidence. Political prognosticators scoffed at Johnson's self-imposed Memorial Day target for House passage, predicting the warring factions in his conference would make that deadline an impossibility. But Trump swooped in and muscled the bill through by sheer force, strong-arming moderate holdouts and bringing conservatives to heel. And White House officials are sure he can do it again. Administration aides are well aware of the work left to be done. Senate Republicans are already moving to throw a major wrench in the negotiations by upending two key provisions that were essential to winning the support of rival blocs in the House. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo told his colleagues Wednesday he plans to deliver on a personal priority that's highly desired by members of his panel: making key business tax breaks permanent. To do it, he's ready to scale back the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction — a key factor in winning the support of blue-state GOP holdouts. And to manage desires elsewhere in the Senate GOP, Crapo also hinted he'll elongate the phase-out time for some clean-energy tax breaks enacted under former President Joe Biden — a huge no-no for House Freedom Caucus members, who made their quick repeal a must in exchange for their votes. That means Trump is about to find himself in a familiar spot — playing referee between the chambers — and his team knows it. He could start blowing the whistle as soon as Thursday, when he meets with Thune and Crapo at the White House. There's good reason to think that Trump will ultimately be able to impose his will on the unruly GOP lawmakers. There were signs he was already doing so this week, after rumblings emerged about some Senate Republicans wanting to scale back Trump's tax priorities in order to pay for the business tax provisions. Trump's campaign pledges to exempt tips, overtime pay and Social Security from income taxes made it into the House bill at a cost of $230 billion, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation score. Scrapping or scaling back any of those provisions could have been a huge boon to Senate tax writers. But the White House made clear behind the scenes that would be a no-go: 'We're not willing to entertain any scaling back of our signature promises,' a second Trump administration official said. 'You're not going to rock the president's commitments to the voters to pay for [business] expensing in the out years.' On Tuesday, Thune made it clear to reporters that Trump's priorities would stay — words the White House welcomed. So don't expect much stomach inside the GOP for bucking Trump's wishes over the coming weeks. It's telling that, as I was told, none of the Senate Finance Republicans who met with Trump last week raised the issue of shrinking his tax wish list during their White House skull session. That just underscores how no one — not even senators who get six-year terms and have historically relished their independence — wants to tell the most powerful man in the world: Please, Mr. President, we'd like to water down your campaign promises to substitute one of our own. 'I think ultimately a lot of members are wish-casting different structures to permit more of their own priorities, and certainly that's something that senators are welcome to do,' the first official said. But 'the president's priorities are not negotiable in this process.'
