Wall Street Ends Flat as Fed Holds Rates; Global Markets Mixed, Banking Stocks Rally

US indices saw minimal movement after the Fed held rates steady; jobless claims dipped slightly, housing starts fell and global stocks were mixed.
The Nasdaq inched up 25.18 points or 0.1% to 19,546.27, the S&P 500 edged down 1.85 points or less than a tenth of a% to 5,980.87 and the Dow slipped 44.14 points or 0.1% to 42,171.66.
Wall Street ended lackluster after the Fed held interest rates steady at 4.254.50%, aiming to support employment and 2% inflation. Despite economic fluctuations, the Fed still projects two rate cuts by end-2025, lowering rates to 3.754.0%. Early market gains came amid concerns over escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. Meanwhile, Trump claimed Iran seeks negotiations, even suggesting talks at the White House.
Labor department released a report showing first-time claims for U.S. unemployment benefits edged modestly lower in the week ended June 14th. The report said initial jobless claims dipped to 245,000, a decrease of 5,000 from the previous week's revised level of 250,000. Meanwhile, it also said the less volatile four-week moving average crept up to 245,500, an increase of 4,750 from the previous week's revised average of 240,750. With the uptick, the four-week moving average reached its highest level since hitting 246,000 in the week ended August 19, 2023.
The Commerce Department too published a report showing a steep drop by new residential construction in the U.S. in the month of May. Banking stocks turned in some of the market's best performances on the day, with the KBW Bank Index climbing by 1.9%. Telecom and brokerage stocks moved upwards while energy stocks moved to the downside along with the price of crude oil.
Asia-Pacific stocks turned in a mixed performance. Japan's Nikkei 225 Index advanced by 0.9%, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index slumped by 1.1%. The major European markets also ended the day mixed while the U.K.'s FTSE 100 Index inched up by 0.1%, the French CAC 40 Index fell by 0.4% and the German DAX Index decreased by 0.5%.
In the bond market, treasuries closed little changed following the rebound seen in the previous session. Subsequently, the yield on the benchmark ten-tear note which moves opposite of its price, crept up by less than a basis point to 4.39%.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

13 minutes ago

• Time of India

‘Maybe I'll change my mind about firing him': Trump revives threat to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell; calls him ‘total and complete moron'

Donald Trump revives threat to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell (Picture credit: AP) US President Donald Trump on Friday again floated the possibility of firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, reigniting a long-standing feud over interest rates he claims should be much lower. In a scathing post on Truth Social, Trump called Powell a 'numbskull' and a 'total and complete moron,' blaming him for refusing to reduce rates despite what Trump called 'virtually no inflation' in the economy. 'I don't know why the Board doesn't override this Total and Complete Moron! Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him?' Trump wrote. 'But regardless, his Term ends shortly,' Trump added. Powell's current term ends in May 2026. Trump's renewed criticism came just days after the Federal Reserve decided to hold interest rates steady at 4.25%–4.50%. Powell, backed by all six board members and five regional bank presidents, cited the need for patience as inflation trends slowly downward. Trump, however, insists rates should be slashed to between 1% and 2%, claiming such a move could save the country up to $1 trillion annually. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Has Toyota Done It Again? The New RAV4 Is Finally Here (Take A Peek) FrequentSearches | Search Ads Learn More Undo 'I've tried it all different ways. I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work!' Trump added. As per The Hill, Powell has previously stated that a sitting US president cannot lawfully remove a Fed chair except for cause, such as misconduct. A recent Supreme Court ruling also reinforced the Fed's unique structure as a quasi-independent entity, limiting Trump's ability to dismiss Powell directly. Trump's renewed focus on the Fed comes at a time when Fed Governor Christopher Waller, considered a top contender for Powell's successor, suggested that rate cuts could be on the table by July, citing cooling inflation and signs of a weakening labour market. Nonetheless, Waller joined the unanimous decision to keep rates on hold this week. Adding to the speculation, Trump is reportedly preparing to announce a nominee to replace Powell, potentially well before the end of his term. Market analysts have warned that such an early move could create instability by introducing a 'shadow chair' dynamic, where the sitting chair and the president's nominee pull policy in conflicting directions. Names circulating as potential replacements include Fed Governor Waller, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, former Trump nominee Judy Shelton, and White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett. However, any new Fed chair must be confirmed by the US Senate, a process that could take months. Market strategists caution that the perception of a politically influenced appointment could erode confidence in the Fed's independence. 'Any Wall Street manager would tell you that Fed independence is the golden rule of markets,' said Callie Cox of Ritholtz Wealth Management. Despite the firestorm, Powell remains firm. In a previous statement, he said he would not step down if asked and reiterated that Fed decisions are grounded in economic data, not political pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's intensifying rhetoric and tariff plans continue to inject uncertainty into the central bank's outlook for the second half of 2025. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now

Business Standard

28 minutes ago

• Business Standard

'Mindbogglingly' historic deal with Harvard may be near, says Trump

President Donald Trump said his administration has been holding talks with Harvard University and may announce a deal over the next week, potentially ending a standoff that has jeopardized billions of dollars of the school's funding and ignited a rollicking legal fight. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump said Friday on Truth Social. 'If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.' Trump's upbeat tone signaled a major potential shift in one of the defining controversies of his term so far as he accused US colleges of fostering antisemitism and slammed them for what he called their liberal bias. Harvard, the oldest and richest US university, has borne the biggest attacks, with Trump canceling more than $2.6 billion in research funding, threatening the school's tax-exempt status and seeking to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Harvard has fired back, questioning the administration's interest in working together to confront antisemitism and accusing it of 'unconstitutional demands' that would devastate academic freedom. The university has sued the government for freezing federal funding and trying to ban foreign students at Harvard. The White House declined to comment beyond the president's post. Harvard didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, and it was unclear how far apart the two sides are in the talks. Trump has also gone after other schools, freezing federal money at other selective institutions including Northwestern University, Cornell University and Columbia University. Columbia had been negotiating with the administration to address the funding and in March agreed to a list of demands, including expanding campus police powers, tightening rules over protests and restricting masks used to conceal identities. While those moves angered some faculty and students, US officials signaled that Columbia was on track for the federal money to be unfrozen. But the deal fell apart after Columbia's former interim president, Katrina Armstrong, infuriated some of the school's critics following reports that she downplayed the changes in a zoom meeting with faculty. Harvard Optimism The White House has signaled optimism about a Harvard deal in recent weeks. Trump told reporters on June 5 that Harvard was 'starting to behave,' and Education Secretary Linda McMahon said at a Bloomberg News event last week that officials had been 'making progress in some of the discussions' with the school. McMahon added that consent decrees have been floated as one way to resolve the Trump administration's issues with universities. Consent decrees are binding legal agreements that could subject schools to a court-ordered monitor. Last month, Harvard Corp., the powerful body that oversees the university, selected a conservative lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam, to serve as a member amid the unprecedented attacks from the Trump administration. Harvard Corp. and its chair, former US Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, have been under intense scrutiny since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas against Israel and the Jewish state's retaliatory response in Gaza. Harvard produced reports on antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus in the wake of the attacks. In issuing the reports, Harvard President Alan Garber apologized 'for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community.' He has also acknowledged recently experiencing antisemitism at Harvard himself. Garber has said the Trump administration's demands represent an unacceptable government intrusion. Harvard has said in two separate lawsuits that the government's efforts are retaliatory and mark unlawful infringement on the university's autonomy. US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Friday ordered the government to allow Harvard to continue enrolling foreign students while their legal fight proceeds, after the administration revoked the university's right to do so in in May. She didn't discuss Trump's separate June 4 proclamation denying Harvard's foreign students and scholars entry to the US, though her previous block to that entry ban remains in effect until Monday. Burroughs will hear oral arguments in a separate case about Trump's funding cuts at Harvard on July 21. In that case, 24 other universities and more than 12,000 Harvard alumni are among the groups that have submitted legal filings in support of the school. Research Fallout In addition to scrapping federal research money and some contracts with Harvard, the Trump administration has said that the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university won't be able to receive new funding. The president has also repeatedly called for the school to lose its tax-exempt status, which would have significant financial implications, even with the school's $53 billion endowment. The White House's actions have upended the lives of Harvard's students, faculty and staff. The funding freeze has hammered research on diseases including cancer and AIDS and led to layoffs on campus. Harvard announced last month that it would put an extra $250 million of its own money toward research to plug at least some of the gap. Some research has also been halted at Boston hospitals affiliated with and funded by the university. Harvard is a key cog in the broader Massachusetts economy, and its clash with the Trump administration has threatened the health-care, life sciences and technology industries that depend on the talent and startups that come out of the school. The university has about 6,800 students from other countries, amounting to 27% of the student body. Those students are an important financial resource for Harvard, with many paying full tuition. Even with the favorable court rulings so far, international enrollees at Harvard are still facing visa issues and face substantial uncertainty about whether and when they will make it back to campus.

First Post

an hour ago

• First Post

Victory for Trump in US Supreme Court, his tariffs allowed to stay amid legal challenges over trade powers

The US Supreme Court refused to fast-track lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs, allowing them to remain in effect for now. The court said that it will wait for the appeal court's order read more US President Donald Trump delivered remarks on tariffs, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. A federal appeals court reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs. File image/Reuters The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory after it refused to put a challenge to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on the fast track. On Friday, the Supreme Court justices rejected a scheduling request from two family-owned businesses seeking to invalidate many of Trump's import taxes . The rejection means that the Trump administration would have the normal 30 days to file a response to the case. The Tuesday court filing stated that the companies involved in the case were seeking a quick response from the Trump administration, a request which has now been rejected by the country's apex court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Bloomberg, the two family-owned businesses wanted the court to take the unusual step of considering the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the matter. Meanwhile, the Trump administration argued that the Supreme Court should let the normal appellate process play out. Trump's tariff went to the Supreme Court for the first time It is pertinent to note that this is the first time the challenge to Trump's reciprocal tariffs came to the US Supreme Court. As of now, the legal cases over tariffs are limited to district and federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal district judge agreed with educational toy makers Learning Resources Inc. and Hand2Mind Inc., the two companies involved in the Supreme Court case, that the POTUS lacked the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue sweeping reciprocal tariffs. In a separate case, a federal appeals court ruled that the tariffs could stay in effect at least until that panel hears arguments on July 31. Both courts are dealing with Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which combine a universal baseline levy of 10 per cent with potentially higher rates for various trading partners. It is pertinent to note that each of these suits also concerns at least some of Trump's separate import taxes over fentanyl trafficking. The case that went to the Supreme Court is titled 'Learning Resources v. Trump'.