Asian shares mixed after China-US talks end without trade deal
The US side said an extension was discussed, but not decided on. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the American team would head back to Washington and "talk to the president about whether that's something that he wants to do.' A Friday deadline is looming for many of Trump's proposed tariffs on other countries.
Several highly anticipated economic reports are also on the way, including the latest monthly update on the job market. "Markets had been floating on a cloud of trade optimism - first Japan, then the EU - but the sugar high is wearing off. Now, with US-China talks dragging on in Stockholm, there's a growing sense that the momentum is stalling,' Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng index shed 0.1.2% to 25,213.15, while the Shanghai Composite index gained 0.2% to 3,616.30. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index fell less than 0.1% to 40,654.70. Gains for electronics companies were offset by losses for major exporters like Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 climbed 0.6% to 8,756.40 and in South Korea, the Kospi gained 0.7% to 3,254,47. Taiwan's Taiex rose 1.1%.
In India, the Sensex added 0.3%. On Tuesday, US stock indexes edged back from their record levels as a busy week for Wall Street picked up momentum. The S&P 500 fell 0.3% to 6,370.86, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.5% to 44,632.99. The Nasdaq composite was down 0.4% at 21,098.29. SoFi Technologies jumped 7.4%, but Merck dropped 2.2% and UPS sank 9.2% following a torrent of profit reports from big US companies. They're among the hundreds of companies telling investors this week how much they made during the spring, including nearly a third of the stocks in the S&P 500 index.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kuwait Times
7 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
What happens next in US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the supreme court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. — Reuters
Kuwait Times
8 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
FIFA faces class action over player transfer regulations
FIFA faces class action over player transfer regulations Suit stems from EU ruling on Lassana Diarra LONDON: A Dutch soccer players' group is preparing a 'potentially billion-dollar' Europe-wide class action claim against FIFA and other associations, seeking compensation over alleged loss of income due to restrictive transfer rules, it said on Monday. The Dutch Foundation for Justice said world soccer governing body FIFA's rules had affected approximately 100,000 players in European member states and the United Kingdom since 2002. The foundation added that consultancy firm Compass Lexecon had estimated that damages could run into billions of euros, with the foundation's board member Dolf Segaar telling Dutch news agency NOS that 'it is a billion-dollar claim'. The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is among the associations to be named in the suit. 'This case is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA), which allows this legal action to be launched by JfP on behalf of a large group of professional footballers,' it added. FIFA and the KNVB did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment. The foundation added that a preliminary analysis from Compass Lexecon estimated that professional footballers collectively earned around 8% less over their careers than they would have due to FIFA's regulations. 'All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA Regulations,' foundation chair Lucia Melcherts said in a statement. ''Justice for Players' is bringing this claim to help achieve justice for footballers and fairness.' The foundation added that the case was launched following a ruling on French player Lassana Diarra, who was fined 10 million euros ($11.56 million) by FIFA for leaving Lokomotiv Moscow one year into a four-year deal. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union said some of FIFA's rules on player transfers went against European Union laws and free movement principles in the case linked to former Chelsea, Arsenal and Real Madrid player Diarra. Following the ruling by the EU's top court, FIFA in December adopted an interim framework concerning the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The interim regulatory framework affects the calculation of compensation payable if there is a breach of contract and the burden of proof in relation to both compensation payable and an inducement to breach a contract. Justice for Players said it will be advised by law firm Dupont-Hissel, founded by Jean-Louis Dupont. Dupont is the same lawyer who took the landmark case of Belgian Jean-Marc Bosman, which in 1995 cleared the way for players in the European Union to move to other clubs at the end of contracts without a transfer fee being paid. Dupont-Hissel also represented Diarra in his case against FIFA, with Dupont saying in 2024 that a judgment backing the player would be a milestone in modernizing football governance. He added that it would allow players' unions and club associations to regulate their employment practices. — Reuters
Kuwait Times
9 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
Sensible, steely: How Mexico's Sheinbaum has dealt with Trump
MEXICO CITY: A combination of tact and tenacity is credited for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum's successful dealings with US counterpart Donald Trump, most recently convincing him to delay a sky-high import tariff meant to come into effect Friday. The pair are known to get along despite sitting on opposite sides of the political aisle, earning Mexico's first woman president the epithet of 'Trump whisperer.' At least three times now, the US president has granted Mexico tariff relief and Trump has described Sheinbaum as a 'wonderful woman' to the envy of a host of other world leaders who have found exchanges with Trump can be tetchy. On Thursday, Trump agreed to delay by 90 days a 30 percent general tariff on imported Mexican goods, just hours before it was to take effect. It was the outcome of the ninth phone conversation between the two leaders since Trump returned to power in January with a strong rhetoric against undocumented migrants and fentanyl flowing from America's southern neighbor. How did she do it? 'With a cool head,' the president herself told reporters Friday. The 63-year-old physicist and dedicated leftist added that she avoids 'confronting' the magnate, all the while insisting on Mexico's sovereign rights in dealing with a man known to respect strong leaders. Sheinbaum has said that Mexicans should 'never bow our heads' and Trump has acknowledged her mettle, remarking: 'You're tough' in one phone call, according to The New York Times. 'Mexico represents a lot to the United States... they are aware of that,' Sheinbaum explained. Thanks to the USMCA free trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada, nearly 85 percent of Mexican exports have been tariff-free. And while a 30 percent general tariff has been delayed, for now, Mexico's vital automotive sector is the target of a 25 percent levy, albeit with discounts for parts manufactured in the United States. Its steel and aluminum sectors, like those of other countries, are subject to a 50 percent tariff. Mexico's government nevertheless claims the latest delay as a victory. 'Without being sycophantic, I can tell you that the way our president handles her conversations, her approach, the firmness with which she defends Mexico's interests, her ability to convince President Trump, is very significant,' Secretary of Economy Marcelo Ebrard, who leads trade negotiations, told reporters Thursday. Sheinbaum seems also to have adopted a give and take approach, deploying thousands of border troops to assuage Trump's concerns about migration and drug flows. The president insists she has 'not yielded anything' in negotiations with Trump, and talks are ongoing between the neighbors for a security agreement to tackle the problem of fentanyl and drug trafficking. Sheinbaum has also raised the possibility of importing more US products to reset the trade balance. Some fear the Mexican leader is merely buying time. The latest tariff delay 'does not solve the issue of uncertainty; we return to the starting point,' Diego Marroquin, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said. – AFP
