Breaking: Wall Street Rally After Trump-Xi 'Very Good' Call Eases Trade Fears
June 5 - U.S. stocks climbed on Thursday after President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping held what Trump called a very good phone call, agreeing to visit each other's countries.
Market participants also digested a recent exchange between Trump and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk. By midday, the S&P 500 was up about 0.3%, the Nasdaq Composite rose roughly 0.4%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced about 0.3%.
I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal, Trump wrote on Truth Social, saying the call lasted about an hour and a half and yielded a very positive conclusion for both countries.
In bond markets, the 10-year Treasury yield edged up 3 basis points to 4.39%, while the 2-year yield also climbed 3 basis points to 3.91%.
On the economic front, the U.S. trade deficit narrowed sharply in April as imports plunged. The temporary surge in importshas run its course, Wells Fargo's Shannon Grein said, noting this could boost second-quarter growth. Initial jobless claims rose more than analysts expected, productivity was revised lower, and labor costs continued to climb. The U.S. services sector led in May job cuts, according to the Challenger Report.
This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Morgan Stanley upgrades this mining stock as best pick to play rare earths
The rare-earth miner MP Materials will enjoy growing strategic value to the U.S., as geopolitical tensions with China make the supply of critical minerals more uncertain, according to Morgan Stanley. The investment bank upgraded MP Materials to the equivalent of a buy rating with a stock price target of $34 per share, implying 32% upside from Friday's close. MP Materials owns the only operating rare earth mine in the U.S. at Mountain Pass, California. China dominates the global market for rare earth refining and processing, according to Morgan Stanley. "Geopolitical and trade tensions are finally pushing critical mineral supply chains to top of mind," analysts led by Carlos De Alba told clients in a Thursday note. "MP is the most vertically integrated rare earths company ex-China." Beijing imposed export restrictions on seven rare earth elements in April in response to President Donald Trump's tariffs. It has kept those restrictions in place despite trade talks with U.S. Trump removed some restrictions Wednesday on the Defense Production Act, which could allow the federal government to offer an above market price for rare earths. MP Materials is the best positioned company to benefit from this, according to Morgan Stanley. Its shares rose more than 5% on Thursday. MP Materials is developing fully domestic rare earth supply chain in the U.S. and plans to begin commercial production of magnets used in most electric vehicle motors, offshore wind wind turbines, and the future market for humanoid robots, according to Morgan Stanley. The investment bank expects MP Materials to post negative free cash flow this year and in 2026, but the company has a strong balance sheet should accelerate positive free cash flow from 2027 onward.
CNBC
18 minutes ago
- CNBC
Two aerospace stocks are deeply overbought and could be due for a pullback
GE Aerospace and Howmet Aerospace are vulnerable to pullbacks after entering deep overbought territory this week. Each stock climbed more than 3% this week, outperforming the S & P 500 's 1.5% gain in the same period. The stocks have come so far so fast that now GE Aerospace and Howmet have the two highest 14-day relative strength index, or RSI, readings in the S & P 500. CNBC Pro used its stock screener tool available for subscribers to find the most oversold stocks as measured by the 14-day RSI. Stocks that have a 14-day RSI above 70 are viewed as overbought, leaving them susceptible to a decline, while those a 14-day RSI below 30 are often thought of as oversold, suggesting they may see a bounce. GE Aerospace has now risen for nine straight weeks, while Howmet has advanced for seven. GE Aerospace is ahead more than 53% year to date, while Howmet is up more than 60%. While the typical analyst polled by LSEG has buy ratings on both companies, the consensus 12-month price target foresees more than 5% downside for each stock over the next year following these big runs. Here's the full list of S & P 500 stocks with the highest 14-day RSIs, along with what Wall Street thinks of them, according to LSEG data as of Friday morning: At the other extreme, Brown-Forman is the most oversold name in the S & P 500 with a 14-day RSI below 22. Shares of the Jack Daniel's whiskey distiller tumbled nearly 16% this week. Much of the decline came after Brown-Forman posted revenue and net income for its fiscal fourth quarter that missed analysts' consensus forecasts, according to consensus LSEG numbers. The Louisville-based company said it was operating in an "exceptionally challenging macroeconomic environment." The stocks has slumped 37% in the past six months and is on pace to record its fifth consecutive down year. Although Wall Street analysts rate Brown-Forman no more than a collective "hold," the consensus 12-month price target as compiled by LSEG suggests shares may rally 35%. Brown-Forman also has a dividend yield of 3.32%. Here are the other stocks with 14-day RSIs below 30, along with what Wall Street sees for them:
