China, HK stocks book steepest weekly losses
At the close, the Shanghai Composite index had fallen 0.37% to 3,559.95 points, while the blue-chip CSI300 index had lost 0.51%.
For the week, the SSEC slipped by 0.94% and the CSI300 dropped by 1.75%. Both indexes booked their first weekly losses in six, and were down by the most since early April when Trump first initiated reciprocal tariffs.
In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index tumbled 1.07% to 24,507.81 points, while the Hang Seng China Enterprises index fell 0.88% to 8,804.42 points.
For the week, the benchmark HSI plummeted 3.47%, recording the first weekly loss in a month and dropping by the most since early April.
Trump slapped steep tariffs on exports from dozens of trading partners, pressing ahead with his plans to reorder the global economy ahead of a Friday trade deal deadline.
'The US deals with other economies will also affect China's trade outlook,' economists at ANZ said in a note on Friday.
'If the US fully enforces around 20% tariffs and 40% transshipment tariffs on ASEAN, which accounted for 17.8% of China's exports in the first half of this year, the supply chain activity in the region will be strained.'
Meanwhile, the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is 'not 100% done,' US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday.
China's factory activity contracted in July, both official and private surveys showed, suggesting the economy lost momentum following robust growth in the first half of the year.
'After a more resilient than expected trade environment in the first half of 2025, momentum could soften a bit further in July,' said Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, noting market attention will be shifted to trade data due next Thursday for more clues on the health of the broad economy.
Around the region, MSCI's Asia ex-Japan stock index was weaker by 1.41%, while Japan's Nikkei index closed down 0.66%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
8 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Top Trump aide accuses India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine
WASHINGTON: A top aide to President Donald Trump on Sunday accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, after the U.S. leader escalated pressure on New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil. 'What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia,' said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of Trump's most influential aides. Miller's criticism was some of the strongest yet by the Trump administration about one of the United States' major partners in the Indo-Pacific. 'People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact,' Miller said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Zelensky urges allies to push for 'regime change' in Russia The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday that New Delhi will keep purchasing oil from Moscow despite U.S. threats. A 25% tariff on Indian products went into effect on Friday as a result of its purchase of military equipment and energy from Russia. Trump has also threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Miller tempered his criticism by noting Trump's relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he described as 'tremendous.'
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Business Recorder
OPEC+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike, sources say
LONDON: OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in September, two OPEC+ sources said on Sunday as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 1100 GMT, amid fresh U.S. demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh EU sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more oil. OPEC+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000-bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. Oil falls on worries about OPEC+ supply OPEC+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
