Asian stocks waver, dollar frail as Trump's tariffs, US rate path weighs
Trump said he was not considering extending the July 9 deadline for countries to negotiate trade deals with the United States, and cast doubts again that an agreement could be reached with Japan, although he expects a deal with India.
MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan (.MIAPJ0000PUS), opens new tab eased 0.23% in early trading, inching away from the November 2021 top it touched last week. Japan's Nikkei (.N225), opens new tab fell 0.78%, dragged by tech stocks.
Tech-heavy Taiwan stocks (.TWII), opens new tab and South Korea's Kospi Index (.KS11), opens new tab also fell after U.S. tech firms were hit hard following a strong rally in June.
Data on Tuesday showed the U.S labour market remained resilient with a rise in job openings for May, sharpening the focus on the payrolls report due on Thursday as investors try to gauge when the Federal Reserve is likely to cut rates next.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, under fire from Trump to cut rates immediately, reiterated that the U.S. central bank plans to "wait and learn more" about the impact of tariffs on inflation before lowering interest rates.
Traders are pricing in 64 basis points of cuts this year from the Fed with the odds of a move in July at 21%.
That maintained a bearish bias on the dollar. The euro last bought $1.1793, just below the three-and-half-year high it touched on Tuesday. The yen was steady at 143.52 per dollar.
"Any disappointing economic data can prompt further dovish repricing of FOMC rate cuts and another round of USD selling," said Carol Kong, a currency strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
"The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act (OBBBA) and trade developments also have the potential to further weaken the USD if they undermine investor confidence about the U.S. economy."
Investor focus over the last few days has pivoted to the progress of Trump's massive tax-and-spending bill, which is expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt. The legislation heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval after U.S. Senate Republicans passed it by the narrowest of margins.
The bill has stoked fiscal worries but the reaction was relatively muted after it passed the Senate. The benchmark U.S. 10-year yields were steady at 4.245% having touched a two-month low in the previous session.
Aninda Mitra, head of Asia macro strategy at BNY Investment Institute, said the legislation "hard wires" a steady deterioration of the fiscal position and the debt trajectory of the U.S. government.
"The near-term impact is mostly in the price, but the uncertainty factor could keep term premia elevated. We don't think long-term yields will fall back materially in the 6-12 month horizon."
The fiscal worries, trade uncertainties and the U.S. rate path trajectory have all led investors to flee U.S. assets and look for alternatives. Investors worry that Trump's chaotic trade policies could hit U.S. economic growth.
That has left the dollar unloved, with the greenback down over 10% for the year in its worst first half performance since the 1970s. The dollar index , which measures the U.S. currency against six rivals, was at 96.649, near its lowest since March 2022.
In commodities, spot gold eased to $3,332.19 per ounce, after surging 1% in the previous session. The yellow metal is up 27% this year on safe-haven flows.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
8 minutes ago
- NBC News
Student loan borrowers will have fewer repayment options under GOP megabill
The Senate narrowly passed its spending megabill on Tuesday night. The House is aiming to vote on the bill and send it to President Donald Trump by July 4, but it's unclear whether Republicans have the votes to pass the bill in its current form. Among numerous provisions aimed at reducing federal spending and increasing tax revenue, the bill lays out some major changes for federal student loan borrowers. Most of the changes to student borrowing, such as lower limits on graduate loans, won't impact borrowers who are out of school and currently in repayment. But those taking out loans next summer and after, as well as an estimated 8 million borrowers awaiting further action on the Saving on a Valuable Education income-driven repayment plan, can expect fewer repayment options if the House passes the bill as is. The change to repayment plans could be one of the most impactful provisions of the bill for current and future federal student loan borrowers. Two years to choose from two plans The Senate's bill narrows the number of repayment options currently available to federal student loan borrowers down to just two plans: a standard repayment plan and a new income-driven plan known as the Repayment Assistance Plan. Borrowers on any of the currently existing repayment plans, except the SAVE plan, will be able to keep their plans and monthly payments the same. Borrowers whose loans are dispersed on or after July 1, 2026 and those currently enrolled in the SAVE plan — who are in an administrative forbearance since federal courts blocked the plan from going into effect in July 2024 — will have only the two repayment plan options. Borrowers on the SAVE plan would likely have to choose another plan anyway if federal courts retain the temporary injunction against it. Under the Republicans' legislation, those borrowers will have between July 2026 and July 2028 to choose a new plan. After July 1, 2028, borrowers will automatically be moved into the income-based repayment plan. The new standard plan will give borrowers a fixed monthly payment to have their loans paid off between 10 and 25 years, depending on the size of their loans. The current standard plan has a loan term of 10 years, regardless of the amount borrowed. The Repayment Assistance Plan will calculate monthly payments as between 1% and 10% of a borrower's discretionary income, down from the current offerings that set payments at 10%, 15% or 20% of a borrower's income.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The US has just exposed the green industry's dirty little secret
The cat is out of the bag. Electricity made from renewable sources is not as 'cheap' as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits. That's the message from the latest skirmish over America's renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be. Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we're told, until renewables can stand on their own feet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: 'Eliminating these tax credits radically and irresponsibly rolls back all the progress we have made in recent years. It turns America's clean energy boom into a bust.' But the boom was always something of an illusion. It is often asserted that electricity in the United States made with wind and solar is less expensive than electricity made by natural gas and coal. But rather than declining, average American electricity prices have risen considerably over the past 20 years as wind and solar have entered the electricity mix. One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy. It can cost utility companies more to provide people with electricity using intermittent sources than continuous sources such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The utility company is likely to need to put other energy sources in place, to provide back-up should demand not be met when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. For instance, when the wind stops, an alternative such as a natural gas power plant will likely need to be turned on to meet demand. Then it's turned off when the wind starts. With America's low natural gas prices, it is always likely to be cheaper to have one set of equipment and to operate one power plant continuously, rather than having it sit idle as the wind blows. Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise. Another dirty secret is that renewable energy is often neither green nor clean. About 70 per cent of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and their components are made in China, which remains reliant on coal-fired power plants to fuel its industries. Wind turbines kill birds, and, when offshore, can harm sea mammals. Solar power can take over agricultural land, which is likely to drive up the price of food. Green and clean are marketing hype used to push renewables onto unsuspecting consumers. While both chambers agree on tightening the purse strings by reducing tax credits, the House opts for a cliff-edge approach, while the Senate favours a more gradual wind-down. The House draws a hard line at Dec 31, 2025. From clean vehicles to home energy upgrades, nearly all credits vanish at the stroke of midnight. Even the clean hydrogen and nuclear incentives face sharp cut-offs, with added restrictions on foreign influence. Transferability of credits? Many are axed. The message is clear: the era of generous subsidies is fast ending. The Senate, by contrast, offers a more calibrated exit. Clean vehicle credits expire by Sep 30, 2025, but major production and investment credits are phased out over years, some as late as 2036. The Senate also tightens rules on foreign entities, but with more nuanced thresholds and timelines. Both bills close ranks on national security. Credits are denied to entities with ties to China, Russia, and other adversaries. The clean hydrogen credit in the House bill expires at the end of this year, but in the Senate bill by the end of 2027. Carbon capture faces identical construction cut-offs and foreign ownership bans. But only the House repeals credit transferability, an investor-friendly feature the Senate preserves. With the end of these tax credits, Americans may well discover that the true costs of renewable energy are higher than utility companies are willing to bear. Developers are already saying that they will halt projects without the tax credits. If the age of renewable energy tax credits is drawing to a close, Americans will be the beneficiaries. The question is how abruptly Washington will pull the plug – and whether other countries will follow.
