Asian stocks slip from highs, dollar gains as markets brace for crucial week
The dollar gained against the yen after bouncing off a two-week low on Thursday, helped by some firm U.S. economic data, while Japan's currency was weighed down by political uncertainty amid media reports Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will step down.
Benchmark Japanese government bond yields hovered just below the highest since 2008.
Japan's broad Topix index, which had jumped more than 5% over the previous two sessions to reach an all-time high, pulled back 0.7%. The Nikkei slipped 0.5% from Thursday's one-year high.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 0.5% and mainland Chinese blue chips declined 0.2%. Australia's equity benchmark declined 0.5%.
At the same time, U.S. S&P 500 futures added 0.2%, after the cash index edged up slightly to a new record closing high overnight, buoyed by robust earnings from Google parent Alphabet. The tech-heavy Nasdaq also marked a record high.
MSCI's gauge of stocks across the globe edged down 0.1%, but remained just below an all-time peak from Thursday. The index is on course for a 1.3% weekly advance, buoyed in large part by optimism for U.S. trade deals with the European Union and China, following an agreement with Japan this week.
Next week, in the U.S. alone, investors need to contend with Trump's August 1 deadline for trade deals, a Federal Reserve policy meeting, the closely watched monthly payrolls report, and earnings from the likes of Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft.
The Bank of Japan has its own policy announcement on Thursday, and Prime Minister Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party holds a meeting the same day.
That's after the European Central Bank held rates steady on Thursday, pausing its easing campaign as it waits to assess any impact from U.S. tariffs.
The euro ended the session down 0.2% against a buoyant dollar, and was little changed on Friday at $1.1743.
The U.S. currency advanced 0.3% to 147.37 yen, adding to Thursday's 0.4% gain.
Trump kept the pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut rates after a rare presidential visit to the central bank on Thursday, although he said he did not intend to fire Powell, as he has frequently suggested he would.
U.S. 10-year Treasury yields edged down to 4.39% on Friday, effectively erasing an advance on Thursday.
Equivalent Japanese government bond yields eased 0.5 basis point to 1.595%, just off this week's high of 1.6%, a level last seen in October 2008.
JGB yields have been rising on concerns the political scale is tilting more towards fiscal stimulus, after big gains for opposition parties backing consumption tax cuts in Sunday's upper house election. Pressure is building on the more fiscally hawkish Ishiba to quit after his coalition lost its majority in the vote, after doing the same in lower house elections last October.
Gold was flat at around $3,368 per ounce, keeping it on course for a 0.5% rise this week.
Brent crude futures gained 0.3% to $69.35 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures added 0.2% to $66.18 per barrel.
(Reporting by Kevin Buckland; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
35 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Billions for arms, rather than troops, won't make us safer
William D. Hartung, Tribune News Service The Pentagon got a whopping $150 billion increase in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president July 4. That will push next year's proposed Pentagon budget to more than $1 trillion. Most of that enormous amount will go to weapons manufacturers. A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%. The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidising overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China. While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Donald Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet. The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding. The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril. The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in. Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralise improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of could not be cleared. Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars.
Gulf Today
35 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Trump's order on homelessness gets it all wrong
Steve Lopez, Tribune News Service President Trump has the answer to homelessness. Forcibly clear the streets. Recently, he signed an executive order to address "endemic vagrancy" and end "crime and disorder on our streets." He called for the use of "civil commitments" to get those who suffer from mental illness or addiction into "humane treatment." This comes after last year's US Supreme Court ruling making it legal for cities to punish people for being homeless, even if they have nowhere to go. There's some truth in what he says, and California's record on housing and homelessness is ripe for criticism. I've watched too many people suffer from addiction and mental illness and asked why the help is so slow to arrive. But I also know there are no simple answers for either crisis, and bluster is no substitute for desperately needed resources. Like a lot of what Trump does, this is another case of grandstanding. In the meantime, the Washington Post reported Thursday that the "Trump administration has slashed more than $1 billion in COVID-era grants administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is proposing to slash hundreds of millions more in agency grants." As it happens, I was in the middle of a column on the latest Los Angeles homeless count when news of Trump's executive order broke. I had just spent time with two homeless women to hear about their predicaments, and none of what Trump is proposing comes close to addressing their needs, which are tragically commonplace. Namely, they're living in poverty and can't afford a place to live. In his executive order, Trump said that "nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having used hard drugs ... in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions." I don't know where he got those numbers, but truth and accuracy are not hallmarks of this administration. No doubt, addiction and mental illness are significant factors, and more intervention is needed. But that's more complicated than he thinks, especially given the practical and legal issues surrounding coercive treatment — and it's not going to solve the problem. When the latest homeless count in Los Angeles was released, a slight decline from a year ago was regarded by many as a positive sign. But when Eli Veitzer of Jewish Family Service LA dug into the numbers, he found something both unsurprising and deeply disturbing. The number of homeless people 65 and older hadn't gone down. It had surged, in both the city and county of Los Angeles. "This isn't new this year. It's a trend over the last couple of years," said Veitzer, whose nonprofit provides meals, housing assistance and various other services to clients. "It's meaningful, and it's real, and these people are at the highest risk of mortality while they're on the streets." The numbers from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority showed a 3.4% decrease in the total homeless population in the city, but a 17.6% increase among those 65 and older. The county numbers showed a 3.99% decrease overall, but an 8.59% increase in the 65 and older group. In the city, the increase over two years was from 3,427 in 2023 to 4,680 this year — up 37%. Reliable research has shown that among older adults who become homeless, the primary reason is the combination of poverty and high housing costs, rather than mental illness or addiction. "They or their spouse lost their job, they or their spouse got sick, their marriage broke up or their spouse or parent died," Dr. Margot Kushel of UC San Francisco's Homelessness and Housing Initiative was telling me several hours before Trump's executive order was issued. Her team's landmark study, released two years ago (and covered by my colleague Anita Chabria), found that nearly half the state's homeless residents were 50 and older, and that participants in the study reported a median monthly household income of $960. "The results ... confirm that far too many Californians experience homelessness because they cannot afford housing," Kushel said at the time. Among the older population, Veitzer said, the jump in homelessness comes against the backdrop of federal and local budget cuts that will make it harder to reverse the trend. And harder for nonprofits, which rely in part on public funding, to keep providing group meals, home-delivered meals, transportation, social services and housing support. "Every provider I've talked to in the city of L.A. is cutting meal programs," Veitzer said. "We're going to have to close two of our 13 meal sites, and last year we closed three. We used to have 16, and now we're down to 11." On Wednesday, I went to one of the sites that's still up and running on Santa Monica Boulevard, just west of the 405, and met Jane Jefferies, 69. She told me she's been camping in her vehicle since February when living with her brother became impossible for various reasons. She now pulls into a Safe Parking LA lot each night to bed down. Jefferies said she collects about $1,400 a month in Social Security, which isn't enough to get her into an apartment. At the senior center, she uses her own equipment to make buttons that she sells on the Venice boardwalk, where she can make up to $200 on a good weekend. But that's still not enough to cover the cost of housing, she told me, and she's given up on government help. "All the funding has been cut, and I don't know if it's because a lot of the city and state funding is subsidised by the federal government. We all know Trump hates California," she said. As Veitzer put it: "There's nowhere near enough low-income senior housing in L.A. County. Wait lists open up periodically," with far more applicants than housing units. "And then they close." His agency delivers a daily meal to Vancie Davis, 73, who lives in a van at Penmar Park in Venice. Her next-door neighbor is her son, Thomas Williamson, 51, who lives in his car. Davis was in the front seat of the van when I arrived, hugging her dog, Heart. Her left leg was amputated below the knee two years ago because of an infection, she told me. Davis said she and another son were living in a trailer in Oregon, but the owner shut off the utilities and changed the locks. She said she reached out to Williamson, who told her, "I've got a van for you, so you'll have a place to live, but it's going to be rough. And it is. It's very, very rough." I've heard so many variations of stories like these over the years, I've lost count. The magnitude that exists in the wealthiest nation in history is a disgrace, and a sad commentary on an economic system and public policy that have served to widen, rather than narrow, the inequity gap. On Thursday, Trump's executive order on homelessness grabbed headlines but will do nothing for Jane Jefferies or Vancie Davis and for thousands like them. We know the interventions that can work, Kushel said, but with deep cuts in the works, we're moving in the wrong direction. Davis' son Thomas told Times photographer Genaro Molina about another person who lives in a vehicle and has been a neighbour of theirs in the parking lot. She wasn't there Wednesday, but we'll check back. It's a 91-year-old woman.
Gulf Today
37 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Collins isn't worried — Even though Maine is blue on paper
David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service In 2020, Susan Collins' Democratic challenger raised so much money, she couldn't spend it all. Yet Sara Gideon lost in a blowout. Maine's moderate Republican senator defeated her 51% to 42%, even as the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, won the state 53% to 44%. With the 2026 midterm elections drawing near, Collins again looks vulnerable as voters across the country, especially in Maine, show signs of souring on the leader of her party, President Donald Trump. Political analyst Amy Walter detailed the dangerous terrain Collins is navigating in an efficient X post, writing in part: '...the red lights are really blaring in MAINE, where Morning Consult polling shows Trump underwater by 17 pts. SEN Collins at -16...' Quite an opportunity for the Democrats, if there ever was one, in a midterm cycle in New England. As Decision Desk HQ notes, Maine is a D+6.9% state as ranked by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, meaning its electorate is more Democratic than the national average by nearly 7 percentage points. And yet ... and yet. Maine has not elected a Democratic senator since George Mitchell retired in 1995. (Maine's other senator, Angus King, caucuses with the Democrats, but is an independent.) So Maine Democrats have been here before, and not only in 2020. In 2008, an election that saw Republicans lose eight seats in the US Senate, Collins was barely contested, winning reelection with more than 61% of the vote even as Democrat Barack Obama won Maine with 57.6%. So how will 2026 be any different? Republicans claim with confidence that it won't be. 'Authenticity matters and Susan Collins is one of the most authentic senators ever. All the dark Democrat money on Earth can't change that,' Republican operative Kevin McLaughlin told me. McLaughlin, a top GOP strategist at the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2020, is running the 501(c)4 political nonprofit organization, Stronger America, formed to ensure that Collins, 72, will return to Capitol Hill for a sixth term. Pine Tree Results, a super PAC that will advocate on the senator's behalf with advertising and other political activity, is relying on a mixture of experienced Maine operatives and national strategists. The latter group features Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, whose prominent clients include Trump. In Collins' last campaign, Democratic groups attacked her relentlessly, and largely with impunity, throughout 2019. Republican groups, for the most part, did not come to the senator's rescue until the 2020 election year got underway. This time around, the organizations backing the incumbent Republican senator are planning an aggressive air war beginning this year, hoping to shield her from both the opposition and any voter backlash against Trump that materialises. Although history and Trump's sinking approval ratings suggest a midterm rebuke of the president is in the offing, 18 months out the map of Senate seats on the ballot still favors the Republicans preserving their 53-47 majority. It's easy, then, to see why Maine matters. Given their available opportunities, it's hard to see Democrats retaking the Senate majority without ousting Collins. But first, Democrats need to find a strong, viable challenger. So far, they haven't. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, have failed to land a topflight recruit. Representative Jared Golden, the centrist Democrat who holds Maine's otherwise solidly Republican Second Congressional District, took a pass. Many voters like the state's two-term Democratic Governor Janet Mills, who can't run for that office again. But at 77, she's unlikely to pursue a six-year Senate term as her next act. That leaves the Democrats with Jordan Wood, a former congressional aide; he closed the second quarter with an underwhelming $800,000 or so in the bank. Meanwhile, Cathy Breen, a former state senator, may yet jump into the Democratic primary. Hardly the all-star lineup Democrats need to take on Collins, a battle-tested, savvy politician built for scenarios just like this. Examining the DSCC's website, it appears Democrats believe they can soften Collins up by casting her as an ally and facilitator of Trump. That's despite her votes against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — the president's tax-and-spending bill — and a rescissions package that eliminated $9 billion in previously approved federal spending. (The rescissions package slashed funding for Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, both of whose stations and programs are often widely used in small, rural states like Maine.) It's a strategy that has worked on countless senators over the years. It just has yet to work on Collins. Unusually, Trump appears to be giving Collins room to maneuver. Rather than threaten to punish her with a GOP primary challenger, as he has in response to recalcitrance from Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and outgoing Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, the president has let Collins oppose him without voicing a peep of frustration, perhaps recognizing no other Republican is positioned to weather a midterm storm the way she is. There is some polling to suggest this time might be different. But even if Democrats finally get their white whale in Collins, the Senate map remains a tough slog. North Carolina, now an open seat with Tillis' retirement, is the Democrats' next best opportunity to flip a seat — and North Carolina is an R+3.2% state. Every other Republican-held seat up for election next year is in a state with a partisan voting index that favors the GOP by double digits. And Democrats will have to defend vulnerable seats in Michigan and Georgia. Then again, as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told me some years back when I interviewed him for the Washington Examiner during his long tenure as the Republican leader: 'The map doesn't win elections ... The atmosphere is not irrelevant.'
