Trump strikes trade deal with Japan to cut tariffs
The agreement will bring immediate relief to Japan's critical autos sector with existing tariffs cut to 15 per cent from 25 per cent, and proposed levies on other Japanese goods that were set to come in on Aug 1 also cut by the same amount.
Autos make up more than a quarter of all Japan's exports to the United States.
'I just signed the largest TRADE DEAL in history with Japan,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform. 'This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan,' he added.
Ishiba, who local media reported will soon resign after a bruising election defeat on Sunday (Jul 20), hailed the deal as 'the lowest figure among countries that have a trade surplus with the US'.
The US investment package includes loans and guarantees from Japanese government-affiliated institutions of up to US$550 billion to enable Japanese firms 'to build resilient supply chains in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors', Ishiba said.
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
Japan will also increase purchases of agricultural products such as US rice, a Trump administration official said. Ishiba said the share of US rice imports may increase under its existing framework but that the agreement would 'not sacrifice Japanese agriculture'.
The announcement ignited a rally in Japanese stocks, with the benchmark Nikkei climbing 2.6 per cent to its highest in a year. Shares of automakers surged in particular, with Toyota up more than 11 per cent, and Honda and Nissan both up more than 8 per cent.
The exuberance extended to shares of South Korean carmakers as well, as the Japan deal stoked optimism that South Korea could strike a comparable deal. The yen firmed slightly against the US dollar, while European and US equity index futures edged upward.
But US automakers signalled their unhappiness with the deal, raising concerns about a trade regime that could cut tariffs on auto imports from Japan to 15 per cent while leaving tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico at 25 per cent.
'Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no US content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high US content is a bad deal for US industry and US auto workers,' said Matt Blunt, who heads the American Automotive Policy Council which represents General Motors Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis .
'Mission complete'
Autos are a huge part of US-Japan trade, but almost all of it is one way to the US from Japan, a fact that has long irked Trump. In 2024, the US imported more than US$55 billion of vehicles and automotive parts while just over US$2 billion were sold into the Japanese market from the US.
Two-way trade between the two countries totalled nearly US$230 billion in 2024, with Japan running a trade surplus of nearly US$70 billion. Japan is the fifth-largest US trading partner in goods, US Census Bureau data show.
Trump's announcement followed a meeting with Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, at the White House on Tuesday.
'#Mission Complete,' Akazawa wrote on X, later saying the deal did not include Japanese exports of steel and aluminium that are subject to a 25 per cent tariff, nor any agreement on defence budgets.
The deal was 'a better outcome' for Japan than it potentially could have been, given Trump's earlier unilateral tariff threats, said Kristina Clifton, a senior economist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.
Kazutaka Maeda, an economist at Meiji Yasuda Research Institute, said that 'with the 15 per cent tariff rate, I expect the Japanese economy to avoid recession'.
Japan is the largest investor in the United States. Together with pension giant GPIF and Japanese insurers, the country has about US$2 trillion invested in US markets.
Besides that, Bank of Japan data shows direct Japanese investment in the United States was US$1.2 trillion at the end of 2024, and Japanese direct investment flows amounted to US$137 billion in North America last year.
Speaking later at the White House, Trump also expressed fresh optimism that Japan would form a joint venture with Washington to support a gas pipeline in Alaska long sought by his administration.
'We concluded the one deal ... and now we are going to conclude another one because they are forming a joint venture with us at, in Alaska, as you know, for the LNG,' Trump told lawmakers at the White House. 'They are all set to make that deal now.'
Trump aides are feverishly working to close trade deals ahead of an Aug 1 deadline that Trump has repeatedly pushed back under pressure from markets and intense lobbying by industry. By that date, countries are set to face steep new tariffs beyond those Trump has already imposed since taking office in January.
Trump has announced framework agreements with Britain, Vietnam, Indonesia and paused a tit-for-tat tariff battle with China, though details are still to be worked out with all of those countries.
At the White House, Trump said negotiators from the European Union would be in Washington on Wednesday. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
11 minutes ago
- Business Times
Shopee tightens grip on South-east Asia's sellers as take rates climb
IZA, a seller of customised bags and keychains on Shopee Philippines, used to earn 240,000 pesos (S$5,354) a month across her three shops on the platform. But that was before Shopee began raising its commission fees in the second half of 2024. Since then, the total fees Shopee deducts, including shipping and transaction charges, can climb as high as 25 per cent of her sales. 'These days, I only take home around 70,000 to 90,000 pesos a month,' Iza tells Tech in Asia. Over the past year, Shopee has gradually increased seller fees across its markets. While other platforms have also raised their fees, Shopee's rates generally remain the highest. And that's not all, the company recently introduced additional flat fees per transaction in certain markets. In response, a growing number of sellers are starting to speak out. But a Shopee spokesperson points out that the fees will be 'reinvested to benefit buyers, whether through shipping perks or payment benefits.' 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 'We hope to continue supporting purchasing power and domestic consumption, which will in turn stimulate economic activity and benefit our sellers,' the spokesperson added. Pressure builds Rezky, an e-commerce specialist at an FMCG brand in Indonesia, echoes Iza's complaints. With rising fees and newly introduced charges, his product margins have dropped by around 3 to 5 per cent. This has forced his store to raise product prices as well as cut back on marketing spend, limiting the shop to run campaigns that have already proven effective. 'We can't afford trial and error in marketing this year,' he says. While his store's revenue is still growing, the pace has slowed year on year, Rezky admits. The new flat fees, at 1,250 rupiah (S$0.10) in Indonesia, 3,000 dong (S$0.15) in Vietnam, and RM0.54 (US$0.17) in Malaysia, are hitting low-priced items the hardest. Sellers may even choose to bundle such products rather than sell them individually. This move has also been followed by Lazada, where the platform will implement similar flat fees, with the same amount, starting Aug 1 in Indonesia. Daisuke Mori, CEO of ecommerce marketing agency Feedforce Vietnam, said that the firm is likely gearing itself towards 'larger, higher-margin brands' in the long run. But it's not just the fees. Sellers have also started feeling the squeeze from other policies, such as stricter delivery timelines and return options that include 'change of mind'. Since last year, sellers are required to ship orders placed in the morning within the same day. Those coming in after noon can be fulfilled the following day. Rezky said that his shop has no issue with the new delivery policy, thanks to a well-equipped operations team, and he believes the policy benefits consumers. However, he acknowledges that it could pose challenges for smaller sellers who lack similar resources. Returns are another story. Rezky notes that his shop has received returned orders because buyers changed their minds. While the volume is not yet alarming, fewer than 10 returns per month, he admits that it's an issue. Shopee has begun tightening its return policy in response to complaints from sellers. That said, both Lazada and TikTok Shop also allow such returns. While TikTok Shop does not offer returns for a 'change of mind', it does permit them under the label of 'no longer needed', provided certain conditions are met. Maintaining profitability Shopee is clearly working to boost its take rate as part of its push towards profitability. In 2024, it posted its first full-year positive adjusted Ebitda. The marketplace's typical take rate now falls between 9 per cent and 13 per cent, including commissions, payment fees, and other mandatory selling costs, according to Simon Torring, co-founder of insights firm Cube Asia. However, that figure can climb much higher when factoring in marketing and logistics co-investments. Sellers often have to shoulder part of the shipping cost to offer free delivery to buyers. As a result, total selling expenses for many merchants can reach 20 to 25 per cent of post-discount sales. While it's clear that Shopee raised its take rates to maintain profitability, the higher fees also give the company more room to reinvest in subsidies and marketing efforts aimed at attracting buyers. In turn, consumers enjoy more frequent promotions and discounts. These incentives help boost sales on the platform and allow Shopee to defend its market share against TikTok Shop. In 2024, Shopee reported a 21 per cent year-on-year increase in gross merchandise value (GMV) to US$66.8 billion, a faster pace compared to 2023's 15 per cent growth, according to the latest report from Momentum Works. Meanwhile, TikTok Shop posted a 38 per cent GMV increase over the same period. That GMV growth has translated into revenue gains. Shopee's revenue rose 38 per cent year on year in 2024, driven by growth in advertising and seller commissions. Its income from commission fees alone jumped 41 per cent year on year in Q4 2024. Le Tuan Anh, former country head of Vietnam at Leap Commerce, says that Shopee appears to be defending its position by prioritising buyers through perks – even if it comes at the cost of small merchants. Cube Asia's Torring notes that most sellers are frustrated with the changes. But they have also tolerated them, mainly because the increased take rates are being reinvested into promotions that help drive traffic and sales. 'Most sellers are facing rising costs, but their sales are going up as well,' he points out. No better options In Vietnam, more than 88,000 sellers closed their stores on Shopee last year, according to local media reports. Feedforce's Mori attributes this in large part to rising fees, a sign of just how much pressure sellers are facing across the region. As Shopee's ecosystem becomes more centralised, sellers are gradually losing their bargaining power. Leap Commerce's Anh notes that merchants would have to 'play the game' to continue to succeed. 'This means using all the available tools in e-commerce, such as live selling, affiliates, and paid ads,' he added. Cube Asia's Torring likens the evolving dynamic to that between retail tenants and landlords. 'It's symbiotic but not overly friendly,' he explained. 'Both parties seek to extract maximum value from the partnership.' This shift has pushed some merchants to look at alternative sales channels. Without meaningful alternatives that can match Shopee's reach, it's hard for niche platforms to attract and retain a critical mass of sellers and buyers. PHOTO: SHOPEE Smaller sellers are testing 'guerilla' commerce strategies such as conversational selling on WhatsApp or Telegram, most of Vietnam's ecommerce transactions are still done on Facebook, Anh points out. For larger brands, Anh suggests exploring direct-to-consumer websites, affiliate marketing, and livestream-driven commerce. These models allow them more control over margins, customer data, and brand narrative. But scaling these alternatives remains challenging. Mori notes that many small sellers still rely on the traffic and infrastructure that platforms such as Shopee provide. Without meaningful alternatives that can match Shopee's reach, it's hard for niche platforms to attract and retain a critical mass of sellers and buyers. For Philippine gadget shop Kimstore, staying on Shopee is still worth it, for now. 'We are still getting very decent sales from the platforms,' said Kim Lato, CEO and co-founder of Kimstore. 'So the strategy now is to take advantage of platform campaigns and guide customers to whichever channel gives us the best deal.' FMCG brand seller Rezky also said that has started testing alternative channels such as WhatsApp. But Shopee and the stable sales it provides means it will still be a key focus.
Straits Times
41 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Rwanda, Congo agree on outline for economic integration framework as part of peace deal, US says
WASHINGTON/PARIS - Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on Friday agreed on an outline for the regional economic integration framework, according to the U.S. State Department, as the two countries take steps toward delivering on a peace deal signed in Washington last month. The tenets agreed on Friday summarize the framework, which includes elements of cooperation on energy, infrastructure, mineral supply chains, national parks and public health. Rwanda and Congo signed a peace deal in Washington in June at talks held by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which aims to bring an end to fighting that has killed thousands and attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. As part of the deal, Kinshasa and Kigali agreed to launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. A source familiar with the matter said a preliminary draft of the framework has been agreed to and there would now be an input period to get reaction from the private sector and civil society before it is finalized. The framework is planned to be signed at a meeting of heads of state at the White House. No date has been set yet for that meeting, the source said. In the Friday statement, Rwanda and Congo affirmed that each country has "full, sovereign control" over the exploitation, processing and export of its natural resources and recognized the importance of developing mineral processing and transformation capacity within each country, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump deploys nuclear submarines in row with Russia World 'Optimistic' Bessent says US has makings of a deal with China Asia Asia-Pacific economies welcome new US tariff rates, but concerns over extent of full impact remain Singapore Man in SAF custody after allegedly vaping on bus while in army uniform Asia 'Like me? Approach me directly, okay?': Inside a matchmaking event for China's wealthy Opinion America is tearing down another great public institution Opinion Quiet zones in public spaces can help people recharge in the city Tech Reporting suspected advanced cyber attacks will provide a defence framework: Shanmugam Kinshasa views the plundering of its mineral wealth as a key driver of the conflict between its forces and Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in eastern Congo. Reuters reported in May that Congolese minerals such as tungsten, tantalum and tin, which Kinshasa has long accused neighbouring Rwanda of illegally exploiting, could be exported legitimately to Rwanda for processing under the terms of the deal being negotiated by the U.S., according to sources. The two countries are committed to ensuring that the minerals trade no longer provides funding to armed groups and to create a world-class industrial mining sector in the region, as well as to ensure better cross-border interoperability on mineral supply chains, according to the statement. They also agreed to connect new infrastructure to the U.S.-backed Lobito Corridor, underscoring Washington's aim of greater access to resources in the region and efforts to counter China. The Ruzizi III hydropower project and Lake Kivu methane exploitation were the only specific projects mentioned in the statement, despite U.S. emphasis on critical minerals. The countries said they intended to prioritize financing for Ruzizi and work together to exploit the methane gas sustainably. REUTERS
Business Times
41 minutes ago
- Business Times
AI washing: signs, symptoms and solutions for investment stakeholders
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in finance has brought real innovation but also misleading marketing claims. Many financial services firms feel pressure to appear tech-savvy to stay competitive. Although some firms genuinely apply machine learning (ML) and AI to improve investing, others make claims that do not match reality. These firms may use buzzwords such as 'AI-driven' or 'machine learning-enabled' without truly integrating these tools into their investment processes. Consequently, clients and investors may be misled into believing they are investing in innovative, cutting-edge strategies when they are not. This phenomenon is known as 'AI washing' – the act of falsely or overly inflating claims about the use of AI in financial products or services. The CFA Institute recently published AI Washing: Signs, Symptoms and Suggested Solutions – a report that examines what AI washing is, why firms engage in it, how it affects clients and the broader development of AI, touching on the ethical, regulatory and technical measures that can help address it. It also offers guidance to asset owners on how to spot both genuine AI use and inflated claims in the marketplace. According to Nvidia's State of AI in Financial Services: 2025 Trends report, 57 per cent of respondents in a global survey of financial professionals are using or considering AI for data analytics, and generative AI usage has risen sharply to 52 per cent from 40 per cent in 2023. 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 In addition, 37 per cent report AI-driven operational efficiencies, and 32 per cent believe AI offers a competitive advantage. The use of AI in trading and portfolio optimisation has increased to 38 per cent from 15 per cent, while its application in pricing, risk management and underwriting has grown to 32 per cent from 13 per cent. Barriers to AI adoption True AI in finance involves systems that process large data sets, learn patterns and make decisions – such as predicting asset prices or optimising portfolios. These efforts require serious investment in talent, technology and time. Many investment firms, however, either lack the resources or are unwilling to overhaul their existing processes to meaningfully incorporate AI. Instead, they may add small AI elements (such as using a chatbot or large language model) but advertise their strategy as 'AI-powered', which is deceptive if these tools do not play a central role. Barriers to real AI adoption in investing are high. Financial data is often messy, sparse and hard to predict. Unlike other industries where data is more abundant and easier to model, investment forecasting requires handling noisy, volatile and complex inputs. Consequently, many firms hesitate to disrupt their existing models that already perform well. AI washing is particularly dangerous because it undermines explainable AI – a movement focused on making AI systems more transparent, understandable and trustworthy – especially for non-technical users. If firms exaggerate or hide how they use AI, it becomes harder for stakeholders to assess the real value or risks of these tools. The CFA Institute report asserts that investors deserve transparency about what technologies are being used, how they work and whether they deliver value. Firms should avoid overhyping their use of AI just to attract clients or compete with rivals. Instead, they should be transparent about how they use AI, what it adds to their process and what limitations exist. Asset managers or asset owners must be able to provide sufficient detail regarding why and how they implement AI technology in their process, what specific frameworks they use, and what results or improvements they observe from using AI. This recommendation is in line with the ethical principles of transparency and duty to clients as set out in the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. Asking the right questions to spot AI washing To help stakeholders – especially asset owners and prospective clients – spot AI washing, the CFA Institute report suggests a range of questions that asset owners and prospective clients can pose to asset managers that claim to use AI. Some of these questions demand some level of technical familiarity with AI and ML, which speaks to the fact that asset owners themselves must develop some minimal competence in AI methodologies. Below is a list of pertinent questions for consideration: Can you specify what type of algorithm or combination of algorithms you are using and how it enhances the forecasting of asset returns? How does your AI-driven model outperform simpler models? Can you provide a quantitative comparison of relevant performance metrics? What data sources are you using to train your model(s), and how do these sources integrate with the rest of your process, if at all? Are you using alternative data, such as satellite imagery or sentiment analysis of earnings calls? What preprocessing and feature selection techniques are used to prepare the raw data for input into your model(s)? Do you use fundamental features, such as earnings surprise, price momentum, or other signals and indicators? Do you standardise or normalise the input features, and what techniques do you use to handle missing data, outliers and limited data sets? How do you maximise model interpretability? Is it through model choice or post-implementation communications? If the latter, can you give some concrete examples? Can you provide an example of a recent investment decision that was influenced by the model's output? How was the rationale for that decision explained to the investment team? How do you validate the robustness of the models you develop? What precautions do you take to guard against overfitting? For example, how do you tune hyperparameters in your models? How do you monitor model drift, and what mechanisms are in place to retrain the models and/or adapt to shifts in the market landscape? What governance structures are in place to ensure the responsible use of AI firmwide? Do you have an internal AI audit process, and how often are the models reviewed for compliance with generally accepted standards and protocols? If you use outsourcing for some or all of your AI technology needs, what processes are in place to ensure the quality and robustness of the services and products used in your investment process? Transparency is non-negotiable Firms selling financial products should conform to the same standards of transparency that stakeholders demand from other types of products. This idea applies to the use of AI technology as well. Unfortunately, because of AI's headline-grabbing popularity, some investment firms may rush to exaggerate their success in applying AI technologies to their investment processes. Such instances of AI washing have increasingly become the subject of heightened scrutiny from the investment community, including regulators. By understanding and learning to detect AI washing, stakeholders can help minimise and eventually eliminate this phenomenon, resulting in better investment outcomes. The writer is a senior affiliate researcher with CFA Institute and author of the report AI Washing: Signs, Symptoms and Suggested Solutions. He is currently the co-editor of The Journal of Financial Data Science, on the editorial board of The Journal of Portfolio Management and a member of the board of directors of the Financial Data Professional Institute. This content has been adapted from an article that first appeared on the CFA Institute Research & Policy Center's website.
