OT: Stock and Investment Thread
- Thread starter RU05
- Start date
Hedge funds according to this...
https://www.morningstar.com/news/ma...y-yields-spike-as-midnight-strikes-on-tariffs
- China is a major hub for Apple's manufacturing, responsible for assembling a large portion of its products.
- iPhone Assembly:
Approximately 90% of iPhones are assembled in China.
- Other Products:
Estimates indicate that around 80% of iPads and 55% of Mac products are also assembled in China.
- Supplier Base:
A significant portion of Apple's suppliers have production facilities in China, with one analysis finding that 87% of Apple's 187 suppliers have facilities there.
Apple (AAPL, Financials) lost more than $500 billion in market value over the final two trading days of last week, as investor concerns over the Trump administration's proposed 54% tariffs on Chinese imports sparked a broad sell-off. According to Bloomberg, the company also experienced a surge in in-store sales across the United States over the weekend, as consumers rushed to buy iPhones ahead of anticipated price hikes.
The iPhone, Apple's highest-revenue product, is largely manufactured in China, putting it squarely in the path of the new tariffs. However, Apple has been shifting more of its production to India and Vietnam, where devices such as iPads, MacBooks and Apple Watches are increasingly assembled. These countries are currently expected to face lower U.S. import duties compared to China.
Apple has reportedly stockpiled devices to manage short-term supply pressures. The sales boom over the weekend could boost results for the company's fiscal third quarter, which ends in June. Because Apple is selling inventory produced before the proposed tariffs, the pricing impact is unlikely to appear before the fiscal fourth quarter, according to Bloomberg.
Last edited:
Hello Mr Pot, have you met Miss Kettle?
This is all such a friggen bummer.
Everything about this has been handled so piss poorly. I'm a republican, and I'm friggen furious at how crappy this entire process has been.
Everything about this has been handled so piss poorly. I'm a republican, and I'm friggen furious at how crappy this entire process has been.
Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said on Tuesday a 10% universal tariff rate imposed by the United States does not look open for negotiation and warned of potential upheaval in the domestic economy from a global escalation of trade disputes.
Basically what I was saying that Trump wants the 10% for all imports for revenue to offset the tax cut extension. We’re probably got a ways to go. Looks like the 2008 crash.
Last edited:
Chiner retaliates with an 84% tariff on US goods. Nice work Team Trump. Masterful, in fact. LOL.
Most Americans might be rightly focused on President Donald Trump’s trade war and the tariff drama that has devalued retirement accounts and nest eggs and has Americans sweating higher prices.
But then something notable happened in the wee hours of Saturday morning when Senate Republicans advanced a budget blueprint that could make $3.8 trillion disappear.
Math is notoriously fuzzy in Washington, DC.
For instance, the White House has made some conflicting arguments about reciprocal tariffs, simultaneously arguing they could raise $6 trillion over 10 years and that tariffs are a negotiating tactic to force concessions from other countries.
If the threat of tariffs leads to new trade deals, they won’t bring in trillions of new revenue to offset income tax cuts. Appearing at the White House Monday, Trump said countries are ready to negotiate and he threatened to add another 50% tariff to China after the communist country said it would match the 34% tariff Trump announced against China last week.
But tariffs are only one leg of Trump’s economic plan. Trump also needs to extend tax cuts enacted during his first term and he also wants to add in some new ones.
For that, he’ll need Republicans on Capitol Hill to pass a law to make the tax cuts happen.
Which brings us to Saturday morning, when senators sent the House their version of a budget plan on a 51-48 vote. It envisions $1.5 trillion in spending cuts – smaller than the more than $4 trillion in a House version.
This will impact many on this board.
Careful, you might trigger his minions.
I am not shocked. Just look at historical data under every administration since 1976. Jobs, market returns etc.
It’s his own fault. The S&P 500 was around 19% below the peak at the time of his post and about 15% YTD. So not only does it look like his 401k is fully invested in equities, it’s concentrated in stocks with greater volatility. This level of risk concentration is way high for a 61 year old. And it’s obvious that his point is that he lost a **** ton of money at an advanced age. Boo hoo, dope.
Well, they heard buy and hold but didn’t hear the rest. You need to reduce your equity exposure as you get closer to retirement.
Interesting interview on CNBC with Marc Rowan right now. He was a candidate for the Treasury Secretary role.
Not completely against what Trump is doing right now.
"I understand what they are trying to achieve, but I think there is a better way to go about doing this"
Also thought US/Mex should lead the world's economy in the next 50 years, US as the brains, Mexico as the "workshop".
Not completely against what Trump is doing right now.
"I understand what they are trying to achieve, but I think there is a better way to go about doing this"
Also thought US/Mex should lead the world's economy in the next 50 years, US as the brains, Mexico as the "workshop".
+1
A 401k should not be down 25%. Even VONG/VUG/growth indexes aren't down that much. Maybe he is fluffing that number for eyeballs?
My younger brother fully committed his cash into the market since he expected results to be the same as the first term, big supporter but now not so much. Luckily, he brought an annuity for his retirement before all this. There’s millions like him. He’ll just have to wait 6-8 years to get back where he started.
Last edited:
"we are not going to make sneakers in the US, we have 4% unemployment".
Nothing shocking and I mentioned it above. "Not going to be the low cost manufacturing center for low cost goods" isn't earth shattering. If anything it can move from one place in the world to another but it isn't coming back here.
Just realize that a 10 % across the board Tariff is a 10 % across the board tax increase on US citizens and it's a regressive tax that hits low income folks harder.
I'm sure that Twitler will balance that in his tax policy LOL.
Ya nothing shocking, but seems to be missed by some. A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. A sign of strength in our case.
He thought Mexico is where it should go.
Verizon (VZ) said an AI assistant for the company's customer service representatives built using Google (GOOG) models had cut down on call times and freed them up to sell products to customers, leading to a surge in sales.
An AI assistant on their screen helps the customer service agents figure out the right answers to customers' queries.
Verizon first started deploying the new AI features in July 2024, ramping them up to full scale in January. Sales through its 28,000-person service team are up nearly 40% since their deployment, according to Sampath Sowmyanarayan, CEO of Verizon's consumer group.
"We are doing reskilling in real time from customer care agents to selling agents," he said.
The AI-driven shift at Verizon, announced during Google Cloud's annual conference, may serve as a counterpoint to concerns from some public market investors that tech giants are spending too much on AI without big payoffs.
Maybe, but the fabs are already being built, they just take forever. So I don't think those tariffs would have the same effect.
Let's be honest. The trade deficit is a problem with essentially no consequences.
No a 10% tariff is not a 10% tax increase on US citizens.
Tariffs Push Up Costs. But Not Always Inflation. Who pays: consumers or business?
What’s uncertain is who ultimately pays those higher prices: consumers or businesses. The answer will also determine the impact on inflation.“It’s a tax. Somebody has to pay it. It’s a question of who,” said Katheryn Russ, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis. “It’s been really hard for economists to say definitively how much of the cost of the tariffs is going to translate into higher end-retail prices.
A 2019 paper from a group of economists—including Gita Gopinath, now a top official at the International Monetary Fund, and Brent Neiman, now a senior official at the Treasury Department—looked at how retailers responded to the tariffs. They found only a small increase in prices on goods subject to tariffs, suggesting that retailers absorbed much of the cost. Absorption by retailers and wholesalers would mean that the tariffs function as a tax on businesses.
“That’s a complicated question,” said Blake Harden, the vice president for international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association. “The way that costs are factored in from something like a tariff hike is going to be different depending on the company, their margins, the products, how diversified they are.”
Tariff increases did not cause inflation, and their removal would undermine domestic supply chains
- The timing of the tariffs clearly shows no correlation with inflation and eliminating tariffs could not plausibly restrain it. The bulk of the tariffs were in place before 2020, yet inflation only began accelerating in March 2021. Clearly, inflation was driven by many sources besides tariffs.
- In theory, tariffs do not need to have caused inflation for their removal to help restrain it. In practice, however, the size of the tariffs introduced after 2016 are simply insufficient for their removal to make a dent in current inflation. A top-down estimate that compares tariff revenue (a good proxy for the upper bound on price effects) with personal consumption expenditures shows that removing all 2016 tariffs would lead to a one-time, 0.3-percentage-point reduction in consumer prices.
Are Tariffs Always Inflationary?
Wow, just saw two words that surprised me, Quantitative Easing.
This is one area where I fully support us cutting China out of the supply chain entirely. Our entire drug industry is completely reliant on China, whether the drug itself is produced there or we source a production input from there.
You don’t bet the health of a nation on your primary geopolitical enemy, you just don’t. Better to have temporarily high drug prices until the supply chain reallocates than no drugs at when China makes a move on Taiwan.
If you want to go there, we only need to go back to the '90s to understand how the China trade problems started.
Didn't Powell start slowing QT and say it will end by mid-year? Next step is QE. Let's go!!!!!!!
Trade deficits on their own are not a problem!! Basic economy 101. They don't increase budget deficits. High tariffs will reduce consumer consumption, reducing sales tax revenue, slowing the growth of companies (especially small businesses), reducing GDP, increasing unemployment and leading to a recession, at the very minimum.
"They found only a small increase in prices on goods subject to tariffs, suggesting that retailers absorbed much of the cost. Absorption by retailers and wholesalers would mean that the tariffs function as a tax on businesses."
I find that absurd. Retailers won't even absorb credit card charges and add 2-3% to consumer costs if they use a CC.
+1
And I believe imports/exports need to be viewed per capita or GDP per capita. Canada is 1/8 our size. Why would we ever expect them to buy the same amount of goods from us as we from them? Yes, have fair and equal trading rules, but being so fixated on the deficit is illogical.
OK , go do your own study then. F/X also absorbs some tariffs costs btw. Bottom line it's not 1:1.