Stocks slip in Asia on US tariff confusion, oil skids
The US is close to finalising several trade agreements in the coming days and will notify other countries of higher tariff rates by Jul 9, President Donald Trump said on Sunday, with the higher rates to take effect on Aug 1.
"President Trump's going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on Aug 1, you will boomerang back to your Apr 2 tariff level," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN.
Trump in April announced a 10 per cent base tariff rate on most countries and higher "reciprocal" rates ranging up to 50 per cent, with an original deadline of this Wednesday.
However, Trump also said levies could range in value from "maybe 60 per cent or 70 per cent", and threatened an extra 10 per cent on countries aligning themselves with the "Anti-American policies" of the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
With very few actual trade deals done, analysts had always suspected the date would be pushed out, though it was still not clear if the new deadline applied to all trading partners or just some.
"This renewed escalation in trade tensions comes at a time when major trade partners, including the European Union, India and Japan, are believed to be at crucial stages of bilateral negotiations," analysts at ANZ said in a note.
"If reciprocal tariffs are implemented in their original form or even expanded, we believe it will intensify downside risks to US growth and increase upside risks to inflation."
Investors have grown somewhat used to the uncertainty surrounding US trade policy, and the initial market reaction was cautious. S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq futures both eased 0.3 per cent.
EUROSTOXX 50 futures eased 0.1 per cent, while FTSE futures fell 0.2 per cent and DAX futures held steady.
Japan's Nikkei lost 0.5 per cent, while South Korean stocks went flat. MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan eased 0.6 per cent, as Chinese blue chips dropped 0.5 per cent.
DOLLAR MIXED
Safe-haven bonds were better bid, with 10-year Treasury yields down almost 2 basis points at 4.326 per cent.
Major currencies were mixed as the dollar index nudged up to 97.071. The euro held at US$1.1771, just off last week's top of US$1.1830, while the dollar was a fraction firmer at ¥144.76.
The dollar has been undermined by investor concerns about Trump's often chaotic tariff policy and what that might do to economic growth and inflation.
The same worries have kept the Federal Reserve from cutting rates, and minutes of its last meeting should offer more colour on when the majority of members might resume easing.
It is a relatively quiet week for Fed speakers with only two district presidents on the docket, while economic data is also sparse.
The Reserve Bank of Australia is widely expected to cut its rates by a quarter point to 3.60 per cent at a meeting on Tuesday, the third easing this cycle, and markets imply an eventual destination for rates of 2.85 per cent or 3.10 per cent.
New Zealand's central bank meets on Wednesday and is likely to hold rates at 3.25 per cent, having already slashed by 225 basis points over the past year.
In commodity markets, gold slipped 0.3 per cent to US$3,324 an ounce, though it did gain almost 2 per cent last week as the dollar fell.
Oil prices slid anew after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and their allies, a group known as OPEC+, agreed on Saturday to raise production by a larger-than-expected 548,000 barrels per day in August.
The group also warned that it could hike by a similar amount in September, leaving analysts with the impression it was trying to squeeze lower margin producers and particularly those pulling oil from US shale.
"We see OPEC+ targeting Brent oil futures around US$60 to US$65 per barrel as a result," said Vivek Dhar, an analyst at CBA.
"This would challenge the economics of US shale oil supply growth and prevent non-OPEC+ supply growth from taking market share in coming years."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
8 minutes ago
- Business Times
India and Asean are growing apart. Blame tariffs
It is still far from clear what President Donald Trump's tariffs will eventually look like. But the pressures they will put on stable trading relationships – even those that don't directly involve the US – are already visible. Ties between India and the 10-member Asean are already fraying: They're being pushed into different camps, and the free-trade agreement they signed in 2010 could become an unexpected victim of the turmoil. Trump might be the immediate cause of this rift, but, as always, China's massive manufacturing overcapacity is at the heart of the problem. Even if no country knows what rates they or others will face, everyone can be reasonably certain that the mainland's tariffs will be the highest of all. Unfortunately, this also means that there's a big incentive to help Beijing game the system enough that we all trust each other less. Many Asian countries are reasonably pleased at the thought that duties on their exports will be lower than on those out of China: They've all been searching for a way to regain a sliver of competitiveness, and this might help. But the same nations are also a little scared. They fear a flood of underpriced Chinese goods, once meant for the US, will inundate their fledgling manufacturing sectors. In fact, that's already happening to an extent, and policymakers are responding. Vietnam has introduced anti-dumping tariffs on certain kinds of Chinese steel; Indonesia has banned direct-shipping e-commerce apps such as Temu. But, for some, there's also the tempting possibility that China's overcapacity can be turned from an enemy into an ally. Any country that remains integrated both with China and those that are putting up tariff walls could, if it wanted, become a location for the transhipment of goods. Instead of paying the higher China levies, importers would pay lower ones imposed on the third country – and share a bit of the take with local partners. Tariff arbitrage could become as profitable in the future as interest rate arbitrage is today. The more countries that impose anti-dumping duties on China, the more money the successful transhipper would make. The US, for one, is already very concerned that parts of Asean might take this route – which is why Trump's trade deal with Vietnam included a clause that any goods suspected of being transhipped would pay double tariffs. For countries such as India, it's an even greater fear. India's commerce minister caused a bit of a stir recently when he described Asean as 'China's B-team'. That was certainly impolitic. But, perhaps, not entirely unjustified. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies. Sign Up Sign Up New Delhi has been trying to update its free trade agreement with Asean for a while. Its particular focus has been to tighten rules-of-origin requirements – the way in which you ensure that a free trade agreement (FTA) only benefits local producers in both countries, not those shipping goods that originate elsewhere. Indian officials feel that Asean has been going slow on these discussions. Meanwhile, news broke in May that the bloc had expanded the scope of its parallel FTA with China. They achieved that in double-quick time – negotiations only started in November 2022 – which raised a few eyebrows in New Delhi. Some in India, clearly including its commerce minister, now seem to think that tariff-free trade with South-east Asia is the same as opening your market to China. That isn't true – or, at any rate, not yet. But the fact is that member states simply aren't doing enough to reassure their other trading partners, including India. It would be a nightmare for most countries, including India, if closed-off blocs were to replace today's open trading system. Yet Trump's actions, when combined with China's overcapacity, are taking us there. Any country that wants to trade with both sides of the divide – which, clearly, many in South-east Asia would prefer – will also need to be able to be very transparent about the goods it is exporting, and how much value has been added domestically. In other words, it's Asean's move: They will have to step up and give most of their trading partners, not just India and the US, a clearer view into their supply chains. The US is clearly worried that some countries will evade its tariffs. Those concerns will be shared, especially by India. New Delhi seems to believe that, if world trade blocs form, then Asean has already chosen its side – and it won't be the one India picks. Trade's impossible without trust, and these two partners will have to work to rebuild it. BLOOMBERG The writer is a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, and author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Europe's two-front trade war
AS THE US and China wage trade wars against it, the European Union (EU) finds itself on uncharted terrain. It must now devise battle plans that account for the vast differences – and important similarities – between the two confrontations. The trade war with the US came as something of a shock, though it should not have, given President Donald Trump's open hostility towards the EU and fundamental misunderstanding of trade dynamics. Trump complains about America's trade deficit with the EU, but that deficit extends only to goods; in services, the US runs a surplus with Europe. And Trump's tariffs amount to shooting the US economy in the foot while doing nothing to reduce current-account imbalances, which primarily reflect America's low savings rate. This is not just a trade matter, but a political one. The Trump administration is seeking to intimidate – and extract concessions from – Europe, even at the risk of endangering US growth. Trump is probably convinced that the Europeans will cave in, allowing him to boast domestically about an easy 'victory'. The trade war with China is both less surprising and more dangerous, representing an existential challenge for the European economy. Since its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has caught up with the advanced economies on productivity, but not in terms of wages and social standards. So, while China is at the frontier of innovation in many industries, its labour costs remain much lower than in the richest countries. This combination of Silicon Valley-level technology, developing-economy labour costs, and the vast workforce of one of the world's most populous countries makes China a formidable adversary. Large parts of European industry are under threat. It's no longer just about steel and aluminium. The competition extends to cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, machinery and equipment, and many others. Like US tariffs, China's actions are shaped significantly by political considerations. By accumulating industrial overcapacity – a key source of trade tensions with Europe – China's regime is seeking to project its power externally and maintain control of its own people. This explains why repeated calls for rebalancing towards domestic consumption, which would boost Chinese living standards, remain unanswered by China's leaders. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The Greek historian Polybius attributed the fall of the Greek city-states to the Roman empire not to a lack of resources, but to outdated political systems, a lack of unity, and complacency. So, while China's rise fuels concern in the US about the 'Thucydides Trap' – whereby the incumbent hegemon's fear of a rising challenger leads to war – it also raises the spectre of the 'Polybius Trap' leading to Europe's decay. If Europe wants to remain a global player, it must demonstrate that, like China and the US, it can endure short-term economic pain to protect its long-term strategic interests. Acquiescing to unjustified American demands might be good for next month's growth, but it would be disastrous in the longer term, not only because of the concessions themselves, but also because of the precedent they would set for a US administration bent on extracting more. All global players would doubt Europe's willingness to resist predatory behaviour. Embracing China as an alternative to the US would be like leaping out of the frying pan into the fire, as it would create a new dependency that could easily be exploited. Either approach is a recipe for vassalisation. The current period of great-power struggles, one hopes, will not last forever. In the meantime, however, Europe must find ways to strengthen its resilience. This requires finding new levers of growth, pursuing the 'savings and investment' union, dismantling the many remaining internal barriers to trade, and unleashing public investment through new joint borrowing. To this end, the EU might consider convening an exceptional summit this autumn focused on establishing a 'growth-engine' strategy for the next two years, particularly if trade negotiations with the US fail. Such a plan should aim to accelerate the implementation of the recommendations included in former Italian prime minister and former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi's much-touted report on European competitiveness, including by mobilising the necessary funding. Throughout this process, Europe must show humility. It must do more than simply acknowledge, as it did in commissioning the Draghi report, that it has fallen behind in many industrial sectors, and make use of the very tools that enabled China to pull ahead. In particular, the EU should introduce a 'European preference' in strategic markets and, even more important, include mandatory technology transfers for certain investments. Finally, with the WTO framework appearing increasingly outdated, the EU should forge new trade agreements with economies that are not aligned with either the US or China, particularly in South Asia. Emphasising predictability and adherence to rules, these deals could start with targeted industrial cooperation, which is much quicker to implement. The 19th-century historian Fustel de Coulanges observed that, as Rome advanced on Greece, 'All foreigners knew that the Greeks were for sale, either individually and in secret, or openly and by city.' If the EU is to avoid crumbling before the great powers that would besiege it, it must make clear that this is not true of today's Europeans. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer is a member of France's National Assembly for the Renaissance Party
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg
WILMINGTON, Delaware :An $8 billion trial by Meta Platforms shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders kicks off on Wednesday over claims that they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to be one of the first witnesses to take the stand in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court. The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, and former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix. A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment. The case began in 2018, following revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump's successful U.S. presidential campaign in 2016. The FTC fined Facebook $5 billion in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data. Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as "extreme" and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's deceit. Meta, which is not a defendant, declined to comment. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019. The lawsuit is considered the first of its kind to go to trial which alleges board members consciously failed to oversee their company. This is often described as the hardest claim to prove in Delaware corporate law. Boeing's current and former board members settled a case with similar claims in 2021 for $237.5 million, the largest ever in an alleged breach of oversight lawsuit. The Boeing directors did not admit to wrongdoing. In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company's stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1 billion. Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading. McCormick is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes.
