Connect with us

Business

Gold price soars to new record as frightened investors look for safe haven from plunging markets

Published

on



Markets around the world continue to sink on fears about President Donald Trump’s protectionist trade policies, and investors keep plowing money into gold, with futures hitting another record high Monday.

Trump’s latest round of tariffs roll out Wednesday, which Trump has been calling “Liberation Day.”

Interest in buying gold can rise sharply in times of uncertainty, as anxious investors seek safe havens for their money. Gold prices have been spiking as Trump’s tariff policies have started an international trade war that’s roiled financial markets and threatened to reignite inflation for families and businesses alike.

If trends continue, analysts say gold’s price could continue to climb in the months ahead. But precious metals are also volatile assets — so the future is never promised.

Here’s what to know.

What’s the price of gold today?

On Monday, the going price for New York spot gold hit a record $3,122.80 per troy ounce — the standard for measuring precious metals, which is equivalent to 31 grams. That’s about $886, or 40%, higher than a year ago.

The price of spot gold is up 19% since the start of 2025, per the data firm FactSet. By contrast, the stock market has tumbled. The benchmark S&P 500 is down 4.5% this year as even blue chip stocks have faded.

Gold futures also reached a record in trading Monday, hitting close to $3,157.40 an ounce.

Why is the price of gold going up?

A lot of it boils down to uncertainty. Interest in buying gold typically spikes when investors become anxious — and there’s been a lot of economic turmoil in recent months.

The heaviest uncertainty lies with Trump’s escalating trade war. The president’s on-again, off-again new levy announcements and retaliatory tariffs from some of the nation’s closest traditional allies have created a sense of whiplash for both businesses and consumers — who economists say will foot the bill through higher prices.

Confidence began to slide at the start of the year for both U.S. households and businesses due to fears of inflation and tariffs. Those worries seem to only be worsening, as U.S. consumer confidence has been eroding for several months.

Over the last year, analysts have also pointed to strong gold demand from central banks around the world amid geopolitical tension, including wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

Is gold worth the investment?

Advocates of investing in gold call it a “safe haven” — arguing the commodity can serve to diversify and balance your investment portfolio, as well as mitigate possible risks down the road. Some also take comfort in buying something tangible that has the potential to increase in value over time.

Still, experts caution against putting all your eggs in one basket. And not everyone agrees gold is a good investment. Critics say gold isn’t always the inflation hedge many say it is — and that there are more efficient ways to protect against potential loss of capital, such as derivative-based investments.

The Commodity Futures Trade Commission has also previously warned people to be wary of investing in gold. Precious metals can be highly volatile, the commission said, and prices rise as demand goes up — meaning “when economic anxiety or instability is high, the people who typically profit from precious metals are the sellers.”

If you do choose to invest in gold, the commission adds, it’s important to educate yourself on safe trading practices and be cautious of potential scams and counterfeits on the market.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Meta saw TikTok as ‘highly urgent’ threat, Zuckerberg says at antitrust trial

Published

on



Mark Zuckerberg said that ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok posed a “highly urgent” competitive threat to Meta Platforms Inc. when it first sprang up in 2018, as he testified for a third day in the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust trial.

“We observed that our growth slowed down dramatically,” as TikTok gained popularity, the Meta chief executive officer said Wednesday. “It was highly urgent, this has been a top priority for the company for several years.”

Zuckerberg spent seven hours over the past two days being interrogated by a government attorney, who pressed him to revisit the struggle for the company — then Facebook Inc. — to keep up with the mobile app boom in the previous decade. That led to the company’s purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp more than 10 years ago and, in response to TikTok, the roll out of its Reels video product for Instagram in 2020.

The FTC wants to force Meta to sell the apps as it tries to paint Zuckerberg as a shrewd executive who illegally monopolized part of the social media market by buying companies rather than competing with them. Responding to Meta’s lawyer Mark Hansen, he can tell his story without pushback.

“People will be sharing in new ways in five years, than what is happening today,” Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg said Meta competes with an array of platforms, including Google’s YouTube, and Apple Inc.’s iMessage as well as Elon Musk’s X, Telegram, Microsoft Corp.’s LinkedIn and others. The FTC maintains that in the narrow market of sharing information with friends and family, Meta only competes with Snap Inc.’s Snapchat.

‘Network Effects’

Part of the FTC’s case involves the technical concept of “network effects,” meaning that the more users companies such as Meta have, the more likely they are to retain a dominant position, because people are unlikely to switch to a service used by few people.

US District Judge James Boasberg, who’s presiding over the non-jury trial in Washington, has remained largely silent during the questioning, but interjected during Zuckerberg’s testimony Wednesday to ask if network effects still really matter.

“How much does it matter if your friends are on a particular platform if you can send content out of that platform? Why does it matter if your friends are there?” the judge said.

Zuckerberg said it doesn’t. “These apps now serve primarily as discovery engines,” he said. “People can take that content to messaging engines.”

If the FTC prevails, a spinoff of Instagram and WhatsApp would undo years of integration between the apps, disrupt two of the most popular digital consumer products in the world and potentially erase hundreds of billions of dollars in Meta’s market value. It would also raise serious questions about how the government evaluates and approves deals.

Bigger Company

Under questioning by Hansen, Zuckerberg refuted the FTC’s argument that Meta bought Instagram to bury a competitor. Instagram would not likely have been able to grow to the extent it has, had it remained independent, he said. “Instagram has been built out into a much more vibrant service” as a result of the deal, Zuckerberg said.

Taking a small online platform to a billion users and beyond is unlikely to happen without the backing of a larger company, he said. “Every company that has this level of scale is owned by a bigger company,” he said, citing ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok and Google’s YouTube as examples. 

It came out earlier in the trial that Snap turned down a $6 billion offer from Facebook in 2013, and Zuckerberg said that service would have grown more had it joined his company.

In at times combative questioning earlier this week by FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson, Zuckerberg sought to walk back statements that he made in previous internal communications.

Zuckerberg acknowledged in a 2013 email blocking advertising on Facebook for messaging apps WeChat, Kakao and Line, which he wrote are “trying to build social networks to replace us.” On the stand this week, however, he said “it’s hard for me to characterize what their intent was.”

When asked by Hansen to describe how he was evaluating the competitive threat posed by Instagram and others at the time of the deals, he referenced a quote from former Intel Corp. CEO Andy Grove, saying “only the paranoid survive.”

Matheson also sought to show that Meta, then known as Facebook Inc., was aware of its antitrust risk years ago, including a possible breakup. 

He displayed an email from 2018 in which Zuckerberg wrote: “As calls to break up the big tech companies grow, there is a non-trivial chance that we will be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in the next 5-10 years anyway.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump thinks ‘cheaters’ are hurting us on trade, but here’s how the U.S. employs a number of sneaky ‘non-tariff barriers’ to repel foreign goods

Published

on



A major mystery of the Trump tariff crusade: The “Liberation Day” “reciprocal” duties he’s threatening are completely disconnected from what other nations are charging the U.S. on our exports. In virtually all cases, Trump’s tariffs are multiple times larger. How does he justify this giant gulf? The president claims we’re getting “ripped off” not by excessive tariffs but blatant “non-tariff barriers” (NTBs), such as quotas and technical standards that systematically block our goods from foreign markets, while we naively open America to the “cheaters” who lock us out.

In reality, Trump’s got it backwards: The U.S. is a far more avid user of the NTBs he finds so offensive than all but a handful of the world’s major economies.

How protectionist is the U.S.?

A highly respected guide to where different countries’ trade policies stand on the spectrum from open to restrictive is the International Trade Barrier Index compiled by the Tholos Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank focusing on tax reform and policy research. For 2024, the Tholos data placed the U.S. as the 24th most protectionist economy in the world from a list of 88 countries, based on the number of restraints on trade each nation imposes. Overall, we’re about 10% above average in overall restrictions—on a roster featuring lots of bad actors. The Tholos numbers rate the U.S. 60% worse than Japan and Canada, respectively ranked No. 3 and No. 4 as most open to imports; 43% below the U.K.; around a third short of the average of the EU majors; and 15% shy of Taiwan. Amazingly, the survey found that this country’s got 90% as many protectionist measures as China, which sits 11 spots from the bottom, and 70% the thicket spread by last place India.

Clearly, America’s position as relatively tough on trade overall isn’t a matter of tariffs. On the contrary. Before the Trump trade war started, the U.S. trade-weighted average duties on imports sat at an apparently welcoming 2.2%, according to the World Trade Organization. The WTO’s numbers put the average duty worldwide charged by the top six purchasers of U.S. exports—Canada, the EU, Mexico, China, Japan, and the U.K. among them—at 3.2%, only a point higher than the U.S. norm. The big exception: As a result of the offensive during the first Trump administration, China and the U.S. established special punitive rates that average 14% on their exports stateside, and 12% on our shipments to the world’s second-largest economy. So outside of trade conflicts, the U.S. is a super-low-tariff nation, and the countries where we send most of our goods don’t charge much more than we do.

Hence, what swings the U.S. from a modest deployer of tariffs to a country that’s much more protective are the indirect, non-tariff barriers or NTBs. In the same study, the Tholos Foundation tagged the U.S. as the world’s 15th-biggest user of NTBs and the fifth-ranking of any major industrial power, exceeded only by France, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland. “For NTBs, the most active users are the US and the EU,” says Philip Thompson, policy analyst for Tholos.

Non-tariff barriers are extremely widespread

NTBs come in a wide variety of forms. They encompass such practices as quotas, technical standards, and packaging, labeling, licensing, and safety requirements. In a 2024 study, the St. Louis Federal Reserve reported that across 15 manufacturing sectors, NTBs covered well over two-thirds the imports of components, commodities, and finished products. The report points out the huge discrepancies between tariffs and NTBs in different industries. For the chemical and machinery/electrical sectors, U.S. tariff rates are under 2%. But NTBs covered over 70% of sales. Similar story for meat and vegetables: Tariffs look like a bargain at 3%, but over 90% of what companies in those businesses sell fall under the umbrella of NTBs. Even for what looks like free-market wood, the duty is 1%, while a third of what the U.S. imports gets shielded, pretty much on the sly. The paper concludes: “In contrast to tariffs, the [NTBs] are ubiquitous across U.S. imports in all industries.”

The St. Louis Fed found that about 20% of the NTBs involved such issues as sanitary inspections needed to protect U.S. consumers and workers. (The survey didn’t cover businesses such as semiconductors where national security may be involved.) Instead, the preponderance of NTBs appear “to reflect the goal of protecting domestic industry from foreign competition,” and result in distorting and “limiting the extent of international trade.”

How the ‘tariff-rate quota’ works

The U.S. is an avid user of a protectionist tool called the tariff-rate quota. Despite its name, the TRQ is really a non-tariff barrier because it doesn’t actually impose duties. TRQs typically allow products or commodities to enter the country duty-free to a certain level, and once the imports hit that bogey, trigger prohibitively high tariffs, effectively halting the flows of rival products and commodities from abroad, and enforcing a fixed quota to shield domestic producers. A top example: the sugar market, where, by law, the USDA rules restrict production to keep minimum prices generally higher than on the international markets. “The U.S. government is the leader of a nationwide sugar cartel,” a Cato Institute study declared. The sugar TRQ is a crucial component of that system since it prevents cheap imported sugar from undermining the guaranteed pricing.

TRQs, in fact, are a staple cash crop for U.S. agriculture. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative publishes a list of the TRQs, and it’s exhaustive. A particular target is Australia. It faces quotas on creams and ice creams, condensed milk, butter, and a number of other farmland commodities. Canada gets hit on cheese, skim milk, butter, and many other dairy products. TRQs cap beef from Japan and cheese from Peru. Additional rules limit or block everything from beef from Brazil and Argentina, to tomatoes, blueberries and other produce from Mexico to foreign sunscreen.

In his “reciprocal” tariff campaign, Trump proposed cudgeling Taiwan at 34%, Japan at 24%, the EU at 10%, and Canada and Mexico at 25% on steel, aluminum, and non-U.S. content in cars, and he’s set a commerce-killing 245% duty on China. Yet in normal times, these nations charge the U.S. only slightly higher tariffs than the U.S. levies on their exports, and heap on far fewer non-tariff barriers than we do. Trump’s best solution would be offering to lower those NTBs that raise prices for American consumers and hobble our productivity in exchange for our trading partners’ agreement to lower their restrictions. That outcome would truly exemplify the art of the deal.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Stocks slide deeper into the red after Fed chair’s ‘stagflation’ warning reignites tariff fears

Published

on



  • A poor day for stocks ended worse as tariff fears reentered the conversation, with major indexes sliding as tech companies report the first impacts from the U.S.’ trade war with China.

Stock markets started the day poorly and ended it worse as chipmakers reported revenue impacts from the China trade war and a hawkish speech from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reignited fears of tariffs’ stagflationary effects.

The S&P 500 lost 2.2%, led by a selloff in tech. The Dow lost 1.7% while the tech-heavy Nasdaq fell 3.1%.

Nvidia closed down 7% after the chipmaker revealed Donald Trump’s restrictions would cost the chipmaker $5.5 billion. The policy means the trillion-dollar company can no longer export a key chip to China—a market analysts estimate makes up 10% of its revenue. Rival Advanced Micro Devices sank 7% also after noting that those export limits could hit the chipmaker up to $800 million.

The existing uncertainty over trade policies was made starker by a speech from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell Wednesday afternoon, who warned that tariffs would create a “challenging scenario” for the Fed of “higher inflation and slower growth,” a recipe for stagflation.

“There isn’t a modern experience of how to think about” the White House’s trade policy, Powell said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago.

Bond yields eased on Powell’s comments, indicating investors’ pessimism over the possibility of a U.S. recession. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 4.27% late in the day, from 4.35% in the morning and 4.48% last week, when bond markets experienced a trade-war-driven meltdown.

“Markets are struggling with a lot of uncertainty, and that means volatility,” Powell added.

The dollar gained ground against the euro Wednesday but has lost about 6% of its value in the past month as investors rethink the currency’s status as a safe haven. Gold hovered near its record high at $3,352 per troy ounce.

Earlier in the day, retail sales figures showed many consumers rushed to buy cars, electronics, and other big-ticket items last month before tariffs could hike prices further.

So far, the U.S. has a baseline tariff on most countries of 10%, with a 145% combined tariff on China. Goods from Canada and Mexico face tariffs of up to 25%, while imported autos, steel, and aluminum are taxed at that same rate. China retaliated last week by imposing a 125% tariff on U.S. goods. Tariffs are expected to drive consumer prices higher, and have contributed to plunging consumer sentiment for the fourth month in a row.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.