How major US stock indexes fared Tuesday, 7/1/2025
The S&P 500 slipped 0.1% Tuesday for its first loss in four days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose roughly 400 points, and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.8%.
Tesla tugged on the market as the relationship between its CEO, Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump soured further. But most U.S. stocks rose. So did short-term Treasury yields following a better-than-expected report on U.S. job openings. Data on U.S. manufacturing was more mixed.
On Tuesday:
The S&P 500 fell 6.94 points, or 0.1%, to 6,198.01.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 400.17 points, or 0.9%, to 44,494.94.
The Nasdaq composite fell 166.84 points, or 0.8%, to 20,202.89.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 20.46 points, or 0.9%, to 2,195.49.
For the week:
The S&P 500 is up 24.94 points, or 0.4%.
The Dow is up 675.67 points, or 1.5%.
The Nasdaq is down 70.57 points, or 0.3%.
The Russell 2000 is up 22.97 points, or 1.1%.
For the year:
The S&P 500 is up 316.38 points, or 5.4%.
The Dow is up 1,950.72 points, or 4.6%.
The Nasdaq is up 892.10 points, or 4.6%.
The Russell 2000 is down 34.66 points, or 1.6%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Senate Passes One Big Beautiful Bill Despite One Big Not-So-Beautiful Price Tag
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pauses while speaking to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Getty Images Senate Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' with a 51-50 vote after three Republicans—(Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—joined Democrats in voting no. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker vote. The tax provisions in the Senate would make permanent a number of the expiring tax cuts contained in Trump's signature 2017 tax legislation— the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWB Model), a nonpartisan, research-based initiative that provides an economic analysis of public policy's fiscal impact, making those cuts permanent would increase the deficit by $4.3 trillion over 10 years. These changes would be partly offset by spending cuts of $1.460 trillion for a total conventional cost of $3.104 trillion. The PWB Model analysis scored the legislation against a current law baseline. That's also how the Joint Committee on Taxation originally scored the bill. The baseline impacts how the cost of extending tax cuts is calculated (that's called scoring) and how it impacts the overall budget. As you know from past bills, including the Bush tax cuts, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, it has long been the case that bills are scored based on the cost to move forward based on current law (so, in all of those examples, any provisions that were set to expire are reset to zero while those previously made permanent are ignored). Senate Republicans had requested that the JCT rescore it using a new approach called a current policy baseline. With a current policy baseline, extending provisions that are set to expire are scored as having zero cost. The Parliamentarian ruled that the new approach breaks the rules—this is consistent with precedent. With a current law baseline, the cost of the extensions is fully counted. Senate Committees According to the PWB Model analysis, increases in spending under the Armed Services, Judiciary, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees would add $290 billion to the deficit. While other committees proposed net spending cuts or revenue increases, the savings amount to only $1.5 trillion, offsetting less than one-third of the $4.6 trillion increase in deficits from tax cuts and spending increases. You can see how those costs are expected to play out here: Penn Wharton Budget Model Analysis, Senate Bill Kelly Phillips Erb (You can read more about the TCJA extensions as they originally appeared in the House version of the bill here.) Major Spending Cuts The Senate bill includes changes to health programs, including Medicaid. Notably, it would cut Medicaid spending by imposing work requirements, restricting state-level taxes on healthcare providers that receive federal matching funds, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks, changing Medicaid eligibility requirements based on immigration status, and phasing down state-directed payments to providers to align with Medicare rates. Overall, cuts to Medicaid would reduce the federal deficit by more than $900 billion. The bill also reduces spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) by $186 billion over ten years. The cost doesn't just disappear—it shifts the responsibility for payment to the states with a new cost-sharing formula. It would also create additional work documentation requirements, shift administrative costs to states, and make other changes to reduce federal SNAP costs. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee eliminates subsidized and income-driven loan repayment plans, imposes new limits on student borrowing, and tightens the eligibility requirements for Pell Grants. Altogether, it would reduce spending by $350 billion over the budget window. Impact To The Federal Debt Overall, the PWB Model analysis predicts that the bill would increase debt by 7.6% over 10 years and decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3% over the same period. That's different than the impact to the federal deficit. Here's the quick difference between deficit and debt: The federal deficit is the excess of expenditures over revenue in a fiscal year. In simple terms, if we spend more than we take in, we have a deficit. If we spend exactly what we take in, we achieve a balanced budget. If we take in more than we spend, we have a surplus. The deficit is recalculated annually based on the shortfall or surplus each month. If there is a deficit, the Treasury borrows money to make up the difference. The Treasury accomplishes this by selling securities like T-bills, notes, and savings bonds. The federal debt is essentially the total of the deficits. So, if we owe $800 million one year and it's not repaid, and in another year we owe $500 million that is also not repaid, we accumulate a debt of $1.3 billion. Make sense? Since this amount represents borrowed money, we also pay interest on it, causing it to continue growing even if we are not actively adding to it. Next Steps Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it moves back to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose three votes—the last iteration in the House passed 215-214. The versions passed in the House and Senate must match exactly for the bill to become law. Forbes What's Comes Next For The One Big Beautiful Bill Act By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes As The Byrd Bath Continues, Here's A Look At What Will Likely Be Out Of The One Big Beautiful Bill (Updated) By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House Passes Trump Tax Bill After Marathon Session, Now It Moves To The Senate By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes A Guide To The Tax Cuts In (And Out) Of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' By Kelly Phillips Erb
CNET
22 minutes ago
- CNET
Early July 4th TV Deals: Get Up to $1,200 Off on Models From LG, Samsung and More
The Fourth of July is just days away, and a few days later, Amazon will be kicking off its annual Prime Day sale. So, there will be plenty of chances to take advantage of some serious savings on everything from home goods to top tech -- like TVs. Luckily, many retailers like Best Buy have already kicked off their July 4th sales. The deals are starting to really heat up, which includes some great bargains on a variety of top-rated TVs. To help you make the most of these initial offers, we've rounded up the best TV deals for all budgets you can shop right now below. We'll continue to update this page as deals come and go in the next few weeks, so be sure to check back often for all the best prices. Best early July 4th TV deals More July 4th TV deals: Should you shop July 4th TV deals or wait until Prime Day? With two major shopping events just around the corner, many potential buyers are wondering whether it's better to take advantage of the initial Fourth of July deals, or wait until Prime Day a few days later. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing which sale will offer the absolute best prices, but it's likely that both will blur into a single massive shopping event that spans multiple days and retailers. With that in mind, we'd lean toward getting your order in sooner rather than later. While there's a slight chance we'll see prices dip a little lower later in the sale, there's a much greater chance that the best bargains will sell out fast. If you see a TV that fits your needs and budget at a good price, we'd recommend grabbing it before it goes out of stock. Which retailers offer the best July 4th TV deals? As you might expect, major retailers like Best Buy and Amazon will be offering some excellent deals for the Fourth of July and Prime Day. You'll also want to check out smaller online-only retailers like B&H Photo and Adorama, as they may be offering some under-the-radar bargains that aren't being matched elsewhere. What else will be on sale for July 4th? There will be a huge variety of deals that you can shop across retailers for the Fourth of July. These include tons of top tech like TVs and laptops, as well as home goods and big-ticket items like mattresses and major appliances. There will also be plenty of seasonal deals on grills, outdoor gear and other summer essentials. To give you a good idea of what's out there, you can check out our full roundup of all the best early Fourth of July deals already available. How we choose the best July 4th TV deals At CNET, we've covered shopping events for over five years, including Black Friday, Prime Day, Memorial Day and countless other shopping events. We've become good at weeding out scams and superficial deals, so you only get the best offers. We look for real discounts, quality reviews and remaining sale time when choosing television deals. We have a team of devoted experts who have tested hundreds of TVs to make sure we're bringing you the best of the best. Real discounts mean exactly that. We look at the price history for that product to make sure no brands are inflating prices to make the discount seem more substantial than it is. Quality reviews and testing are important for any product, but especially for TVs. If you're unhappy the first time you turn it on, the discount wasn't worthwhile. Remaining sale time is a huge part of our vetting process. If a deal seems like it will only be around for a short while or will only be available for the remaining stock, we'll let you know upfront, so you don't come back to the deal later only to be disappointed.
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
When Is It Too Late For Asset Protection Planning?
The Judgment is the sword and Asset Protection is the shield. Asset protection planning is where a person takes steps to disassociate themselves from their current assets so that they are no longer available to creditors. Although asset protection planning as a discrete practice area for attorneys has only existed since the 1980s, folks with valuable assets have been trying to legally distance those assets from potential creditors since there were valuable assets. The Romans, for instance, promulgated laws that prohibited a debtor from transferring away assets so as to cheat creditors, and these Roman laws were the basis of the fraudulent transfers laws found in Anglo-American law. Some asset protection is proper and will be recognized as valid by the courts. Some asset protection is improper and the courts will set it aside, and may also issue certain penalties for the attempt. Questions of whether certain asset protection is proper or improper usually comes down to the timing of the transfers involved. If the asset protection planning is done too late, then it will likely be both ineffective and the debtor (and possibly the transferee) will be put into a potentially worse situation than before. Understanding The Dividing Line So, when does asset protection go from being proper to improper? To answer this question, one must first understand the concept of a claim. The word claim is a term-of-art in fraudulent transfer law which basically means a legal liability arising from some event. A creditor has a claim against the debtor. The claim can be contingent or unliquidated. A claim arises at the precise moment in time that the event giving rise to the liability occurs. To answer the main question: Asset protection goes from being proper to improper at the time that the claim arises, i.e., at the time that the event giving rise to the liability occurs. This is the relevant point in time. Asset protection planning done before a claim arises is proper; asset protection planning after a claim arises is improper. It is a clear delineation. In explaining this concept to folks who contact me, they'll often say the following things: Where this usually comes up is in the context of personal guarantees. The usual line that I hear will be something like this: "The loan is not in default yet, but I'm concerned that it might be and I've signed a personal guarantee." It's too late to do asset protection planning. For purposes of determining when a claim exists, the claim arose on the date that the guarantee was entered into. That is when the guarantee liability arose. Thus, if somebody has entered into a personal guarantee, it is probably too late to do any asset protection planning even if the project is still doing well and the underlying loan obligation is not in default. The next thing they'll say is, "Can I at least protect assets that were not on the financial statement that I gave to the bank?" No, that does not matter one iota. A personal guarantee is a pledge of all of one's non-exempt assets to back a debt, whether disclosed or not. A similar circumstance is one that we could call "the retiring doctor". This is the physician who retires, but is concerned that something in the past has occurred that the doctor is not yet aware of, but which might later turn into a problem for the patient and thus trigger a malpractice lawsuit. Unfortunately, if the doctor has done something negligently, then that event has already occurred and the claim already exists whether the patient or the doctor knows about it or not. Thus, the doctor cannot do asset protection planning (unless the doctor has tail coverage against such negligence claims, in which case the doctor doesn't have to worry about this in the first place and can still do asset protection against other unforeseen future events). Note that the same is true for all professionals, e.g., the architect who is concerned about a skyrise condo collapsing someday. Common situations where it is too late to do asset protection planning include: In all these situations, asset protection cannot properly be done and at rate it is unlikely to be effective. In fact, trying to do such planning in these situations can easily make the debtor's situation worse ― and possibly much worse ― as will next be discussed. Downsides Of Too Late Transfers Once a claim has arisen, then it is not possible to do proper asset protection going forward aside perhaps from some exemption planning in certain states. At the point in time that a claim arises, the planning is not proper asset protection planning at all but simply good old fashioned fraud on creditors. This can generate a variety of bad outcomes: In other words, by engaging in a fraudulent transfer a debtor can easily make their situation much worse than if they just let the creditor take the asset. One of the problems in this area is that there are "planners" (and I use that term quite loosely) who will advocate and assist with the making of fraudulent transfers. These folks will take their fees from the debtor and then basically try to disappear when things go badly. If the debtor complains, their defense will be something like, "well, you were going to lose that asset anyway." Thankfully, the rise of theories of liability for creditors suing these planners have been expanding and there are now much fewer of them still around. Also, case law has now established that it is possible for a creditor, receiver or bankruptcy trustee to take over the debtor's malpractice cause of action against the asset protection planner who advised a transfer that resulted in a fraudulent transfer. How To Avoid This Mess To have a chance of succeeding, asset protection planning must be done in advance of any claims. It is analogous to getting a flu shot: You get the shot when you are healthy, not when your throat starts to feel scratchy because then it is too late. Continuing this analogy, trying to do asset protection after a claim arises is like getting the flu shot after you already have the flu. In the best case, it will not do anything. The difference is that, as described above, post-claim transfers can make the debtor's situation much worse. For asset protection planning to be effective, it must be done at a time when there are no significant creditors, either known or unknown, and great care must be taken to ensure that enough assets remain outside of the asset protection plan such that there are no arguments of insolvency at the time of the planning. But therein lies the problem with asset protection planning, which is that most people don't think of it until it is too late. Most folks are optimists in that they think they will not have a problem until the moment they do. By that point, however, asset protection planning can no longer be properly done. So, don't wait until you get the creditor flu to get the asset protection shot.
