Stock Movers: Tesla, Nike, Big Banks
On this episode of Stock Movers: - Tesla (TSLA) shares fell on Friday after starting the week on the upswing. One of Wall Street's most bearish Tesla analysts further reduced estimates for the company's earnings, citing the magnitude of car-buyer backlash against Elon Musk. Tesla's first-quarter vehicle deliveries were far below even JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst Ryan Brinkman's pessimistic estimate, 'confirming the unprecedented brand damage we had earlier feared,' he said in a report Friday. The EV maker also saw a key executive leave. David Lau, Tesla's vice president of software engineering, has told people at the company that he is stepping down, according to people familiar with the matter. Lau, one of the few executives to promote the automaker's products alongside Elon Musk, has been at Tesla for almost 13 years and has held the vice president title since 2017. His team is responsible for the software in Tesla's vehicles — overseeing infotainment and information security to over-the-air software updates — as well as cloud services and manufacturing systems. - Shares in companies that have large manufacturing operations in Vietnam, including Nike (NKE) and Lululemon Athletica (LULU) soared Friday after President Donald Trump said Vietnam was willing to eliminate tariffs to avoid new US levies. Nike shares erased an earlier loss to gain 3%. Apparel and shoemakers' shares tumbled Thursday after the president unveiled a 46% levy on the Southeast Asian nation, where several had shifted manufacturing in recent years after Trump hit China with tariffs during his first term. - Shares of big US banks plummeted, notching their biggest two-day drop since March 2020, after China escalated its trade war with the US. Some of Wall Street's top lenders, Morgan Stanley (MS), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Citigroup (C) all closed more than 7% lower after China retaliated against President Donald Trump's tariffs with a 34% levy on US goods. The KBW Bank Index tallied a roughly 16% drop over Thursday and Friday, the gauge's worst two-session plunge since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Shares of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), which traded ex-dividend on Friday, erased some $51 billion from its market capitalization. Regional lenders also took a hit with the KBW Regional Banking Index slumping 3.7%, to close at the lowest level since July 9.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
8 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Bankrupt retail chain closing over 200 more stores
The drugstore retail sector has struggled since the Covid-19 pandemic, with fierce competition among brick-and-mortar retailers who compete against each other, as well as online pharmaceutical providers for the prescription dollar. Major pharmacy chains, including CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid, compete directly with larger big-box pharmaceutical providers, such as Walmart, Target, and Costco, as well as major online players like Amazon and Mark Cuban CostPlus Drug Company, which offers discount prescriptions. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The drugstore chains have also faced economic issues that all retailers have encountered, including rising costs of labor and products, driven by inflation and increased interest rates on debt obligations. CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid have closed hundreds of store locations over the last four years to eliminate those that do not make economic sense. Related: Bankrupt retail chain closing dozens more store locations Huge drugstore chain CVS in 2021 revealed it would close 900 of its nearly 9,900 stores to reduce costs and cut losses, closing 300 locations each year in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Walgreens, which operates about 8,600 stores with 6,000 profitable locations, evaluated 2,000 stores for potential closure and identified 1,200 locations to shutter, with 500 set to close in fiscal year 2025. The company took community needs into consideration, such as maintaining access to pharmacy services, local market dynamics, population shifts, a community's store density, and ensuring there are other geographic access points to meet the needs of the community. Walgreens, which in March agreed to be sold to private equity firm Sycamore Partners, said it will close locations with negative cash flows, underperforming stores where it owns locations, and ones with lease expirations coming due in the next few years to reduce the impact of dark rent. The drugstore chain might close even more stores, possibly one-quarter of its locations, a recent report said Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the first time on Oct. 15, 2023, and closed about 800 of its 2,100 stores at the time. The drugstore chain filed for Chapter 11 protection a second time on May 5, 2025, as New Rite Aid LLC, and has begun a process of closing hundreds of stores. Rite Aid has filed fifth and sixth notices of additional store closing locations with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking approval to close 232 additional stores and liquidate their assets, adding to previously designated locations for closing, for a total of 704 stores. Related: Bankrupt drugstore chain closing over 150 stores; here's where The debtor's sixth additional closing notice, filed on June 6, includes 207 store closures in California (70), Pennsylvania (36), New York (21), Washington (17), Delaware (14), New Jersey (14), New Hampshire (12), Oregon (8), Virginia (8), Maryland (3), Massachusetts (2), Connecticut (1), and Idaho (1). The bankrupt drugstore chain filed a fifth additional closing notice one day earlier on June 5, which included 25 stores in California (13), Washington (7), Oregon (4), and Ohio (1). More bankruptcy: Iconic auto repair chain franchise files Chapter 11 bankruptcyPopular beer brand closes down and files Chapter 7 bankruptcyPopular vodka and gin brand files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Rite Aid already filed notices of store closing locations with the original notice and an additional closing notice on May 9, a second additional closing notice on May 15, a third additional closing notice on May 23, and a fourth additional notice on May 30. The first five groups of store closings listed locations in 13 states, including Pennsylvania (178), California (98), New York (76), Washington (24), Oregon (20), New Jersey (17), Virginia (16), , New Hampshire (14), Maryland (10), Delaware (7), Connecticut (5), Idaho (4), and Massachusetts (1). Rite Aid is expected to file several additional store closing notices before its bankruptcy case closes, as it plans to close all of its stores, estimated at about 1,240. Judge Michael B. Kaplan signed an interim order on May 9 approving initial and additional location closings. Objections to the interim location closing order and any of the proposed store closings must be filed with the court and received by the debtor and their counsel no later than June 16, according to court papers. Related: Bankrupt retail chain closing hundreds of store locations The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days. So far, it may have 1.
President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly 2 1/2 years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Wendy Cutler, the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment,' she said. During his first term, Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification -- modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal-making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. (A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days.) With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a U.S. trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. In a statement on June 4, Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said that trade negotiators were working to secure 'custom-made trade deals at lightning speed that level the playing field for American industries and workers.' But in other recent public statements, White House officials have significantly pared back their ambitions for the deals. In April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hedged the number of agreements they might reach, suggesting that the United States would talk to somewhere between 50 and 70 countries. Last month, he said the United States was negotiating with 17 'very important trading relationships,' not including China. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realized that they bit off more than they could chew,' Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the U.S. promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Exclusive: Trump administration may hit S.F. with a $140 million bill. Here's why
The Trump administration could claw back about $140 million in federal funding that San Francisco already received to cover costs the city incurred during the pandemic, the Chronicle has learned. San Francisco spent well over $400 million to shelter vulnerable homeless people in hotels to protect them from COVID-19 after the virus began spreading five years ago. After the city applied for reimbursement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency under former President Joe Biden sent $148 million — and the city was expecting even more money. But this week, San Francisco officials learned that FEMA has indicated it now believes the city is entitled to be reimbursed for just $7 million of the total amount spent on the shelter-in-place hotels. While FEMA hasn't officially requested any money back, city officials believe that determination lays the groundwork for the agency to seek a $141 million refund from the amount it already paid the city. There's a big problem: San Francisco already spent the money. And the city is in a dire financial situation, with Mayor Daniel Lurie working to close a roughly $800 million shortfall in his inaugural budget proposal expected to be announced Friday. San Francisco's government costs are rising faster than its tax revenue, which is being hampered by one of the nation's slowest economic recoveries from the pandemic. It's not clear how FEMA arrived at its determination. The Chronicle has reached out to the agency for comment. FEMA's decision, which San Francisco is expected to appeal, represents one of the largest direct hits the Trump administration has tried to take against the city this year. Lurie and other local officials are bracing for more: The mayor plans to propose a $400 million reserve to help the city defend itself against the uncertainty caused by threatened cuts to federal funding. Lurie said in a statement to the Chronicle that San Francisco endeavored to keep its citizens safe during the pandemic 'with a commitment from the federal government to cover those costs.' 'As our administration makes the tough decisions to tackle the historic budget deficit we inherited, we are navigating tremendous uncertainty at the federal and state levels and preparing for challenges that may lie ahead,' Lurie said. 'But right now, FEMA still owes San Francisco hundreds of millions of dollars, and I will continue to advocate relentlessly with our federal partners until we receive every single dollar.' Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the Board of Supervisors' budget committee, said the $400 million reserve being planned by city officials is intended largely as 'a guardrail' against possible federal cuts to Medicaid and housing subsidies — not to pay back pandemic reimbursements already sent by FEMA. 'San Francisco must fight Trump, not only against potentially upcoming draconian cuts, but also for this illegal clawback of the money that San Francisco has already delivered,' Chan said. If San Francisco is unsuccessful in its appeal of the FEMA decision, Chan believes a lawsuit is likely called for, saying she is looking to City Attorney David Chiu 'and his capable team to stand firm and have a strategic approach to protect San Francisco's resources.' Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for Chiu, said in a statement that her office is 'working with our clients and evaluating next steps to ensure San Francisco gets the resources it is entitled to.' In remarks to reporters after he introduced his $15.9 billion city budget proposal Friday, Lurie said San Francisco would 'fight for every dollar that our city is owed.' He confirmed that the city would appeal the FEMA funding decision and said it would take 'probably a number of months for us to find out.'
