Ben-Gacem: Gulf Increasingly Positioned as Haven
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Apple's 'made-in-America' strategy led to big market gains
Apple (AAPL) stock gains after the iPhone maker announced an additional $100 billion investment in the US. Apple CEO Tim Cook joined President Trump at the White House to announce the details of the investment. Yahoo Finance Markets Reporter Josh Schafer examines the stock's roughly 13% rise this week, and Yahoo Finance Tech Editor Dan Howley explains why the multibillion-dollar investment is so significant for the company in the context of Trump's tariff policies. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Apple stock getting rewarded this week after President Trump and CEO Tim Cook announced that the tech giant is making an additional hundred billion dollar US manufacturing commitment. And I want to take a look at how shares have performed this week. So Apple now up 13% on the week, it is up another 4% today. And what's interesting with this Apple move, of course, this main move coming Wednesday after Tim Cook and President Trump were at the White House on that day and the rally is really sort of continued. But what's interesting in this move with Apple is if we zoom out on the year and we talk about this mag 7, this big tech rally that we've seen for really two years now, but you take a look at a year to date at Apple, Apple had not been participating in this rally. Apple was down more than 15% on the year, a clear laggard among big tech. Now it's starting to come up positive. Our friend Jerry Blickary has pointed out that a 215 level on Apple was a very interesting remembrance point for investors. Apple has surged past that. Now, that of course begs the question of if Apple can get back to positive this this year and keep rallying. And I do want to bring in our Yahoo Finance tech editor Dan Howley to break this down a little bit more. Dan, just interesting to see the move in Apple this week. Of course, shares reacting well to this investment. I mean, how does this sort of add to their overall US investment and how have you sort of made sense of the Apple story this week? Yeah, it does add to their US investment. Uh they they obviously are pushing this uh you know, building in America uh kind of narrative. And yes, they are investing in America. They are going to be doing certain things in America. Um they're not building the iPhone in America. Uh that's not going to be happening. They're going to continue to build that overseas, but they are sourcing more or investing more in some of their uh supply chain partners in the US. That includes things like Samsung, Corning, uh what have you. Uh this is really a move, a strategic and political move by uh Apple. They were under the gun uh when it came to uh their relationship with Trump. Uh there was calls for them to build in the US. There were uh discussions on, you know, uh I think at one point Peter Navarro had gone on CNBC and said that it was the biggest soap opera in Silicon Valley that the company couldn't build uh in the US. Experts that I spoke to said no, it really is uh an untenable question to ask them to to build in the US now at least within the next four years. The issue being that the supply chain isn't there, the workers aren't there, the skills don't really translate. Um there was an article in CNN uh discussing how Motorola had tried to have its own plant uh in the US where they were building smartphones and that folded in a year because the workers just had the choice between uh you know, working in a factory, having to develop skills or working in the restaurant industry. And it's you know, the question was, okay, what's going to take more time to learn? Uh and so that was an ongoing problem. They had initially said they were investing 500 billion in February. Then the the idea of building in the US became an issue, especially around the time the tariffs came out. Uh Tim Cook had kind of made the idea to move US bound iPhones out of China and into India to get around those tariffs. And the Trump administration didn't really appreciate that. And that's when you had these calls uh for Apple to, you know, build in the US. Uh there were some remarks that Trump had made about Tim Cook saying uh that he wasn't very happy with him uh at certain points. And so you have this hundred billion dollar investment, this meeting at the White House. Uh and then the same day, uh President Trump had said at that meeting that he was going to be doing the 100% tariff on semiconductors unless companies build in the US and that Apple would likely avoid that tariff because of the moves that it's making. So obviously, you know, Tim Cook is a smart executive. obviously he's been the CEO for Apple for years because of that. and this is just kind of the the latest show of that kind of uh gamesmanship that he's he's able to work through. Related Videos Trump's ongoing trade deals lack clarity: 3 unanswered questions CoreWeave rises ahead of earnings, Firefly sinks: Trending Tickers Trump to remove IRS commissioner, NYT reports Chime CEO Says User Growth 'Seasonal' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
E.l.f. Beauty CEO: 'I am worried about the American consumer'
Investors were hoping for guidance after another solid quarter from e.l.f. Beauty (ELF), but ongoing tariff uncertainty kept that off the table. Tarang Amin, e.l.f. Beauty chairman and CEO, explains why the company can't offer full-year guidance yet and how it's navigating pricing, market share, and consumer sentiment amid ongoing trade negotiations. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Related Videos CoreWeave rises ahead of earnings, Firefly sinks: Trending Tickers 2 reasons Waller is 'leading the pack' for Fed chair candidate Chime CEO Says User Growth 'Seasonal' We'll Be a Big Beneficiary of AI, Says Twilio CEO Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some U.S. Republicans want Canada to axe its Online Streaming Act
A group of Republican members of U.S. Congress say Canada's policy requiring foreign streaming services to contribute five per cent of their revenues to funding Canadian content is discriminatory and should be rescinded amid trade negotiations. The 18 Republicans penned a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, calling Canada's Online Streaming Act "discriminatory" against American companies. The members of Congress who signed the letter include Lloyd Smucker, Carol D. Miller, Ron Estes and Rudy Yakym. They argue that American streaming services are important contributors to the U.S. economy and that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)'s decision to force foreign services to contribute five per cent of their revenues to government funds benefiting the creation of Canadian content is harmful to cross-border digital trade. "This sector represents an economic growth engine for the United States and should be prioritized in our ongoing negotiations with Canada as you seek to dismantle digital trade irritants," the July 31 letter obtained by CBC News says. The letter states that in 2023, on-demand video revenue contributed $70 billion US to the American economy, in addition to $14.3 billion US from music streaming. In late June, the Canadian government announced it would rescind its digital services tax, days after U.S. President Donald Trump demanded it gone and briefly cut off trade negotiations. Though the negotiations resumed, they failed to meet Trump's self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline and Canadian trade representatives have displayed less optimism since the president slapped a 35 per cent tariff on goods non-compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement (CUSMA). Prime Minister Mark Carney also received criticism for bending to U.S. wishes, despite promising a strong approach to facing Trump during the election campaign. WATCH | 'Canada caved' on digital services tax, says White House spokesperson: Carney's government has displayed a willingness to reverse digital policies created during his predecessor Justin Trudeau's time in office, says Michael Geist, law professor and Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "U.S. streaming companies and U.S. politicians can see that reversal and in some ways suspect that the door may be open to a reversal of the Online Streaming Act as well," Geist said. Geist said he isn't surprised the legislation is getting pushback in the U.S., given the mandatory contributions the CRTC has required. Many of the Canadian content funds exclude foreign streamers, Geist notes. "They're investing in the country, but then aren't beneficiaries," he said. Geist says the legislation was controversial for that reason and because of its narrow definition of what Canadian content actually is. For example, a Netflix production entirely made and developed in Canada may not be included. Canadian filmmakers are also excluded from potential funding, according to reporting by The Globe and Mail. Carney may recognize the shortcomings of digital policies created by the Trudeau government, which Geist argues didn't anticipate the consequences of requiring large American tech companies to comply with Canadian legislation. Earlier this week, the prime minister suggested his government was looking broadly at how Canadian news outlets can better reach their audiences. That includes revisiting the Trudeau government's Online News Act, which led to Meta banning Canadian users from sharing links to news sites. "The question is, once you start getting into some of the greyer areas, what's the appropriate approach?" Geist said. The government, he added, "should be entitled to make its own policy choices. But I think that in all of these areas there needs to be a recognition that these choices have consequences."
