Good morning. Andrew here. President Trump’s address to the nation did not seem to be inspiring the confidence he was hoping for. Futures are pointing lower as it appears that the war in Iran will continue with no clear end in sight. We’re also taking a look at another war of sorts: Today is the first anniversary of the so-called Liberation Day tariffs. And we examine the details and the stakes of SpaceX’s I.P.O. filing. Finally, please join me in congratulating my friend and colleague Michael de la Merced. Tomorrow is Michael’s 20th anniversary with The Times and DealBook. He has been a linchpin of this team for two decades; I am constantly in awe of his talent and judgment. (We’re off tomorrow and will see you again on Saturday. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here.)
Falling flat with investorsPresident Trump pitched his vision of the war in Iran last night. Most investors aren’t buying it. In his 19-minute address, Trump reiterated his threats against Tehran, saying the U.S. would bomb the country “back to the stone ages, where they belong.” But he offered little new detail on how Washington would exit the war while containing the economic fallout that has rattled markets and that threatens global growth. That ambiguity is now resonating through the markets as hopes of a rapid end to the fighting fade. The latest:
Trump asserted that the war was “nearing completion,” reiterating a previous, if somewhat vague, timeline that the fighting would continue for roughly three weeks. He again urged countries that use the Strait of Hormuz — a crucial conduit for oil and natural gas shipments that Iran has effectively blockaded — to “take care of that passage.” (The Financial Times reported, citing unnamed sources, that Trump threatened to halt weapons shipments and supplies to Ukraine unless European countries moved to help fully reopen the strait.) “We will be helpful,” Trump added in his speech, “but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.” He claimed that the waterway would reopen “naturally” when the fighting stops. “Gas prices will rapidly come back down,” he added. “Stock prices will rapidly go back up.” Analysts say it’s more complicated than that. In a best-case scenario, oil and gas shipments from the region would take weeks to return to prewar level of 20 million barrels per day, Claudio Galimberti, the chief economist at Rystad Energy, an independent energy consulting firm, wrote in a research note last night. The return to normal, he added, is “not automatic.”
Investors await tomorrow’s jobs report. The U.S. stock market will be closed for Good Friday, but there will still be keen interest in the March payrolls report; economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect that employers added 60,000 jobs last month. Lackluster data could put the Fed in a bind, signaling an economic slowdown as war in the Middle East potentially accelerates inflation. G.M.’s sales slump. America’s biggest carmaker reported that first-quarter sales fell roughly 10 percent year on year. The release, which comes as some dealers warn that consumers are feeling the pinch of rising gas prices, leaves the company struggling to figure out how to turn around its fortunes. Up next: Tesla reports its quarterly numbers this morning. Eli Lilly gets F.D.A. approval for its weight-loss pill. The drugmaker’s stock jumped on the news that a second daily oral GLP-1 treatment has been cleared for sale. Analysts are closely watching to see by how much pill-based versions of GLP-1 drugs expand the weight-loss market.
The stakes of the SpaceX I.P.O.NASA isn’t the only one launching big things these days. (More on that below.) SpaceX, Elon Musk’s rocket, satellite and artificial intelligence company, has filed confidentially for an initial public offering. If all goes to plan, the deal would be more than just the biggest I.P.O. ever. It could also lay the groundwork for more technology giants — including Anthropic and OpenAI — to go public at astronomical valuations, too. What we know so far:
The company is an unusual behemoth. It consists of SpaceX, the rocket giant that also owns the Starlink satellite internet company; xAI, Musk’s A.I. lab; and X, the social network once known as Twitter. Starlink is an important part of the equation, given its dominance of the satellite internet market. “Starlink is the only reason this valuation is defensible,” Shay Boloor, the chief market strategist at Futurum Equities, told Reuters. A lot is riding on the I.P.O.:
Pic of the dayNASA’s Artemis II mission is underway after a rocket blasted off from Florida yesterday, carrying four astronauts on the first crewed operation to the moon in more than 50 years. Much is at stake, with the U.S. racing against China to establish a lunar outpost and set the new rules for space exploration. Artemis II has already overcome one snag: a briefly malfunctioning toilet.
Grading Year 1 of Trump’s tariffsToday is the first anniversary of “Liberation Day,” President Trump’s seismic trade policy move that has been seared into the minds of economists, business leaders and traders. A reminder: Trump declared that he was raising the effective tariff rate on U.S. imports to its highest average level in over a century via a 1977 law known as IEEPA. Business groups and top trading partners protested. Stocks and bonds plunged, wiping away more than $2 trillion in market value overnight. Economists and C.E.O.s predicted recession was nigh. But a week later, Trump abruptly reversed course on his most bruising levies — the first of what market watchers would later call TACO moments. The Supreme Court declared the IEEPA tariffs unlawful in February, though the administration has vowed to appeal and to continue taxing imports under different measures. FedEx, Costco and more than 1,000 other U.S. companies are suing to claw back more than $100 billion in refunds. DealBook talked to economists and trade experts to get their take on the ramifications as Trump’s trade war rumbles on. (The Trump administration is expected to announce as soon as today 100 percent levies on some pharmaceutical products, The Financial Times reports.) Glenn Hubbard, professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School: “The world didn’t end,” admitted Hubbard, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush. But he added that he cost of the levies has been borne almost entirely by Americans. Asked if the tariffs have led to any positive outcomes, Hubbard said: “I’m sure there have been, at the level of individual firms. But I don’t see it sectorally.” While he disagreed with those who argue that the tariffs signaled the end of globalization, he said trade was being rewired in favor of regional blocs. “The question for the U.S. is how not to get left out.” Gita Gopinath, a professor of economics at Harvard: Gopinath, a former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, gave Trump’s tariffs “overall negative” marks. She called the levies a tax that was overwhelmingly paid by U.S. importers and their customers. And there’s no sign they’ve bolstered America’s manufacturing base, one of Trump’s stated aims, she said. The trade negotiations did force countries with high tariffs, like India, to lower theirs. But Gopinath disputed the administration’s claims that the tariffs generated significant revenue. They’re expected to bring in more than $300 billion this year, which she called too “small” to put “the U.S. debt on a sustainable path.” Gabriel Rodriguez, president of A Customs Brokerage, in Doral, Fla.: The levies have taken a bite out of his business; Rodriguez told DealBook that his firm paid $130 million in tariff duties on behalf of clients last year, up from $27 million in 2024. But it’s the unknowns — will the administration seek a patchwork of temporary tariffs to replace IEEPA ones or will refunds be paid? — that have forced many clients to hold off on big investments and forgo significant new business projects. “From the importer perspective, it’s been chaos,” he said. Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan: “Whatever your theory of tariffs may be, the design of these tariffs as implemented didn’t serve it,” Wolfers said. To bring back onshore manufacturing, eh said, companies must be convinced that they’ll have a leg up over international competitors in the future, not just today. Because Trump bypassed Congress and established them through executive order, the current tariffs are unlikely to survive long term, Wolfers said. “It all disappears on Day 1 of the next Democratic administration. It might even disappear in the next Republican administration.” Oren Cass, the founder and chief economist of American Compass, a conservative economic research organization: Cass has broadly supported Trump’s tariffs, and largely believes they’re a success. They have rewired expectations that globalization was the norm for international trade, he argued, and they’ve led to commitments to invest more in the country — though whether those pledges come to fruition remains to be seen. Naysayers, Cass said, were wrong to think the policy “would be an economic apocalypse.” That said, he acknowledged that some of Trump’s promises haven’t come to pass. At least, not yet. We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times.
Deals
Politics, policy and regulation
Best of the rest
|
