Rupee dips but firmer yuan, exporter dollar sales cushion losses
The rupee closed at 86.4075 per U.S. dollar, down slightly from its close at 86.3675 in the previous session but managing to hold above the 86.50 support level.
The offshore Chinese yuan rose to a near three-week high while the dollar index was a tad lower at 97.4.
Dollar sales from a large private bank and exporter activity also helped the rupee contain its losses on the day, alongside positive regional cues, a trader at a state-run bank said.
India's benchmark equity indexes, the BSE Sensex (.BSESN), opens new tab and Nifty 50 (.NSEI), opens new tab closed higher by about 0.6% each, tracking gains in global equities that were buoyed by hopes of easing trade tensions after a deal between the U.S. and Japan.
"Equity markets globally are rallying on the view that deals reduce uncertainty," ING said in a note.
U.S. President Donald Trump also announced a trade agreement with the Philippines, released terms of a previous deal with Indonesia on Tuesday and said that EU representatives were coming for trade negotiations on Wednesday.
Officials from China and the U.S. are also expected to meet next week to discuss an extension to the deadline for negotiating a trade deal.
For India, though, the prospects of a trade deal before the August 1 deadline have dimmed, with talks deadlocked over tariff cuts on key agricultural and dairy products.
Foreign portfolio outflows and the lack of an outcome on trade negotiations have maintained pressure on the rupee, said Dilip Parmar, a foreign exchange research analyst at HDFC Securities.
Parmar expects the rupee to decline towards 86.70 in the near-term.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump is right about North Sea oil
Maybe it is Donald Trump's way of getting back at Keir Starmer for Labour sending activists to campaign for Kamala Harris in last year's presidential election. Either way, the US president seems to have no intention of obeying the convention that leaders of democratic do not delve into the domestic politics of their counterparts in other nations – and especially not while they are on a foreign tour. Today, Trump has doubled down on his attack on the windfarms he says are spoiling the view from his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. Posting on his Truth Social account he asserted that UK government ministers 'have essentially told drillers and oil companies that 'we don't want you'. Incentivise the drillers FAST. A VAST FORTUNE TO BE MADE for the UK, and far lower energy prices for the people.' We know how Ed Miliband will want to respond to that, assuming he has not been locked away on Starmer's orders for fear of spoiling the PM's friendship with the President. He will put on his bewildered air and tell us that wind and solar power are so much cheaper than oil and gas, and that what Trump is proposing would put us in the hands of 'fossil fuel dictators' who apparently have to power to set energy prices in the UK. The facts, though, are firmly on Trump's side in this case. If Britain's net-zero policy is delivering us such cheap energy how come we have some of the highest electricity and gas prices in the world? According to the government's own data on energy prices, UK domestic consumers paid an average of 36.4 pence for their electricity and 10.2 pence for their gas in 2023. US consumers paid 12.9 pence and 4.0 pence respectively. And no, the UK's high prices cannot be blamed on our reliance on gas. In the UK last year 29.2 per cent of electricity was generated by gas and 30 per cent from wind. In the US the corresponding figures were 42.5 per cent and 10.3 per cent. Nor is it true that the North Sea is in such sharp decline that Britain isn't missing much by refusing new licences and taxing the remaining industry to extinction (with a windfall tax which imposes a levy of 78 per cent on profits). According to the North Sea Transition Authority the combined 'provable and probable' reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea still amount to the equivalent of 3.3 billion barrels of oil. Offshore Energies UK – which represents the industry – puts it at 7.5 billion barrels. To put that into context, over 40 billion barrels equivalent of oil and gas have been extracted from the North Sea since the 1960s. Unlike the US, long-term self-sufficiency in oil and gas is no longer possible for the UK – at least not from the North Sea, although some estimates for shale gas suggest that fracking could produce up to 47 years' worth of supplies at the current rate of consumption. However, there are still useful quantities of oil and gas beneath the North Sea which would be exploited if only the government would allow it. Moreover, no one really knows how much is down there unless you look for it – but who is going to spend money prospecting for new reserves in the current climate? As for Trump's point about greater North Sea production lowering energy prices, it is hard to argue with it. Britain's eager adoption of renewables has not lowered prices, however much Miliband may promise us savings of £300 a year. On the contrary, we seem to be paying through the nose for our electricity and gas – around three times as much for our electricity and two and a half times as much for our gas compared to consumers in the much more fossil fuel-reliant US.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Obesity drugmaker Novo Nordisk picks Maziar Mike Doustdar as new CEO
COPENHAGEN, July 29 (Reuters) - Novo Nordisk named Maziar Mike Doustdar as its new chief executive on Tuesday, relying on an experienced company insider to revive sales and a share price hit by worries the Wegovy maker is falling behind in the weight-loss drug race it started. The appointment comes after the abrupt removal in May of CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen by Novo ( opens new tab and the Novo Nordisk Foundation - the Danish company's controlling shareholder, and follows a growth warning earlier on Tuesday. Doustdar, who joined Novo in 1992, currently serves as vice president for international operations, a role he took after leading the company's businesses first in the Middle East and then in Southeast Asia, Novo said. The new chief executive's most urgent challenge, according to investors and analysts, is to revive Novo's performance in the United States, the largest market by far for weight-loss drugs and where they are most profitable. Novo launched its weight-loss drug Wegovy nearly two and a half years before U.S rival Eli Lilly's Zepbound. But Zepbound prescriptions surpassed those of Wegovy this year by more than 100,000 a week. The appointment comes at a challenging time for the global pharmaceutical industry as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on imports and calls on drugmakers to lower their U.S. prescription prices. Jorgensen led Novo through a period of meteoric growth as it led the weight-loss drug boom, becoming Europe's most valuable listed company following the launch of Wegovy in 2021. At its peak in June 2024 Novo was worth as much as $615 billion. But Novo shares have plunged since then on investor concerns about the company's experimental drug pipeline and its ability to navigate challenges in the U.S. market, such as the threat to its sales from compounded copies of Wegovy and Lilly's Zepbound.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Europe's absurd US investment pledge brings risks
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump is a master of the art of making brash promises he has no intention of keeping. Ursula von der Leyen appears to have done the same to clinch the European Union's controversial tariff deal with its largest trading partner. But the European Commission president's vague pledge that $600 billion of European investment will flow stateside in the next three years is risky. If the U.S. president decides that the Europeans have failed to keep their end of the bargain, he will have an excuse to tear up the agreement. Just a day after announcing the deal that will impose a 15% charge on most European imports to the U.S., the two sides seemed at odds on many details – including the EU's investment promise. The White House said, opens new tab on Monday that the 'massive' pledge would be 'in addition' to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year. By contrast, the European Commission said, opens new tab on Tuesday that EU companies had simply 'expressed interest' in investing such an amount in the U.S. by 2029 – but didn't specify it would be on top of existing flows. In either case, it would be a big increase. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Europeans last year sent some $205 billion of new investments, opens new tab across the Atlantic. Strip out the $53 billion from the United Kingdom, and the EU number is closer to $150 billion. If the White House is correct, EU firms would have to more than double their investment spending every year until 2028 to deploy an extra $600 billion. Even the EU's more modest interpretation implies a sustained one-third jump from 2024 levels. This is as implausible as the EU's equally brash promise to import American energy worth $750 billion. Neither pledge may be binding. The deal clinched by Trump and von der Leyen has not yet been formalised in a document signed by both parties. Commission officials hope such a text might be signed by August 1, when the U.S. tariffs come into force. But even then Brussels cannot direct investment decisions by private European companies. Unlike Japan, which promised a similarly vague $550 billion investment fund, the EU cannot even support or subsidise U.S.-bound investments, as these powers belong to its members. Any transatlantic investment drive is also at odds with policies to encourage investment and boost productivity at home. Whether the lure of the U.S. market will trigger an outbreak of enthusiasm among European investors in the next few years is dubious. Tariffs may help persuade carmaker Volkswagen ( opens new tab and luxury giant LVMH ( opens new tab to produce more in the world's largest economy. But they must also factor in the effect of trade barriers on supply chains, Trump's unpredictable policies, and the consequences of higher import prices on U.S. growth and inflation. If Trump's trade deals fail to deliver the economic bonanza he promises his voters, he may look for an excuse to revisit the EU deal. Von der Leyen will then regret having made a vague promise that she knew she could not deliver. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
