Fund Market Is Hit by ‘Patriotic' Reset in Reaction to Tariffs
Clients at some of the world's biggest asset managers are racing to move money away from the US and into European funds in the wake of Donald Trump's tariff war.
US-focused funds managed by Amundi SA, UBS Group AG and State Street Corp. have seen the biggest client exodus in the first two weeks of April, losing a combined €3.9 billion ($4.5 billion), according to data compiled by Morningstar Direct, which covers equity exchange-traded funds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High-cost loans, Trump turmoil hurting Africa, says G20 panel chief
Critically needed economic growth in Africa is being held back by high borrowing costs imposed by international lenders, with unpredictable US policy changes adding to the strain, the head of the G20 panel on the continent said. Seasoned politician and anti-apartheid activist Trevor Manuel chairs the panel of experts working on proposals to address issues affecting Africa, including high debt, to be presented at a summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in November. African nations are not necessarily more indebted than major economies but they face higher debt servicing costs, Manuel told AFP in an interview. The "unbelievably expensive and prohibitive" cost of capital for African nations has hobbled their development, said Manuel, who served as finance minister in post-apartheid South Africa for more than a decade. "We know that the risk premiums in general on Africa are much higher than they need to be, and that impacts them on the debt service costs," he added. More than half of Africa's 1.3 billion people live in countries with debt interest payments higher than social spending on health, education and infrastructure, according to the South African government. South Africa is the only African nation in the G20 and has made debt sustainability for developing countries one of the priorities of its presidency of the group of 19 countries, the African Union and European Union. African countries will pay close to $89 billion in external debt service alone this year, with 20 low-income countries at risk of debt distress, it says. Manuel said the panel will seek to persuade the entire G20 to engage with multilateral development banks, in particular the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to address the issue of borrowing costs. - 'Unbelievably difficult' - Abrupt changes in global order since US President Donald Trump took office in January, such as sweeping aid cuts and trade tariffs, will have long-lasting ramifications for the continent, Manuel said. Trump's "capricious" announcement in April of major trade tariffs effectively did away with the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a major US-African trade deal that had helped to build some African economies, he said. He cited as examples the tiny kingdom of Lesotho, which faces 50 percent tariffs on exports to the United States, including jeans and golf shirts, and Madagascar, which sends vanilla pods and is threatened with 47 percent tariffs. "It becomes unbelievably difficult for small countries that try and develop export markets, for their products to be struck by these sudden announcements," Manuel said. "There's no time for adjustment." Adding to the pressure is the termination of USAID programmes and a push for NATO countries to increase defence spending, which restricts what they have available for overseas development assistance. "The impact on the African continent is going to be very severe," said Manuel. "We can't abstract Africa from the rest of the globe." "The realm of policymaking requires a greater degree of predictability and certainty than what we see at the moment," he said. "The fact that there are these occasional outbursts that aren't informed by reality as I see it... makes it even more complex." - Intra-Africa - Manuel said his panel's work on better understanding the African economy and developing solutions was likely to continue beyond this year's G20, for example, via the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the African Union. This included looking at "intra-African dynamics" such as the role of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) launched in 2019. Conflicts also cost the continent, he said, citing the war in Sudan and unrest that has held back a major gas project in impoverished northern Mozambique. "When countries spend more on war than what they do on the upliftment of people, then we face profound consequences," Manuel said. He said a strong United Nations and African Union were important in "persuading countries to do the right things" in the long term, beyond the sometimes disruptive short electoral cycles that usher in new leadership and policy changes. "If you don't have those kinds of objectives, which frequently will not be completed within a particular electoral cycle, I think we run ourselves into the ground." br/ho/rl/cms
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is debanking? Why Citi said it won't debank for political reasons anymore?
Citigroup released a statement Tuesday saying that the bank will be changing its policies to make it clear that it does not debank or discriminate on political grounds. This statement comes after President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders accused the banking industry of discriminating against certain customers based on political affiliation, according to The Wall Street Journal. 'Citi has always been fully committed to treating all current and potential clients fairly and we have policies, procedures and controls in place for this express purpose. At the same time, we appreciate the concerns that are being raised regarding 'fair access' to banking services, and we are following regulatory developments, recent Executive Orders and federal legislation that impact this area,' said the bank's statement. In the statement, the bank also announced it will no longer have a specific policy regarding firearms following regulatory developments and 'fair access' concerns. 'These changes reinforce our commitment to serve all clients fairly, and we will continue to work with regulators and elected officials on ways to improve transparency and trust in the banking sector,' the bank's statement read. Citigroup's firearms policy was adopted in 2018 shortly after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students and staff were fatally shot by a 19-year-old, per The Wall Street Journal. The policy restricted how the bank provided services to firearm manufacturers, sellers and resellers, according to NBC. 'Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy was implemented in 2018 and pertained to sale of firearms by our retail clients and partners. The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn't address the manufacturing of firearms. Many retailers have been following these best practices, and we hope communities and lawmakers will continue to seek out ways to prevent the tragic consequences of gun violence,' Citi's statement said. According to The Wall Street Journal, when the bank implemented the policy, it said it wasn't because of an ideological mission but that the company wanted to do its part to prevent guns from 'getting into the wrong hands.' The policy required clients to 'adhere to these best practices: (1) they don't sell firearms to someone who hasn't passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don't sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines,' per NBC. Citi's firearms policy received backlash from right-wing news outlets and pro-gun groups. Debanking is the idea of banks closing the accounts of organizations or people that are perceived to pose a financial, legal, regulatory or reputational risk to the bank. For years, banks have faced criticism from groups and individuals saying they were unfairly dropped as customers, according to The Wall Street Journal. These claims have been partially fueled by the fact that banks most often don't give explanations when closing a client's account. Political pressure around debanking has increased recently as right-wing officials and tech leaders have alleged that certain people, including cryptocurrency proponents and conservatives, were being blocked by the Biden administration from banking services, per NBC. Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, he has confronted the CEOs of Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase and he raised complaints at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland earlier this year. Both of the confronted banks said they would never close an account on political grounds, per NBC. As the debate of debanking has continued, banks have repeatedly said they don't discriminate against customers based on beliefs or background. 'They have said account closures are driven by anti-money-laundering rules or other regulatory reasons, which can cause them to drop risky customers who might be engaging in suspicious activity,' per The Wall Street Journal. Republicans in Congress have proposed legislation to address concerns around debanking. Concerns have also been raised by Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who claim that banks have unfairly shut down accounts linked to formerly incarcerated clients or on the basis of religion. Monday's statement from Citigroup follows the concerns raised on both sides of the political spectrum over the last few months. 'We will update our employee Code of Conduct and our customer-facing Global Financial Access Policy to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion,' per Citi's statement.
