CNBC Daily Open: Keep calm and carry on, investors
In the first six months, the world saw a (not so) new U.S. president in the Oval Office, said president upend the global trade landscape, and a president in South Korea removed from office.
Conflicts also broke out between India and Pakistan, as well as Israel and Iran (along with a U.S. airstrike thrown into the mix.)
Chinese AI startup DeepSeek made its debut, stealing ChatGPT's thunder for a while, and elections took place around the world, including in Germany, Australia, and even right here in sunny Singapore.
We might just have to call Billy Joel and get him to write a whole new version of "We Didn't Start the Fire."
Despite such a rollercoaster ride so far, market investors, in response to most developments, seem to have adopted the U.K.'s mantra as it prepared for war in 1939: Keep calm and carry on.
If we take a longer-term view, markets have delivered a respectable performance despite a volatile first half. Just a few stats: the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite closed at fresh all-time highs Monday and are up about 5% year to date.
In Europe, the Stoxx 600 is up 6.7%, and in Asia, most major markets are in positive territory, with Hong Kong and South Korea posting a whopping 20% gain year to date.
Keep calm and carry on into the second half of the year, investors. S&P and Nasdaq touch fresh highs. On Monday, the S&P 500 gained 0.52% and posted another record close, ending at 6,204.95, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.47% and reached a fresh all-time high of 20,369.73. The Stoxx Europe 600 slipped 0.42%, walking back some of last week's gains.
White House claims Canada 'caves' on trade. The White House said that Canada "caved" to President Donald Trump by hastily rescinding its digital services tax after the president threatened to shut down trade negotiations between the two major trading partners.
Meta shares notch record high. Shares of tech giant Meta climbed to a record intraday of $747.90 as investors took notice of the company's newly created Superintelligence Labs that will be led by artificial intelligence luminaries hired by CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Elon Musk calls Trump bill "DEBT SLAVERY." The Tesla and SpaceX CEO is doubling down on his critisisms to kill Trump's signature megabill. Musk also called for a "new political party," and vowed that any fiscal conservatives who vote for the bill will "lose their primary next year."
[PRO] Can Europe's rally continue? European shares surged in the first half of the year, massively outperforming stocks on Wall Street — but market watchers are divided on the potential for the trend to continue.
Trump takes aim at AT&T service weeks after Trump Mobile licensing deal announced
President Donald Trump criticized AT&T in consecutive Truth Social posts Monday, writing that the country's third-largest wireless carrier "ought to get its act together."
The president wrote that he was trying to hold a conference call with "faith leaders," but that "AT&T is totally unable to make their equipment work properly."
The back-to-back posts came two weeks after the Trump Organization announced it had licensed the Trump name to a new wireless phone service, Trump Mobile, that also sells a $499 smartphone.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low
Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low originally appeared on TheStreet. In a fresh new twist amid the Trump and Musk feud, President Donald Trump has suggested that billionaire Elon Musk, who is now the richest man in the world, may have more to lose than just electric vehicle (EV) requirements in their intensifying spat. When asked about deporting Musk, President Trump said, "he might have to take a look." On Truth Social, the President also wrote that Elon Musk might have to "close up shop and go back home." Trump's vague comment suggested that the South African-born Musk might have some citizenship-related issues, sparking internet fears that these could be linked to the U.S. President's immigration reform policies. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both been very closely tied to the crypto for instance, has been bullish on Bitcoin and Dogecoin, which has boosted widespread interest and investment in digital currencies. While President Trump is often known as the 'crypto president' for his pro-crypto reforms within the industry and his promise to make the US the 'crypto capital of the world'. Tension between Trump and Musk had been simmering before it reached its current boiling point, as Musk publicly criticized the president's "Big, Beautiful Bill", which claims to offer large cuts to taxes and services such as healthcare and food assistance but could push the debt ceiling over the current $3 trillion, believes told Forbes on June 5 that Bitcoin is going to "take over," pointing to concerns about a $40 trillion collapse of the U.S. dollar, with some of the blame attributed to Trump's big bill. Crypto enthusiasts in the U.S. are struggling to reconcile Musk's political support with Trump's policy. At press time, Bitcoin is down to $106,580.78 from $107,000 mark seen on June 30. Trump's suggestion that Musk might be stripped of citizenship coincides with an administration-wide "America First" immigration agenda aimed at restricting immigration to protect American values, and Musk's advocacy aligns with this agenda. Tesla stocks have also been negatively impacted by the feud between Trump and Musk. At press time, Tesla stock (TSLA) has been down by over 5.72% in pre-market trading. The company's stock dropped sharply to $296.01, marking a three-week low as of July 1. Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low first appeared on TheStreet on Jul 1, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jul 1, 2025, where it first appeared. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jerome Powell says Fed would have lowered rates already if it weren't for tariffs
Were it not for tariffs, the Federal Reserve would have already cut interest rates in 2025, chair Jerome Powell said on Tuesday at a conference of central bankers. During an onstage interview at the European Central Bank Forum alongside the central bankers of England, Korea, Japan, and the European Union, Powell was asked if the uncertainty caused by the White House's ongoing tariff regime had led the Fed to hold off on cutting interest rates. He responded: 'I do think that.' Since then the Fed has sat pat on making any decisions about interest rates. 'We went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs and where, and essentially all, all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs,' Powell said. 'So we didn't overreact it. In fact, we didn't react at all.' The Fed had closed 2024 with a series of interest rate cuts. However, it had paused that rate-cutting cycle at the start of this year. Since then at each FOMC meeting, Powell has reiterated the view that with the economic outlook so uncertain the Fed would wait to see what happened before lowering rates. The rampant uncertainty, which affected all market participants, not just the Fed, started when President Donald Trump announced his widespread and harsh tariff policy in early April. The new policy led to a stock market crash, caused bond yields to soar, and saw the dollar weaken. It also forced businesses into a holding pattern for any future investment plans, which risked exacerbating a recession. 'We think the prudent thing to do is to wait and learn more and see what those effects might be,' Powell said. 'And again, they haven't really shown up. So for now—we're waiting.' Powell's comments point to a certain irony in the current situation of the U.S. economy. The pause in interest-rate cuts was due to heightened levels of uncertainty stemming from Trump's tariff policy. At the same time, Trump is furious with Powell for not lowering interest rates. On Monday, the President renewed his attacks on Powell, posting a picture of a handwritten note that accused him of taking too long to lower rates. At the ECB Forum, Powell again declined to answer any questions about Trump's comments, his typical response whenever asked. A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Powell did earn a show of solidarity from his peers for his reaction to Trump's criticisms. 'I speak for all colleagues on the panel, I think we would do exactly the same thing as our colleague Jay Powell does,' said European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde. Powell has about 10 months left in his term, which ends in May 2026. In that time, he said his top priority was delivering to his successor an economy that is 'in good shape.' 'That's all we ever want,' Powell said. 'So that's what keeps me awake at night: are we on a path to do that? And how do we get that done?' Trump's frustrations with Powell, which have regularly boiled over in public, shattered the longstanding practice of keeping the Federal Reserve apolitical. Since the 1970s it has been understood that Fed chairs didn't comment on the White House policy, and the president didn't tell the Fed where to set rates. Now that bargain has fallen apart—at least on the president's side. With Powell's term coming to a close, the question of his successor has heated up. Trump has made clear he would like a Fed chair that will lower interest rates. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are, or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said in the Oval Office last week. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates. There are a lot of them out there.' On Tuesday Powell again declined to answer any questions about his own future at the Federal Reserve. But the question did come up when the panelists were asked what advice they would give their potential successors. Powell highlighted what he considered to be the importance of the Fed operating a 'completely non-political way.' 'We don't take sides,' Powell said. 'We don't play one side against the other. We stay out of issues that are really not our bailiwick and we just focus on [economic stability for the benefit of all the people].' Providing a strong, stable economy would benefit the public and lawmakers alike, he said. 'We're trying to have it be so that the public lives their best economic lives and so elected policymakers can make the really important decisions in a stable environment,' Powell said. 'That's how I think about it.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Fed's latest standoff is part of a long-standing American tradition
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. As Americans and many CFOs prepare to celebrate Independence Day this week, the ongoing feud between President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell remains an American tradition as old as apple pie. However, the 112-year relationship between the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve continues to carry real consequences for finance leaders trying to forecast for their business, particularly in an economy that's seemingly stuck in a holding pattern as inflation cools. However, Powell and his team still refuse to budge. Despite signs of balancing between disinflation and stagflation, the Fed held rates steady at its June meeting and signaled just one cut this year. For CFOs overseeing or signing off on capital allocation, debt costs and long-range planning, that slow-motion approach creates a growing gap between immediate business needs and slow-moving monetary policy. The Federal Reserve may claim independence, but its failure to act has made it appear to many, including Trump and his staff, to look more like institutional inertia. In May, year-over-year inflation ticked up slightly to 2.4% from 2.3%, but that figure came in below expectations. Core inflation held steady YoY at 2.8%. Markets responded positively and continue to perform well, but not because the data showed dramatic improvement, but because it suggested inflation was still gradually cooling. Even the impact of tariffs is still unknown, with many CFOs also recently saying they are in holding patterns of their own when it comes to tariff response. Still, the Fed's 2% target is still out of reach as of now, and Powell appears reluctant to declare victory too early. The labor market tells a similar story: technically still growing, but slowing. May saw a net gain of 139,000 jobs, but downward revisions to March and April numbers have raised questions about the true pace of hiring. The unemployment rate held at 4.2%, but federal job losses continued for a fourth straight month, with more expected as severance periods expire and legal delays resolve. Most of the job gains came from health care, whose cost increases are having ripple effects on CFOs. Most other sectors remained flat or negative. Powell has maintained a 'wait and see' approach, likely wary of reigniting inflation by stimulating lending. A rate cut would encourage more borrowing, as businesses and consumers alike are waiting on the sidelines for cheaper borrowing rates. However, as most CFOs know, under the U.S. fractional reserve system, that would quickly expand the money supply and thus drive up inflation. Trump, however, has called on the Fed to move faster, blasting Powell's competency publicly and already making plans for his replacement. The president has argued inflation is no longer a concern and urged Powell, most recently in a handwritten letter, to cut rates by a full percentage point. Powell, for his part, has repeatedly insisted the central bank will act independently of the White House. This tension between the executive branch and the central banking authority goes back to the earliest days of the republic. After the charter of the First Bank of the United States expired in 1811, the country entered the War of 1812 against the United Kingdom without a central bank. What followed led to a defeat and the burning of Washington, D.C., as well as fiscal disorder, rising inflation and a government forced to rely on unstable private lending to fund military operations. This played a major factor in the United States' defeat during the war. The crisis prompted the creation of the Second Bank of the United States in 1816, as an attempt to restore financial stability and create a means for the federal government to have access to capital without having to go through the then time-consuming process to go through state banks. That institution, too, would be dismantled by President Andrew Jackson, who argued for centralized financial power as a threat to democratic governance in his Bank Wars. He began dismantling the Second Bank of the United States in 1832 by vetoing its recharter and publicly attacking it as a monopoly favoring wealthy elites. In 1833, he ordered federal deposits withdrawn and redistributed to state banks, effectively gutting the institution before its charter expired in 1836. Jackson made clear he viewed central banks as tools of elite corruption, warning they concentrated too much power in too few hands. He believed the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional and served the interests of wealthy Eastern financiers at the expense of ordinary citizens. Jackson's battle with the Second Bank was not his only economic standoff. Around the same time in 1828, he clashed with South Carolina over federal tariffs in what became known as the Nullification Crisis, asserting national control over trade policy. The confrontation marked one of the earliest signs of fiscal disagreements between states and the federal government, and is widely viewed by historians as an ideological precursor to secession and, eventually, the U.S. Civil War. He also paid down the national debt to zero by 1835, the only time in U.S. history, arguing that a debt-free government would be less beholden to banks and financial interests. However, nearly a century later, a secret meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910 led to the creation of what we know today as the Federal Reserve Bank, whose power was granted just before Christmas in 1913. Though this system has proven its durability to hold power, contention has bubbled around the Federal Reserve's autonomy and fiscal policies for over a century. For today's CFOs navigating an environment of high borrowing costs, global tariffs and political crosswinds, the unresolved debate over central bank power is more than just history; it is their daily reality. It shapes the cost of capital, the timing of investment decisions and the degree of risk embedded in every forecast. Recommended Reading The U.S. Banking System: Origin, Development, and Panics Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
