logo
10 ways the 'Trump discount' is hurting the stock market

10 ways the 'Trump discount' is hurting the stock market

CNBC2 days ago

We keep getting thrown off, and the lack of predictability is driving investors elsewhere. Do we really think the economies in Europe are doing that well? Is Italy on fire? Spain soaring? No. But what they do have is consistency , even if it is the consistency of mediocrity. We, on the other hand, have no stability whatsoever because of the incredible, mind-boggling power of the White House. It's so pervasive, frightening even if you care about the U.S. Constitution, that I think the rank-and-file of both parties in the House and the Senate are shocked to their core. We have never seen anything like it. To think, you have to go back to the time of Andrew Jackson's presidency to worry about what happens if the judiciary is disobeyed is a statement for the ages. So, it throws us off. We sit here, agog, as Europe goes higher when we have companies in our stock indexes that are doing much, much better than any of theirs. But it doesn't matter because ours can be taken away with a stroke of President Donald Trump's pen — and don't we know it. 1. Nvidia The fact that Club name Nvidia last Wednesday evening could blow away numbers without China is incredible. The stock showed it Thursday but gave back most of the gains Friday. That's the power of the Trump discount. 2. Retail stocks We have whole swaths of the stock landscape getting held back by the Trump discount. We all were hoping to see that retailers would try to extract discounts from suppliers and then split the tariff pain with the customer. But the president attacks Walmart , perhaps the only company besides Club name Costco , to actually do Trump's bidding. Or what we thought was the president's bidding. Makes me wonder, if something were made in America, could you jack up the price without consequences? Most likely. It's no wonder that Costco's stock shot higher last week. It's the only retailer that's not yet having to raise prices. I don't picture the president being a Costco customer. If he were a member, I bet he would crow about it. The dollar stores may be right in the crosshairs next week. The Street worships them right now. But retail is mighty hard to trust. Thank heavens for Club name TJX , the company behind T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods, which really is cutting prices. The stock is still too low as far as I am concerned. 3. Drugs stocks The drug companies have a huge Trump discount. I didn't pay much attention to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) this year because I figured that no experimental cancer drug would come to the fore. Who would want to trumpet that? We know the president is adopting a position that's been antithetical to the Republicans, who have fought for years to not allow Medicare to negotiate prices. Now we have little-to-no understanding of what awaits us with pricing — so the price to earnings (PE) multiples keep shrinking. That's the Trump discount. Oh, and heaven forbid, you make vaccines. You are experiencing the wrath of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Glaxo's managed to avoid it, but there's that European halo again. 4. Food stocks On Monday, you will see how hobbled another group has become when Campbell's reports its quarterly results. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes of the soup company, which also owns brands including Prego and Rao's pasta sauces, Goldfish snacks, and V8 drinks. We do know that other food companies have been called in — don't know the names —and told by RFK Jr. to get the coloring out of their foods. 5. Apple Of course, Nvidia isn't the only tech company that's under fire. The Trump discount is crushing fellow Club name Apple . It's bad enough that people believe that Apple has "missed" artificial intelligence even as we know AI is going to go on forever, and Apple will catch up. To be sure, though, it has been slower than everyone would like, so far. But it's the incredibly shocking switch that Apple has endured that's so painful. Did anyone believe that the only goal for the president was to make all iPhones in America? We all got confused. We thought that Trump's goal was to get manufacturing out of China to anywhere. (So many retailers thought that, too.) It turns out that getting out of China to go to another jurisdiction, say India in Apple's case, might have been as bad or worse than staying in China because at least you had a better shot at selling things in China. That's probably no longer the case given the Chinese government's subtle antipathy for those who are pulling out or trying to minimize China. 6. Software stocks So far, software has dodged a bullet, or I should say DOGE'd a bullet because it looks like the federal agencies that were supposed to cut back on vendors saw their havoc wreaked on Booz Allen and not many others. That Club name Salesforce went down, at least, had nothing to do with the Department of Government Efficiency advisory group. It's an alleged sales slowdown from "old" Salesforce that's driving things lower. 7. Google What about the internet? Can you believe how hated Google-parent Alphabet is that the Trump administration has embraced the single most leftwing case brought by the Justice Department against the search giant? The fact that a case that I thought was confiscatory and punitive is being pursued as aggressively as it was under former President Joe Biden is shocking to me. 8. Bank stocks We even have a Trump discount in banking. We've seen almost no let-up in regulation except when it comes to bitcoin , which is rapidly becoming the only entity in this market that has a Trump premium. It is true that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent makes some sense — and is, bizarrely for this administration, consistent — but he's more of a fire fighter than a deregulator. I can only imagine the role he is going to have to play if we get a weaker employment number but a spike in inflation. I don't envy him. 9. M & A I do expect more mergers and acquisitions, and I know that there have been a few already that would have been shot down by the Federal Trade Commission under Biden. But that's a low bar. How can you do deals in a world where nobody can predict cash flow because of how unpredictable the White House is? Call that a huge discount. The stocks reflect it. 10. Energy stocks It's particularly galling when there's no lift in a group that had been hated under Biden: the oil and natural gas industry. I know the Trump administration wants more pipe, but nothing is happening. Trump wants to open up federal lands to drilling, oblivious to the fact that the oil companies haven't been calling for it because it is too expensive. No energy source is getting a break. The president is permitting all sorts of nuclear power, or he says he is. But his Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the gating factor, and I see no change there. Bottom line The takeaway from all of this is pretty sickening. Take tomorrow. We were going down pretty consistently Friday — and when we got to down 1% on the S & P 500 , the president let it be known that there could be a call soon with Chinese President Xi Jinping . Nevermind, that hours before, he accused China of violating the terms of the trade deal it made with the United States last month. Over the weekend, there was no call with Xi, so I have to figure we just resume Friday's decline from the get-go, barring something positive from the president about American business. Although it's hard to predict what that could be. The funny thing is, I feel very alone writing this stuff, given how rarely it is talked about. But that's part of the overall mystique of the White House. What will happen to you if you speak up? How long will it take to produce a level of retribution to make you the Harvard of the S & P 500? Suffice it to say, there's no let-up in the derision of business and the uncertainty of it all. Sometimes, I pine for the previous administration as Biden knew so little about business that he didn't know who to hate, so he just hated everyone. Nevertheless, unlike Trump, he had ineffectual hatred. No premium. But no discount either. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate forges ahead with tight timeline to approve Trump's "big beautiful bill"
Senate forges ahead with tight timeline to approve Trump's "big beautiful bill"

CBS News

time18 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Senate forges ahead with tight timeline to approve Trump's "big beautiful bill"

Washington — The Senate is forging ahead this week on President Trump's "one big beautiful bill," facing a tight, self-imposed deadline to get the legislation to his desk ahead of the July 4 holiday. "It's going to be a busy month — we have a lot to get done," Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor Monday, adding that the upper chamber's "biggest focus" will be on getting the president's agenda passed. In a razor-thin vote last month, the House passed the legislation, which addresses the president's tax, defense and energy priorities. The vote came after weeks of intraparty disagreement over a number of provisions, like Medicaid restrictions. That bill has now made its way to the Senate, where some of the same tensions exist — and new dynamics have begun to take shape. Thune, a South Dakota Republican, outlined to reporters Monday that the process is underway, saying "I think we're on track — I hope, at least — to be able to produce something that we can pass through the Senate, send back to the House, have them pass and put on the president's desk by the Fourth of July." But Thune can only afford to lose three Republican votes on the bill, with all Democrats expected to vote against it. A handful of Senate Republicans have already expressed opposition to the House-passed bill. GOP leaders will be focused on uniting the conference around the bill, and possible changes, in the days ahead. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 2, 2025. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images The majority leader acknowledged the delicate balance on Monday, telling reporters that the Senate bill will "have to be tracked fairly closely, obviously, with the House bill," citing its "fragile majority." Thune said the House "struck a very delicate balance in getting it passed in the House in the first place." "But there are some things that senators want, you know, added to the bill, or, you know, things that we would do slightly differently," Thune said. Meanwhile, the president took an active role in the process as the Senate returned to Washington from recess on Monday. He met with Thune and spoke with a handful of key Senate Republicans, including Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have expressed opposition to some of the bill's components. Johnson, along with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, has been among the leading voices in the upper chamber calling for deeper spending cuts in the bill, which aims at present to cut $1.5 trillion, while also advocating for separating a debt ceiling increase from the legislation. The Wisconsin Republican said he had a "very respectful conversation" with Mr. Trump, telling reporters that he and the president "by and large share the same goal," but have a "difference in opinion in terms of how to do it." Paul has pledged to oppose the bill due to its debt ceiling increase. Mr. Trump again called out the Kentucky Republican on Truth Social on Tuesday, saying Paul "votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas." Beyond concern about spending cuts, other Senate Republicans have voiced concern for Medicaid restrictions, including Hawley. The Missouri Republican told reporters Monday that the president told him when they spoke that there should be "no Medicaid benefit cuts," adding that he told Mr. Trump that they are "singing from the same hymnbook." But Hawley remains concerned about changes to provider taxes and copay requirements in the legislation. The president also weighed in on Truth Social on Monday, urging Senate Republicans to work quickly on the bill. "With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," Mr. Trump wrote. Further complicating matters, the Senate also has to contend with strict limits on the reconciliation process, which governs the legislation. Though the process allows the Senate to bypass a 60-vote threshold required to advance most legislation, it also comes with its own hurdles. Under what's known as the Byrd rule, all provisions in the legislation must have direct budgetary consequences. And senators may challenge any portion of the bill that they say doesn't deal with taxes, spending or the debt limit and ask the Senate parliamentarian to resolve the dispute. Thune said "Byrd conversations" have been going on for the last week and would continue this week and next. And when asked whether Senate Republicans would rule out overruling the parliamentarian, he told reporters "we're not going there." and contributed to this report.

Ex-Homeland Security official fights back against Trump's ‘unprecedented' investigation order
Ex-Homeland Security official fights back against Trump's ‘unprecedented' investigation order

Los Angeles Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Ex-Homeland Security official fights back against Trump's ‘unprecedented' investigation order

WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during President Trump's first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service. Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with the Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump's April 9 memorandum, 'Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,' when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances. Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday. Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a 'scary precedent' and that's why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate. 'I didn't commit any crime, and that's what's extraordinary about this. I can't think of any case where someone knows they're being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it's because I didn't,' Taylor said. He called it a 'really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.' Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump's order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term. Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president's unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret 'resistance' to counter Trump's 'misguided impulses.' The op-ed's publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump's first White House. Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called 'Blowback,' which warned about Trump's return to office. After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely 'guilty of treason.' The letter by Taylor's lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump's actions 'unprecedented in American history.' 'The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,' the letter reads. Taylor's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to 'get the administration to do the right thing.' Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they'll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump's retribution. In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of 'addressing and preventing abuses of power.' The letter says Trump's April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor's First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a 'textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.' And, according to the letter, Trump's memo also appears to violate Taylor's Fifth Amendment due process rights. The letter highlights Taylor's 'honorable and exemplary' work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor's personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter. Taylor told the AP that since the order, there's been an 'implosion in our lives.' He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family's bills. Their home's location was published on the internet in a doxxing. Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he's anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back. 'The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there's no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,' Taylor said. Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states
Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states

Boston Globe

time19 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states

Advertisement 'The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,' said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Voting by noncitizens is rare Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections. Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake. Advertisement Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof-of-citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married. Married women who changed names are a particular concern The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states. That hasn't resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn't want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote. In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans – every one of them co-authored the bill -- ended up faltering. 'I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn't need to make this mistake,' said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee. Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year. Advertisement Similar laws have created confusion Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it. In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data was handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents' citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not. A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state's own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible. In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber. Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session's limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns. 'Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,' Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year. Complications prompt states to focus on other issues The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in. Advertisement Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn't be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant's status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided. The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation. Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump's executive order: 'This bill fully answers the president's call,' she said. Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store