Australian shares seesaw ahead of Reserve Bank decision
The ASX200 began trading on Tuesday with a 17-point fall, then climbed 20.7 points into the green in the second hour of trading before sinking back slightly into the red.
At noon the benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was down 7.3 points, or 0.08 per cent, to 8,582.2, while the broader All Ordinaries was down 4.5 points, or 0.05 per cent, to 8,821.9.
Capital.com analyst Kyle Rodda said markets had received a "quick punch in the guts" as Wednesday's US trade deal deadline approached.
Market participants were expecting a flurry of trade deals with trading partners, but so far only letters about tariffs on the likes of Japan, South Korea and South Africa had been announced.
But Mr Rodda added there was some merit to the idea this was all a negotiating tactic by the Trump administration designed to create urgency.
Closer to home, it is widely expected that the Reserve Bank will announce later on Tuesday afternoon that it is cutting the cash rate from 3.85 per cent.
Earlier on Tuesday, the NAB Business Survey rose to its highest level, in trend terms, in more than a year, suggesting business conditions were starting to stabilise or even turn around after a disappointing start to the year.
"After a volatile but soft year for business confidence, we have seen a trend improvement over the past three months," said NAB's head of Australian economics, Gareth Spence.
"It is now around its long-run average."
Seven of the ASX's 11 sectors were lower at midday, with consumer discretionary, financials, telecommunications and telecommunications higher.
Consumer staples was the biggest mover, dropping 1.1 per cent as Coles subtracted 1.0 per cent and A2 Milk retreated 3.3 per cent.
In health care, Botanix Pharmaceuticals had plunged 43.6 per cent to 17.5 cents after the clinical dermatology company announced sales figures for the launch of its treatment for primary axillary hyperhidrosis, or excessive underarm sweating.
There had been 16,000 prescriptions filled for 6700 patients since February, Botanix said, apparently underwhelming investors who were hoping for far more.
In the heavyweight mining sector, BHP was down 1.1 per cent and Rio Tinto had dipped 0.8 per cent, while Fortescue had added 0.6 per cent.
In financials, three of the four big banks were higher. CBA had added 0.3 per cent, NAB was up 0.5 per cent and ANZ had advanced 0.4 per cent, while Westpac was down 0.4 per cent.
In currency, the Australian dollar was trading for 65.15 US cents, from 65.24 US cents on Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
The move that has killed off Friday night drinks
Gather round, young workers. Let me tell you a story of what work was like in the olden days. It might sound strange, but once upon a time people across the city would descend upon a central location at the same time, toiling away from Monday to Friday in a common space together. Then, on the final afternoon of the last workday, a small ritual would occur in many workplaces. In some of them, platters laden with 'chips and dips' would materialise on a large table near the kitchen. In others, a drinks cart would be wheeled between cubicles, offering cold drinks to weary workers. And, more often than not, a colleague would appear at your desk to invite you to the pub to digest the week's events and swap upcoming plans for the weekend. These historic vignettes are not from decades in the past, you only need to rewind your memory back to 2019 to remember them. For countless generations, workers celebrated the end of the week by heading to the local watering hole. Today, however, thanks in part to changing ways of working, WFH is killing Friday night drinks. Loading According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 40 per cent of Australian employees now spend some of their week under hybrid arrangements, and it's caused a drastic change to how we socialise. The most common days to be in the office? Tuesday to Thursday. And the most likely days to work from home? Mondays and Fridays. But it's not all the fault of WFH, as there's a perfect storm of trends that has led us to this moment. The first is a long-term shift of younger Australians away from alcohol.
