PSX extends historic rally as KSE-100 surges past 137,000 mark
At 9:35am, the benchmark index was at 137,684.28, an increase of 1,181.75 points or 0.87%.
Across the board buying was observed in key sectors including automobile assemblers, commercial banks, oil and gas exploration companies, OMCs, power generation and refinery. Index-heavy stocks, including ARL, HUBCO, MARI, PPL, POL, PSO, MCB, MEBL, NBP and UBL traded in the green.
On Monday, the PSX witnessed a resounding rally on the first day of the week, hitting a new historic high, propelled by strong institutional participation and growing investor confidence.
The benchmark KSE100 index finished by a remarkable 2,203 points, or 1.64%, to finish at a record 136,502.54 points.
Globally, Asian shares climbed and the dollar held gains on Tuesday as trade talks remained in the spotlight in a week that will see key readings on US inflation and bank earnings.
Oil prices edged lower after US President Donald Trump issued a 50-day deadline for Russia to end the war in Ukraine to avoid energy sanctions. Japanese government bond yields jumped to ma ulti-decade high as a critical upper house election neared.
Trump signalled he was open to discussions on tariffs after his weekend threat to impose 30% duties on the European Union and Mexico from August 1. Japan is reportedly trying to schedule high-level talks with the US this Friday.
Market reaction to the tariff uncertainty has been rather benign, making earnings in the United States this week all the more important for cues, said National Australia Bank strategist Rodrigo Catril.
MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan was up 0.4%, after U.S. stocks ended the previous session with meagre gains. Japan's Nikkei gauge added 0.2%.
The EU accused the US of resisting efforts to strike a trade deal and warned of countermeasures if no agreement is reached. Trump said he was open to further discussions with the EU and other trading partners.
Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is arranging to meet U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Tokyo on Friday, the Yomiuri newspaper reported, ahead of an August 1 deadline before 25% tariffs are due to take effect.
This is an intra-day update
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Crude oil steadies
NEW YORK: Crude oil futures were little changed on Friday on mixed US economic and tariff news and worries about oil supplies following the European Union's latest sanctions against Russia for its war in Ukraine. Brent crude futures fell 24 cents, or 0.3%, to settle at $69.28 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures fell 20 cents, or 0.3%, to end at $67.34. That put both crude benchmarks down about 2% for the week. In the United States, single-family homebuilding dropped to an 11-month low in June as high mortgage rates and economic uncertainty hampered home purchases, suggesting residential investment contracted again in the second quarter. In another report, however, US consumer sentiment improved in July, while inflation expectations continued to decline. Lower inflation should make it easier for the US Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates, which could cut consumers' borrowing costs and boost economic growth and oil demand. Separately, US President Donald Trump is pushing for a minimum tariff of 15% to 20% in any deal with the European Union, the Financial Times reported on Friday, adding that the administration is now looking at a reciprocal tariff rate that exceeds 10%, even if a deal is reached. 'Currently envisioned reciprocal tariffs, coupled with announced sectoral levies, could push the US effective tariff rate above 25%, surpassing 1930s peaks. In coming months, the tariffs should increasingly be manifest in inflation,' analysts at US bank Citigroup's Citi Research said in a note. Rising inflation can raise prices for consumers and weaken economic growth and oil demand.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Patchwork or reformed justice?
Listen to article Selective morality does not make for sound legislation. That, unfortunately, is what Pakistan's latest move to curtail the death penalty seems to embody. In a bid to retain GSP+ trade concessions from the EU, the Senate of Pakistan has passed a bill that abolishes capital punishment for harbouring hijackers and for the public stripping of women — two serious offences — while leaving more than a hundred others untouched. This piecemeal amendment reeks of convenience rather than conviction. It appears designed to tick boxes for international partners rather than reflect any meaningful shift in the state's approach to justice or human rights. No broader framework has been presented to justify why certain crimes merit the death penalty while others do not. Instead, the government has opted for selective rollback without a principled foundation. Criticism from both treasury and opposition benches in the Senate points to this very disconnect. PTI's Barrister Ali Zafar equated the public stripping of a woman with murder, arguing that such crimes warrant the harshest possible punishment. Senator Samina Mumtaz Zehri cautioned that lighter sentences in such cases may embolden criminals rather than deter them. There is merit in these concerns — not necessarily because the death penalty is the answer, but because the reform itself lacks depth and cohesion. If capital punishment is to be curtailed, it must be done with a comprehensive review of all offences that currently carry the sentence, followed by a national debate on what constitutes a "most serious crime". The removal of the death penalty for just two offences, without a broader review of Pakistan's capital punishment regime, reflects an ad hoc approach that neither satisfies moral imperatives nor strengthens the justice system. It only deepens the confusion. Eventually, lawmakers must consider the role of capital punishment in a modern justice system and within the context of Pakistan's socio-economic paradigm, through proper consultation with legal and human rights experts.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The Ukraine question
Listen to article It seems President Donald Trump's personal vibes with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have hit snags. The equation that he wanted to strike with his country's conventional adversary by making peace is apparently on the rocks. The change of heart is evident as the White House is now once again contemplating to woo Kyiv at the cost of alienating Moscow, and the decision to arm the West's allied-ally engaged in an existential war with Kremlin will go a long way in redefining a new Cold War when multilateralism is on the rise. Thus, NATO's stance to threaten BRICS countries with economic coercion if they did not prevail over Putin to make peace over Ukraine hints at depreciation of American influence, and the beginning of a new era of confrontational politics. The carrot and stick policy that Trump wants to make use of in the form of sanctions and tariffs over its allies, and major trading partners, seems myopic. It is surprising that over the last six months Washington has changed its goal-post several times on the issues of slapping tariffs on China, Canada, India, Brazil and Britain. And now engaging NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte for pushing the envelope in terms of a quid pro quo geopolitical peace over Ukraine is literally confusing. Either Trump has given up on his initiative to befriend Putin, or he has become a victim of politics of convenience at home and is toeing the traditional American policy of confronting Russia, as it suits the mighty military businesses. It is current history that President Zelenskyy was grilled at The Oval and pushed to strike a deal with Putin, and now it's back to square one wherein the yesteryears' Evil Empire is being reincarnated. Trump shall be better advised to put off for a while his impulsive mindset, and engage with the world at large in a manner that befits global leadership. Hoping Russia to come to terms "within 50 days" when it is strategically better placed over Ukraine is wishful thinking, and is taking the US nowhere near a logical solution. Rather this brinkmanship is costing it its leadership.
