Mexico's Peso Becomes an Unlikely Winner in Trump's Trade War
Save
Betting on Mexico's currency has paid off for investors even amid Donald Trump's trade war.
The peso is up more than 11% this year, beating all regional peers, even as it dipped Monday following the latest tariff news — a threat of a 30% levy announced over the weekend. It is also one of the best performing in emerging markets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
a few seconds ago
- Washington Post
Trump should heed, not hide, the jobs numbers
Here's a life hack for readers who are trying to lose weight and are discouraged by the numbers on the scale: Take a hammer to the thing. If that seems too destructive, donate it to the Salvation Army and, if you must keep a scale in the house, buy a new model that tops out at 150 pounds. The secret behind this hack is psychology. It's hard to eat less than your body wants, which is why people who try to lose weight often fail and feel miserable. But if no working scale is available, you can't fail: Eat as much as you like; the numbers will never climb. Sound crazy? It is. But the president has just used a version of this trick to deal with a sagging American jobs market. For months, commentators have been asking why tariffs aren't weighing on the economy more heavily. Importers — including many manufacturers — have been worried that they will. But the headline jobs and gross domestic product data have looked pretty good. Then came Friday's jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Labor Department, revised its estimates for May and June payrolls sharply downward, by more than 250,000 jobs, and estimated that the economy added only 73,000 jobs in July, well below analysts' expectations. Virtually all these new jobs came from health care and social services. The numbers contain no sign of the manufacturing boom that President Donald Trump has promised. This is not the sort of jobs report any president wants to see; it's the kind that portends falling approval ratings and party losses at the next election. So Trump took immediate, decisive action: He hopped on Truth Social and announced that he would fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This move was so boneheaded, William Beach, who served as bureau commissioner during the first Trump administration, called it 'totally groundless' and 'a dangerous precedent' that 'undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau.' A hearty second to that. Trying to intimidate the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the policy equivalent of smashing your bathroom scale. It's banana republic stuff, and it won't work any better in the United States. On the margin, a few voters might be fooled into thinking economic conditions are better than they really are. But the trick can work only so far — as the Biden administration found out when it tried to gaslight voters into believing that everything in the White House was going just great. The people most susceptible to the spin fall into two groups: the president's base, who don't need it, and high-information voters who pay close attention to economic data, many of whom will understand how the numbers have been juked, and most of whom probably already know which side they're voting for next time around. Everyone will be paying closer attention to what's happening in their own experience. Are wages rising? Are their friends and relatives being laid off? Is it easy to find another job? If they're getting the wrong answers to these questions, it really doesn't matter what numbers the bureau is putting out. That is, it doesn't matter politically. Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers matter tremendously in other ways. They feed into a great deal of market activity as well as vital social science, both of which are possible only if the numbers are trustworthy. The statistics are also, of course, one of the president's essential guides to economic policy. This guide is now telling the administration that it is moving in the wrong direction. A wise politician would take heed and course-correct to avoid bumbling deeper into the woods. Instead, Trump wants to shoot the messenger so his supporters won't realize he's led them astray. He might be able to find a new BLS commissioner who will cook the numbers to make them more aesthetically pleasing, though this would not be easy. As economist Scott Winship of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out, a lot of people work on these numbers, 'So absent mass firings at BLS, this solves nothing.' But even if Trump managed to bully the guides into telling him what he wants to hear, what then? Eventually voters will look around and notice the truth: America is losing its way.
UPI
30 minutes ago
- UPI
India responds to U.S. penalty over Russia oil
Aug. 2 (UPI) -- Indian officials confirmed Saturday the country is not altering policy and will continue buying oil from Russia, despite threats of a financial "penalty" from U.S. President Donald Trump. India's government has not given any directive to the country's oil refiners to stop or reduce the amount of Russian crude oil, the New York Times reported, citing two senior Indian officials. Trump earlier this week said he would impose a financial "penalty" on the South Asian country if it did not cut back on its reliance on Russian oil. The sanction would be in addition to a 25% American tariff on Indian goods. The president did not elaborate on the extent of the additional financial "penalty." "Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country, " Trump said in a Truth Social post. "Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE." Trump on Friday said it was his understanding "that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens." Indian officials told the New York Times the country has "not given any direction to oil companies" to change direction. Publicly, Indian officials said they are considering options without confirming or denying the Times report. "We have taken note of the sanctions, and we are looking into it," Ministry of External Affairs of India spokesman Shri Randhir Jaiswal said during a news conference Friday in New Delhi. "On the other question about proposed oil sale, I would say that I have no comments to offer in this particular matter. As far as sourcing our energy requirements is concerned, you are well aware of our broad approach, meaning our overall approach and stance. We take decisions based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time. As for the specifics of your particular question, I am not aware of it. I don't have details of these specifics." Jaiswal also attempted to avoid further escalating the situation. "I would also like to underline this particular point that this is a sensitive and complex case and therefore, I would urge all to be mindful that media reports based on speculation and misinformation are not helpful at all," he told reporters. "In so far as the reports claiming that there has been certain developments etc., such reports are incorrect. Please wait for an update from us, this is a sensitive matter, and we urge all sides to stay away from misinformation."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You'd Invested $3,000 in Nvidia (NVDA) Stock 20 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
Key Points The answer may make you want to kick yourself. Hindsight is 20-20, and few back then expected Nvidia to grow so quickly. You still may do well investing in the company now. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Here's a question and answer that might make you kick yourself: If you'd invested $3,000 in shares of Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) 20 years ago, what would it be worth today? The answer: $2.3 million. (It would be even better if you had reinvested your dividends in more shares of Nvidia along the way. Your stake would be worth around $2.5 million.) That's an average annual gain of 39.5%! The S&P 500 averaged a solid 9.22% in the same period. Don't be too hard on yourself if you missed the monster growth, though. Ask 100 people, and you may not find one who invested in Nvidia back in 2005 and held on. Holding on to great companies for many years, if not decades, is one of the best ways to build wealth, but it's easier said than done. For one thing, it's not always clear which companies will become long-term winners, and even some extremely promising companies fall on hard times occasionally, with their stock sinking. It can be hard psychologically to not sell shares `at those times. For a long time, Nvidia was a semiconductor company specializing in chips for gaming. It was very successful at that, but its explosive growth in recent years is largely due to its dominance in chips for data centers, which are in high demand due to artificial intelligence (AI) computing activities. Too late to buy? While it's too late to buy shares of Nvidia in 2005, it's not too late to buy shares in 2025, and they don't look terribly overvalued at recent levels, either -- despite the stock hitting an all-time high. Nvidia's recent forward price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of 38 is roughly on par with its five-year average of 39. In its last quarter, Nvidia's revenue popped by 69%, with double-digit gains expected in the quarters to come. If you expect the use of AI to increase in the near future along with more demand for data centers and the chips on which they run, take a closer look at Nvidia. Do the experts think Nvidia is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Nvidia make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,036% vs. just 181% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 855.09%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $625,254!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,090,257!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Selena Maranjian has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If You'd Invested $3,000 in Nvidia (NVDA) Stock 20 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
